Proposition 53K3007

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses urgentes en matière de législation sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Sept. 16, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

occupational accident occupational disease inland waterway shipping civil procedure family benefit pension scheme social-security contribution social-security benefit social security public health unemployment health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

Nov. 21, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr Stefaan Vercamer, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep my presentation, but I have prepared a series of questions for the Secretary of State. There is no minister here.

The Minister of Justice is present.

OK, but the Secretary of State is not present. I will not get answers to my questions.

Mr Sminate, the government is represented. This is what is planned.

Yes, but will I receive answers to my questions from Mrs. Turtelboom?

Put them and you will see well!

Madame Turtelboom, please sit down! You represent the government and you listen to the questions of Ms. Sminate!

The government is represented.

Mr. Speaker, I will now submit to you our amendment.

Minister Turtelboom, I thank you now for responding to my questions later.

In the bill proposed by the Secretary of State in the committee, he effectively puts his finger on the wound related to the increase in the number of disabled. This year we have reached the 700 000 threshold, of which 400 000 are primarily disabled and 300 000 are disabled. The Secretary of State has rightly expressed its concern about this. He said it was time to take measures in this regard. Since I totally agreed with this, I was very curious about the measures that would be taken.

The solution to that major social problem appears to be a name change, more specifically a name change of the committee that assesses the disabled. I have repeatedly asked in the committee what the benefit of this is. How will the number of 700 000 disabled people be reduced by changing the name of a committee? I have not received an answer to that question, so maybe the answer will come from you, Mrs. Minister.

Another measure that the government will take to address this problem is the data flow between the advising physicians and the RIZIV, so actually between the health funds and the RIZIV. I try to understand that, but with all the good will of the world, I wonder how that flow of information took place in the past.

I find it a very strange course of affairs, but if you promise me that the answers will come, I will continue my argument.

In 2015, a database will be established that will allow RIZIV to have information about disabled persons. I find it troubling to read and to hear from the Secretary of State that RIZIV today is unable to dispose of that information. I do not understand how in the past the policy was conducted on this issue. I find it very understandable that the group of unemployed increases year after year.

The second part of this bill is about enabling volunteer work for civil servants. We consider that a very good measure. We are absolutely supportive of that. However, there is an inequality between officials and employees, in particular with regard to the control of the latter group. However, I will not extend this now.

Another last comment. I submitted an amendment because there is a legal-technical problem with this bill. After all, it is stuck to an article that has nothing to do with the matter at all. I have submitted an amendment to resolve this.

I am looking forward to the answers I will receive now.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the responsible Secretary of State is on the way. He stopped for a moment, but he is on his way. I suspect the colleague will prefer to hear the answer from his mouth. He followed the case best.

Then I must repeat my whole explanation, because he did not hear my questions.

The [...]

I am really curious then.

This is not a way of working. I would have been allowed to intervene when the Secretary of State was there.

Mr. Speaker, in general, I am ⁇ satisfied with the way you lead this Chamber, but now I am scared for a moment. It is no more than logical, and we have always had the tradition that when a bill is discussed, the competent minister or secretary of state is present. We wanted to wait until he was here.

The [...]

The government is present, yes. However, Mrs. Turtelboom can hardly be blamed for not knowing the answer. You cannot know everything if you follow government policy. As Ms. Sminate correctly notes, it would be better that you suspend the meeting until the Secretary of State is here and that we then continue the meeting. This is not quite serious, I think.

I really interrupt. We are waiting for the Secretary of State. I move on to the next project. I’m not happy with the absence of the Secretary of State, but I can’t go and get him manu militari. I have two MPs there, I can't send them. The Secretary of State arrives. We suspend the general discussion. In the meantime, we will begin the discussion of the next project.