Proposition 53K2953

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 mars 2001 instituant la garantie de revenus aux personnes âgées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 16, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation elderly person civil union guaranteed income pension scheme

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

Nov. 7, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

The President, Mr The president wants enthusiasm. There will be, but not only.

Mr. Minister, I have spoken quite positively in the Social Affairs Committee on this project – you have witnessed it. When things are right, you have to be able to say it. But that does not mean that we have validated this government’s policy on pensions since the beginning of the legislature. Even if the balance sheet time has not yet come, we will keep in mind the December 2011 reform as a reform that will affect the weakest and which risks leading to an even higher level of poverty among pensioners, and ⁇ among pensioners, due to the reform of the assimilated periods.

This does not mean that we do not retain some questions about this project – I will return to it – nor that we do not want improvements to the text, in particular with regard to the re-examination of the situations of potential beneficiaries, given that the Income Guarantee for Older Persons (Grapa) is a right not exercised by all who could benefit from it. This situation is regularly highlighted by the Pension Ombudsman.

I repeat what I emphasized in the committee: this project is positive in that it clarifies and simplifies situations from an administrative point of view, which will satisfy both rightholders and civil servants; the administration will thus be able to devote itself to other tasks, such as the revision of legal situations of persons affected by the Grapa.

This project is also positive because it better takes into account certain situations of cohabitation that constitute new forms of solidarity, important in terms of housing policy: access to the status of isolated is facilitated in the case of sharing a housing without putting together their means of living or survival. Let us also emphasize the specific measure for rightful survivors who continue their lives in a rest home or a rest and care home.

We also emphasized that this project constituted a step forward, though timid, towards the individualization of rights, one of our great demands on social security.

In this regard, I open a parenthesis: the level of the Grapa is below the poverty threshold for entitled recipients who cannot accumulate their income from isolated. It will be necessary to pay attention to it very quickly because the beneficiaries of the Grapa are people who really need it to survive.

But we still have questions. As a committee, we have submitted an amendment which I defend again here: we regret the non-adoption of the principle of automatic review of grapa rights. This is repeatedly stated by the Pension Ombudsman. In fact, it suggests conducting an administrative review of files at least every five years – this period seems to us to be very long in the life of a pensioner. We propose to include in the text this suggestion of verification as an obligation for the National Office of Pensions (ONP) so that no one entitled to the Grapa will miss the opportunity to benefit from it.

Mr. Minister, the Federal Plan Office recently published a study entitled The Evolution of Poverty Risk in Older Persons reviewed closer. In this study, the Plan Office notes that despite the sharp improvement in the protection provided by minimum income to the elderly over the past decade, there has not been a clear decrease in the risk of poverty for the elderly population as a whole during the period 2003-2010.

To explain this finding, the Plan Bureau highlights three elements, including the fact that some elderly people who would be eligible do not apply for the Grapa. To overcome this obstacle, we therefore propose an automatic five-year review of rights. I hope that, in this plenary discussion, we will be able to obtain a majority on this suggestion that we had made in the committee.

I would like to highlight, as I did in the Social Affairs Committee, the uncertainty that prevails with regard to the implementation of the measure relating to the extension of the Grapa to nationals of the countries that have signed the Charter of the Social Insured.

Although the bill provides for this principle of extending access to the Grapa to nationals of foreign countries signed by the Charter of the Social Insured, there is no date for the implementation of the entry into force of this right. The State Council emphasizes this in its opinion.

I questioned you and you were more than vague in your response to a commitment that could be taken to set a final date. We proposed a date by amendment. I have somewhere the impression that you are opening a right but that you do not want to implement it. Could you, as part of your response in the plenary session, be more explicit than you were in the Social Affairs Committee?

I would like to emphasize one more important element, which was only superficially addressed in the Social Affairs Committee, and to highlight the lack of accurate budgetary data and the lack of a case description in the context of the statement of reasons and the debate in the Social Affairs Committee.

Who will win? Who will lose? But most importantly, will this reform not put more families in trouble? In fact, we are addressing the question of a very particular regime that should enable older people to escape the risk of poverty.

Nothing makes it possible, in particular as regards the measure to eliminate the inclusion of grandchildren in the divider for the calculation of the income of potential beneficiaries.

In the committee, you explained that the aim was to combat some abuses in the matter. It is not for me to defend abuse, far from that, but I am convinced that abuse must be combated in a particular way, rather than applying a general rule that could put in difficulty families who practice a form of solidarity that is the reception of grandchildren by their grandparents.

You explained that this was a way of bypassing the rule, a form of social engineering. I am a little surprised by this calculation, because if parents decide to put their children in charge of their own parents, that is, grandparents, they are no longer in charge, which represents a tax cost. They no longer receive family allowances. Also, I do not perceive the advantage other than the fact of possibly benefiting from the Grapa.

Other colleagues were also concerned about the lack of clear projections on the savings estimated by this measure. I have the impression that this general measure could cause social damage and put families in trouble.

Together with my colleague Wouter De Vriendt, we propose a form of buffer measurement, which would allow for a year, in anticipation of a possible judicial decision, to actually count as family members grandchildren who would be welcomed by their grandparents. You know that in Belgium, a judicial decision in terms of child care, as in others, is not taken in a fist of fingers. Thus, we could have some sort of buffer, some sort of depreciation and a possibility of obtaining these rights. These are generally families that greatly need this income guarantee to the elderly to feed, warm themselves or allow, in this case, grandchildren to go to school.

I have the impression that the general measure you propose here could have undesirable side effects, which is why we are submitting an amendment aimed at mitigation.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, our group supports the bill that will drastically simplify the granting and calculation of the income guarantee for the elderly and restrict unwanted use.

The Elderly Income Guarantee is today granted to people who are 65 years old or older and have not accumulated sufficient pension rights. The IGO is not a pension, but like the living wage, a aid benefit. Currently, approximately 96,300 Belgians enjoy an IGO. As a cohabitant, you may be entitled to a sum of approximately 675 euros or as a single, you may be entitled to an increased amount of 1 011 euros.

In order to obtain an IGO, all the means of subsistence of the person concerned must first be mapped. Today, all the means of subsistence of the applicant and of other people living at the same address are combined. It is not always easy to do that research. Furthermore, if a person who also resides at the address does not want to participate in the income survey, the person concerned unfortunately does not receive an IGO, even if he would be entitled to it. In addition, if there is a change in the situation, a new examination should be carried out each time. That is very troubling.

Everyone agrees that granting aid should be done in a simple, transparent way, preferably automatically. For the time being, this is already the case for a large group, for example for those who are 65 years old and then retire and for those who have retired early since 2010. There is now a recovery operation for another group.

With the present draft, we take a step in the right direction towards the individualization of the IGO rights, without undermining the existing solidarity within a family or between generations. For example, elderly persons living with their children or grandchildren and elderly persons living with their parents or grandparents will soon have to declare only their own resources.

Today, they are at risk of losing their income guarantee for the elderly if they move to live with their children. Fortunately, this will no longer be the case from January 1. Even those who live together with a major who is not the spouse or legal partner will in the future only have to prove their own means of subsistence.

This system will also provide greater continuity and certainty for IGO beneficiaries. The right to an IGO will no longer have to be reviewed repeatedly if there is a change in the number of persons who share the same main place of residence.

We are also very pleased that there is more clarity about the arrangement for admission in a rest house or rest or care home. We have asked questions about this and the Minister has confirmed to me that the State Pension Service can always be asked for a simulation of the consequences of the choice of domicile at home or at the address of the disruption. After the response of the State Pension Service, the person concerned can still change his address if, for example, it turns out to be more advantageous to have the domicile at home or, vice versa, to have the domicile at the resting address. With retroactive effect, the most advantageous benefit will be paid.

The new arrangement also ensures that the new dossiers at the Riksdienst für Pensionen will be handled faster and more efficiently and that there will be a recovery operation for those who retired before 1 July 2001: all those dossiers are examined for the right to an IGO. Initially, this research would take four years, but I’m glad it is reduced to less than two by a better method. I would also like to urge that this recovery operation be carried out quickly: this is how we give people the right to an IGO. They are entitled to it and do not have it yet. I would like to ask that this be done quickly, not just for those who have retired or retired early since July 2001.

If within two years that collection operation is completed, the new group of older pensions should also be examined. For those who retired before July 1, 2001, the files are not yet automatically examined. I ask that after getting rid of the current backwardness, work on the new records of older people with an older retirement. Who knows, they also have the right to an IGO and they don’t know it. We are not alone with that question: also a lot of civil society organisations such as Welzijnszorg, OKRA, the health funds and the OCMWs are asking parties to automate the investigation into the IGO and make it an automatic right.

We are realistic. I know that it is currently not feasible and that you are undergoing a collection operation. Therefore, we will first have to complete the collection operation before we can examine new files in more detail.

In the meantime, it is very important that there is clear information. I therefore call for a good information campaign on this new scheme, which will start on 1 January 2014. Many people are now in a different situation, but the new arrangement will be able to get an increased response, which they do not know. If they do not apply, they will not receive the increase.

Therefore, at least it must be ensured that there is really good information, so that everyone knows what he or she may be entitled to and anyone may request a simulation or a new re-calculation.

In the long run, everyone should get an automatic award of the IGO right, which we consider important. However, the automatic award will be work for the coming years.

The second part of the present draft extends the right to the IGO or income guarantee for the elderly to all residents of the Member States which have signed the European Social Charter and also signed the new or amended European Social Charter.

This specifically means that it is not just about countries that belong to the European Union or to the European Economic Area; people with a nationality of countries that have signed the revised European Social Charter – Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Turkey, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine – who live in Belgium and are 65 years old are entitled to the IGO, even if they have never worked here and have not contributed a day to our social security. It is not a system of social security, but a system of assistance.

We may regret this, but that is what Europe imposes on us. Therefore, we must implement the measure, which, by the way, is already happening in other European countries.

This will have a serious impact on our budget. The question is only when.

I asked the same question in the committee. You then answered that the government will determine the deadline by royal decree. The royal decision has not yet been made. Therefore, we do not yet know when we will have to grant the right to the IGO to all the nationals of the Member States concerned.

In any case, Europe is imposing the measure on us. We will have to implement the measure sooner or later anyway.

That we need to do this, therefore, is certain. In particular, we would like to insist on tackling possible abuses. The IGO is a system of assistance and every system of assistance – I also mention the living wage – is intended to guarantee people that they can live decently and not end up in poverty. A system of assistance, such as a living wage or the IGO for pensioners, is not intended to start living generously in another country, where life is much less expensive. Therefore, our law stipulates that the beneficiary can stay abroad for a maximum of one month per year.

However, these controls are currently too limited. Our group therefore calls for an investment in tackling abuse, in controls, so that we should not one day throw the child with the bath water for abuse. The system is good, but it is and remains a aid system, intended to prevent people from falling into poverty. It is not intended to abuse it. We therefore demand effective and more efficient controls, so that the chance of package increases.

There are cases where persons must travel abroad for more than a month, but for those cases a application can be submitted. Per ⁇ we need to re-examine whether the processing of those requests proceeds smoothly enough. If it is a truly well-motivated application, for example if a beneficiary needs to go abroad for health reasons or for justified reasons, then it should be possible. However, we must avoid, especially with the expansion to all those countries, that we will grant assistance tomorrow to people who have barely lived here, for example, who have come to live here temporarily to eradicate the IGO and then return to their country of origin, because then we pay for people who do not live in Belgium. That would be a manifest abuse.

Mr. Minister, we urge that you prefer to prevent these abuses and, if necessary, effectively punish when they occur.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I said this on behalf of the PS Group in committee: the overall philosophy of this project is positive. It includes elements of simplification and elements of clarification of rights for Grapa beneficiaries. This is an opportunity to recall that, in our country, not far from 100,000 pensioners aged 65 and over benefit from this income guarantee to the elderly, either, in the vast majority of cases, as a supplement to a pension and survival pension, or, in a few rare cases, as a substitute for a lack of right acquired in our social security system. This is why this Grapa diet is called the last safety net for seniors. It is also ultimately a fundamental tool of fighting against the precariousness of this social group, of this age group, which, it must be recalled, is no longer able to be at the command of its means of existence.

We talked about the poverty threshold of the elderly. Between 2005 and 2009, the proportion of seniors living with incomes below the poverty line decreased. It was 23.2% in 2005. It fell below 20 % (19,4 %) in 2009 on the basis of 2008 revenue to back, unfortunately, to 20.2 % in 2010. This means that in our country, one in five seniors live with an income below the poverty line. It can of course be compared with neighboring countries, but it remains a daily struggle for all those who are in this situation.

The law of 1976 states that in Belgium, everyone has the right to social assistance and this to allow him to live in accordance with human dignity. This also implies that this regime was established for the elderly, precisely in order not to increase the burden of the public centres of social action.

This is quite fundamental compared to a provision that is contrary to the philosophy of our social assistance system, namely this condition of 312 days of work equivalent to full-time which is imposed on certain categories of immigrants in order to benefit from the Grapa.

Thus, the victims are nationals of a State party to the Social Charter of Turin, while the 2009 law extends the scope of the Grapa to nationals of the signatories of the Charter. This law awaits an enforcement decision that, unfortunately, has not yet been adopted. The project postpones the entry into force of this international commitment.

The budgetary motivation does not exhaust the fact that a social insurance condition has been introduced in order to be eligible for social assistance.

That being said, I come to some of the important changes to the law that I said were positive.

There is the individualization of social rights in a number of cases, a ⁇ complex but important topic. This is a requirement for our group and we are taking steps in that direction. Thus, for example, you extend the granting of the amount increased to the entitled person who cohabits with his parents in direct upward line. You also equate the legal cohabitant to an ally.

As has emerged from committee debates, it is difficult to combine a policy of social justice with the spirit of our Civil Code which has been recalled in our debates and which concerns a few million married people.

In any case, a step has been taken in this individualization of rights. This project completes solidarity between generations but also marks a turning point in what has been agreed to call the globalization of household resources.

Mr. Minister, you are invited to overcome the carcass of this configuration of civil law, this “civilist” configuration – I don’t know if I can call it this way – of the family for a full investment in social equality for all. In the calculation of the Grapa, if you remove, rightly according to our group, the accounting of the resources of the factual cohabitants who very often live as if they were married, there is no reason not to do the same for married spouses.

Let us be explained how a contract of marriage or legal cohabitation justifies a globalized treatment of income compared to a problem of individual emancipation and daily precariousness!

Then, your reform regarding admissions in rest homes is also positive. There could have been numbered examples, but this change will be such as to avoid a sudden breakdown of income due to the compulsory choice of the place of living. These are couples where one of the spouses must live in a rest home, care home or in a psychiatric institution. Finally, this modification ensures that this reality is respected by balancing the income of legal spouses, but, again, it is not consistent with the principle of individual rights.

There is also a device that aims to end certain abuses such as the domiciliation with a recipient of a grandchild, minor of age or major, who benefits from family allowances, this domiciliation influencing the calculation of the Grapa. Abusive practices must of course be combated for reasons of fairness, but this inevitable linear measure denies certain factual situations. There are cases where grandparents actually host and actually take care of their grandchildren. As I said in the commission, we must unfortunately find that abuse of rights kills the right in this case.

Mr. Minister, I will conclude by insisting on the component of automation of rights, which is not specifically discussed here. This is done for new applications but there are still a number of people who either did not apply to benefit from a Grapa supplement at the time of their retirement, or were not in the conditions and would possibly be today. Given the resources available to these persons, it would be possible to go back to the records of the past to grant the right to the Grapa for all pensioners who meet the conditions to be able to benefit from it.

Our group will support this bill that will allow both simplification and social progress in favor of the elderly. It is not perfect, it is possible to go further, but we must voluntarily continue to grant automatic rights to those who can benefit from them.

This project concrete attention for our pensioners, especially those who are in a situation of precariousness.

We have discussed this for a while in the committee. In that committee we also received some new data, and therefore we would like to ask you a few questions again here.

First and foremost, the proposed bill is largely positive, as it sets a number of steps in the right direction. Thus, the bill extends the IGO to legal cohabitants and is also a step towards greater individualization of social rights, as a number of categories of cohabitants are regarded as single by the IGO. This is obviously positive, especially if we look at the amounts of the income guarantee for the elderly.

Colleagues, the IGO is a minimum safety net for those over 65 who have too low pensions to get around. In our country, one in five seniors are disabled. The IGO is an absolutely necessary lever. Let me go back to the amounts. A single person receives 1 011,70 euros and for a co-habitant the benefit is 674,46 euros. The amount of the IGO for cohabitants is still below the poverty line. So if we want to do something about the poverty of our elderly, we need to take a number of steps.

Therefore, we expected that the bill would take some definitive steps in that direction. The bill does not do that entirely and actually we were alarmed by a figure that we have heard in the committee. Together with a number of colleagues, I asked what was the budgetary impact of the bill. Then you said that the bill will result in €1.2 million in additional expenses and €1.5 million in savings. In other words, the bill actually leads to a profit of €0.3 million.

This is strange, because if we really want to take a serious step in the direction of a stronger social policy with this bill, then we could think that the government has made choices, set priorities and made a surcharge for the protection of the poverty of the seniors. Therefore, this is not the case. We were alarmed and then we looked for the reason why the government thinks to save. We analyzed the bill and found a reason. There is a risk that the draft law comes with it. We would like to ask your opinion on this.

The bill stipulates that children are no longer included in the calculation of income to determine whether someone is entitled to the IGO, except when it comes to their own children or children placed according to a court decision. The intent of the proposers of the draft law is very clearly to counter alleged fraud by registering minors with their grandparents. They are included in the income calculation of the grandparents, increasing the likelihood that they are entitled to an income guarantee for the elderly.

However, it is perfectly possible that children and grandchildren are registered with their grandparents, without that being the result of a court decision or without having to do with abuse. I will give a few concrete examples. In case of hospitalization problems, the children can be accommodated with their grandparents. This can also happen in a difficult social or family situation that requires temporary measures. Even then, grandchildren can be placed with their grandparents. It is not about abuse. I think you can agree with this. It is also not a judicial decision. I think you can agree with this too. I am a little afraid that that category of persons in your bill falls among the mazes of the net. No matter how good the intentions are to effectively combat abuse, I believe that a certain category of persons will be affected by it.

Therefore, we need an amendment to make it clear that in certain cases it is still logical and necessary to include grandchildren in the calculation, in a temporary manner, in order to be taken into account for the right to the IGO.

In short, we would like to propose with this amendment that grandchildren should indeed be included in the calculation of the resources, for one year from the moment they are domesticated with the grandparents, precisely to provide a response to such temporary situations, which really occur and which have nothing to do with abuse or with a judicial decision. In this way, we want to respond to the actual risk that the draft law entails.

We submit the second amendment because we consider the draft a missed opportunity. We would like to add something related to the definition of the income guarantee for the elderly. Many more seniors are entitled to the IGO than they actually get the IGO. In other words, there is a underuse of the system. Much has to do with the fact that the IGO is only recently automatically awarded to those who reach 65 years of age. The automatic search is still relatively new. It comes down to the fact that for a large group of individuals the right to the IGO was never examined. Therefore, a recovery operation is needed, which is currently underway.

Because the family situation or the property situation can change, it is necessary that an automatic survey is conducted every five years to verify whether older pensioners are entitled to the income guarantee for seniors. With this, I fully agree with colleague Lanjri, who also calls for an automatic review every five years to see whether older people are entitled to the IGO, due to a changed family situation or a changed property situation. If Ms Lanjri is consistent, she can only support our amendment. This is amendment No. 6 of 6.

She is no longer in the hall, but I assume her colleagues will pass it on. Colleagues of CD&V, say to Mrs. Lanjri that she amendment n. 6 should support, even if the group does not. She must actually support it, because she has just said in her argument that she also considers it so important that there will be an automatic legal investigation with regard to the IGO.

This is also stated in the Annual Report and the Annual Report. It is considered a very logical measure. Therefore, we would like to put them to vote with our amendment.

Mr Minister, what is the conclusion? With the draft we sign for a fairly good reform, but the text carries a risk and is a missed opportunity. Therefore, we would like to put two corrections on the table, with amendments, because we are a constructive group.

If these amendments are supported, we can support the bill. If that is not the case, we remain with our nuanced position. You know that a nuanced position can never lead to a yes vote or a blank check. We are forced to abstain from voting on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this project is going in the right direction and it is unnecessary to repeat all the arguments in its favor.

I would like to emphasize two points. First, I think it is important and fair to ensure that the small number of very old people currently receiving the guaranteed minimum income that the Grapa new mouth would not be more advantageous to them. I talked about this in the committee and I hope you can confirm that you will commit the ONP to act in this direction.

The Royal Decree concerning the exchange of data between the SPF Finances and the ONP should then be finalised. Indeed, its entry into force would allow for no negligible savings, which was not achieved in 2013; however, it could be a sum approximately 20 million euros, obtained without harming the citizen but by optimizing management.

We will vote in favour of this text.

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank all the speakers: they all supported the fact that our project was going in the right direction. This is always a pleasure to hear!

I would like to highlight, in my view, the four major benefits of the changes we are implementing here.

First, it is a very strong simplification for IGO beneficiaries. Today, there are many cases where IGO beneficiaries rely on the goodwill of third parties to obtain an investigation and thus the IGO. Now that chance is significantly reduced. This is good for the IGO beneficiaries.

It is also a very great simplification for the State Pension Service, which will now have to investigate the livelihoods of cohabitants much less frequently. Much of the simplification that takes place there will result in more people being able to do a survey to see if those who have not yet received the research are entitled to the IGO. As cited by a number of speakers, today there is a delay of about four years to be able to examine everyone. With this reform, we believe that we can reduce the downturn to less than two years.

A third important element is that we can get rid of a number of unwanted effects. Mr. Gilkinet and De Vriendt emphasized in their speech that there would be alleged abuse of the IGO. I disagree with the word “imposed.” When we talk to the administration, they stress that there is widespread established abuse of the IGO, ⁇ with regard to registering grandchildren with IGO rightholders who in fact would not have any right to the IGO. This proposal will significantly reduce the possibility of misuse of the IGO.

One last element that I think is important is the thorough modernisation of the IGO legislation so that it fits the new forms of coexistence. In addition to marriage, we also consider legal cohabitation. We also take into account that there are people who are entitled to the IGO that let their parents live with them. This is happening more and more often today because people are getting older. These new forms of coexistence should not have any negative effects.

Then I would like to add a few elements in response to the questions.

First, the budget estimate. I have made it very clear in the committee that the budget estimate is rather incomplete because it is difficult to gather sufficient numbers. However, I would like to emphasize that this reform is not aimed at saving in the IGO. This reform aims at achieving a more correct application of the IGO.

However, I would like to clarify the figures I have quoted. As a result of the new definition of cohabitation, there would indeed be a reduction in spending of 1.7 million. The additional exemption that would come, by royal decree of course, of 5 000 euros would result in a surcharge of 1 million. The implementation of the revised European Social Charter would result in additional costs of EUR 1.2 million. Taking these numbers together, one cannot say that this was a savings.

With regard to persons who have to go to a rest or care home, it is indeed the case that one can change the address change, if it is not advantageous, with retroactive effect in the Reichsregister. I said it already: this will lead to an acceleration of the investigation of the IGO.

The priority today should be to remove the backwardness. Once we have removed the backwardness, we can look at how further research should be done. The first priority is to eliminate the backwardness. The idea of already deciding to investigate everyone every five years seems to me not feasible today. Our estimates today say that this would be a serious surplus and would lead to more people doing research.

I would also like to remind you that today, with every change in the civil state, one looks at its influence on the IGO. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that changes can take place without the impact on the IGO being quantified.

I am amending the amendment to allow grandchildren to be charged as a charge. There are two answers to this.

If the grandchildren were placed with the grandparents, this is, of course, a different situation. If they were placed, they are indeed charged and they are equated with children who are still receiving child allowance.

There is also another situation where parents are in charge of their children. If grandparents then come to live with that family, it is of course not intended that this would have an impact on obtaining the IGO or on a change in the IGO amounts.

I would like to decide on the following. Since the introduction of the IGO we have succeeded in reducing the number of pensioners who are in poverty. The Study Committee on Ageing has also very clearly emphasized the positive influence of the IGO. I think that this makes it very clear that we intend to maintain the system of the IGO, but above all that we want to strengthen its effectiveness and ensure that those who are entitled to it continue to have a right to it now and in the future.

Thank you for your reply, but I would like to clarify my question.

Of course, abuse should be addressed, if your administration says there is abuse. We agree on this. However, I would like to keep in mind that in your bill, a certain group of people threatens to fall into the mazes of the net and threatens to get into trouble. It is about the situation where grandchildren live with their grandparents, not after a court decision, but because of a temporary urgency, such as hospitalization of the parents or an urgent, exceptional family situation. In that case, those grandchildren will not be taken into account to determine whether the grandparents are entitled to the IGO or not. Those grandparents will face too low amounts, because in fact they have children in charge.

Your draft law is well-intentioned and definitely puts steps in the right direction, but it carries a large risk. We must remedy this. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment that allows to charge the grandchildren for one year. That is a fair compromise and addresses the inherent risk contained in your bill. We therefore request that this amendment be approved.

If such a situation arises in which the parents remain in the hospital and the children need to be temporarily taken care of, it does not seem to me that the grandparents want to make money out of it by wanting to get or see the IGO increase. If the situation is not temporary, but lasts half a year, a year or more, and the grandparents enjoy a low pension and have additional costs, then nothing prevents them from applying for the IGO and having it calculated.

We should also not propose situations that will not happen in practice. If grandchildren are with their grandparents for a few weeks or a little longer, for the holiday, for example, it is not intended to apply for the IGO. Usually, the costs for the grandchildren are further borne by their parents. After all, it is still the parents who are responsible for their children and the maintenance of their children.

We are not saying that grandparents must suddenly bear the costs of the grandchildren. Let us not forget that parents are liable to maintenance. This must continue to count in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify two elements.

First, Mr De Vriendt, you emphasized that this is a temporary situation. If you say that, you actually tell yourself how difficult it would be for the State Pension Service to calculate a temporary IGO or a temporary adjustment of the IGO for each temporary situation. This is practically almost impossible.

Second, I would like to emphasize that in such situations grandchildren remain financially burdened by their parents. It is not because parents, for example, are in the hospital that they would no longer be financially burdened by their children. That does not change. If one would change the IGO, one would create a double system. That is not the intention.

Mrs. Lanjri, we do not say that grandparents want to make money from the fact that their grandchildren live with them. Mr. Minister, we also do not say that each individual temporary situation should be taken into account. Our amendment is specifically aimed at giving grandparents whose grandchildren still live with them a income guarantee for the elderly for one year. We offer a standard solution for temporary situations.

I would like to believe you when you say that children remain in charge of their parents, but there will be situations where grandparents will bear the financial burden. There will be situations where it is not about a few days but about a few months, while there is no court ruling and therefore it is not about a placement.

I do not share your optimism and I fear that certain categories of persons will fall into the mazes of the net. I would like to ask you to establish a protective mechanism through our second amendment.