Proposition 54K1880

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 5 août 1978 de réformes économiques et budgétaires en ce qui concerne la mise à la retraite d'office après des jours d'absence pour cause de maladie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 7, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant pension scheme retirement conditions early retirement sick leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

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

Abstained from voting

PP

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 23, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

David Clarinval, the rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, “Stop Lies!” is your new com campaign. Does this mean that the government has finally decided to be honest, transparent and to stop in vain hiding the real effects and violence of its reforms?

We have a little doubt!

We have a doubt. I believed it, but when I saw the project... No!

Mr. Minister, with this bill, you would like to postpone by three years the age from which a statutory employee is retired due to illness. Your goal is not to give prospects for reintegration to those affected, as you let it be heard in the committee. Otherwise, why also target those who have been recognized as permanently inadequate? Why reduce the age from which you are retired? It would simply have been necessary to improve the text so that the persons concerned could apply for reintegration.

Once again, you are trying to hide reality by voluntarily presenting things in a false positive way for citizens. On the other hand, you squeeze your reform, which prevents any global vision, in order to conceal the anti-social character of the reforms that are being carried out. Indeed, we are not fools. In turn, you report the statutory retirement age, complicate access to early retirement, survival pension, and then, you remove the accounting of years of study first for access, then for the amount of pension. After that, you will question the assimilated periods. Your goal is clear: make savings on the back of future retirees, forcing them to work longer and much worse if they are no longer able to.

To hide the true goals of your reform, which are largely budgetary, you say that your project will allow those affected to exhaust the days of leave accumulated during their careers. We know that this is not a reality. In fact, the government has indicated that it will reform the possibility for officials to cumulate days of leave and sickness.

But not all of them accumulated. The government also indicated that it will end the physical disability pension scheme and that it will send sick civil servants to the mutual. The reality is that the government is violently attacking the status of civil servants and the protection of these workers.

The vast majority of people on sick leave are actually sick. You must stop presenting them as profiters. If you have not said it clearly, members of your majority have expressed it in committee. You want to make savings on the back of the most vulnerable. As a result of your reforms, people who are sick between 61 and 64 years of age, because there is a one-year gap, will lose purchasing power to allow you to make budget savings.

With your bill, Mr. Minister, you are again trying to make savings on the back of not only workers, but also federal entities. This is quite simple and totally contrary to the federal loyalty principle. You will require federal entities to support for three years the treatment of their sick agent, while he would have benefited from a pension payable by the federal state. Specifically, federal entities will have to continue to ensure the remuneration of a person who, otherwise, would have been retired.

Will you compensate for these new expenses? I doubt it. In conclusion, we still have to denounce a government attack on the most vulnerable people and public services, and therefore services to the citizen. For us, this is unacceptable and that is why we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I am not in the line of what has just been said. This government has undertaken a number of reforms, including a very important one in terms of pensions. We have taken our responsibilities as political representatives to gradually raise the statutory retirement age to 67 years by 2030. We have said it and we assume it. This reform was necessary to ensure the sustainability of our pension system and if my memories are good, Mr. Daerden, your father had also thought about it and had also proposed it.

He announced that the actual retirement age should be raised but not the mandatory retirement age.

I will not go back on this point since it has already been the subject of many discussions within this homicide.

The project we are dealing with today is directly related to the statutory retirement age. Article 83 of the Act of 5 August 1978 on economic and budgetary reforms provides for the retirement of an officer of public services who total more than 365 days of illness, from the age of 60 years. You agree that this pivotal age of 60 years was set at a time when the legal age for early retirement was also 60 years. Since 2013, the age and career conditions for early retirement have been gradually raised. The Government therefore considered it necessary to take measures to gradually postpone the retirement age after 365 days of illness, from 62 years on 1 July 2016 and from 63 years on 2018.

I think this is a reasonable decision, for two reasons. First, because the early retirement age has been raised, the official retirement age must also be raised to align with it. Secondly, and it must be said, this increase should prevent the abuse of the office retirement scheme to circumvent the rules on early retirement.

It should also be recalled, and the Minister recalled it in the committee, that this is a transitional measure while waiting for the invalidity pension scheme to be reformed, simplified and harmonised in its entirety with the contribution of the social partners.

As I said to you, this change is the logical follow-up of the reforms launched by the government. Some blame us for the lack of transparency or the sunset of reforms that would prevent a clear vision of the reform objectives. Let me, dear colleagues, not have the same reading as yours.

The Minister has repeatedly explained the usefulness of these reforms. He defined their objectives while submitting the dossier to social consultation at each stage of the reform. Here, once again, the social partners were consulted, as evidenced by the various opinions that Mr. Minister sent to us. I am pleased that many of them have given a positive opinion on the project.

I conclude by reminding you that today, a little more than 3,000 people – 3 073 exactly – are affected by this measure, ⁇ 200 only in 2015, and that this measure should obviously not be confused with retirement due to physical inability, which, I recall, follows a medical examination.

So you won’t be surprised that my group and myself have good reasons to subscribe to this common sense project. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues – especially Mr. Nollet because we still have to convince him – my speech will be very brief.

Mr. Minister, I remain anxiously awaiting your global plan for pensions. We still do not have that. I would like to remind you once again that one of the key points of the Pension Reform Committee was that there should be a global plan and that with that global plan the farmer must be persuaded to the various ranks so that there would be a broad support for the global pension reform. We still do not have a global pension reform. We don’t even have your view on this. What you do is adjust a little bit each time. Each time again, you adjust a small piece, with two goals.

The first goal is simply saving. So be honest about it. Your first goal is to save!

Your second goal is something that everyone from the majority before the election said that one would not do it, make people work until 67 years of age. Mr. Minister, I will not say that everyone agrees, but almost everyone agrees that people should work longer. But do you really believe that just changing the age limit makes people work longer? Do you really believe that someone who has been a nurse for years and has done very hard work will be able to work longer because you raise the age limit? Do you believe that the entrepreneur who thinks he should close his business will keep it open because people have to work until 67? You do not believe that, Mr. Minister.

What is needed is a plan for longer work. This government is doing the opposite. You have abolished the pension bonus. With this proposal you say again that people who are long-term ill – officials, nurses, nurses, kindergarten directors and so many others – will not be able to retire early. The reason for this is that there are abuses. If there are abuses, those abuses must be addressed. We will support you in this. However, it is not because there are abuses that anyone who does not abuse the system should also be immediately punished. You do that now.

However, my main point of criticism concerns your global plan. The repeated redistribution of your proposals means that there is no vision of this government. Also, this design only comes down to the fact that you will again hit the most vulnerable, in this case the long-term sick.

If it remains unclear, the sp.a will vote against this draft with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the first message I wanted to convey today is that long-term serious patients really exist. It may be serious to have to recall it to a doctor, but during committee discussions, you and the majority have made it clear that your bill was simply motivated by the fact that officials abuse the system.

If there are abuses, it is on them that we must work. But many people are really sick, deserve respect, and for them, your bill is brutal. They will be clearly punished. You have even been up to presenting things to us by saying that the bill would be in their favor. However, beyond the 365-day quota, these people will be made available and will receive only 60% of their treatment, while pensions are at an income level of about 75%. It’s true that you always have the assumption that the bills you pass are positive and bring money to people.

Yesterday, we were hearing the Pension Ombudsman, since his service just released his report. You will remember, Mr. Minister, that when we discussed the Bill on Diploma Bonification, I demonstrated to you by A+B that people would be clearly and directly impacted on their pension level. You have denied. I mean, for example, the story of a nurse in the report of the Pension Ombudsman. You will ask your office to know about it. This nurse, because of your bill, will have to take her pension a year later.

But by taking her pension a year later, she will have a lower pension level than she would have had if your bill had not been. Do not say no with your head. Read the report of the Pension Ombudsman. We discussed this in the committee yesterday. You were told this when your bill passed into the commission. You claimed the opposite. You were wrong. This is to show you, if necessary, that bills such as these will have a direct impact on the income level and on the pension level of the persons concerned. I say this for those seriously sick people. You were brutal! This is not the first time and I am no longer surprised.

I will come to a second point on the substance that I wanted to mention in the context of this case. Keep calm, ladies and gentlemen! When you touch where it hurts, you get angry right away. and calm! They trust me, dear Mr. Flahaux, completely trust me, everyone!

The message I wanted to send you, Mr. Minister, is that there are people who are seriously ill, even for prolonged periods. But the second message I wanted to pass on this bill is your lack of consistency. This isn’t the first time I’m talking about it and I’ll continue to do it as often as necessary, because you’re breaking out pension reforms. This fragmentation hides the vision, the objective and the perspective. It would be much more useful and indispensable to think about a set of measures for career purposes that would allow all professional categories to work longer. I know, I repeat it repeatedly, but I will continue, Mr. Minister. Advance on the case of painfulness instead of punishing the sick! Advance on career goals instead of punishing the sick!

In a number of cases, long-term illnesses are often only the consequence of the problem that you do not take hand-to-hand. I can only repeat it and repeat it again and again.

Therefore, we will not vote on this bill. I also have the feeling that I will return to you, one of those days, with concrete situations such as that of this nurse who will directly suffer the consequences of the bill "diploma bonification". And I have no doubt that the Pension Mediation Service will be contacted, in the future, by people who will be directly penalized by your bill while you have claimed the opposite. It is not responsible. You know it very well. Indeed, when we examine the situation of the persons concerned in case-by-case and model in case-by-case, we realize the negative repercussions that this can lead to.

Dear colleagues, and especially dear colleagues of the MR who are – I understand it – manifestly embarrassed in the surroundings, we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I hear well the various remarks that have, again, relating to all the measures that are presented in the field of pension reform. There is a whole thing, as there is a general debate every time!

In any case, it is imperative to see that the debates that take place here have not ended up, since, every time, we are referring to the whole reform proposed by the government. So I invite you to review the government agreement where you will find a comprehensive plan. I also invite you to read my general policy note, which has been the subject of discussion in this Parliament and which covers all the objectives of the pension reform which aims to preserve our social protection system, to ensure that future generations can count on proper pensions in this country, but also to enable the financial sustainability of the system. I do not hide it. We are responsible for this because it is essential. The pension reform also aims to ensure social performance, harmonize different schemes and reduce the risk of poverty among pensioners in the country.

This is what is already reflected in the reforms voted by this Parliament. The Federal Plan Office and the Aging Study Committee clearly indicate that the reforms already underway reduce the poverty risk rate among pensioners and raise the level of the lowest pensions, especially those of women. It’s not me who says it, it’s organizations that are part of our country’s classic institutional landscape that are issuing these comments today. I also invite you to read them carefully in order to reassure you. In fact, I feel your questions, and even, I would say, your anxiety. I want to try, as far as I can, to calm the latter and reassure you about the goals pursued by the government.

As for the more specific project that concerns us, I think that there is a flagrant injustice in the system of office pension, which is for me a real violence, because people of office are put into retirement, without medical advice. There is no recourse to the competent medical services, nor the possibility of return. Let us take the example of someone who is unlucky to know a number of pathologies or diseases and who, by adding periods of disability, reaches 365 days of disability. If this person wishes to continue working, he cannot do so in the current state of legislation. I am surprised that this is correct.

The [...]

It is the opposite. At the age of 60 or 61, I believe that one should not be considered as permanently incompetent because one has been unlucky to be sick for a while. In this revision of the legislation, it offers a possibility of reintegration over another three years. This is the primary objective of this legislative amendment. You have asked me, dear concierge, as a doctor. I think your reasoning on this subject is somewhat pernicious and should be revised.

As for Mr. Daerden, he refers to the assimilated periods. It is true that a reflection on the assimilated periods was initiated by the previous government, which also voted for the revision of the assimilated periods in terms of the third period of unemployment. The discussion is ongoing and I assume it, of course.

It is necessary, since one of the main objectives of this reform is to strengthen the link between work and pension and to strengthen the link between pension and work. It can be taken in both directions. It’s important to do it, it’s part of the general motivation of the population. It seems to me healthy to highlight the value of work in relation to the consequences it can have on the pension scheme.

Mr. Daerden, you will allow me to be surprised by your comment. You say that we will “support” the federal entities, for three years, the treatment of their sick agents. I find that you are showing a very beautiful solidarity and I congratulate you, especially since the federated entities are also the local authorities. As I know, in the solidarity fund of the communes and provinces in terms of pensions, it is the money of the communes: 41% of contributions on public pensions that could become 50, 60, 70%, if no reform intervened. You know very well that it is also about preserving the finances of the local authorities, of the federal authorities in our country, so that everyone can take responsibilities with full knowledge of cause.

Considering that it would not be normal for public authorities to endure for a few more years the treatment of patients who are unlucky to get sick from time to time seems to me to be the denial of solidarity itself. I am surprised that you put this forward.

Ultimately, it is about increasing from 60 to 63 years of age gradually, depending on the legislation on early retirement, to ensure also some coherence. I recall that the legislation made those 365 days of illness start from the early retirement age set at 60 years. As this will pass to 63 years old, it is normal to ensure a certain consistency.

It is also about preventing people from being forced to retire because they have had the unlucky chance of experiencing a number of periods of illness. I would like to measure well what this means: the office pension is an act of violence. It is good to review this system in its entirety.

This is also what is planned as part of a reflection that started on the reform of the pension for physical inability, which is also a system that introduces poverty in the future by putting people very early in retirement, who find themselves at a certain age with a pension completely unsuitable for a decent life, because this pension has been calculated over a clearly insufficient number of years. There is also a need to rethink our system.

We need to reform our system gradually if we want to maintain a proper and guaranteed pension system for future generations.

Thank you Mr Minister. Are there any replicas?

I will answer in three points. First, Mr. Minister, you say that through your reforms you are fighting poverty. Forcing people to work when they are no longer able to do so, I don’t see what it means to fight poverty.

Secondly, you say that the office pension system is unfair because it forces people to leave and I want to hear it. In some circumstances, sometimes people arrive at 365 days and still want to work. In this case, Mr. Minister, reform the legislative arrangement to allow these people to continue working if they still want to. What you do is only to earn 25 million euros a year on a budget plan. You mentioned the number. These 25 million euros per year by the horizon of 2019, you do it well on someone’s back! of whom ? These are federal entities and workers.

With regard to federal entities, you speak of the principle of solidarity. The principle of solidarity is not to drag the savings you want to do on the Regions, Communities and local authorities. I will come back in a moment. Be solidary, support a part of the savings I have to make! This is not solidarity.

I know as much as you how local authorities work.

It is not the federal power that pays the pensions but a common pot with a form of accountability and solidarity. When you make the city or municipality pay the salary of the person who is sick and who cannot take his pension, the cost is direct and it is totally contrary to the aspect of solidarity between the local authorities.