Earlier this week, Deprez drew criticism from the OGBL and LCGB trade unions over comments which suggested she was ruling out options despite promising an open consultation on pension reform.
The current furore stems from a parliamentary question submitted by The Left’s Marc Baum, in which he asked about the impact of removing the cap on contributions on the general pension insurance scheme (CNAP). In her response, Deprez indicated that doing so would have generated around 706 million euros in additional revenue for the National Pension Insurance Fund in 2023.
The minister added, unasked, that this would have cost the State around 400 million euros and did not indicate whether the government was prepared to pay this.
Like the unions, Baum is concerned Deprez is ruling this out as an option:
“This would be a shame, because this path would only affect 5% of contributors, to be precise, those who earn over €13,000 a month would have to increase contributions or pay the same as everyone else.”
The Left suggests removing the cap for the general scheme without contributors accumulating more pension rights. The opposite applies to the special pension plan for civil servants, where there is no upper limit and those who exceed it have more pension rights than those in the private sector. Would that be an injustice between civil servants and other employees?
Baum says no:
“We also believe we should have a common system with the same rules for everyone. This means for the civil services, that employees earning five times the minimum wage would have to contribute without obtaining more rights.”
Besides The Left, only the ADR is prepared to seek conflict with the civil service, saying the money has to come from somewhere. Alexandra Schoos says it must be looked at, although her party is yet to discuss whether the cap is fair or unfair.
“We must look at where savings can be made, and look at where there are injustices,” she said. “If we can guarantee our pension for everyone - not just civil servants - that has to be discussed.”
The Greens’ Djuna Bernard was a little more cautious on the topic of the pension cap and fairness. “The last reforms among the civil service sought to bring the two systems closer together. In future I think it’s important not to divide, but to unite. For the remainder, I cannot yet comment on the issue.”
André Bauler of the DP warned against falling out with the General Confederation of Civil Servants (CGFP), saying: “Yes, there is one system and the other. Civil servants have no upper limit and can contribute in full, these numbers are available to us. I will discuss them with my party, but have nothing else to add.”
Marc Spautz, chairman of the CSV parliamentary group, referred back to the coalition agreement. “The agreement says it must be discussed within the private sector, but that does not exclude the possibility that we may have further discussions afterwards.”
Is the discussion about why there are two different systems to be postponed indefinitely? The website schwätzmat.lu has attracted a number of proposals from the public on a unified pension scheme. These proposals could be included among the consultation’s conclusions.
Although the opposition parties expressed surprise at the government’s lack of direction in terms of potential pension reforms, they did welcome an opening regarding administrative costs.
This was the only point on which employers and unions agreed on when submitting their opinion to the Economic and Social Council: if all expenditures which do not go towards paying pensions were withdrawn from the CNAP, a few years would be gained before expenditures exceeded revenues.
Baum said: “The opening consisted of the government asking us for our position regarding this proposal. It did not ask for other positions. So I suppose this proposal could eventually become tangible.
Spautz added that if this measure was to be tested, it would need to be done for the social security system in general, not just for pension schemes.
