Proposition 54K1180

Projet de loi visant à relever l'âge légal de la pension de retraite et portant modification des conditions d'accès à la pension de retraite anticipée et de l'âge minimum de la pension de survie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 17, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant pension scheme retirement conditions survivor's benefit early retirement wage earner self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

PP

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 ¶

July 23, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to comment on the organization of our work. We heard this morning, like everyone else, that the government had agreed on the budget adjustment, the 2016 budget and the tax shift. There will probably be an up-to-date debate soon. We will discuss this at the Conference of Presidents.

Since a press conference is organized by the government at 11:30, it would be good for parliamentarians to receive all the useful and necessary information. I think of the numbered tables so that we can conduct the debate in full knowledge of cause early in the afternoon.

This is a request to be made to the government so that we can have this multiannual table, so that we are all equipped to intervene in the plenary session.

Mr. Nollet, I intended to discuss this at the Conference of Presidents, in particular with regard to the provision of documents. A press conference will be held. Everyone can attend. It always happens this way. We will see this at the Conference of Presidents.

There are four reporters. The word is for mr. and Delicate.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, there is a convergence of all the political groups that have expressed themselves in committees, namely that the sustainability of our pension system is a societal challenge. This is an important issue for all our fellow citizens, current and future pensioners, and a matter on which parliament, government, social partners must work to ensure the financing and sustainability of the system. We can all find this conclusion. No one said that nothing should be done, quite the opposite. Then, the paths to reach a comprehensive, sustainable and balanced solution vary greatly between each other.

Let us not hide it, we had tense debates during which, in addition to procedural issues, strong differences appeared. This is all the difficulty of this report, divided into four parts. There are four rapporteurs, in perfect parity: North-South, majority-opposition, men-gender.

We should not say too much given the density and importance of this debate but we should not be too long at the risk of plummeting the debate that will follow. So I have a kind of "accordeon" relationship, which can be stretched or narrowed. The trend is that it should rather be restricted.

I would like to thank the officials, starting with the Social Affairs Committee, but also all the others, who were called back to write a draft report. We dedicated 36 hours of debate on this issue last June 22, 23, 24, 29 and 30.

In terms of procedure, all this started under somewhat difficult conditions since, last June 19, the Social Affairs Committee was convened for Monday, June 22 in the morning to discuss, it seems, at the end, this bill with the mention "the session can be extended". This led to a whole series of interventions by several opposition colleagues – the beginnings were somewhat chaotic and tense – who were outraged by the fact that very little time was available to members to know the contents of this project, even though the intention had been announced as soon as the government agreement. As far as I can remember, the book has more than 280 pages. Several colleagues asked why the urgency on such a project, why the State Council was asked to issue an urgent opinion within five working days on such an important matter.

To these various remarks and disputes of the opposition, the Minister justified the urgency by the following elements. First, the increase in the statutory retirement age will take effect in 2025. Second, the rules on early retirement come into effect in 2018. Third, a pension engine must be developed by the administration and it must be able to respond to workers’ requests for information. Fourth, several provisions will have retroactive effect. At least that is what the Minister has answered to the request.

Ms Temmerman believes that the arguments of the Minister do not demonstrate at all the urgency. There is still time to ⁇ the first three objectives, while the fourth can equally well be achieved through a separate bill.

by mr. Gilkinet believes that this project cannot be considered in the fourth speed.

by mr. De Vriendt regrets the method he’s used, which he calls the worst kind of DIY. He regrets the fact that the government does not take into account the citizens who will be affected by the proposed measures that ignore the observations of the State Council and that it twists the arm of parliament. He noted that concern and uncertainty prevail among the working population because they fear they will not actually be able to work until the age of 67.

by Mr. De Roover argues that the reason for the opposition members’ disgrace in the face of this forcing attempt is the presence of journalists and television cameras.

Finally Mr . Calvo, having participated in the Conference of Presidents, testifies that the opposition has actively sought a solution so that parliamentary work worthy of that name can still be provided. This resulted in an agreement: the review on 22 June is limited to the introductory report.

by Mr. The Minister responded to the arguments of the State Council. These are important in the bottom. The Minister said that at no time has the State Council questioned the constitutionality of the bill. When referring to Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to social security, it is to indicate that it is up to the author of the preliminary draft to establish to what extent the provisions do not mean a significant downturn from our social protection and, if so, to explain in what way they are reasonably justified in the light of the general interest.

He concludes that the State Council’s request aims for the bill to be better justified on this need to guarantee the viability of the pension scheme and indicates that this is what was done in the statement of reasons. According to the minister, the reform that is being implemented does not reduce the level of protection offered but argues that the extension of the career, coupled with the fact that the duration of the reference career is not changed, will have the effect of raising the average level of pensions.

Regarding the State Council’s comment on the age criteria, it specifies that the bill was slightly adjusted and that these criteria were used in previous reforms.

Finally, as regards the complexity of the legislation for the citizen, he indicates that this observation has been taken seriously. That’s why the bill covers all three pension schemes and indicates that the citizen will find himself better in all these reforms because he will be able, thanks to the pension engine, to determine the first date at which he will be able to take his pension and the amount of the latter.

by Mr. Gilkinet believes that the real challenge is to think about a different division of work and a different method of financing for social security. He does not agree with the Minister’s point of view regarding the consultation with the social partners.

Ms Fonck also disputes that consultations with social partners and federal entities have gone well. This is all the more evident since the government did not even wait for the Committee A’s opinion before starting the second reading in the Council of Ministers. It requests that the Management Committee of the National Pension Office, the Committee A, the INASTI Committee, the Public Enterprises Commission and the Military Committee may have their opinions, and regrets that, although mandatory, these opinions have not been attached to the draft.

The Minister indicates that he will communicate the various opinions of the consultation and negotiation bodies, which has been done.

by Mr. Clarinval then submits a series of amendments and proposes to seek the State Council’s opinion on them.

Ms Fonck stresses that the amendments are in fact a government draft and notes that the member is asking for the State Council’s opinion. The work must therefore be suspended until the State Council's opinion is forwarded to the House.

Various speeches have taken place on these amendments, which I will summarize as follows: following an informal meeting with other members of the majority and with the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Clarinval decided to withdraw his request for the State Council’s opinion.

Ms Fonck insists that the State Council be consulted and proposes to hold hearings. Other members also requested this, and a vote on the matter took place. The request for hearing, at this stage of the debate, was rejected by a majority of 11 votes to 6 against.

Onkelinx insists on whether the majority intends to effectively adopt the bill on July 23 and recalls her request for a quality debate. She recalls that as long as the concepts are not defined, notably those of pain, the minister’s argument that workers have the right to know quickly the date on which they will be able to receive their pension is not valid.

He also called for hearings to be held. These two items were submitted to a vote and rejected by a majority of eleven votes against six votes in opposition.

Next are the introductory presentations. The Minister of Pensions indicates that, in accordance with the government agreement, the bill aims to raise the legal retirement age and reform the early pension and survival pension. I will not be surprised if I refer to the report, which summarizes your comment. This will save us time. I think my colleagues will appreciate it.

The same applies to Ms Fonck’s proposal for a resolution. I was asking her if she would agree that I return the written report. We will consider that it is.

In any case, the link between pension reform and employment policy is explicitly found in the report.

Now, I come to the general discussion, for which I will limit myself to the first remarks. Let me start with my colleague. by Roover . It refers to a statement made in 2004. Johan Vande Lanotte and Frank Vandenbroucke said that this year would be a milestone. According to M. From Roover, in the meantime, that charring moment began to rust, as nothing moved. He believes it is important to move forward on this issue. To demonstrate this necessity, he takes the example of his father, who worked from eighteen to sixty-five. You will find in the written report the details of the arguments relating to the father’s career. by Roover . According to the speaker, the bill aims to raise a series of two-year parameters in 2025 and 2030, while, according to the statistics, life expectancy will continue to increase by two and a half years. He believes the bill provides for "generous transitional measures". for mr. From Roover, it is clear that unchanged policy, the current system is not financially sustainable. Here are some of the figures that are included in the report.

According to the speaker, with unchanged policies, aging brings structural costs of more than 4% of GDP each year, or 16 billion euros, only for expenses related to pensions, without taking into account the wider costs. He believes that authorities should be attentive to a number of developments in society. When the retirement age was set to 65 in 1925, a man’s life expectancy was only 54 years. According to him, at the time, the pension was still an insurance for those who were unlucky enough to live a long life.

for mr . From Roover, it is crucial that retirement gives sufficient purchasing power to pensioners and finds that fortunately, there is a second and third pillar of retirement. According to him, the current government is making a clear choice to which it agrees. He chooses to lay solid foundations in order to be able to guarantee a pension to future generations.

According to our colleague from the N-VA, the extension of the career is not a punishment, but an opportunity to constitute pension rights, which is beneficial for the quality and replacement ratio of it. The aim of the measures is to raise the age for leaving the labour market to 63 years.

According to M. From Roover, young retirees have a higher mortality rate as they seek to give meaning to their lives. The opportunity to extend an activity is a great opportunity.

According to mr. From Roover, we have to forget the biblical view of work as a punishment. This is how the speaker invokes the Bible: “It is with the sweat of your face that you shall eat bread” (cf. Jn. and Genesis 3.19). In short, to summarize, work is health.

The speaker ends, on behalf of his group, stressing that it is absurd to claim that the extension of the career will be at the expense of youth employment and says he is proud to be able to contribute to this project.

Then comes the speech of our colleague, Frédéric Daerden, which I will try to summarize because I do not doubt that on the occasion of his speech, he will take on a number of arguments that he developed in the committee. In any case, he pointed out that this bill was antidemocratic and cited some elements of the majority’s electoral program for the 2014 elections.

At the level of the MR, the fact that the retirement age was not raised was included in his electoral program; it was even at the top of the Pension chapter. I also mentioned it.

There is no ambiguity in the program of the N-VA: "De pensioenleeftijd blijft op 65 jaar". Idem on the side of the CD&V: "We behouden de wettelijke pensioenleeftijd van 65 jaar." L'Open Vld: "De wettelijke pensioenleeftijd blijft op 65 jaar." The speaker also quoted Charles Michel, who declared himself on the eve of the elections: "For the MR, it is not a matter of reaching the legal retirement age at 65 years." De Wever called any decline in the legal retirement age “absurd.”

This is stated by the speaker, Mr. Daerden, that this project is antidemocratic in the sense that it has not been announced to the voters and, on the contrary, there has been a complete turning point of view. He gives other examples. He cites in particular the Minister of Pensions – as it will appear, Mr. Minister, in the report of the plenary session for posterity – who told RTBF, on October 5, 2014, a few days before the arrival of the government, that “the MR proposes not to touch the legal retirement age.”

Another aspect is financing. by mr. Daerden believes that the pension reform requested should not mean a decline in rights. He insists that another just and respectful reform of everyone’s rights is possible. It refers to complementary alternative financing, which is a real recommendation from the Pension Reform Commission.

by mr. Daerden also blames the project for being suckled, without an overview. This is not a comprehensive project of the system, which should, besides, combine employment policy and the pension funding system. He believes that the measures are, on the contrary, presented at the drop count, which does not allow for a clear and transparent reading of the whole.

He believes that the proposed measures are unfair despite the reassuring statements of the minister that a limited number of people are concerned. All this does not stand the way in the face of reality. This will affect most of our citizens. The argument that a longer career will result in a better pension is also not true as other measures will reduce the amount of pension per year of work.

People at the end of a career with illness, disability or unemployment will also have to wait 67 years to get their pension. On the part of workers, according to figures provided by the minister himself, 25% of employees are affected. For the self-employed, this percentage reaches 40%, but the measure will be ⁇ unfair for women: 54% of self-employed women and 83% of self-employed women are affected.

by mr. Daerden points out that this bill is unfair because there are disparities in everyone’s ability to work longer depending on their careers, health status as well as at the end of their careers. by mr. Daerden recalls that he has filed a bill with other PS colleagues creating a tax credit equivalent to 120 euros a month for workers who were eligible to constitute a pension bonus, that is, workers who continue their careers while they could have taken their early retirement. I think the theme of the election campaign was to raise the actual retirement age. This is noted in the program, but also in other programs. This is not the path the government has chosen.

Several speakers have also addressed the question of the penalty criteria, among them Mr. Daerden but also Ms Onkelinx and Temmerman who wanted to know more about the remarks of the Minister of Employment on the notion of sustainable careers – werkbaar werk. They are asking for more explanations on this.

by mr. Daerden always invokes social consultation which is not one. Several speakers also spoke on the matter. by mr. Daerden believes the pension system is not financially unsustainable. The proposed measures are by no means indispensable and are not fatal. There is an economic justification. But the pension system is not isolated. It is an integral part of social security. The global management of social security was established in 1984, therefore, for a long time. Therefore, of course, we need to have a general reflection on this overall management and not isolated, i.e. not just on the question of pension financing.

He also provided figures from the Office of the Plan that indicate that the cost of pensions will increase by 3.5% of GDP by 2060. Annual spending growth will therefore reach only 0.076% between 2015 and 2060. This is the annual growth in the period.

I suppose that our colleague will return to his remarks on life expectancy. Although this has increased, the retirement age has never been changed. by Mr. Daerden concludes that raising the retirement age is not a fatality, but a political choice. He also invokes the situation of women, from injustices to discriminatory character towards women, citing figures that he will be able, if necessary, to resume in his intervention, soon.

Mr. Daerden, I pass on your intervention on early retirement and survival pensions; you will return to it. You also mentioned the National Pension Council. You have challenged its tripartite composition and have, along with other colleagues, made a long speech on the risks of unconstitutionality of the project. The standstill debate will also be held by Mr. Massin during the discussion. In the eyes of Mr. Guaranteeing the viability of the pension scheme can be done without drastically reducing the rights of current and future pensioners.

Since there are alternatives that are less offensive to the rights of the persons concerned, the measures proposed by the government must be considered unconstitutional for violation of Article 23 of the Constitution.

Finally, you considered, Mr. Daerden, that it was the responsibility of the government to present a comprehensive and comprehensible reform to the government in an interest of transparency and readability. You also mentioned the retroactive nature of certain measures, in particular those concerning transitional allocations. This is a major flaw in the government’s project; several colleagues have highlighted it.

Your conclusion, Mr. Daerden, is that the project under consideration is antidemocratic, unfair, absurd, ineffective, unconstitutional and discriminatory. You call on the government to review its copy to implement a comprehensive, legible, coherent, social reform based on a broad democratic debate.

by Mr. David Clarinval believes it is more than time to move to act to safeguard the pension system. This is currently challenged by the combination of three factors: the activity rate of the 60/64 years old, the steady increase in life expectancy, the average age of leaving the work life, resulting in a budget cost that rose from 25 billion euros in 2006 to 41 billion euros in 2014.

Between longer careers, burdens on workers or higher future generations, or lower pension funds, the government has made the choice of actually extending careers.

According to M. Clarinval, it is irresponsible to make believing that the pension system we know is sustainable in its current form. The reform initiated by the government echoes similar reforms carried out in recent years and which will be carried out in the coming years in most European states. He notes that the statutory retirement age is raised to 67 years in accordance with the scenario mentioned in the first report of the Commission on pension reform but that contrary to this scenario, the reference career that is currently 45 years is not extended. According to him, the reform will result in raising the average amount of pensions.

by Mr. Clarinval notes that it is planned to gradually increase the age from which the surviving spouse can claim survival pension but reminds that the entitled who does not meet the age condition at the time of the death of his spouse can benefit from the transitional allowance scheme.

He concludes by saying that increasing life expectancy coupled with improving health situations at an older age allows consideration of career extension but acknowledges that not everyone is equal in relation to these health improvements and indicates that it is obvious that particular situations must be able to be taken into account.

For him, if we touch the statutory retirement age, it is logical that the conditions for access to early retirement follow a similar direction and insists on the fact that raising the retirement age is not a goal in itself but that it aims to raise the average effective retirement age.

Sonja Becq then recalls the necessity of the pension reform in the light of the figures concerning the ageing population. According to the speaker, the report of the Aging Commission contained appealing figures. For her, even if it’s not easy, it’s time to make the necessary decisions. The main challenge is to enable more people to pursue their careers longer in jobs tailored to their age. It is therefore necessary to make the labour market more attractive, to encourage employers to offer suitable jobs and to improve the balance between private and professional life. Mrs Becq insists that a career with a fixed duration of 45 years matters more than age.

She notes that over time, we have managed to create the illusion among the public that it is enough to reach the age of 65 years, or even less, to benefit from a full pension, which, in reality, has never been the case. For her, in the future, the career will always count more than the retirement age, but the reference to the age of 67 is important for all those who will not have fulfilled the condition of a full career but who must nevertheless be able to retire at some point. It welcomes the fact that transitional measures are envisaged in favour of those who are now close to the age at which one could previously claim to more favourable measures and it considers that this is a good balance between the rights of those who are close to the age at which one could previously benefit from certain benefits and solidarity with future generations. The raising of the statutory retirement age to 67 years should logically give rise to an adaptation of the reference ages in matters of compensation for unemployment and disability illness. The speaker to question the Minister of Employment or the Government in this regard.

Ms. Becq also wants the establishment of the National Pension Committee to be accompanied by a discussion on hard jobs – which is actually planned – or even the part-time pension, as the minister has already announced.

by Mr. Lachaert reminds that raising the legal retirement age to 67 years is one of the first measures announced by the government, which demonstrates the importance of this measure in the eyes of the majority. Like colleague Clarinval, he indicates that the primary objective is first and foremost to raise the actual retirement age, which is abnormally low in Belgium. Those who have a full career behind them will be able to retire earlier. It also indicates that the reform is part of a broad movement that must be seen in other European states, Ireland and the United Kingdom even raising the legal retirement age to 68 years. It is not about making a social downturn, but about taking into account the consequences of extending life expectancy and ensuring that future pensions remain at an adequate level while being sustainable for future generations.

by Mr. Lachaert also believes that the point pension system that still needs to be developed constitutes "a revolutionary perspective," I quote.

Mrs. Temmerman, I will try to summarize your speeches because I imagine you will resume arguments with your group, otherwise I will exceed a reasonable speech time for the first quarter of this report. I think you have challenged many elements in the bill. Nothing that in any case favors an active management of the labour market shall be proposed or presented in favor of older workers or for the promotion of quality employment for them. The project does not solve the problem we are facing. The proposed reform is unfair. You also wonder that eventually, after all the statements of the various majority parties, it finally and suddenly became a flagship measure of the government as if it was the miracle solution that no one announced and that everyone challenged before the elections.

You have asked a number of questions related to this, including the question of financing. You mentioned the tax shift. We may find out a little more this afternoon. In any case, you also mentioned the issue of alternative financing which has remained a dead letter so far. We will see in the next few hours what happens. You also called for a sustainable pension reform, for a more general reflection, for a more patient social consultation with all actors of civil society.

You indicated that there was no reform strategy, I quote you: "None of the conditions is fulfilled. There is no alternative financing mechanism. We simply change existing parameters without a real reform strategy. Social partners will only have an advisory voice in the National Pension Committee. There is absolutely no question of a coherent and balanced whole."

For you, this project is quite improvised and leads to aberrations, which you have developed. I am not going to repeat everything, I am referring to the written report.

You also dispute the fact that the current system would become unpaid. You say, "We must avoid sowing panic on the current legal pension system, which ultimately does the government." You indicated that the opinions of the social partners were overwhelming, with almost one exception. You talked about the discriminatory question of women’s careers, very impacted because this reform is very unfavorable to them.

I will also refer to the written report for the intervention of Mr. by Gilkinet. In any case, it considers incomprehensible the abolition of the pension bonus. He considers, together with his group, that the rate and conditions of employment for older workers need to be improved. He rejects the linear therapy proposed by the government and advocates for alternative financing. Furthermore, it notes that the government announces that heavy jobs and mechanisms for access to partial pension will be settled later. According to him, this is not consistent. In addition, he believes that the tax shift is a mirage. by Mr. Gilkinet suspects that the government wants to undermine the first pillar of pensions, which is the most effective, and considers that the government thus wants to promote the second and third pillars, which belong to the private sector. He also noted that this project is catastrophic for women.

He also recalls his group’s proposal on youth employment, raises the question of unemployment among young people – which is 23% – and recalls the data of the Tandem plan that he wants to promote. by Mr. Gilkinet concludes by deploring that the proposed reform is one-dimensional in that it extends careers without taking into account the specificities of the different professions or considering other solutions in order, for example, to distribute the work available between several generations. There is no alternative financing.

I will also refer to the written report for Ms. Fonck’s speech, because these are roughly the same elements that she states. It rejects the argument of the government’s European benchmarking, because it compares realities that are not comparable, and shows the difference in terms of healthy life expectancy between Belgium and Sweden. It opposes the argument that this project will increase the purchasing power of retirees, on the grounds that the replacement rate is very low in Belgium: 40% compared to the European average. According to her, this project will result in a sharp increase in parallel exits: from 40 to 60 percent to unemployment, time credit and career interruption and from 10 to 15 percent to disability. It concludes by pointing out that, in order for a pension reform to successfully ⁇ its objectives, it is necessary that it generates consensus within society and that the membership of citizens allows to avoid parallel exits from the labour market.

I would like to return to the intervention of Mr. Hedebouw, who is not as enthusiastic as the minister about the bill that deals with a fundamental social issue, namely how we treat our elderly. I inevitably had to summarize, Mr. Hedebouw. So I refer to the report for the numbers you gave, the comparisons with Sweden and other things, the end of a healthy career.

According to M. Hedebouw, the essential question is indeed what should be the duration of professional activity to ensure that people who do not work that they will be fed and can enjoy moments of relaxation and live in dignity. The fact that productivity has been multiplied by 5 since 1950, combined with the increase in wealth, justifies a debate about retirement age. According to him, thanks to the progress of science, it is no longer necessary to work as long as it used to be. However, this does not mean that it is no longer desirable to work, quite the opposite. The Marxist doctrine even considers labor as the only source of wealth.

The speaker also indicated that the Federation of Businesses of Belgium wants to increase wage pressure. The greater the supply of labour, the more the value of labour decreases. The fewer there are job seekers, the higher the salary. All this is a matter of relationship between supply and demand. The increase in the length of the career, on the one hand, and the hunt for unemployed, on the other, lead to a decrease in wages.

You also consider, Mr Hedebouw, that paying pensions is not a problem and you refer in particular to the White Paper on pensions of the European Commission. The view of the government is dogmatic. The pensioners won’t get a penny more.

You then criticize the impact analyses presented in the bill, which state that the higher the activity rate of the elderly, the lower the unemployment rate of the young, and you take the example of Sweden and Denmark. I refer to the written report.

As for the measures announced by the majority parties, you indicated that the only electoral program in which the increase of the retirement age to 67 years was the one of VOKA.

In conclusion, you say that you are not in favour of the government’s project. I have to summarize a little, Mr. Hedebouw, you will not bother me. In any case, you consider that Belgium has sufficient resources to grant workers a dignified pension without having to extend their careers.

The last speech I will talk about is that of Mr. by Massin. I will apologize to him too, I will have to summarize his speech a lot. He stressed the contempt for social concertation, the contempt for the Council of State.

by Mr. Massin has done a long legal analysis. I refer to the written report because one cannot summarize a legal reasoning. He points to the question of Article 23 of the Constitution, the principle of standstill, to show, Mr. Minister, that the government’s argument really presents a flaw, an enormous weakness in this matter. by Mr. Massin made the legal demonstration of this.

He also discussed the sustainability for the public finances of the project to come to the conclusion that there are other options that are less harmful to rights than those considered by the government to ⁇ the announced goal. It is actually a demonstration.

by Mr. Massin concludes by stating that society can cope with the increase in the cost of pensions by showing a little solidarity and speaks of 1.01% without demanding sacrifices from the elderly. He blames this reform for not being global and for everything being divided.

He stresses the fact that the Minister does not mention, in his reply, the point pension system. Therefore, he is wondering about the evolution of this concept and would like to know more about it. He would like to get satisfactory answers. He pledges for a just reform that meets all the concerns of future pensioners and avoids being cancelled by the Constitutional Court, which, he said, will not be the case with the reform proposed by the government.

This is the first part of the report that shows that the exchanges have been very dense in terms of quality arguments as well as large disagreements between the majority and the opposition.

This concludes the first part of the report.

The second rapporteur is Ms. Kitir. It refers to the written report. The third rapporteur is Mrs Becq.

In accordance with the agreements reached with the rapporteurs, I will now address the hearings that we held.

We have, among other things, heard Mrs Vanderhoven from the VBO referring to the cost of pensions, life expectancy, the ratio between workers and pensioners, and so on.

We also listened to Mrs Slegers of the ACLVB who commented and explained the negative opinion formulated by the ACLVB. The lack of an integrated approach, the discussion of the labour market, the focus on employment policy were all addressed by her.

Mr. Jean-François Tamellini of the FGTB has compared the figures in relation to life expectancy. The cost argument was also relativized by him, as was the privileged position of officials. The FGTB proposed an integral adjustment of wealth and 75 % of the last salary as pension.

Ms. Deiteren of UNIZO has given the most positive assessment of the rise in age and career, and has also pointed to the tension between the equal periods and working for those over 60. She noted that many self-employed persons continue to work after the age of 60.

Luc Hamelinck, on behalf of the ACV Public Services, emphasized the heavy impact of the design on everyone. He discussed, among other things, the expectations of the 50-plus, as well as the attention of women. If people stay at work for longer, it could mean a loss in the field of volunteering and mantle care.

Mrs Magdeleine Willame-Boonen of Le Conseil de l'Egalité des Chances entre Hommes et Femmes has naturally also paid attention to the situation of women in this pension reform. In particular, she advocates taking into account the situation of women when the new point system is put on foot.

Finally, Mr Jadot once again emphasized the importance of a parliamentary debate, given the importance of this matter and taking into account the baby boom, life expectancy, the fact that enough older workers remain in the workplace and the international context. He attaches importance to flexibility.

The colleagues De Roover, Daerden, Clarinval, Lachaert, Bonte, De Vriendt, Fonck, Van Hees, Gilkenet, Van Quickenborne and myself have asked questions and held demonstrations. The details of this can be read in the report on pages 112 to 140.

So far, the report of the hearings we held. They were interesting and gave rise to a lot of discussion. Per ⁇ they will also be discussed later.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief to present the fourth part of the report, which consists of the discussion of the articles, article by article.

In Article 1, some members of the opposition submitted an amendment aimed at deleting the article entirely. The author of the amendment defended it by requesting that the contents of the bill be submitted again to the State Council for opinion.

In Article 2, the opposition, represented mainly by Mrs. Temmerman and Mr. De Vriendt pointed out that, despite what the minister claims, the Pension Reform Commission has in no way recommended the measures provided for in Article 2 and the bill in general. The Minister defended himself by saying that raising the statutory retirement age was clearly the major scenario proposed by the Commission 2020-2040. Furthermore, the Minister stressed that while the government did not take the recommendation literally, the report of the Pension Reform Commission was indeed the main source of inspiration when drafting the project.

According to Article 4, MM. Bonte and De Vriendt and Ms Temmerman were concerned by the specific measure stipulating that Article 2 does not apply to persons who were in pre-retirement availability on 1 January 2015. The Minister responded by stressing that this transitional measure, which has also been negotiated with the EU and regional governments, was unanimously approved by the social partners.

According to Article 5, mr. De Vriendt asked what were the reasons for the transitional measures for persons over the age of 55 and whether they had been developed arbitrarily. Ms Fonck referred to the discussions within Committee A, pointing out that the decision-making mechanism planned for the French Community in 2012 must indeed be ⁇ ined as it is.

According to Article 7, mr. Daerden regretted that some provisions would be repealed even before they entered into force.

In Article 8, several members of the opposition held that the article under consideration conferred too much empowerment on the King and asked whether parliament would have a right to look at the preliminary draft royal decree.

Article 9 stipulates a five-year increase in the statutory age of survival pension by 2030. Several members of the opposition have expressed concern. Ms Fonck stressed that the government had made no progress on individualizing pensions. by Mr. De Vriendt was concerned about the difficulties of women’s access to the labour market while Mr. Gilkinet and Bonte estimated that the article touched a already vulnerable group and that it gave the whole project an anti-female image. In his response, the Minister stressed that the measure will only produce its effects from 2030 and that he cannot speak today about developments after 2030. Furthermore, he stressed that survival pensions must also be perceived as a trap for employment and that, in the long run, the individualization of rights will have to be the subject of an in-depth discussion in the framework of social consultation.

This was followed by a series of amendments on the budgetary impact of the increases in the survival pension age, for which I thank you.

In Article 12, Ms Fonck, Ms. Van Hees, Hedebouw, Daerden and myself, for the majority, submitted amendments.

Several members of the opposition stressed that raising the retirement age will be ⁇ unfavorable for women. According to them, women should work much longer to ⁇ a full career. On the opposition side, it was stressed that the major change occurred for women dates back to 1997, when the statutory retirement age was raised from 60 to 65 years.

According to Article 15, Mr. Massin returned to the problem of the allocation of income guarantee to the elderly. He was deeply concerned about the worsening poverty of a part of the population, especially those who have to bear medical and pharmaceutical expenses. The Minister responded by indicating that this was a protection problem that falls under the CPAS.

In Article 18, Ms Fonck, Ms. Daerden and consorts submitted amendments. In particular, they asked the Minister for the reasons for limiting the exemption to one year for 59 years and older. The minister said it was a political choice. by Mr. Bonte then asked the minister if there would be any interference between the transitional measures of the previous reform and the current reform. The Minister said that the guarantees of the previous reform were ⁇ ined.

Amendments to Article 19 have been submitted. Several members of the opposition were concerned about the condition that a notice must start before 9 October 2014 in order to be able to retire early. These members also clarified that this date was not the one agreed with the social partners. The minister replied that this was indeed the only measure that the government had decided to change in relation to the results of the social consultation. According to him, this transitional measure is a kind of copy-paste of the previous reform and the idea is not to take away the workers whose employment contract was interrupted in tempore non suspecto, the date of 9 October being that of the government agreement.

According to Article 24, MM. Delizée and Bonte referred to the opinion of the Council of State, stressing that the retroactivity of the provisions of the article can only be justified if the measures are indispensable to ⁇ an objective of general interest or if they are of a purely informative nature. by Mr. The Minister confirmed that the provisions merely clarified and supplemented the wording of the provisions in the matter, which entered into force on 1 January 2015.

Several members subsequently challenged the government’s impact assessment that predicts a positive impact of the survival pension reform.

In Article 27, Mr. Gilkinet introduced an amendment and Ms. Fonck questioned the Minister about the disparities in the entry into force of the provisions. The Minister replied that this was a legal choice made by the administrations.

Amendments to Article 28 were submitted by Ms. Fonck, Mr. Daerden and myself.

In Article 50, Ms Fonck found that the date of entry into force was the same for the public sector and for self-employed, but different for employees. The Minister referred to the previous response regarding differences in the dates of entry into force.

The committee then proceeded to vote on the numerous articles and especially on the very numerous amendments, with a different distribution of votes for each of them. Only three amendments were approved by the majority. Before the Committee proceeds to vote on the draft law as a whole, Mr. Bonte once again repeated his fundamental objections to the bill, which he believes is a source of social concern and legal insecurity, and recalled the main criticisms of the State Council.

The bill was finally passed by 11 votes against 6.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr Clarin, I would like to thank you. The floor is for mr. by Daerden.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here we are gathered for your bill whose committee debates have been widely ⁇ in a remarkable way by our colleagues but which, I think, deserve, some further developments.

This bill is a symbolic project of this government. He is anti-social, brutal and banal.

It is antisocial because it attacks the world of work by putting all the burden of effort on the shoulders of the workers.

It is brutal: it regulates by law and without a broad social dialogue a sensitive theme, as very rightly says Prof. Hindriks, member of the Pension Reform Commission 2020-2040, who delivered a report of which there has been a lot of talk. He said, “You are thus raising the elders against the young and the workers against the employers.”

This project is banal for two reasons. On the one hand, it is preliminary to measures for a genuine policy of the employment of the elderly and, on the other hand, it is legally highly criticized by the State Council which, however, had only five days to give its opinion because we were in an emergency logic.

This text, which comes at the end of the first year in power of this MR-N-VA government, comes to complete the already too long list of measures taken that strike hard the world of work. I think of the index jump, the announced death of pre-empensions, the tightening of time credits, the tightening of insertion allocations.

It is clear, Mr. Minister, that you are not the carrier of all these reforms, but they all go in the same direction and their accumulation makes things even harder for the people concerned. The austerity recipes that your government advocates, relaying the will of the European Commission, do not work and our fellow citizens do not want them anymore. You make them pay, for budgetary and ideological reasons, the consequences of a financial crisis that has exploded our debt, much more than the aging of which they are in no way responsible.

The same goes for pensions. Your proposals in this area are only supported by you and the employer organisations. As was ⁇ , a moment ago, we were able to see, on the occasion of the hearings, a real ideological split. Why Why ? To promote a return to private savings by tightening access to the first pillar pension? Increase the pressure on wages by increasing the number of people available on the job market? Divide workers – young and old?

Mr. Minister, on this matter, you and your government defy, both in form and in substance, the very foundations of our democratic functioning.

This government has never received the support of voters to raise the legal retirement age, and for a reason! Absolutely all the majority parties promised, during the election campaign, to maintain the legal retirement age at 65 years. Today, you do exactly the opposite. You undermine the confidence of our fellow citizens by depriving them of any real debate and by deceiving them, which is ⁇ serious.

Think of the 120,000 angry fellow citizens who went down the streets on November 6 to denounce the index jump and demand the maintenance of the pension at age 65. Think back to the regular demonstrations of the common trade union front that have taken place since then to reject these attacks on pensions.

A reform as essential as that of pensions must be accepted, just, prepared, debated serenely by all social partners and not only by the employers.

The Pension Reform Commission stated this correctly. It can only be achieved through patient social consultation and a broad social debate. But you do nothing about it! We are far away. Rather, you try by all means to avoid a broad democratic debate and thus despise social concertation.

To vote for such a fundamental text during the summer when a lot of people are already on vacation and have requested the urgency clearly signals your intentions. I suppose that choosing this to take place on the day of an important announcement by your government of a tax shift agreement is coincidental. I imagine that you didn’t have it scheduled so that it would fall today and so such an important debate would be hidden. I have doubts.

Beyond this reflection, the measures we are talking about today are not only antidemocratic but also unfair. They do not take into account the realities and possibilities of everyone. Thus, in your reform, there are no exceptions for those who have exercised a hard job. We are proposing amendments in this regard.

I would interrupt Mr. Daerden supports his remarks on penibility.

I have asked you about this in the committee. What you do is truly machiavelic and damages social concertation in the most beautiful sense of the term. You work on retirement age rather than on careers. This is a criticism, and Mr. Daerden will talk about it extensively. But you work in a uniform way without taking into account each other’s professional truth, especially in hard jobs. They would deserve an exception to the principles you develop.

You do not even plan at the project level a small article dealing with penibility. Nothing is! So, a person who has a hard-working professional life with a very hard-working profession is, at the moment, absolutely not taken into account in your bill.

You tell us that you will discuss this with the social partners and that if they find an agreement, you will make an exception to the principle. In this sense I say that it is machiavelic because if there is no agreement, the project does not provide for any outcome. So those who advocate for the consideration of painfulness, either get almost nothing, and at least there will be a change, or are ambitious and you close all doors! This is going against a quality social dialogue where we talk to equal arms between employers, workers’ representatives and government. Here, we will not speak of equal weapons; there is a weak part, namely those who demand a consideration of the professional path. In addition, it is a message that is sent to all people who work hard in difficult professions by telling them that they are not taken into account.

by Mr. Daerden emphasizes that this is a socially unfair project, and that is pure truth! You have really deeply embroiled the trust in a society that takes into account the weakest or those who offer to society a more difficult, heavier, more serious contribution and who deserve all our attention. You have no attention to these people. I deeply regret it!

Mrs. Onkelinx, we are surprised to hear such words. In fact, you cannot ignore that a social consultation will take place in the coming months. If we had made a decision today, without consulting the social partners, you would have been, Mrs. Onkelinx, the first to say that we are defamating social concertation.

In this case, we give, for very long months, a chance to social consultation, in order to reach out on the problem of the painfulness of work. You really prejudice an attitude of social partners that would not be constructive. We, on the contrary, are focusing on social concertation. We trust employers and trade unions to find a consensus. If agreement is reached, a law will be adopted. Therefore, a debate will take place in this workshop on the painfulness of work. What can be more democratic than to leave the word to the social partners and then validate the law! If we had done the opposite, you would have issued criticism. I am surprised by the performance of these two speeches.

Mr. Clarinval, your statements are outside the truth. Believing in social concertation really means enabling debate and fighting with equal weapons. The government should not have decided. What you say makes no sense!

We did not necessarily ask for a solution to the painfulness but the promise that measures will come into force when an agreement is reached between the social partners on this subject. Indeed, in case of failure of the social concertation, you let go of those and those who will have spent their lives exercising a ⁇ tough profession.

For long careers, you have provided exceptions. For hard jobs, no exception. That is what is unacceptable!

Mr. Clarinval, from the outset you have confused social concertation and social coercion. That is the whole problem of your government.

Mr. Speaker, to hear in five minutes that I am out of the truth, that my words have no meaning, that I confuse concertation and social coercion, it makes me smile! It is clear that for the Socialist Party, in the absence of the agreement of the FGTB, the social consultation did not take place! We know it! We know their attitude.

In this case, it is clear that in the absence of an agreement within the consultation, the ball will return to the hands of parliament and government.

But we cannot be taken hostage by one or the other social partner who would not want to agree. We therefore leave the chance to social consultation without being taken hostage by one or another social partner who would refuse to conclude an agreement. That’s what’s different from you, Mrs. Onkelinx.

Mr. Clarinval, there is no need to make a caricature of it. Let us, as in the committee, try to have a serene debate here as well. I call on everyone to do so.

Our main argument and our main criticism, and in fact also the criticism of the Pension Commission, is that if one wants to organize a whole pension reform, one must have a broad level of support for it. It is therefore necessary to ensure that people have certainty about the future, the certainty that they can retire, the certainty that the pensions can be paid out and the certainty that the pensions will be high enough. Later, I will explain why this bill does not meet any of those three points.

By making a number of decisions right here and shifting the whole discussion about heavy professions and the like to later, you create very great uncertainty among those who are still working today and have trouble keeping up. They now think they will have to work until the age of 67. It is that uncertainty that we accuse, Mr. Clarinval.

That uncertainty could, however, have been avoided by widespread social consultation, and not only within a very limited framework. This has been impossible since the government agreement, as also stated by the Pension Commission. We complain about that. And that has nothing to do with the FGTB or the ABVV.

I just wanted to say, Mr. Clarinval, that I am a little saddened by your approach to this debate.

This is a real debate. It should not be caricaturized by invoking the FGTB. Social partners are representatives of all workers, of all employers. And social concertation is giving them the opportunity to discuss with equal weapons. It is nothing more than that. At some point in the committee we had beautiful discussions, beautiful exchanges. It is a pity that you fell into the caricature to avoid a debate. I say and I repeat that the government should have provided an escape for taking into account people who give their lives in difficult professions. You have omitted to do so and, for me, this is a serious social fault.

Mr. Clarinval, you are now committed to negotiating with the social partners for the future. very well . We will see what it will give. But my concern and our main reproach is that I have cut this pension file into small pieces, having first decided to apply a pure juice stick policy and having left aside everything that could lead to the adherence of a large part of the population, whether by adjusting career goals, lining them to get people to want to work longer, or at the level of taking into account heavy jobs so that people do not feel assaulted.

I am one of those who believe that this pension issue can be achieved successfully on condition that there is a broad consensus at the level of the population. (Mrs. Karin Jiroflée, sp.a, distributes lemons to her socialist colleagues present in the district) I think we don’t talk so much about pensions, Mr. President. We are talking about lemons. You may need vitamins to work longer. I do not know. I will try to continue my speech. We could have made this issue a real success by having a broad support of the population.

You passed by this indispensable condition of successful pension reform by having cut and returned to later, and above all without fixing a date, everything related to the adjustment of career goals – I had submitted a text on this subject. You could have lightened them by allowing the consideration of heavy jobs from now on. This is the complaint that is being made to you. You are going to concert, of course, but it was immediately that it had to be done to make a decision about the different palettes that are inseparable from each other in terms of pensions. It is by articulating the employment policy with the pension policy that one can accomplish it and make it a success instead of a failure.

Before continuing, I will return to the words of Mr. President. by Clarinval. Beyond the bottom line, what we denounce is the problem of chronology. It was appropriate to address the theme of hard-working professions before reaching the reflection and discussion on the legal retirement age. We have denounced it and we will denounce it again. I would like to thank Mrs. Laurette Onkelinx for the supplements she has brought and for her insistence on this question of pain that holds us ⁇ at heart.

As always with this government, it will be the most fragile who will be penalized, those who can no longer decently continue to work, because they are used by the exercise of a physically challenging profession. They will be forced to continue or wait for their right to unemployment to the extent that they have been dismissed due to their inability to continue their work, then receiving an invalidity allowance. This is how we will witness the shift from one branch of social security to another.

We know that if today the average healthy life expectancy is 65 years depending on the socio-economic environment and the level of education, the difference is eighteen years for men and twenty-five years for women. We are not all equal in the face of disease. Forcing everyone to work longer without taking into account this reality is deeply unfair. By the way, the State Council rightly reminds us that treating two different situations identically can violate our principle of equality.

Dear colleagues, as Mr. From Wever, who is not in the room at the moment, before the elections: “Return the retirement age is absurd.” Indeed, rather than raising the retirement age, which will result in a shift of charges to other branches of social security – I just explained it – it is necessary to allow workers to continue to work in good conditions until the age of 65 and encourage them to continue working until at least 65 years of age; let them choose, Mr. Minister. It is useless to punish a worker at the end of the roll, who can no longer work or who is not valued on the labour market.

The proposed reform does not guarantee anything for the employment of persons over 50 years old. It is therefore ineffective, because part of those who will be forced to stay at work are used workers, sometimes poorly qualified. On the ground, employers themselves take too few initiatives to keep older workers in their companies and do not engage them when they are available on the labour market. This should have been a priority. A recent study found that only 12.5% of older workers are invited to a first job interview.

Dear colleagues, the postponement of the retirement age to 67 years is also an aberration when it comes to the unemployment rate among young people. Delaying access to stable employment for these young people will not contribute to the financing of future pensions. Young people who have entered the labour market since 2008 have been the first victims of the economic and financial crisis. They should be at the heart of our policies. Now, the only thing the MR-N-VA government does about young people is to punish them. It punishes them by removing entry allowances for those under 21 who have not been able to graduate, and by removing allowances from 25 years old.

Dear colleagues, the MR-N-VA government also wants to tighten access to early retirement. So, in 2019, it would take 63 years and 42 years of career to qualify for early retirement. It is an unfair measure that will hit the weakest and especially women, who generally have shorter careers and who, for the most part, will be forced to work or remain unemployed-invalid until the age of 67 when they are already heavily discriminated. When we look at the average careers, we find that they last 42.6 years for men and 31.6 for women. If you look at workers who have a career of more than 40 years, 85% of men ⁇ that while only 40% of women ⁇ that. It can be seen that the situation is unbalanced and that this measure is ⁇ unfair to women. This will increase discrimination. This is just a discrimination among many others. We must regret them, denounce them, fight them and support the current campaign: they are not lemons!

Dear colleagues, under this theme of early pensions, the government in all its hypocrisy, nevertheless, retains an exception for long careers while tightening the required career condition. To retire early at the age of 60 as part of a long career, it will take 44 years of career, that is, to have worked since the age of 16 without interruption! Who now meets that condition? In reality, the government in practice removes this exception for long careers. You may soon find out how many people meet this requirement. I look forward to your reply!

Mr. Minister, instead of raising the retirement age, it would be better to encourage older workers, if they wish, to continue working in good conditions. But forcing them, as you do, is unfair and ineffective.

By removing the pension bonus that was a positive incentive to work longer, you made a mistake denounced by everyone. It may not have been sufficiently effective, but in this case it had to be reformed and not removed. The various positive incentives must remain. That is why we submitted a bill to encourage workers to pursue their careers through a tax credit.

But, as we know, despite all possible and unimaginable incentives put in place, the individual choice to work longer must be made feasible by modern and suitable working conditions. We need to modernize the working conditions of our citizens.

In this logic, even though, knowing the government, I do not hide my concern, I welcome positively the reflection launched by the Minister of Employment on feasible work. I hope that, this time, we will not be disappointed and that concrete measures bringing social progress and respecting social concertation can be put in place.

In any case, the timing and method of government work is absurd – this has been reminded a moment ago. Instead of lowering the retirement age to eventually make work feasible in the future, we need to make it feasible today. We will see if the retirement age can be lowered. I am convinced that with adjustments of working conditions and appropriate incentives, the actual age would naturally decline.

Similarly, it would have been primary that discussions on the criteria of penibility and agreements in this matter should take place before the vote on a bill on the legal retirement age. Indeed, if one wants to be respectful of social consultation, one must leave the opportunity for partners to discuss this issue, but also conditions of early retirement, exceptions to be provided for difficult careers. We must be able to let them discuss all this, give them time to agree on the whole of a reform. This is social consultation.

Dear colleagues, the government is also attacking survival pension by providing that in order to benefit from it, it will be necessary to reach the age of 55 and not more than 50, as planned in the last reform. This measure is unassociated and will penalize people killed by the death of their spouse, while older people are unlikely to find a job. And at 55 years old it is much harder than at 50! There is therefore a major risk of precariation of the public concerned by this measure, which will, once again, affect women in particular.

The government justifies all these reforms by declaring that our pension system is financially unsustainable and that the attack it carries on our pensions is indispensable to ensure the payment of pensions to future generations and thus save our social model. It is a fatality, it is the only responsible attitude, but it is actually the logic of fear! In short: harm people for their good! This is an ideological discourse that does not hold when confronted with reality. What threatens us today is not so much the aging population as the will of your government to adopt neo-liberal recipes that threaten social security and its financing.

First of all, the government gives the feeling that pension financing is a problem that needs to be solved in isolation. Since 1994, the different branches of social security, such as pensions, unemployment or disability, are no longer the subject of separate financing but are financed by the overall management of social security. The fact that the payment of pensions can no longer be insured unless the statutory retirement age is raised to 67 years is false! The issue is not the financing of pensions in itself but the overall financing of social security.

In this regard, I look forward to the details of your agreement tonight and, above all, the impact on social security financing.

The government also tells us that the cost of pensions will increase irrepressibly by 2060. What is it really? According to the latest study of the Federal Plan Office, the cost of pensions will increase by about 3.5% of GDP by 2060. This means spending growth of 0.076% per year between 2015 and 2060. Let us be serious! We are quite able to assume this increase if we want to.

If the growth in the cost of pensions is significant in absolute terms and the share of GDP to be devoted to pension financing goes, on the basis of these analysis of the Federal Plan Office, from 10.6% in 2013 to more than 14% in 2060, this does not mean that our pension system is unsustainable. Indeed, in order for the system to be unsustainable, it would be necessary that the expected increase in cost cannot be borne by our society, that is, that the resources remaining after the payment of the cost of pensions do not allow the society to guarantee its proper functioning. However, the figures from the Committee on the Study of Ageing show that despite the increase in the cost of pensions, and it is not denied, not only will the remaining resources not decrease but they will increase significantly between 2015 and 2060. Thus, if we compare the evolution of GDP per capita, we find that the increase of the part devoted to pensions does not prevent the amount available to meet other needs – and there are, it is clear – to increase by 60%.

So it is true that the cost of pensions will increase, but we will have no problem to assume it, since the GDP will increase over the same period of several hundred billion euros. In other words, and to make it simple, if it is true that the share of the cake to be devoted to pensions increases, the size of the cake increases enough to allow others to eat more than before. The system is not unsustainable.

Thus, an alternative funding, based on wealth, which would make the percentage of households contribute on the broadest shoulders rather than hit the weakest, would ensure the sustainability of our social security system, allowing more social justice.

This is actually a problem of political will and not a problem of financial sustainability.

In addition, rather than addressing pensioners and future pensioners, it is possible to increase the actual retirement age by providing incentives to encourage and not compel workers to pursue their careers.

The PS therefore proposes to encourage workers to stay active with a bonus for all workers who can retire but choose to stay active.

Making it possible to choose to continue working by taking concrete actions such as creating an individual right to four-day training for all workers and five-day training for workers aged 45 and over; enabling workers to adjust their working hours by better supporting companies that collectively reduce working hours for older workers and restoring the right to a 1/5th career end time credit from 55 years and a half-time to 60 years; improving working conditions by making mandatory the conclusion and follow-up of a plan for the employment of older workers in all companies and in the public sector, as provided in the collective agreement 104 negotiated by the social partners.

It would also be necessary to prevent the company’s departure from performance by imposing a systematic monitoring of the analysis of psychosocial risks and by introducing a new time credit in case of identified risks of disability to work.

For us, socialists, reform yes, but regress, no!

Finally, I would like to conclude with a few words on the opinion of the State Council that points to a serious risk of unconstitutionality of the bill.

First, in relation to Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees "the right to social security" and which has a stand-still effect that opposes the legislature to significantly reduce the level of protection offered without justifying its necessity in relation to a goal of general interest. However, by tightening the conditions for access to early retirement or by lowering the retirement age, there is no doubt that a significant downturn is being made.

It is up to the author of the act to explain how the proposed measures are reasonably justified in the light of the principle of proportionality and the aim of general interest pursued, namely the sustainability of the pension scheme. Now, I had the opportunity a moment ago to demonstrate that ensuring the viability of our pension scheme can be done by not decreasing, and ⁇ not so drastically, the rights of current and future pensioners. Since there are less aggressive alternatives, the measures proposed today must be considered unconstitutional for violation of Article 23.

In addition, the bill could violate the constitutional principle of equality by treating similarly different situations such as those who have experienced challenging careers and others. Indeed, it seems to me that by setting the same age criteria for all, regardless of the specificities and difficulty of careers, the government does not take into account an objective criterion of distinction, which is not tolerable.

We are in favor of a comprehensive, simple and readable reform. Now, like the State Council, I regret that the government’s saucissonage leads to accentuating the complex nature of legislation and makes government reforms inaccessible and unreadable.

In conclusion, my group will oppose and will continue to oppose this bill which we consider antidemocratic, unjust, absurd, ineffective, unconstitutional and discriminatory. We ask the government to put this project in the refrigerator – let’s dream for a moment! - and to return with a clear, legible, consistent and above all socially just global reform, subject to a broad democratic debate, in order to positively reform our pension system and our working conditions in respect of our democratic values.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, there is a new stage ahead in terms of the broad pension reform, which for our government is absolutely one of the important venues in the reform of our country.

In 2004, a number of socialist leaders said that we were at a hinge moment. We then got the impression that this hinge has begun to rust. It is only recently that a number of non-socialist ministers have taken the first steps towards making the pension system sustainable. Unfortunately for them, it took place in a constellation that had limitations, given the government composition.

What does that mean? That we are today in a situation of aging, of course not a purely Belgian but a global phenomenon, in which economists such as Peersman and Schoors in their book state that Belgium of all countries is only prepared to address that aging problem. The Commission 2020-2040, which is regularly referred to here, states that with an unchanged policy, we get an unpaid pension account. There is hopefully a consensus on this, although that consensus is not so broad, as is shown by the argument of my predecessor.

Today, 21% of the entire widespread public chicken is spent on pensions. This will increase by 3.5 to 4% of GDP. Let us not forget that this is an increase of 7 to 8 % in public spending. Fortunately, life expectancy — including healthy years, by the way — is increasing, while we have seen for decades that the retirement age has been systematically reduced, to a few years ago. There is, of course, a contradiction that, strangely enough, has not been taken into consideration sufficiently in the past. Even more recently, the annual report of the PDOS, the public sector pension service, for example — it is just an example — showed that 75%, three-quarters of our officials, have already cleaned the field when they have reached the age of 60. Those who started working in 1970, for example, now have a full-time career of 45 years. Those who started their careers at the time had a life expectancy of 67 years, while over the course of those people’s career life expectancy has increased to 80 years. These are, of course, figures that cannot be overlooked. This also has consequences.

The choice we have made in the past to step out of work more and more quickly has consequences for the level — or, as I must say in our case, the lowest — of pensions. The fact that our pensions are lower than in the countries around us is, of course, not separate from the fact that we also get retired extremely quickly. As mentioned above, we have been discussing this in the committee for hours and days. Those debates were indeed ⁇ useful because they showed that, in addition to the numerical environmental factors, there are also clear differences in the view of society. I think that should be the same in a democracy.

We have heard a left who seems to close his eyes to some elements of reality, and who also in this debate especially likes to get caught up in forms of populism that, when it comes to retirement after 67 years, of course, are easy to cast into slogans.

I must also congratulate the members of the opposition for the way they perfectly illustrate, through a lemon action, how sourly they look at this problem and how restrictive, conservative and uninspired they engage in this debate. This has also been observed by previous speakers. In fact, it is said that politics should not take steps until there is no social agreement. This, of course, means that a kind of veto right is granted to every participant in the social consultation. After all, if even one partner cannot find itself in one or another agreement, then one continues to trap on the spot.

Mr. De Roover, you call the opposition acidic and populist. That is nice to start your argument with, very constructive and substantive as well. You are making a caricature.

Almost every opposition faction acknowledges that working longer is part of the solution to be able to pay the pension bill. We are one step further than the majority. For we ask loudly the question, which I also ask you now, whether you acknowledge the fact that there exists such a thing as heavy professions, professions which are not as long to last as a less heavy profession? Therefore, we are much further in reasoning.

You remain attached to the idea that we should work longer and that the retirement age should be raised. But what if that doesn’t solve the problem? How will you be able to work longer? Then it stops. We have no answers to these questions, neither from your party nor from the minister.

So we are not at all acidic or populist, but very realistic. We ask the questions that matter, but there are no answers, except for one. The aspect of heavy occupations will be completed by the social partners and the national pension conference. However, you did not wait to hunt the bill here and compel everyone to work longer by raising the early retirement age to 63 years and the statutory retirement age to 67 years. The question of how this goes in his work, you do not answer.

Mr. De Roover, it’s not us, but you, your party and the other parties that use slogans like “this is inexpensive”, “we’re not going to get it.”

We have always made constructive proposals. I repeat: there are three things that each professor in this Pension Commission endorses.

First, there must be a global reform. What happens here is always only working with small pieces, so that one does not actually see the end goal.

Second, it is necessary to provide a broad level of support if such a large pension reform needs to come. You and your government do not have that broad support. It is not that we say that every social partner can have a veto right. You talked about the Socialists. I am also a socialist and I am not saying this, I am saying that there should be a dialogue with the social partners. That dialogue does not exist at the moment, that dialogue always comes only afterwards. The Pension Committee was installed only afterwards, and then still very limited, because it can only meet at the request of the minister and with questions of the minister. There is no such broad support today.

Third, there must be certainty, certainty about both the affordability and the amount of pensions. This bill does not respond to this either. We will talk this afternoon about the conscious tax shift and about how to finance some business. In this regard, the Pension Commission has made it very clear that we must abandon a system whose affordability is guaranteed only by labour. We should also look at another way to finance pensions, and this can be through wealth.

Here now come to say that the opposition has only spoken in slogans, has not made any constructive proposal and in addition also says that there is no problem in the future, this is a bit of violating the truth. We did not say this. As Mr. De Vriendt has just said, each party has emphasized that something must be done. Each party has also said that we need to think about working longer. This proposal does not offer a solution either. The retirement age is raised, but the retirement bonus is abolished, while it was just an incentive to work longer.

You do not think so, but the Pension Commission also thought so. The Pension Commission, to which you always like to refer, states that it is a wrong signal to abolish the pension bonus.

Subsequently, Minister Peeters will again examine in the social consultation how working work is possible. The consultation always takes place afterwards. This is not a way of dialogue, ⁇ not if one wants such a major reform. If one wants a serious debate, Mr. De Roover, which you also always support, I would like to ask you again to do that serene and not just speak in slogans.

Mr. Speaker, my accusation of cartoons and populism is contradicted here by someone who has a lemon lying on her couch. If there is something caricature and populist, then that lemon. The same person who asks for a serene debate lets a colleague with a fruit basket go around here. I have then, frankly, a different impression of a serene debate. Your lemon, lady, is a caricature. Your lemon is populist. I do not take a word back from that.

Since you have absolutely no understanding of what it is and no sense of humor, I will explain it again.

De Roover, why do we have lemons? Not here, we did it outside of parliament. This is very detrimental to women. Women have shorter careers, are usually forced to work part-time, often have to take care of children, which makes it very difficult for them to build a full-time career. We do not want women to be excessively oppressed. This is a bit of a symbol of it. If you can’t laugh at it and throw all the debate on it, I’m sorry, but then that’s very, very little of you.

Mrs. Temmerman, I can reassure you, I can really laugh with your lemon, which is definitely the problem not. As an argument in the debate, however, I find them less relevant.

Mrs. Temmerman, there is indeed here and there a socialist who comes out of the corner less demagogically, I ⁇ do not oppose that. There are interesting ideas on that side, I ⁇ do not object to that. In opposition to what is stated here, however, I see the tendency to give people the impression that everyone will now have to work until 67 years old, that everyone will almost come to that scarce pension that will be reduced by this government again, etcetera, etcetera. I will later address a number of issues, including the elements that colleague De Vriendt has cut.

Well, this government will take the bull by the horns to give back perspective. For today the whole society is being pressured out, all working people are being pressured out today to make a system that – although it was later contradicted – tries to be more and more budgetary, sustainable again.

I am going here to call someone as a witness and it will surprise you that I am from the N-VA this witness call. Indeed, in order to demonstrate that there are sometimes reasonable voices on the left, I would like to refer here to Mr. Tsipras, here also in other circumstances regularly cited on the speaker’s seat. A lot of people look very much at the Prime Minister of Greece, so maybe he is more convincing than I am. Tsipras said a few days ago on Greek television about retirement at 67 and leaving the age for early retirement the following. He said, “We should have done it ourselves. It is not progressive to let people retire early.” (Applause to the banks of the majority)

It is an achievement that I do the majority applauding on a quote from Tsipras, an achievement that I very much praise.

There is an arithmetic wisdom which states that if we want to get a little closer to the neighboring countries with our actual retirement age and we will therefore have to work three to four years longer, the arithmetic average can only be ⁇ ined if also a part of the people actually remains at work over the age of 65 years. That measure, by the way, is currently introduced in almost all countries, when that introduction is no longer a fact.

We have indeed held a broad social debate on this — I again challenge what the opposition claims on the subject. I must even honestly confess, when I hear the statements of the opposition — but this also applies to my statement and to the statements of my colleagues in the majority — that I get the impression that the debate on that part of the pension reform has not only been conducted, but has also been softened. After all, we have found no new arguments, neither in the opposition, to attack them, nor in the majority, to defend them. This is also logical after such a broad social debate outside but also within the Parliament.

I want to repeat the truth. The core of what is stated here is that in the counting and nominal division the 45-year limit remains intact. This means that a full-time career in the past before the current reform was 45 years, and that a full-time career after the current reform continues to last the same number of spring, namely 45 years. Nothing is changed in this area. However, the reform means that those who do not have a full career at the age of 65 will have the chance to work two years longer, which will naturally increase their pension.

There are a number of accusations, which I would like to address again.

We would reduce the work of the youth. However, the facts speak a different language. I don’t know if the imprint of what I’m showing you now is fantastic. On one side you can see the employment rate of the elderly and on the other side the employment rate of young people from various OECD countries. You notice that there is a perfect relationship between the two groups. The employment rate of elderly and young people is not going in opposite but in the same direction, for the obvious reason that everyone who is occupied naturally also creates economic activity.

The opposite of that claim is true. If we today, in any way or in any way, have an increasing cost plate of the pension situation, then that invoice goes to the active population, to the younger generations. If we can expand that group of the active population, then the burden per shoulder will automatically decrease. When I talk to young people about retirement conditions – that happens sometimes, I used to do so a lot from my professional circumstances – it seems at first that it would be a far-from-the-bedshow for them. However, the opposite is true. I see a very abandoned atmosphere among young people today when it comes to pensions. They even assume that they no longer need to expect a pension. We, as a political class, have ensured that the confidence of young people in the important cathedral of social security has almost completely melted. They assume today that this is nothing that will still fall to them. Well, this government is going through these measures that can overturn a negative atmosphere and will be able to make it clear that a little effort from everyone will ensure that good pensions can also be offered in the future – which is essential.

Second criticism, there are no accompanying measures. After examining the relevant texts, I find that the maximum retirement age will rise to 66 years in 2025 and to 67 years in 2030. Today we are writing 2015. That means that for ten years — I can invite all colleagues to use that time fruitfully, that is a long period — we have the possibility — it may go much faster and we have the ambition to work on that this legislature — to fully develop those accompanying measures. After all, this is part of a larger project where longer work is indeed the element with which we extend the pillars while the rest of the building will follow.

It is said that the whole reform is being saccisioned. This reform is being carried out gradually. I think, for example, of the tough professions that colleague De Vriendt, who is now asking for the word, had.

Colleague De Roover, you say that the increase of the statutory retirement age to 67 years will only take place within ten years and we therefore still have time for the accompanying measures. You forget, of course, that the increase in the early retirement age will not take place within ten years. You forget to mention that here, of course, for a very good reason. The increase in the early retirement age begins already from 2017.

I just asked you how to make you work longer for everyone working. You have not yet given an answer to it and I am waiting in excitement, because that is the ham question. If the new provisions do not enter into force until 2017, you do have a little more time. Why did you not wait with the pension reform until the National Pension Committee could give advice on the heavy professions and working work? If it ever comes, if that day ever comes, and if this government takes measures for people in the healthcare sector, construction workers, workers, heavy jobs, and so on, then that must be translated into a new bill. Why not wait with this bill until there is clarity about the heavy professions?

It seems quite obvious to me that in a reform one introduces the rule first and then the exception. You actually suggest to look at the exceptions first and then think about the general rule. However, my logic is different and the logic of this reform is the same.

Heavy professions, we are almost accused of presenting this topic to the social partners.

too late !

That is not too late at all.

Mrs. Temmerman, you are opposing yourself. You tell us that if there is no agreement between the social partners on heavy occupations, this measure should not be introduced. This means again that you give a veto right to each participant in the social consultation. We differ in opinion on this. We can, but we have different opinions.

Mr. De Roover, it is indeed clear that we differ in this regard, but you put words in my mouth that are not correct and that I have not said.

I say that one must first have a broad social consultation and then take the decision. You first make the decision and then proceed to social consultation. I am not saying that anyone should veto. You simply did not engage in a social consultation. You are now taking one issue out, in particular the heavy professions, and the social partners can then start discussing it for a moment. However, this is not how it works!

If one wants a broad support and a major pension reform, one must discuss with the social partners in advance. Then the way you deal with heavy professions is part of that. That is not an exception, Mr. De Roover, but a part of the existence of a number of people who now live in total uncertainty. They do not know what will happen to their hard work and therefore to their careers.

As just said, there was enough time to discuss this; therefore, that excuse does not apply. But this government simply did not want to discuss. This government simply wanted to impose this. The proof of this is also the way she has dealt with Parliament. We were able to partially correct this — thanks to the President — but in fact they wanted to push it through the throat of Parliament as quickly as possible, while there was no reason for that. That is why you want to carry out this pension reform in this way and why you do not want social consultation in advance.

I will repeat it for the last time, it’s not about the social partners’ veto rights. It is about dialogue with the social partners, a dialogue that you and your government constantly go out of the way.

Mrs Temmerman, I think you have unintentionally summarized the philosophy of all the socialist pensions ministers of the last 25 years in the awesome catchy sense: there is still enough time. This is the philosophy that led us to carry out this reform today. There is still plenty of time for you, but we catch the bull by the horns. We no longer sit in the suitcases. It may make you sad, but the dogs flatter, and the caravan moves past.

Mr. De Roover, you said yourself that there is still enough time. You said it will only be in 2030. These are your words, not mine. If it is only before 2030, then there was enough time to organize the social consultation. That is my point.

Please stop making a caricature of everything the opposition says every time.

Mr. De Roover, the dogs whisper, the caravan passes by. Your ruling could eventually still pass if only the opposition parliamentarians were concerned about this reform. To go further in your image speech: there are a lot of flattering dogs at the moment. Per ⁇ it is not so bad to take a little account of the people who are worried today.

You try to say, also with respect to colleague De Vriendt, that we do not want to reform, that there is work at the store and that we must address the affairs now. However, this is not the debate. I think that colleague De Vriendt also made clear in the committee that we must do things to keep social security and pensions viable. We only dispute two fundamental issues. First, that it is done by raising the legal age. Our party has always been in favour of resolutely reasoning in career years. Second, what is even more important is that in these we miss a whole package to ensure that the dogs do not have to worry at all and do not have to flatter, namely the package workable work.

I just listened to the Prime Minister’s press conference. Many measures have passed the review, but also there were no concrete measures on working work.

Our plea is the following. Reform, yes, but also empathy for the people who worry today. This is not just the opposition. It specifically concerns a lot of people in the workplace who demand empathy and concrete reforms in the field of workable work. These are not on the table, making your pension measures an imbalanced and unfair package.

Between imbalanced and unjust, there is already a gap of a whole world, Mr. Calvo. I repeat that this is a step-by-step reform to prevent the fish from drowning in the bowl and to prevent us from putting anchor points, after which we systematically let this reform to its full flourishment.

Workable work is an important part. Both our and other factions of the majority have already done very useful and interesting work around it. Working, I feel subcutaneous in this kind of discussion, is usually seen a bit biblically as “you will earn your bread in the sweat of your face”. Hence the reference in the discussion of the report. Work is seen quite unilaterally as a punishment, while everything shows how important it is for social contacts and for self-realization, and so on, that people work and get the opportunity to do so.

In practice, a number of measures must be taken. On this tribune here, I expressly appeal to the employers, who must also include their responsibilities. Not so long ago this week, someone told me that his wife had applied three times and was answered three times that she was too old. The victim was rightly shocked: she is 48 years old. To be permanently heard at the age of forty-eight that you are too old is, on the one hand, unacceptable, and has, on the other hand, also to do with the fact that some still consider 48 years as a person with only a limited term, someone at the end of the career. Somewhere there is a bridge pension that indicates the end of the career at 52 years or 53 years. If we make clear in the future that 48-year-olds still have extensive opportunities, for example, to change careers and to change the direction of what they have done in the past, this will trigger the necessary change of mentality that will indeed have to be effectively transmitted to employers. It seems to me as ready as a clown.

I would like to say something about those “damn socialists” and about your speech.

We have been saying for years that work is important, which, by the way, is one of our fundamental principles. To emphasize this now, I do not find it so innovative. I think we should do that, for all clarity.

What I am ⁇ delighted with is that you have finally also come to the understanding that employers must make an effort to give and continue to give opportunities to the elderly – and elderly means for them from 40 years old – on the workplace. I want to challenge you to find another job once you’re 50 years old. This is absolutely not obvious. I assure you that all those prejudices about older people are still very strong.

I hope, therefore, that you will be consistent, and proactive, and willing to change, by ensuring that the tax shift that appears to have been decided tonight is linked to result commitments. Employers must also create jobs for people over 40 and make obligatory efforts to give them a chance on the labour market. However, if I look at the target group policy in Flanders – I am less aware of the rest – it does not seem to me to be in the right direction.

Mr. De Roover, you really spray one cartoon after another. It really does not stop. The next caricature in the line is that the opposition has something against working and people who work. I think this is in the meantime the seventh caricature in your discourse and you are not so busy yet.

I started in my presentation with the phrase that working longer is part of the solution. Which part of that sentence do you not understand? Where do you get that we would deny this?

Stop those caricatures. Stop that left-right contradiction that you like to see and that you want to blow up. Let’s look at the solutions, Mr. De Roover.

You feel concerned, sir the friend. Whoever has the shoe...

Of course I feel addressed. You are speaking to us.

Find solutions for people with a difficult job. I got an email from someone who is now 54 years old and who has started working at 14 years old. Those people also exist, Mr. De Roover. This man tells us that because of the pension reform of this N-VA government, he will have to work for 46 years. I know that the work ethos is sacred to you, Mr. De Roover, but there are really boundaries. Let people work in a heavy occupation for 46 years is not our vision. We differ in opinion, in the sense that we want solutions for those people, because there are many.

You can close your eyes and pass all these cases to the National Pension Committee, but in the meantime we get emails from these people. In that sense, you are not doing well. You are doing caricatures. We are working on solutions. That is the difference.

Someone who started working at the age of 14 and wanted to retire in 2013 had 38 years enough. In 2016, it will be 40 years old and you should reach the age of 62.

Mr. De Vriendt, I would like to recommend you to play such emails to us, then we can give those people a serious answer. Furthermore, you should not launch them as sluggish propaganda.

It is in this way, if you respond to the person concerned once again with satisfaction that this is the result of this pension reform, that I am very shaded in terms of cartoons by your presentation. Your one cartoon plays my seven little cartoons hard off, in a way that even I cannot face.

The facts are different. In 2021, the man is 60 years old and only then can he retire early, after a career of 46 years, since he started working at 14 years old. These are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you are taking a break, I would only like to give a short reply to Mrs. De Coninck.

Mrs. De Coninck, I totally agree with the first part of your argument, but I have to say that in the latter that you pushed forward the difference between us becomes clear. Employers have a responsibility, but employers force them to hire people, to require what you call a result commitment, that doesn’t work. I’m very sorry that it doesn’t work, I would very much like your feasibility formulas to work. The world would look much better if your ideas were right. Unfortunately, they’re not right, but you don’t care about it. You pretend they are right, you pretend you can create employment by decree. Well, Mrs. De Coninck, we are fundamentally different on this point.

Mr. De Roover, if you are then consistent, you should not even carry out a tax shift and not even give reductions in wage costs to employers, since all this does not help. You also assume feasibility. You distribute money and there is no commitment against it; one can perfectly use it to deliver more profit to the shareholders.

Mr. De Roover, I would definitely like to have a discussion before the break.

Do you think it makes sense to ask the Belgian working people to work until the age of 67, while the majority of parliamentarians present here will be able to retire at age 55? You answered the Labour Party in the press by saying that this is not true. I have therefore studied the Rules of Procedure carefully and all MEPs who have sworn in here in the six months prior to 1 June 2014 are entitled to 55 years of retirement.

The services of the Chamber are opposed to this.

I terminate my reasoning.

At 52 years old, they can retire early. Then I ask, is it logical and normal for the MPs of the majority parties to ask the working people to work until 67 and to approve for themselves that they can leave at 55?

Mr. Hedebouw, you would be more convincing if your information were correct. You seem to have a pension specialist in your ranks. Therefore, I assume that someone who specializes in it can clearly provide material.

Regardless of the fact that I personally believe that the pension scheme is more than sufficient even now in the tightened legislation, I think we can better engage in a dialogue, but you must provide the right information. Those in this legislature — that is at least what the services of the House have told me in that interpretation — must at least wait until 62.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the previous discussion with Mrs. Becq.

I searched the government's explanatory memory and also the table. I find that Mrs. Becq and Mr. De Roover do not know their own pension reform. In the government table — it is not our table — it is very clear that the minimum age for early retirement is 60 years, coupled with a minimum career of 44 years. The man in question who has started working at the age of 14 — and there are many — and who has reached the minimum age of 60 years, will then have worked for 46 years. That is your pension reform. That is unrealistic.

We are working on solutions for people in such difficult professions, but I note that you yourself do not know your own regulations, let alone that you are willing or ready to go to such solutions.

I would like to return to the pensions of us, parliamentarians.

Mr. De Roover, I am pleased that you believe that these pensions are still large enough, with which you implicitly indicate that there may also be something to be done about it. You will be given the opportunity to do so, because we have submitted an amendment.

This does not fit in the current legislation.

Is this not in line with current legislation? It fits into that legislation. You can do it perfectly. That is ⁇ not an argument.

Our proposal is the following. When things change for the workers in that country, they also change for the parliamentarians in that country. Per ⁇ we should have that debate. However, you will have a chance tonight after 18:00. At that time you can approve our amendment, after which we can really start the debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I have here the Rules of Procedure of the Pension Fund for People’s Representatives, which was approved by the General Assembly of 8 December 1983. This is about the expenditure of March 2014.

I propose that we receive an official response from the President or the services on this politically very important point before tonight.

Mr. De Roover, what I read in Article 3 “Every former effective member of the Pension Fund for People’s Representatives is entitled to interest and, where appropriate, to a rest pension for the validated mandate acquired until 31 May 2014.” Elections were held on May 25, 2014. It is about the date of 31 May 2014. Most members here today, except for those who entered the Parliament after the elections, are therefore allowed to leave at the age of 55.

When it comes to the rights themselves and how much is earned, which is an important point that the workers and servants of this country can and should know for sure, the following is true. For those who will have one parliamentary mandate behind, they will have accumulated a pension of 1 569 euros per month. However, those who have fulfilled two mandates – so are many of us – will receive 3,138 euro pension. Members with three mandates – such as members – receive 4,707 euros and members with five mandates receive 5,379 euros.

So I have a problem with the fact that here today it is stated that the government wants everyone to work longer, while the majority of this hemisphere will be allowed to retire at the age of 55.

Is this true or not? That is the question that we need to answer today before the vote. This is a politically important issue. Can Members of Parliament leave before the age limit we set for the workers and servants of this country?

Mr. Hedebouw, I would indeed think that this is a technical issue.

According to the information provided to me about this, your data is outdated, but let the technicians cut the node in it, because rules are rules and their application, as I may assume, cannot happen in two or three different ways.

Colleagues, given the advanced hour and in consultation with Mr De Roover, I propose that our meeting be closed here.

We will resume the pension debate over the course of the day. Then we will continue with Mr. De Roover, because now a Conference of Presidents is scheduled.