Proposition 51K0455

Projet de loi relatif aux droits des volontaires.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
LE Jean-Jacques Viseur
MR Alain Courtois
N-VA Geert Bourgeois
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Jean-Marc Delizée
Vooruit Magda De Meyer, Annelies Storms, Anissa Temsamani, Greet Van Gool

Submission date

Nov. 19, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

unpaid work social security voluntary work

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Alain Courtois (MR) abstained from voting.
• Charles Michel (MR) abstained from voting.
• Patrick Moriau (PS | SP) 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.

Discussion ¶

May 18, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

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. This is the bill that regulates the status of volunteers. Proposals have been submitted by various parties over the years.

Today there are two bills on the table: a bill by the ladies of Gool, De Meyer, Storms, Temsamani, De Block, Gerkens and the ladies Bourgeois, Courtois, Delizée and Viseur, and a bill by the ladies Creyf and D'hondt. The committee met on these proposals in March last year and this year at different times. An opinion was issued by the High Council for Volunteers and the National Labour Council.

Ms. van Gool explained the first bill in the committee. She stressed the importance of this bill for volunteering, as volunteering occupies an important place in society. In the coming years, the importance will only increase. It is important to recognize, support and guide the work of volunteers. The bill is in line with previous legislative initiatives and therefore several opinions have already been issued by various bodies. These opinions were also included in the proposal. The bill, to which I will return, first defines a number of concepts and indicates the voluntary character. There is also a organizational note, the importance of clearly defining liability and insurance. In the original proposal of Mrs. van Gool and consorts, there was no question of mandatory insurance, but only of an optional insurance. The bill sets out a tax and social status to regulate the cost compensation that the organization may allocate to the volunteers appointed by it, namely a maximum amount of 50 euros per day and 1.250 euros per year.

Volunteers entitled to a social benefit no longer have the obligation to apply to the insurance institution for permission to carry out the voluntary work, provided that the cost compensation they receive does not exceed the amounts just mentioned.

Subsequently, in the committee followed an explanation of the bill proposed by Mrs. Creyf and Mrs. D'hondt of CD&V. Mrs D'Hondt emphasized the importance of volunteering and the importance of clearly defining that activity. She made it very clear that the proposal is in fact a takeover of a previous proposal submitted by CD&V in September 2000. This proposal was withdrawn after consultations to submit a joint proposal with a majority. She bitterly admitted that this proposal was ultimately not addressed and turned to nothing. Therefore, she did not wish to submit the majority’s proposal again, but she comes up with her own proposal.

The two proposals have many common points; the main differences were the insurance and the voluntary agreement. The CD&V bill assumes that the liability insurance for volunteers is necessary to ensure legal certainty. An insurance must be concluded, regardless of the financial capabilities of the organization. Our bill also provides for a government response to smaller organisations. Since many families do not have a liability insurance, we do not consider it relevant to apply that insurance to volunteer work. Furthermore, the extension of the coverage of liability insurance to voluntary work threatens to hurt the premium.

The initially submitted legislative proposal by the majority assessed Mrs D'Hondt as largely inadequate. She considered it necessary to submit certain amendments. The amendments, submitted by both the opposition and the majority, have resulted in the literal adoption of parts of the CD&V bill. For this purpose, I refer to the table attached to the report with a comparison of both bills and the amendments. I will not go into this further in detail.

Originally, the CD&V proposal was about the volunteer agreement, while Mrs. van Gool was talking about an organization note. The voluntary agreement should normally not be a useless administrative formality if the government provides, for example, type agreements.

Minister Demotte welcomed the initiatives undertaken by the members of the Chamber and also supported the initiatives. He also considered it important to come up with a conducted proposal, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition. He drew attention to a number of points that the High Council for Volunteers has raised, in particular the volunteer work carried out by minors, asylum seekers and the so-called grey zone. This is about the zone between volunteer work and paid work, the semi-agoral work.

In addition, he considered it important to take into account a number of questions and aspects, namely, whether or not compulsory insurance — in the committee this has been discussed very extensively — the remuneration, colleague Turtelboom will talk about it later, the control possibilities of the government, any sanctions when combining a replacement income with volunteer work.

The Minister of Labour expressed his support for both bills. However, it did not agree to a particular amendment concerning the employment of foreign workers.

During the general discussion, Mr Courtois stressed that he was positive about the proposals submitted, but he also called attention to the many volunteers in the sport. He therefore requested an increase of the maximum tax-free amount allowed to 1,500 euros. Minister Demotte, on the other hand, was not in favour of raising that limit, because he feared that this could lead to a greater discrepancy, as people must also remain available for the labour market. Their

In the general explanation, Mrs Creyf emphasized that several initiatives have been submitted by her group since 1998 and emphasized the importance of a legal status with — very importantly — the insurance of civil liability and legal assistance.

Mrs Turtelboom pleaded for administrative simplification and thus, for example, also to be able to deliver certain documents electronically, and she also pointed out the need for a follow-up evaluation and the importance of remaining available for the labour market. Their

Mr Delizée pointed out the gaps in the grey zone between volunteering and paid labour and preferred a monthly upper limit in terms of cost reimbursement. Their

Ms. van Gool pointed out the steps she had taken to reach a joint bill and pointed out the distinction that must be made in the sports world between volunteers and professionals.

I would like to go through chapter by chapter quickly.

Regarding the general provisions, I would like to point out Mr Delizée’s proposal to replace the word ‘bénévolat’ with the word ‘volunteer’ because this more refers to the freedom that a person has to put himself in the service of other persons.

An amendment was also submitted by Ms. van Gool regarding volunteering from abroad. Ultimately, this has led to the fact that the statute must apply to anyone who does volunteer work, either in Belgium or abroad, but organized from Belgium if the organization has a place of work in Belgium and if the persons who carry out that volunteer work have their main residence in Belgium.

I don’t think I need to go into the second chapter, which deals with the definitions of volunteer work, volunteer organisations and the organization note, but I would like to point out one point: there was a mistake in the report. This is what I want to correct. The report incorrectly modified a text, the original text of which was to be retained. I refer to Article 3, 1° c); it must be ‘which is set up by an organization, other than a family or private association of those who carry out the activity’. That is the correct text and therefore not as it is now in the text; ‘which has no connection with family or private relations’. I will also make this comment on the request of the Secretariat.

Chapter three is about the organizational note and it has been discussed for a very long time, more specifically about whether the organizational note can be equated with a contract, where rights and duties are connected.

CD&V was rather in favour of a voluntary agreement. The MR was in favor of an information note because they feared too many obligations and formalities, which would be nefaste for volunteer work.

By adopting a number of amendments, the original organization note shows a very large resemblance to the Volunteer Agreement. In any case, it now follows that organizations, before the volunteer can start, must hand over to the volunteer a note containing a minimum of important information, including about insurance contract, risks, remuneration and confidentiality.

In the next point, I would like to discuss liability and insurance. As regards liability, the proposal approved by the committee states that the organization is liable for damages caused by the volunteer to third parties, unless the volunteer has serious guilt, fraud or repeated minor guilt.

Chapter 5 on insurance has been discussed in the committee for a long time. Initially, the proposal did not contain an obligation to contract insurance. Mrs Creyf pointed out that, however, that was the essence of the status of the volunteer, which from the beginning was pushed forward as an important element. The CD&V proposal went even further. We proposed not only compulsory insurance, but also coverage for physical and material damage, damage that the volunteer may incur if an accident occurs. Mr Drèze was also in favour of mandatory insurance. He advocated not to make too much distinction between VZWs and actual associations, because he feared the establishment of actual associations at the expense of VZWs. In its opinion, the NAR favoured a compulsory civil liability insurance, but not a compulsory insurance for the rest. Organisations with sufficient resources were also required to make insurance against bodily injury and legal assistance.

A number of amendments were submitted by Mr Delizée and by Ms Creyf and D'hondt. A general agreement was reached on the following. The organization must have a compulsory civil liability insurance for both the organization and the volunteer. In addition, for certain categories of volunteers, the insurance can be extended to include personal injury to the volunteer and legal assistance.

Several members of the committee have called for a cost estimate of the different types of policies and also and above all of financial support to organizations when concluding an insurance. This can be done, inter alia, by offering a basic contract at the level of the Community, province, municipality or federation of an organization to which local organisations can bid for a limited fee.

As for the cost estimate, the Minister contacted the insurance companies. They assured him that there are already many smooth formulas.

I would like to conclude with the issue of labour law. It is intended to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, volunteers and, on the other hand, employees. Therefore, it is necessary that volunteers do not fall within the scope of many provisions of labour law, both laws and royal decrees. However, certain provisions of labour law should continue to apply to volunteers, including those relating to well-being at work.

There were also discussions on the possibility of allowing asylum seekers to volunteer. This should be possible, but it should not lead to improper use, such as new migration flows or abuse of those volunteers through economic exploitation.

I would like to conclude by giving the floor to my fellow rapporteur, Mrs. Turtelboom, for the next chapters.

Mrs Lanjri, thank you for your report. The second rapporteur is Ms. Turtelboom, who will also speak for her group.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, figures show that the number of volunteers in Belgium has remained roughly stable in recent years, even though they say that our society is much more individualized. Today, one in seven Belgians is still volunteer.

We also see that the profile of the volunteer is changing. Volunteer work is not always done in the organized, centuries-old group associations, but also in a very individual and flexible way.

That is why the bill we are discussing here today is extremely important. It is of course of great importance that we put more than one heart under the belt of all the volunteers there in Belgium at the moment.

Following the report of colleague Lanjri, I would also like to say that one of the most important aspects of the discussion in the Social Affairs Committee of the last few weeks is the remuneration that belongs to the volunteer work. The unpaid nature of the voluntary work does not prevent the volunteer from being reimbursed for the costs incurred for the organization. The proposal sets a ceiling per year, per day and per trimester. The limit is set at an annual amount of approximately 991 euros per year, 600 euros per trimester and approximately 24 euros per day. Originally the upper limit was €1,000 per year, but it has been reduced to the amount of €991 after the advice of the National Labour Council. That is only a small difference, but yet he feared the emergence of a grey or black circuit.

The CD&V group has submitted an amendment to fix the amount to 1.250 euros per year. She also made the comparison with the artist status, which also has to do with higher upper limits.

The colleagues Michel and Courtois also raised principled objections to the amount. According to the MR group, with an amount of almost 1,000 euros per year, many volunteers who are active in the sports sector are excluded.

Both colleagues from Gool and myself pointed out that there are currently two possibilities to pay fees for volunteers. On the one hand, the organization can do that on a flat-rate basis and then the maximum limits per year apply, which are stated in the bill. On the other hand, volunteers can provide proof of the actual costs incurred to their organization. On the basis of such evidence, the compensation may then exceed 1,000 euros per year. This can be of interest, for example, for volunteers who occasionally have to make foreign trips for their organization.

Minister Demotte also joined the opinion of the National Labour Council. In this way, the majority of committee members agreed to reduce the risk of displacement of paid work. In addition, the Minister also pointed out that the status of the volunteer should not be compared with the status of the artist, because it is a different problem.

If the amounts from the article are exceeded, then the activity carried out is no longer considered as volunteer work. In addition, the King, in consultation with the Council of Ministers, is given the opportunity to increase the amounts for certain specific categories of volunteers. For example, there are specific categories for Red Cross workers and civil protection workers.

I come to an important question. Can an unemployed person also do volunteer work? Yes, after a simple prior declaration to the Unemployment Office. The unemployed should no longer ask for permission. In fact, he just makes a request. Until now, the unemployed had to seek permission, which actually led to a fairly large arbitrariness. Some directors gave that permission and other directors did not. The proposal that is currently on the table is actually turning the course of things. Unemployed persons make a declaration and the Director of the Unemployment Office can then appeal against it.

An amendment also regulates the conditions under which the director of the unemployment office can object to volunteering within two weeks.

Collega Lahaye-Battheu said on behalf of the VLD group that it is very important that volunteering should not limit the availability of unemployed persons to the labour market.

An amendment by Gool’s colleague gives the King the opportunity to determine the rules for the declaration procedure and the conditions under which the absence of a declaration will nevertheless lead to the loss of benefit.

Article 14 and the following articles regulate the cumulative possibilities between the compensation for volunteer work and disability, bridge pension, living wage, benefits for persons with disabilities, the right to a guaranteed income for the elderly and the income guarantee for the elderly. In this regard, I would like to refer to the detailed discussion in the written report. On all these articles amendments have been submitted by the CD&V group and by colleague of Gool, the submitter of one of the two proposals. An amendment was submitted, among other things, by which the control doctor should verify whether the general health condition of the volunteer is compatible with his activity as a volunteer.

As the compensation for voluntary work is not an income, it can therefore not have any effect on the payment of family allowances.

The final provisions in the bill on the rights of the volunteer provide for control mechanisms and the possibility of imposing additional conditions. They are intended to prevent abuse of the volunteer status. This is important for organizations that work with both volunteers and non-volunteers.

If the proposal is approved, it will enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal.

The bill was unanimously approved in the Social Affairs Committee at the final vote on 3 May 2005. For the vote by article, I would also like to refer to the written report. I can say that for each article there was a broad majority and occasionally a vote against or a number of abstentions.

Mrs Turtelboom, you are now given the word for your presentation on behalf of your group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the contribution of volunteers to society cannot be sufficiently painted. The least we can do as policymakers, even if it’s just out of respect for their enormous merits, is to ensure that those involved can carry out their volunteer activity in a correct and careless manner.

It is therefore not really something to be proud of the fact that Parliament took six years to put the regulation on the agenda of the plenary session. It is even less beautiful that we first worked on establishing a new structure, the High Council for Volunteers, instead of giving priority to the people who do that volunteer work daily.

That is also why at that time my colleague, Mrs. De Block, refused, on behalf of VLD, to co-sign a proposal for a resolution calling for the establishment of the High Council for Volunteers. The refusal did not come because we did not want the Council, but because we believe that the chariot should not be strained for the horses.

However, ultimately, what’s in a name? It is important that a text is presented here today to get the volunteers out of their legal uncertainty. For VLD, the individual volunteer has always been primary. In other words, we have always kept in mind that the bill would address the problems and aspirations of as many volunteers as possible. I can say, my colleagues, that we have succeeded.

I admit that we have not been able to solve all the problems. For example, a system for volunteering in sports associations remains necessary. However, given that this is a specific case, I urge, on behalf of my group, to work very quickly on such a scheme for this particular group.

It is well known that the VLD adopted a constructive attitude when dealing with the bill, even if it was only to reward the volunteers for their efforts. With this commitment, they do not only prove great services to the public interest, but some also add to their own value. A volunteer from an oncology center once summed up the thing for me by saying that there was a world opening up for him in the center, even though nothing compelled him to that commitment. He felt so useful. We all receive similar comments on a regular basis.

During the discussion, there have been several points of attention that VLD has permanently hammered. I will give a brief overview of it.

First, volunteering is not a full-fledged substitute for regular work. Through volunteering, a job seeker can acquire additional qualifications, be permanently active and thus also increase his or her chances of a job. For us, it has always been essential that job seekers remain available to the labour market at all times.

That was also the reason why VLD insisted on a limited cost reimbursement. After all, it cannot be intended that politics creates a new unemployment drop in times when the government tries to help unemployed people return to work through many measures. It was also intended to look for the largest common shareholder and not to develop a arrangement that would happen to work well for some organization that works with many volunteers. On the other hand, it would also be unfair to penalize volunteers who have to incur real, high costs for the exercise of their activity. Therefore, a compromise was found in the present proposal. There is a limit of approximately 1,000 euros annually. However, those who can prove their costs may exceed that amount.

In order to address the problem of volunteers whose activities are heavily seasonal, for example in a playground activity, the VLD has proposed an amendment to replace the monthly barems with quarterly limit amounts, allowing more peak moments and a flexibility in volunteering. We are pleased that the amendment on this subject was approved by all democratic parties. In the unemployment regulation, there is a similar problem of spouses and unemployed family heads who are active in the fruit harvest.

A delicate point was the insurance obligation. The regulation provided for in the bill seems to us to be a correct regulation. Here and there, there were votes to register a general insurance obligation, but that seemed to us too extensive, especially because at that point an important assignment has been placed on subordinate administrations and ideally even on the Communities. Nevertheless, it is not done that a federal government enters a duty into a law that must be enforced by the Communities, which are ultimately legally at the same level as the federal government.

Dear colleagues, if the bill is approved in the House tomorrow, then our work is on it, but that does not mean that the volunteers at that moment already have a statute. The law shall not enter into force until six months after its publication in the Official Gazette. This is necessary in order to grant organizations a transitional period to adapt to the new rules. Nevertheless, I would like to urge the government not to hesitate with the publication of the law in the Staatsblatt. Furthermore, I would like to remind the competent ministers of their commitment to prepare the implementing decisions when the law comes into force, so that no more time is wasted.

The adoption of the new proposal should also give rise to a review of labour law in order to identify problems in this regard. If they are found, a quick adaptation to the new situation is a must.

Dear colleagues, I will decide. The volunteers have had to exercise a lot of patience, but now we are on the brink of a new law that knows how to appreciate their uninterested effort. The VLD will therefore be pleased to approve the new law and hopes that the government will ensure its implementation and monitoring of progress.

The following speakers took part in the general discussion: Mrs. Van Lombeek, Mrs. Storms, Mr. Courtois, Mrs D'Hondt, Mrs van Gool and Mr. by Arens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, after many years of discussions, hearings and various opinions, our Assembly is today invited to take a decision on a bill concerning not a status but the rights of volunteers in our country. by

For the PS group, a broad consensus on a realistic and nuanced legislative text was all the more important, because volunteering is not only a wealth for democracy but it concerns us all. Indeed, who has never devoted, even once, time for others through a free and free commitment that goes beyond the mere family or friendly mutual support, for example to improve our living environment or even within the school or the sports club of our children? by

If the associative does not necessarily confuse with volunteerism, it exists, for the most part, only through it. The trends of associative life can, to a very large extent, be translated into volunteering. Here, we address the whole question of meaning in relation to shared values. Volunteering enables the deployment of meaning, because it is a space where solidarity is experienced and where freedom and responsibility are exercised, which are the fundamental values of any democratic society. Certainly, it would be incongruous to say that solidarity disappears from our society. Per ⁇ it has never even been so present, but who, using public services, sending their children to school or undergoing surgery, still remembers that accessibility only exists through the participation of all? We benefit from a considerable number of services that we would not be able to obtain by ourselves or by simple family solidarity. Volunteering allows us to live concrete solidarity on a daily basis. In this way, through its commitment, the volunteer renews with the “link”, that is, with the essence of solidarity. From this perspective, volunteering also has a pedagogical vocation.

By experiencing solidarity, volunteering is also a vector of social inclusion. Various studies have shown that it is ⁇ the best integrated people who are most active in "free". On this point, there is a whole matter for reflection. Undoubtedly, the growing professionalization of the sector, the transmission of certain values by the socio-family environment but also social inequalities are all explanatory factors. Nevertheless, the successful transition from “beneficiary” to “actor” (e.g., in youth movements, the remains of the heart, the mutual aid groups...), as well as the multiplication of new militant collectives are signs of an evolution in the volunteer audiences, an evolution on which we must open our eyes and which we must encourage.

The time when politics had the monopoly of collective commitment is now indeed over. It is therefore our duty to take into account the approximately 1.5 million people, 4 to 4,5% of the working population, who, in our country, give time to actions that undoubtedly contribute to the well-being of our society.

Everything leads to the belief that volunteering will only increase in the coming years. The progress of social needs, the ageing of the population, the fulfillment of leisure time, the increased concern for citizen participation are elements that should not be neglected, but which, it should be recalled, cannot result in a progressive de-investment of the State in the socio-economic field.

This brings us to a fundamental question, a question that has well interpelled us throughout the work of the committee, namely, how far should volunteer activity go and where should the paid work begin?

The National Labour Council also questioned the need to reconcile the objective of strengthening the social fabric and promoting volunteering with other priorities, in particular with employment policy. For the PS group, the opposition between volunteering and employment has no reason to be, as long as one does not abandon a dynamic that, so far, has proved itself.

Some studies have shown that volunteering translated into employment equivalents would correspond to no less than 220,000 new full-time jobs. From this perspective, it obviously makes dreams. But it is obvious that if all volunteer activities were to be remunerated, the budgets agreed by public authorities would be significantly increased, unless they profiled within the framework of a market economy, which would then inevitably raise the question of profitability, and therefore also of accessibility.

Beyond this finding, voluntary production is often illustrated by two metaphors that I find reasonable in all respects. First of all, volunteering is often at the forefront of what will be formally developed later by society. The best example is that of social security, which, it should be recalled, was born of associative initiatives based on voluntary mutual aid to become, over the years, a subsidised and mandatory model of redistribution of income, the basis of which is solidarity between persons. But many others could be mentioned, such as meals and care at home, preventive actions in public health, youth aid, trade associations, proximity work, social economy or even services titles.

The job creation rate in the non-market sector is two to three times higher than in other sectors. All these activities, initially voluntary or limited to the family sphere alone, have therefore generated a significant number of jobs. Furthermore, the role of enlightenment of volunteering is often mentioned: it shakes good consciences and the service rendered punctual and often insufficient attracts the attention of public authorities on the service to be rendered.

Another problem also raised by the CNT: the risk of eviction of semi-agoral work by volunteering; I will allow myself to add to be complete, the risk of eviction of work remunerated by semi-agoral. We must note that at the present time, it is not yet possible to define this notion of semi-agoral work on the legal level. A range of criteria can be considered, such as, for example, the commitment of the volunteer with regard to the availability and continuity of his involvement, the call for defined skills, the social relevance recognized as such by the State or the Communities. But the overall approach is very complex and too often remains taken only from the point of view of compensation.

Compared to its original text, the bill has been amended in numerous points, sometimes several times, which illustrates the difficulty of identifying the specificities of volunteering compared to paid work.

We are convinced that the entire arrangement will bring an undisputed added value to volunteer activities, including greater security and more flexibility in the exercise of such activities by the social allocators.

I will comment on a few points that I think are fundamental. First of all, some people talk about a status. The word is forbidden. The title of the bill has been changed. Volunteering is what it is and should remain. It is a free and unpaid activity, so there is no question here of a set of binding rules that would lock volunteering in a separate category halfway between civil and labour law. We speak of the right of volunteers because the exercise of a volunteer activity is first and foremost a right in itself. Second, because it is normal that those who engage free of charge in the service of others enjoy a minimum of recognition and therefore legal protection.

The contractualization of unpaid activity is a track that has been rightly abandoned. It is at least paradoxical to want to bind the parties while – I repeat it – voluntary activity is by definition a non-binding activity that is exercised in a often informal framework. Contractualization also risks creating sub-states that are detrimental to the hiring and employment of professionals. This obviously does not exclude a minimum of coherence in the organization of volunteering, which in any case implies mutual respect if not the rights and duties in the head of both parties.

The mandatory and prior transmission of an organization note with a minimum content is capable of meeting this requirement. It is of paramount importance that the volunteer is clearly informed before the start of his activities, in particular of what and for whom he engages. Currently, in the event of damage caused by the volunteer, many victims do not think of the fact that the organization can be held accountable and many organizations deny their function of authority when concrete problems arise. While there is no link of strico sensu subordination in voluntary work, I recall that the responsibility of perpetrators towards their superiors, as defined by the Civil Code, is generally interpreted very broadly by doctrine and jurisprudence. It is enough that there is authority and supervision, regardless of the nature of a contract or the absence of a contract and regardless of whether there is remuneration or not. In order to put an end to the prevailing artistic blur that prevails in the matter and to avoid the burden of proof of authority falling on the volunteer, the rule of responsibility of the organization is now explicitly provided in the law. This is an excellent thing, especially since by introducing a regime similar to that of labour law, we avoid inflicting a heavier responsibility on volunteer organizations.

For our group, as well as for the Superior Council of Volunteers, it was crucial that civil liability insurance was obligatory by the organization. It is a minimum gratification, the minimum minimorum that the organization must grant to its volunteers. Furthermore, it is neither more nor less than the logical corollary of the responsibility of the organization, as I have just explained it, and there is as much of the interest of the volunteer as of the organization.

While we fully agree with the principle that security must prevail over financial considerations, a legal obligation covering both civil liability, personal injury and legal protection, regardless of subsidy promises, does not seem realistic in terms of the means available to small organizations and associations of fact. It should not be that by wanting to do well, one comes to the opposite effect, that is, to limit freedom of association in fact. Nor would it be correct to impose insurmountable burdens on many associations, without the guarantee of greater intervention from the public authorities, since these obtain a significant social gain from voluntary activities carried out in all sectors of society. Alternative and credible solutions exist to reduce the costs of wider insurance coverage. In this context, the subscription to collective insurance policies should be encouraged and federal entities, provincial and local authorities should be more aware of these possibilities. All this does not mean that, for certain specific activities, the obligation to contract insurance covering other risks, such as personal injury or legal protection, cannot be considered. Freedom is left to the government.

With regard to the application of labour law provisions to voluntary work, we believe that the best solution is an assessment of the feasibility of their application. Here too, the current situation is hardly transparent, insofar as volunteering is not a work in the strict sense of the term. However, realism must be shown. Volunteering is always part of an organization that exercises on the person a certain authority. Certainly, with more flexibility and latitude than in wage labour, but with a very real authority.

What I think is important is the fact that volunteers benefit from the same protection at work as employees. It would be unacceptable, for example, to tolerate the supply of deficient material or to expose volunteers, without any control or precautions, to dangerous substances. Therefore, it will be up to the Minister of Employment to clarify or identify the existing legal situation or situations and to examine whether or not the application of the provisions of labour law does not unnecessarily hinder voluntary work.

Another important chapter concerns the problem of compensation and therefore their treatment in tax and social matters. Consistency is, in our view, of rigour. Regarding the subject-matter of the ONSS, it should be noted that the Royal Decree of 19 November 2001 was aligned with the amounts established by the Tax Circular of 5 March 1999; which continues to coexist with various special tax regimes for certain categories of volunteers. The social affairs minister at the time, Frank Vandenbroucke, had noted that the coexistence of separate tax regimes could raise a problem of equal treatment. In its opinion of 19 December 2000, the CNT had not said anything else and had highlighted the confusion that the situation could generate in the head of the administrators. From now on, the proposal ensures harmonization with the possibility for the government to increase the ceilings for the categories it determines.

Finally, last important achievement, we have been able to find that social benefiters often experience difficulties when they wish to engage as volunteers. They face specific, often restrictive and complex regulations from the sector that compensates them. Most of the time, these people have to complete preliminary formalities that, if not fulfilled in the letter, can be very heavy of consequences. The world of volunteering calls for uniformity, simplification and transparency. It was therefore indispensable to rationalize and harmonise all these regulations as best as possible. Particularly in the unemployment regime, the proposal ensures real legal certainty, without bureaucracy and by ending abusive recovery if the unemployment office does not respond within two weeks. An unemployed person will no longer have to wait for a prior authorisation, an authorisation which sometimes took months to obtain; which is an undeniable advance in the freedom to carry out a voluntary activity.

In conclusion, this text, which the Social Affairs Committee asks you to approve, has in no way the ambition to resolve all problems, in particular those of very specific sectors where the activities are commonly called semi-agoral work. It is a law of general scope that does not proceed by categorization – this is not the purpose – but that defines above all a framework that can and must be completed. Through the various elements that I have highlighted throughout this intervention, everyone will be able to see that a concrete and tangible step has been taken towards the full recognition of volunteer activity in our country and this, thanks to a consensus between all the political and democratic groups of this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I step into an open door when I say that volunteering is invaluable in our society. Approximately one and a half million people in Belgium are actively engaged in volunteering in some way. They can lose their engagement in various sectors: in the welfare sector, in the socio-cultural sector, in the youth movement, in the sports sector, in the environment movement, in the peace movement and so on.

In times of extensive individualization, we also find it healthy for a society that people commit themselves to the common good without necessarily having any benefit from it. It is therefore no more than obvious that politicians highly appreciate the value of volunteer work and examine how volunteer work can be optimally supported and encouraged. One of the first political recognition of volunteer work dates back to 1972 with the foundation of the European Association of Volunteers in Strasbourg in the European Commission. In 1976, this led to the establishment in our country of the Platform for Volunteering, which could count on recognition and subsidy by the King Boudewijnstiftung.

Civil society and volunteer organizations have been in full interest since the 1990s. After years of criticism of the sometimes perverted character of many organizations, a renewed awareness has grown of the many social functions that participation in the life of association appears to fulfill. Studies show that association life is a powerful and positive factor of social integration. Participation in association life is expressed, not so much in the classical socio-cultural associations but in less bound, cross-network organizations.

The modern volunteer is no longer the classical volunteer. He no longer has a clear profile. He is young or old, lower or higher educated; he combines commitment to others with a quest for identity and self-development. He prioritizes six requirements: action, flexibility, thematic and professional work, personal development, pleasure and relaxation. The modern volunteer chooses more for short occasional activities at various organizations than for long-term engagement with an organization.

Volunteer work should also increasingly rely on recognition from the government and official bodies. Decree of the Flemish legislature of 1994 on organized volunteer work in the welfare and health sector.

The King Boudewijnstiftung has also carried out groundbreaking work with the publication "Statute of the Volunteer: Trouble and Solutions".

We cannot forget that 2001 was declared by the United Nations as the International Year of Volunteers, intended as a tribute to the global commitment of volunteers. Also in our Parliament legislative initiatives were then taken to give the volunteers a status.

With the present bill, we aim to address numerous difficulties faced by the volunteer during his volunteer work. We want to protect the volunteer and avoid suffering disadvantages from his voluntary commitment. Ms. van Gool will undoubtedly subsequently go deeper into the specific arrangements, as they were drawn up in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, by approving the bill, the work for a sound status for the volunteer is of course not over. There are still many implementation decisions to be made. We therefore call on the competent ministers and the government to take care of this as soon as possible.

To make it possible for all organizations, even the smallest, to meet the completed insurance obligation, creativity will be required, and not only from the insurance sector. Local and provincial governments, including the counties, can also contribute in this area by offering collective policies.

We also need to respond to the specific demand of sports clubs for more volunteers and a more favourable tax and social status for their volunteers. This is especially about the coaches. The bill already leaves sufficient space to allow higher costs compensation for specific categories. It is up to the sports sector and the competent Ministers of Sport to decide which direction they want to go with their volunteers. The volunteers in the sports sector are just as valuable to us as the volunteers from other sectors. The regulation in the bill applies to the majority of volunteers, but certain circumstances may justify specific arrangements for certain categories of volunteers. Our group is ⁇ willing to cooperate in this.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the bill was worked hard, not only by its applicants but ultimately by the majority of the members of the Social Affairs Committee. We will be very pleased to approve the work of the Social Affairs Committee on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, when I co-signed the bill some time ago, I modestly hoped that it would serve as a debate, a resonance box, that it would serve to listen to a very particular category of volunteers and finally hear what these volunteers in the field of sport have been trying to express for years and years. by

Unfortunately, I had to find that even though there was a bill that affected the status of volunteers in general and therefore a fortiori the status of volunteer athletes, what has been demanded for years by this sector has not been met here. I know, Mr. Minister, that you have been a brilliant Minister of Sports, I would gladly admit, you were listening to this very particular sector, but here, we could have, as part of this proposal, finally had a serious general discussion on the problem of volunteers in sport. What is it actually? It is extremely simple. This is one of the areas - let's not be afraid of words - where the grey area, in order not to use another color, exists every day, every weekend persistently and without anyone being able to contradict this truth. It exists, we know it. This is why, for years, we have been asking that the ceiling, which is now 1,000 euros per year non-taxable, can be raised to at least 2,000 euros per year non-taxable, or 80,000 former Belgian francs. This means approximately 8,000 old francs per month. And it is not only the problem of the coaches, for I mean here that the problem of the volunteers of the sport is reduced to the coaches; there is not only them in this case, it affects the whole of the accompanyers, the whole of what is called in Dutch "de begeleiding" of all the teams, of all the sports associations.

If we had made sure to raise this ceiling, we would ⁇ have reduced by more than 80% the black area, the grey area — call it as you like it — which is placed in sport. We say that it’s better to have a controlled rule with a kind of contract between the sports environment and the government regarding social security and tax provisions. That’s what should have been included in the general discussion of this proposal, that’s what should have happened. Now we are told that we are not going to make an exception for a category and that we should postpone this to later, promising to make sure that it comes quickly, and asking the Sports Ministers of the Communities or Regions to join the discussion. This is something that will be handed over to the Greek calendes, although this could have been done directly on the occasion of the discussion of this proposal.

In this way, I consider that sport is always reduced to its congruent portion. Sport is not an important matter, it is true. But Albert Camus said, "Of all the little things, sport is probably the most important."But it is not important, I know it: it does not touch the young in school, it does not touch the young in the framework of his physical training, it does not touch the older people who today represent the majority of people practicing a sport, it may not touch education, the learning of the rule. It may not be important enough to teach young and younger people through sport, in a society where violence increases, what is group learning, learning the rule, and the fact that learning a sports profession also allows you to learn what it means to have rules, a judge and someone who makes them apply.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed by this case. I am disappointed to see a chance being denied to the world of sport. It will bring nothing, it will be a drop of water in the ocean of indifference. But the sport is accustomed to this indifference. There are only three medals at the Olympic Games. I will abstain from this drop of indifference.

Mr. President, Mayor of a municipality of almost 5,000 inhabitants, therefore of a small municipality, I am fortunate to be able to benefit from the work of about fifty associations composed of volunteers. I often say that my commune lives, of course, at the rhythm of the seasons, but lives above all at the rhythm of the work of all these volunteers, of those hundreds or even thousands of volunteers who animate this commune and make it dynamic, as it has the chance to be.

The current bill contains significant advances in volunteering. What are the advances of this bill in comparison to the current provisions? We will hold five of them and make various comments and ask some questions about these advances, Mr. Minister.

First, the main advance of the text is the clarification of the definition of responsibility in the context of the exercise of a voluntary activity. The text provides that the volunteer cannot be held responsible for a minor fault committed accidentally, but that this responsibility belongs to the organization.

In this context, the subscription of an insurance covering civil liability is made mandatory for the organization using the volunteer service, allowing it to assume this responsibility. Furthermore, the bill also specifies that family insurance contracts cannot exclude volunteering.

In this regard, the committee made a compromise between the obligation to contract an insurance and the extent of its coverage. Indeed, while the texts provide that it is mandatory to contract civil liability insurance, it is not mandatory for the organization to contract insurance covering bodily injury and legal protection.

The obligation for organizations to undertake insurance covering civil liability is clearly capable of protecting volunteers in the exercise of their activities, thus facilitating this type of engagement. We are ⁇ pleased with this provision. Indeed, it was unacceptable for us that volunteers perform their activities without being covered, the organization being in a very delicate situation the day an accident occurs.

Furthermore, the relatively low amount of insurance premiums should not pose a major problem for organizations. If that were the case, other entities — I think of the provinces and municipalities, since I see the important work that is done there for their benefit — could take care, individually or collectively, of this type of insurance contract. We urge them to take their responsibilities in this context.

The second advance of the text is as follows: "Volunteers must be informed of their rights." This is why the organization that uses the volunteer’s services will have to transmit to the volunteer an organization note specifying the statutes of the organization and its social purpose, whether the organization has contracted insurance covering civil liability for volunteers and specifying what risks are covered, whether compensation is paid to volunteers and whether the volunteer is bound to respect professional secrecy or not.

This obligation of information is very clearly positive and allows to strengthen the volunteer in his commitment, in full knowledge of the context in which his activity is exercised.

Third, the status and regime applied to compensation received by volunteers in the framework of reimbursement of costs incurred are clarified through the bill. The aim is to enable volunteers to benefit from compensation corresponding to the reimbursement of costs incurred for the exercise of their volunteer activity, without such compensation being the subject of harassment by the tax authority or the ONSS.

However, a relatively strict upper limit is applied to the amount of these allowances admitted so that a clear distinction between wage and voluntary activity is ⁇ ined. We emphasize that this provision had already been the subject of a bill submitted by our group to the House in the previous legislature and to the Senate in this legislature. Both texts were then rejected by members of the majority.

Fourth, the bill provides guarantees to social benefit recipients regarding their ability to participate in volunteer activities without encountering difficulties from the social security organizations. Indeed, given the differences between each regulation, this complexity is not capable of encouraging this type of activity even though the exercise of a voluntary activity is a fundamental right. As regards unemployed persons, it has been established that the exercise of a voluntary activity cannot diminish their availability on the labour market.

All of these provisions are primarily aimed at a simplification effort, which we welcome.

Fifth, the proposal provides a definition of what constitutes voluntary activity. On this last point, I would like to make some clarifications. In fact, the proposed law establishes in its Article 3, 1°, b, that volunteering is an activity that is exercised for the benefit of others. Is this provision sufficiently precise? What is the element that clearly determines whether the activity is carried out for others or not? For example, if a person decides to participate in a theatrical group, they do it first for themselves, in the same way as a sport is practiced, but if the theatrical group presents their work to a particular audience, such as children with disabilities, then ⁇ it can be considered as volunteering. Will the voluntary character, Mr. Minister, be determined by the type of audience to which the theatre group is addressed? The question does not seem to be entirely clear.

I think another question deserves clarification. Article 3, 1°, d, further specifies that a voluntary activity may not be exercised by the same person and for the same organization within the framework of a labour contract. So what about the teacher who participates in time as a volunteer in the organization of the fancy-fair of his school? The commentary on this article in the original bill specified that the same person cannot carry out the same activities for the same organization, both as a volunteer and as an employee, self-employed or civil servant.

It may be useful to add this clarification to Article 3, 1°, d.

Finally, we raise a last point with regard to the definition of volunteer activity. Indeed, we could not, at the reading of the bill, determine whether the directors and representatives exercising their functions free of charge are affected by the proposal or not. If that were the case, this could significantly change the responsibility that these people incur towards the organization. Article 5, last paragraph, specifies that the person, who signs as a volunteer the organization note of a de facto association, is presumed in an irrefractable manner not to be a member of that association. But can this provision be interpreted as a limit to the fact that administrators are affected by the text?

It can also be inferred from Article 6 that all ASBLs and factual associations must undertake civil liability insurance for their volunteer administrators. This also has important implications to the extent that insurance companies establish a difference between a volunteer's civil liability product and an administrator's civil liability.

In conclusion, we welcome the progress made by the bill under consideration today, in particular as regards the clarification of the accountability of volunteer organisations and the confirmation of ministerial circulars regarding the compensation received by these same volunteers.

However, we hope that this debate will be an opportunity to provide answers to certain questions that may give rise to divergent interpretations.

Finally, we wish that the provisions provided for in the bill are implemented without bureaucratic burdens, an indispensable condition for voluntary activities to develop in respect of the great freedom that is their condition of existence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to start my discussion by saying: Congratulations, one and a half million volunteers in this country. You had to wait a long time. The members of CD&V grace and grant you a very good status. Therefore, we have already been the first to submit a bill regulating the status of the volunteer years ago. If we are to judge the present statute today, we could speak of the classical half-full or half-left glass. Their

Mr. Minister, we had today a statute for the volunteer desired as a Belgian pint tapped according to the rules of the art: completely full, well rimet because it is fresh, with a solid col tapped, but nevertheless not too large. The majority have opted that today it still remains with what I would call a Dutch beer: in a limonade glass and a little flat. However, I must admit that in the event of great thirst, beer in a limonade glass also partially lies. It could and should have been more. Their

Five years ago, CD&V sought to bring a statutory status of the volunteer through bills. For the sake of the volunteer, and only for this reason, we were prepared in the previous legislature, at the request of the majority, to resign from our bill, to submit a new bill together with the majority. That happened. So far, we have a very bad feeling about it. It turned out that we actually had too much confidence in the majority. After the outpacking with the common bill, this bill remained undebated for the rest of the legislature. That was also the reason why last year we were not willing to submit a new common bill with that majority. A donkey does not stumble on the same stone twice, or it must be a mule. We did not deserve that. Their

There was another more important reason why we did not agree to withdraw from our bill in order to come to a common bill. Our bill was and still remains better than what was envisaged in the majority bill. The statute that we intended with our bill was more complete. Their

Logically, the CD&V proposal, which was the most extensive on the volunteer status, should have been the basic text for the discussion in the Social Affairs Committee. This was not possible for the majority. The fact that the legislative proposal submitted by the majority was too weak was evident at the beginning of the discussions in the Social Affairs Committee. We then proposed to write a new bill together, but it could and should not.

What the majority did, however, was calling up their bill with amendments, the vast majority of which was even literally transcribed from the CD&V bill. Anyone who finds this ridiculous should take a look at the table that we have added. The volunteers can only benefit from the new text, but the truth also has its rights. The amendments made the bill a little better. In the Social Affairs Committee, this led to quite hallucinating meeting moments at certain moments. We could continue for hours with heavy discussions and show the majority all corners of the room, but eventually it was about the volunteer. The real work in the committee could only begin when it had also sufficiently penetrated that the status of the volunteers would come there not despite, but partly thanks, CD&V.

Indeed, the present statute is the greatest thirst of volunteers for a statute. However, it is not yet the well-tapped pint that we give them. We demanded a broader and more comprehensive statute. I will give explanations on the basis of the main points of the Statute. With regard to the legal status of the volunteer, we chose a volunteer agreement over an organization note. I will continue to defend that. The term “organization note” remained in the present draft, but no one knows the term. There is no legal reference basis for it.

An agreement is a term that everyone understands, both the organizations that have volunteers in their workplace, and the volunteers themselves. Their

It has had a lot of feet in the earth before the commission came to a formulation of responsibility. The text that is now presented was eventually made possible thanks to the expert assistance of the Chamber’s legal services, for which we thank you. The current liability scheme is almost identical to that of the employees and therefore offers indeed a good protection. Very important, and what we intended from the beginning with our bills, is that the beneficiaries of social security benefits and the survivors now know where they are. They now know that they can actually do volunteer work. The admission to volunteer work and the maintenance of the social security allowance can be arranged in a very simple administrative way. We look forward to this very much. We are also pleased that, on our request, the Minister of Pensions confirmed in writing that no additional legal provisions are needed to grant pensioners the right to volunteer work.

In terms of remuneration, we are less satisfied. In the original majority proposal, as in our proposal, a recorded increase of the flat-rate allowance that a volunteer may receive, without being subject to social security contributions or taxation. Following the opinion of the National Labour Council, the majority has made a bid on its own original bill and this flat-rate remuneration has been reduced, rather than increased. We must know, Mr. Minister — and I am addressing you in this very special way — that in this draft, which will be submitted to the King, in the short term a increase may be inscribed, because the current fees have not been adjusted for years. Of course, I also know — and I have read it with great attention — the opinion of the National Labour Council. It is undeniable that the National Labour Council had requested, for the reasons which are its own and which are outlined in its opinion, not to increase the remuneration.

That the majority in this file hides behind the advice of the NAR is too easy. In other files, Mr. Minister, I have shown you and your colleague from Werk that this majority ignores the opinions of the NAR or does not ask for advice at all.

Mr. Minister, should there be a need for program laws in the coming months, I still hope to find something back from the increase of the foreclosures for the volunteers, even if it was only to provide a soil to the legitimate concerns of the sports environment and for whom the current arrangement does not provide the desired solution.

If an increase in the package fee for the volunteers is approved, CD&V unnuancedly pleads for an increase for all volunteers. Whether someone offers sick help and support, an isolated elderly in the resting house tries to give a warm feeling or accompanies our young people in their leisure time or sport, there should be no distinction in our appreciation of volunteer work.

A third capital item in this draft is insurance. The committee has had a long and difficult debate on this subject. What is now ahead has led me to retreat to the image of the well-tapped Belgian pint instead of the Dutch beer in a limonade glass. Compared to the original majority legislation, the insurance obligation has been adjusted in the present text in favour. Without any discretion, CD&V may state that it has done its utmost to obtain this adjustment for the benefit of the insurance obligation. As a result of the revision, unlike the original proposal of the majority, a solid liability insurance has now been developed. However, there is one but. CD&V wanted to go further. Our bill provided for full insurance for the volunteers; not only liability insurance but also legal assistance and accident damage to volunteers.

We have even provided in the committee the numerical material to demonstrate that the cost of switching from a liability insurance to a full insurance represents a respectable amount, which, however, is not insurmountable. I take the whole summary together. It is about one and a half million volunteers and a full insurance would cost 10 million euros more than the current proposal. However, I advise any colleague who finds it insurmountable to review the budget and the budget adjustments and look for decisions that involve much more than 10 million euros extra for much fewer people and with less impact on our society. This is 6 euros per volunteer. Ultimately, it is about whether we have 6 euros per voluntary auction to move from the current liability insurance to a full insurance. We all liked it and we will continue to do so.

Even if the government had only wanted to charge half of the 6 euros per volunteer, which reduces the budget cost to just 5 million euros, then we could still have enabled many volunteer organizations to pay the full insurance. It did not happen despite our efforts. We have improved the liability insurance system. However, we could not enforce full insurance.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you the following in this regard. The information disseminated after the decision in the Social Affairs Committee through the media, specialised websites and magazines is misleading. Worse, they are wrong. In fact, it is published that the insurance would have a non-obligatory character. This is not the decision taken in the committee. Therefore, I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister, to launch an information campaign once the draft here has been approved. The first step was actually one of disinformation and I think the good aspects of the proposal are best fully and correctly communicated.

We would have wanted more. Why would we want more? I have already said this in the committee and I would like to repeat it here too with great conviction. For us, Mr. Minister, colleagues, volunteers are the sign of – let it be said by a “chief” – of faith, hope and love in society. They are the sign of the belief that today and tomorrow people want to be there voluntarily and free of charge for each other. They are the sign of hope that, thanks to the commitment of the volunteer, the I society will never get rid of the wisdom society. They are almost a confession of the love with which healthy people quench the thirst of sick people; with which the youth guide accompanies the toddler, toddler and puber through the labyrinth to adulthood and with which the volunteer brings some warmth in the life of a lonely old man. That’s what we talked about in the volunteer status.

Indeed, since the glass is only half full, and in order that the Dutch beer be best and swiftly transformed into a solid pit, we, Mr. Minister, have in the committee — I thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness to do so — knowing that we could do nothing but ask a question or make a recommendation, yet our questions and recommendations addressed to the counties. We would like to ask that there should be taken up the sticks that we have dropped at the federal level. In this speech, Flaming calls on the Flemish government to carry out what was recorded in the government agreement regarding the volunteer and the insurance, and to come to systems of collective insurance which enables the volunteer to be fully insured while the cost cost for the organizations of volunteers remains portable.

I also say from this speaker that CD&V at the local level — fortunately we participate in the administration in many municipalities and provinces — will use all means to work out the conclusion of collective insurance in which local volunteer organizations can join at a very affordable price.

One and a half million volunteers must be reclaimed every day. In order to earn them and to be worthy of their commitment, we would have wanted an even more solid status. Let us hope that all those who chose the Dutch beer in a limonade glass will take a course of tapping good Belgian pins during the summer holidays.

I thank Mrs. D'Hondt and give the word to Mrs. van Gool as the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, a very happy woman stands in front of you. The reason for this is that today we finally begin the plenary discussion of the bill on volunteers. They finally have a statute.

I would like to start by thanking the volunteer organizations.

All these years they have been waiting patiently and have provided their cooperation. But these were not lost years. A lot of work was done during that period and a lot of consultation was carried out in order to reach the text that is being discussed today.

In the previous legislature there were several legislative initiatives and a lot of work has been done on the basis of this. Hearing was held in the Social Affairs Committee and various opinions were requested: from the management committees, from the relevant institutions of Social Security, from the State Council and from the Insurance Committee. All this took a lot of time and therefore in the previous legislature there was no vote on the bill.

These were not lost years; the work was not for nothing. Many of the opinions and comments were incorporated into the text of the bill, as we submitted it in November 2003. The bill was signed by all democratic majority parties and the opposition, except by CD&V.

Different is that in this legislature it is explicitly stated in the government agreement that there should be a statute for the volunteers. However, the Minister has explicitly promised that the initiative for this purpose can remain with the Parliament, for which I would like to thank him very much. Much work has already been done in Parliament and the proposal presented has been widely supported by the various parties and by the industry.

The Minister was asked to seek advice from the High Council for Volunteers and the National Labour Council. It is logical that the Supreme Council was also involved in this. He was established on my initiative in a different capacity in the previous legislature, just to get involved in everything that has to do with volunteering. In the High Council, the various sectors are represented; therefore, the field is indeed involved.

The Supreme Council delivered its opinion relatively quickly, namely on 6 February 2004. We had to wait a little longer for the opinion of the National Labour Council: it came only on 9 February 2005. Both opinions and the subsequent consultation gave us the opportunity to refine the text and adapt it to the reality of the terrain. It is therefore those opinions and those consultations that gave rise to the amendments and to the present text.

This brings me to the content of the bill. It has already been said, but we can indeed not emphasize it enough, volunteers are indispensable. In Flanders alone there are 800,000 and in Belgium there are more than one and a half million volunteers active. They are active in various sectors: elderly care, disabled care, sport, youth, culture, and the like. Our society can no longer do without these volunteers. They must receive the recognition and support they deserve. Their

Recognition is primarily a matter of the Communities and the Regions, of the local authorities. They can do so, for example, by offering premises, by providing infrastructure, by making insurance arrangements and – especially importantly – by adapting a subsidy policy. At the federal level, we must primarily work on a good legal arrangement for the obstacles that exist. That is something. The main ones concern liability, insurance and fees. If a volunteer is compensated, what about his taxes? Do they have to pay taxes and social contributions? The last tricky point: quid with those who receive a social benefit? Can they do volunteer work? I will address these various points.

First, I would like to explain a few words about the scope of application. The law of course regulates the volunteer work carried out on the Belgian territory, but also the volunteer work carried out outside the Belgian territory but organized from Belgium, provided that the volunteer still resides in Belgium or has his main residence there, and without prejudice to the provisions applicable in the country where the volunteer work is carried out. This last addition — and I will take it as an example — has been explicitly requested by Jint, among others, because there are a lot of young people who are internationally active, which is also supported by European and international treaties. I use it as an example to demonstrate that those amendments were really drafted to meet the expectations on the ground and that we really take into account what lives on the ground, with the comments made there.

The bill also contains clear definitions of volunteer, volunteer work, volunteer organization. The limitation, the definition is ⁇ not easy. The work was not easy because we quickly ended up in the grey schemer zone. Indeed, there is often a thin dividing line between labour, semi-agoral labour and volunteer work. Therefore, the bill provides the possibility that the King may exclude certain categories of volunteers and that a number of controls are also built in. However, it should be clear that a volunteer is someone who does something for free; that he is not paid for the activity he performs. This, Mr. Courtois, is often different when it comes to the sports sector. There are a lot of people active in that sports sector – think of parents who are in the canteen, parents who wash sweaters, people who draw lines on the field – who do this activity for free.

They may be compensated for their costs, but for the rest, for the activity itself, they are not paid. There are also others, such as trainers and guides, who are now paid through a cost compensation, but actually receive a payment for the activity they carry out. Therefore, they should not fall under the status of the volunteer. For them, a different, separate arrangement must be developed. This is also desired and requested by the Minister, by BLOSO, by the sector itself, that is, by the competent Ministers of Sport of the Communities, Claude Eerdekens and Bert Anciaux. We are in favour of developing a separate arrangement for those who are active in the sport, because they do not fall within the scope of the statute, but in no way, Mr Courtois, because we do not want a arrangement for them or because we want to shift a arrangement on the long run.

One of the points in the definitions relates to the organization note. There was also a long discussion about this, especially about the name. It is not intended to impose heavy administrative obligations or to charge a volunteer or the organization with all sorts of administrative burdens. It is intended to record the clear agreements made between the volunteers and the organisations and to point out both parties on their rights and duties. It is not formalism. We should ⁇ not use terms as agreement, which could create confusion or refer to terms used in other sectors.

It is also important that the organization’s note does not necessarily have to be on paper. For example, electronic carriers are also possible. In some cases, such as in actual associations, it is appropriate to sign the organizational note.

I will now come to the most important issues that the bill regulates, namely liability and insurance. It is also on the initiative or on the proposal of the legal services of the Chamber that the text of Article 5 was drawn up as it now presents. Each organization shall be held liable for the damage caused by the volunteer to third parties in carrying out volunteer work, in the same manner as the appointers are liable for the damage caused by their appointed persons. The bill explicitly imposes responsibility on the organization. That is very important and a very good and desirable arrangement for the volunteers. Think of the accident that happened a long time ago, where a scout leader was held liable for an accident that happened to one of the scouts. From now on, this will no longer be possible. The bill explicitly lays the liability on the organization. Only when there is fraud, heavy guilt or a common minor error, the liability is placed on the volunteer himself.

This provides the same protection for volunteers as for workers.

There has also been a lot of discussion on insurance. In fact, in the original bill no insurance obligation was imposed. This was explicitly requested by the industry itself. From the hearings held during the previous legislature, and from subsequent consultations with the sector, it has been shown that he considered that a too heavy financial obligation especially for often small associations of volunteer organisations. People can change their mind. In its opinion, the High Council expressly advocated for a mandatory civil liability insurance. The employer organisations represented in the National Labour Council did the same. It is no more than logical that the legislator has taken these opinions into account and has introduced the mandatory civil liability insurance through an amendment. We want to take into account as much as possible the expectations on the ground.

Compulsory insurance is a matter. The question remains how far this compulsory insurance should go. Should legal assistance and minor physical accidents be insured? At this point, it is important to take into account the area. Mrs D'Hondt has quoted a number of insurance policy prices. In practice, they are very different. Many insurance companies apply significantly higher amounts. In those circumstances, it is not advisable to require legal insurance for legal assistance and for physical accidents by law. This would be a heavy financial burden for organizations. For this reason, the mandatory insurance is limited to civil liability, though with the possibility to extend it. This is already the case in many associations. A number of sectors receive subsidies from the Flemish Community on condition that a sufficient insurance has been concluded, including for physical accidents. Of course, for that point, as for the whole law, an evaluation will be possible in the future.

As in the committee, I would like to make a plea so that the Communities and Regions, the local governments, the provinces take their responsibilities. They can close collective policies. We want to go one step further. We ask the municipalities themselves to make insurances to which the volunteer organizations can join free of charge, so that they can easily fulfill the obligation imposed by the law. This is perfectly possible. There are municipalities with such policies, which volunteer organizations can access very quickly and easily.

It was also agreed in the committee that the Communities and Regions would be reminded of their responsibilities in this area. The President informed me that in the meantime the letters have left to do this effectively.

Let me come to the arrangement of the fees. This was one of the most difficult points of discussion in the entire discussion of the bill, especially given the thin dividing line between volunteer work, semi-agoral work and labor. A volunteer, I repeat it, is someone who does not receive payment for his activity. He can make costs. It is therefore logical, if we want to encourage that voluntary work, that those costs are reimbursed by the organization. If these costs are reimbursed, the volunteer is not required to pay any taxes or social contributions. There are two possibilities in this regard. Either one shows the costs by submitting invoices or receipts and then there is no limitation in terms of amount. The disadvantage, however, is that it must be able to demonstrate in very detail that the compensation of the organization is a refund of the costs incurred. Another option that is more widely used in practice is the payment of a fixed fee. How can one demonstrate—often using one’s own car, computer, and phone—what own costs are and what costs are incurred for the organization? For this reason, many associations pay a flat-rate amount to their volunteers as a refund of the costs incurred.

That is why the bill provides for a scheme for the payment of these flat-rate fees. In the original text of the bill, higher amounts were proposed. We have explicitly chosen to respond to the explicit request of the National Labour Council to maintain the existing amounts of 27 euros per day and 1097 euros per year. We have entered into this because it has to do with the dividing line and the separation of volunteers from other sectors. Furthermore, no comments from the sector are made on those amounts. For this reason, we have fallen back to the current amounts, with the understanding that we have also introduced a quarterly limit of 600 euros.

The bill also explicitly provides the possibility to increase those amounts for certain categories of volunteers and to evaluate the amounts after two years as the National Labour Council itself proposed. That evaluation should assess whether any increase is possible. We need to see what lives on the ground and what the needs are.

The latter point relates to the benefit trailers, those who receive a social benefit, an unemployment benefit, a social security benefit or a social assistance benefit. There was a lot of uncertainty, as well as heavy administrative obligations. Therefore, legal certainty and administrative simplicity form the basis of the proposed scheme. This means that, on the one hand, people who receive a social benefit should be able to perform volunteer work easily and without much administrative burden, and that the benefits they receive should not or should not affect those social benefits, on the other hand.

There has been a significant simplification for the unemployed and the bridge retirees. So far, they had to fill out three forms and request prior permission, which is now eliminated. From now on, they no longer need to ask for prior consent, but only to declare the exercise of the volunteer work. The RVA has two weeks to respond. If this is not the case, the volunteer work is considered to be allowed to be exercised. Of course, the usual rules will also apply here. If it subsequently turns out that the activity that the person concerned exercises is not voluntary work, but rather an activity as a self-employed or as an employee, the ordinary rules shall continue to apply. It is therefore an important simplification, in the sense that the prior consent is no longer required, but the declaration is.

For disabled persons, the scheme is slightly different, since there is not only the availability for the labor market of tel, but also – very important – the health status of the person concerned. Therefore, medical advice remains necessary and the person concerned must obtain the consent before he or she can volunteer, taking into account his or her general health status.

For pensioners there is no regulation included in the bill. In a letter from the Minister of Pensions, it was explicitly confirmed that there is no need for legal arrangement. In the pension legislation there is only reference to professional activities for pensioners if an activity is exercised that can generate income, as referred to in the Code of Income Taxation. When the benefits paid are not taxable, there is no activity within the meaning of the Code of Income Taxation and therefore there is no activity within the meaning of the pension legislation and there is no need for any arrangement for this. For the benefits of social assistance, living wages, benefits to persons with disabilities, guaranteed income for the elderly, income guarantees for the elderly and also for family allowances, it was expressly stipulated that if one receives benefits, they are not considered as an income.

These are some of the key points of the bill and they finally give the volunteer the protection and legal certainty he is entitled to and more than deserves. Their

However, our work is not yet finished. The law is there, or at least tomorrow, but it still needs to be implemented. There are still a number of royal decrees to be made, but the ministers concerned have committed to accelerate this. They shall ensure that the necessary implementing decisions are taken and published during the period preceding the entry into force of the law. Their

I would like to remind you of your commitment in this area.

Consultations will also need to be held with the sectors – with insurance companies, associations and organisations – to ensure that the provisions of the law do not remain dead letter, but can actually be implemented.

There will also be work on a separate, good arrangement for people who are active in the sport. I want to commit to doing this work in the short term.

I would like to conclude with a word of thanks to the volunteers and organizations for the patience they have exerted all those years, for the willingness with which they have provided advice, for the way they have collaborated to come to the legal arrangement as proposed today. I also express a word of gratitude to the members of the National Labour Council and of the High Council for Volunteers, for having also taken the time to elaborate well-founded opinions, which they have communicated to us.

I would like to thank the Ministers Demotte, Van den Bossche, Dupont and Tobback and their staff for the many efforts they have made and for leaving this important legislative work to Parliament.

I also have an important thank you for the services of the Chamber, because they have helped us well. It was often not easy; it was often about quite difficult legal points, but their advice and their support have ⁇ helped.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, both from the majority and from the opposition. It has not always been an easy discussion, but we eventually developed a good arrangement across party boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, I recall that this is a proposal of law or rather several texts that eventually resulted in the drafting of this proposal which we are discussing today.

The government has a distant and satisfied look at the work done. This issue deserves more attention. Mrs D’Hondt recalled it a few minutes ago, as well as all the other speakers. Ms. van Gool once again brilliantly illustrated this in her exhibition.

Regarding the questions raised, the completeness of Ms. van Gool’s speech exempts me from returning on many aspects and I thank her for this. It was very complete and perfectly correct, in my opinion, in the relationship of the remaining elements suspended. In particular, he answered the question of Mr. Arens on Responsibility.

Mr. Arens, there is one aspect that has not been answered. Can the system of volunteers be clearly dedicated to mandators and administrators? The answer is affirmative, provided that it is in the same references in terms of amounts. Furthermore, this does not exonerate them from their responsibility as mandators, it goes without saying.

There remained a more controversial aspect raised by the excellent colleague — who must have been absent in the meantime —, Mr. by Courtois. He said he could have taken the opportunity to solve the problem of sport. As a former sports minister, I was tempted to do so but some parliamentarians and the sports sector itself have insisted that there is a specific regulation. The COIB was met at my office to discuss it for the first time; the Flemish and French-speaking federations will also give some indications. I do not despair — it is an euphemism — to take an initiative as soon as the information is transmitted.

Another question was asked by our colleague, Ms. D'Hondt, about raising the ceiling for volunteers. It is true that a possibility was granted to the King to revise, by increasing them, a certain number of categories of volunteers — this is Article 12 of the provision — while the CNT wanted to stick to the figures given.

Mrs D'hondt, in order to avoid any ambiguity on this subject and although the answer has already been given by Mrs van Gool, I confirm that there is a mandatory character of this insurance mechanism. Those who want to believe the opposite are wrong.