[ad_1]
The Council of States should have discussed the AHV reform in September, now it is not even enough for December. It is “problematic”, sounds from the National Council. However, at the same time, new compromises are also possible.
In this country, intergenerational justice is strained by the postponement of the necessary pension reforms.
“Hour”, “expired”, “five to twelve”: For years, the urgency of the reform of the AHV has been heard throughout the country. The first pillar of the old-age benefit is unbalanced. The income is no longer enough to pay the pensions. Without countermeasures, the gap will rapidly increase to several billion Swiss francs per year because the big baby boomers are now gradually retiring. At the end of August 2019, the Federal Council decided on a proposal to stabilize the welfare work. But Parliament is taking its time. So far neither house has debated it.
The ball falls to the Social Commission (SGK) of the Council of States. On Friday, he surprisingly announced that he had not yet completed the preliminary consultation. As a result, the Council of States cannot make a decision in December as planned. This is already the second delay, the SGK originally planned a consultation in September. Previously, it was the elections and the coronavirus that were cited as reasons for the delay.
It should really work in March
It can hardly be due to the complexity of the template. It comprises relatively few elements: an increase in VAT, the retirement age of 65 for women, combined with financial compensation for the first affected cohorts, and new percentages for early withdrawals or deferred pensions.
How is the delay explained? Commission Chairman Paul Rechsteiner (sp.) Emphasizes that preliminary advice on AHV reforms has always taken a long time. While the current proposal seems relatively manageable, demanding questions arose, especially in regards to compensatory measures for women. “That’s why seriousness precedes speed,” emphasizes Rechsteiner. As new proposals were made at the committee meeting this week, the SGK has commissioned further clarification from the administration.
Hopefully there are no new ideas this spring. In any case, the Commission wants to avoid further delays. She inserted additional meeting days in January and February. According to Rechsteiner, “it will almost certainly be enough” for the March session.
A new CVP proposal requires further clarification
The main argument has to do with cushioning for women. The Commission has several models for this. This week, a new approach was reportedly added from the CVP ranks, requiring further clarification. The underlying idea: Since the retirement age is gradually increased by three months over a four-year period, the first affected cohorts should only receive partial compensation. The fourth would receive the full amount, after which the compensation would gradually be reduced to zero.
Not only the details of the distribution are controversial, but also the amount of the total and the duration of the transition phase. The Federal Council foresees nine years. This goes too far for bourgeois social politicians because they fear it will postpone the next reform even further. This should bring a general increase in the retirement age above 65 years. This step is also likely to be “more expensive” if Parliament raises high expectations with generous compensatory measures for women.
“These persistent delays are quite tedious”
But before all these issues can be negotiated, the SGK of the Council of States must first put an end to its work. In the National Council, the understanding of the colleagues of the small chamber is very limited. “These persistent delays in this extremely important business are quite arduous,” says CVP National Counselor Ruth Humbel. The SGK Chairman of the National Council says that all open questions have been examined and calculated many times in recent years. “It is a mystery to me what still needs to be investigated.”
Humbel’s disgust has deeper reasons. It highlights that the SGK of the National Council has made great efforts in recent weeks to avoid being left behind. In order to deal with the business related to the pandemic without leaving others behind, many additional meetings have been organized, even during the off-peak hours of the session. Humbel has also scheduled additional meetings in the spring so he can quickly address AHV reform. Nothing will come of this now because the Council of States is not ready yet.
More room for maneuver thanks to the inclusion of the BVG reform
According to Humbel, the Council of States colleagues are also behind on another important issue: filing for uniform funding of inpatient and outpatient health services. “We worked efficiently so that this proposal could be discussed in the National Council in September 2019, and then it just remains.” This is all “strange,” says Humbel. His consequence: he now wants to work to ensure that the other major proposal on the provision of old age services reaches the National Council first. It is the reform of the occupational pension scheme (BVG), on which the Federal Council will decide this month.
Assigning major reforms to one or the other council is often associated with tactical calculation. Tip 1 tends to be more influential because it typically conducts expert hearings and can shape the presentation. The SGK of the Council of States is also reportedly aiming for the reform of the BVG. But Humbel thinks that if they are obviously behind schedule, they should leave this complex proposal to the National Council Commission. The decision in this regard is made by the two presidents of the Council. If they cannot agree, the lot decides. In recent years, the Council of States has always been able to secure the major pension reforms for initial consultation.
The delay could also have significant consequences. Parliament can now debate the reform of AHV and BVG more or less simultaneously. Unlike the last failed submission, no blanket packages have been planned, but with the inclusion of the second pillar, they are possible against additional deals. The higher retirement age of women is likely to have better chances if, at the same time, employees with part-time work and low income are better protected in BVG. However, this should also increase complexity and the risk of further delays.
