Proposition 53K3359

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de sécurité sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 13, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

occupational accident care of mothers and infants pension scheme police national budget social legislation social-security contribution social security unemployment insurance vocational retraining self-employed person maternity leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Alain Mathot (PS | SP) 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 ¶

March 27, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by MM. Franco Seminara, David Clarinval and Joseph George, rapporteurs, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, this law containing various provisions on social security is, in our view, literally and figuratively a law on garbage. It is illustrative of the way this government has legislated and brought it to Parliament in recent months.

If one drafts a bill and submits more than thirty amendments just before, and even during, the discussions in the committee, then one can speak objectively of a thoughtful law. It is not about thirty amendments from the opposition, but about more than thirty amendments from the government to its own bill. We therefore abstained in the committee at the vote as a whole because we believe that this type of rubbish box legislation really needs to stop.

When we thought the worst was behind us, we got an example last week that it could actually be even worse. The bill approved in the committee, including the more than thirty amendments, was returned to the Social Affairs Committee without much explanation. What turned out? The PS had another amendment.

The week before, you, as a minister, had defended the basic rules of unemployment regulation, which had to be incorporated into the Decision Act of 1944. In this way, these rules would have the force of law. The main rules of the game are now included in royal decrees. A week later, the PS thought about it and wanted, through an amendment, to no longer include the unemployment regulation in the Decision Act of 1944. For us, the underlying idea was very clear, in particular that a KB can be adjusted without passing through Parliament.

We must dare to call a cat a cat. By working with royal decrees, it is easier to ease back the unemployment regulation. Do we, however, want to return to vigilance benefits or inclusion benefits that are valid indefinitely in time?

The discussion between the ruling parties was somewhat hilarious and actually an illustration of the totally different views between the ruling parties. Today, we note that the PS is submitting its amendment again. I am really curious how the other majority parties will react to this.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, like any bill containing various provisions, this Bill No. 3359 is a big, all-out bill in which we find the best as well as the worst. There are, for example, groupings of employers that are, for us, an element that goes in the right direction but also three small articles hidden in the middle of all those articles that have a significant scope.

How has unemployment been working for all these years? Since I am in parliament, there is almost nothing voted on this subject. The measures taken by the government are discussed during parliamentary issues or during budget discussions. This way of doing that makes the government decide on unemployment alone is relatively legal fragile, especially given the importance of the measures taken by the government.

You have decided to provide a legal basis for “unemployment” measures. We could have rejoiced, if you had told the parliament that it was time to conduct a big debate on the unemployment policy in Belgium, giving it the opportunity to put tags. Unfortunately, this is absolutely not what happened.

What are the small articles hidden in the bill containing various provisions that we are proposing? They propose that parliament say to the government: “Do what you want about unemployment. Decide who is entitled, for how long and under what conditions. Decide the type of control to exercise, the categories of unemployed, the amount of unemployment benefits that the unemployed will be entitled to."Parliament says: "I don't want to take care of all this and I ask the government to do it." There is a real problem! It’s been said to the government “Do what you want” and this has been done since July 2012. This practice seems to me quite strange. To vote retroactively in March 2014 on a measure applicable since July 2012 is completely unacceptable. This is emphasized by the State Council.

You may be wondering where this date of July 2012 comes from. This was the time when the government decided to launch the degressivity of unemployment benefits, that is, unemployment benefits decrease over time to reach bottom amounts, close to the aid of the CPAS. Only in Brussels, with the price of rent, it is almost impossible to survive with the lowest unemployment benefits. Nevertheless, we decided to reduce them.

This was decided in 2012, which is why you are proposing retroactivity to this date. An excellent lawyer, professor at ULB, published an interesting article in the Journal of Tribunals. According to him, there is a way to attack this degressivity measure because the legal basis is not very clear and because the standstill principle is clearly violated. The standstill principle states that, unless there is a reason of general interest, one cannot retreat in social matters. The fact of reducing the benefits of the poorest of us is a clear social downturn!

Meanwhile, protests took place and emails were exchanged. After closing this discussion on the three articles concerning unemployment in the commission on 25 February, the majority recaptured. Instead of discussing these articles in the plenary session a few weeks ago, the government has requested that the bill be returned to committees. This is not very common. We were therefore eager to see the discussion that we would be able to conduct on these articles returned to the commission. We told ourselves that the government had realized that these anti-unemployment measures, in times of crisis, at the time when companies are dismissed, were totally unacceptable. Oh well no!

On March 18, in a committee, the Socialist Party submitted amendments to remove the aforementioned articles, which it had defended. According to the PSI, I didn’t understand this very well. I thought that everyone could go wrong and go back with better intentions.

I will have to tell Mr. Magnette, who sent emails to all citizens saying I didn’t understand well! Obviously I had understood it! In fact, you join our position that says that this way of working is not the right one.

In the committee, we expected to review these famous articles. Could the powers of the government be more restricted?

This is why we have submitted amendments.

At present, the control of the unemployed is ⁇ unfair. Recently, I met a 50-year-old lady who works in schools and makes replacement work. She told me the following. At the beginning of the month, it sends an email to 160 school directors to inform them of its availability. When she goes to ONEM to get her checked, the trade union accompanyer tells her that she does not need help because of the number of her job searches, that she will handle it without problems, etc. And no... During their interview, the controller said to him, “You didn’t send two emails every week.” She should have sent two emails the first week, two the second, two the third and two the fourth, or eight emails. He would have received a positive opinion. But since she sent 160 emails the first week, she is blamed for not searching enough for employment, with a negative key review and the exclusion of unemployment.

Our first amendment therefore aims to no longer exclude in this way a whole series of unemployed whose only fault is that they have not found work.

In our second amendment, we stipulate that only Parliament can reduce unemployment benefits. Only Parliament is competent to take actions that have a considerable impact on the lives of our fellow citizens. When unemployment benefits are reduced, whole families are plunged into poverty. And then, here, in parliament, we’re talking about child poverty when it’s such measures that provoke it.

Our third amendment concerns the issue of time limitation. I remember very well when Mr. Vandenbroucke launched the control of the unemployed. He told me that this control was primary to avoid having to reduce unemployment benefits and limit them over time. by Mr. Vandenbroucke was wrong. Control of unemployed persons has been implemented. However, unemployment has been limited in time and the amount of unemployment benefits has been reduced!

With our amendments, we wanted to limit the powers given to the government in this matter. Seeing that they were rejected, we submitted a more general amendment proposing to remove all these articles.

During the discussion, colleagues were astonished to see the changes of position but unfortunately, despite these discussions, despite these hesitations about the amendments, the final vote was identical. The majority, including PS, approved the text that entrusts the government with all the "unemployment" measures, including all the horrors I just cited to you.

I often hear colleagues with their mayor’s hat say with their shevins of finance that these unemployment exclusions will be a disaster for the CPAS. They don’t think they can do it without increasing their incomes. CPAS is funded by the federal government, but partly by the municipality. This is the opposite of solidarity, it is really the poor among them who will try to support each other.

I ask the colleagues who, at the municipal level, consider this measure unacceptable – and my mayor, a socialist in addition, has personally stated that he finds these measures disastrous and negative – to vote on the amendments we have submitted, in particular the one aimed at avoiding the social bloodshed that would be the exclusion on 1 January of 50,000 people who would find themselves without benefits.

Mr. Minister, the bill as presented to us contains a multitude of chapters that are important to us, such as, for example, the right for the ONSSAPL to withdraw an amount from the overall management to finance the pensions of the staff affiliated to the Pension Fund of the local authorities, the administrative reform of compensation insurance or even the introduction of a back-to-work plan in the sector of work accidents.

Another chapter is ⁇ important to us, the one concerning the legislation relating to the grouping of employers. The substantial changes made to it are essential, as they will now allow the reintegration of workers victims of a company restructuring or a collective dismissal. We obviously think of ArcelorMittal and other very heavy restructuring that has affected and still affects our industrial fabric.

However, I submitted an amendment aimed at deleting Chapter 12 of this bill, entitled "Modifications to the Decree-Law of 28.12.1944 concerning the social security of workers with regard to the basic principles of unemployment insurance". This amendment has been resubmitted, because the retroactive effect to 1.07.2012 can only be justified when it is indispensable for the realization of an objective of general interest such as the proper functioning or continuity of the public service.

Furthermore, equally compelling reasons must justify retroactivity if it is capable of influencing the outcome of judicial proceedings.

By giving a limited retroactive effect to the provisions in question, we do not see in what the aim is the pursuit of a general interest, especially since, for 70 years, the practice of royal orders in matters of unemployment has never been challenged by the courts of our country. And even if it were, we believe that it is not desirable for Parliament to give the feeling of interfering in one or another of the ongoing procedures. Therefore, retroactivity poses a problem in relation to the principle of separation of powers.

( ... ) : ( ... )

I just finished. Did you not understand, Madame Fonck?

I invite you to conclude your speech, Mr. Sampaoli.

It will be up to the PS group to position itself soon.

I asked for the word [...]

I am not afraid of you or anyone. Ask your question. But Mr. Sampaoli may not answer you.

I hoped that as President, you would rather arouse the answers, than the absence of response.

Please ask your question, Madame Gino.

I know he will not listen to you and will answer you.

I have heard the words of mr. Sampaoli for Retrospectivity. I totally agree with your point of view on this. But it goes even further by proposing the withdrawal of the entire system. So I imagine that, like us, he thinks that the bill article that entrusts the unemployment provisions to the government is a bad article.

The [...]

I totally agree with you on these two points. The principle of feedback is bad, as is the fact of entrusting all these controls to the government because these are too important topics.

Mr. Sampaoli, if your amendments are not voted on, will you vote against this bill so that we can finally provide labels on the matter?

There are other things in the text.

Mr. Speaker, I rarely intervene, but I am not as visionary as Mrs. Genot. We are submitting an amendment. We are confident in the responsibility of the homicide, at least of those who will speak soon. Depending on the outcome, we will notify you.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity, I would like to know whether Mr. Sampaoli’s amendment in question is submitted on behalf of the PS group or on his own behalf.

He is a member of the PS; he is in the PS group!

On behalf of the PS?

and yes! He does not change. He has always been in the PS, and he remains. There is no worry. He did not even write a book for Mr. He has always been in the PS. Don’t worry about us, we take care of ourselves. Take care of yourself!

I will do that, colleague Frédéric. All I have to tell you is that whoever changes his mind, at least proves that he thinks. I am afraid that cannot be said of everyone else.

Continue to think, then, Mr Bracke. You will change again.

I have another formula: there are only fools who do not change their minds. It is less polite.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole Parliament understood that these articles were really important and had a real impact on the lives of a huge number of people. So I hope that we will not "play quite cynically with their feet", and agree, in case of rejection of the amendment, to support these measures, which are really serious.

But everything we do here is fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, what I see through this amendment is that you remove all the articles that today allow the system of unemployment benefits. You remove the articles that define the beneficiaries of unemployment benefits. You remove the items that allow the exemption system, especially in case of illness, when people receive unemployment benefits. You are trying to make us believe that by removing these items, you are changing the system at the level of unemployment benefits in terms of degressivity or in terms of removal of insertion benefits.

I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re doing a kind of smoke screen that in fact is just a virtual communication exercise. I think we would do better to work on specific situations by actually trying to look at where there are difficulties rather than making this communication exercise completely empty and risking damaging the entire system of unemployment benefits in the future.

It’s still funny to see that you’ve never had a problem with the 1944 arrest law. Today, you tell us in the essence that this decree-law of 1944 that establishes all unemployment benefits is nullissime.

I therefore think that everyone will be able to appreciate the virtuality, the hollow exercise of this amendment: it is a smoke screen that you are trying to oppose us.

I would like to add one thing to this. It is remembered to me from our work in the committee that the colleagues of CD&V expressly asked Mr Sampaoli, expressis verbis, to withdraw the amendment, firstly because he is a member of the majority and, secondly – that was added again expressis verbis ‑ out respect for the Minister of Labour. I note that the amendment is being ⁇ ined today, which is the act. I will, by the way, not fail to point out the colleagues of CD&V on this too.

Mr. Speaker, I will only say that our position is to maintain what has always worked since 1944. A social compromise is made between social partners and then translated into arrests, in particular for unemployment benefits.

Today, suddenly, we are asked to approve by a legislation, with retroactive effect, which has always been taken by decree. We do not see how the Parliament, without a substantial debate on all the measures, should be involved in a new drafting of a whole chapter of our social security, namely the right to unemployment benefits.

In this situation, we think it is better to keep the previous situation. The government makes decisions; it does so on the basis of a compromise. If a parliamentary debate should be organised on the measures to be taken, as is the case with other chapters of social security, it would be necessary to draw up a law and then discuss it. This is not the case here.

The small measure aimed at making approval by a technical artifice of all the measures taken by the government, through the support of the parliament, seems to us inelegant. This is not the right way to act towards Parliament.

Secondly, I will tell Ms. Genot that she makes a correct finding. This is what I have expressed throughout the legislature in the Social Affairs Committee, which I presided over.

The [...]

Mr Gilkinet, the measures are taken by the government. If you were there, you heard me and I suppose you agree with me; if you were absent, let me finish my speech.

At every new announcement, during budget discussions, I indicated that any government measure aimed at excluding people was made according to a exclusion principle where the exclusion officer did not assume the measure. For two legislatures, I have asked the successive Ministers of Employment – I have asked Mrs. Milquet, who was committed to it but who obviously did not have the time to realize it, I have asked Mrs. De Coninck – that the sanctioner assumes the sanction at home, that is, the ONEM, and does not send its realization to a third party, the CPAS, a local authority. I said, “If there is punishment, there must be punishment.”

To be complete, I think there is no need to punish people who are looking for work and who do not find it.

On the other hand, the debate about the penalty can take place when someone refuses a suitable job that is offered to them. In this case, I think there may be a penalty, but it is not up to us to judge it. And if there must be a sanction, let the sanctioning agent be also the one who assumes the consequence of the sanction.

I had also proposed very concretely that the penalty should never, in any case for the individual, be lower than the right to income of social integration and that it should be assumed by the ONEM and not returned to the CPAS. This is our position on the substance and on the form! During the previous legislature, Ms. Milquet had engaged in the commission but did not realize it, I want to repeat it!

It seems to me that our position is right and the PS has the legitimate right to assert it, even at the end of the legislature.

Is the 1944 law a problem? Absolutely not because it creates rights. It creates the right to unemployment, a fundamental right. Is the fact that the social partners agree and make progress on legislation a problem for us? and no! But this is definitely not what we have witnessed in recent years. We have witnessed successive governments that have begun, since 2003, under the impulse of Mr. Vandenbroucke, to sabotage the right to unemployment.

I hear Mr. Mayeur say that one can be punished in case of refusal of a suitable employment. We have a draft law that goes in this direction. We proposed it to co-signature in 2006 to all democratic parties. No party has signed this bill. However, I think it is fundamental. This is the essence of the unemployment right. It is the fact of saying that, when one loses his job, an income helps to subsidize his needs and find work. As long as you have not found another job or refused a job, you are entitled to unemployment. It is ⁇ important to remain on the basis of unemployment, as defined after the war, in 1944.

I hear well the PS who says that measures were taken and that he always judged that they were bad. But let us be clear! Every time you voted the budget, you accepted these measures aimed at saving on the weakest of us, cruel and inadequate measures.

Today, I am aware that Mr. Mayeur is online with Mr. and Sampaoli. We can see a consistency compared to the position of the PS a week ago. However, the position of the PS three weeks ago was exactly the opposite! by Mr. Delizée clearly explained the importance of discussing this bill today: it brought legal certainty, it allowed to give power to parliament while everything was in the hands of the government. I am therefore interpelled by this double voice of the Socialist Party which, one day, supports the text and, the next day, says the opposite.

Why did the PSP change its mind in fifteen days? Did the wind of the election campaign blow? What justifies this change of direction and this 100% shift in the head of the Socialist Party?

Like Ms. Fonck, I think it’s a smoke screen, that it’s a show that is set up on the approaching 25th of May. I find this regrettable for a majority party.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, after the presentation of Mr. Clarinval, there is actually little about it. I mean only that it is difficult to illustrate the double divide within the coalition more clearly than it did.

Second, to what extent is this still a government draft if, at this essential point, the most important and largest party within that coalition apparently no longer supports it? I watch with interest.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very much to you, especially to Mr. President. The Major. The explanations given by Mr. Major in his speech are in no way reflected in the texts we are examining. We are therefore trying to make us believe that we are dealing with points when they do not concern these texts. Furthermore, I request that the only line of Articles 35 and 36 that you wish to delete be submitted to me, which concerns the degressivity of unemployment benefits or the exclusion of insertion benefits. Not a single line, not a single line. Or maybe I listen to you! Please read it or show it to me. Yes, Mr. Mayeur, I think you are doing a show!

I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister, on two points. With regard to all the provisions submitted to us, and in particular Articles 35 and 36 which the PS wishes to remove, do we agree that these Articles give a solid legal basis to the Act of 1944 establishing the whole system of unemployment benefits? This is my version, but I would like to hear you about it.

Given the answers you are going to communicate to us, I would like to know if these are the answers of the government, including the Prime Minister.

Mr. Minister, I heard Ms. Fonck say that all this has nothing to do with degressivity. I reiterate his expression: "No line!" And yet, I would like to reiterate the justification of the articles proposed by the minister on page 14 of the project, which states very clearly: "The date of entry into force of this chapter is fixed on July 1, 2012. Ideally, a retroactive effect on February 22, 1994 is recommended, but such a long retroactive effect is critical. Until recently, the Act of 1944 and the delegation to the King that it provided were not questioned, nor the legality of the numerous royal decrees modifying or supplementing the royal decree of 25 November 1991.

Things have changed recently with the formal questioning of the royal decree bringing regulation of unemployment within the framework of degressivity.

You say that there is no line on degressivity. It is the minister herself who speaks of degressivity in her justification by saying that we need retroactivity because there are actions in court that could attack degressivity. This is stated by the Minister, page 14. Please read again, Madame Fonck. To say that this has nothing to do with it is completely incorrect.

This is what you are trying to make us believe. Read me a line from the text of the articles that deals with this. There is none!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the words of Mr. Clarinval. I am surprised to find that the PS is simply submitting this amendment, joining the opposition party Ecolo, and that is just following.

I do not find this a way of working, neither in terms of content, in which I would like to make absolute reservations, nor in terms of methodology within the majority. I find this unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will act consistently.

Do other members want to intervene? If not, I will give the floor to the Minister.

There is a lot of confusion here.

For all clarity, in certain committee meetings was very broad and open discussion. However, I have the impression that the exercise is happening again here for reasons other than the content.

Indeed, the government has taken a number of measures around unemployment and unemployment systems. We have requested an opinion from the State Council. He gave advice on degressivity and other matters. The Council noted that it has repeatedly stated that all unemployment legislation must have a legal basis. This was not only said to me, but also to previous ministers.

On this basis, we have drawn up a basic legislation, because the Council of State has asked us to do so. We then again submitted it to the Council in its entirety, with the entry date. The State Council is therefore absolutely aware that we made that legislation and put it into effect on 1 July 2012. He has not made any comments on this.

The draft has been submitted to the committee for the second time. There was a discussion about this. I asked for legal advice. I know that lawyers sometimes contradict each other, but I was told that the present text is okay. I would like to say that about the process.

Let me now go to the content. We talked about degressivity and employment benefits. First and foremost, it must be clear that an employment benefit is a different system than the unemployment system. An enrollment benefit works as follows: one comes from school and, based on the age or diploma, one must go through an enrollment period with a waiting period of one year. They are followed for three years. You get a job, an internship, or you have to start a new training. It is intended that young people after three years have a job, or that there are other solutions in case of certain difficulties. That, as regards the employment allowance.

In the second system, the unemployment benefit, the degressivity has always existed. This was also the case before. What has happened? We have raised the unemployment allowance for the first three months to 65% of the last salary, 5% more than before. So we increased the fee, and sharpened the slope downward. Previously, there were six phases and now there are nine, depending on the work past. For those who have worked a lot, for example twenty years, the remuneration will never be degressive; so that link was made. Those who are on the last stage of degressivity still receive more than a living wage; that benefit is always higher.

The story that those concerned will slip from that ladder and get to the OCMW is not true, unless they are suspended or a penalty in the unemployment benefit, but that is because of a negative assessment. It is no different than before.

The only thing that has changed is the activation period. It is limited to three years. Europe is asking for that too. In fact, it is a commitment that we do not allow young people to be imitated for three, four, five, six or seven years. If young people do not find a job, after four months they must be trapped and actively assisted. The regions and communities are responsible for this. The federal government has created entrance internships as a tool and Activa for low-skilled. One can get a piece for three years by a reduction in wage costs. Specifically, it means that business executives have to pay a net salary and all the rest is adjusted.

I don’t know if you’ve forgotten it, but in order to enable the administrative simplification, I have, a little like service checks, also suggested for low-skilled young people to create work checks. And who was against it?

Mr. Minister, you say that the time limitation of insertion allowances will concern young people who are leaving school and who have not found a job. You know that is inaccurate! This concerns people over 30 years of age, i.e. family fathers and mothers, young workers who did not have the chance to find a long-term job. This mainly concerns women who have worked part-time, who are 40, 45 years old and who have not had the chance to find a full-time job.

You know very well that it is not young people who are leaving school that will be affected by this measure! The 50,000 people who will lose their benefits are 30, 40 or 50 years old and have not had the chance to have a full linear career!

On the other hand, when it comes to degressivity, you say that decreasing them does not really pose a problem. I would like to see you live in Brussels, with the price of Brussels rent, with a reduced unemployment allowance like the one you are proposing today. People find themselves in situations where they can hardly find that famous job that you ask them to look for because they have nothing to pay for a computer, a GSM subscription, etc. They are at the stage of survival. Looking for a job becomes a luxury that they can no longer afford.

You say that this has no consequences for the CPAS because the amounts remain higher than the allocations allocated by the CPAS. I think you are not aware of the reality. Applications for temporary assistance have exploded. The number of people in over-indebted situations, who have trouble paying hospital, energy, etc. bills. With these reduced unemployment benefits, it continues to increase in the CPAS.

You say that Europe requires us to create jobs. But yes ! We call on you all to create jobs! This is not what you do. You reduce the unemployment figures by excluding more and more people. This is unacceptable!

We have already discussed this issue in the committee. Maybe I’ll go back to a political issue. With regard to this amendment submitted by the PS Group, I will ask two questions and I will answer them.

1 of 1. This amendment, as you try to make us believe here, will make that tomorrow, there will be no more degressivity of unemployment benefits? The answer is no!

2 of 2. Will this amendment make that tomorrow, there will be no longer time limitation in the insertion allowances? The answer is no!

All this to repeat that what you present to us here, with your amendment, making us great speeches on the two elements I just cited, is clearly a smoke screen!

And even, in the end, it risks to undermine the entire system of unemployment benefits. It does not hold the road for a single second! This is just a political smoke screen.

In the meantime, there is a second party that tries to dance on two legs at the same time. On one side is the PS.

I have listened with interest to the Minister’s response on that shift operation, as I will call it, from unemployment to the OCMWs. I take note of that answer and I am even so free to believe her. At the same time, I find that your colleagues, Mrs. the Minister, in our city, Mrs. Temmerman, are at the head of protests that are widely directed against the operation of shifting the unemployment from the OCMW to the OCMW. So it is high time that you also make it clear to your own party that they are not worried about anything. If I believe you, and I am so free to do that, then it saves nowhere, but in action it is not to be seen. So I find that there are two parties here trying to dance on two legs at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that Ms. Minister has just rightly interpreted what was said in the committee regarding the amendment of the PS. It is about a legal legal framework that was asked to create. That is there now. This stands apart from a substantial discussion on the unemployment regulation, which we had a discussion about recently.

Mrs. Genot, I would like to add one thing to that. In fact, the guardianship benefits, now enrollment benefits, were intended for school dropouts. They were not intended to provide fifty-year-olds who have left school for twenty or twenty-five years another kind of unemployment benefit. That is not the intention. I follow the minister in her statement that we should give people who graduate enough time to find and find a job, and that in the meantime we ensure that there is an income. We are willing to finance this through social security.

Social security is actually there to cover work-related risks. Social security should not guarantee universal solidarity. There is a distinction between social security and assistance insurance. A person who is still unemployed after three years is likely to need a different guidance, a different coaching and other tools to be guided into the labour market than the guidance he received over three years. Then it is no longer up to the social security to continue taking care of those people, who ultimately have not contributed to the insurance system.

This needs to be addressed through the general support system. That fifty thousand you waver with is not right either. Social security is an individual right. That gives a very different income situation if one looks at the family situation than when one sits in a support system and then one looks at the family income. That is a completely different approach. Your reasoning is very short, to make of that fifty thousand fifty thousand OCMW tractors. That is not right.

I return to my question, which is very clear. What has led the Socialist Party to change its mind? Fifteen days ago, we were told that the text was very good. Fifteen days later, the same text is considered bad. What is the element that justifies this change in the position of the Socialist Party? by Mr. Can Sampaoli let me know the trigger element of this reversal? Was Mrs. Genot so convincing that she caused the membership of the whole Socialist Party?

It is important to know this because we are facing two versions. What is the opinion of the Prime Minister and the PS Group on this matter? This is a question for the majority.

In my view, it is the ⁇ sharp lights that I have brought that are at the origin of this shift.

But let’s be serious and go back to some of the things that have been said. Ms Fonck said that it is not with the amendment that it is removed that degressivity and time limitation can be stopped. This is possible thanks to the two amendments we have submitted.

We submitted four amendments. One of these amendments aims to stop the degressivity. One aimed at stopping the bleeding of the 50,000 excluded by January 1. I would like to return to Mr. President’s proposal. Mayeur, which aims to punish those who refuse proper employment. I have submitted amendments to move in the direction you want.

I thought that mr. Vercamer had a trade union history. But maybe he forgot it. Do you realize that someone who works for 20 years to half-time is entitled to an insertion allowance? So when you say that those who benefit from an insertion allowance have never worked, you’re wrong. It is totally false. These are people who have worked, but have not had the chance to work full-time, continuously, for a certain period of time.

I don’t know if you know the statistics. Unfortunately, the number of fixed-term contracts has exploded in recent years, as has the number of part-time contracts. With this development of “bad jobs” over the last ten years, more and more people will continue to benefit from an insertion allowance.

The Minister wants to intervene. I give him the word.

Mr. Speaker, there was constant coverage with those 55 000. If we started the system today – for all clarity, there is always inflow and outflow – we’ll get a small 20 000. I have told you a few times that the figure of 55,000 is just a panic seed. Three easing measures have been taken. I have explained it to you several times, but I know that in the light of all kinds of campaigns it may be easier to talk about 55 000.

I look at the government’s data every day, but I find it hard to find out. In October, I was told there would be 33,000 excluded. Subsequently, 17,000 people with 33% disability and 8,000 people part-time were removed. We have a small 16,000. Later, the minister told us that we were around 25,000. We now have 20,000 announced. That is quite surprising! When I ask for the number of part-time workers involved, I get a near-unit number! I am given the exact proportion of men and women. You can even give me the number by region. These numbers exist. Why is there no transparency in the figures? How many men? How many women? How old are they? What is their path? You have that data! If you are honest, we can believe your figures.