Proposition 52K2069

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 8 mars 2007 créant un Conseil consultatif fédéral des Aînés.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Stefaan Vercamer, Hilâl Yalçin
LE Marie-Martine Schyns
MR Jean-Jacques Flahaux
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Camille Dieu

Submission date

June 22, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

elderly person social participation population ageing

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

July 9, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, this proposal, which brings technical corrections to a legal arrangement, I refer to my written report.

Three members signed up for the general discussion. First, I give the word to Mrs. Becq.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is said that this is a technical amendment but I think it is important to say that we are positive about the introduction of the Federal Advisory Council for Seniors. It is important that the elderly – we have also intervened on this issue several times with the Minister following the pension conference that she organizes – get a vote on those subjects that are important at the federal level.

There was a law – it is important to say that – but the problem that arose was ultimately that one encountered a number of problems in its concrete operationalization. For this reason, we have arranged an adjustment which, on the one hand, covers the composition and, on the other, a support cell, a secretariat.

We believe it is important that in the composition the representativity is discussed. This is also stated in the draft. Furthermore, there must be a balanced composition of language groups. We consider it important that the support of that advisory council can de facto come in so that they can function. We have submitted and supported this amendment.

It is an advisory board that extends beyond the Advisory Committee on Pensions. Eventually, the transition will be made and this committee will cease to exist when the Federal Advisory Council for Elders becomes operational. This advisory board should quickly become operational. With the approval of this proposal it will be possible to do so and that voice will be heard in the window of the pension conference.

Mr. Speaker, together with Mrs. Becq, I have ⁇ watched in the committee that the pluralist character of the Council will be ensured. The Federal Advisory Committee for the Pension Sector will be included. It will no longer exist separately. It is especially important that the Council can start as soon as possible. The Minister is not here, but she has assured us that now all technical obstacles have been removed.

Mevrouw De Maght stands on my sprekerslist, but I see her not. I give the floor to Mr. Gilkinet.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and exceptionally, I was not able to participate in the work of the Social Affairs Committee on this text, since I was in the Finance Committee for the two texts previously examined by Parliament. I must express our full support for this text that brings technical corrections but above all that will allow the establishment of the Federal Advisory Council of the Elderly. We find it important for every category of citizens, here for the elderly, to listen to what they have to say.

In particular, in the framework of the National Conference on Pensions and repeatedly, we regretted with Ms. Arena that the elderly, who are most concerned with the issue of pensions, have not been more closely associated with this important process which we look forward to for the return. Indeed, the challenge of financing today and tomorrow’s pensions is essential due to the context with, on the one hand, the repeated absence of allocations to the Aging Fund and, on the other hand, the ⁇ difficult fiscal economic situation.

In this context, it is essential to have such an organ as long as it can function satisfactorily and that it is not an empty shell. It is therefore important to me that the members of this Council can count on the necessary support to carry out relevant work. This does not depend on the text we are examining today, but on the follow-up that will be made to it. While supporting this text, we specifically ask the Minister of Pensions to give greater importance to the opinion of the elderly in the implementation of the pension policies and to provide this Federal Advisory Council of the Elderly with all the necessary means so that it is not an empty shell but works ideally and can effectively advise the government.

Mr. Speaker, for the colleagues who would no longer be present, I would like to point out that the bill proposed here for discussion was already on the agenda last week, before it was considered. You may remember that I made a comment on this.

We also had a brief discussion on this in the committee, Mr. Speaker, referring to you as the one who allowed to put something on the agenda of the Conference of Presidents before the proposal was considered here. It should be explained whether this is really so.

In any case, it is strange that the bill did not get a high urgency last week. You may still remember that. Seven days later, however, we end up in an emergency procedure. This is very strange.

I would like to explain to the colleagues who were not present in the committee what is the reason for this very high speed. After many years, there is now sudden clarity about the appointments to be made in that committee and in the Council of Seniors. Contrary to what you have said, Mrs. Becq, the Minister has remained ⁇ plain about the composition and balance you referred to.

I now see amendments coming, also from other colleagues, who are making another attempt to create clarity. I therefore deeply regret the absence of the Minister at the discussion in the plenary session, something that has yet to be approved by the majority par force. Only she can inform the Parliament of the correct composition, of the balance to be sought. That balance is not reflected in the proposal, and ⁇ not to the extent that Mrs. Becq and others say.

I think it would be interesting for the Minister to answer questions. I would also like to give an explanation for the fact that a bill that was not considered was already on the agenda. A bill that has not received a high urgency can still be approved here in such a procedure.

I would like to clarify some points. The element in which Mr. Bonte has just made reference to the urgency and consideration was based on a provisional agenda. The consideration took place and the committee decided, having regard to the final agenda, to proceed, by the vote of the President, to the analysis of the text.

In fact, we wanted to do so for two main reasons.

- The entry into force of this project is fixed on 1 January 2010, while budgetary considerations are related to the establishment of this advisory board. Therefore, the decision had to intervene now, in order to be able to discuss subsequently the budget that is linked to it.

Today, Mr. Gilkinet, is the National Conference on Pensions. Everyone is consulted. Therefore, we put a lot of hope in the proposals that will come out of it. I do not doubt the Minister’s willingness to reach a positive outcome in this matter.

Given the two amendments submitted today on the composition of the Advisory Board, I would like to point out that it has been the subject of numerous discussions within the committee, with submissions of amendments and proposals. We were unanimous in saying that it was deliberated in the Council of Ministers. Since he is what he is, he will always be able to say what he wants.

In other councils, we have taken care of both pluralism and linguistic balance. I would like to add, on the other hand, that we have not only two national languages in Belgium, but three!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain some of our voting behavior and also explain why we considered it necessary to submit this amendment today.

With this amendment we ask that it would indeed not be possible to send a delegation to the columns, the destruction, because we will ⁇ not cooperate with that. We ask that there simply be a reflection of the election result, as it is represented today in Parliament.

I would like to give a word of explanation. In Flanders, there is already the Flemish Elderly Consultation Committee, OOK. The German-speaking community also has a council for the elderly. At the federal level, there is today the Advisory Committee for the Pension Sector, which deals with the issue of pensions.

In fact, the bill contains the proposal to include in the Federal Advisory Committee the various elderly organisations from all Communities and Regions, as was the case in the Advisory Committee for the Pension Sector. It is now part of the larger whole, along with equal opportunities, social integration and the fight against disability, access to healthcare and mobility.

The Advisory Board may advise on its own initiative or at the request of the Federal Government or the Federal Parliament. This is described in the bill. What worries us most is that these recommendations are not binding. If one speaks of being demotivating or motivating, in order not to work demotivating, the body to whom the advice was addressed must give a motivated answer. But what powers does this federal advisory council have then? What is its use if the advice delivered is not binding, thus very non-binding?

Are these additional aid, I wonder, for the ministers, who deal with the specific dossiers as they are listed in the bill, so that in the eyes of the population, in fact, no additional cabinet staff should be recruited with the relevant knowledge for these subjects? This is a concern that I have not found a response, neither in the report nor in the bill as such. The members of the Board of Directors and of the Standing Committees shall participate in the decision-making of the Bureau whose composition the King determines.

We therefore advocate that the proposal, as we have amended it, be taken into account in such a way as to provide a correct representation of the election outcome as reflected here in Parliament today.

I actually agree that there should be some parity in the Council. A representation of all parties present in this House as a group must therefore be able within the bill. Otherwise, we find here a nice piece of dusty pollution policy, as we already find it in so many councils today. The best example of this I still find Child and Family, although that is a Flemish example of pollution policy.

We cannot approve this proposal because of the arguments put forward.

Madame God, when you say that everyone is now associated with the National Pension Conference, that’s not quite right. We can really be glad that the social partners are present, as they traditionally participate in the management of social security.

However, at least two actors are currently absent. In particular, I think of the representative associations of the elderly. I point out the paradox: on the one hand, a federal council is set up to collect their opinions and, on the other hand, they are not associated, at least in the front line, with the main construction site that concerns them. We have already had this discussion with the Minister of Pensions.

The other absent members are members of Parliament. However, this issue must gather a broad consensus. I understand that we discuss, in technical groups, very important information that is exchanged within the framework of the National Conference of Pensions and about the future of pensions. However, at some point, all this will need to be gathered and the contents of this work will be submitted to Parliament and its Social Affairs Committee. It must be allowed to build that consensus that is missing today on the future of our pensions and on how to mobilize to finance them sustainably so that the elderly live with a decent income.

In the second phase, this conclusion phase will need to be provided. I have no doubt that the Minister has thought about it. There is no need to ask for the word to say it.

I just wanted to make that clarification. At this point, two actors are not associated. I hope they will at one time or another. This is important if we want to be strong in defending the pensions of today and tomorrow!

Mr. Gilkinet, I don’t see how it can be different after the National Pension Conference. If a decision is to be made, whatever it is, it goes back to the legislative power!

Does anyone ask for the word?

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Bonte, you asked a question regarding the way the proposal came on the committee’s agenda. The committee has decided that, Mr. Bonte. The proposal has been considered.

There was an emergency request. That urgent request was not stopped, in particular because of the consideration that the chairman of the committee had already put the proposal on the agenda pro memorie. Then the committee discussed the proposal and we are now discussing it in plenary. I really do not see the problem.

I will try to explain it again.

You explained it to me, but I do not see the problem and what this changes to any extent to the discussion today in plenary. I can imagine that those who have advocated the urgency have at the same time met with satisfaction that the proposal was immediately discussed as the first item on the agenda. Again, that is the responsibility of the Commission.

I will try to explain it again. Maybe I will say something else. I think we should all be aware that the rules of the game in this Parliament are to be respected to protect this Parliament. What we have experienced is that on the agenda, which was approved by the Conference of Presidents last Wednesday, the bill was effectively scheduled. The next day, we discussed the consideration. Something very strange because actually a bill, which formally did not exist yet, was already on the agenda.

This seems like a small formalism, but in fact the essence is that here again the government, or part of the government, uses the Parliament to get something approved and voted very quickly, independent of the regulations and independent of the procedures.

You will also have noticed in Ms. Dieu’s explanation that she is constantly referring to what the government wants. We have seen amendments of which I have questioned the applicant about the content. There was always a reference to the government. I do not allow the government to take initiatives. I prefer not to ask. Our Social Affairs Committee has been turning fingers for weeks because nothing comes from the government.

I come to my substantive point. If one asks the applicants or the minister what is going on with that balanced distribution, then one part of this Parliament believes to have heard something while another part says that there is absolutely no clarity about that balanced distribution. We do not even have the opportunity to question the government in this debate.

I would therefore like to ask you to suspend so that the Minister can be summoned and he can give clarification on that crucial point.

We look at the second element of your comment, independently of the substance of the case.

First, the bill has been discussed and has been approved in the committee. As for the way of working in the committee: all committees organize their own work. A majority of voters decided to discuss the proposal.

Second, you say you want the minister to come to the hemisphere to give an explanation. In short, you are advancing Mrs. Arena, although the government is now represented by Minister De Crem. Are you advancing the minister? The Chamber must decide on this. Is your request supported by eight members?

There are two ministers present, but the claim is directed to Minister Arena. More than eight members appear to ask for a general vote.

You are not asking for a general vote, you are asking for the arrival of Minister Arena?

We decide to sit and get up. Whoever is for is right. We also do the counter-test.

The request is rejected by sitting and standing up.

The request is rejected by sitting and rising.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I find it a strange case that is thus ignored by the need for answers due to the minister about this text which seems to be very close to her heart. If I hear her own group like that, she is also urged by her to treat them quickly.

I also want to come back to the beginning. I want to hear from you formally – if necessary, you can let it be visited, but then I also want to have it on paper – how can it, and where our Rules of Procedure allow, that a proposal not considered, or in other words a non-existent bill, may appear on the agenda of a committee meeting as approved? A committee meeting cannot, in my opinion, agenda legislation that formally does not exist.

I would like to have a clear and rules-based answer from you, because I think that is simply not possible.

I can send it to you with data. Based on what I know now – I don’t have all the documents with me – the proposal pro memorie has been placed on the committee’s agenda. The next day it was considered. You even asked for the urgency. It was discussed and approved after consideration. This is a long story about formalism.

Mr. Speaker, formalism is something different from asking for a normal handling of legislative proposals and procedures of Parliament. If you say that this pro memory was on the calendar, then I want to see that calendar that is listed "pro memory". In the other case, somehow in this Parliament the agenda of a committee was approved, on which was a bill that at that time did not even exist. Either it was pro memory, or there is something wrong with the whole treatment of this bill. Then the whole story is kaduuk.

Mr. Tobback, do you agree with me that we considered the bill in plenary? You have even asked for the urgency. The urgency is requested at a certain moment. I remember that one of the considerations to not go into the urgency was that there was a majority in the committee to discuss the bill immediately.

To shorten a long story, the committee decided by a majority to discuss the bill. The Minister was present in that committee and gave the answers she gave. I am not speaking about it. The bill received a majority in the committee. It was approved and went to the Conference of Presidents. The question then arose whether it could be added to the agenda of the plenary session today. There was unanimity in the Conference of Presidents to discuss this today. You are asking for the presence of the Minister. I will let the Chamber speak about it. There is no majority to call the minister here. In that case, I respect the rules of the game, whether you like it or not.