Proposition 50K0670

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 23 de la loi du 14 février 1961 d'expansion économique, de progrès social et de redressement financier.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

May 24, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

unemployment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Annemie Van de Casteele (N-VA) abstained from voting.

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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, my report concerns the discussion of the bill amending Article 23 of the Act of 14 February 1961 on economic expansion, social progress and financial recovery. This law regulates, inter alia, the control of the family status of the unemployed, in particular the home visits to the persons concerned, and was amended by the Act of 7 April 1999. Since then, it has ⁇ ined the procedure in which RVA officials must follow to verify whether the family status of the unemployed actually matches the content of the declaration of the persons concerned to apply for an unemployment benefit. If an unemployed person refuses such a home visit, RVA may, on the basis of Article 23, obtain permission from the President of the Labour Court to carry out the home visit anyway. According to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Employment, this is contrary to the fundamental principle of respect for private life and wishes that the imposed home visit be discontinued. The Council of Ministers approved this position. The present bill amends four fundamental points of the system set out in Article 23 of the Law of 14 February 1961. First, during the hearing or during the visit to the residential premises, the unemployed may be assisted by a trade union representative or by a lawyer. Second, the unemployed person may refuse the requested home visit; the director of the RVA must then express his opinion on the basis of the elements at his disposal. Third, an appeal to the forced home visit is abolished. Fourth, the unemployed can file a complaint with the federal mediator, regarding the intervention of the RVA on the control of the family condition. In case of fraud, the RVA can always draw up a file and, in serious cases, request the labor auditor to proceed to a judicial investigation. This bill was discussed during the meetings of 13 and 14 June last days of the Social Affairs Committee. At the request of a number of members, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment requested the advice of the RVA Management Committee and also requested recent data on the application of the law of 7 April 1999. The opinion of the management committee of the RVA is divided. The representatives of the employers are generally opposed to this bill. Those of the employees are generally for the design. They agree, however, that a role should be given to the President of the Labour Court and that an investigation should be conducted to replace the concept of habitual residence with the concept of main residence. The members of the employee organization are also opposed to the transformation of the concept of maintenance into the concept of interrogation. At the vote, Amendment 1 to Article 2 of Mr Viseur is rejected by 10 votes against 1 and 1 abstinence. The entire draft law is adopted by 9 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence. A brief report on the draft law. For a detailed explanation, I refer to the written report. Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to do so, I will now present the VLD position on this subject. The present bill goes a step further than what was decided at the end of the previous legislature. The procedure for the home visits was then tightened with respect to the RVA. Since then, the RVA was no longer allowed to go directly to home visits, but had to first invite the unemployed concerned to the RVA premises for an interview. In case of doubt, the unemployed were explicitly asked for permission for a home visit. In case of refusal, the RVA could go to the labour court to force a home visit. The present draft law deprives the RVA of the possibility of appealing to the labour court in order to force an inspection visit. The VLD was already of the opinion in April 1999 that it was fundamental to check whether the replacement income that people enjoy really belongs to them on the basis of the unemployment scheme. Any control is necessary, without falling into a witch hunt for unemployed. Of course, such controls should be carried out, as far as possible, by administrative means, with the utmost respect for the privacy of the unemployed, but home visits may not be excluded if necessary. By the way, these home visits take place according to a precisely defined procedure and a comprehensive code of conduct. Therefore, the VLD has no problem with the fact that the unemployed can be assisted by a counselor or someone from the trade union. It cannot be denied that there is abuse. Anyone who is okay has nothing to fear. The checks are also important for determining the family situation. They must ensure that an unemployed person receives the appropriate benefit and whether or not he is entitled to the Articles 80 to 88 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991, which provides for the suspension for long-term unemployment. Controls take place on other occasions in a much less polite manner. I think of the controls in the fruit harvest and the catering industry, where one is not afraid to turn on helicopters and organize real invasions. If an optimal protection of the privacy of the inspected persons is sought, the VLD insists that the Minister will also take the necessary measures in this area. Under these conditions, the VLD will grant its support to this bill. In the future, we will allow ourselves to regularly evaluate the state of affairs through parliamentary questions, both for the unemployed and for the checks in the hospitality and gardening sectors. In the explanation of the draft law, as an argument for abolishing this arrangement, the very small number of home visits forced through the labour court is covered. This reasoning can also be reversed. The fact that so little appeal is made to enforceability through the labour court and the fact that 3 out of 4 applications are rejected for reasons related to judicial administration are the best evidence that the RVA does not abuse this possibility and that the service thoroughly monitors the rights of the unemployed. Mrs. Minister, what exactly happens to the unemployed who do not respond to the call for an interview of the RVA? In fact, the VLD has identified a discrepancy between the number of calls and the number of maintenance. The explanatory note states that the current procedure is inappropriate, in particular because the labour judge would not be the appropriate person to force a home visit. The legislative amendment of April 1999 transferred this power from the police judge to the labour judge. If the labour judge is not the suitable person, it would have been better to think first about which judge or which judge is best placed before eliminating the possibility for RVA altogether. In our view, the argument that the Judicial Code was not amended only shows that certain initiatives were not taken. However, there can be no reason to refer the decisions taken to the garbage cart. At the end of my speech, I would like to remain silent on the opinion of the RVA. Although it is a divided opinion, a number of important content elements jump into the eye. These will need to be examined at cabinet level. I would like to point out the replacement of the concept of ordinary residence by main residence and the preservation of the concept of maintenance rather than interrogation. Furthermore, the RVA considers the Labour Court the designated body to assess disputes concerning the statements of the unemployed and to authorise forced home visits. Above all, we must have the courage to ask whether the management committee of the RVA really considers a reform of the procedure necessary. This is, in our opinion, not clearly shown in the advice. Although the VLD would have preferred that the current procedure be ⁇ ined a little longer in order to gain a better understanding of its good or less good functioning, my group will grant the present bill the advantage of the doubt. However, it remains our firm intention to use the existing parliamentary resources to regularly and closely monitor the implementation of the draft law. In addition, the VLD remains a strong demand party for an evaluation and revision of the social controls in the hospitality and horticulture industry. Like the unemployed, the people who operate in these sectors deserve to be treated with the highest possible respect.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, if the project we are discussing is ⁇ a step in the right direction, I doubt that it is sufficient and that one can avoid addressing the essence of the problem related to this article 80 relating to home visits and which, in the end, turned out to be unfair to the persons concerned. This step is not sufficient, in the first place because the discrimination between two categories of persons that can be targeted is restored: married women and cohabitants with a common home and, in the second place, cohabitants who reside or are domiciled in different places. In doing so, discrimination is introduced, because the examination of the first situation will be superfluous (we find ourselves in the presence of cohabitants), while in the second case, uncertainty will plunge. Indeed, home visits can still take place, upon consent, but the situation is not accurate in case of refusal of home visit. The State Council very well explains that a home visit is required, because the file lacks sufficient elements to make a decision. If a request for a home visit is opposed to a refusal, the ONEM will decide on the possible action taken. However, it should not be that the situation is worse than before, where the reversed presumption was in place, the refusal being equated to a suspicion, and ⁇ resulted in criminal proceedings. In the coming months, the issue of Article 80 will have to be addressed. The current situation is such that the granting of benefits to isolated unemployed and household owners is based on the insurance system, which is the very basis of our social security system, while for cohabitants, it is partially based on the notion of need for means of subsistence, specific to the residual social security scheme, which is rather a penetration of the Beveridge system into our insurance system. This article 80 was born from an indispensable transaction in times of crisis and a sharp rise in unemployment. It was then necessary to transact between ⁇ ining for an unlimited period of unemployment benefits – which were an essential feature of our system – but with certain concessions, and their limitation in time. Fortunately, the situation is no longer the same. It is ridiculous to see how much a system of derogation from the individualization of rights that, in terms of social security, is a necessity for the future, has been encouraged through Article 80 and everything underlying it. This is a crucial element for ensuring equality between men and women. For example, in 1998, out of 14,945 suspension for abnormally long unemployment periods, there were 11,293 women for only 3,652 men. In view of these statistics, there is a discrimination that goes against the principles of social security, which are the same for all. The crisis is now far behind us. I mean as proof the bill we passed last week to remove the crisis contribution. But we also have to take the social consequences. As far as we are concerned, we will submit and support any initiative aimed at the individualization of rights and the removal of the consequences related to this article 80, which will allow the exclusion of infringements on privacy from the matter of social security. We will abstain from this project. But this abstinence should be seen as an expression of the desire that our Parliament go, very quickly, further in the consecration of the individualization of rights in the field of social security.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues and all the press gathered, the subject of this bill is, as Mr. Viseur already said, a very delicate issue. Indeed, we must find a balance between, on the one hand, respect for the individual and his private sphere and, on the other hand, respect for the basic principles of our social security, in particular the unemployment insurance. Without prejudice to the individual right of the social insured, it is necessary to grant him or her an amount modulated according to his or her family situation. We wish to maintain this as a CVP group in the future. The amount of the unemployment benefit that the person concerned receives depends largely on the honorary declaration that the unemployed person makes about his family situation before the institution paying the unemployment benefit. With these data we must also find the balance between respect for the individual and his private life and ⁇ ining the basic principles of a social insurance, which enabled us to make changes to the draft law during the preparation of the Act of 7 April 1999. During the examination of the bill, we found that there was not much left of the original preliminary bill, as submitted to the State Council for advice, after the opinion. The State Council had almost completely rewritten the legislative and textual. In the previous legislature, we, with a majority over the opposition, developed a regulation that eventually led to the law of 7 April 1999. In the preparatory work leading to that law of 7 April 1999, we found that hearing should be held with the social partners and the responsible persons of the RVA. In the first reading, we insisted in the committee that the opinion of the Management Committee of the RVA be requested. In this request for advice we were supported by the colleagues of the VLD. The arguments cited by colleague van der Hooft in her speech also removed our concerns. Whoever thought that we had expected a unanimous opinion on the whole line from the RVA Management Committee on this very delicate issue, was deceived. We did not expect this. It is true that in the opinion of the management committee of the RVA, the same elements of tension were present as were present between the Parliamentary groups at the time of adoption of the Act of 1999. However, Collega van der Hooft correctly pointed out in her report and in her presentation that there was consensus on three points in the management committee, both the social partners – employers and workers, and the administration of the RVA. First, they agreed that it was necessary to consider replacing the concept of usual residence in the unemployment regulation with the main residence. I spare those who have troubled themselves to attend this discussion, the technical details; the members of the Social Affairs Committee know them. Second, they unanimously agreed to maintain the term maintenance and not to be replaced by the term interrogation. The social partners had, in my opinion, rightly understood that these terms have a completely different social and psychological connotation for the unemployed. Regardless of the social and psychological connotation, it is also not legally free of obligation whether one is invited to an interview, or whether one must undergo an interrogation. Thirdly, the Management Committee agreed that the Labour Court is the best body to assess disputes relating to the declaration of the unemployed and, if necessary, to authorise forced home visits. As Ms. van der Hooft correctly noted, the management committee unanimously agreed on these three recommendations. Well, given your agreement with these three points, we have asked you to amend the law in that sense. You did not want to get into that. I think it’s not a good thing that you didn’t want to address – I stay with – justified questions from the RVA management committee. If you do not comply with the three unanimous recommendations of the people on the ground, I mean the employers, the employees and also the administration of the RVA, which faces these problems daily and has not for nothing on the European level received a mention for good policy and governance, I wonder if this is due to your unlimited belief in your own right or to your persistent stubbornness.

Before the next speaker takes the floor, I let the rapporteur note the following. On page 24 I read: A check on it is by no means out of the evil. Un contrôle en la matière n'est pas pervers. Do not act.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the Flemish Bloc can not agree today with the bill that will be put to the vote here later and that aims to regulate the control of the family status of the unemployed. Better formulated, this means that the bill will make effective control impossible in practice in the future. The essence of the bill is as follows. In the system of unemployment benefits, the unemployed receive a basic benefit, increased by an amount that varies depending on the family situation. This family situation is communicated by the unemployed to the RVA through a declaration of honour. It should be said that the vast majority of the unemployed make this declaration correctly, as it should be. However, we must not be blind to the fact that a small proportion of the unemployed are seeking to obtain, through the indication of an incorrect family status, a benefit higher than the benefit to which they would normally be entitled. In this way, they abuse one of the good basic principles, in particular the principle of solidarity between active and non-active. It is the duty of the government to ensure that everything is done to prevent the abuses that surely exist, to curb social fraud as much as possible and to ensure that the tax money goes where it should go. This is, in our opinion, the purpose of the now widely discussed control. The fact that effective control has already been made impossible by the law of 7 April 1999 is very clear because the new formula introduced by this bill constitutes the final abolition of effective control and opens the door wide for abuses. As a reason for the abolition of this control, the Minister says in the memorandum of explanation that there are no objective reasons to introduce a specific procedure that would allow the visit of the residential places of a unemployed person without his consent. In that context, reference was made to Article 22 of the Constitution, which creates the right to respect for private life. The Minister also says that allowing violations of the private life of unemployed people more easily than those of other categories of persons is a violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. According to the Minister, the only good solution is to subject visits without permission to the rules applicable to all citizens, in particular seeking refuge with the investigative judge by issuing a house search order. The explanation of the draft law is at least tendency. It creates the image that the unemployed should be treated as big criminals, that they are called out of their beds in the morning, that all the boxes and cabinets are opened, as if in real cowboy style. Nothing is less true, on the contrary. Also the State Council has rightly formulated fundamental comments against the way you wish to organize the checks in the future and has also rejected some of the reasons you have cited to abolish the checks. Home visits as a check on the family status of unemployed persons, as such, do not have an outcome with a judicial inquiry, but are simply part of an administrative inquiry. The Council of State states in its opinion that within such investigations it is not possible to request the investigating judge to issue an order for house search. Also, a majority of employees in the RVA Management Committee is explicitly opposed to the replacement of the existing procedure of home visits, with the consent of the President of the Labour Court by the possibility of recommending a home visit in the context of a criminal investigation. The employee rules stipulate that the adjustment of home visits within a judicial investigation is not proportionate to the object. The Council of Ministers did not take these comments into account. Also with regard to the so-called discrimination, the Council of State is clear. There are objective and reasonably acceptable reasons for the existence of a different treatment between different categories of social insured persons. In this regard, according to the Council of State, there is no incompatibility with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Only those special reasons should be mentioned in the explanatory memory. It is, by the way, strange that the so-called violation of the private life of unemployed people is addressed alone. What will you do with other categories of persons subject to all kinds of inspections of labour and social inspection or even inspection services of other government agencies? Will you, for example, in the future also abolish the driest checks in companies? Compared to the way in which checks are carried out in ⁇ today, the home checks of the unemployed are small beer. I am convinced that the only arrangement that produced results was the arrangement that was applied to the Act of 7 April 1999. This arrangement was acceptable for the vast majority of the unemployed. The procedure consisted in social inspectors making a home visit every so many years and going to check the situation on the spot. For the unemployed person who completed his application correctly, it was a customer-friendly procedure because he did not have to move to the unemployment office. There were also no problems with the possible accommodation of children or mobility problems. Moreover, this was ⁇ not seen by the vast majority of the unemployed as a violation of their privacy. Obviously, this procedure was not ideal for unemployed persons who deliberately communicated incorrect data in order to obtain higher benefits. It should be the intention to counter this. Although, when I read this design, I rather have the impression that you want to encourage this fraud. In fact, the only effective and effective instrument in this case was precisely the unexpected home check. It was the only means that allowed to establish violations without giving malicious unemployed the time to remove any traces of cohabitation. The procedure which entered into force on 7 April 1999 already eliminated the unannounced home checks. It was thought to resolve everything through the so notorious maintenance. As if one can judge from one or another unemployment agency whether a unemployed person in fact lives alone or not and whether he is the head of the family or not. This cannot be judged in any other way than on the ground. However, this bill goes a step further and eliminates forced home visits altogether. However, the Minister says that if the unemployed refuses to allow a home visit in the event of persistent doubts about the correctness of his file, the director of the unemployment office will still make a decision. The question, however, is on what basis this will happen. This wide interpretation for the directors of the various unemployment agencies will lead to greater legal uncertainty for the unemployed. In addition, this will undoubtedly lead to differences in the jurisprudence depending on the region in which one lives. In the explanation you say that the director may decide to award a certain remuneration, for example, based on the fact that at one address several persons are registered in the population register. The naivety displayed in this sense borders the unbelievable. Do you really think that unemployed people who deliberately want to fraud – that is what it is – and deliberately want to abuse community money will be so stupid to be registered at the same address? These people are not so naive. They are often more inventive than one thinks. Now that people are constantly talking about the fight against the unemployment levels, this bill will create a new unemployment rate in the long run. After all, why should one start working if it becomes so easy to be cataloged as a single person or as a head of a family, if that is not or barely controlled anymore? Colleagues, what is striking in this dossier is the curve of the VLD. The VLD has made it appear in the committee that it was against this proposal by cooperating with an alternate majority, together with the CVP and the Flemish Bloc, in order to seek the opinion of the management committee of the RVA. After the advice of the RVA had arrived and Mr. Anthuenis had been flown back by his superiors and was urged to humbly follow the imposed direction, probably after Mrs. Onkelinx’s complaint with Mr. Verhofstadt, the VLD did not give any more shrink. The curve that makes your party is strange, Mr. Anthuenis. At the discussion of the law of 7 April 1999, barely a year ago, which would abolish the unannounced checks, you drew a lot of lesson. Mr. Anthuenis, this will probably be a painful moment for you, but I would still like to confront you for a moment with your words expressed during the discussion in the Committee on Social Affairs on 23 February 1999 against the then minister. I quote Mr. Anthuenis on the abolition of the unannounced home checks: What is the problem with the home checks at the moment? There are no problems with home checks. Based on the family status, there are three different types of benefits: the head of the family, the single person or the cohabitant. It seems to me therefore logical that there are bodies that control this, of course, as far as possible through the administrative path. We all agree that there is abuse. I know the area quite well and I can assure you that this is effectively the case. In no case can home visits be excluded. When I read the proposals of some French-speaking parties on this subject, I could hardly believe my eyes. It is insane that RVA inspectors must inform unemployed people in advance of an inspection, that they must seek permission to carry out an inspection. Do you really think that such checks, even if only to one fraudster, will lead? I will quote Mr. Anthuenis even further, because he apparently came on well. You may now accuse me of poujadist, but yet I would like to refer for a moment to the Dutroux case that threw our country into trouble three years ago. It was not only about the criminal and liar facts concerning children, but this case also caused general confusion about the income of the family of Marc Dutroux. This, of course, caused fierce reactions from Mr. Joos Wauters, who mistakes him and I quote: I do not accept that such statements are made from a liberal angle. If you want to do that, you just have to join the extreme right, the Flemish Bloc. These are the words of Mr. Wauters. Mr. Anthuenis replicated: That has nothing to do with the extreme right and the Flemish Bloc. It is about the harsh reality. Even in the Dutroux case, the family situation was clearly inconsistent with the actual situation. Murder and fire shouted not only the people, but all of us in this parliament. The Greens and French-speaking members also held mass interpellations because those checks had to be increased. Three years later, the majority parties, supported by the Greens, approved a law amendment that dries out the control of the family state of the unemployed, unheard of! and . Finally, Mr. Anthuenis, because I want to be complete, continued you: Ridicating the checks is im- mers a hidden form of a unemployment fall. Mr. Anthuenis, I quote you further, apparently to your joy: It falls on that, what affects the home checks, in your department is working with two sizes and two weights. Then Mr. Anthuenis came really into ecstasy. He continues: The fruit growers face real raids, including machine guns and helicopters. Your inspection falls in with a lot of power display catering affairs. These are just two examples of checks that are much more aggressive than those with unemployed people. Mr. Anthuenis said that it is strange, however, that there has never been a hunt, ⁇ not a Walesian hunt, to crack on this. Shame, Mr. Anthuenis, shame! To conclude, he said that there is clearly a mentality difference between Flanders and Wallonia. Where are the times! This was the VLD in general and Mr. Anthuenis in particular a year ago. There is a huge difference with today’s VLD, which in all its crispity will approve tomorrow a text that goes much further. Or how principles should clean up place for the laws of power. Mr. Anthuenis, you probably won’t remember it, but when this bill was first discussed in the committee, you came with a large cup full of water that you drank empty during the meeting. This in itself banal fact, Mr. Anthuenis, symbolizes the way the VLD is currently doing politics. It symbolizes the absorption capacity of the VLD in this and other files and it is necessary to keep this coalition standing. (Interruption by Mr. Jef Valkeniers) Even Ms. Onkelinx said in an interview with De Standaard on 6 July 2000 that she had expected more opposition for this bill. If Ms. Onkelinx says this, Mr. Anthuenis, then this means something. Thus, you and your party weighed again against the pressure and demands of the PS. We are convinced that you will pay a price for this voter fraud. The Flemish Bloc will ensure, Mr. Anthuenis, that you have to effectively empty this cup to the bottom. The Flemish Bloc will not approve this bill. It deprives the RVA of all instruments to combat fraud. More even, it will encourage abuses in the future. The Flemish Bloc advocates good management of public funds and we believe that public funds should go where they should go. We want any fraud to be tackled efficiently. That is why we will vote against this draft.

Mr. Speaker, I have understood that I have a lot of fans in this Chamber; people who check the actions to see what I have all said before. I remain with my comments on the fruit harvest and the catering industry. Mr Van der Hooft also cited this. I think we should look at these controls. I also do not hide that I am not really the biggest supporter of the present bill. I have said this with so many words in the committee. The legislation draft by Ms. Smet during the previous legislature was indeed not good to me. I have protested against it. There is now a new minister who wants to change that draft and I have said in the committee that I give Mrs. Onkelinx the advantage of the doubt. We will evaluate the proposed bill after a year for its effectiveness. As for the zero loss, I can tell you that we will return to it after the local council elections in Lokeren.

I do not understand the interruption of Mr. Anthuenis well. Of course, he tries to wrinkle in all the curves to hold his vote for this bill. He says that he was a fierce opponent of the changes made by then-Minister Smet last year. We now have a new minister who will change that. What will the Minister change? Where last year there was still a possibility of appeal, to force a forced home visit through the chairman of the labour court, it is now abolished. It will be even darker than last year. You will have to look for something else in order to submit a possible vote statement tomorrow.

I can only see with joy that after a year Mr. Anthuenis also changes his mind. My last year’s accusations were sincere and he has taken them to heart. Now he can actually follow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The most important thing was said during our discussions in the committee. The Parliament has done an in-depth work on this matter, in particular through the hearings. And for an overview of the subject, I also refer to the reports relating to the exciting debates we had last year. Among the many pages composing the documents that were distributed to us on the occasion of these hearings, I recalled two phrases which, in my opinion, summarize the whole importance of the issue. These phrases are extracted from the document that has been handed over to us by the League of Human Rights and I quote them: The deep wound felt by the unemployed victims of the investigations of the inspectors of the ONEM is understood psychologically, but also to the illumination of the definition of the right violated. Conversely, the necessity of strict respect for this right is illuminated by the knowledge of the suffering inflicted on the victims of this violation of privacy and home. I wanted to recall these two phrases, which translate the whole importance of the debate and situate exactly what it returns from. This quite remarkable text takes an additional dimension when it is known that in the vast majority of cases, statements about the situation of the unemployed are consistent with the reality, as indicated by all annual statistics. The most recent statistics that the minister has communicated to us speak for themselves and show that the use of forced home control is not necessary but, on the contrary, justifies the adoption of this bill. We believe, however, that the freely consented visit can be ⁇ ined. Why deny an unemployed the right to accept this visit? Beyond statistics, we find that the government has joined a healthy position on whether or not to maintain the principle of forced visits, by removing the appeal to the President of the Labour Court. The inviolability of the home and the protection of private life are intangible principles from which the need to control on the ground the reality of the composition of the household of a unemployed person, without the explicit consent of the unemployed person, cannot derogate under penalty of violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination towards other citizens of that country.

This is not the first time Mr Delizée refers to the statistics. It is quite normal that, when one has abolished the possibility since last year to make assumptions in individuals who do not take the rules so closely, the consequence is indeed that the statistics are quite well matched. Mr Delizée has repeatedly stated in the committee that there is no problem, since now statistics after the new procedure show that 90% of cases are immediately correct. I can understand that in Wallonia and in the PS state one is already very satisfied when 90% of the population adheres to the laws, but I think that we, especially in Flanders, should put the threshold somewhat higher.

The statistics that previous Minister Ms. Smets communicated to us were of the same nature. Thus, even in the previous procedure, it was clearly established by the figures, in the work of our commission, and confirmed by the ONEM that throughout the country, the vast majority of statements are consistent with the reality, including in relation to the previous law and the previous procedure. For the rest, I do not want to argue with Mr. by Haeseleer. Anything that is excessive is insignificant. The chosen orientation is of the kind to evacuate all jurisprudential and doctrinal controversies. It seems to me useful to recall, in fact, that the doctrine has always considered that the necessity of a search warrant granted by the judge of instruction is the rule to guarantee the principle of inviolability of the domicile. The multiplication of legal exceptions presented too often in an efficiency perspective undoubtedly carries the risk of ruining the whole content of this constitutional principle. We can, therefore, say that this law will, to some extent, complete the protection of the fundamental rights of the unemployed citizen. I would be tempted to say that this process seemed irreversible since the compromise adopted last year, which resulted in a text improving the previous procedure but still lacunar in some respects. I mean as proof the absence of the method of appeal of the President of the Labour Court. I recall that the initial amendment that the Socialist group had introduced during the previous legislature provided for a detailed procedure, in particular the fact that the application must be addressed to the Secretary, in accordance with Articles 1025 and following of the Judicial Code. At the time, this amendment was rejected, which explains that the current law is not operational in its forced visit component. I point out by the way that the PS group did not have mental states in the face of this purpose of not receiving. We also see the realization of another of our demands that was discussed at the time, namely the presence of a council or a trade union delegate, both in advance and in the aftermath of the procedure. This also seems to be a very positive point. We have always said that the preliminary interview resembled a hearing, which required that all the guarantees of the rights of defence provided for in Article 144 of the 1991 decree be explicitly provided. From now on, it is done. The same possibility of assistance during the freely consented visit is also imperative, the control taking place in an area where abuse of power can very hard be proven. There remains a problem, which was raised during an oral question and to which the State Council also referred: the differentiation of control measures according to the category of social insured. This issue has been discussed in the committee. It depends on other ministers. The fact that ONEM has used for years Article 4 of the Labour Inspection Act 1972 as the legal basis for its home checks has caused many controversies and the debate has never really resulted in a clear answer as to the legality or illegality of this practice. Even if the culture of other social parastatals seems to be different, it remains that the possibility of activating this article 4 exists. We therefore advocate that this issue also be addressed within the framework of the government’s action plan against illegal work. I would like to conclude by reminding that the problem of home visits would have been spared if we did not know a system of compensation based largely on the composition of the household. So I totally agree with what Mr. said. Viser: This is indeed part of the debate.

Mr Delizée, do you speak on behalf of the Socialist group or groups? Mr. Speaker, all the socialists left the hemisphere when Mr. Delizée began speaking. This is an interesting question.

Mr Annemans, when a member participates in the discussion as the only member of his group, he speaks on behalf of his group.

So Mr. Delizée speaks on behalf of socialism.

It is not my responsibility to keep a register of the persons present in the homicide. I speak on behalf of the Socialist Party. I think I know that the SP also voted the text in the committee. The Socialist Group congratulates the Deputy Prime Minister and will unreservedly support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the VU&ID group will not approve this bill. By the way, Mr. Anthuenis, we are more comfortable than the VLD faction. There has always been a lot of commotion about the control of the unemployed. Remember that last year discussions about this were held in the walkways and eventually at the Cabinet of Minister Smet. Then we had to conclude that the CVP colleagues had to swallow a number of measures in this regard. Today, the VLD must apparently swallow twice as much. You have made another attempt to match this with the observation that the current minister has changed something, but compared with the position you took last year, the VLD has actually gone even further in the wrong direction. That being said, I will no longer stir in the wound. You have admitted that it is annoying. You have at least made clear – that is the only improvement compared to previously – that you only approve this, because the measures in this regard have been thrown on a bunch of other proposals. It is well distributed: the VLD will reluctantly approve this part, the other majority factions another part. This is how compromise is made in our country. I regret that the current coalition has not caused a trend break at the federal level.

Mr. Bultinck, do you have anything against Mrs. Van de Casteele?

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have nothing against Mrs. Van de Casteele, but apparently there is a problem. Mrs Van de Casteele is not yet accustomed to the situation in which she is supposed to put the tone that is also put from the VLD faction. Within the framework of the expansion and the VLD+ that is clearly in creation, we expected the VU to follow the majority well, but apparently it is not really used to being part of the federal majority.

Mr. Van Peel, please formulate comments on the grounds.

Of course, Mr the President. I have never done otherwise. (Hilarity) Mrs Van de Casteele, you refer to the need for compromise in previous governments and in these. The historical precedent that your group created with the vote of yesterday is that you made a compromise with the majority you are not part of. That is really historical. New things happen from time to time in politics and your group took care of it yesterday.

Mr. Van Peel, in each of our presentations, you can come back to that. However, I remind you that we are not bound to the majority or the opposition. As has always happened in the past, we will evaluate each file by its value and determine our attitude independently. On this subject, we remain consistent with the position we have taken in the past. I will therefore repeat our remarks from last year. We already noticed that the whole discussion about the control of the unemployed is especially sensitive in the south of the country. Today we were able to experience this again in the speeches. Apparently, the public opinion in Wallonia has been mobilized since last year. It was just reminded that the League for Human Rights in the south of the country has carried out actions in this regard. This issue is less sensitive in Flanders. This is due to the different labour market situation in both parts of the country. It is quite logical that, if there is a shortage in the labour market, which is clearly more pronounced in Flanders than in Wallonia – we have held a long debate about that in the past days – the entire discussion about the system of unemployment benefits and the control thereof is less acute and less current in Flanders. Slowly we can assume that Flanders still counts structural unemployed, which the government must get back to work and for which it must make efforts, but it is no longer that mass of unemployed that there is still in Wallonia. Therefore, the control of the situation and the fraud sensitivity of the current system of unemployment benefits play us much more part. However, on the basis of the figures provided by you at the request of colleague Anthuenis, I have also determined that the system existing since last year to request permission from the Labour Court for a home visit was used only in 21 cases. That is a more reason to wonder whether that system should be changed if necessary, since it has been made little use and since it is mainly used as a stick behind the door. We can only conclude that the existing system should be structurally adjusted. In the discussions in the past, we have repeatedly made this statement. For us, the current system of unemployment benefits is wrong. It has evolved too little with the social changes. Therefore, we advocate a new system of remuneration, based on a kind of basic remuneration that is determined for everyone individually, rather than the family-modulated benefits in the social security. In our view, taxation should take into account the family dimension, family size and family capacity, and corrections should be provided. The family dimension is better not charged with every social security benefit. Hence our request, Mrs. Minister, to finally conduct a fundamental debate in order to avoid shaking conditions. We are in favour of a equal basic right for all, regardless of the work situation, and in addition to that, a benefit which uses the insurance principle rather and where the benefits are more proportionate to the loss of income that one suffers at the moment of becoming unemployed. The current situation should, by the way, enable that fundamental debate to take place. Following the discussions last year, we received figures from the RVA which stated that, if the benefits are individualized, this will cost many billions. Let us hope that the conjuncture, which now leads to less spending on unemployment, will enable us to conduct a fundamental debate on this subject. We note that there are many barriers in this regard, including among the social partners. They are not inclined to abandon the current system and adapt to new social phenomena. Then there were comments about the humiliating situations. We too are sensitive to the arguments of those who were faced with checks. I also agree with those who say that it cannot be measured with two sizes and two weights. All checks carried out, whether in the field of taxation, labour inspection or this issue, must be proportionate to the aim envisaged and must be carried out with respect for each citizen. Finally, I think it is in our interest to invest more in a change of mentality. Both the taxpayers who contribute to the community, as well as those who need to get something from the community, should be aware that they must abide by the rules of the game. In the mental pattern of the people, citizenship and solidarity must have a place.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of the exhibitions developed at this tribune deserves an answer. First of all, I would like to thank Mrs. van der Hooft for the quality of her report, which also compensates me for the burden of a new presentation. Then I would like to answer the specific questions she asked me. 1 of 1. It makes the comparison between the control of the family situation of the unemployed and the control of the situation of certain companies. I explained in a committee that the business control file is currently submitted to a committee that should revise the social criminal law. The committee met for the first time on July 7. It will continue its work and it will check whether the law of 16 November 1972 is adapted to the reality and the needs of the companies of our country. 2 of 2. She asks me what happens if an unemployed person does not respond to the invitation. You can see in the statistics that some do not respond from the outset. They are then sent a recommended package. If they still do not respond, the ONEM statues in the state, presuming its own convictions as conforming to reality. 3 of 3. Finally, you discussed the debate on the terms habitual residence and main residence. Ms D'Hondt also spoke about this, pointing out that the management committee of ONEM had issued a unanimous opinion on the subject. It is exact. This notice said: the service’s proposal to replace in the unemployment regulation the notion of habitual residence with the notion of main residence must continue to be examined. This issue ⁇ deserves to be thoroughly examined. I would like to refer to Mr. Mr. Speech. and visitor. He says we are not going far enough. Several speakers developed in this tribune the need for a balance, in particular between right and duty, the need to respect the equality between the social insured. There was also a question of the balance between the desire to reconcile the fundamental principle of respect for private life and the justified need to control the family situation of the unemployed. I am convinced that the project currently under consideration realises this delicate balance between principles as fundamental to each other. You have spoken about Article 80. I have already expressed my views on this issue. Legislation should be changed in this area. The first steps have already been taken, notably through the law-programme that has just been voted. We will see if, yes or no, we can go further, ⁇ in the context of a dialogue with the Social Affairs Committee. The individualization of rights, while obviously avoiding the perverse effects it can produce in certain situations, constitutes a fundamental debate. You have reminded me, Madame D'Hondt, of the very many speeches I made, already several years ago, around this notion of universal allocation and about how to consider it under the very notions of citizenship. What is a citizenship? Of course, they use these concepts. Do the latter favor it, yes or not, when it is known that it is based on the constatation of duties towards the collective including the assignment of rights? Do all these universal allocation principles evolve citizenship? This is, as you said, a very large-scale debate that deserves an examination going beyond the bill that is submitted to you. Mrs D'Hondt recalled other points that had won the unanimity of the management committee of ONEM. Indeed, despite the unanimous opinion of the management committee, I wanted to maintain the term hearing, not by coquette, but because it allows the granting of additional guarantees for the rights of defence, which in particular strengthens the legal certainty. It implies the application of the provisions provided for in article 144 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 and of the law of 12 March 1998, better known as the Franchimont Act. Finally, the management committee of the ONEM mentioned the importance of the competence of the Chairman of the Labour Court in matters of home visits. I tried to understand this unanimity because a favorable opinion had also been given by members in agreement with the proposal. Now, when one knows it well, it is paradoxical to say that no more forced home visits are needed, while one must continue to resort to the chairman of the labour court. I suppose that this was the consequence of a willingness to respect the specialization of labor courts and labor auditors. But in this matter, if there has been characterized social fraud, it is the usual principles of social law and the Judicial Code that apply. According to Article 155 of the Code, if there is a social fraud characterized, it is the auditor of the work who will set up a file, conduct an investigation and who, possibly on the basis of the results of the latter, will request the judge of instruction for a search. Here are some of the answers I wanted to give. I will conclude, a little like the words made by Mr. This is an issue that the government considers important. As everyone knows, respect for privacy is enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution. He is recognized by everyone. Allowing that attacks on the private life of unemployed persons can be made more easily than those of other categories of persons violates, in our view, the principle of equality and non-discrimination.