Proposition 54K0922

Projet de loi portant des dispositions concernant les pensions du secteur public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

March 2, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

diploma civil service pension scheme retirement conditions early retirement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

April 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Ms Fonck. For personal reasons, she cannot be present with us now. She will join us later. It refers to its written report.

On March 19th, 5,000 public service workers were gathered in the common trade union front, Place de la Monnaie in Brussels. They rightly expressed their anger and concern, mainly in the face of the index jump and pension reform measures in the public sector. Even today, teachers, railroads, bus drivers, factors, police officers, municipal workers, employees send you a new signal. Pensions are in danger and public sector pensions in particular. They feel deceived, they feel betrayed.

The three measures you are proposing today – the abolition of the pension bonus, the abolition of the diploma bonus, the total decumulation between income and pensions – are harmful and counterproductive for the public service, for the state budget and for the financing of social security, especially for employment. This is a frontal attack on public services.

First, and most obviously, your reform is toxic for the public service, for its workers, for the attractiveness of the public service. Through your willingness to harmonize pension schemes, you are proposing a bottom level with the underlying idea that public sector pensions are too high. Nevertheless, and despite the ideas that are often heard, public sector pensions are generally not higher than private ones. This was demonstrated by the Pension Administration itself in 2009.

As you know, the vast majority of civil servants do not have a second pillar to supplement their pensions. Reducing their statutory pension is unfair. If you want an alignment, increase those of the private sector by allocating new sources of financing, as you were encouraged by the Pension Reform Commission.

You penalize the overall attractiveness of public service by returning to some of the assets that a career represents in the service of the general interest.

A legal pension that guarantees well-being is one of the elements of this attractiveness for them, who usually do not have extra-legal benefits. With the end of the pension bonus, you remove an incentive to work longer and this, in an incomprehensible way and without evaluation of the reform carried out by the previous government that aimed precisely to make this bonus more attractive.

Certainly, with this majority, it is always the same scheme: one shoots blindly and ideologically based on intuitions. This has concrete consequences. In the future, a teacher, for example, who would be entitled to early retirement at age 60, but decides to continue her career until age 65, will lose 2,246 euros per year, or 187 euros per month, which is not negligible.

With your government, it’s always the same credo: work longer to earn less. The removal of the diploma bonus also contributes to weakening, making our public services less attractive, without counting your will that the years performed as a contractual no longer be taken into account in the calculation of the public pension.

The abolition of this bonus will have the effect that public service workers will, in the long run, have to work longer after the transition period. Some will have to work up to seven years longer, seven more years. This will be the exception, but for many, it will be three, four or five years longer than it is now.

Mr. Minister, your reform is counterproductive for the state budget and for social security in particular. The savings you plan to make on the back of the weakest are ridiculous with regard to the pension budget, and it cannot be said that they will guarantee the social and financial sustainability of our pensions and our social security system. You know it. Increasing and imposing ageing on the labour market and increasing stress-related diseases will lead to an explosion in the number of workers with long-term illness.

There will inevitably be a shift of charges to other branches of social security. In reality, what the government proposes to us are paranoid measures, but which hurt the weakest. What is needed, Mr. Minister, I say and repeat, is to provide for new sources of financing and incentives, not obligations, to stay at work.

This disturbing finding must be paralleled with your measures to raise the statutory retirement age and with your government’s indigence on managing career goals. Your measures are also detrimental to employment, especially young people, as they make it difficult for them to enter the labour market. This is even more true with the unlimited accumulation in terms of pensions and labor income. With this cumulative, you will contribute to increasing inequalities among the elderly. There will be those who will be able to easily continue their professional activity – high level of education and income, long life expectancy in good health – and those who will have to do so in order to have a decent income – minimum wage, few qualifications, low pension – but whose health will not allow it in view of the hardness of their profession.

Finally, and more broadly, Mr. Minister, this reform adds to all those relating to pensions already taken or in any case initiated with a truncated consultation. You make important decisions in rush, leaving the pieces to social consultation. Because, Mr. Minister, your pension file is swept up. You quickly and unilaterally decide hostile measures against workers and pensioners; and the surplus is left to the social consultation, returned to the future National Pension Committee. This is not how social partners are treated in our country.

Mr. Minister, we need a respected, effective, attractive public service. Today’s protests and strikes also testify to this. We need agents to fight tax evasion, to make justice within reasonable time, to drive trains on time, to ensure security in neighborhoods, to educate our children. Your reform contributes to dismantling our common heritage: public service. We will not support it.

Regulation of the works / Ordre des travaux

Together with all the political groups, we agreed to vote tonight from 19:00.

We will vote no earlier than 7 p.m. tonight. Maybe we are ready, maybe not yet, but it will come about. It is important that everyone knows that there will be a vote around 7 p.m. Of course, it depends on you, my colleagues.

There is also a buffet provided. After all, due to the traffic difficulties in Brussels, it will not make much sense to leave the city earlier.

Tomorrow, there will be oral questions and items on the agenda. There will be no plenary session on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, today we are talking about an important part of our pension system, which in itself is again a crucial element of our social security. All employees expect to enjoy a well-deserved rest after years of work effort. They rightly expect that the pension system will actually make this possible. That system grew organically, but unfortunately without too much general overview. Whoever wants to express himself gently will recognize a mess in it. Those who want to press the finger more firmly on the wound speak of an apartheid system.

The system is not only extremely complex, it is the bulk of specific privileges for one, which by definition go at the expense of the other. In this way, in the system, unrighteousness grows, which may have historical backgrounds, but which can no longer be held accountable today. They ensure – which is very important – that the legitimacy of our pension system is under pressure in the eyes of many people.

Today, the government also makes promises to employees regarding the security of pensions, which do not take into account the demographic, social and economic realities. Among other things, the reality of the extremely short average career and the wild growth in equal years make the system unprofitable with unchanged policies. Of course, the workers would be the first to be the dupe of this. Because these workers are entitled to a sustainable pension system, the status quo is not an option, even though certain social forces give the impression that we can continue to flute in the dark. They make that status quo a sacred principle, but in an irresponsible way undermine the foundations of our social system in general and of our pension system in particular. Fortunately, there is currently sufficient political space to go beyond cheap rolling in the margin. Today we will take a very important new step in this regard. With this law, we are moving towards equal treatment in the different systems, towards sustainability and fairness of our pensions.

I will discuss the three elements of the present bill.

First, the issue of diploma bonification. The system of diploma bonification does not exist for any pension scheme except for the public sector. I repeat that in the past there were undoubtedly good arguments for this, but future pensioners in the public sector will not receive lower pensions due to the measure we are going to take. The gradual depletion of the system of bonuses will be automatically compensated by longer work. As a result, workers will generally earn a higher income than it is now. With this, with the phase-out of the Diploma Bonification, we implement an explicit recommendation from the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040 and make – also very importantly – mixed careers more attractive. The Committee on Pension Reform 2020-2040 saw no objective reason to maintain the bonuses in the future.

Over a period of fourteen years, the career condition in the public system will be equalised with what today applies to someone in the employee system. That is just fair. In addition, by moving toward equal treatment in the different systems, we are achieving a significant long-term budgetary gain. By 2030, it is about an amount of 240 million euros, an amount that we gain structurally and that helps strengthen the financial sustainability of the system.

The transitional measures taken prove that we are not looking for brutal revolutions, but for a step-by-step change for the better. The Government, after consultation with the trade unions, has decided to gradually extinguish the Diploma Bonification by six months per year for studies longer than four years and by five or four months for diplomas with a shorter duration of study. This proves that we take into account realistic proposals from the social partners, proposals that do not undermine the government agreement and its foundations. In particular, I would also like to encourage the transitional measures for education and staff in the TBS system. Whoever has voluntarily remained at work in the past, while he or she could leave, will see the right stuck. Thus, those involved do not become the dupe of their own goodwill.

Second, unlimited surplus earnings after retirement, a fundamental shift in the vision of retirement and labour. It is possible at the same time to enjoy a good pension and still remain professionally active without being severely punished for it. Social security should really continue to be an insurance element for us. Those who are lucky enough to continue working should not be pushed by the system toward inactivity. For us, every active contribution to the labour market should be welcomed. Work creates work. A job performed by an elderly does not take away from a younger, but vice versa. We must forcefully fight this false myth, because it will lead us to the strange logic that unemployment could be resolved by increasingly lowering the retirement age. This also contributes to the harmonization between the systems. Officials are now subject to the same rules as employees.

On this occasion, I would like to urge the Government to take all accompanying measures to remove all obstacles that can demotivate people to take advantage of this opportunity.

Finally, the abolition of the pension bonus will undoubtedly trigger criticism, but unfortunately — we had hoped it would be different — nothing shows that the pension bonus extends the career of employees. On the other hand, the budgetary surplus costs are fixed. In times of budgetary scarcity, we no longer have the luxury to invest in a policy whose effect is questionable. Therefore, the government-Di Rupo has begun to adjust the pension bonus from the couple years and this government is continuing on that path.

The criticism that this government is lowering pensions is, of course, wrong. We have taken precisely one battery measures to ensure the most vulnerable pensioners a better retirement.

Thus, we have increased the lowest pensions with the wealth envelope and we make it easier and more attractive to earn additional purchasing power. In addition, and I would like to emphasize that, we have the ambition to generalize the supplementary pension for contractual officials, who often receive a much lower pension for the same job than their statutory counterparts.

Of course, this law should be seen as part of the ambitious pension project that this government is working on. The necessary accompanying measures shall be provided. In particular, I would like to point out the need — this is a call to the government, but ⁇ also to the social partners who are all interested parties — to work urgently on the principle of workable work. Longer work needs to be done, but it must also be made possible. In short, this reform is fair, logical and necessary.

Our group is very pleased that broad transitional provisions are provided. We are taking another important step from the current system, which is financially unsustainable in the long term, to a sustainable system that can guarantee good pensions for future generations. Our group therefore welcomes this law, because it demonstrates meaning for solidarity, solidarity between systems and ⁇ also solidarity between generations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply for a moment to what colleague De Roover has just said, but also because my intervention is like two drops of water, similar to that of the previous speaker, my colleague from the PS.

I fully agree with the criticisms and comments made. But what fundamentally disturbs me, Mr. De Roover, is that you speak as if this is a first step in saving pensions. You have always said that the situation becomes financially insurmountable and that if we do not intervene, we are on the verge of devastation.

Well, I have repeatedly said that pensions are actually a contract for the future. Employees, under any statute, must be able to trust that their pension will allow them to live a dignified life. This is the social contract for the future.

You are talking about the step-by-step salvation that has begun. I literally quote what the head of the study department, Mr. Serroyen, writes about this design: “This is the first step of a spoon-and-drop breakdown.”

The more you signal society that pensions are becoming unpaid and that it will be a social devastation if you do not intervene fundamentally and structurally, the more you undermine that trust and thus also in part the foundation for your future system.

I give a philosophical explanation here. However, what fundamentally disturbs me is that you argue that the people concerned will not feel it and that those measures will not hurt.

As for the retirement bonus, I give you the advantage of the doubt. It cannot be measured whether or not it is working anymore. It is a sign of confidence if society indicates that those who work longer will receive a better pension. This is now partially removed.

Regarding the budgetary consequences, I share your view that they cannot be properly measured.

However, as regards the diploma bonification, you can never forget that the measure for a category of civil servants means that they must work longer, in order to have a lower pension in the end.

You are wrong.

If I am mistaken, every social institution of this country is mistaken. After all, that is the effect that in certain cases will inevitably be the result. That effect should be read together with what is still foreseen by the federal government agreement and by a number of statements. I remember, like many, the direct statement that we should work until the age of 67.

Those signals, therefore, undermine the essence of what you started with, namely the legitimacy of the system. This is ⁇ dangerous and, in my opinion, it is even the ultimate step towards the fundamental breakdown of our social security system. Social organizations, workers and workers’ groups will no longer believe in it.

I understand your philosophical concerns. However, I would like to come to a concrete point. I am surprised that false information is always given on this issue.

When it comes to the abolition of the diploma bonus, it is about its abolition for the calculation of early retirement. Instead of being able to retire at the age of 60, if I have a three-year diploma benefit, I will have to continue working until the age of 63. I will continue to work until the age of 63 and will therefore only build up a three-year extra pension. After that, I will continue to receive the three-year Diploma Bonification, which entitles me to a three-year extra pension if I do not have a career of 45 years. That right to the corresponding pension for the diploma benefit remains.

We have to dare to communicate that. Those who criticize the measure should dare to say so.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Becq, there is no problem with the practical point. You correctly put the points on the i.

Mr Bonte, I am pleased that you share our concerns about the principle. However, I would like to point out that the figures are really alarming and that it will absolutely not benefit the system if we do not face those facts.

I want to tell you a personal fact. When I was taught by Professor Van Broekhoven around 1982 almost a career ago, he told us that, without serious intervention, we would end up where we ended today.

I do not claim that no measures have been taken in the past. These have been taken, but I think this measure is much more fundamental and, with all respect for previous governments, ⁇ should have been taken earlier. Thus, the viability of the system – and this is fundamental – can ensure that the concrete promise to those who deserve rest after a career and deserve the necessary social solidarity can be fulfilled.

With empty promises that are unfounded and that do not take into account demographic, economic and social developments, pensioners are nothing. That is a form of farmers’ fraud for which they will pay the price at the moment the train actually runs off the tracks.

All specialists agree, including the very broadly composed Committee on Pension Reform 2020-2040, that fundamental steps must be taken to guarantee affordability.

You will agree with this, as this government, in the various steps in the pension reform, draws much from the recommendations of that Commission, without, however, taking the decisions literally. These are opinions from which we must make political choices.

These political choices may differ between your group and the majority. You will not deny that we are essentially re-evolving into a system in which the various systems grow to each other over time.

That we need to work longer, nobody denies. This is also emphasized in our proposals, but we guarantee that there is no decrease in the amount of pensions. That is essential for us.

Mr. De Roover, I would like to start with what I said before, and with what you emphasize, like everyone in this hemisphere: that measures are needed to ensure the affordability and the future of our pension system, is obvious.

In 2003 I had the pleasure of sitting in front of the Parliamentary Committee on Ageing, in which the pension files and their financingability were analyzed very thoroughly. The need for a set of measures is obvious. The need for measures to make more people work longer is also evident. There were also suggestions about the pension bonus. You now argue that it is not proven that that retirement bonus encourages many people to work longer. I myself say that there are no convincing figures on this, neither in one direction nor in the other. The only thing I confirm is that the political choice is made to abolish the pension bonus. However, there is no convincing evidence that the retirement bonus did not lead people to work longer. The opposite is also not true. I only note that the political choice is made to abolish the pension bonus. This is a clear choice, which we do not support, about which we differ in opinions.

In the example that Mrs. Becq gave, she puts the dots on the i. In some cases, she is right. In other cases, where people can’t choose whether to effectively work longer or not, she’s not right. If you turn to your own study service, Mrs. Becq, there will be people who work longer and still retain less retirement. This is a political choice, but not ours. The most fundamental thing, Mr. De Roover, is that saving the pension system requires everyone – both employers and employees – to believe in the future of the system.

Repeatedly announcing measures that lead to fewer and fewer beliefs that the personal standard of living will remain secured in the future undermines the legitimacy of the system. You referred to the expert committee. There is one fundamental choice that the expert committee, as well as the aging committee, has always pushed forward since 2003 and that is the fundamental political choice. We must also realize that it is not only a matter of making more people work longer, but that it is also a matter of alternative financing, with mainly capabilities that can contribute to the social system and to the pension system.

That is the fundamental political choice in which you and I are very different and in which the Christian-Democratic wing always begins to look to the ceiling when you talk about saving social security. In fact, the social security system will be saved by the levels of activity, by the performance of the labour market and at the same time by the political power, purely because of demography and balance, in order to also make the assets in part contribute to the financing of the pension system. However, there is no word about it, and that is the fundamental difference.

Mr. De Roover, I can hardly understand that you simply ignore the fundamental philosophy that the government now wants to apply.

The first question is whether it will need to work longer. The answer to this is clearly yes. With the abolition of the diploma bonification, work will need to be extended for at least three years.

The second question is whether there will be less pensions earned. The answer to that is also yes. You know that yourself: with the abolition of the pension bonus you get less, you can not avoid that. The different systems make the pensions in the public services in our country still at the European average, which is not the case for the private sector. So the measures are an attack on those pensions, there will be even less earned. You simply cannot deny that. No one has said that they would be the same persons, it is a global philosophy that is applied.

You are also constantly struggling with the fact that we can no longer pay the pensions. Today, France and Austria already spend 15% of their gross domestic product on pensions. This is what we will possibly have to spend in Belgium in 2060. The committee has made it clear that when the majority of baby boomers retire, we reach a maximum of 15% of the gross domestic product.

So where is the problem? We have never produced so much wealth in Belgium. So let some of this wealth flow to our pensioners instead of getting them paid.

I would like to register false about the various elements that have been said. I disagree with this alarmist attitude, as if it was a fatality, as if it was absolutely necessary to change the current situation with these measures and this way.

There must be a responsible attitude. I agree that we should not stay without doing anything. The proposals made by the expert committee form a whole and deserve to be analyzed. In this report, there were some basic proposals, namely to strengthen the first pillar, to ensure its sustainability and to strengthen financing by diversifying it, to increase the actual retirement age by encouraging those who can work longer, to stay at work, or even to leave work gradually.

These are elements on which we must work. When I hear you, it is necessary to work longer, but it must be possible. This is not the case in the measures we discuss here; it is not about working here when it is possible, but an obligation. It is very different. The employment rate should be increased in the different age groups, for the youngest, the mature and the elderly. It is not just forcing older people to work longer.

You are enthusiastic about solidarity between generations. I do not feel that the steps you want to take will go towards such solidarity.

I would like to take a look at the budgetary impact of this government’s pension reform. Of course, reforms can be discussed, but the nonsense requires to examine the budgetary impact of the pension reforms that this government is implementing. I want to put that in perspective for all speakers.

In 2011, when the government-Di Rupo started, the estimated costs of aging amounted to 8% of GDP, or 32 billion euros with a view to 2060. A first step was then taken, Mr. De Roover, ⁇ too little for you, but still a step, including raising the early retirement age from 60 to 62 years. The career requirement has also been extended from 35 years to 40 years. This has had an impact of 0.5% of GDP. That’s not insignificant, but it’s too little, I agree.

If we look at where we are right now, the cost of aging by 2060 will be only 5.2%. That has to do with the intervention I just mentioned, but also with better demographic growth. That’s what the planning agency planned.

Colleagues, the effort this government will make in terms of pensions amounts to as much as 1.9% of GDP, or 8 billion euros. These include raising the early retirement age from 62 to 63 years, raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 years by 2030, as well as the government’s measures concerning the diploma subsidy and the pension bonus. Those reforms will result in a decrease in the number of 312 000 pensioners and 85 000 bridge pensioners by 2060. Therefore, this is a huge effort, and the total account of ageing in 2060 would be only 3.3 % of GDP. In other words, the figures I have outlined and which will soon be confirmed by the European Commission, on the basis of a study by the Planning Agency, prove that these reforms are fundamental reforms that finally provide a new perspective for future generations who will retire.

I would like to comment on what Mr Bone said. He is talking about banging. What we do here is step by step, without major revolutions, reform the pensions to give young people the assurance that in years they can get a pension that is not less than today, but that is a solid first pillar that should be able to provide security.

What scares me, Mr. Bonte, is that the socialists want to solve the problem by contributing the wealth and not so much by major reforms. Your group leader, Mrs. Tax Shift, is not here yet, but that is the discourse that the Socialists permanently throw on the table.

A tax shift is first interpreted as a shift from labour taxes to wealth taxes, and now one wants to use the tax shift to close the deficits. You will probably want to use that income to spend more. In other words, your speech is not credible.

If you’re honest with the public, you should dare to say that we need to reform pensions, in a fundamental way. This is also the courage that Frank Vandenbroucke has had. At that time, in 2004-2005, he sometimes, to shame and disgrace of his own party, said that reforms needed. He was not followed by his party. This is a tragedy for democracy in our country.

We took the first step with the Socialists in government in 2011. That was a first, modest step of 0.5% of GDP. The step we are taking now is a bigger step. We can now take a bigger step because we now have a coalition that is more ideologically coherent than the previous coalition.

These are the correct numbers. This gives future generations a chance to have a fair and equitable retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I hear Mr. Van Quickenborne summarize figures here, but I still have not received a response to my conclusion, namely that in other countries 15 % of wealth goes to pensions and that the baby boom is a temporary problem. If you look at it historically, it shows that today there are far fewer children born. So that is clearly a problem of the baby boomers themselves, which now needs to be solved.

The first reason why there is not enough money going to the pension fund is that in the last ten to fifteen years the social contributions have been reduced. If you perceive it yourself as a problem that the pension fund is not large enough, then you should not focus on it and yet it is what the government is doing.

We are clearly in a downward spiral where employees have to work longer, while our productivity has never been so high. Let’s just strive for less workload for workers and servants.

I also fully agree with my socialist comrades when they advocate a refinancing of the system, including through a tax on the greatest fortunes. We must not always pay the servants and workers of our country.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, your plea for ideological coherence adorns you, but it surprises me a little. The next step would be that you indeed advocate for, for example, Flemish pensions. In any case, when you say that Vandenbroucke was not followed by his party at the time: I was here when Minister Vandenbroucke defended his pension reform plans under paars and we fully supported them at the time. I do not know at what point he would not have been followed by his party.

You are talking about Mrs. Tax Shift. I don’t know if you are talking about Mrs. Temmerman or Mrs. Becq, because there are quite a few members of your ideologically coherent team who also advocate a tax shift. Per ⁇ you were mistaken? I have the impression that you are mistaken several times. In any case, I know, Mr. Van Quickenborne, that both the expert group since 2003 and the Aging Committee have always stated that the financability of the pension system will have to do with labour market reforms and with a policy to keep more workers working longer. This will be an important pillar. The expert committee equally always emphasizes that additional funding from assets should also be considered.

I remember the ideological debate on the third pillar, in which the expert committee was also of the opinion that the tax deductibility or the budget associated with it might best be recycled into the legal system. Those forms of alternative financing should be examined with a view to a sustainable social and pension system. I really do not stand alone with that viewpoint: I have referred to the expert committee, but I could quote here long texts from the Christian Democratic group that demands exactly the same. Let us not make a caricature that this is about an ideologically homogeneous government team in the reform.

The essence of my criticism is that here we are apparently at step 1 of the breakdown. The ACV study service speaks of a spoon-like breakdown. This gives you confidence in the future of social security and of pensions in particular. By pushing forward telkenmal new interventions, such as working to 67 years and now again the abolition of the bonuses, you play here, in my opinion, a very dangerous game, because you undermine the credibility of our social system as protection from poverty for older people.

We are now at the heart of the debate. We fully agree with the diagnosis that establishes that something needs to be done with regard to pensions. Immobility is not an acceptable work assumption.

The various analyses of the Ageing Study Committee have shown this sufficiently. On the other hand, what we challenge, as we challenge the reform under the Di Rupo government led by Mr. Van Quickenborne when he was a minister, these are the choices made.

There are alternatives to the choices made and which are found in the report of the National Pension Commission. You did cherry picking by taking what you were interested in and ignoring other equally important dimensions that do not appear in the texts that are submitted to us piece by piece. This leads to an imbalanced reform.

Like the Di Rupo government, the Michel government decides to make a pension reform by reducing the rights, whether in terms of career duration or in terms of future pension of pensioners.

The alternative financing component of social security, based on the finding that the constitution of wealth has changed sharply over the last thirty years, is transferred to the Greek calendas.

You completely ignore that one career is not the other, including in public service. There are more difficult and more difficult careers that need to be considered. Otherwise, you will have the same effects as after the Van Quickenborne reform. This is a transfer from the pension budget to the disability health budget because when people are no longer able to work, they are no longer able to work, even if you make other laws.

In terms of pensions, the solution goes through employment policies different from those you propose us with an index jump, with a wage limitation without compensation from employers in terms of job creation. It is about having more people at work and adequate social security funding.

The reforms you are proposing gradually in terms of pensions and in other fields are breaking the social contract between all Belgians.

My impression is the same as that which was mine at the end of 2011 when Mr. Van Quickenborne proposed his reform. Finally, the goal is to divert Belgian citizens from the first pillar of pension, the most effective and fair, and to promote private pension systems that are more unequal, more costly and above all more uncertain.

The responsibility of a pension minister and a government is to bring stability and sufficient financing to our system, other than by diminishing the rights of future pensioners as you do.

Mr. Bonte, it was Mr. Tobback, who as Minister of Pensions and Environment at the time, if I am not mistaken, stated that he knew what he should do as a politician, but that if he did, he would not be re-elected. He said that within the scope of his competence Environment. On the other hand, he undoubtedly asks himself every day how he can be re-elected. In any case, the reality is that he did nothing for both powers.

After that, Mr. Daerden passed. I have always had a lot of respect for him. He did a very interesting study and wrote three different books. I was based on this, to carry out the first reforms in the previous government.

Second, Mr. Bonte, you declare that this is the first step towards dismantling. Now you use the discourse that the trade unions used in 2011. When we, with Di Rupo at the head, began to reform pensions, the language of the trade unions was that that reform meant breakdown and that it was the first breakdown of pensions. You were in the government then. You then demonstrated responsibility and noted that we had to make that reform.

What we are doing now is a second step, which is more fundamental. This is especially important when it comes to the statutory retirement age in the direction of 66 to 67 years.

Mr Hedebouw, however, it all fits in the same logic, namely that if we want to save the pensions, we cannot throw so much more money against them again. You do not see the problem, because it would only be about 15% of the gross domestic product. But the problem is that in our country public spending, with 55% of GDP, is at its peak in Europe and probably also in the rest of the world.

Whoever today claims that we can add a couche to that and go to 60% of the gross domestic product – I will not list the countries where the situation is even worse – today puts a mortgage on entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth in our country.

What we need to do is not necessarily increase the spending, but rather carry out reforms, by making people work longer, taking into account the life expectancy. This is, by the way, the philosophy that Frank Vandenbroucke has always put forward.

If we do so, I am convinced that we can offer a perspective to the younger generation.

By the way, Mr. Hedebouw, all countries in Europe – ⁇ not Venezuela and Cuba – are raising the statutory retirement age. Even Greece will have to do that. Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have done so. Even France, with the socialists, has implemented a modest pension reform.

Everyone knows that. Whoever denies this, denies the light of the sun.

Speaking of the light of the sun, Mr. Van Quickenborne, you say that our retirement bill rises initially as a result of the rising life expectancy. I think you are quite right when you see where we come from. Just after World War II, the average mortality age was roughly the retirement age. Now we live longer. The problem is that we are leaving the job market earlier. The choice has always been to truly reform the labour market, resulting in fewer workers leaving earlier and more workers working longer. I am not convinced that the legal retirement age should be raised.

According to the Pension Commission, the government must provide additional funding as a result of the demographic change due to the extended life expectancy. Since 2011, when you were in charge, you have chosen to tax the factor labour less through reductions in wages and facilitating job creation. The government must adjust. The committee of experts says that this is best done through the capabilities. Then immediately arises the question whether the tax deductions for the third pillar in the framework of pensions are still meaningful or not. This is not just an ideological debate, but a purely practical one. Moreover, the Christian Democrats have previously urged to challenge these deductions.

The current government has given up that choice. It already follows a consistent line in addressing the financial problem of pensions: it decomposes rights, focuses on longer working and removes impulses such as pension bonuses that encourage workers to continue to work longer. I think that the ACV and ACW study service are right when they point out that a leach-by-leaf degradation of rights has begun without offering a prospect of an alternative additional financing of the system. That perspective should come from a tax shift. That perspective does not come from the fundamental division of the majority, even if they always agree ideologically. I think that is the core of the debate.

First, that certain leftist parties in previous governments would have threatened a certain liberal course, really does not touch me. You can discuss this with sp.a or the PS.

For me, it was effectively a mistake to go with that logic and so I don’t feel touched at all by those arguments. If you refer to Hollande in France, he is also not my reference point. In France, it is not a left-wing course. Greece will be very interesting. The pension debate will begin in June or July. This will be an interesting debate to follow. We will see how the European Union will behave with Greece. That is my first important point.

Second, you are talking about life expectancy. My problem is that you do not nuance who in our society lives in good health for a long time. That is the point. You look linearly at how long one lives in our society. Mr. Van Quickenborne, there is a difference of seventeen years of life expectancy between someone with a higher degree and someone with a high school degree.

As the saying goes, we are not all equal in the face of death.

In Belgium, not everyone has the same life expectancy and even less in good health. This is about. That gap is even greater with the growth of productivity in our country. That is my second point.

Third, the argument there is no alternative, everyone does it, tout le monde le fait. Look at what direction we are going with Europe. Everyone does it, everyone just goes into the abyss and Belgium follows, tous dans le ravin. It is compared here with Venezuela, but Venezuela’s per capita domestic product is 20 to 25 times lower than that of Belgium. Stop with it. In Belgium since 1960: 3.5 times our domestic product.

You are talking about the wealth that is produced, and about the fact that the active population is too small in relation to the number of retirees. Give people work. The first problem is the unemployed. If you want to activate, then give them work.

And then comes the big myth that no one has yet confirmed. By working longer, more jobs will be created for young people. This has not been demonstrated anywhere, in no study. The only thing that is proven with Sweden, but scientifically completely wrong, is that in countries where longer work, more young people would be working.

This does not mean anything scientifically.

What has been the impact in Sweden of the measure in 2000 to work longer?

What do we see? The first measures were taken in Sweden in 2000, that is, before the economic crisis in 2008. Unemployment among young people has doubled over the past eight years. In countries like Sweden, the following is the case.

It is shown that there is a cause-and-effect link between making people work longer and unemployment among younger people.

There is a fundamental debate about what direction we want to go with our society. History teaches us that people have begun to live longer since the political decision was made to work less. That band is obvious: by working less long, improved health and increased life expectancy, not the opposite.

If, on the day when the doctors found that life expectancy had increased, the 14-hour day had been reintroduced, we would immediately have seen a decrease in life expectancy. Therefore, you establish a cause-effect link with a completely reverse effect. Indeed, if one considers our social history, it is because one day we started working less longer than life expectancy began to increase.

I will not go into detail on the debates already held in the committee on Sweden. It remains a fundamental mistake debate, Mr Hedebouw, if one continues to say that tackling unemployment by pushing older people out of the labour market provides more opportunities for young people. In this regard, you are fundamentally wrong. As since the 1970s, we have been implementing this policy, through the introduction of the bridge pension, and the only result of this is a high youth unemployment and a high elderly unemployment. It is therefore not a good solution. These are solutions from the past that appear to have not worked and which we urgently need to eliminate.

Mr. Bonte, you actually said that instead of taking these kinds of “asocial” measures, we should provide additional funding to cover the pension burdens. That means, in your opinion, that additional resources will have to be released for the increased burdens in the pension expenditure, where you refer to the tax shift. You just said it and colleague Van Quickenborne also referred to it. I wonder what tax shift you mean. If today we spend €40 billion on pensions and we do nothing, that amount will rise to €48 billion by 2019. There is an additional $8 billion needed. It is estimated to be 1.7 billion per year. How will you raise an additional $1.7 billion a year? And quid with the tax shift that you will apply to reduce the burden on labor? One can only draw a conclusion, in particular that you are advocating a massive tax increase. That is your only agenda.

Mr. Lachaert, I do not want to continue to polemize here, but you should explain to me how Open Vld will do the alternative financing of the burden reduction, unless you fall back on the remedy of the congress of Kortrijk, where everything will be repaid through spontaneous revenue effects. Mr. Lachaert, you need to think carefully about what you say.

I am, along with many others – I even think of Kamerbreed, but I am not sure about it – advocate of an ambitious plan for reducing the burden on labor. That can always be through alternative funding, unless you say that it comes from heaven fell through the return effects. In other words, also in the Committee of Experts on Pensions, but actually on the globality of the financing of social security, we will have to look at the funding base more broadly than it is today. We will have to look more broadly.

Then I come to the point that apparently causes a little nervousness. Should it be about wealth, about VAT, about polluting activities, about energy? What should it be about? If we say that, you say that we have a tax obsession. You have the obsession that the problem of financing social security with all existing rights for workers and pensioners, will be picked up by cutting in the rights of the people.

That’s your obsession and that’s also the result that is earned with bills like this.

Mr. Bonte, I think you did not experience the debate of yesterday. It was a very interesting debate at times. In part, we are now conducting the same debate. We talked about the tax shift. The tax shift is included in the government agreement. The minister, who was present at the time, replied that the government would work on this in the next three months. He also said that there are different opinions on the matter and that they must be respected. Over the next three months, work will be done to develop what is included in the government agreement, such as the tax shift.

We had already jointly decided to implement three discs of 450 million euros each in reductions in social contributions. Now there is the index jump to the top, to restore the competitiveness of our wages. We talked about that yesterday too. Additional income will still need to be sought. This is also stated in the government agreement. You are throwing 1.7 billion euros a year on top of that. How will you do that, except by increasing taxes?

Mr Bonte, I once, in my capacity as Minister of Finance and Budget in a purple-green coalition, reduced the donation rights in the amount of 60 or 70 % to 3 and 7 %. Those rights generated 30 million euros annually and today they generate 230 million euros annually. This is called fiscal compliance.

To put it a little academically, colleagues, if the Laffer Curve, with which you so blink, will be the compass on the basis of which the Open Vld wants to discuss the tax shift, then I wish you good luck. The question is: the lower the taxes, the higher the incomes? If that’s your contribution to the tax shift debate, then I fear we won’t get out of it for the first three months.

I am just a simple pharmacist and would like to ask a simple question to Mr. Van Quickenborne.

You say you want to give the younger generation hope by making older people work longer. Recently I helped my daughter with a talk about Antwerp, which has a youth unemployment rate of 28%. Therefore, the previous governments, including Minister De Coninck, have introduced a number of incentives to do with internship guidance and the like. Therefore, it was applied to the young people.

You now let the elderly work until 67 years old, but I don’t understand your logic behind it.

Secondly, if you look at the VDAB figures, I have to find that a lot of people over fifty don’t even get a response if they send their CV to an employer. I sit there with a few questions about how you will solve all of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very politely. This is, of course, a different debate, because it is about working work.

Mrs. Detiège, we have tried for decades the remedies to get people to stop working in the past so that we can give young people work. Even Mrs. De Coninck is convinced that this is not the solution. In this way, the case is not resolved. That is why she, as a minister in the previous government, has implemented a number of stricter measures regarding bridge pensions and pensions.

The question of how to provide workable work for people over fifty is a very complex question, that everyone knows. This has to do with the salary curve. This was also stated by Minister De Coninck during the previous term of government. This also has to do with some flexibility and mentality change among employers. We must work on this, but we cannot solve this by postponing or implementing a necessary pension reform. This is the biggest mistake ever made and we do not want to repeat that mistake.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, indeed, I advocate that people have the right to work until they retire. I have been very consistent in defending this. We also need to look at the overall career.

I find today that a lot of people turn to me to point out that after the age of fifty they were fired by their employer, despite the fact that they performed well. This is not about one case, but about a huge number of cases. People are hurt and they find it very difficult to get opportunities in the job market.

Di Rupo’s government has provided a lot of subsidies in terms of wage costs, and I think there should be a greater commitment on the part of employers.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Quickenborne, I hope that the government has calculated the double budget effect it will obtain by extending the retirement age. In fact, all studies show that when the retirement age is extended, life expectancy decreases. Thus, people will work longer, earn their pensions later, and die earlier. In other words, they will receive their pensions for less time. So you burn people’s pensions with “the two ends of the candle,” I would say. I hope you have taken this element into account and have become aware that you are not only forcing people to work longer, which is already ⁇ antisocial, but you are also shortening the lives of workers. In doing so, you are committing a murder.

To conclude this interesting debate somewhere, I would like to note that it is striking how there is such a defaitism on the left side, a left-wing defaitism, about the future of the elderly on the labour market. That is very fitting. People over fifty-five would be predestined to never find a job again, and we cannot do much about it; we must therefore give those people systems to leave the labour market as soon as possible and stay at home. This is inhuman and anti-human.

We must, on the other hand, activate these people and continue to engage them usefully in the labour market. They are not destined to stay at home. Look at the Scandinavian countries, where 70 to 80 percent of those over 55 are actually working. Those numbers will not be realized, Mrs. De Coninck, by merely centrally compelling someone to hire. This is not how it works. We must create the conditions in which people are employed.

You should therefore dare to look a little wider than the withdrawal systems, which you find very interesting. Look at the way our salary negotiations were constructed and in which years were rewarded to a lot of people merely because they were getting older, until Europe told us – you know that, Mrs. De Coninck, as former Minister of Labour – that this was no longer allowed and that such something was discriminatory towards young people. Therefore, we have replaced that system with antiquity, which is actually not much better, because it leads to exactly the same problems. We must dare to say that there is a problem there. Elderly people thus boast themselves out of the market in the collective COAs, which exist in all sectors.

In recent years, we have been able to increase the efficiency rate, including through the measures we have taken together, from 35% to 41%. We must continue this path. Such measures are needed for this. We must support the elderly and we will do so. You know that the target group measures have gone to the regional level. Flanders also goes on with this by giving people over 55 a reduction on social contributions. Therefore, it is not written in the stars that those people will no longer have a job. We insist that they will have work.

We have one common goal: to guarantee the right of those people to work, even when they are older. I’ve just told you, and I’ve been fairly consistent in it, that I notice that many older employees are being pushed out of their jobs. It’s not even about giving them new opportunities, they just don’t have to do their job anymore. You can close your eyes – I’m not trying to do that – but I’m asking you to look at it.

I have even told many employers that they are shooting themselves in the foot. It is the same discussion as that about diversity. It is much better for a company to have employees with different perspectives, young people as well as the elderly, because those older people are often the lubricant in a company. Do not throw them out too fast on the streets. I note, by the way, that in the highest class, managers, old men are not thrown out on the streets.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to interrupt, but Mr. Lachaert made me curious by trying to close the debate. I do not like his conclusion at all. It was quite partisan and one-sided.

Mr. Lachaert, I find it difficult, ⁇ as a young politician, for you to judge that people who today, as Mr. Gilkinet did for our group, protest or comment on the current government’s pension plans, would be defaitists.

I don’t think that as a young, green politician who is very sensitive to the sustainability of our pension system, as well as to spreading the effort and supporting the bill that’s coming on us. We need to seize those matters.

The attitude of our group, for example, is not so much defaitist, but rather realistic. She is also based on the experience of a lot of elderly people on the job market, who are simply having a very hard time today.

A number of issues are discussed today as possible solutions. The debate about antiquity must be carried out. There is also again the debate of yesterday on labor costs, as well as the whole gap around workable work. The question that we can ask, and that the elderly on the labour market, who want to stay in work and who want to work for this country and for the preservation of social security in the sweat, asks us, is where the measures in that area remain.

The punishment measures for older workers are there. The breach of rights is there. When it comes to the prospect of working, however, we read a blank paper. In that regard, we do not see any concrete measures, even to the extent that members of the Parliament of the majority regularly write and talk about it – with this I close my argument. Mr De Roover writes free tribunes about it. I have already heard Mr. Vercamer and Mr. Terwingen make statements: “Now is the time for workable work. Now is the time for action.”I would suggest that those points be taken. Waiting for that, it is not appropriate to make it even more difficult for those who already have trouble today.

Mr. Lachaert, obviously, when speaking of the elderly who would like to continue working, one clearly evokes a double volunteer. These are measures that allow, in a double voluntary or not, to leave the job market. There is no obligation to leave the labour market. This is the legislative framework we are discussing.

In the past, many jobs have been lost, but the bridge pensions would not have created jobs for the youth. The problem was that there was no obligation to recruit those young people. This was not respected. The bridge pension was used massively to reduce the number of jobs.

Thirdly, the idea of reducing working hours, reducing careers is immensely modern. These are the regressive ideas that want us to work longer. We had exactly the same debate just after World War II, when there was an increase in productivity. Should this increase in productivity serve to work longer and work more hours, or should it serve to work less and work fewer hours? This is the social debate we have today. This affects me because a large part of the parties agree with this logic of saying that since we increase productivity, we must still work longer. This is an incredible idea that is completely contrary to the historical process. I hope that in the coming years we will be able to get you back in the face of this kind of retrograde ideas!

Mr. Speaker, all the interventions were very interesting, but Mr. Hedebouw’s intervention was of course the most interesting. The other participants should not feel attacked because he is always the most interesting. However, not all the interventions were really relevant. The word outright fits here.

In addition to Godwin’s law – on social media after two or three interventions the word Hitler is always used – there is also the law of the Belgian opposition, because after two or three interventions the word tax shift is always used. This is a new version of Godwin’s law. No matter how interesting the discussion is about the tax shift, I have not fully understood what it has to do with the bill.

I would therefore like to limit myself to the matters that are concerned, for my filling is empty and I have not been able to write down everything. Thus, in the opposition, the word has fallen alarmist, because people are scared. At the same time, while it is said that people are deprived of confidence in pensions, there are alarmist cries that social security is being broken down, and the word breakdown has fallen. People say they will lose faith in pensions.

With these designs, we want to counteract precisely the present alarmism. We want to offer perspective. The whole draft and the entire retirement philosophy the government is pursuing consists just in rebuilding trust in the pension system. After all, everyone knows that the status quo, contrary to the impression that definitely wants to create the far left, is not an option and is a form of alarmist farm fraud.

Furthermore, it is quite easy to argue here that an increase in retirement spending to 15 percent would be a trivial thing. The colleagues of the majority groups have already pointed out that we need to see growth to 15 % in relation to the total government seizure, which now already exceeds half. Then the opposition will have to answer the question where we, if we wish to accept that increase, will cut in place, unless you, Mr. Hedebouw, make a subtle attempt to push the seizure of the government to 100% in this way. That would be ideologically consistent on your part, which I can ⁇ earn from you.

However, I would also be very careful with the reasoning that the baby boom problem is a temporary problem. First, this is not so temporary, because it is still about a few decades, I can hope for those involved. Second, if the demographics indicate that there are fewer births today, I would like to note that this smaller number of births in our distribution system will form the smaller group that later will have to provide the larger group of pensioners with their first-pillar pension. The automatism of claiming that the problem has come without us seeing it and that it will go away without us doing anything about it is, in my opinion, a totally irresponsible way of jumping around with a crucial element of our solidarity.

There must also be solidarity with future generations. When I myself come to young people, they almost all accept that it makes sense that they will have to work longer. They have seen and read the numbers and they as such have absolutely no problem with that. They realize that a certain system must also be affordable and that it can no longer be done in this way. It is this solidarity with future generations that is crucial in the reforms we propose today.

There is also a need to think about the third pillar. Are we not too generous in promoting this third pillar? In the overall philosophy of this government’s pension reform, we are going to work on a more balanced system in which the first pillar is not broken down, but is an element in a broadly developed pension building of which a second, a third and even a fourth pillar, with the purchase of real estate, are fundamental components. This system is more balanced, because if one pillar of the system comes into trouble, the other pillars will ensure that people will continue to receive a pension in the future.

Now you make me curious, Mr. De Roover. I said later that it is our assessment that this bill fits in further undermining the legitimacy of the statutory pension system by gradually proclaiming the situation in which people can get overwhelmed. In this way, people are threatening to lose their faith in the statutory pension system.

You are also very involved in this undermining.

Now you say that the legal pillar will remain, but at the same time you are talking about a third and even a fourth pension pillar. I would like to know what the fourth pillar means. I also refer to the colleagues of CD&V. The third pillar does not actually have anything to do with pensions, it is actually a tax support of savings funds. The third pillar has always been criticized, both on its own and because of CD&V, especially on the tax incentive by a government that has no budget over, to put it still gently. Now you are talking about a fourth pillar of pension. Can you tell me what the government is planning on the pensions? What should be understood under the fourth pillar of pension?

Mr Bono, I just said that. You know what the fourth pillar means. A lot of people in this country have their own home. Also, that own home is an element in building a guarantee at a later age.

With the interventions in the home bonus and so on? What do you actually say?

If you want to know what I am saying, you have to listen. That helps a little. I have told you that unlike the Socialists, who only want to build a state-led pension guarantee, we want a broad opportunity for the people. This is not something the government invented, it is something the people actually do. They also take responsibility for the construction. However, it is crucial – hence this reform – that that first pillar is there, and I apologize for the phrase “like a house.” It should provide a clear basic first guarantee for everyone, for every employee. That is the essence of this reform. The fact that we have a balanced and well-developed system in which, for example, the second pillar and other forms of self-insurance also form an element is quite evident. We may also differ on this. I have very little trouble with that, of course.

I would like to try to understand what you mean by that fourth pillar. You are talking about a house. If you could blame the socialists for something, it may be that they have encouraged the people too much to have a brick in the stomach. Well, this on the side. You are talking about a house. What does that mean? The government will take measures to...

Mr. Bonte, please do not look for nails in low water.

I agree with you that we should better listen to each other. Do you mean that in the context of the pension problem the government is considering measures to further stimulate the acquisition of houses? Does this mean that there will be compensation for people who do not have a home?

Of course, you can still invent all sorts of things that I have not said.

I will ask very generally: what do you mean by “a house” as the fourth pillar of retirement? What will the government do in this regard?

and nothing. I told you that there is a first pillar and that a pension is more than a government system. Retirement is also the responsibility of each of us.

You mean money and savings.

...who, for example, by saving and through the purchase of a home also take a responsibility. We support the idea that people take their own responsibility and that, in addition to a strongly developed first pillar, they also take various measures from their own preferences and from their own profile, and that they take steps to prepare the future for themselves.

That is a good thing. We have confidence in people’s own initiative and are in favour of it.

This does not mean, however, that a first pillar should not form the basis for the formation of pensions. I think I have been very clear in that. If I’ve talked about, for example, buying houses in the past, I’ve pointed out a fact.

I have not announced a new policy. If there is a misunderstanding, the discussion ends here. I pointed out a fact. We find it very positive that people, in their future expectations and in the way they deal with them, go wider than the public pension in the narrow sense of the word. That is what I said.

I would like to comment on two points expressed by our colleague. First of all, I would like to address the pillars. You want a solid, but reduced, solid first pillar that no longer allows for a decent pension. This, we cannot accept. You are talking about the second, third, fourth pillar. There is a difference between the second and the other. We place the second pillar in the category "pension supplement". But it is becoming increasingly fragile. A reduced first pillar and an increasingly fragile second means that we no longer guarantee a decent pension. Therefore, the first pillar must be strengthened, in terms of its solidity, but also in terms of the amount insured. This first pillar is the most solidary and the safest.

The debate on the second pillar, in relation to its generalization and its efficiency, its safe and solidary character to be guaranteed, is obviously important.

Compared to the third pillar, the fourth pillar – and those that can still be invented – you are talking about people who have the ability to save, not those we want to touch or protect, and who represent a significant part of the population. It is necessary to think of all those who do not have an income that allows to have this chance, those who experience a hard blow. I disagree with you on this concept of extending the pillars to ensure a decent pension.

You say young people are willing to work longer. I want to hear it. When you are twenty, you feel eternal, ready to work all your life. It is believed that you will be in shape throughout your life. But as the years go by, you realize that it is not possible to work longer, especially when exercising certain professions. That is what I blame for these reforms.

Most of the young people want to be able to work. Before they can work longer, they want to work shortly. I hear that we are referring to the Nordic model and Sweden, where older people work later in life, and young people work a lot, and that’s great. The problem is that in some regions of our country there are not enough jobs to allow this. It must be realized. I ask you to have a vision not only about some pockets of our population.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give two brief comments on the position of the N-VA.

First and foremost, I would like to emphasize – with which I will address the debate in the future – that the affordability of pensions depends on the reforms of the labour market. Again, we advocate lower wage costs and activation, among other things. One reality that you find difficult or not to see is that at the end of your career a lot of employees are put on the door. Just look at it, in the current difficult economic situation, employers, if they have to restructure, will still, for all sorts of reasons, put fifty-year-olds first at the door. On the other hand, 50-year-olds have far fewer chances of recruiting than young people. That is the reality. To conclude that the pension rights must be touched to encourage workers to stay at work longer is ⁇ unilateral. We advocate a critical view of the entire labour market policy, including in the light of the financing of pensions.

Secondly, I have already mentioned the tax shift and I will not come back to that. What I would like to point out for a moment is your global idea about the four pillars of retirement. Just like you, I will encourage people who ask me what to do for their old days to buy a home. This testifies to common sense. If one wants to be protected from poverty, then one at retirement age best have a own home. I absolutely agree with that. Only, and on this point we differ very strongly in opinions: do not say that is a solution for retirement. More and more citizens don’t have an euro left to save, let alone to buy a home. What does this have to do with retirement?

Voor collega Daerden wil ik het volgende element toevoegen. He can dat wellicht niet weten, since he of Vlaamse politiek niet volgt. U bestempelt de woning als de vierde pijler, maar het eerste dat de nieuwe Vlaamse regering heeft beslist, is of afschaffing van de woonbonus. De tax stimulans om burgers aan te zetten om en woning te verwerven, is the first thing that she has afgeschaft. Dan komt men op het spreekgestoelte van de Kamer verklaren dat een woning van gepensioneerden helpt te beschermen tegen armoede. It must be done!

Mr. De Roover, I find that an argument visibly annoys you, since you do not answer it! And as you have just pointed out that my reasoning could be interesting, I will go deeper into it. Productivity has increased over the years: per person working today, we produce 3.5 to 4 times more than in 1960. Where is the problem that part of this wealth increase is devoted to officials you want to work longer or to private sector workers who are exhausted at work? Why can’t we devote a part of this increase in productivity to the older ones? This is the key debate you want us to vote for!

The corollary of this question, given the 600,000 unemployed workers in our country, is why make our elders work longer rather than allowing young people to start their lives in the public service, since it is the laws that are subject to today, to have work for the young and rest for the elderly.

I think mr. Hedebouw did not catch everything. We live in a world where competitiveness is international according to globalization. If we improve some things in Belgium and others improve them too, we don’t really know how to take advantage of them. You must take this into account.

I am surprised because competitiveness does not take away anything from the increase in wealth produced. You know your industry very well. You know how much the houblon makes beer that is very good in our country. You know that in multinational companies, such as InBev – I come from Jupille, it is a beer that affects me more ⁇ – with 400 workers, we produce three times more beer than with 900 workers on the Piedboeuf site, so three times more beer, or an increase in productivity passing from a factor 3 to 4.

I’m not going to encourage you to drink three or four times more. The only question I ask is where is the wealth produced, especially in this sector. I will tell you: in the pocket of the big brassicoles, like mr. InBev or Mr. Brito, who are full of searches! What I propose here is that this competitiveness does not change anything in the substance debate. We produce more and more wealth. Let us take a small portion of this wealth for our elders!

It’s not the hemp that produces beer, as you say, it’s the brewer.

When it comes to productivity, we have to compare our economies. If the economies around us are also increasing their productivity, all this returns to a zero match.

We need to have a comparative advantage. Only then can we extract something from an increase in productivity. But if our own is increasing and our neighbors are also increasing, we cannot take away any comparative advantage. However, what can be done as an improvement in the economy is to remove a comparative advantage. If we do not remove it, we cannot progress. This element must be taken into account.

Here we look at the basic economy. This interests me very much. But I will tell you a few economic truths. All these innovations actually increase productivity. We are producing more and more beer. Stop talking about international competition. We don’t bring beer from China or India. You know very well that beer is exported within a maximum radius of 150 to 200 km. You know very well that all productivity increases serve only one thing: to enrich the main shareholders.

Then, when you speak of the noble term of the bearers, who are you talking about? Brewers are all the workers in your sector who, today, have hours 6-2, 2-10, at night, and who are tired of working in Belgian breweries.

You’ll ask them to work five to six more years while they’re tired of working in your breweries! I think this is fundamentally unfair. I think that effectively in your sector, we would do better to look for a little more on the side of dividends and a little less on the side of workers!

Mr. Ferguson, you have the word for the last word.

Mr Hedebouw, if you interestiez un petit peu plus au monde la brasserie, vous verriez que les gens ne sont pas fatigués de travailler et de brasserie. If there is a good sector in which the worker is happy, it is in this sector!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, when I later said that Mr. Hedebouw held the most interesting speech in advance, I made him overwhelming, because now it has turned out that he does some bizarre things in the hemisphere. He talked about increasing productivity. I don’t know if he has noticed that the standard of living of people has also increased over the past decades. Now when we tell children to walk to the pump, they don’t even know what that means. If we give people the choice to convert the increased productivity into a higher standard of living or into more free time, then they are completely free to choose for more free time, for example through the possibility of part-time work or through other embodiments. We assume that people tend to choose to convert productivity to a higher standard of living. We do not want to deprive people of this freedom.

I would like to comment on what PS colleague Daerden just said about the second pillar, which would be so fragile. To begin with, we think that second pillar will become a lot more fragile, because the Supplementary Pensions Act shows at least a flaw – I am now expressing myself cautiously – and a better legal framework would be in place. Here it is completely wrongly created the impression that the second pillar is fragile, while the first pillar stands there as a monument, intact by weather and wind. The focus of our debate is now that this first pillar is under pressure. We are carrying out the reform to save that first pillar. This is the essence of the entire pension debate. We are the ones who will make the crucial first pillar – in relation to previous measures we do that with an acceleration factor four, as the Open Vld colleagues just pointed out – for all people, for all workers, through these measures. This is the core of the reform.

This happens without prejudice to the fact that we also leave room for balanced pension build-up to those who want to further build their future in other ways. There is a fairly compassionate behavior – Mr. Daerden, I am very sorry to note that – about people who have savings capacity, as if saving would be a half criminal fact for which they must be held accountable.

Well, it is not just a factor of happiness. Here again the impression is created that whoever earns one euro more has been lucky and whoever has not earned that euro has been unlucky. It is possible that this is the vision of the left: people are willoze balls in a flipper cabinet and either they flip to one side, or to the other side. We believe in people who can also take a piece of own responsibility and who are not merely the playball of the factors happiness and unhappiness. Therefore, we want to give space and support the own responsibility of people.

Mr. Speaker, I will obviously not react to my colleague’s last remarks, which I find in troubling moments. I will simply say that today’s debate is about pensions in public services, public services that, essentially at the level of public officials, have a first pillar. In fact, what I said just recently is that we were in a logic of leveling down this first pillar and that is essentially what we reproach. These officials do not have a second pillar or, in any case, very little because public authorities rarely have the possibility to ensure the latter. This is an important element.

The second important element I would like to recall is that we are talking about officials who see their regime change while they are in office. There is a questioning of the rules of the game.

Colleague, it annoys me inexorably that you make a cartoon from the left, which would be jealous that a man works and it doesn’t please him that he earns a penny. I have not heard Mr. Daerden say. I did not say that either. You live with a cartoon in your head, Mr. De Roover. I offer everyone a lot of wealth, a lot of prosperity, a lot of work and a lot of wages. I wish that for everyone.

What I know—and maybe that’s what distinguishes us from each other—is that I can’t look all people straight in the eyes and say they need to insure their retirement by buying a home. I know a lot of people who work hard and are unable to acquire a home.

Consider the issue of divorce. Many women have worked for a very long time, they end up in poverty at an older age as a result of a divorce and therefore have no home. I see quite a few accidents in society that I have in mind, namely one in which anyone can work, earn and save for a home and have a good retirement. I see a lot of accidents: this is the purpose of social security.

So I ask my question again. What motivates your party to remove as the first savings measure in the incentives for investing in a home? Like me, I urge you to be cautious. Why do you take away the housing bonus? Explain it to me.

As for the capacity to save, I have taken the word “happiness” from Mr. Daerden’s explanation. The people who have had the “luck” to save, that’s the word and that’s the phrase I’ve responded to.

You may be very calm. The home bonus is on my list and since you want it, I will go on with it first.

Every economist has predicted for years and can also perfectly demonstrate that the home bonus is a totally wrong measure, which only drives up the house prices in good times and which is only in the benefit of brokers who work on percentage.

Mr. Bonte, if you go through some literature on this, you will see that confirmed. I am waiting with excitement for the counter-test from your side, but I am reassured.

There are many truths in economics. I agree with that. However, it is quite obvious that if one reduces the purchase price of homes artificially, people with the same budget simply make a higher bid to buy a larger home.

That also turns out to be a bad measure, Mr. Bonte, which has nothing to do with stimulating the purchase of a own home. How do you get it suddenly in your head to give the impression that we would see the purchase of a house as an alternative to retirement? You keep putting words in my mouth here with an unlikely diligence that I have never spoken. I have said, and I repeat — I think it is not for you, but for the others and for the report — that this reform aims to ensure that the necessary first pillar can be ⁇ ined and that it has a sustainable character. That is crucial. Additionally — and if words have meaning, then the word “besides” means: in addition to what I referred to earlier — we think that there is also room for our own efforts.

That longer work is constantly framed as the worst punishment that people can be punished is also something that ⁇ disturbs me. Why is it that, for example, in the Netherlands, there is an average of 10% more people over 55 active and in Scandinavian countries even much more? I do not just want to go with you in this regard, it was also stated in my text and I have already said it here: of course, that end-to-end debate is an important component in the totality. This debate has also been announced and is also provided in the government agreement. I can tell you that my group, by the way, has gone a long way with this and is working on a resolution.

If, however, in this house we continually applied the principle that, as long as we do not get everything solved, we do not take a single step, then we will remain in the misery and in the mud in which the pensions are now being sent. We approach the affairs systematically, problem by problem, but we have very clearly pushed forward the contours of the overall problemology in the government agreement.

Dear colleagues, and finally this. We are pushing society forward, as it should be. This reform is a perfect illustration of this. This is an important step towards a sustainable system. After all, whatever one may say about it, in the event of a status quo, the current system is financially unsustainable and the pensioners will be the first victims.

We want the transformation into a sustainable system that can also guarantee to future generations what we have been able to guarantee to previous generations. That is why we welcome this law, because it demonstrates solidarity, both between systems and between generations. Our pension system will become fairer if we increase the burdens and benefits of all systems, and the system will become more sustainable if we want to be solidary with the young. Indeed, they are those who, in this regard, bear a very heavy burden from the moment they see the light of life in this country.

Recently — and was referred to by Open Vld colleague Van Quickenborne — the Plan Bureau confirmed that the ongoing pension reform is already carrying out very important structural improvements. This reform is precisely to provide the guarantee of faith and hope in a good pension system, not only for those who now happen to be in it or who want to get into it as soon as possible: save qui peut, in a way of speaking. We want to ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy a solid system. We want to restore and strengthen people’s confidence in our pension system, which must become a solid system. That is the core of the reform, and that is why we call this reform fair, solidary and sustainable, one by one, concepts to which our group attaches the greatest importance.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, we fully support the reforms you have proposed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Many thoughts were expressed in the presentation of Mr. by Roover. I do not hide from you, on behalf of my group, our satisfaction: our country is moving forward. Courageous decisions are being made, which Belgium needs, which have been postponed for too long. We could have done other projects. We need to start with a project related to pensions.

The bill we are examining today is part of this new dynamic that the majority intends to instill. Indeed, it implements three measures that are planned by the government to perpetuate our pension system, namely the gradual abolition of the diploma bonus, from 2016 - we do not say enough - the abolition of the ceilings of income that will be generated by an activity in addition to a retirement pension. People are happy with what we offer because it will allow them to accumulate an additional income. Finally, it proposes the abolition of the pension bonus by 1 January 2015.

I would like to quickly review these different measures to highlight their full relevance and demonstrate how they are needed to safeguard our pension system, as well as to increase the employment of our seniors. The objectives are shared well beyond the banks of the majority. As always, it is sometimes difficult to take steps that everyone finds good at the time they are taken. Some will be satisfied afterwards.

The first measure, namely the gradual abolition of the diploma bonus by 2030, is part of a gradual harmonisation of the conditions of career duration to be met for access to early retirement in the different schemes. This will align the public sector with what the private sector or self-employed already know. This is not an extraordinary measure.

During certain periods, differences in treatment have been established. And today, what we see in the public sector is that we have statutory and a lot of contractual. And in the same sector, there are workers who, depending on their status, do not have the same benefits. With this measure, we put everyone on an equal footing.

I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a gradual removal from 1 January 2016, which will only apply for the only career condition to retire early. However, the bonus will continue to be taken into account in the calculation of the pension of the civil servants. Therefore, it is not correct to claim that these officials will receive an equivalent pension for a longer career. It is not the same thing.

Yes, public sector workers will work longer, but they will receive a higher pension in connection with the additional contributions paid.

I would also like to emphasize that the government has given the social concertation all the trust it deserves, since the government has amended its initial project following this social concertation. This means, therefore, that the government, despite what some claim, is not deaf to the arguments of society, trade unions, employers or other levels of power, especially if they are justified and constructive.

I would like to return to what you said before talking about social co-operation. You told us that there would be no impact on the calculation of the pension. I would like you to explain this to us. You say that there is no impact on the calculation of the pension, and at the same time you announce that there will be 240 million savings by 2029.

This obviously means that the situation will change. People, for the same length of career, will have lower pensions. This is basic mathematics. You can tell your story as you want. When 240 million euros are saved, they are obviously directly on the pensions of the persons concerned, who will have changed the system.

You speak more generally. I’m talking about the bonus on diploma.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

I did not understand what you mean. I tell you that there is a gradual removal, of course, at some point, but that it will come into the account of the pension, in the calculation of the pension of the civil servants.

I don’t think you understand what I mean. I don’t even think you understand exactly the effects of the project. (Brouhaha) by

Do you understand what Ms. Fonck meant?

It is very simple. I will start by being even more flat zak. I don’t think you understand the effects of the bill. In the new system as it will exist tomorrow, the pensioner will receive a proportionally lower pension for the same number of years than a pensioner who is still subject to the current regulation. From the moment you have to lend a greater number of years, when you leave your job after the same duration of career, you will necessarily have a lower pension. It is obviously on the back of these pensioners, these workers today and tomorrow retired, that you save those 240 million euros, because if there was no impact on the calculation of the pension, you would obviously not save 240 million euros.

When you say this, you make a demonstration. We talked about January 1, 2016. Those who gradually go there will work longer but this bonus will remain in the calculation of their pension. You count the 240 at the end.

People are directly involved.

I will provide you with additional information later.

In addition to what Ms. Fonck has just said, we are not talking about those who will not have the opportunity to recover the number of lost years because they will be stopped by the retirement age. Therefore, if they lose, for example, seven years of bonus, they will not necessarily have the opportunity to lend those seven additional years. They can lose in terms of amounts.

The case you mentioned may actually happen to some people.

There is more than you think.

I can’t tell you how many there will be. Not even you!

by [...]

You have taken steps in previous governments. If you could have predicted the future, you probably ⁇ ’t have taken the steps you took on unemployment!

Thus, the bill that is submitted to us modules the rate of removal according to the number of years of study. It also introduces a transitional measure to extend to persons aged 55 years and older the limitation of the number of additional years of work. This measure will avoid penalizing those closest to the retirement age and thus enable everyone to make the best arrangements to better manage their career end.

The government wanted to prevent some people who were in availability prior to retirement from being able to claim it. The maintenance of the diploma bonus will therefore be granted to all those who were, at their request, in a position of total or partial availability prior to retirement or in a similar situation.

The same applies to those who had submitted an application before 1 January 2015 as well as those who, on 1 January 2015, were in the conditions to take a leave prior to retirement, but who continued to work. In fact, we did not want to penalize the choice of officials willing to continue working and serving for a few additional years, while legitimately, they could already have been in conditions to be arrested.

The second point of this bill that ⁇ pleases us, liberals, is the removal of the ceiling of the cumulative income generated by a professional activity with a public sector pension. We will be rewarding...

I return to your first point. People will have to work between six months and three years longer than they do today and, in my opinion, this may be more depending on the situation. You said there would be no change in their pensions. You did not provide any answer or additional arguments on this subject.

If you work between six months and three more years, then you will need to work between six months and three more years to get the same level of income. In other words, those who will not extend their careers will retire faster and therefore will not have a full career. They will be sanctioned in terms of their income. Is there a loss at the calculation level, compared to a similar duration in the current system? The answer is obviously “Yes”!

You mentioned a very special case.

This applies to all cases and not one in particular. The minister himself said there would be between six months and three years for all. This is how you can save 240 million.

But you can compensate for it. I will not go back, I will not convince you.

I return to the ceiling of cumulating income generated by professional activity with a public sector pension. Today, we will be able to reward in an appropriate legislative framework those who wish to continue to work beyond the age of 65 or after 45 years of service. This government, this majority, thus intends to revaluate the work and reward those who will work longer. Again, he holds his word, since with this measure we will align the regimes of workers and self-employed.

I can assure you that some public sector workers are delighted with this measure. We all know that we are living longer and healthier, especially in the public sector. That’s why our group can only look forward to the further strengthening of the right to remain active, ⁇ through work, beyond the retirement age. It is also our commitment, in parallel, to take care of those who want to take a well-deserved rest at the age they can do so, while being able to count on a decent income.

I come to the third point. The bill that is being submitted to us provides for the abolition of the pension bonus. Studies have shown that it does not encourage people to work longer. This is a choice that the government has made. I know you don’t agree, but that’s the choice of the majority.

I have also been in the opposition; I respect it.

In exchange, it was therefore decided to abolish this measure while retaining the right to the bonus for those – and again, it is complex – who before December 1, 2014 entered into the conditions of an early pension and those who, aged 65, would justify a career of at least 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, for several years, many are those and those, whether it is the National Commission of Pensions set up during the previous legislature, the institutions, the ministers including a former minister sp.a, who are ringing the alarm.

It is time to act on our pensions, especially if we want to secure our pension system. We have no choice.

I heard Mr. Van Hees spoke of solidarity. We are sensitive to this; don’t think the opposite. We must make necessary and courageous decisions. The only ones that will allow us to increase the employment rate of the elderly and above all to guarantee future generations the right to retirement that is so dear to us.

Madame de Coster, when you say that in public service and in public services, work is easier, lighter, and softer, I think you have a wrong view of reality. In some sectors, the tension is very strong. There is not only physical pain but also mental pain. This is the case for teachers or those who work at the public service offices. I can talk about it: my partner is in the case. The work is very hard and upsetting. Learn about the real social situations of people!

With regard to the pension bonus, your argument is to say that the majority has decided. This is a slightly weak argument. Why was this bonus adopted? At the time of the Covenant of Generations, in a government of which your party was also a member, it was adopted to pass the pill of this Covenant, to already make people work longer and to tackle pre-emption.

The pill has passed. Today, this bonus is no longer useful. These are your words. The pill was handed over to the workers. The workers fought against this Generation Pact. They did not gain cause. The struggle continues and it is not over.

You lied to the workers by saying that you were attacking pre-pension but that they would get the pension bonus. Today you are removing it. You have also lied to them about public pensions. When people engage in public service, they are told, for example, that they will have a diploma bonus. We know the conditions in which we will work, and then you change them.

Your policy towards public servants is therefore completely illegitimate.

Mr. Van Hees, various studies have demonstrated that the retirement bonus had not made people work longer. He did not encourage them. There were other proposals, such as a malus. The government did not hold them. The government has made another choice. This does not correspond to what you think. Let me say it: when you say “I,” it’s not me who was there before.

I know the social realities of public service. I said that all workers in the public sector ⁇ rather satisfactory working conditions. I did not say that there are no workers in the public sector who are in conditions of penibility. This is another debate. The Minister has pledged to talk about this problem, but it is not today that we will discuss it.

Teachers are concerned by these measures and by these attacks on public pensions. Are teachers not in a sector whose painfulness is recognized by all? They will not be entitled to these bonuses. Don’t say it’s another debate. We are in full debate. Teachers are a very good example.

The Minister has pledged to return to this problem of penibility and will determine who are the workers who occupy a so-called painful position.

Will teachers be involved? Will the bill voted today not apply to teachers? Will their work be included in the list of hard jobs?

I don’t know if it’s really the teachers who are upset because we hear everything! And it’s not by saying something wrong several times that it becomes right.

You are right, Mr Minister.

This is the case of my colleague and friend Frédéric Daerden who has not stopped repeating since the beginning of this session that we will reduce the amount of pensions. This has never been discussed and it is not written anywhere!

This is obviously not in the intentions of the government since the purpose of the pension reform is to consolidate the system and ensure that the generations that follow us continue to receive proper pensions. This is the issue. We must stop distilling the anxiety and anxiety! What is the purpose of this way of proceeding?

The left today is influenced by its master thinking of the PTB. Whether this is the CDH, the PS, the Ecolos, the master to think is Mr. and Hedebouw. Congratulations, Mr. Hedebouw, you are the master thinking of the left today! But it is a passing left, conservative, who does not take responsibilities, who does not want to take them. This is the reality!

I would like to speak at the end of the discussions because it seemed more logical to me. But when I hear the counter-truths sounded today, I have to react!

For example, Mr. Hedebouw as the more we work, the more our life expectancy decreases. It is exactly the opposite when we look at the numbers!

by [...]

Mr. Hedebouw, let the others speak! I know it is difficult in extremist parties, but it must be done!

In terms of longevity today, Belgium, in the ranking, is 28th, with a longevity of 81 years, with an effective outcome of work at 59 years, the lowest of all industrialised countries. In the ranking, all European countries are ahead of us, with a few exceptions. Take the case of Iceland, where the output from work is the highest: 68 years. This country is 7th in the ranking, with 83.3 years of longevity. Nearest to us, two countries of the South, Italy and Spain, with a longevity for Italy of 83.1 years, an effective outcome of work at 61,5 years, Spain, 82,5 years and the effective outcome of work 63 years. Sweden ranks ninth in this ranking with a longevity of 83 years and an effective age for leaving work of 65 years. So stop saying anything!

This will not grow our parliament or our political system. Stop deceiving people, making disinformation! This is what you do!

I will only take an example as a response to the attack of Mr. The Minister . Removing the pension bonus does not mean decreasing the amount of the pension?

What is the current balance of the few steps we have taken in this government in terms of revaluing the pension system? We will effectively remove the pension bonus for an amount of 18 million euros. At the same time, in the distribution of the welfare envelope, for the years 2015 and 2016, we will increase by 500 million the minimum pensions, vacation payments for pensioners and small minima. Make a balance of what we do!

I recall that in the previous government, and we assume it, we had increased the welfare envelope by 250 million for the years 2013 and 2014. Today we are doing double. I’m not saying it’s because you’re no longer there. I leave you judges.

The pension bonus, as I have previously had the opportunity to explain, contrary to what Mr. Daerden tells... Because they are stories! You take the example of the 60-year-old teacher who, because she does not have her pension bonus, at 65 years old, loses 2,200 euros of pension. 187 euros per month for five years. It is true. At 60 years old, she can’t get a pension. Someone in the public office today can retire at 61 years old and with at least 41 years of career. She must wait one year to be eligible for the pension bonus, that is, in the present case, at 62 years of age. Two-fifths of what you say. And so on!

I know the technique. A famous politician of the Socialist Party, if I am not mistaken, in the preparation of his speeches, in the case of a false argument, indicated on the margins "repeat several times or scream loudly". This is a well-known technique. It is not for this reason that it provides the truth.

As you know, I’m not going to repeat Mr. Mr. Speech yet. Gilkinet, because he will become a star for being cited – Mr. Gilkinet himself, in commission, said that the pension bonus serves high pensions, and that it serves nothing in fact. I understand that there is a certain divergence in the left and that Mr. Hedebouw, your master to all, is not always followed 100%.

I am pleased to hear Mr. The Minister confirmed that the abolition of the pension bonus will reduce the teacher’s pension. He plays on two-fifths of the amount, and one can refine the calculations together, but he just admitted the principle. This is already an important element. Beyond that, he talks proudly about the well-being envelope. The principle was created before this government and it was not to compensate for the index jump and the removal of the pension bonus, it was to contribute to the increase of purchasing power!

Mr. Minister, you are right in saying that by the force of repeating things, it does not make them more true. I’ve heard you repeat the same thing for three to four months and it’s not much more true!

It’s been two or three months since we’ve been out of studies, figures to support, and you’re unable to refute any figure that we’re putting forward today with the PTB’s study office. Why Why ? Because the numbers are true.

You systematically highlight the figure of 59 years to leave the job market in Belgium. You know that is false. The figure you gave to the European Commission is 61 years old. In the commission, you told me that you took the OECD figure. Can you confirm that the figure you gave to the European Commission is 61 years old? It changes everything! Because we are in the middle. You use numbers to prove your ideological theses that you need to work longer. The minimum age for leaving the job market in Belgium is 61 years old.

Take the example of Italy and Spain. You must emphasize that the productivity in Belgium, as well as the intensity of work, are qualitatively different from that of these countries. Productivity like that in Belgium has a price! You need to know this as a doctor. This price is compot back, musculoskeletal disorders, stress-related disorders. It is in order to be able to compensate for this productivity and the fact that all these workers are tired at the end of their careers that we must continue to give them the right to leave the job market a little earlier to be able to blow.

This is the reality and you cannot convince the public opinion! The whole public opinion is against your measures to make you work longer. This is what you are afraid of! And you are right to be afraid of the social movement because it will not land today. He will continue the struggle because in Belgium, with 600,000 unemployed workers, it is illogical to ask workers to work longer!

I would like to return to your picture. The European benchmarking comparison table.

You talked about life prediction. It is important, in my opinion, to compare the forecasts of a healthy life. However, the life forecasts you refer to are general life forecasts.

Your table shows an extremely important, or even essential element. The average retirement age in Belgium is 59 years. It is one of the lowest at European level. This is how you justify – you still reiterate this argument – the increase of the statutory retirement age that you increase from 65 to 66 and then to 67 years, citing the fact that all other European countries have increased the statutory retirement age more significantly. Certainly, but they did not start from the same situation as ours since the average retirement age there was much higher than ours.

This point is primary. If reforms should be made in the field of pensions, we should not increase the statutory retirement age by making it 66 and 67 years, but rather work on one of our weaknesses, namely the employment rate individually between 55 and 65 years in order to increase the average retirement age, which can no longer be 59 years.

It was necessary to emphasize all incentive and positive policies, whether qualitative or budgetary, to increase the average retirement age. But justifying, as you do, the transition from the legal age to retirement at 66 and 67 years, based on a European comparison, does not stand the way. In fact, I repeat that the average starting age at European level is significantly higher than ours.

This is not the heart of today’s debate, but it is the heart of the pension debate. This is a point that, for me, is essential and on which this government has not so far advanced. I mean here all the articulation policies on employment and pension, that is, to be more concrete, all the positive incentive, qualitative and budgetary policies aimed at increasing the employment rate among the 55-65 years old. This should be part of the policy to be carried out. The government has done nothing about this so far.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to return briefly to the pension bonus. This government always takes the Pension Commission as an example and talks about plans. We have argued several times that you explain some things, while you — and the chairman of that committee has repeated this many times — should look at the whole, because it all depends on one another. However, you do not do that, you only take out what is useful for you. And you know very well what I am talking about.

Let us discuss, among other things, the abolition of the pension bonus. According to the Pension Commission, this is the worst thing you can do. If one wants to encourage people to work longer — this is also the point, Ms. Fonck, it is not just about raising the age — then that is also an essential component. You say to follow the pension commission and get your elements from there. However, there are some elements from the Pension Commission that you do not take into account, such as funding, heavy occupations, social consultation and broad support. With regard to the retirement bonus, you now say that it is not important and that it is actually a bad system.

If you take the Pension Commission as an example, then I suggest that you take all the elements, but not only those that suit you well. You do cherry picking and extract those elements that fit you well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Ms. Fonck that I have not mentioned the actual retirement age of 59 years as regards the statutory retirement age. This is not the matter of the day.

I would like to answer one of Mr. Hedebouw, your master to think, who says that longevity is proportional to the actual retirement age. This is not true, either in one way or the other. In Belgium, we have an effective retirement at the age of 59. This will increase slightly as we have taken action with the previous government and we continue to take action with the current government.

I hope we go a little higher. I rely on the lists currently published by Eurostat and the OECD, and not on the studies sponsored by the PTB. I didn’t even need to criticize this study: all the somewhat serious experts, including members of the Pension Reform Commission, chaired by Mr. Vandenbroucke, they did it for me by saying that it was not based on any serious basis.

In Belgium, the actual retirement age is 59 years and longevity is 81 years. In many countries, longevity is higher, as is the retirement age. I am only noticing. This analysis should be refined, further studies should be conducted, as this depends on the health system and other factors. But it is false to say that automatically, when you raise the retirement age, you decrease longevity. This is disinformation.

I understand that you cultivate such notions as propaganda, disinformation, manipulation. This is always the case with extremist parties. However, these methods seem very controversial to me and I can’t agree with that.

Mrs. Fonck, today we are not holding the debate of the 67-year-old, but I understand well your argument. You assume that since the actual retirement age in Belgium is low, the statutory retirement age should not be increased. This is obviously completely false. Indeed, it is mainly because foreign countries have planned to raise the legal retirement age that they have gradually pulled all ages and careers upwards. This is the result achieved in other European countries, and I would like to point out that if you want to reach the average effective retirement at 63.5 years in the OECD, you will not have everyone to work until 63. There are long careers, there are exceptions. There are people who will continue to work until 60 and 61 and that’s normal as they have careers started earlier. This is mainly due to the length of the career. There are people who started working at 16, 17 or 18. Unfortunately, they will not be allowed to work until 63.5 years, which is the European average. If you want to keep that average, there must necessarily be a part that works three years more, since there is a part that works three years less. It is mathematical.

If you don’t do that, you’ll never get that 63.5 year average. Therefore, it is necessary to be logical in the analysis that is being done. People who have heavy jobs or have started very early should be allowed to retire earlier. Indeed, we believe that someone who has a tough physical job and who started at 16 should not work until 67, or even 63 years old. If you want to allow the inclination to be taken into account, there must also be a part of it, which is far from being the majority, who works until 65, 66 or 67 years. That’s the real debate and that’s how to look at things with some logic and some coherence.

I would like to act as Mr. The minister spoke of commission in relation to the fact that he possibly paid an academic for the studies carried out. I am disappointed with this kind of argument and I would prefer that you stay on the scientific level to try to refute the studies provided by the PTB. Unfortunately, you do not do it.

I come to my second point. I think the parliament should know it, you said it in the committee. I’m not saying we’re going to be 61 years old. I mean that in the White Paper on the ageing of the European Union, the figure given by Belgium is 61.2 years for men. Can you confirm this number here at the parliamentary level? We must stop making us believe that the 59-year-old figure is the only one that circulates. You take the number that arranges you. You said yourself that this was the OECD figure. The White Paper on the Ageing of the European Union. Can you confirm to the assembly that the average starting age is 61.2 years? I showed you the picture. You told me that this number was actually returned but that you would rather take another number, different from that one.

There is obviously a margin between the different figures from Eurostat, the OECD, studies on aging. The figures also vary depending on whether you consider retirement or leaving outside the actual work activity, which are two different things. Obviously, criteria that are not exactly comparable result in different figures.

It is true that in the last two years, ⁇ as a result of the measures we have taken and my predecessors have taken, the average actual retirement age tends to increase. and fortunately. This is also the case in other countries. The average of European countries tends to increase as well. We are still one of the “bad students” in this area.

We must take into account this particular situation of Belgium. Not taking this into account would be irresponsible, I think. I invite everyone to analyze the situation objectively and to take the necessary measures. So far, I hear much of the opposition criticizing all the measures we propose, but I do not hear any constructive proposal to make the system evolve. So far, I have never heard anything. This is really worrying.

I would like to say to Ms. Fonck that she is obviously right: the pension reform cannot be isolated from the labour market reform, from the employment issue, etc. This is what the government is resolutely doing. The priority of the government is to promote employment policies, to promote the competitiveness of companies, to reduce the burdens that weigh on work, and thus to promote the creation of jobs in our country. This is the priority goal of this government and the pension reform is never but part of this priority goal.

Other European countries did not change the statutory retirement age when the average retirement age was 59 years. They did so much later. Taking advantage of the attitude of other European countries that would have raised the statutory retirement age beyond 65 years when they had a situation like ours in Belgium, let me tell you that this is inaccurate.

You do not make it a possibility. You could have made it a faculty for those who want to go beyond 65 years of age. You do it, by the way. But you do not only make it a faculty: you make it an obligation, since it is the legal age, the ceiling, that is raised. This means that in fact, those who today went to the end, i.e. up to 65 years old, who were among those who already made the most effort, will be punished and will have, while they already make much more effort, to go to 67 years old.

Mr. Minister, I see very well that the discourse of the government, and ⁇ yours, has evolved in recent times. A few months ago you said that you would raise the statutory retirement age to 66 and then to 67 years and that this would affect a large majority of people. Over time, you have evolved and you say, a little embarrassed, that there will be only 10% of people who will have to work at 66 and then at 67.

We have made many alternative proposals. One of them is a major issue, which you do not understand at this government level, and concerns the employment of 55 to 65 years old. You say that you are lowering social charges but with the index, we are still far from a real tax reform to reduce the cost of labor in terms of taxes and social charges.

Beyond that, where are the employment and pension articulation policies for the elderly? If you don’t – and all experts agree – and if you don’t make these end-of-career adjustments, workers won’t get their retirement because you’ve changed the rules but they won’t continue working either. They will then go into a disability regime. There, there will be nothing gained in terms of increasing the actual retirement age. However, this is obviously the struggle that must be able to lead in a positive way if we want to carry out not only ambitious but also effective pension reforms.

As part of this project, I would like to reiterate the fact that it is part of a coherent and comprehensive set that will be added to this first measure. It binds the various majority parties that have signed the government agreement. The government has taken responsibility, the Minister has just responded to you.

Finally, within the framework of social consultation, in order to prevent reforms from taking the worker by surprise, transitional measures were planned. This will help to expand and better take into account pensions.

We believe that this reform is responsible and proportionate, but above all absolutely necessary to protect future generations. We believe that this project respects officials by also organising this transition between the old and the new regime.

I would like to tell you, Ms. Fonck, that this reform is part of a series of other measures taken – as Mr. Fonck pointed out. the Minister - by the previous governments, then supported by the PS, the sp.a and the cdH. Some seem to have forgotten that, during the previous legislature, the pension bonus system had been revised, that the amounts had been recalculated and that the conditions for access to early pension had already been reformed to increase the employment rate of the elderly. We need to know what is true. At that time, you were in the majority. Those measures then passed much easier.

So what is our goal? It is about making public servants work a little longer, but above all to protect our social security system and, more specifically, our pension system.

Mr. Speaker, we have just discussed a number of measures concerning workers’ pensions in the last half of the year, while the present draft is actually the first one concerning public sector pensions. This reflects the reforms that are underway for this group. The agreements made in the government agreement on this matter are currently in place.

Of course, not all measures are equally pleasant. What I hear on the ground, however, is mainly the question of clarity. Many people understand that they need to work longer, but they want to know what they are doing. This is an important part of the project that is being presented today. We clearly say that longer working is one element in this. At the same time, we seek to reduce the disparities between the systems of employees, self-employed persons and civil servants. We also want to anticipate steps in this regard. These steps are moving in the right direction, but we still need to work on it. I hope this can go operational quickly, with the advice of the newly established Pension Committee, with the discussion of the heavy-duty professions, in dialogue and consultation with the social partners. That is an important additional component in today’s discussion.

What are the concrete measures? That has already been said clearly: the gradual reduction and ultimate abolition of the diploma bonification for officials. This deduction takes place at the expense of being able to retire earlier, from calculating the career, but not for calculating the amount of pension. After all, that does not decrease: the two, three, four or five years of studies can still be added to the calculation of the amount of pension. This brings us a little closer to the equation between the different systems. After all, today there is also the possibility for employees and self-employed persons to regularise the years of study, but that regularization does not count for the career. She does not expect to be able to retire earlier. It counts, provided pay, for employees within ten years, and self-employed persons can apply for their regularization before the end of their careers. This also does not apply to career calculations.

This is an important element in the whole. I hope that we can ⁇ further equalization.

There is a gradual abolition of this bonus depending on the duration of study, it is a progressive reduction. We hope that this will not lead to discrimination between the different groups.

I think everyone is satisfied with the click system: those who stayed working longer but were eligible for a bonus retain that right to early retirement, including that bonus. That is an important element in preventing people from wanting to retire faster than they planned.

As for the availability scheme, education was also referred to earlier. It is important that we do not create a vacuum for those who would have been placed on availability, but who are faced with the fact that they have to wait to be able to retire early because the diploma bonification is slowly being decomposed.

We are also pleased with the scheme – this is ⁇ true for those involved in education – in which people before 1 January, if they were eligible before 2 September of that year, can effectively enjoy that availability scheme. We find it important that everyone is treated equally, and that equality and non-discrimination are not raised, but that this criterion of September can also be effectively used.

In addition to this scheme concerning the diploma bonification, the unlimited additional earnings are subject to the same scheme as was provided for the employees. What is especially important here is that the sanction is no longer being used as before. If you earned 15% or 25% too much, you lost everything. That proportionality is, in my opinion, a very important element, even for those who are not eligible for this unlimited gain.

There has been regular discussion about the pension bonus. This has also been mentioned in the framework of the employee system. There are two possibilities. Either one wants to stimulate longer work by introducing a pension malus, in addition to a pension bonus, which was pushed forward by the expert committee, or one continues with what was started in the previous legislature.

This means continuing to increase the age for early retirement, so that even those who go earlier should not swallow malus. I think this is an important element that one should take into account in giving the bonus that we do not persist.

I would also like to emphasize the relativity of this. Before the government-Di Rupo, one received 2.2 euros per day on which one met the conditions and continued to work longer. During the previous legislature, we all voted in favour of the removal of that bonus. First, one had to work a year longer and, secondly, one could not get 2.2 euros per day, but started with an amount of 1.5 euros. They had to work three years longer before they got the 2.2 euros. The removal was therefore implemented. That is an important nuance that we should take into account in the story of abolishing that bonus or reducing the chances and opportunities to work longer.

Of course, more workable work is needed and of course, it is necessary that an appeal is made to employers to create opportunities for workers in the way they are organized, so that even those over fifty get effective opportunities. It also means a different mentality of everyone, of employers and employees, also of colleagues among each other, also of young colleagues or forty who no longer look at fifty-fifty-plus as being those who have been depreciated. This requires a major mental change.

This draft is already in place and we will vote on it later. However, there are other important files that are still under discussion, including in close consultation with the social partners. This applies both to the public sector and, for example, in the framework of the newly established Pension Commission for the heavy occupations and others.

Mr. Minister, I would also like to draw your special attention to the minimum pensions in the context of mixed careers. In these, there is still a link to public pensions. The Government Agreement also stipulates that the calculation of the minimum pension for mixed careers should be worked. At the same time, work should also be done on the mixed minimum pension, which is still much lower than the minimum pension for employees and the minimum pension for self-employed, which has been raised to the minimum pension for workers. The mixed minimum pension, for those who have a mixed career, still remains a lot lower. Mr. Minister, I hope that you will also, in good consultation with the social partners, quickly take action on this, and that this precedes other elements that should be provided in the future in the context of the implementation of this government agreement. In this way, it can create a support level, even among those with lower incomes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I can join you on the question of whether pensions should be reformed. It is obvious! But do we agree with you? There is more than a nuance. I submit to you the definition of the term "reform" according to Petit Larousse: "Reform is to make something undergo important changes aimed at improving it."

Obviously, you confuse reform with suspending, or even removing. We already mentioned this yesterday during the discussions that covered the bill on the promotion of employment and especially the index jump. In fact, in the same way as in the case of pensions, you decide to suspend the formations instead of reforming them, improving them and therefore being able to reform in a positive way.

In this project, we do not improve the provisions, we remove the diploma bonus and more, the pension bonus. You have decided not to reform.

Of course, reforms involve efforts by all, but they must be fair and, above all, the measures to be taken must be balanced. In this project, this is not the case. This project is even the reflection of two evils that this government suffers from: the first is the lack of long-term strategy vision and the second is the lack of timely questioning. I will discuss these different points.

This bill is symptomatic of the evil that the government suffers, namely the lack of a strategic vision on labour, pensions and the articulation between the two, because the fundamental challenge is that of having to increase the employment rate of older workers.

Do people want to work longer? I think so, but as long as they are truly motivated – whether it be workers, but also employers – and also as long as we can pursue encouraging and positive policies for the employment of the elderly. The challenge is to bring their retirement age, now on average 59 years, closer to the legal retirement age, which is 65 years.

Mr. Minister, you are going to tell me that this is not the topic of the day, but I think you have taken the habit of saucissing subjects that should rather be considered and reformed in a homogeneous way. The scandal that you are facing is not enough to build people’s confidence. You hurry to take negative and punitive actions, but you delay in taking those that are supposed to counterbalance them.

I’ll give you a very interesting example, which relates to heavy jobs. I will read the chapter of the government agreement on pension reform, in which this theme is addressed: “The government undertakes to take, in consultation with the social partners, specific provisions on pensions for heavy jobs in the private sector – self-employed and self-employed – and in the public sector.” If you wanted to work according to a general logic, it was obviously necessary to come, now or later, but then this project could wait, with various agreements made with the social partners about heavy jobs.

This is not the position you have taken, Mr. Speaker. Instead of presenting measures that can more convince citizens to work longer, you are bringing small packages filled with negative and punitive measures.

And you continue to do so since, as of April 3, the government adopted preliminary draft laws and royal decrees, including the increase of the statutory retirement age, the conditions for access to early retirement, the increase of the minimum age for survival pension, and this for the three pension schemes.

I said it recently about the statutory retirement age, I remember discussions with the heads of lists of the Hainaut, during which Olivier Chastel had made the very clear commitment not to increase the statutory retirement age. Has the world changed in the last 11 months? and no.

(Comments on the Banks)

How ? The world does not stop changing. But were the pensions policies so different, eleven months ago? The answer is no. How do you then explain these promises and these commitments that you took eleven months ago, Mr. Chastel and Mr. Michel, as well as yourself, Mr. Minister?

You strike in a different way. You strike for your promises, your commitments, your convictions that animated you, only eleven months ago, since you turned 180 degrees about the retirement age. So today you have decided not to respect the commitment you made just a few months ago.

I have recently explained the issues concerning the average retirement age. I will not repeat myself.

The second evil that this government suffers is the lack of questioning in time. You have already done it. I think of the speed with which you had to go back with regard to close caregivers, at the level of royal arrests. I still don’t know if you were mistaken about the removal of the dispense for social or family reasons or if you missed this point. The government had to go back and I am delighted, because this is an option that we had widely suggested and defended.

The example to be taken here, in your text, Mr. Minister, as I pointed out in the commission, is the risk of discrimination. Why Why ? Your project risks creating a discrimination between different persons who have submitted, before September 2, 2015, their application to be placed in pre-retirement availability or in a similar statutory position, and I specifically target teachers.

If they submitted their application before 1 January 2015 and received a favorable response from their employer before that date, they are at risk of being discriminated against people who also submitted their application before this famous deadline. They will therefore be in exactly the same situation, but some will not have received a response from their employer before 1 January 2015. Therefore, we are also dealing with situations today, which are retroactive on 1 January 2015. Teachers who will be in exactly the same situation, the same reality, who will have had the same careers, who will have met the same conditions to be put into availability, may or may not be placed in availability prior to retirement or in a similar statutory situation, simply because their employer has or will not have made their decision. This appears to be contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination that are contained in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The categories are comparable.

We have proposed in the committee to make corrections so that there is no unjustified discrimination. We proposed to take into account not the date of approval by the employer, but the date of introduction of the application. This would prevent all unjustified discrimination and distinction between teachers or other members of the public service placed in completely comparable situations.

You have addressed a number of justifications in commission; these are absolutely not convincing. Indeed, you argued that this was not an authentic act and "that this was never done." And yet yes! This procedure is used in other legislations, such as that of 28 December 2011, or simply, in the field of public service pensions, where the criterion used is that of the application to the employer, provided of course that this application has been, in a second time, approved by the employer.

Therefore, your argument invoked in the commission does not matter.

This project clearly introduces discrimination and it will need to be corrected. But in the meantime, he will have done some damage. It is also regrettable that you were waiting for the evil to be done and maybe a judgment to be made by the Constitutional Court.

In this way I come to the various measures of your bill on which I will not extend long.

The gradual removal of the diploma bonus from 2016, as I told your MR colleague recently, allows you to save €240 million at the expense of the retirees of tomorrow and after tomorrow.

Dear colleagues, I do not know if you have received the mail from the National Union of Public Services (UNSP), the Finance sector, which conducted an investigation with its staff. This survey shows that 88% of this staff is totally opposed to the pensions reforms we are discussing today. The UNSP also denounces a point that has not yet been discussed. Thus, the job offers issued by the State, therefore, especially by you, Mr. Minister, but also by the Minister of Finance, specify that grades bonuses will be taken into account. Now, you are removing these promised bonuses retroactively. This is, therefore, a form of contract breach by the employing state, an interpellant practice about which, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues of the majority, it would be interesting to hear you.

I have no doubt that you have received this mail which has been widely spread and that, by doing so, you will tell us your view of things. I heard, just recently, Mr. say how proud he was of this project. I do not know whether he can boast of this breach of contract by the employing state, which, however, was committed to the bonification of diplomas.

Another point I would like to highlight about the bonification of diplomas is the overlap of several reforms. Again, this affects the teaching staff but also the non-rolling staff of the SNCB whose numerous numbers are expressed in the 55th. Why Why ? Because they will suffer a double penalty through the cumulation and concomitance, between 2016 and 2018, of the implementation of both the reform in project in its component "progressive reduction of the valorization of the years of graduation for the calculation of the duration of the career that opens the right to early pension", but also of the component "career conditions for the opening of the right to early pension of the 2011 reform".

When we made this reform in 2011, we agreed, but that it would first have to wait for it to come into force before adding any other condition for further tightening. In this case, this is what you did not do because you give an additional screw round, even though the 2011 reform has not yet entered into force for all part of the staff of the Public Service

This also means that, compared to the commitment you take in this bill, Mr. Minister, where there would be a postponement of only 4, 5 or 6 months in 2016, 8, 10 or 12 months in 2017 or 12, 15 or 18 months in 2018, you will be, for all these people, far beyond the promises you have made yet and which are also contained directly in your bill.

Regarding the removal of income ceilings in case of cumulative with a pension pension for 65-year-old pensioners or for those who have 45 years of career, we consider that this is a positive measure, provided, I said in the commission, that one does not fall into an American system in which additional income is needed to survive.

The second is the abolition of the pension bonus. Should this system be reformed? Yes, of course, and there was material to make it more efficient and efficient. Yes, efforts to gradually increase the actual retirement age and increase the employment rate of workers aged 55 to 65 in all social security schemes must be continued.

But removing the pension bonus, Mr. Minister, goes in the opposite direction of this goal. The current average starting age is 59 years. The challenge, the priority, I said and repeat, is to develop incentive policies for workers but also employers, so that people stay at work, motivated, longer.

No new employment policies are in place to extend the career time of older workers. It is a pity! Per ⁇ , Mr. Minister, you’ll tell me you’ll come later with that. But this government is really, more and more, the points that hurt, brutality, and we announce for later, without too well seeing when, other elements that could then prove productive and effective.

With the lifting of the pension bonus, the Minister will generate savings of €16 million. This seems ridiculous compared to the benefits that a proactive policy to raise the average effective retirement age, now at 59, and bring it closer to 65.

Finally, Mr. Minister, you know that I have pledged, and I am also submitting the amendment again, so that dramatic situations on the human level can be taken into account. I have heard many of my colleagues join me. The aim is to eliminate the cumulation of a pension with a replacement income. For example, a public service employee can work 10 hours a week as a statutory employee and another 10 hours as a contractual employee. If the person becomes seriously ill, he or she may be retired as a statutory employee. Previously, a pension could be combined with a disability benefit. Since 2013, a choice has been made and there can be no accumulation, which results in dramatic situations on the human level.

I think you agree, in principle at least. I can here, since our amendment has been rejected, only plead that we can move forward quickly, because these extremely dramatic situations are not minority. On the contrary, there are indeed an insignificant number of people in this situation.

Dear colleagues, I will not be longer than to say that, for all these reasons, we will vote against this bill.

Yes, we are and remain fervent advocates of reforms, which are indispensable in terms of pensions, but by developing a positive and relevant vision, not by depositing fragments of legislation that are of a penalizing nature. We want an incentive policy aimed at raising the employment rate of the elderly, especially those between the ages of 55 and 65.

There are several tools in this case, whether it is qualitative adjustments at the end of the career or tax incentives for employers. I would like to hope that Mr. The Minister of Employment, you will, sometime next day, finally develop a positive strategic vision in terms of employment of the elderly. If you do not, all of these people will be either disabled or even unemployed. Then, we will have gained nothing from the point of view of pension reforms, which are indispensable for the future.

We have already had an interesting debate this afternoon on the bill on public sector pensions, which we have been discussing for a while now.

We face a lot of challenges in terms of ageing. At the beginning of the discussion, the figures were mentioned. They are not lying. In 2014, we spent $40 billion on pensions. By 2019, that amount will rise to 48 billion, or 1.7 billion more annually. The challenge, therefore, is enormous: it covers the public finances and needs to provide for full-fledged pensions. If we don’t get more people to work and we don’t expand the level of support for the financing of social security and pensions, then of course we can’t provide a decent and sufficiently high pension for the statutory pensioners. We need to broaden the base.

For years, we have been lagging behind in Europe in terms of the employment of the elderly in our labour market. This was discussed extensively this afternoon. Not long ago, Belgium fell almost completely behind, with a effectiveness rate of 35% among those over 55. Thanks to the measures taken by the previous and current governments, that rate of effectiveness has already risen to 41% and is still rising. This is due to a number of measures in the private sector, with which we are gradually tightening the bridge pension system.

Measures are also needed in the public sector. Of course, it is always difficult to reverse certain privileges that exist in statutes. It is not obvious or easy to convey that message. However, it is also not correct for those who do not have the status of officials that the rules on early withdrawal from the labour market would be tightened, while that would not be the case for officials. The bill also aims to extend the rules to the public sector, as longer working hours are also a necessity.

Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the debate also takes place in the light of a not insignificantly increased life expectancy. In 20 years, the life expectancy in Belgium, both for men and for women, increased statistically by two years. The average life expectancy for men and women is now 80 years together. For five years, we actually live half a year longer. The major pension reform, which is actually anticipated by the government and described in the government agreement, must be completed by 2030. By 2030, the statutory retirement age will rise, but also the life expectancy will rise again by two years. Against this background, very nuanced measures are actually being taken, in transitional phases, in order not to bruise people. There is a need to keep people working longer to secure our pensions.

What is in the draft law? First, the Diploma Bonification, which has already been discussed in detail, is gradually eradicated. The Diploma Bonification consists in the fact that officials who require a bachelor or master's degree to be appointed to an office of level B, respectively level A, the study years were counted free of charge for both access to early retirement and for the calculation of the pension. There is no other statutory pension system in our country for which such a free time bonus system exists for diplomas. The time bonus is equal to the minimum number of years required to obtain the diploma at the time of delivery of the diploma. That varies between two and three years for a bachelor and between four and five years for a master, with outlets up to twelve years for physicians-specialists.

The Government Agreement agreed that from 2016 a phase-out of the Diploma Bonification for Early Retirement would take place with six months per calendar year. That intention has already been encrypted, which also proves that one is not deaf to the call from the social field. There was a social consultation. There has been no agreement with the social partners, but there have been consultations and the plans have been adjusted. In November last year, it was decided to finally start the phase-out only on 1 January 2016. Subsequently, negotiations with the social partners were launched on the rhythm of the phase-out. The result is now that for those who have more than four years of study Diploma Bonification, the graduation will effectively take place at a rate of six months per year. Those who have more than two and less than four years of study bonification, see it gradually out with five months per year.

Eventually, that phase-out will even take place over a period until 2029. The major pension reform will be completed by 2030, a matter that will be discussed a lot in the coming years. Dear colleagues, today, in 2015, we are talking about a phased departure for those who were most benefited, stretching over fourteen years, until 2029. Thus, it is not a brutal measure, it is a phased measure with transitional measures for those who are close to or enjoy their retirement.

It is an exceptional statute, I have already said, and in 2029 we will then come to a consensual statute, in order to logically, in 2030, in the logic of the government agreement, come to a common statute of the workers in that pension system, where everyone will then be treated equally.

Then there is another remarkable element, which was discussed in the committee by our group. Simulations by PDOS and the Federal Planning Office have shown that the diploma subsidy is phased out for entering pension, but not for calculating the pension. That’s important, because the calculations of PDOS and the Federal Planning Office have made it clear that, if one applies that method, the pensions for officials at the end of the ride will be even higher. Their careers will be longer, as they will have access to retirement later, but their pension amount will be higher in the current calculation. In fact, there is nothing wrong with people working longer and ⁇ ining a decent pension, one must, of course, be able to pay for it. That is the logic that is also discussed here.

There are transitional measures for those who are 55, 56, 57 or 58 years old and even 59 in 2016. There are also transitional arrangements for officials in availability, which is important for the education sector. Those who could have exercised rights and who could have retired early and who are in availability will also continue to enjoy the diploma bonus. A fixed-click mechanism has been used in order not to penalize the rights that a person could have exercised and who did not, by working longer. That is the logic that is in the design.

Another element has been an important battle point for our group. What, in the meantime, was already regulated in royal decrees for the workers and self-employed in our country, is the cumulation of pensions with other income from professional activities or replacement income. So far, there were all sorts of rules for cumul. Now, for both employees and self-employed persons, those who reach the age of 65 or have a career of 45 years behind can retain their pension if they also develop an activity. The sanctions for breaches of the lighter cumulative measures are also proportionate and no longer as drastic as before.

In this way, we want to encourage people to remain active, even if they meet the requirements to receive a statutory and full pension. They will be able to earn more after their retirement. Thus, the knowledge of the stakeholders on the labour market will also be ⁇ ined and they will also allow the economy to continue.

There is also the pension bonus. This has already been discussed extensively. Some have previously called that bonus little respectable the pancakes bonus. With that maximum of 2.50 euros that pensioners could get by working longer, they could eat a pancakes with their grandchild. Today, this is not even possible with 2.50 euros.

The bonus will disappear in the future. Nevertheless, the rights remain for those who had opened that right. This measure can get our support. After all, it has never been proven that because of this very limited bonus employees were longer active on the labour market; therefore we had questions about the bonus.

In conclusion, our group will support the bill, as it translates those three measures into legislation in accordance with the government agreement.

Mr. Minister, as yesterday, as part of the discussion on the index jump, the members of the majority strive to pass a measure that is not social in the sense of a better solidarity between all Belgians as being, on the contrary, social and necessary for the preservation of our model.

After decades of social progress, of constitution of rights, we are experiencing an extraordinary acceleration in matters of social regression, the present majority plunging into the gaps created by the Di Rupo government in various matters, notably in terms of pensions with the reform that I just recalled, the reform of late 2011 which, in an uncoordinated, almost wild way, came back on a series of fundamental rights, in particular on the issue of assimilated periods, which benefit mainly women in the accounting and constitution of their pension rights.

We regret it, not because immobilism in terms of pensions is an option, but because there is a way to do differently than what you have decided to do in terms of pensions and that you assume with some goodness, Mr. Minister of Pensions, but this is your role.

What are the problems with pensions? They are triple. The first is obvious, highlighted regularly by the Aging Study Committee for many years. It is related to this joyful phenomenon, which is the increase in life expectancy. We must have enough resources to pay everyone’s pensions tomorrow. Some believe that this is part of the perimeter of public spending, but in the framework that is ours, it is indeed spending on social security, a deferred salary for workers. We all have a responsibility to find a financial solution to be able, tomorrow, to assume the payment of pensions.

The second challenge is that everyone can have an amount of income, once arrived at the pension, allowing them to live a dignified life. The non-linking of social benefits to well-being for more than 30 years, except by stroke, with the means of the welfare envelope, the deflation of the lowest pensions which will be accentuated by the index jump decision, even if it is partially compensated, risk leading too many pensioners to situations of risk of poverty or real poverty in the face of the evolution of their daily spending (health, accommodation, energy, leisure).

We must ensure that everyone receives a sufficient pension. And that’s not what I read in the text today at the exam.

The third issue concerning pensions, related to the job market, is the question of the length of the career. This is what our Groen colleagues call “werkbaar werken”, which can be translated as “making work feasible” throughout the career, depending on the evolution of our physical, intellectual, psychological skills, and depending on the hardness of our work.

You recently cited interesting figures regarding the age of access to pension in other countries. It must be acknowledged that in other countries, we are much more advanced than we are in Belgium, in terms of offering workers functions adapted to the evolution of their age, their physical abilities, allowing them to continue to form throughout their life, to change functions after 50 years.

I think mr. The Minister now knows our attention to the question of the possibility of progressive departure to retirement, of a division of working time among older workers, who accept and are able to continue to work, but ⁇ more full-time, and who could play an economically interesting role of training, tutoring for young workers who would replace them. This could be a way to share the work available between tired older workers and young people who are only asking to have their first work experience.

This has existed since the 2000s in the non-market sector dependent on the French Community and the Walloon Region. This is called the Tandem Plan. We believe that this type of formula can address the third challenge for our pensions: the evolution of the labour market.

I have noted – we have already discussed – that in the government agreement and in your work plan with the National Conference of Pensions the idea of a half-time pension, which may ⁇ approach what we propose; but I find that it is not that project that is currently being considered.

On the contrary, you propose us a reform whose content is unbalanced in relation to profits and losses for future pensioners. You do not compensate for difficult measures by offering rewards such as the ability to gradually leave work. The reform is fragmented.

As part of the pension expert report, you practice cherry picking: you take the reform elements that interest you. At this point, I would say that you are abusing this report, which is scientifically interesting, which is not lacking in useful qualities and work paths.

Where is the realisation of the commitments made to define the heavy jobs, whose workers would benefit from specific conditions of access to pension or calculation of the pension depending on the difficulty of the career? These heavy jobs are also in the public service. Where are those mid-term pension plans that I just talked about? Where is the alternative financing of our pension system, which is also explicitly included in the opinion of the pension specialists who contributed to the report? It is necessary in view of the evolution of the constitution of wealth in our country, less than before by labour, more by financial income that does not contribute in the same way.

Where are these labour market reforms? These are questions I regularly ask your colleague, Mr. Peeters, the goal is to make career more feasible.

The reforms you propose at the level of the public service will hardly affect all of its workers. I think here in particular of the teachers who take care of our children, from kindergarten to university, sometimes in neighborhoods or in more difficult working conditions, to the royal functions, to the security functions, whether it is the police or firefighters, to the officials of the SPF Finance responsible for the correct collection of the tax.

Your colleague, Ms. de Coster, pointed to the inequality between statutory and contractual employees of the public service, considering it logical to harmonize. But why harmonize downwards? Why force everyone to benefit from the least advantageous and, ultimately, the least attractive conditions? Under these conditions, what will be the attractiveness, tomorrow, of a career within the public service?

Generally speaking, we believe that this new reform contributes, as was the case with previous reforms, to arouse citizens’ distrust of our social security system, in this case in terms of pensions. We are witnessing a form of breaking the social contract. We fear – this was evident in the remarks made by our colleague of the N-VA who spoke at the tribune – that this will push citizens further, tomorrow, towards private pension systems.

The second pillar is more collective than the third. The fourth pillar increases inequality. Different studies have indicated that those who receive the best benefits under the second and third pillar and who own real estate receive the best wages, and therefore will benefit from the best statutory pensions. The Matthieu effect increases inequality. This is a costly system as individual savers and companies benefit from specific conditions in terms of tax deduction to constitute these complementary pensions.

It is also a dangerous system, as the global financial crisis has shown us. It is true that in Belgium, we did not know, at this stage, of Belgian pension funds that have gone bankrupt but this exists abroad. We do not want this private pension system to which you seem to us, with the previous majority and this one, to push all our fellow citizens.

We believe that the public pension system of the first pillar is the most efficient and fair. This is the one that needs to be strengthened rather than deforced and made less attractive. This is our analysis, Mr. President. You can not share it.

With this reform, with the other reforms you announce: increasing the age of access to pension, with the reform of Mr. Van Quickenborne and without alternative financing of the system, without correction for the lowest incomes, without evolution of the labour market, you weaken the confidence that citizens can have in our pension system.

More specifically in relation to the Public Service, the reading of the opinions of workers' representative organizations is quite illustrative of how you consider social concertation and of which they may feel betrayed by the Authority. They pointed to the saucissonnage of the "pension" file, the fact of acting before consulting.

The National Pension Conference is not yet in place. The question of standstill, acquired rights and commitments taken by the previous government - a large part of which is also in the current government - of a form of truce after the previous reform, the question of a differentiated regime for the functions for which a diploma is required and which will no longer exist with the abolition of the diploma bonus, ... We do not endorse. We have discussed this often and we will probably still do so regularly. We cannot support the general philosophy underlying this first pension reform for the public pension. Reforms are necessary but different from this one.

I would like to refer more specifically to the three measures contained in the text.

The first is the pension bonus. You make me the honor of quoting me regularly when some colleagues question your decision to remove it. I have said, and I repeat, that the pension bonus as it currently exists is not a redistribution measure, since it benefits more to those with the best pensions. So, Mr. Minister of Pension Reform, the bonus pension must be reformed. You are removing it. It’s a good bleeding, as medicine used to do before. I thought you could have a more subtle approach to the issue.

How to reform it? The amounts would decrease year after year, but the start of the bonus should be fixed much earlier. One of the difficulties is that the first benefit was very late, with lower costs because more progressive. These measures aimed at correcting the amount of pension promised. It was about reforming the system to retain an incentive to work longer, but more efficiently and under different conditions of fiscal sustainability. You have chosen to simply remove the pension bonus as part of a dry savings measure. We do not think this is the best way to act.

The second element of reform, at the expense of which you are much less attentive, is the removal of the income ceiling after retirement. We discussed this in the committee. I asked you to try to find out more. Who is limited, today, in their earnings at the time of retirement? What will be the impact of the measure on youth employment? Like you, I believe that if one is in good physical and psychological health, working long – including as a volunteer – at the time of retirement is a healthy way to stay fit. But admit with me that it is not given to everyone. Recognize with me also that the measure aimed at removing any ceiling involves a significant cost. You mentioned the amount of 30 million annually.

I doubt the impact of this removal in terms of deciles of income. Is it, as you told me in the commission, people with small pensions who work with salaries so high that they reach the ceilings to complement their pensions? I do not want this to become the norm in our country. Or are they rather people who are lucky enough to possess an important wealth, whether intellectual or financial, who earn their lives very well and who, in anticipation of claiming their rights, could be without their pension? Are there any specific studies currently available in this regard?

Has the impact on youth employment also been measured? When a job is available, whether it is occupied by a person already retired or by a young worker, it is not the same in relation to the impact on unemployment. This is a question that I ask myself by not denying, and don’t make me say what I haven’t said, the interest of staying active as long as possible. That is my personal intention. You can remain active in an unpaid, volunteer framework, as it can also be in the context of a paid function.

Third element: the removal of the diploma bonus. This measure will have a significant impact on the career and on the amount of pension of public service workers. This is a change on the road, in the course of career for current public service workers. The same applies to those who have started studies to integrate the Public Service. I think of future teachers. They did it with full knowledge of cause.

Of course, this does not mean that you can never change anything. Nevertheless, let us be aware that in relation to essential validated social law principles, including on the European level such as standstill, you change the rules on the road. You change them in the same way for workers, whether or not there is a degree requirement at the time of entry into their career in the Public Service. This has been emphasized but certain specific functions, including teaching functions, require a diploma, a teaching qualification, just as some functions at the level of SPF Finance require specific degrees.

You also do not take into account the fact that one career is not the other. This is true in general, it is true in public service. I cited the example in commission and I repeat it here because it is dear to me, teachers working in kindergarten. They have to take care of more and more classes. The standards of teaching depend on Ms. Milquet and the French Community.

It is not abnormal that from a certain age or at some point in their career, teachers decide to take a part-time, half-time, 4/5th time or simply want, because they can no longer bear the psychosocial burden that this represents, access to pension, even to have a lower pension.

The pension is calculated according to the length of the career.

All these options, with the addition of the reforms of Mr. Van Quickenborne in terms of removing the valuation of credit-time periods and yours, will no longer be possible. What impact will this have on the teachers involved? I think this reflection is quite transposable to technical and professional lines.

Declare unilaterally that it will be necessary to work longer, without verifying what is the reality of one’s and another’s careers is a mistake. A specific reflection is needed, beyond the adjustments made following the consultation with the three Ministers of Education. The consequences on the quality of our teaching, in a specific way, but also on the Public Service will be quite heavy.

Another reflection I would like to formulate here regarding the increase in the length of the career, which will be the consequence of the abolition of this diploma bonus: this will engender, as we saw in the context of the first pension reform, a budget transfer. The number of people entering our disease-invalidity system before retirement increased following the first reform, which required workers to work longer, regardless of their health status or the difficulty of their careers. This is more a budget transfer than the resolution of difficulties.

I would also like to highlight the impact on youth employment. We are in a context where, in some subregions, qualified, motivated, job-seeking young people do not find them. Why let older workers be exhausted at work? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a job with sustainable physical load throughout a career. Why not think about formulas, as we propose them, alternative, working-time sharing available?

Why have you removed time credit options, regardless of career?

Mr. Minister, all this tells us that this reform is unbalanced, that it will have a very strong impact on the attractiveness of the Public Service and that if the pension system must be financed tomorrow, we cannot continue to do so by decreasing the future rights of pensioners. Alternative formulas are needed: alternative financing of social security and career improvement that must be the duration of any willingness to raise the retirement age. All of this, we do not see.

This is a characteristic of this government: yesterday we talked about index jumping and it is said that after the tax shift will come. This morning we talked to Mr. Geens and Van Overtveldt transfer fees and ⁇ one will use the additional income to have measures of access to justice. Here, in the same way, you decide on measures that will impact the lives of thousands or tens of thousands of our fellow citizens without working on the other conditions that can improve our pension system. I will cite, for example, alternative financing; an increase in the lowest pensions sufficient to enable a decent life for all; a fundamental reform of the labour market to improve careers and allow for the sharing of working time among older workers, who need to be able to gradually collect and prepare their access to pension, and young people who only require one thing: release from employment to enable them to have their first professional experience.

You will ⁇ have understood that we will not support your text and that we are calling for pension reforms other than those that are being considered today.

Mr. Minister, the FDF is not in principle opposed to all aspects of the reform you consider. Citizens may be willing to make an effort, but they must be able to trust you. Expertise is an essential element of trust.

For the FDF, only a comprehensive reform designed in consultation with the most prominent pension experts in our country and in consultation with the social partners is possible.

This reform must be technically irreproachable and respect the interests of present and future generations. However, this is not the case. This bill is part of a government agreement that provides for other measures that go in the same direction, that is, forcing workers to work longer, while removing incentives to do so, such as career-time credit and pension bonus.

Even though we believe that a pension reform needs to be carried out and even though we are also in favor of a gradual alignment of the three regimes, we believe that this should not systematically constitute a downward alignment. However, your bill proposes a downward alignment. What is also unacceptable for us is that the removal of the bonus-pension goes against the opinion of experts. It is not objectively defensive. The 2020-2040 Pension Reform Commission has expressed reservations regarding some choices made by the government and in particular with regard to the abolition of the pension bonus.

To justify the removal of this incentive, you refer to an outdated study, which some colleagues have already denounced, but I quote you again: “It should be stressed that the Study Committee on Aging, in its June 2012 opinion on the evaluation of the pension bonus, confirmed previous studies demonstrating that the effect of the pension bonus on the extension of careers was limited. The study committee considered that it would be more effective to introduce a regulatory career extension. This is the path that the government has finally decided to follow.”

But this is not at all the opinion of the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040. This report is dated October 9, 2014. It is therefore much more recent than the study you refer to and comes from experts who inspired your pension reform project based on a point mechanism. You may not have read it because you are referring to a much earlier report. I would like to quote the extract relating to the bonus-pension.

The committee’s report expressly emphasized “the interest of the pension bonus as an incentive to actually stay longer at work. The report also illustrates “the relatively significant impact of this bonus on smaller pensions as long as one continues to work.”

The committee’s report wanted to “give the population a positive perspective, according to which the average amount of pensions could be ⁇ ined through an extension of the career. However, the possible removal of the bonus-pension seems to give a completely different signal. But experts do not know the reasons why this is now proposed in the government agreement."

So, experts say they don’t understand the reasons for your choice to remove this pension bonus. Nor do we understand it. I add that experts are asking you to review your reform project because you have changed too many parameters compared to their recommendations. I quote them again: "The combination and removal of the short-term bonus and the non-adaptation of the calculation of the long-term pension to the demographic context leads to a different reform from that which the commission had studied and therefore involves a new review. All this shows that a thorough reform of alternative scenarios is indispensable.”

I hope that you will be able to hear these experts on the occasion of the pension reform you are preparing. This would also give us time to enlighten ourselves on alternative scenarios. I would like to make such a request. We think that we could very well introduce a form of bonus-pension in a comprehensive reform and, why not, in a point mechanism.

I personally attended presentations by Pierre Devolder, a professor at UCL, who explained this very clearly. Therefore, for us, the current system should remain the same until a real reform is implemented, which would also take into account a new way of financing pensions. The same applies to grants for graduation. Your rush to take restrictive measures is like your government, more ideological than pragmatic. Therefore, we cannot agree to these steps and we will vote against your proposal.

A lot of things have already been said. I suggest not to repeat everything. However, I would like to highlight one thing. We discussed this bill in the committee on March 11. On that day, a trade union action took place. We are reviewing the project today in plenary, and trade union actions are taking place again. You could conclude that your project is not necessarily appreciated by the world of work, even if there may be a coincidence. I will make the savings of reviewing the very interesting mail of the UNSP (National Union of Public Services), since Ms. Fonck did. This was a poll conducted among officials, which showed that your project – I repeat it so that it goes into your ears – is very widely rejected, as 88% of staff members reject these measures.

This project has two major components, the diploma-related bonus and the pension-bonus. The first point is a commitment of the State towards the officials, and on which the State returns. Officials who engaged in public service did so with this promise of bonification of diplomas. The consequence is the following. Let us take a concrete example. An official who is qualified to receive an early retirement with a career of 38 years on 1 March 2020 is currently entitled to a 48-month bonus. With your measurement, instead of leaving on March 1, 2020, it will leave on March 1, 2023.

The other aspect is the abolition of the bonus-pension. Let’s take the context: it was at the time of the Generation Pact. Major social struggles have already taken place. The government was composed differently, but your party was already there. To make the pill pass, people were given this bonus-pension: "You worked longer, but you will touch something."

Today, this is still a government commitment that is not respected. Today, the government decides to remove this pension bonus with retroactive effect, since it is from 1 January 2015. This means that for officials who remain active until the age of 65 a loss of 83 euros per month and for those who remain until the age of 67 a loss of 187 euros per month.

The two important aspects of this bill are, therefore, to work more to earn less.

You have already told us in the commission, it is not the same people who will work more and earn less. Again very happy! Although, they are actually not the same in the current situation but we know that the government has other plans in its drawers and that it does not want to stay there. This is what needs to be ⁇ denounced today: the government applies the technique of the frog. A frog is placed in warm water and it can withstand warm water. Then the temperature is increased and the frog remains until it is swallowed. At that moment, she no longer has the strength to get out of the marble in which she was placed. Here, you see that the frog moves a little anyway and I think it will still continue to move well!

There are other measures planned. There is an extension of the careers up to 67 years. There is the calculation of pensions on the basis of multiples (1/60th), there is the will to calculate the pensions of civil servants over the entire career and more on the last ten years, there is the abandonment of years as contractual in the calculation of the pension. There is also the diploma bonus that would be taken into account, more only for the retirement age but also for the calculation of the amount of pension.

The CGSP has calculated different cases. For example, Mario, a 58-year-old customs officer, with all these measures, would lose 426 euros per month of pension and would work seven and a half more years. When we analyze this bill, we must not only denounce everything that is inadmissible, but also insert it into a broader approach, which relies on existing things, including the fact of passing from five to ten years the reference period for calculating pensions but also all the measures that you will prepare us after. I have not counted the index jump, which will also affect pensioners and the tax reductions on replacement income, which your government has already adopted, and which will also affect pensions.

Pensioners are taxed more because of the measures taken by this government.

What can we say about this reform? It is unfair, illogical, and it is not necessary. It is unfair because, contrary to what I have heard here and in the commission, the pensions of civil servants are not too high. If you compare them to the public pensions of neighboring countries, we are at the same level. What is the average amount of a public servant’s pension? It is 1 599 euros net per month. This does not seem to be exaggerated.

What is the problem when you say that public pensions are too high? The problem is that private pensions in Belgium are far too low. The PTB has published – and this has been taken back in the press – the figures of private pensions in Belgium, compared to neighboring countries. In the Netherlands, the private pension is on average 1,155 euros per month, while in the Netherlands, it is 1,861 euros; in Germany, 1,289 euros; in France, 1,653 euros; in Luxembourg, 1,639. When we talked about the index jump yesterday, we found that, in our neighbors, it was too high; when it comes to pensions, we do not compare ourselves with them, because it would be unfavorable.

This bill is also illogical. Why make older people work longer, when there are 600,000 unemployed, including young people who only ask for work?

This reform is not necessary. By 2060, in the worst of hypotheses, and at the peak of the baby boom, we would reach 15% of GDP in terms of pensions, according to the Study Committee on Aging, while this is the current level in Austria and France. This debate must raise societal questions, namely, how do we want to distribute the fabulous gains in productivity that our society has gained for years? Since 1960, wealth produced has been multiplied by 3.5. This means, at equal income, that we could have careers three and a half times longer or weeks three and a half times shorter.

You will tell me that incomes have changed as well. Since 1960, incomes have changed. But in the plans you submit to us here, these incomes do not evolve. With your index jumps and all the measures you take, it’s a stagnation or even a decline in income you’re considering. Both are causing a disastrous situation.

I don’t think the issue is, as the government does, to attack public servants’ pensions and reduce the amount. The pensions of the private sector should be increased in proportion to the current pensions of the public. And I do not think that the resources are lacking.

The press recently published the evolution of wealth in Belgium. The wealth of the richest 3% of the world has increased by $27 billion in a year. Seventy-seven billion more in the wealthiest in a year. Don’t tell me there’s no money to fund pensions.

There are no more speakers on the speaker list, then the word is now to the government.

Regulation of the works / Ordre des travaux

Colleagues, I intend to organize, after the response of the Government and the replies, the vote on the two draft resolved and then to proceed with the draft on the wage margin. The possible Thursday morning meeting will be cancelled. There is still a lot of work on the shelf in the morning afternoon and we will vote on the salary standard.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that we will vote on the three draft resolutions, you said two.

You are right, there are three.

This is a bit against the agreement, but well.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, I find that the natural, legitimate contradictors of the opposition, who questioned me, Mr. Daerden, Ms. Fonck and Mr. Gilkinet, they are not here for the answer. However, their mentor, the PTB group, is complete.

I will only respond to Mr. by Van Hees. I suppose the left-wing opposition shares 100% of its views.

The first argument I hear today is that of a so-called saucissonnage. The term has been repeated several times. Some have a short memory. The general policy agenda was discussed just six months ago, during the month of November. We discussed all the pension reforms we were considering during this legislature.

The projects that are presented to you, which concern the authorized work, the pension bonus or the diploma bonus, are obviously part of the whole reform we propose and which is described in the general policy programme that was approved by your assembly in November. There is no surprise here.

I am, therefore, surprised by your comments on the saucissoning or the inconsistency of the measures we propose. On the contrary, we are very clearly in the same conductive thread, which is to carry out a pension reform according to the consistency we want. This is indeed a delicate, difficult subject and we have decided to take our responsibilities.

Criticism is legitimate. Everyone has a particular idea of what should be done. I can hear it. But we decided to make this reform to somehow combine the social performance of the pension system with its financial sustainability. This is our goal. We have a number of principles. We advocate a system that gives people more freedom, more flexibility and – this is one of the axes of today’s project – the possibility of working beyond 65 years without income limit.

I hear that some criticize this. by Mr. Gilkinet criticized him. We believe that the budget involvement is in the order of 30 million. It is not an obligation, of course, to work beyond 65 years of age. It is simply an option that we open and a freedom that we grant. Everyone is free to take it or not to take it. There is no obligation in this regard. I think this is part of the desire to give more freedom in our working regime.

In the same way, we invoke, because there is no freedom without responsibility, the need for today’s young generations to realize...

You may not have a natural contradictor present, but you have geographical contradictors present. I let you finish the first part of your speech. There is a mentor, the PTB, for everyone.

Our political group has developed specific arguments, in particular on the sausage you just mentioned. You must acknowledge that you only have the stick, without the carrots. Ms. Fonck developed very clearly the aspect related to the end of career, work, employment. This is not currently included in the document you are presenting.

How to promote the employment of 55-65 years old? The actual retirement age is 59 years. That is why Ms. Fonck said that there is no adaptability, such as possibly tax measures to incentivize or other measures, the adaptation of workplaces, etc. This is what Ms. Fonck said. These are very specific arguments. There is no mentor in this assembly.

I want to reassure you. It is not only Mr. Daerden, who held the file and who is not present, did not want to hear you. He knows your arguments. He is on a show with Mr. Ducarme and others to try to tell the public how much this project is a bad project and how much it will cost people. Do not worry! We are speaking elsewhere.

I would like to recall that the Government Agreement expressly provides for a policy of strong initiatives in the field of job creation, the struggle for the competitiveness of enterprises, the easing and flexibility of the labour market to also promote job creation. Promoting the creation of jobs by reducing the burden that weighs on work is all the government’s agreement. Of course, both fiscal reforms that are envisaged in this government agreement and social reforms, such as pension reform, are part of this policy of revitalization and growth in favor of employment.

The government was formed and won the confidence of the chambers in October last year. We have already done an important work with many texts that have come before this parliament. We are six months away from the formation of this government and we are working with a certain speed. Of course, not all of the projects that are useful and necessary for government policy have yet been examined by the House and committees. Don’t worry, it will come. Therefore, you will have the opportunity to criticize more projects that will be submitted. But with regard to the pension reform, very clearly, we are moving forward. The axes are known.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I did not hear that you were going to carry out a specific pension project, employing people aged 55 to 60. We talked about employment in general. If it is the promotion of employment, as we looked at it yesterday, objectively, we know what we think about it. But the substance can be disputed. Do you have in your boxes, and why not present it at the same time as today’s dossier, a specific project relating to career goals planning?

Because today we are presenting a project relating to graduation bonuses, pension bonus and work permitted after 65 years. This is what has been discussed in the committee. In the plenary session, we will discuss the report of the committee. We are working on the topics that are on the agenda of your session. I cannot say more.

Please be assured that we have pensions axes that have been clearly defined in the General Policy Note. I think in particular of the concept of partial pension which allows a much more progressive transition between the period of activity and the pension, which is highly appreciated by both employers and workers. The trade unions are also adopting the concept of partial pension. It is also a way to allow this flexible transition, to ensure that companies can keep the worker’s experience within the company while allowing that worker to get half of his pension, for example, and half of his income from work.

This is especially important and helps keep people in contact with the labour market when they are older. We will come up with a series of proposals on this subject. The axes of the reform are known to you: more freedom, more responsibility with the constitution of the second pillar. This is essential today if we want to guarantee the purchasing power of pensioners tomorrow. We are obliged to strengthen, democratize, generalize the second pillar.

Mr. Bacquelaine, you are announcing reforms, but it is important that I react to one element that you just stated, namely that employers and workers agreed and favored a partial pension, that older workers should be kept in employment to allow them to retain the added value of their skills and acquisitions within the company. Why did you remove the end-of-career arrangements?

Because they are two completely different concepts. In this case, it is a partial pension.

Not at all! and precisely ! And you will return to it in the context of the painfulness of work.

You have knowledge of social affairs and you sit in this committee. Let us be serious! You know very well that the concept of partial pension goes well beyond career breaks and career end arrangements. This is a much more comprehensive concept and allows you to gradually move with a strong involvement in the labour market and touch your pension rights. On the social level, this is not an insignificant advance. I realize that today, everyone is in favor of this idea. It must be implemented gradually. This is not going to be done in two shots of cup of pot. This is a point that will be discussed within the framework of social consultation and on which the Pension Reform Commission has recently grounded.

Today we are addressing three topics. The removal of the diploma bonus is an important issue. I would like to remind you that this is not about reducing the amount of pensions. Those who claim this are in bad faith, because it is not written anywhere in a text that would emanate either from a majority party or from the government.

We never intended to reduce the amount of pensions by removing the graduation bonus.

The index jump is a decrease in pensions. We are working on three projects at the same time. These three projects together lead to a decrease in pensions by the index jump and in particular also by the non-indexation of tax ceilings for replacement income and, on the other hand, by the removal of the new formula pension bonus, which had not yet been assessed and that you remove while together we had defended it.

If you want to mix it all.

Do not say with a naive tone that you will never touch the pensions! You are touching pensions!

If you want to mix everything, I can do it too. You easily forget that the removal of the pension bonus represents 18 million euros and that the distribution of 52% of the welfare envelope for pensions represents 500 million euros. I can also mix things. But if we balance, between the 18 million removal of pension bonus and 500 million allowances for minimum pensions and for the welfare envelope, there is still a nuance.

The [...]

Mr. Massin, please have a little intellectual honesty! You know perfectly well that with regard to the index jump, the government has, from the beginning, included a mechanism of compensation in terms of pensions.

Not just for pensions.

Either you say a false truth, or you do not know the file! We had the discussion yesterday. We may disagree on the bottom, but let’s be careful. Previously, pensioners had indexation plus well-being. There they no longer have indexation and, in addition, they are affected by the non-indexation of tax ceilings for replacement income. Pensioners are ⁇ concerned. Don’t say we’re not talking about pensions, we’re talking about pensions. And you have not defended your pensioners in this matter.

On the other hand, you say that for pension bonuses, it’s not so serious, it’s just so many millions.

If it represents only “so many millions,” why did you do it? I think your argument is really bad.

Mr. Minister, it is easy to say that "such a part" of a bill will not have an impact on the amount of the pension while specifying, as is the case in the general terms of an insurance contract, "for that small part" of the project.

I have just mentioned all the measures that the government has already taken and plans to take in the future. I think of the bonus pension. Pensions are being attacked and it will still be in thirty-six different ways. As a result, those who are already seriously affected will get even more.

You say that the measure relating to the diploma bonus will not have any impact on the amount of the pension. Can you guarantee us that, during the legislature, no measures will be taken which would ensure that the graduation bonus would have an impact on the amount of pensions? Can you assure us that this will not happen in this legislature?

Mr. Minister, I would like to add a small comment to what colleagues have already said. You say that the government does not touch the pensions. On the index jump, she always says that there are compensatory measures. These, of course, do not apply to pensioners, as they do not have professional costs. Nevertheless, you get rid of it every time and you and your government forget in your argument that there is no compensation for pensioners. In addition, with all the measures now added, you will bring down the pensions again.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the aim of the government is to reform pensions to consolidate the system and not to reduce pensions. It is wrong to say, like Mr. Daerden claims that we will reduce pensions. It is the opposite. Clearly, we do not touch the length of the career, which remains 45 years. Even if we extend the period of activity to 67 years, we will not touch the career length of 45 years.

Those who do not have a full career in teaching or in the Public Service and who will be able to work a little longer will receive a higher pension. This is the reality. It is mathematical and there is no way to do otherwise. I take the very concrete example of a person who works two more years, because he has a diploma bonus that has been removed; this means that that person, if he does not have a full career, will have 2/45th additional pension.

Once and for all, we need to understand the logic of the system. I can’t see how you can’t understand this!

I don’t understand your pharmacy accounts. We demonstrated that they were false. But most importantly, they are symptomatic of your lack of a comprehensive vision of pension reform.

You fail to take into account the massive financing of our economy and the growing share of financial income in wealth produced at the expense of the rest of labor income.

You missed the opportunity to say, through your government, that it was important to operate a general refinancing of pensions through a better contribution of financial incomes that occupy an increasingly important share: more than 7 points of GDP in thirty years in wealth produced.

That’s why your small pharmacy accounts are sorry for us. You will scratch here and there to say that you are making a major pension reform. Ms. Onkelinx said: this actually results in a decrease in pensions because there will be an index jump, etc. Unfortunately, also, rent will be indexed and weigh on the budget of pensioners who are tenants. And there are many. You also get the bonus pension.

With the age of 67 you have an ideological trophy, but you do not see the essential: our economy has changed its face. You do not take advantage, unlike the previous government, of your ministerial portfolio and your presence in the government to go and get the money where it is to structurally refinance our pensions. That is what is regrettable!

Mr. Laouej, I am obviously convinced that we will not agree. We have a ⁇ strong will to consolidate the first pillar of pensions. All the reforms we propose aim to strengthen the sustainability of the first pillar in our country. Those who would not want to make reforms in this area would take a very heavy responsibility. They would be irresponsible. That is the truth!

We obviously believe that everyone has rights and that these rights must be respected. We believe that we cannot guarantee economic growth and recovery in our country if we do not allow the preservation of sufficient purchasing power for these 2.8 million people. We must ensure that this purchasing power is preserved, strengthen the first pillar, and alongside this first pillar, we want to generalize access to the second pillar. This is the very essence of this reform and it requires a number of arrangements.

We will also further harmonize the regimes between them. Today, it is true, we are removing a situation that benefits only a certain number of citizens of the country. It is the people of the Public Service who have benefited from a bonus for graduation. We remove it so that they work a little longer, that’s true. Not according to the figures quoted somewhat anyway, as by this Minister of Education of the French Community this morning on the radio, who quoted figures completely farfelus, showing a total lack of understanding of the file, which causes some concern. A Minister of Education using techniques of disinformation, propaganda and manipulation using numbers does not give a ⁇ useful message to the youth of this country. I find this rather worrying.

Mr. Speaker, it is still astounding to hear the Minister tell us that he wants to defend the purchasing power of pensioners and that at the same time, he will vote by his majority a jump of index on pensions. It makes no sense, what you are saying, Mr. Bacquelaine!

Mr. Minister, you can try to pass the figures disclosed by ministers sitting at other levels of power, in this case the Minister of Education, for farfelus elements. That you sweat the data communicated by the latter from the reverse of the hand, it does not surprise me of you, but that you despise the whole of the teachers, it is still swollen and sloppy!

As I have explained several times in the committee, and I have repeated it recently, you are cumulating measures that have been taken previously with additional layers. Teachers will have to work six more years to benefit from their pension.

No, it is false!

No, it is not false! I explained it and explained it again. You have never been able to contradict these figures.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. This government lacks a spirit of concertation and a responsible attitude so that both can sit around the table and discuss the reality of these numbers in order to develop positive solutions for citizens. Reforming is something that should not be confused with brutality. In terms of pension reform, we could have found, in the adjustments and transitional measures, something much more respectful towards those who are on the eve or on the eve of their pension.

You will tell me that you have met with the Ministers of Education. Certainly, but many calls have been made to you to start a responsible discussion. I feel frankly, Mr. Bacquelaine, that you could have responded more proactively, but above all more respectfully – not only to ministers, no matter – but above all to the people concerned, in this case the teachers.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I repeat that the application of the abolition of the diploma bonus will never force teachers to work six more years.

You know it. Are you unable to understand? This then poses a problem for a former Minister of Education, especially when it comes to basic subjects such as calculation and French.

Have you met the teachers? and no.

of course . I met with all three ministers of education.

But you did not meet the teachers! It is very different!

In addition, we negotiated transitional measures, measures to adapt to the initial project. This proves that you do not know the case well.

Let us take the precise example of a teacher who can, today, leave at 60, after having completed a normal career. Tomorrow, in elementary school; he will be able to leave at 62 and a half, after 42 years of career. This means that, if you deduct the month by year of career that allows departure to retirement in advance leave, you have to deduct three and a half years. In other words, this person will be able to leave his job as a teacher at age 59. Today, she can leave at 58 after a measure taken by a CDH minister that raised the age for early departure in early leave by raising it from 55 to 58 years. That is the reality!

A teacher who is in higher secondary education (five years of study) who previously could leave at age 60, after 42 years of career - including revaluation coefficient - will now be able to leave at 63 and a half years, that is, three and a half years later. But as he can deduct three and a half years of prior leave, he will be able to leave at 60 rather than at 58, i.e. two years later.

Of course, we are not talking about incomplete careers that fall under another scheme. But for teachers who have carried out a full career and have begun to profess at a normal age, after graduation, the removal of the graduation bonus will result in an additional period of actual activity of one, two, or even three years at most.

When the Minister of Education stated, in a broadcast broadcast, that teachers would have to work six more years, it was to distill anxiety, anxiety, which, in my opinion, was not her job.

Mr. Minister, did Ms. Milquet or I say that all teachers would have to work six more years? and no. Will teachers actually have to go up to six more years for some of them? The answer is yes. And I have explained you well, and this is one of the difficulties, that there is a cumulative of the measures you are taking today with regard to the diploma bonus, which overlaps with a previous legislation concerning the reduction of the minimum age for retirement. So, indeed, for teachers who are under 55 years old on 1 September, yes, there will be for a consistent number of them, an obligation to work four to six more years.

What I ask you is to assume the decisions you make and it is true that you are confusing reform and brutality! At some point, you also need to have the courage to assume them honestly rather than cover up the reality.

I reiterate, and I am ready to demonstrate when you want, with your head rested, ⁇ , that those six more years are nonsense! This is not based on any reality. Especially since you forget that we are not touching the preferential parts, we are not touching the revaluation coefficients. So a teacher does not necessarily have to do forty years of careers, you know. He must be more or less 37 years old, that’s equal to 40 years, that’s the reality too.

When you don’t touch the many and when you don’t touch the revaluation coefficients, the removal of the diploma bonus doesn’t translate as you claim, it’s intellectual dishonesty and I’m ready to demonstrate it whenever you want.

I have heard you right now and in the debate too. When you question the advanced numbers, you do not question the principles. You say to Ms. Fonck, “It will not be 6 years, it will be 1.5 years, 2 or 3 years.” This means that you must work longer, but you remove the incentive to work longer.

You say, "there is no decrease," but just recently you recognized that with the removal of the bonus-pension, there would be a decrease. You say that is not "187 euros per month, it is three fifths of 187 euros per month", but you acknowledge that there is a decrease in the amount.

In other words, you begin to shatter the status, you consider officials as privileged, you use only part of the elements to tell us that you are going to harmonize. You will level down. And this is only the beginning, because you have other projects in your cartons. By doing so, you are helping to reduce the attractiveness of public services and to challenge their future quality. This is totally regrettable!

Mr. Speaker, you want to give us a demonstration. You have not yet succeeded.

Yes, I gave the pictures to the committee.

I will return to your paintings, and especially to other paintings. Since you have demonstrated it to us, but you have not yet done it, I say to you: Shit!

You also saw the tables that did not cover the entire public service. The Ministers of Education came with precise figures and concrete examples. You know them.

You know that requests are expressed to open new consultations with teachers. Since you seem ready now to argue, I say to you: chick! Review the Ministers of Education and try to be attentive to the reality of the situations that are presented to you. To be confined to generalities and refuse to take personal situations into account, sorry, but it’s a bit easy. You have not seen the teachers; do not come here to claim the contrary! I know that you have a very good administration at the Office of Pensions, but it does not know all the realities or all the subtleties between the different regimes and between the Communities.

Look at them and work very concretely! Among your transitional solutions, some have evolved thanks to the Ministers of Education. But there are still difficulties that are totally unacceptable. Take a look, Mr. Minister. Make yourself much more and much better than what you do today.

There is another point that you refuse to take into account. This is the effective ability to work longer and thus generate additional rights. You ignore that there are more difficult functions than others. As part of my speech, I have often cited the case of maternity teachers, but there are other functions, within the public service, which are also ⁇ difficult.

You said that public service workers would work longer and therefore have more retirement rights. But yet they must be able to do so, especially since your measure comes in addition to previous measures such as the non-valorisation of credit-time periods that these workers specifically use – take the statistics, you will see! To be able to continue to perform a function where you need to be active from morning to evening.

I have a proposal that complements that of Ms. Fonck. I am addressing the chairman of the Social Affairs Committee of the House. I propose to receive, in the Social Affairs Committee, the representatives of the teaching workers of the three Communities and their ministers, and objectivize things.

Mr. Minister, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, you have decided to reform the pension system of the public service, without hearing the representatives of the workers. We demanded and obtained, as part of the second reading, the disagreement protocol of the representative bodies of public service workers. This is a general opinion. However, we have not been able to obtain that the representatives of the teaching workers who are the main concerned are audited.

As for the bonus for graduation, since a diploma is mandatory in order to be able to exercise this type of function, in view of the hardness of certain functions – I think of the teachers of kindergarten – you have acted without consulting the interested parties and without reflecting. This must be corrected.

To the question, “Will we have a reduction in pensions?” the answer is yes. And you constantly answer, “No, with a longer career, people will keep the same pension.” You have to stop turning around the pot. You always talk about the argument of the problem of the length of careers. This is what makes our pensions different.

That’s why we released this study last weekend, to compare, in the four countries around us, the height of equal-career pensions. In this context, differences of 13 to 43 percent were found. No, we are not going to reduce the purchasing power of pensioners. You know there are still other measures that you are preparing to vote on the same day as the index jump, which will have a big impact on the standard of living of pensioners.

You can’t deny that you’re going to touch the purchasing power of retirees. This is really regrettable, especially since we live here in Belgium with an unacceptable private pension level, and you are now attacking public pensions, which are the only ones in Belgium to be in the European average.

I find it quite disappointing on the part of the majority that in these times of crisis, the pensions of public servants are being attacked.

Mr Hedebouw, a person who has worked for 43 years, but who can no longer take advantage of a diploma bonus, for example of two years of higher education, will have his pension calculated on 43 years and plus two years for the diploma. His pension will therefore be calculated over 45 years and will be higher and not equal.

We do not want to reduce pensions. But we want to make sure that everyone works a little longer, because in Belgium, the average retirement age is 59 years. It is the lowest in Europe, in the OECD countries. The employment rate between 60 and 64 years old in our country is 23%. It is 41% in the OECD and European countries. If you want to ignore this reality, you are doing a very bad service to the public.

Once and for all, we must realize that it is indispensable to make a reform, which, it is true, must be fair. That is the goal of the government. But, thankfully, stop constantly presenting work as a negative value.

Work is something that must be avoided at all costs. Life is not your artificial paradise. Life is working from time to time. We will work in that direction.

Mr. Bacquelaine, you are famously shuffled! You say you believe in the value of work. And yet today, the majority will vote on a provision that reduces wages. Is it respect for work value?

And at the same time, you whisper the shareholders. You do nothing in relation to dividends, multiples, diamonds. What is a speech?

Furthermore, of course, everything needs to be done so that, at the level of employment, we can have an increase in the number of people in employment as long as possible. You are absolutely right and we share your goal. You clam this and we do not, so-called, this is again a counter-truth. But let’s look at the ways to do this! You remove the pension bonus. It cannot be said that this goes in the direction of supporting people to stay in employment as long as possible. It is even the opposite! You will, through authoritarian measures, sanction, extend careers.

What do you do at the enterprise level to put in place devices to engage or retain older people? We know that within many companies, it is an entirely opposite policy that is developed. In other words, again, you put the burden of economic and social policy on the back of the workers, but never by working through incentives or by making the burden bear by companies. This is what is completely unfair, Mr. Minister, and it is not by developing counter-truths, as you did, that you will convince us!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have reached the end of a, as far as I am concerned, enlightening debate in which we all have been able to make our point.

On behalf of my group, I would like to emphasize that we actually agree with what the head of the ACV’s study service has written about pension policy, in particular that this government chooses a “lump-down pension.” Today we were given another illustration of what the man meant.

The debate thereafter has, in my opinion, once again demonstrated that it is essentially a question of what we do with the legitimacy of our social security system. In other words, to what extent are employers, trade unions and workers still interested in making future efforts for the legal pillar and they still believe that that first pillar will protect them from poverty when they retire. This is the core of the pension debate. Given the way this government deals with it, I fear it’s almost a roadbook to bring that legitimacy down.

Today we will also vote on the index jump. That protection no longer exists. Today’s debate also announced that the retirement age will be raised to 67 years and that we will have to have the third pillar. At one point there was a fourth pillar. I saw the colleagues of CD&V look the other way. The fourth pillar, Mr. Minister, means save yourself and draw your plan. Buy a house if you can, so you are safe.

Those are the signals this government gives about our statutory pension system. There is a huge gap between what is advocated, namely the strengthening of the first pillar, and the step-by-step demolition and the announcement of a new demolition of that first pillar.

We have been in the same committees for a long time. I’ve noticed that you were a little nervous and at some times even a little angry. I understand that. This is the first time I have heard a minister advocate that the breakdown of a particular sector of social security should serve to save it without a fundamental perspective on additional funding.

The debate focused on alternative financing of social security at certain times, on a tax shift, and so on. The arguments were clear and the majority did not develop any clear vision to strengthen the first pillar. Of course, it is difficult for the Minister of Pension to have a one-sided story, whereas the logic would be that after a tripartite negotiation, after a pension debate, after a pension concertation with the social partners, a clear and constructive programme for strengthening the first pillar would be effectively made. Now it must only be done through all sorts of social degradation measures, without having sight of reinforcement. It is apparently waiting for the discussion of the tax shift to get answers to it.

For a moment, Mr. Bonte, Mr. De Roover wants to intervene.

Will the debate be restarted?

We are trying to do that, Mr. Bonte.

I continue to find it striking how Mr. Bonte continues to accuse us in this speech that we would undermine the credibility of social security in general and of the pension system in particular, and that he would in doing so raise arguments that do not touch the side, in order to in this way himself arouse the fear of people about a fundamental aspect of what they expect from our social security.

Mr. Bonte, you are a burner near dry hooi. I deeply regret that you thus scare people, because that is the only way that you are trying to jeopardise our reform, while we are just working to make the first fundamental pillar of pension reform sustainable for the future.

Mr. De Roover, later you consider me capable of bringing tens of thousands of people on the streets of Brussels to protest against a certain policy of demolition. You consider me capable of that.

If I play with fire, then you are the pyromans in the story. Every measure I hear listed here today to save and strengthen the first pillar, is telkenmale an interference with the rights of future pensioners or sitting pensioners. I am not the pyroman. What I learned, especially after reading another Belgian report on my BlackBerry, is that the pyroman has indeed succeeded in playing with fire; because there is playing with fire at the CCOD, the Christian dome of the ACV.

Within the Christian dome of the ACV, the CCOD today suddenly announces that it will appeal to the Constitutional Court against these measures, against the pension bonus. The tactics have changed, but the essence remains the same. The essence is that the majority disagrees about the arrival of a fourth pillar and the strengthening of the third pillar. You do not agree with the majority on this, nor do you agree on whether this is a good measure.

Public services are right. The professional conditions for civil servants were changed in 2012. Three years later, an additional effort is called for by abolishing the diploma bonifications. This undermines the legitimacy and belief in the system.

In the past, one had to wait until Sunday to hear that Mr. Peeters was flying in the hair of the N-VA ministers. Today we should only read Belga, unless anyone here believes that the CCOD is drawing to the Constitutional Court to destroy this bill without the support of at least a part of the members on these banks.

Mr. Speaker, I would really recommend that Mr. Bonte, in terms of pensions — his past and his responsibilities suggest, however, that he should have some mastery of the subject — study a little literature in order to be able to correctly define the notion of the “fourth pillar” without selling fantasies about it, as he continually tries to do here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, in summary to this debate, here are a few words of reaction in two points.

First, in relation to public services, this debate demonstrates that your process of leveling down and challenging the specifics of the Public Service is well started. However, we need a respected, effective and attractive public service. And we are totally in the opposite direction.

Second, in relation to the pension reform, there is clearly a need for evolution and adaptation. Yes, the first pillar must be consolidated with adequate financing, with measures that promote the employment rate for all generations. But not a sauced pension file as you bring it to us, point by point, with a truncated consultation and, this, on the back of workers, officials and pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Pensions, I am sorry, but it is often so with you, that you ended up on a caricature. When you’re in trouble, you start screaming and caricaturing the other’s words. You do not have the monopoly of the value "work". Work is important. We hope that as many as possible of our fellow citizens will have access to quality work, with the ability at the end of the career to raise the foot, to benefit from an appropriate pension that allows to live a dignified life. This is the opposite of what you do and your speech is full of these paradoxes.

You say you want to defend social security. Some of your colleagues even used the term “sustainable”. But what do you do? You mitigate its insurance character and you do not anticipate a sustainable mode of financing, alternative to the evolution of wealth.

You say you want the Belgians to work longer but you do nothing to improve their careers. I am pleased with the presence of the Minister of Employment. You are reducing the company’s training obligations. You refuse and ultimately remove what allows them to last in work, that is, the time credit recognized and accounted for as part of the calculation of their pension.

You say you are in favour of social co-operation. You do not stop saying it, but you are taking reforms against the opinions of the social partners and, in relation to the precise question that we raised in the context of this public service pension reform, you refuse to hear specifically the reality of the teaching profession. You have a speech but your actions are in total contradiction with the speech. You are undermining the social foundation on which this state was created. Reforms are needed, but they must be different from those you put on the agenda.

I have heard Mr. The Minister defends with the fierce of the revelation his reform of the pension system of the public services sector. He had the same courage to say, eight days after taking office, on a television platform, that there could not be any question of the questioning of the acquired rights. It was your terms, your commitment and the entire MR campaign made you believe that under no circumstances would you violate the pension scheme as organized at that time.

I have said, indeed, Mr. Van Biesen, honestly, intellectually, that, yes, it should be admitted at a given moment that it is necessary to work longer, especially at this time when one can indeed expect a longer life. I had that intellectual honesty. Thank you for paying him a tribute. What is unacceptable is that the reason for your project is purely to give satisfaction to the N-VA. You have chosen to get involved in the public sector regime because you know that is what brings the most to your N-VA partner. That was his first requirement. You isolate this aspect from a comprehensive view of the reform of the pension system.

It should be recalled what the members of the Pension Reform Commission said in their opinion of 9 October. "The reform strategy is not yet drawn up in the government agreement. A potential risk is that one merely changes the parameters of the current system without connection with the structural reform that the Commission advocates.” This is what you do with this bill: you touch parameters without registering this action as part of a structural reform.

Further in their opinion, the experts recall that the Commission report expressly highlighted the importance of the pension bonus as an incentive to stay longer at work. This is what is harmful in your pension reform. I am in favour of giving people the opportunity to work longer. Some may even agree to work beyond the age of 67. The nature of the work of some people allows them to do so, with incentives, adjustments of end-of-career regimes. All these things are missing in your bill, because you have only one goal, both through the index jump and through this reform, is to undermine social concertation, because it is one of the fundamental pillars of Belgium.

Why should social concertation be undermined? Because the N-VA wants to continue its work of internal destruction of this country by one of the fundamental pillars that ensure its cohesion, namely social concertation, which is one of the guarantees of social peace in this country.

He said that we need to reform pensions. Yes, we need to reform pensions, but we should not do so by raising the retirement age. Pensions are fully paid. The richest 3% of the population saw their wealth increase by $27 billion in just a year. In these 27 billion, Mr. Minister, I think there is a way to go and find a few cents to finance pensions and not have to extend careers.

If we need to reform pensions, it is mainly by ensuring that today, in Belgium, pensioners are not below the poverty line. This is the real issue of pensions today. Pensions are not too high. What you need to do is not reduce the amount of pensions as you do, but increase it, at least in the private sector.

Pensions in the private sector are currently on average €1,155 a month. They are much lower than in neighbouring countries. The comparisons you make for the index jump and wage competitiveness, why don’t you do them at the pension level?

What needs to be done, Mr. Minister, is not, as you do, to attack public pensions by trying to lower them to the private pensions. Public pensions are not too high. State pensions are simply at a normal level: an average of €1,599 a month, that’s not excessive, it’s just normal, and at the same level as state pensions in neighbouring countries. What we need to do is not lower public pensions to the level of private pensions, but vice versa: raise private pensions to the level of public pensions.