Proposition 53K3340

Projet de loi portant modification de la loi du 25 avril 1963 sur la gestion des organismes d'intérêt public de sécurité sociale et de prévoyance sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative structures management transfer of competence regions and communities of Belgium family benefit social-security harmonisation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) voted to adopt.
• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Fouad Lahssaini (Ecolo) 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 ¶

Feb. 27, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Van Grootenbrulle returns to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, in the framework of the sixth state reform, it was decided to transfer the matter surrounding family allowances to the counties. Despite some technical comments we made when discussing the texts surrounding the state reform and the fact that some aspects of family policy, such as the tax modalities, remain federal, we absolutely do not want to minimize this transfer.

This is the first time, and I ⁇ hope not the last time, that a branch of our social security is transferred to the states. The Finance Act presupposes a budget of 6 403 683 360 euros for family allowances in 2013. The conditions for the removal were set out in the government agreement. Among them was the entry into the Constitution of the right to family allowance. This part has been discussed and approved in the Committee on Institutional Affairs and in the plenary sessions of the Senate and Chamber.

The equalization of family allowance between self-employed and self-employed is the subject of the present draft law. The harmonisation of the arrangements for family allowances for employees and self-employed persons, and then I’m talking both on the substantive and operational level, will greatly facilitate the transfer of competence. Moreover, the historical distinction between workers and self-employed is finally removed from the world in terms of child allowance. As a result, the professional status of the parents will no longer affect the rights of the child.

As you all know, N-VA is a large family party. N-VA chooses a policy where a child is equal to a child, regardless of whether it is a child of an employee, of a self-employed or of a civil servant. For us, the starting point is the equality of children. All children in the same situation should be treated equally. The family allowance in universal and not the nationality but the valid residence gives right to this. Family allowance is a child’s right that can only be differentiated on the basis of the child’s personal characteristics. In this sense, these bills are taking a big step forward.

However, I am also concerned. My biggest concern with this overhaul of family allowances is that families should not be victims of the overhaul. We must therefore guarantee certainty in terms of continuity in the payment of family allowances. This will be a special focus for our group in the coming years.

Then I come to my conclusion.

The bills presented today respond to our ideas in the sense that a transfer of powers to the states is being prepared so that they can conduct their own family policy. These draft laws therefore respond to our statement that a child is equal to a child. Consequently, our group will support these bills.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, what welcomes the MR in the reform that is proposed to us today is obviously the equalization of family allowances on 1 July 2014. At that date, self-employed workers will receive the same family allowances as wage workers.

Currently, there is still a difference of just under six euros between the family allowances paid for the first child of an independent worker and those of a child of an employee. Family allowances for the first child are 90,28 euros for a family of employees and 84,43 euros for a family of self-employed.

Since 2003, thanks to Minister Laruelle and through a policy of small steps, we have been able to increase the family allowances of independent workers by 53 euros, or ⁇ 140%. This equalization ends an injustice. This adjustment was urgent and necessary. There was no valid reason to justify this difference between family allowances depending on the type of profession. It is now the equalization of family allowances between employed and self-employed. We really look forward to this.

We also appreciate the measure that provides for the right to a social supplement for the children of an independent worker who has gone bankrupt. This provision is introduced in this bill in terms comparable to those existing for the children of an employed worker who has lost his job. Undoubtedly, this new supplement will help affected families in a time when they especially need purchasing power support.

Finally, let me point out that the harmonisation of the regulations on family benefits should enable to guarantee the continuity of the provision of family benefits to social insurers, even after the transfer of competence to federal entities. Families should not suffer discomfort as a result of the communitarianization of family benefits. The payment of allocations will remain guaranteed and will not result in administrative obligations in the head of the citizen.

Finally, the uniform family allowance scheme will result in operational harmonisation, simplification and rationalization of operators in the payment circuit.

For all these reasons, Mr. Secretary of State, the MR group will support the reform that is submitted to us today.

Indeed, from 1 July 2014, the system of family allowances will be transferred to the states, and more specifically to the Communities, as part of the historic sixth state reform.

Today we vote on two ⁇ important bills on child allowances. On the one hand, we provide that the Communities may rely on existing paying institutions during the transitional period. On the other hand, there is another adjustment in accordance with an important paragraph of the existing governmental agreement, which is very important to me, in particular the removal of the last differences between employees and self-employed persons. For this purpose, the title of the Act on child allowance for wage workers is changed to the General Child allowance Act. That immediately says what it is about. If we pass the bill, there will only be a child allowance system.

We share the view that a child is a child, whether it be a child of a self-employed or of a worker. Once the bill is passed, every child receives the same amount.

In 2003, a child of a self-employed had only half that of a child of a self-employed. We work the difference away with a step by step increase. The full equalization will be a fact on June 1. Thus, there is a 140% increase in the child benefit for the first child of a self-employed person. This is important, because self-employed people create our wealth. They provide work to citizens. It is important that this be translated into a solid, dignified, reliable social status.

I am very pleased that the government has not only worked on this, but also on raising the minimum family pensions for self-employed people – up to 89% over the past ten years – and on the depletion of the pension malus, while also enabling pensioners to make unlimited contributions.

These are ⁇ positive inputs. It is now naturally up to the states, the Communities, to take further initiatives in this regard.

For our party, it is very clear that in the future we need to go to a single payment institution, in order to make the system as clear, transparent and simple as possible.

We will, as always, welcome such positive proposals for self-employed people with great enthusiasm.

There was no question for environmentalists to decide on the transfer of the competence to pay family allowances to federal entities without prior alignment of the allowances of children of self-employed workers with those of children of self-employed workers. This is the main purpose of this text. This is the least of things since, on the one hand, family allowances are a right of the child and, on the other hand, it can be seen that careers are increasingly mixed.

This text follows other reforms that have enabled to align the rights of one with the rights of others. That is why we have supported and will support this text, which we have been associated with in the framework of the State Reform.

This text therefore brings improvements to the self-employed regime, which will remain for administrative reasons, but overall the system will be simplified.

It provides for the possibility of parachute in the case of bankruptcy, which we obviously do not want, self-employed workers. For a maximum of four quarters, the payment of increased family allowances will be ensured. Children do not have to suffer from the financial reversals of their parents. This is a good remedy in case of economic failures, at a time when new phenomena of poverty are seen among this category of workers.

However, in addition to the expression of our support, I would like to make two comments.

The first, Mr. Secretary of State, concerns the future management of the system that will affect you for a few weeks or even more. We never know!

During the discussions in the Social Affairs Committee, we emphasized the maintenance of the principle of parity management of family allowances, with the historical peculiarity known that family representative movements and family allowance management funds are associated with traditional representatives of workers and employers. It seems to us that it is interesting to involve different actors from traditional social partners in the management of social security. This can only refine its approach to phenomena and needs.

In this context, I have taken note, and I emphasize, of the commitment to maintain an equivalent representation of these three categories in the future management committee of Famifed, since this is how the institution that will manage family allowances until the transfer will be called from now on. Representatives of the regions will also be involved.

This brings me to my second general comment. It concerns precisely the good cooperation to be developed between the federal state and the federal entities, as part of the organization of this transfer of competences. It is really, and it is a test for our cooperative federalism, that this collaboration is optimal, in such a way that the beneficiary, in the end, is not the victim of a breach of rights; it is appropriate that the social insured be assured, just, of the continuity of the payment of family allowances.

The goal of this reform is to be able to improve the situation, not to create anxiety or problems in one and another. In the first place, things must go as well as possible. I think this is the principle that we adopted in the framework of the transfer of powers decided: the possibility that the federal agencies that today organize the payment of family allowances remain in transitional charge of this function, pending the actual transfer.

Thus, in a second period, the recipients of this policy competence in the field of family allowances will be able to make the best choices as to how solidarity with families will be intervened. At that time, they will be able to discuss the amount of the intervention, the child’s rank and other forms of simplification and improvement of the system.

The responsibility of the federal in waiting is to make sure things go as well as possible. Then history will be written in other parliaments than our own. This is the principle of the state reform and this can play on May 25. But let us actually show that in this modernized Belgian state, we are able to collaborate with the goal of the best service to the citizen, here in the context of social security.

I thank you.

The draft legislation, of course, contains some very good provisions and some historical changes. I think, for example, of the equalization of the different regimes of child allowance for employees and self-employed within a legislative framework, which is the General Child allowance Act. It can be hard to resist. A child is a child and should be treated in the same way by the government, regardless of whether it is a child of an employee, a self-employed or a civil servant.

Also the equalization of the amounts and conditions for the granting of the family allowance can of course take away our approval.

The draft law is the framework for the implementation of the sixth state reform, which, of course, is not ours. Not only is a very limited portion of social security transferred to the counties, but it is also clear that those counties will always have to continue to take into account the federal mother-in-law, who remains responsible for important parts of those powers packages. For example, I think of the budget envelopes and the legislative framework.

We are and will continue to advocate the complete transfer of social security to the states, neither more nor less. We will not approve this bill for principled reasons.

I would like to thank the speakers who, for the most part, were positive. The desire for continuity in the payment of family allowances and equality between salaried workers and self-employed are two essential things for me.

The management committee is composed of three banks: employers, trade unions and family organizations. Each of them has seven members. These three banks shall be ⁇ ined and shall always consist of twenty-one members, each of which shall consist of five staff and two replacement members.

I thank you.