Proposition 50K0934

Projet de loi instituant la garantie de revenus aux personnes âgées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 8, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

elderly person guaranteed income pension scheme

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

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 ¶

Jan. 23, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill was discussed and approved on 10 January last in the Social Affairs Committee. Already in May of last year the strengths of the proposed bill were explained by the Minister to the committee. Since I was not yet a member of the committee at that time, for the report of that meeting, I refer to the annex attached to the written report of the meeting of 10 January.

Minister Vandenbroucke gave a brief overview of the main strengths of the new regulation regarding the establishment of an income guarantee for the elderly. The strength lines are the following. The proposal is based on the equal treatment of men and women with regard to the age at which one can qualify for an income guarantee. The age is determined at the retirement age for both men and women.

This draft law aims to adapt the existing legislation on guaranteed income for the elderly to the current social and social developments. In current legislation, the rights are determined according to the applicant’s civil status: married, unmarried or cohabiting. This bill is intended to no longer take into account the civil state in the calculation, but to introduce equal treatment. In other words, the right to an income guarantee is individualized. Furthermore, modernization was urgent, as the Law on Guaranteed Income for Older Persons dates back to 1969 and since then has hardly been changed.

This has led, among other things, to changes in the calculation methods. It also provides for the government to take a decision every two years on a possible indexation of the amounts. The need for a change is demonstrated by a number of legislative proposals submitted by some members of the committee wishing to amend the legislation on the guaranteed income for the elderly.

Members of the committee made their comments on this bill. Most members agreed that the legislation is finally being modernised and adapted to the social reality. The VLD group was also ⁇ pleased with this, with the pleasure of Mr. Anthuenis, who was pleased with the elaborate calculation methods for support to self-employed persons in which the theoretical pension should no longer be taken into account but the pension actually received by the self-employed. In practice, this means that the income loss that a self-employed person suffers from early retirement – namely a 5% annual income reduction for his 65th – does not make it impossible to grant an income guarantee.

The Agalev-Ecolo group asked the Minister a number of concrete questions for clarification. They also asked questions about some figures. However, this group also expressed satisfaction with the linkage of the income guarantee to the index figure and with the fact that an application for an income guarantee can be treated as a pension application if necessary.

The CVP group had some questions regarding the high number of power transfers to the King, as a result of this bill. The CVP can be found in the basic principles and the underlying idea of the design. The CVP is also of the opinion that this legislation is indeed urgently needed to be revised.

Finally, the PS-SP group also favoured the modernisation of the legislation, as well as the fact that the applicant’s civil duty will no longer be taken into account. Nevertheless, the PS group made a few critical comments. For example, the group raised questions in the exercise of control over the allocation of benefits and also asked attention to the problem of false separations.

The Minister gave his responses in the committee. As regards the comments made on the concept of individualization, the Minister pointed out that this concept within the framework of the income guarantee means that the living conditions and the family status of the applicant are taken into account. Thus, it is determined who is part of the applicant’s family and what their means of subsistence are. The Minister also pointed out that the concept of "cohabitation" should be clearly defined and that for this purpose a decision will be drawn up in the Council of Ministers which will also set out the modalities for the control. The Minister stated that it will never be very easy to carry out a closing inspection. He also noted that rightholders who are included in an institution are entitled to an increased basic amount, just as single persons are. The only criterion for this is that the rightholders reside in an institution. This also applies – and this is new, I think – if two cohabitants are included in an institution. Both are now paid the increased basic amount. If the rightholders live together with their children, a distinction is made depending on whether or not the children receive child allowance. In the case of children who are still entitled to child allowance, the applicants are still considered single persons even if these children live at the same address. The applicants can therefore also benefit from the increased basic amount. However, if an elderly self-employed person withdraws to children who no longer receive child allowance, their means of subsistence are taken into account when granting the income guarantee. Therefore, there is usually no increased basic amount granted. Budgetary reasons are at the basis of this arrangement.

At the end of the discussion, it is decided to split the bill into two separate drafts because two articles are likely to be bicameral. A number of articles dealing with the dispute procedure will be included in a separate draft. The divided bill is unanimously adopted by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in the Social Affairs Committee was indeed discussed on 11 January 2001 the bill on the establishment of an income guarantee for the elderly. As the reporter already noted in its valued report, the bill was unanimously approved. It replaces the system of guaranteed income for the elderly by a new system, in particular an income guarantee for the elderly. It is good to remind here, following the discussion in the plenary session, that when this bill was drawn up, the advents action of Welzijnszorg in 1999, carried out by the broad civil society of the major social organizations in Flanders, which translated into more than 256,000 signatures, undoubtedly played a not insignificant role.

Indeed, there is no need for referendums for those who are in the midst of the people and close to the social civil society to anticipate this problem and translate it into a legal initiative. Therefore, I had already submitted a bill on behalf of the CVP in February 2000. During the discussion of this in May 2000 in the Committee on Social Affairs, you, Mr. Minister, announced that we would take a more ambitious and broader initiative in the short term and asked us to postpone the further examination of our bill until then. We like to do this, because who can do better, this always – given the target audience it is about – should get the chance to do so. Unfortunately, we had to wait until December 2000 for this bill.

However, this does not diminish the need for urgent improvement of the current system of guaranteed income for the elderly. Therefore, as the CVP group in the Social Affairs Committee – I think I do not exaggerate – we have cooperated very positively, both in terms of form and content, in order to allow the processing and voting on this bill to proceed without delay. This meant that in the discussion in the committee we did not advance the presence of the majority, even though that attendant was noticeably absent. We have since the beginning pointed out a number of legal problems, including the bicameral nature of two articles, as Ms. de Block just mentioned in her report. We also openly pointed out a number of technical problems, so that the treatment ⁇ could not be delayed by us. During the general discussion of this draft law in the plenary session, we would like to make some comments and remind you of some statements made by you and commitments taken during the discussion of this draft law in the committee because they are indeed not without importance for the actual power of this draft law.

Contrary to our bill, which retained the existing system of guaranteed income for the elderly, but which wanted to make thorough adjustments, you, Mr. Minister, have chosen to introduce a new system with your bill. This new system, with the new name “The Income Guarantee for the Elderly”, will replace the well-known system of guaranteed income for the elderly in the future after its publication in the Official Journal. It is indeed a new look. I will not go into it more deeply, but I remain convinced that the improvements you have made and which we fully support, could also be implemented in the existing system. Per ⁇ it is really good to change costume or clothes from time to time.

The desire to set up a new system and the time pressure to still be able to do this in the year of your commitment to Welfare and the associations for seniors, have probably translated into this bill which we in the committee regretted that it showed too much resemblance to a law on powers. As the rapporteur already noted, the draft law provided for no less than twenty delegations to the King and this in 21 articles. This means that a battery of implementing decisions will be needed to enable the system of income guarantee for the elderly to take effect in the short term. Fortunately, before the discussion and voting in the committee, you have been able to make the draft royal decree available to us during the session. From this we could deduce that the execution was going in the direction we would like to see them go.

From this conclusion and together with a number of concretizations and improvements that we wanted to make, the CVP has submitted a number of amendments to the committee. Unfortunately, we had to reiterate that despite our positive cooperation during the discussion, the value and importance of most of our amendments were recognized by you and the members of the Social Affairs Committee, but that our amendments were nevertheless not accepted. You took a number of commitments – we would like to take note of this following some of our concerns and amendments.

I am surprised by what you say. This is only partially correct. Take your criticism that there was too much reference to royal decrees. I have addressed this by incorporating one of the two implementing decisions into the legislative text, as you have requested. This amendment was submitted by the government, but it actually happened on your question. The government was your servant. We have followed you in it.

I have also followed you on other points. I don’t feel like you didn’t have any contribution. In addition, I was also inspired by the bill you had submitted when drafting the text. For example, you will see that the wealth resistance formula is actually identical to the formula you suggested. I do not think this is entirely correct. In the committee we have done a good job, not only by having a good discussion, but also by drafting amendments inspired by the opposition. You may still talk about it, but of certain concerns of you I have said that I would take them at heart. For example, you have given good arguments in favour of the idea to integrate the heating allowance into the allowance itself. I am seriously investigating this idea. However, it was difficult for me to answer your question following a majority amendment. Your suggestion was not to accept that amendment, because we would then create a legal risk if we did not integrate the heating allowance.

I find it a little unnuanced what you say regarding what I have done with your amendments and your comments.

Mr. Minister, you were probably too busy in conversation with Mrs. Genot. I have said something positive. Based on the bill proposals and the discussion, you have taken some of our thoughts into an amendment. The amendments were not adopted, they were translated into commitments. That is what I wanted to return to. These commitments are, in my opinion, extremely important. There are a fifth.

There is the commitment you have made in the context of the investigation to not punish parents who live with children by reducing the amount they would have had as a sole right when living with children. We did that in the previous legislature on the basis of a CVP amendment in the system of support for the assistance of the elderly This is a very important issue, which has also been cited by the elderly organizations.

A second commitment is that you will have to investigate whether the amounts, which are exempt in the calculation of income and which are heavily determining in determining whether someone is entitled to the income guarantee for the elderly, can be indexed.

A third commitment you have taken is to examine what tools we can use to ensure that the very good choice to allocate 150% to the actual singles is correctly applied. The same phenomenon occurs in other social security systems. Until today, we do not have instruments to investigate whether the actual single is single. However, we must not violate the privacy of people or go on witch hunt. It is not a neutral given. It is a question of whether each one receives a benefit of 100% as a cohabitant or a benefit of 150% as a single. If two cohabitants appear to be actually single, this makes a full benefit difference – twice 150% versus twice 100%. This is clearly not a neutral situation. You have committed to working with your other colleagues, including the Minister of Employment and Labour, to explore the tools we can have.

The fourth commitment concerns the situation of the stay abroad and the periods during which one may stay abroad.

A fifth commitment is that you have committed the option to allow the cumulation of the income guarantee benefit for the elderly and the collection of early retirement and to temporarily not execute the related sanction, which only still applies in the self-employed system. This remains as long as there is no more clarity about the working group and the government’s decision in the context of the approximation of the statutes of self-employed and workers. I am grateful for that because it puts things in the right perspective and gives the right authority.

Finally, you have committed to checking the accounting of the unbuilt parcels. You will do so with the government and your colleagues who are also competent in the matter. You must ensure that former farmers are not punished more severely when they do not want to retain the large land possession, but the environment close to their home.

I am grateful for your commitment to this.

Finally, I would like to point out something that you already mentioned in your answer, namely that famous heating allowance. I am pleased that we are on the same wavelength regarding the question of having a debate on this matter. Our social security benefits, as well as our benefits in the residual schemes, must allocate to the rightholders an amount that enables them to live. This means that with that amount one must be able to live in a normal way and that the government no longer has to provide additional premiums to be able to pay for vital things such as heating. This is becoming a problem, but we have found each other in this area. I think that we can do a meaningful debate on this issue, outside of bills, outside of bills, over majority and opposition.

Based on these commitments, which we believe you will keep, Mr. Minister, we have also in the committee in front of the target group approved this bill with great conviction. If this is delayed, we will not fail to remind you of your promises. From these commitments, we will not submit our amendments again, even in the plenary session. We trust your given word. We meet regularly and so we can remind each other of the agreements made.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, Mr. Bacquelaine, who should have intervened, was detained this afternoon.

I thank Mrs De Block for her excellent report as well as Mrs D'Hondt who, as usual, gave us a very comprehensive presentation commenting on the bill that her group was willing to adopt. We are delighted because this project meets a great unanimity. I ask my colleagues to apologize for my absence at the first committee meeting. The obstacle did not allow me to participate. You know I’m often present, but I was forced to be replaced that day.

Let’s get to the bill. The guaranteed income for the elderly established by the Act of 1 April 1969 was considered as an important step on the road to guaranteeing a decent existence for all the elderly. This assistance scheme, which has actually become a right, has undergone very few changes over the years, or even no longer takes into account the situation of the persons concerned, i.e. the elderly.

This bill meets our full support, since it takes into account many factors aimed at correcting certain inequalities and disparities in the status of the elderly in question. Thus, men and women will now be treated on an equal footing as regards the age conditions to be met for the granting of GRAPA – you allow me to use this abbreviation; it is, in addition, a very evocative concept –: 62 years for all from this year to gradually reach the minimum age of 65 years in 2009, in accordance with the current retirement age for men and women in the regimes of salaried and self-employed workers. The removal of this first discrimination was, in my opinion, necessary and constitutes a justified social measure.

Another important amendment to this bill is that it intends to take into account the social reality of persons, aiming to establish equal treatment between married persons and cohabiting unmarried partners. Thus, married persons and cohabitants will benefit, if they all meet the age condition, of the same individual base amount. For this purpose, the resources of all persons who share the same residence are taken into account, regardless of the applicant’s civil status.

Some have rebelled for not having an individualization of the right, as it is understood in the field of social security, i.e. an unconditional right that is not dependent on a control of resources. However, the GRAPA regime, a social assistance scheme, confers a residual right to which the applicant can only appeal when he and his spouse or partner do not have sufficient resources to live. It was therefore important to take into account the context in which the individual evolves and to question the persons who make up the household of the beneficiary and their income. We support this philosophy as it meets a particular form of social justice.

It was also normal to take into account the specific situation of the person actually isolated by granting him an appropriate amount of income guarantee, i.e. the base rate increased by 50%, given the fixed costs he carries alone.

However, as it was highlighted during the discussion in committee, we have some reservations regarding the risks of fictitious separation. Some cohabitants may, in fact, find an advantage in organizing an isolated situation in order to obtain an increased base rate. Therefore, it would be appropriate to establish an appropriate control of the reality of the various situations, without falling into deviations. On the other hand, I am pleased that the project takes into account the particular situation of persons admitted to the institution. As we know, this situation will increase in the near future.

As regards the simplification of administrative procedures through the granting of office of the establishment and the revision of the rights of the elderly persons who are less than nursing, it meets a praiseworthy objective since the complexity is detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries.

However, it is essential to develop instruments and to properly organize the administration, in order for a concrete and correct implementation of such a procedure.

We should also welcome the bisexual link of GRAPA to the evolution of well-being. This mechanism is an effective means of combating the poverty of the elderly.

This project also gives us satisfaction in so far as it preserves the acquired rights as well as the opportunity to choose the most favourable regime.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, the PRL-FDF-MCC group will support this project with the conviction that it is aimed at meeting the best needs or means of existence of a disadvantaged category, and still at present. The project concretizes the government’s intention to improve the situation of people with the lowest incomes. This is a situation that must remain at the center of our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, according to the information provided to me, the note concerning the drug policy will be delivered to the Chamber this afternoon by the Cabinet of Mrs. Aelvoet and the debate will take place on 30 January at 14 a.m.

I will ensure that the note is immediately delivered to the various factions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for the effort he has made to get a view of the situation and for the commitment to send the note.

However, I continue to regret that Parliament was not informed first, but that the note was first passed on to others. Well, in order to strengthen the credibility of the House, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to your authority and your willpower to remind the Government that it is the normal course of affairs that Parliament is first informed.

Mr. Leterme, allow me first to examine the true course of things before reacting as one is accustomed to me.

The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

We will resume the general discussion of the Bill No. and 934.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we are currently discussing the bill establishing an income guarantee for the elderly.

During the discussions on the 2000 budget, my group announced that we are favorable to a modernisation of the system of guaranteed income for the elderly.

I will therefore not want to talk more than necessary about the present bill and I will more specifically limit myself to two elements in the discussion that are traditionally sensitive to the Flemish Bloc.

In the explanation to this bill, Mr. Minister, there is a question of adapting the legislation to recent societal changes. It won’t surprise you that in the politically correct jargon, this often means that the traditional family is questioned.

In the present draft, the civil state is no longer taken into account, but and this delights us - the classical family pattern is not undermined. Therefore, the rules for calculating the income guarantee for the elderly are acceptable. As Vermeer is no longer based on the civil status – which can eventually be easily controlled – it will be necessary to ensure that an adequate control mechanism of the actual place of residence of the entitled persons is established. Some may remember the very animated and similar discussions, both in the committee and in the plenary, following the easing of unemployment controls.

The second element that I would like to cut is the element of the individualization of rights.

Even though this bill deals with the individualization of a social assistance scheme, I would like to take the opportunity to signal to the Minister that this is close to the discussion on the individualization of social security rights in general.

The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the current situation in which there are many derivative rights in social security, i.e. rights derived from a relative, but for which he or she has not worked or paid contributions. The so-called women’s movement has long sought to leave the track of such derivative rights, because, according to them, this makes the women dependent on their husbands.

As a traditional family party, Mr. Minister, we warn against the unwavering removal of derivative rights. A home-working parent currently enjoys the derived rights through his working partner. Well, it may not be the intention, precisely when social protection is improved, that just the home-working parent would lose the derived rights.

Mr. Minister, I understand that it was impossible to give a concrete answer to all questions during the long discussions. After a first, failed attempt in the context of the budget debate, I am now making a second attempt, hoping this time to obtain a clear answer to the question of how you stand in relation to an extensive individualization of social security rights.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, since the present draft contends, on the one hand, an increase in support and, on the other hand, the modernization of a certain rule of assistance for our elderly, the Flemish Blok is prepared to evaluate this bill positively.

Mr. Speaker, following the interventions I had the opportunity to make in commission, I allow myself to highlight some positive advances such as indexation, the fact that the pension request is equal to the request of GRAPA, a rapid adjustment of amounts when one returns to the home of rest,...All this appears as very positive adjustments.

But there is one thing that makes us trouble. This is the use of the term “individualization”. In this regard, I will return to the opinion of the Office of the Council on Equal Opportunities that came today. Obviously, we have not yet had all the time to receive it and study it in detail. I will comment on it because, in a more precise way, it takes back the same points that I had detailed in commission. It begins by reminding us that of the 99,000 people who are currently benefiting from guaranteed income for the elderly, 72% are women. Therefore, I think that the Council of Equal Opportunities is quite apt to comment on this measure.

He tells us: “This reform is carried out in order to take into account the evolution of society in terms of life choices, and this in order to no longer discriminate between persons, in particular between married couples and unmarried couples. Furthermore, the GRAPA project is presented as a step forward towards the individualization of rights. However, the Council considers that this principle should not be transposed as such into a residual scheme of assistance to the most deprived.”

Then, he defines what is understood, in a classical way, by “individualization of rights”. “The individualization of rights consists in removing the reference to the family or household situation for the assignment of social security benefits.”

"It aims to establish a symmetry between the rate of contribution paid in a social protection system based on insurance, individual contributions, and rights to social benefits, while at present, these rights are mainly dependent on the situation of the household." Clearly, they follow the same path that I recommended in the commission so that we do not speak of individualization, but rather of pay per capita.

The Council reaffirms its conviction that individualization of rights is absolutely necessary to combat discrimination between workers and workers, who all contribute to the financing of social security in a solidarity approach. It therefore clearly refers to the social security system and states that we are in a residual system. But he also considers that this use of terms is inappropriate.

In addition, the council is concerned that the concept of rights individualization is used to reduce the rights of some. If the measure is presented as generous, it is not for everyone as it will result in decreasing the income granted at the present time to cohabitants who will only benefit from the basic amount of the GRAPA. In reality, the latter corresponds to the household rates of the guaranteed income for the elderly divided by two. This reform penalizes cohabitants and therefore their choice of life not only by granting them more than the basic amount of GRAPA but also by taking into account the resources of all persons who share the same residence. These resources will be allocated to all people. This is, of course, in contradiction with the idea of individualization of rights and would only aggravate the dependence of one on the other. There is therefore both an extension of the notion of cohabitation and an extension of the notion of resources taken into account to determine the amount to be granted.

That being said, this law will have the main consequence of discouraging low-income people from living together. This consequence is regrettable in a society where isolation is one of the major problems. One of the problems, highlighted by many people, risking to emerge is that two elderly and vulnerable people will not be able to coexist or that intergenerational solidarity is also at risk of being inhibited. As you can see, there are extension possibilities. However, in this case, an inequality between intergenerational solidarity and intergenerational solidarity risks to occur.

The council also notes the antisocial nature of this part of the reform. Indeed, within the GRAPA reform, the only transformation of the benefits that were allocated to cohabitants at the isolated rate and which will now be allocated according to the basic amount of the GRAPA, which is equal to half the former household rate, will allow to realize a economy in the long run. This is in the order of 612.6 million and this at the expense of those with the lowest incomes. We could see by examining the overall budget of this measure, that in reality, it will cost in the long run. It is clear that the measure, as such, of pay per capita and the allocation of an allocation of 15,000 francs for the cohabitants and of 23,000 francs for the isolated allowed to ⁇ a substantial economy.

The council is also concerned about how the control provided for by this law would be carried out in practice by the officials of the National Pension Office. He is concerned that respect for privacy is not fully ensured during the control procedure. We are facing the problem we have already highlighted. It is clear that we did not frame the control measures for the unemployed in order to see the reappearance of the famous inspectors who came to count the toothbrushes in the elderly.

In addition, the Board wishes that the terminology used in the context of guaranteed income for the elderly, namely income, be ⁇ ined.

I am not going to talk about the substantial debate now. We will do that on occasion. Nevertheless, I would like to ask Mrs. Genot how long this story about the inspectors who are coming to count the toothbrushes will be discussed. That situation has long since ceased to exist. Anyone who knows how the unemployment regulation works has long known that one will no longer count the toothbrushes and that one, if one has ever done so, will no longer check the linen basket. Those wild Indian stories in this hemisphere would better stop.

Mr. Speaker, it is not because it has been removed at the level of unemployment that it should be seen reappear in other regimes, it is quite what I said, Mrs. D'Hondt.

Furthermore, the Board wishes that the terminology used in the framework of guaranteed income for the elderly, namely income, be retained in the title of the GRAPA Act. For the term "resources", which can be understood to include also benefits in nature, is wider in French than the term "inkomen" in Dutch. We could change this in the committee. So I think this is a good thing.

In conclusion, the Board considers that this reform is not only a downturn in terms of individual and short-term rights as income amounts decrease for some. But it also constitutes an infringement on the rights of citizens regarding the choice of their lifestyle.

I think that we cannot forever redirect this discussion on individualization and the use of the term. I think it would really be necessary that we can have this discussion frankly at one time or another in the commission.

The floor is yielded to the rapporteur, Mrs De Block. She will speak here, as she chooses, in her own name or in the name of her group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, of course, I speak on behalf of the VLD group. The current proposal to introduce an income guarantee for the elderly will finally replace the aged guaranteed income for the elderly. That legislation in various areas was no longer adapted to the reality of today. The income guarantee for the elderly is what is called an assistance system. It must therefore accommodate those who, for some reason, either have fallen out of the social security system or have not been able to provide sufficient coverage to receive a livable pension on their old days. In addition, when granting the benefit, an income test is carried out, which examines whether the application is justified.

While the asset aid scheme should always ensure that there are sufficient incentives to re-integrate into the labour market in order to acquire an independent income, this concern can of course be neglected in the old-age income guarantee scheme. The age conditions are of such nature that there is no need for reintegration into the labour market. At the same time, this means that the conditions for enjoying a income guarantee can be more royal.

Last year, the amount of guaranteed income for the elderly was increased by 1000 francs per month for the single and by 1333 francs per month for families. This first step towards a better livability is reinforced in this bill by considerably easing the average test, for example by the special and one-off exemption of one and a half million in the sale of the own and only home and by the asset exemption of 250,000 francs. The current legislation also provides for the King the possibility of not taking into account certain benefits as income, such as family allowance.

In particular, the VLD welcomed the Minister’s commitment not to regard future health insurance benefits as income.

As for the calculations of pensions, for most pensioners nothing changes. They are taken into account for 90%. For self-employed persons who retire early, the pension they would receive would no longer be taken into account if they had worked until the age of 65, but the actual pension received. This eliminates an overwhelming injustice, for which the VLD has always been the requesting party. Of course, it must now also be examined in which other aid systems this injustice still exists. Filip Antheunis has submitted a bill in this regard to remove this sanction in the legislation on the assistance to the elderly.

The Income Guarantee is the first law that works with two categories, in particular the single and the cohabitants. This is useful to avoid that there are differences between the two in the total sum. The current guaranteed income has to deal with this problem. In the future, cohabitants will no longer have a higher income than a legally married family. This may be an inspiration for other legislation. The problem of the verification of whether someone is living together or alone, which was raised during the committee discussions and also here, has not yet been solved. The implementing decisions may provide a solution to this. The proposed legislation provides for the possibility of considering a married couple whose partner lives in a rest home but has a different place of residence as two single persons.

The VLD understands the Minister’s concern. A couple whose partner lives in a rest resort or rest and care home faces very high bills. The partner who does not reside in such an institution often finds it difficult at this time to have sufficient financial resources for his/her maintenance. Therefore, the policy choice to grant two allowances for single persons seems justified.

The VLD has two objections to this regulation. First, this scheme favors the inclusion in a rest home that is the most intrusive form of elderly care. Home care and daycare are forms of reception that enable the connection with the home situation. They demand significant efforts from the caregivers. In our opinion, caregivers are discouraged by the new regulation. The costs of these ambulatory and semi-residential forms of care which also require significant efforts of the couple will not be paid. This leaves a wretched taste in the VLD, ⁇ after the efforts made by the communities to promote home care.

Second, one might wonder whether the income guarantee should ensure that elderly care remains affordable. After all, there are federal and community arrangements to improve the affordability of elderly care. At the federal level, the system of assistance to the elderly is primarily aimed at the elderly in the home situation. One can, in my opinion, at the federal level adjust the system so that a stay in the resting house becomes affordable.

On a community level, theoretically starting on 1 July 2001 in Flanders the health insurance with benefits to the elderly who are in need of care. Both people in the home situation and in a residential setting can apply for a benefit. The system is based on a general solidarity in which government and citizens insure the risk. This presupposes a different approach than that in the present draft law.

The age limit at which elderly persons can apply for an income guarantee is in principle 65 years old. Following the gradual introduction of the retirement age for women in the pension legislation for employees and self-employed persons, the present draft incorporates a gradual increase in the retirement age from 62 to 65 years by 2008. This means that men who stop their self-employed activity at 62 years of age in 2001 and who meet the income test can resort to the income guarantee for the elderly. From the age of 65 they can apply for their pension as self-employed. Thus, this situation constitutes an exception to the residuair character of the income guarantee. This situation is very beneficial for self-employed people. At the moment, older self-employed are often confronted with a less well-running case where heavy investments are no longer rewarding due to age or lack of a successor. However, if they are applying for early retirement, they must deposit 5% of the pension per year before their 65 years of age. The present law provides a solution to this. Self-employed persons who pass the middle test will no longer be required to submit to the 5% scheme. The fact that the King has the ability to develop this solution for self-employed persons with limited capacity makes the scale of this problem clear.

The heavy penalty of 5% per year is in conflict with the active welfare state. I point out the broad possibilities in the system for workers to cease professional labour before their sixty-fifth year of life. For self-employed workers, however, the penalty of 5% is ⁇ heavy, as they sometimes have to close their business for economic reasons. Due to the limited social status of the self-employed, in particular the absence of a unemployment regulation and a bridge pension, many are forced to seek a way out of early retirement, but are then severely punished for it.

We find it very positive, Mr. Minister, that you have drawn up a solution for these self-employed. Therefore, unlike the CVP group, we ask you not to wait with a royal decision to settle this problem. Of course, there will be much debate in this Parliament in the coming months on the social status of the self-employed and the necessary improvements that are urgent there. If the 5% sanction is abolished, you only run the risk that the Royal Decree in question would not be applied. If your party, as your chairman recently announced, actually opens its doors to self-employed, then I think you should take this royal decision as soon as possible. I hope that the open mind in which this law deals with the problem of early retirement for self-employed persons is a forerunner of the discussion we will conduct on the improvement of the social status of the self-employed as a whole and the abolition of the 5% sanction in particular.

Finally, I will return to the amendment of the government parties that provides for the flat-rate allowance for heating costs. In this regard, you have indeed promised that you will investigate whether that allowance cannot be integrated into the income guarantee. We consider this integration important for three reasons. First, it would be fairer because everyone can appeal to it. Today, the allowance benefits only those who are sufficiently aware of its existence. Secondly, the integration into the benefit would also provide for administrative simplification. Thirdly, it is still true that, especially among older people, there is still some discretion to apply for such a benefit through the OCMW.

Mr. Minister, we are looking forward to the results of the further course of this.

Now that all the speakers have been discussed, I would like to say a few things on three points.

First of all, I would like to thank the members of the Chamber who took part in the debate in the committee. I think we have had a very good and efficient debate. Although we had two days ahead, we discussed and completed this very important draft in one day under the chairmanship of Mr. Wauters. Since there had already been a preliminary discussion in the committee, we had already conducted a detailed discussion before submitting the draft. Per ⁇ from that we should make the decision that this is a good working method, although, of course, we cannot impose it everywhere. In any case, I found it a very useful discussion.

I also tried to take into account the comments of the majority and opposition as much as possible. This resulted in unanimous approval in the committee. This is important because the weaker in our society - such as the elderly and the poor - in this way have found a very broad political support in the Chamber.

Today, three important comments were made. I will go into that for a moment.

First, Mrs. Genot made a comment regarding the phrase “individualizing rights”. I would like again to make clear the distinction between a debate on the individualization of rights in social security and the debate on the individual rights – if they can already be defined – in aid systems. This is a support system. The debate on the individualization of rights within the framework of social security is very different. Mrs. Genot has said that too. This is an interesting but nuanced debate. Let us be clear. If one would individualize the benefits in the social security stricto sensu today, then one must opt for large additional spending, for example in the branch of unemployment where one must spend tens of billions more to raise the benefits of cohabitants to the level of those of single persons or family heads. Otherwise, the benefits of the heads of families would have to be drastically reduced, which would be quite dramatic for the families involved. Furthermore, we must not forget that at present, many people are dependent for their existence on derived rights typically under threat among those who advocate individualization, such as widow pensions, widow pensions or survival pensions. To be honest, I am once and again a little surprised by the fire with which some lead the debate against family modalization of social security and for individualization. They seem to forget that there are a lot of people who live from a widow pension. I assume that there is no proposal to reduce or abolish those widow pensions. That would rightly give rise to a storm of protest. In a society where men and women get out of work equally and can build professional careers equally, derived rights would be much less important. To the extent that we are evolving toward an active welfare state in which women and men build careers, one can conduct an operational debate on individualizing rights in social security. As long as we are not in that situation, the debate about individualization of rights is actually a debate in which one dares to say a but not b. In Belgium, we ⁇ do not have such a society yet as we have a high home stay rate, especially of low-skilled women. I am talking about this quite nuanced. I do not want to send the message to the world that I will reduce all low-skilled working women in Belgium from their widow pension. This is what some people think but do not say. Of course, I am not referring to Mrs. Genot.

In the context of social security, the debate on individualization is important. I think about this nuancedly. First, certain conditions must be created before an operational debate can take place. The conditions are that men and women can work together and also build rights together. If possible, we may have to conduct this debate in the committee.

This is a support system. When providing assistance, one always looks at the context in which people live. This is actually an anomaly right here. With regard to the guaranteed income of the elderly, we are now making the transition to a methodology that is also applied to the subsistence minimum, which is ideally a system of assistance. Just by putting this right, we get space in the long run. This is the figure of 600 million francs. In the long term, we will have room to make improvements within the system where they are most needed. I would like to emphasize very clearly that there is no saving of 600 million francs here. I don’t know where the Council for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women gets to put that on paper. This is a surcharge of 600 million francs. In the long run, this actually means a shift in which we will spend less for people who live together.

I emphasize that in the transition from the old to the new situation all acquired rights remain. No one will have to pay a single franc in the transition from the old to the new, more coherent concept.

It is said that the least worshipped women would be disadvantaged in this concept. I give an example, though caricatural and demagogic. If the wife of a notary requests assistance – she can do so if she lives together and is not married – it must, in my opinion, be taken into account with the means of subsistence of the notary. That may be an extravagant example, but such situations should not be encouraged.

We had a good discussion on this issue in the committee. Mrs. Genot was disturbed by the phrase “individualization”. This expression must be understood in the appropriate context; namely as a support system. This is not about the individualization of unconditional rights, as is the case in social security. This is a huge misunderstanding that should be avoided.

I emphasize that the per capita payment, as Ms. Genot defines it, has the enormous advantage that a number of social, dramatic situations will be easier to resolve, such as in the case of an actual divorce or in people who are separated from their partner as a result of the inclusion in an institution.

Mrs. De Block made a comment on this subject that I take to heart. It is true that I adopt a preferential attitude for people who go to an institution versus people who are cared for at home. The draft law allows, by royal decree, to expand the category of people who are cared for and whom we want to treat more preferentially. I did not include that in the law because this is a budgetary issue, which, in my opinion, requires further reflection on the task that the federal government should take on in this regard. We have thought about this in the preparatory work. Through the preferential support that we want to give to people who are admitted to an institution, and who are therefore separated from their partner, we, in my opinion, do not encourage anyone to go to an institution, such as a rest home. One does not go to a rest house for his pleasure. It is also a costly matter. People who are included in an institution are considered single. So you get 22,000 francs instead of 15,000 francs. The increase in this amount is not a reason to go to a rest house. What about people who are cared for by their children or partner and who consciously choose not to go to a rest home? We do not have to go on ice overnight and we need to think about it further.

A third element in the debate was the heating subsidy. This was discussed in the presentation of Mrs. D'Hondt. There are many good arguments for integrating the heating supplement. We have investigated this further and that is feasible. However, I need to consult the government first because it also has budgetary consequences. The system will then become more generous. That may of course. If one integrates the heating allowance in the benefit, more people will be able to claim the system.

We need to look at the budgetary implications. It would indeed be a simplification. This, by the way, inspired me to think about a number of other simplifications. Hopefully we will talk to each other about this soon.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.