Proposition 54K1022

Projet de loi portant création d'un Comité national des Pensions, d'un Centre d'Expertise et d'un Conseil académique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 15, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

research body pension scheme research

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE DéFI VB

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 ¶

May 13, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr. David Clarinval, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, the creation of the National Pension Committee has only one objective: to support the ongoing pension reform. As I pointed out in the committee, this means supporting the Bacquelaine reform! Not to organize the social consultation to determine the content of a just and balanced reform, but only to support the ongoing pension reform!

Mr. Minister, you choose to set up a structure of opinion, where unions, employers and government representatives will have the same right to representation. I denounce this three-person household that institutionalizes imbalances and places workers’ representatives in an unacceptable position of weakness.

If you wanted a wide place for reflection and opinion, you have forgotten a lot of actors. Particularly concerns the absence of elderly people.

Furthermore, Mr. Minister, since it has the color, since it almost has the taste but that it is obviously not the social concertation, let me talk about the concertation "Canada Dry". The dots are piped because the result is known in advance.

The Committee will be set up and will be consulted after everything has been decided. The antisocial foundations of the pension reform have already been adopted unilaterally by your government: the reduction to 67 years of the legal retirement age, the abolition of the pension bonus, the extension of public sector careers, the tightening of early retirement.

Furthermore, the National Pension Committee will have no decision-making power and, above all, will not be able to issue an initiative opinion on the reform. However, experts advocated that the National Pension Committee plays a much more ambitious role. Its tasks will then be summarized in answering the questions submitted by the government, which makes us very distant from the model of social concertation we have known over the last fifty years and which is especially applied to other places, such as the National Labour Council.

I add that, on the essential axes of your reform (the increase in the legal age or early retirement, for example) as well as on elements that you do not take into account in your reflection (the healthy life expectancy, the impact on women’s pensions, the impact on other branches of social security, the impact on youth employment), you defy any genuine consultation by refusing the debate on all these topics. These will not be addressed.

Under these conditions, it is difficult to consider this measure otherwise than as an alibi, a caution for a profoundly unjust and antisocial reform.

You pretend to organize the social concertation in order, in reality, to better empty it from its meaning and weaken it in order to advance at the load step, piece by piece, without having to listen to the world of work.

In terms of pension reform, a broad social consensus is essential. Considering this reform exclusively from the perspective of fiscal sustainability, independent of social sustainability, independent of the overall management of social security, is a profound mistake that will cause significant social fractures by accentuating injustice.

Yesterday, the Working Group on Ageing Populations and Sustainability of the European Union once again pressed us to the facts. Currently, the European Union has four active workers for every retired person. In 2060, that will be a ratio of two to one. This means that the challenge of keeping our pensions affordable – a ⁇ important challenge as we naturally want to maintain a functioning pension system, also in the future – is being emphasized once again by the European Union.

By 2060, life expectancy will again be seven years higher than today. That’s a beautiful evolution; that means our life expectancy is again increasing by two months each year. In addition to an excellent forecast, this is also an additional challenge, as it means that the retirement age will automatically rise.

It is therefore necessary that we take the bull by the horns in this regard and that is what the government is planning. She has already taken some measures for that. Today, the proposal is on the table to establish three institutions that can support the reform.

I am very pleased on behalf of my group that, with the establishment of the Academic Council, the critical guidance, as provided by the Pension Committee 20-40, will have a legal basis and will also be structured. I think that this will ⁇ benefit the scientific support for what is on top of the pension reform, without any doubt.

The pooling of relevant knowledge, which occurs in various study centers, is brought together through the Knowledge Centre and made available to all those interested in the reform.

Finally, it is of utmost importance that the National Pension Committee to be established and present will ensure that the reform of the pension system is carried out within a model of social consultation. In addition, and unlike the previous speaker, we highly appreciate that this is a tripartite consultation. This means that the government will also be present as a representative of the political expression in this country.

These are three excellent ideas.

Nevertheless, on behalf of our group, I would like to warn of a wild growth of institutions. It can be heard from the criticism of the opposition in this hemisphere, but also from the expositions of the opposition in the discussion of this bill in the committee, that it is the intention of that side to apply a bunch of additional clamps and firearms so that the pension reform would become a kind of train of inertia. This in the hope that this reform sends in all sorts of structures, ⁇ even in part unnecessary. I believe that with these three institutions we are establishing today, we are more than well prepared to bring this reform to an end on a scientific basis as well as in consultation with the social partners.

It is also important that the design provides for an evaluation of these institutions. In fact, at a certain point it is necessary to examine whether these contribute to an efficient reform.

The question is also to what extent these structures will need to be re-examined at the moment the reform is completed, but my group will be eagerly voting for this bill, because it seems that one can now give the hand to the squad. The need for this was revealed yesterday in the new EU report.

I wish the Minister of Pensions a lot of perseverance to ensure that, accompanied by the three institutions, this government’s ambitious pension reform can be launched quickly in full scope. This is a very important issue for the current generation. She has a right to that.

Just a few weeks ago, the government was making the choice of responsibility by making difficult decisions to reform our pension system. He chose solidarity by taking the necessary measures to increase the employment rate of the elderly and to guarantee future generations the right to the pension that is so dear to us.

With the pension reform, the government has made the choice of the sustainability of our social security system. The bill we are discussing today aims to create bodies to support this reform. An Academic Council, a Centre of Expertise and a National Pension Committee will be established. Allow me, dear colleagues, to quickly present these different bodies in order to emphasize their relevance and utility in the context of this great reform. The creation of these three bodies follows the recommendations made by the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040 in its report, a performance and reliable social contract.

First, the Academic Council: it is, in practice, to permanently maintain the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040. There will be twelve experts and scientists who will be tasked with delivering supported opinions on pension proposals, either on initiative or upon request. A priori, the Council will consist of the current members of the Commission 2020-2040. Depending on the number of members who wish to still sit, the Minister of Pensions will consider whether new members should be appointed.

Secondly, a consultative body for pension reform, the National Pension Committee, will also be established.

It is a consultative body that will have the power to give opinions, in the form of a report, on any proposal in the field of pensions by the ministers having pensions within their powers. Its composition will be tripartite since it will consist of eight members representing workers, eight members representing employers and eight members representing the federal authority.

It is important to clarify that the National Pension Committee is created with the clear purpose of accompanying and supporting the pension reform to be carried out. It will have the task of conducting social arbitration on proposals regarding pensions. Indeed, our legal order currently does not have a consultation body competent to decide on the three pension schemes since the existing consultation bodies are competent for a specific scheme.

A Centre of Expertise will also be established to gather all the knowledge on pensions available from different administrations, public institutions or public utility institutions. The Centre will be responsible for providing technical assistance to the National Pension Committee, the Academic Council and the ministers who have pensions within their powers.

Concretely, this means that when the National Committee of Pensions, the Academic Council or the ministers with pensions in their attributions request technical assistance from the Centre to carry out their work, it will make available to them information that has already been coordinated between the different administrations and institutions.

In order to ensure the sharing and coordination of knowledge, an accompanying committee of the Expert Centre is also established.

Mr. Speaker, I can only welcome this bill, of which I would like to highlight three aspects in particular.

First, I would like to welcome the effort of Minister Bacquelaine to create these bodies quickly in order to continue to implement the pension reform, a reform as necessary as important to safeguard future generations.

Secondly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the functioning of the new bodies requires little financial resources thanks to the synergy with the existing institutions. At a time when significant efforts are required from all stakeholders in our society, I think it is important to emphasize this.

Finally, the recourse to experts and scientists already working in the field, the coordination and consolidation of information ensure the quality and pragmatic approach of these new bodies.

In conclusion, the MR group supports this bill, because it presents a comprehensive and coherent set aimed at supporting the major pension reform and thus ensuring the sustainability of our social security system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, it was the Committee on Pension Reform 2020-2040 that at that time, in its report in the summer of 2014, for the first time spoke about the establishment of a national committee and a knowledge centre.

Today we stand for the legal establishment of the National Pension Committee, which will be supported by a Knowledge Centre and the Academic Council, whose members have carried the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040.

In its report, the Pension Committee has, in addition to its vision and various thinking tracks, placed a particular emphasis on social consultation. This is imperative in order to implement reforms that will have a great social impact. The 2015 Ageing Report is also referenced. However, it is especially important that the consultative body can now, through a thorough consultation, further draw the cricket lines, which were already determined by the previous government.

Through a wide tripartite representation of trade unions, employers and the government itself, the National Pension Committee can grow into a forum for social consultation on pensions, thereby carrying out the reform generally, thanks to the expertise of the Knowledge Centre and the Academic Council.

Mr. Minister, it is important that all the elements necessary for a coherent vision and a coherent pension reform are also discussed in the Pension Committee.

You have already asked for a thorough discussion of heavy jobs and part-time retirement. We urge that this be done quickly and that a list of heavy-duty professions be drawn up on the basis of objective criteria. Different groups are waiting for clarity on the matter, because there are various needs on the ground that require sound regulation. These include employees with different working hours, workers in plumbing systems, external workers, workers who are at risk for safety or who need to lift weights. It is also about professional categories that we do not always think about in this regard. If we talk about raising the retirement age and leaving early retirement, then we should take the story of the heavy professions into our considerations.

Mr. Minister, yesterday the Ombudsman for Pensions in the committee again talked about the various situations dealt with at the Ombudsman’s Office. This shows how complex our pension system is. Therefore, the National Pension Committee takes all the elements into account when preparing the pension reform. A global view of our pensions should also be a response to the difficult occupations, the age at which one can retire early, the careers that need to be developed and the rising of the retirement age itself, the time when workers can effectively rest. Therefore, not only should the pension legislation itself be enforced, but cross-border consultation is also needed in the framework of end-of-care arrangements, in the context of workable work. The social partners and the responsible minister will be involved.

In addition, I would like to express a concern. As you have already stressed in the committee, in addition to the National Pension Committee and the Academic Council and the Knowledge Centre, which provide support, the representatives of the social consultation should be able to submit their proposals – a possibility that is not now immediately envisaged. The National Labour Council should also be able to formulate opinions.

Finally, the model also includes synergies between different services through the Knowledge Center. This does not ultimately create a new body, but emphasizes coordination. That is important. Even if services continue to exist side by side, there must be good coordination. Fusion is not a goal in itself. Particularly important are good collaboration and streamlined obtaining of data. We should not wait for an evaluation after five years, we should constantly evaluate its functioning.

Mr. Minister, if we approve the text today, we hope, in any case, for a swift operationalization, so that the pistes, which have already been pushed forward during a previous legislature in the context of pension reform, can be coherently developed, with the support of the various social partners, from the National Pension Committee. We hope that the three bodies together will be able to form a driving force.

As several speakers have already said before me, our pension reform is a big challenge. If one wants to take on a major challenge, it means that one must also have a broad social support to meet that challenge. This is exactly what the Pension Commission says: make sure every time, in every decision you make, that there is a broad support, make sure that there is a broad social debate and make sure that the social dialogue, the consultation of the various social partners, is high in the lead.

Mrs Becq has already cited it, this government puts in the draft law that she has been inspired by the Pension Commission. Furthermore, she calls the report of that committee a strong and reliable social contract with proposals for structural reforms of pension systems.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, however, we must note that in the preparation, and ⁇ in the preparation of this draft establishing the National Pension Committee, the ambitions of the Pension Committee are not entirely fulfilled.

I will list only two of those ambitions, but two important, of course.

There is the advisory character in relation to the decision-making power. The committee was very clear in this, both must be present, she speaks of a double power. The first is the decision-making power, in particular with regard to the parameters used in the pension system and with regard to the pension budgets. The second is the power to provide advice, on request or on its own initiative, and to make recommendations.

Mr. Minister, we note that these two principles are completely dismissed. The report talks about monitoring the social quality and financial sustainability of our pensions by establishing this National Pension Committee, but the government chooses to use this decision-making power altogether.

Let’s look at the powers that this government gives to the commission.

It is obvious that the government chooses to make this power an exclusive one-way traffic. Mr. Minister, when we talk about social dialogue and social consultation, one of the first things we learn at the social school is that one should not carry out one-way movement but above all go in dialogue. If you say that you take the social consultation seriously and want to create a broad support for this pension reform you are completely wrong, because you are explicitly going to make this one-way movement. Nothing in the draft permits the Pension Committee itself to take initiatives related to the reform of pensions.

Even in its advisory role, the report of the Pension Committee had provided a much broader role for this Pension Committee. The draft law will engage the committee for advice on files entrusted by the government agreement. So we already know that the area in which this committee will be allowed to work is limited to the government agreement.

If we include the government agreement, it should be about the following elements: the modalities for raising the statutory retirement age, the phase out of the diploma bonification for the calculation of the pension amount, the modernization of the family dimension and the reform of derivative rights.

We all know that decisions have already been made by this government and that this Pension Committee was not consulted because it did not exist yet. The curious thing is that the report of the Pension Commission had pointed out and warned.

I quote one of the conditions she lists: “One must not wait until the decision-making regarding the reform is fully completed before one establishes a Knowledge Centre for Pensions and a National Pension Committee. This should be done quickly, both for the sake of building up scientific and technical expertise and the involvement of the social partners.”

So the Pension Commission has already in its report predicted that the next government would not accomplish this, and it has been right, Mr. Minister. Well, right now you’re going to create one.

As I said before, you also take all the proposals from the Pension Commission, not only in its decisive, but even in its advisory role. Allow me to add a few points in this regard.

First, both the government, the competent minister and the management committees were allowed to submit requests for advice to the National Pension Committee. We do not find that in the bill.

Secondly, the promotion of convergence between different systems, which was entrusted in the report of the Pension Committee to the Subcommittee on Public Sector Pension Schemes, is completely ignored in the present bill.

Third, as regards the minimum pension, the report of the Pension Committee explicitly refers to the tasks of the National Pension Committee to be established to propose corrective measures to ensure the objectives of the minimum schemes in the various schemes. Nor do we find anything of this in the bill.

Fourth, the objectives of the pension reform were also explicitly included in the report of the Pension Committee in the mission description of the National Pension Committee. In fact, the National Pension Committee was entrusted to examine all aspects which it considers relevant for social efficiency, financial sustainability, coherence and transparency and public legitimacy. Mr. Minister, your bill is silent in all languages about this mission.

Fifth, the provision of information and the attraction of a broad social debate for pension reforms were also forgotten in your draft.

Sixth, the Government does not mention in the draft legislation the plans of the Pension Commission with the so-called first pillar a, in which a new additional pension pillar for persons in public services is attached to be established. However, it was explicitly the intention of the Pension Committee to have this discussed by the National Pension Committee.

I can give examples, but I will limit myself to these six points.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will ⁇ address my conclusion also to Mrs. Becq, who explicitly referred to the Pension Committee. You can no longer refer to the pension committee and you can no longer say that you follow the proposals of the pension committee. I have listed six elements that clearly show that the proposals of the Pension Committee are not being followed.

The Pension Commission has often made it clear that this matter should be considered as a balanced whole from which one cannot simply light out an element. Again, however, you take a few elements out of it and even there, Mr. Minister, you limit yourself very much and actually take a walk with the social consultation.

Our conclusion, Mr. Minister, colleagues, is therefore that this bill undermines the ambition of the report of the Pension Commission, to build a strong body, in particular a tripartite National Pension Committee that decides on the future of all pensions, with the aim of social performance, financial sustainability, coherence and transparency and public legitimacy. This is a complete mist in the consultative body that you and the ministers wish to install together.

Mr. Minister, we will not approve this bill with full conviction.

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. However, its content raises a few questions.

The first point I would like to highlight is what you mean by this National Pension Committee. It is a body of social consultation of the pension reform that will also have to make social arbitrations; you say this explicitly. At the same time, this so-called organ of social concertation, you muzzle it on two sides. This body has no right of initiative but, in addition, no other track other than the government’s agreement can be discussed there.

Given the expertise of the social partners, especially in terms of pensions, this is a form of intellectual castration – give me the expression. You mould them in advance, you reduce as much as possible the field of discussions and proposals. Let us recognize that, for this government and this majority, this is a funny way of conceiving social concertation! Either you call it a social consultation body and you consider it as such, or you stop believing social consultation and you call it, for example, a reflection group with social partners on the government agreement on pensions.

Referring to social consultation about a group that is moulded in advance, sorry, it is ⁇ surprising on the part of some groups of this majority!

In a committee, I had submitted an amendment aimed at granting a right of initiative to this committee. The majority rejected it. This demonstrates its willingness to make it anything but a real organ of concertation. I am submitting the same amendment to the plenary session again, because I consider it essential. In addition, the experts who have been in the Pension Commission for more than two years have instructed us to set up this type of National Pension Committee in the form of a real body of consultation with the social partners – which your project does not envisage at all.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight several weaknesses inherent in this bill. The first is that you establish an Academic Council, a National Committee of Pensions and a Centre of Expertise, while there are consultation bodies that deal with the issue of pensions and that you do not provide in any way how the one and the other will coexist or the possible hierarchization of their respective decisions and positions. Of course, this may pose some problems, including overlappings that can be anticipated from now on.

I will take a few examples. In this text, you explain to us that this Committee will have to look at the painfulness of work, the point system, the part-time pension. I can quote you all the other bodies that are already in charge of this and which should, on a regulatory level, give an opinion on these issues.

Take for example the National Labour Council, but there are others. How will they articulate? Despite the many questions asked in the committee, there was no real answer. When you have the opinions of several bodies, without any concertation between one and the other, you are likely to find yourself with opinions that are absolutely not convergent. This will allow the government to say that they do not agree with each other and therefore that it is the government that will have to decide! This is a skillful maneuver on the political level but it is a demonstration of how you consider social concertation.

Another weakness is that this bill does not provide for any specific legal status for this National Pension Committee, unlike other existing consultation bodies. The Council of State has noted this.

Finally, when it comes to the composition of these organs, the representation of women could have been affirmed with more voluntarism and clarity. The State Council also notes that it would have been good to add an explicit reference to the application of the law of 20 July 1990 on the balanced distribution of men and women at the level of these different organs. Always at the level of composition, what about the place of the elderly since they are obviously the stakeholder? They could even be given a consultative voice. I had submitted an amendment on the subject but it was rejected; I will put it back in plenary session.

As for the Centre of Expertise, what is it? You say that it is responsible for gathering all the knowledge aimed at the different subjects related to pensions.

In practice, the conclusion is that this Centre of Expertise will bring together the different administrations and ask them to work together. I find it more than appealing to see that there is a need for a law in order for a collaboration to take place between the different administrations and between the various experts in the matter. It is challenging to see that you need a law for public bodies to collaborate.

In conclusion, my colleagues, we will abstain from this bill. Why to abstain? I think it should have been done as the Pension Commission clearly requested. But in this form, you mouse the social partners in advance and therefore it is not a consultation body. This is a missed opportunity to benefit from the considerable expertise of employers and trade unions in terms of pensions and the articulation of work and pensions. This is a missed opportunity to move forward positively, including with interesting initiatives and proposals outside the government agreement, a matter that, however, requires a broad consensus among the population if we want to face the challenge of today’s and tomorrow’s pensions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the opposition is present with harsh criticism of what the government today offers us. I will be speaking in two days. First on the Commission, and then on the Committee.

I would like to take a look at our analysis of the Commission. I have already said it in a parliamentary committee: the biggest problem in our view is the ideological homogeneity in the composition of this Pension Commission to which you want to give an official status by this bill presented today.

We regret, as a leftist party, that there is no plurality of views within this Commission on the evolution towards which we must go in terms of the management of our pensions in Belgium. We find that the ideological consensus that prevails in this Commission, which is that we will have to work longer to finance our pensions, is problematic. In fact, the purpose of this Commission is to be able to give opinions at the executive level. Allow at least a diversity of opinion in this Commission! Allow at least a political debate that takes place across Europe and stop selecting, in the composition of this Commission, a set of experts – I hear their expertise – who all go in the same direction!

Let me quote from page 5 of the latest committee report: “Despite the fact that career and age requirements will generally become more stringent in the future, sufficient flexibility must remain.” That is what the committee says. The committee thus declares itself in agreement with the principle of longer work.

As I said in the committee, Mr. Minister, we should guarantee pluralism in this committee. I had given you some indications, including Patrick Deboosere, demographer at the VUB.

I also think of Gilbert De Swert, expert for ACV, for the CSC. They are experts who come up with another vision, that of saying that eventually in Belgium, it is not indispensable to work longer, that there are other paths; for example, wealth produced in Belgium has increased by a factor 4 since 1960, so why not devote part of that money to pensions.

These demographers also find that the “baby-boom” children are coming into retirement. By 2060, projections indicate that 14 to 15 percent of our GDP should be spent on pensions. This is already the case in countries such as France and Norway.

Mr. Minister, we would have desired a real ideological pluralism in the composition of this committee and not just a selection of all those experts who share your vision of extending careers.

The second point concerns the Committee. Let me remind you of the criticism of the social partners. You say there is room for maneuver, but in fact you have already decided everything. What else can the committee say? What can the committee decide? Everything has already been decided with the government.

It is not only the Labour Party that says that, but the unions have already communicated about it as well. In a press release, they stated, I quote: “After the abolition of the pension bonus, after the index jump on all replacement incomes including pensions, after the decision to abolish the diploma bonus for pension calculations in public services, after the decision to raise the retirement age to 67 years, the government wants to set up a pension committee and we ask: what else has that committee to say?”

Can you tell me what the committee really has to say? You answer that the National Pension Committee will have to decide on three points: the introduction of the point system, the definition of heavy occupation and part-time pension. In fact, the government has long shattered the key nodes around those three points.

Regarding the point system, the government has already said that the decision to introduce a point system is no longer to be discussed. That point system will calculate our pension completely differently. It must allow – I quote – “to value work more.” As a leftist party, we read that differently, because for us it means that the periods of unemployment, time credit and career break will be less validated.

You want to harmonize pensions. I read that more like a gradual reduction of public servants’ pensions to the level of those in the private sector. The consequences of the new financial and economic crisis will be borne directly on pensioners.

Indeed, this is exactly what is being talked about. I see that many young people are present today in the tribune to attend the House discussions. The proposals discussed today aim to vary future pensions according to the economic situation, the money produced in Belgium, the productivity of companies. It will be possible to fluctuate the pensions of those who, today, are children and who will integrate into the workplace after their studies. This is the political challenge of the pension reform through a point system.

The second point is the list of heavy professions. This is the second point that you would like to submit to the Pension Committee.

The government has already decided that pre-payments for heavy jobs would be reduced to sixty years with a career of forty years. There is no more debate on this subject. You are not going to ask for the Committee’s opinion, since you have decided and it will remain that way.

What remains to be discussed is who exercises a heavy profession. The fact is, Mr. Minister, and that is the foundation of the discussion, that more and more professions in our country are becoming heavy.

More and more professions are becoming heavy in our society. Should it be considered that being a teacher is one of them? of course ! It is enough to be in classes of twenty to twenty-five students to realize this. Working in steel is a heavy job, just like doing business at Caterpillar or in a hospital setting. In an economy that is the second most productive in Europe and the fourth most productive in the world, more and more activities are becoming heavy trades. These people are tired of working.

The social debate we are taking part in today does not involve reserving an exception to certain professions. We will soon have the opportunity to talk to the police officers. The issue is, today, in one of the most productive economies in the world, to give rest to the elderly who desire it and to allow young people to take their place in the world of work. As it is said in many demonstrations: "The elderly rest, the young at work." This is the ideological question that is being raised at the moment. I see, Mr. Minister, that in this regard the Committee you want to formalize has no room for negotiation to discuss an extension of the number of heavy jobs.

Mr. Minister, you will understand that we regret that the National Pension Committee does not have more room for negotiation and that we regret its ideologically homogeneous composition.

Finally, regarding the general philosophy of your reform, I will point out that, as a left party, we disapprove of it, of course. Should I remind you that in a country with more than 600,000 unemployed workers, we must be able to leave room for young people?

Moreover, yesterday, the Office du Plan invoked the fact that extending working time would induce a non-reduction of unemployment. In other words, this has clear implications for unemployment, ⁇ for young people.

I would like to hear the Minister on this. In fact, for weeks, even months, liberals have claimed that the measure will have no impact. If you listen to them, with a magic rod, the longer the career of the elderly, the more work there will be for the young. But nobody has proved it yet. Economically, this will have to be explained. This, however, is perceived by the liberals as a truth that is given us by pseudo-arguments.

I would like to reiterate that yesterday, the Plan Office made it clear that there was a link between the increase or stagnation of unemployment and the extension of working time.

Finally, I would like to make a wish. I ask you to give room to real negotiations with the social partners; get out of the liberal carcass that has the consequence of further prolonging a crisis situation that leads more and more workers to be increasingly exhausted, to find themselves in a situation of burn-out, to no longer have the energy to work while their children are waiting to find a job.

You can still take a step backwards. I’m not sure that you will listen to me and that the parties of your majority will agree with this proposal, but I hope that the social movement will take you a step back.

Thank you, Mr Hedebouw. I assume that the list of speakers at these is exhausted and give the word to the government.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I refer in part to the excellent report of the committee and the answers I was able to give to the questions that were asked in the Social Affairs Committee where we discussed this matter for several hours.

I will note in advance that I hear, on the one hand, that the government does not follow enough or deviates too far from the 2020-2040 Pension Reform Commission. On the other hand, other opposition members say the 2020-2040 Pension Reform Commission copies too much of the government reform. I do not know who is right. I can simply tell you that, in our country, it is always the parliament and the government who take political initiatives, vote laws and execute those laws when they have been voted. It is important to remember this today.

It is true that the Commission’s report on pension reform 2020-2040 is the main source of inspiration for the pension reform we are conducting. I will answer to my excellent colleague, Frédéric Daerden, that it is of course a matter of supporting the reform to be carried out. This is the term used again: "support the pension reform that needs to be carried out." I do not know exactly what other semantics we could use today. It is not about supporting a reform of another object. It is about supporting a pension reform. You may seem surprised, but that is exactly what it is. I confirm it to you.

The question of whether or not to make a pension reform is no longer so much to decide today. Everyone agrees on this.

This is not the subject of today’s discussion. We discussed this in the presentation of the General Policy Note. There was a consensus to say that reform was necessary, but I hear that some think it’s not up to parliament or government to carry it out. This is a real difference between us.

For my part, as a supporter of democratic institutions, I think that it is the Parliament and the government that have the task of implementing this reform.

The pension reform is a reform as stipulated in the government agreement. This pension reform is inspired by the viewpoint of the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040, but does not follow this viewpoint literally. Otherwise, the government is superfluous. Decisions are still taken by Parliament and Government. The legislature approves the laws and the government implements them. Reforms are not yet determined by experts, no matter how expert they may be. The task of an expert is to place things in their context, to evaluate them, and to make suggestions. The task of a political mandatar is to make decisions and take responsibility for their own choices. Whatever of them, and whatever one may claim, I assure everyone of my will to cooperate with the experts in an intelligent way and in good understanding.

The Pension Reform Commission is our primary source of inspiration. She claims that it is necessary to extend careers and work a little longer. Everyone is unanimous on this. Hedebouw reminded that all the experts are going in the same direction. I find this rather reassuring. by mr. Daerden recalled that financial sustainability should be concerned. Like him, I think that we should be concerned about the social performance of the system. This is the goal of the reform we are putting in place: to support the system financially so that it will perform for the generations that will follow us.

Madam Fonck, as far as the elderly are concerned, I am obviously very concerned about the Elderly Advisory Board, which I have met again this week. They also wanted to thank me, as they consider that my office and I in particular have excellent relations with the Advisory Council of the Elderly and are very pleased with the contacts we have with them. The National Pension Committee is likely to reserve a place for the elderly to be consulted at certain times when developing this reform. This seems quite natural to me.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with what I have said in the committee. Of course, the legislation in force will be applied to the advisory committees, since the National Committee of Pensions is an opinion body and as such, the law of 20 July 1990 aimed at promoting the balanced presence of men and women in the bodies with an opinion competence will be applicable, in particular the well-known articles 2 and 2bis. Article 2 of that law states that “When, within an advisory body, one or more mandates are to be awarded as a result of a submission procedure, each body responsible for submitting the candidatures is obliged to submit for each mandate the candidacy of at least one man and one woman.”

Double lists will be presented. Article 2bis specifies that no more than two thirds of the members of a advisory body are of the same sex. Therefore, I can reassure you about the representation of women in the National Pension Committee. I will be attentive.

Some also consider that this will not really be social concertation. I hear that it is demanded, and when we present a structure that allows social concertation, we no longer agree. It reminds me of the capricious children who ask for a piece of cake and then refuse to eat it when they are served. It is a bit easy! I call on everyone to consider that the purpose of the National Pension Committee is to organize social consultation.

The National Pension Committee will have the task of conducting the social consultation on pension proposals. Our legal system currently does not have a consultative body that is competent to express opinions on the three pension systems of employees, self-employed and civil servants. The existing consultative bodies are only competent for a specific regime. The National Pension Committee will be the social consultation that will discuss the pension reform.

The primary objective is to enable this social concertation.

Dear colleagues, I would like to reiterate my conviction that this reform is necessary to succeed. Today, the object of the bill that is submitted to you is to organize the structure and structures, with the Centre of Expertise and the Academic Council, allowing to articulate all the necessary elements, in particular to realize the social consultation on the difficulty of the professions, the partial pension and the point system, which is the fundamental reform of the system. There is no doubt about our will.

If we have opted for tripartite consultation, it is precisely in an interest of effectiveness, so that all parties are represented and that this dialogue can be established permanently.

I already thank you for the attention you pay to the creation of these bodies that will allow a real social concertation for a pension reform that is absolutely indispensable.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I have heard you. I would like to repeat your remarks on social co-operation. You tell us that when you give a piece of cake to the opposition, it refuses. Mr. Minister, it is not a piece of cake that you offer us today in your bill, especially on the way you consider social consultation, it is a sausage cake! You will therefore easily understand that we disagree with your view of social consultation, with the way you consider that it is in your right to shake it in advance, to prevent social partners from taking any initiative and to give opinions on ideas that are not part of the government agreement.

Excuse me for repeating this, this is not the social concertation. This is the name, but it is the “bidon” social concertation! This is, therefore, a missed opportunity, even though the pension reform represents an important construction ground for which the expertise of the social partners could bring real added value.

I will respond to Mr. President’s answers. The Minister .

First of all, Mr. The minister makes me smile when he claims that I am surprised that we are talking about “pension reform”. We misunderstood each other. In any case, you misunderstood me. My problem is not that we are talking about "pension reform", but that the system put in place is supposed to support the pension reform, as if it was the only possible.

The reform that was conceived by the negotiators, and you inherited its implementation, is presented to us as if it were the single solution to ensure financial and social sustainability. When I speak of social sustainability, you speak of “social performance.” This already translates a significant difference in state of mind.

Then, I share your idea that it is not the experts who decide, but the parliament, while the government decides on some other measures and executes them. I totally agree. However, we are here to decide by being perfectly enlightened. In this case, it seems to me that you have instituted a system whose lighting is totally biased.

Finally, when it comes to social consultation, just like Ms. Fonck, I will emphasize your expression of “capricious children who refuse the portion of the cake that is offered to them.” When the cake is poisoned, it is normal for the child to refuse to eat it!

I am totally false against your expression, which is also somewhat vexatory. I’m back on my own: it’s a “Canada Dry” concert. The Answers of Mr. The Minister further reinforces my position.

I regret that you have not answered the question on the composition of the committee. You are pleased that the views are quite unanimous. I see a problem there. You are asking for the establishment of a Commission, you even give it an official status with today’s bill.

You want to be advised. You are right to say that the decision is up to the parliament, not the government. I don’t understand why, in terms of advising the government and parliament, you don’t accept a little more pluralism. I regret this soft consensus that we must work longer at all costs. I regret that you did not respond to this.

Then, at the level of consultation, I’m not going to turn around the pot, you know very well that the trade unions consider that the margins are more or less zero. It’s not just the political parties that are criticizing it.

The aim of your consultation is simple: to be able to impose this measure of pensions that the unions do not want. You hope thus not to trigger a new trade union resistance to an entirely unpopular measure in the population. You feel it around you; you see that people are disgusted by your proposal to get them to work longer and longer.

You constantly use pseudo-rational arguments: “Yes, it needs to be.” Today I wish I had a government that was at least open to a bell: “No, it shouldn’t.” Other pistes are possible. Other pension reforms are possible.

Unfortunately, you will not be surprised, Mr. Minister, that you did not really convince us to vote for your bill. Therefore, you will not count on our two votes this afternoon. But I feel that it won’t annoy you. On the other hand, you can count on our two votes outside this parliament to continue the fight against your pension reform.