Proposition 53K2823

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de pensions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

May 22, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional career pension scheme retirement conditions early retirement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 12, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

This will be a very short explanation, for ultimately what lies ahead is a repair of a repair of a repair. Unfortunately – I will continue to strike that nail – it is the result of what was predicted, namely, the hasty work of your predecessor, Mr. Minister, that has given rise to this kind of endless repair laws.

It has been said many times, and I will return to it a little later, that this is not a real reform. This is ⁇ not the reform we need. However, you must not blame me for the fact that constantly repairing laws that have already been passed, through all sorts of ways, seems like a kind of bricolage rather than a reform.

However, we must also say that this has little positive impact on citizens. However, this should be and will remain our primary concern. The legal certainty is questionable. Such legislation does not provide the necessary information to the public. In fact, that is totally irresponsible.

The responses of the services, to questions from citizens, are that the scheme is too complicated and cannot be answered. That says something. Furthermore, and this was also noted in the committee, the retroactive character is applied as a system. I understand that it is applied in exceptional cases, but as a system, that is obviously something else.

Moreover, it is not only the citizens who can no longer follow such a ‘bricole’; the services can no longer follow. The online retirement simulator MyPension has been put offline because the scheme is said to be too complicated. The replacement, the so-called Pension Engine, will have to wait a while. At the moment, there is nothing open.

Mr. Minister, you will tell me that I have already said this. That’s true, but I think the topic is so interesting that we should continue to say it. I think that’s my damn duty.

The impact of such measures is too small and does not go far enough. Every week we get new data to confirm that. Very recently there was the annual report of the underpriced Silver Fund, of which we all will benefit in subsequent years. I still remember scenes in which then Minister Vande Lanotte was waving with bank extracts. The silver fund still exists.

The Chairman of that Silver Fund wrote in his Annual Report for 2012: “It is surprising and worrying that the effect of the pension reform by the horizon of 2060 is still expressed only in tenths of GDP.” It is not going far enough. The budgetary surplus costs of ageing will rise from 10 % of GDP today to 13.6 % in 2030 and 14.7 % in 2050. These are really tough figures that challenge the whole society.

In 2012, a record number of people retired. This is a consequence of the demography. There will be a new record in 2013 and so on in 2014. That is, in other words, a trend that will continue. This also increases the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Minister, the fact that you are reforming so little, that it is happening so bluntly and that it is so little visible, makes the urgency of the problem among the population lose a lot. We have seen this in the survey by Delta Lloyd, which found that only 27% of the surveyed compatriots are willing to work until age 65; 27%, which is not even one in three. If you let compatriots choose, they expect it to be up to a maximum of 61 years; 38% say resolutely no to working until the statutory retirement age.

I have read your response to this. You said people all like it, but not for themselves. This is in part a description of reality. However, the reality is also that citizens do not get a signal through profound reforms. You can also communicate about them and place them in the heads and hearts of the people. That has not happened. In this sense, it is another repetition of a well-known problem. We will therefore not approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bracke, you are making all sorts of very general considerations, which I have already heard several times here in the Chamber and have also refuted several times. So I would like to talk about the design that should be discussed here.

You know we are making three changes.

The first amendment concerns what is called the “December Regulation.” It covers the transitional years 2013 to 2015, the period in which we tighten the age and career conditions.

In principle, the age and career conditions applicable in the year a person retires are applied. For those who have a birthday in December, it is the month of January of the following year. This would mean that those who age in December during the transitional years would have to meet stricter conditions than those who age in November. To avoid these unfair consequences, it was determined that those who age in December will have to meet the conditions of December. Therefore, the December scheme is introduced for long-term careers.

The second element of this draft is the fact that we, together with the social partners, have decided that the reform should not affect workers who have already undergone an early retirement procedure. An additional scheme is now being introduced for workers who were already in an early retirement scheme at the time of the pension reform. The pension capital is used to bridge the period between retirement and the age of sixty.

Such an arrangement could be adopted until 1 January 2010. Therefore, the age and career conditions of the employees concerned will not be postponed. Indeed, if they were to postpone, the workers concerned would have no income during the period between reaching the age of sixty and the age at which they could retire under the tightened conditions for early retirement.

The third element of this draft is the decision that periods of activity should weigh more in the calculation of pensions than certain periods of inactivity. The pension is calculated at an annual salary of 51,092 euros. For the periods of inactivity that will be less heavy in the pension buildup, the calculation will be made on a fictitious annual salary, which is limited to €22,189.

To avoid favoring high incomes over low incomes, the calculation of pensions will be proportionalized. Without proportionality, for example, those who earn EUR 56 000 during the first ten months of the year and then end up in a period of inactivity would have less weight in the calculation of the latter period and thus have no impact on the person concerned. This is unlike someone who would only earn 35 000 euros in the first ten months of the year.

The comment you made at the beginning about the hurry with which my predecessor had to work is correct. My predecessor had to work in a hurry. His rush has, unfortunately, been a compensation for the total lack of rush that your party has shown in forming this government.

Everyone in this meeting says what he thinks he should say. If you allow me to make a general comment, I notice that not only Chamber Members are inclined to discuss discussions from the committee. Others also show this tendency.

Second, Mr. Minister, I have said myself that what I would say, apart from the quotes at the end, was not new. It is not because it is not new, that it is therefore incorrect and outdated. The ageing, the pension problem, continues to hang above all our heads. Every day we see the urgency of this. By the way, repetition is an essential part of politics, I have always learned. It comes from Cauwelaert – not Rik, but one of his ancestors, August van Cauwelaert – that there are two laws in politics: first, one must have enough, and second, one will have to say it long enough. You know what I mean: that is true in general, but also in particular. This means that everyone, including within their own party, must ensure that they are enough to take or not take certain positions.

Then your last argument, Mr. Minister, on the responsibility. You know I have a very simple answer. I always refer to one of your colleagues-vice-premier, who wrote a booklet about the entire period. In the introduction it is stated that the chairman of my party, I quote, “has never been given a fair chance.” This opportunity has been given or not given by others. I can with great ease and with the citation of very reliable sources simply roll back the ball.