Place now in the Luxembourg Palace. After a final debate chaotic and without a vote this Friday night in the National Assembly, it will be up to the Senate to seize the pension reform, in a version that includes some modifications with respect to the version studied by the deputies, particularly regarding the senior index.
when activating Article 47.1 of the Constitution to go very quickly to the National Assembly with just 8 days of debate, the government effectively has control of the version sent to the senators.
A new version of the senior index
Despite the debates in the Assembly, during which the deputies voted deletion of article 2 on the senior index -a key element of the bill to aspire to promote the employment of those over 50 years of age-, the senators will consider a version that mentions it.
Therefore, the article on the senior index is reintroduced, the purpose of which is to oblige certain companies to publish annual monitoring indicators related to the hiring of senior employees, with some modifications. It will no longer affect only companies with more than 300 employees but those with 50 employees with a staggering for the application of the measure.
It must affect companies with 1,000 employees as of November 1, then on July 1, 2024 for those with more than 300 employees and finally on July 1, 2025 for companies with more than 50 employees. These changes largely repeat what Renaissance had unsuccessfully advocated during debates in the National Assembly.
The executive also presents “a progress report on the implementation of the index and on its concrete repercussions on the employment of the elderly”, presented each year no later than June 1 before Parliament.
While the government is hopeful that the text will pass without incident at the Luxembourg Palace, the senior index could cause tension. Bruno Retailleau, the president of the LR group, did not hide from the Public Senate his “reluctance to extend it to SMEs”. The senatorial right also intends to offer a “major CDI.”
The blur of long runs remains
Article 7 on the postponement of the retirement age to 64 years, which has not been considered in the National Assembly, has not changed. No more than article 8 on long runs.
Much disputed, this part of the bill has aroused strong criticism. Some people who started working early could, depending on their case, have to work 44 years instead of the 43 years established by the bill.
The Prime Minister made a concession on the long-career scheme on February 16 during topical questions in the National Assembly by announcing that people who started working at the age of 17 could retire after 43 annuities.
But the calmly presented government amendment does not mention the new age limit of 17 but rather 21. People who started working at 16 or 18 should continue contributing at 44.
During the last day of the session, Olivier Dussopt announced that he was finally assuming on behalf of the government the amendment of the deputy LR Aurélien Pradié that defended 43 annuities for all long races. Relaunched several times by the opposition, the Ministry of Labor refused to specify the contours of the developments.
A very different atmosphere from the Assembly
Some hoped the government would clarify its thinking in the Senate version. None of that: he finally returned to the original wording of Article 8, without the concessions announced.
However, the debates in the Luxembourg Palace should be carried out on speckled paper, unlike the high-tension atmosphere in the Assembly. If the senatorial left says that it is ready to lead the battle – as La France insoumise also hopes – the senatorial majority, very favorable to the postponement of the age of majority, has several triumphs up its sleeve.
The right could, for example, resort to the closure measure, defined in article 38 of the regulation, which limits the intervention “in the entirety of an article or in the explanations of vote on an amendment to two speakers “of contrary opinion”. “. . Suffice it to say that a battle of amendments – more than 20,000 at the beginning of the text in the National Assembly – has no chance of taking place.
Source: BFM TV
