Proposition 51K1334

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de maladies professionnelles et d'accidents du travail et en matière de réinsertion professionnelle.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 7, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

occupational accident occupational disease social security

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 ¶

June 8, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I must ask for your permission to make two additional technical corrections to the text of the draft law before the report.

The text itself? Do you want to do it immediately so that I can find it back?

I will do it immediately. The Dutch-language text of Article 3 now states "Article 2, § 2, 2°" and it must be "Article 2, § 1, 2°". In Article 44 is now Article 62bis, § 1, paragraph 2 is now: " Occupational diseases are diseases referred to in Articles 30 and Article 30bis ...". “Article 30bis” should be deleted.

This is at the top of page 15 of the text.

Article 43 has now become Article 44. ‘Arbeit-related diseases are diseases referred to in Articles 30 and 30bis ...’. “Article 30bis” should be deleted.

Can I let it check? I have an improvement here about the word "article" but not about "30bis".

Mr. Minister, can you check this? You may send me a text so that we do not make mistakes. I see it in the French and Dutch texts.

Mr. Speaker, it’s not because the cabinet members — with all respect — from the tribune say that it’s okay, that it’s okay for Parliament.

When I was talking about us, it was actually a pluralis majestatis.

This is a very technical matter. We have made technical changes several times. I will not resume the discussion.

If I have understood it correctly, the improvement concerns only the word "article". I ask questions because the rapporteur speaks of “Article 30bis”.

Mr. President, you were right. The word “article” should be removed. Now there is...” Articles 30 and 30a ...”. It must be...” Articles 30 and 30a ...”.

This is precisely why I went to work so secure.

Mr. Minister, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat this. I have written three times to the Prime Minister. I get it on my parliamentary hips of the blemishes in drafting legislation. Mrs. D'Hondt and other colleagues have already talked about the long pages of sometimes small, technical improvements by our services. Mr. Van der Maelen, I do not like that we still need to make improvements, even if it is just technical improvements. It comes from the government, it goes to the State Council, it comes to the committee in the Chamber, it goes to the committee in the Senate, it goes to the Senate, it comes back to the Chamber and then here, at the moment we must vote on it, there must be another final reading with the small improvements. That must not be!

Mr. Minister, I do not blame you, but I have written it to the Prime Minister and I will continue to insist. If it happens often, you will have to wait a while. You have employees and an administration. Sometimes we need to make improvements that are not part of our task. We do it. We now have a broader legal staff that can actively collaborate. It is still toileted, in a sense. We want to deliver good texts.

There has been a period, Mrs. D'Hondt, long ago, that the Belgian Staatsblad was full of errata.

( ... ...

I don’t want that, for the honor of the Chamber. I was right, Mrs. Van Gool. Now go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, we spent four meetings on this bill. During the meetings, a draft resolution from myself and colleague Storms, a bill from colleague Hans Bonte and a bill from colleague Camille Dieu were also added, but eventually the draft resolution and both bills were removed from the discussion.

Minister Vanvelthoven first gave an introductory presentation, both on his own behalf and on behalf of Minister Demotte. The bill is an important and necessary focus for the occupational accidents and diseases sector and the disability benefits sector.

The draft legislation covers four different, important gaps: occupational accidents, occupational diseases, exacerbated risks and recruitment.

The first major gap relates to a number of changes regarding occupational diseases. Three measures are proposed. First, the Fund for Occupational Diseases will receive three new assignments. The preventive mandate of the Occupational Disease Fund will be expanded, a system will be installed for occupational diseases and finally the professional reintegration of a person who is temporarily partially unfit or of a person who is temporarily removed from the working environment and who accepts a tailored job with a wage loss.

A second set of measures on occupational diseases relates to structural changes of the Fund. A third set of measures includes changes in the procedure and fees. The second section concerns changes concerning occupational accidents. I will only take the most important ones. Adjustments have been made with regard to the visit to the occupational doctor, with regard to the rights of children to interest in case of an occupational accident, with regard to compensation for assistance from third parties, to contributions paid inappropriately, to the management of the Fund, to the advances paid by the insurance company, to the limitation, to the supervision of the medical services recognised by the Labour Inspection and finally to the privileged debt claim of the Fund.

The third section of the draft law concerns the excess risks. That amendment comes from the government and is part of the Pharaoh Plan, the Federal Action Plan for Reducing Occupational Accidents. The starting point of the bill is to establish that there are a number of companies where there are significantly more accidents than the average of the sector to which they belong. As explained by the Minister, this has nothing to do with accident or disaster, but with the total lack of any sense of responsibility for the safety of workers. This, of course, also has consequences for unfair competition. Therefore, the minister also said that it is his explicit intention to remove those cowboys from the market. Therefore, a number of proposals are made to ensure that it works better. Their

The fourth section of the draft law gives rise to the Government’s decision at the Special Council of Ministers in Oostende on 20 and 21 March, where a set of measures was taken to promote the professional recovery of victims of an occupational accident or occupational disease or of beneficiaries of sickness and disability benefits. After all, there are a number of problems facing people who are unable to work, whether because of illness, because of an occupational accident, because of a occupational illness, when they return to work. Their

In some cases they lose social benefits, less favourable social benefits are paid if the recruitment process fails, and the person concerned is not financially encouraged to continue to a full recovery, because a limited recovery sometimes costs more or equal to a large recovery. Therefore, a number of measures are proposed, where it is of particular importance not to undermine the person concerned financially when he resumes his work. Those measures guarantee the rights of workers and give the doctors concerned a greater role. These are important measures to ⁇ those objectives. Their

For many of these measures, the legal basis is laid in the law, but their concrete implementation will further have to be done by royal decrees. It is the purpose of the royal decrees, therefore of all those measures, to prevent a person who has made an effort to re-engage himself in the labour process, from falling in a socially less favourable situation than if he had done nothing. The proposed measures cover both disability and occupational diseases and accidents.

After the Minister’s explanation, I myself gave an explanation to the draft resolution with a view to eliminating inactivity cases. I will not stop on this further, because I will return to the resolution in my own presentation later.

Mr. Hans Bonte, chief promoter of the bill amending the law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts with a view to the recruitment of disabled workers, also gave an explanation.

Finally, Ms. Camille Dieu also gave an explanation to her bill amending the laws on compensation for occupational diseases, coordinated on 3 June 1970.

During the general discussion there was a presentation by Mrs D'hondt, who insisted on a concrete implementation of the law and of the measures proposed in the law. Mrs. De Block expressed positive views on the design. Mr D’Haeseleer also took the floor.

The Minister of Labour and Information Automation of the State thanked the committee members for their support for the bill. He also made some clarifications on a number of points.

The employee of the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health, in turn, gave more explanations on a number of issues proposed in the resolution regarding inactivity cases.

From the draft law, the various articles were then discussed. In the end, the bill was unanimously adopted.

Report of the discussions during the four committee meetings.

I would also like to speak on behalf of my own group, especially on the point of removing the falls of inactivity.

I myself have returned to this point several times. Within the framework of more people at work, one of the government objectives, and of the 200,000 jobs to which the Prime Minister subsequently referred, in the event of creating 200,000 jobs should be thought not only of healthy people but also of people who due to an occupational accident, occupational disease or other inability can no longer fully go to work, but still want to work and can also work partially.

Being able to work again is important. It provides better income for those involved. However, it is also important for the social contacts and for the well-feeling of the persons involved.

That is also the reason why I and Mrs Storms had submitted a resolution. I am very pleased that a large number of the difficulties we listed in the resolution are being addressed. This may not happen directly in the bill, but our points will, according to the explanation of the employee of Minister Demotte, still be included in the implementing decisions.

A first point relates to – please apologize for the last time I use that term – progressive employment. It is a term that is widely used, both in the administration and in the sector itself, and also by us here in Parliament. Their

Progressive employment is actually a terminology in which it seems that one must gradually work more and more, while it should mean a transition for people who are unable to work, who first partially resume and eventually return to work fully. Their

For some people, however, this is not the case. There are people who can only start working for a limited time or part-time and who will never get a full-time employment again. That is why it is necessary to give them that opportunity too. It is therefore a very good thing that the concept of progressive employment will disappear from the legislation, but above all also from the administrative practice, from the directives, from the language usage. Their

There were also problems for the self-employed. This is a all-or-no situation. Unlike in the employee scheme, a self-employed person is only entitled to disability benefits if he is 100% unemployed. This makes it difficult for self-employed persons who could still start working partially but maintain a certain degree of disability. We are also assured that there will be improvements to the system. Their

Finally, we are also very pleased that an important package of measures is being taken to ensure that starting to work is no longer punished financially. Those who receive disability benefits or other benefits, for example in the case of work accidents or occupational diseases, also benefit from a number of social or fiscal benefits. As a result, if they take the step back to work, they sometimes lose those tax or social benefits. As a result, they earn less money than if they didn’t work. It is therefore very important that measures are taken for this purpose. As we have heard, it will also be about the holiday fee, but ⁇ also about the increased satisfaction for the right to health care. Their

I have already said this too. The draft law itself does not contain much of these concrete measures yet, but the law provides the legal possibility to carry out this further by royal decree. I hope, as promised by the Minister, that Parliament will be further informed of this implementation, as it is still an important package of measures. We will ⁇ continue to follow this too.