Proposition 54K1052

Proposition de résolution relative à la lutte contre la pauvreté.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri
MR Damien Thiéry
N-VA Valerie Van Peel
Open Vld Ine Somers

Submission date

April 29, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

poverty resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 28, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, given the length of the committee debates and, finally, the way this matter has been debated and led to a proposal that satisfies us, we refer to the written report.

I also refer to the written report.

15% of Belgians are at risk of falling into poverty on the basis of their income. That number affects each of us. Moreover, the face of poverty is constantly changing, making the struggle very complex. However, that must not stop us. Poverty makes it difficult to live a decent life, prevents the incorporation of civil rights and hampers the development of talents and future opportunities. Therefore, the fight against poverty is one for which we should all draw on the same sail.

With this resolution, we want to further support and keep this government awake, which is already taking many structural steps. A society can only be proud of itself if everyone is meek. Therefore, it must and must remain a priority for this government and for this Parliament. This requires more than just a vertical policy. As also outlined in this resolution, an effective approach to poverty requires that all ministers, each within his or her competence, feel addressed. Only with a comprehensive package of structural measures in our labour market policy, health policy, equal opportunities policy, and so on can we make a difference.

I’m not going to list it all, but a structural approach, for example, means wagering on activation anyway. A job is still the best way out of poverty and the best way to avoid getting stuck. This government is committed to job creation and job creation, but we also include it in this resolution, as it will be necessary to continue to do so in the future.

A structural approach to fighting poverty also means providing sufficient support to those who cannot live with dignity. Therefore, the lowest benefits must rise up, to the European poverty line. That commitment, my colleagues, this government has been the first ever to incorporate into its government agreement. The first step toward this commitment was already taken in very difficult budgetary times, by using 100 % of the wealth envelope for it. Cutting the poverty line must and will be a top priority for this government. The same applies to the signatories of this resolution.

For example, we also want to work on a subsidy policy that ensures that projects can be anchored, that rights to benefits are allocated as automatically as possible and that structural consultation on poverty is conducted with all stakeholders.

For example, we want a permanent focus on accessible healthcare, including the introduction of a social, and later also a general third-payer scheme with the general physician. Quality care is and should be a fundamental right for everyone.

In short, with this resolution, we advocate an approach that ensures everyone’s rights, but also a commitment to a future away from poverty. We focus on self-saving rather than on benefit dependency because it really helps. We want to support this government in doing so that everyone who wants to move forward gets the opportunity and is encouraged. Those for whom this is not possible must be treated in a better way than it is today, now and in the future.

This is what this government is doing and what this government is doing. With State Secretary Elke Sleurs, this government also has a powerful person in its ranks to ensure that this struggle during this legislature will be fought on all fronts. The struggle against poverty should not cease until no person, no child, has yet to live in poverty.

Our group supports this resolution because it commits to a structural approach to the struggle. It emphasizes and reinforces the steps already included in the government agreement. It is now up to us to make sure that we do not fall asleep in this in the coming years.

Poverty affects everyone. Responsibility and solidarity with those who need our help are among the core values of our social model. I can therefore only hope, colleagues, that this topic will not be further made a political game, because it does not deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The PS Group has always made the fight against poverty a priority. The fight against poverty of pensioners, workers, unemployed people, women but also children. Poverty is multidimensional; it is not limited to lack of money at all. We must fight it with strength and commitment.

However, today, and I will explain, my group will not vote in favour of this resolution because the text that is submitted to us does not precisely make the fight against poverty an absolute priority. Please forgive me, but this text seems to me rather a weak catalog of good intentions in which we do not believe!

What a wonderful missed opportunity! A text was deposited by CD&V on the banks of the Public Health Commission. We welcomed him with enthusiasm. Certain things had to be corrected. We were at the beginning of the legislature. This text contained generosity, strong commitments, interesting elements. It seemed to us that this was the ideal time to set the guidelines for an effective, coherent and ambitious poverty-fighting policy. Today, unfortunately, there is no such thing.

As I said, we found that there were certain shortcomings, some things to be corrected, which is why we asked, with others, that hearing be organized. Many people presented themselves, shared their experiences, their way of seeing things, field actors, representatives of networks. These hearings brought a real added value that could have been incorporated into the text. This added value had helped to unlock the strengths of the text – I repeat, there were strengths in the basic text – but also its weaknesses. We were therefore trying to improve it by drawing up a whole series of amendments.

It can be understood, after the hearings and the submitted amendments, that the group carrying this text proposes to reflect, to initiate some discussions and examines what it could still integrate or not. Days and weeks passed. I suppose that negotiations have taken place, ⁇ not with the amendments. A new text has been presented to us, the one that is under discussion today and will be submitted to our vote soon. I would have a tendency to say everything: that for that! All this work, all this energy deployed, all this commitment of the field actors for this! This is a real step back!

The CPAS federations, the Unions of Cities and Municipalities, the Service for Combating Poverty, the Walloon Network for Combating Poverty, all were audited, offered real hopes, drew our attention to advances to be realised, expected commitments from us, expected commitments from the government. They were not asked to return. To me, asking them to come back was simply hearing their disappointment and telling them the little regard of Parliament and the majority and the little consideration in relation to their comments, to the remarks they made, and showing them that nothing, nothing, nothing was taken into account, while excellent proposals had been put on the table.

However, about fifty amendments were introduced in order to meet their expectations. You can, therefore, imagine their first disappointment, that of finding that no amendment had been adopted; the second, of finding that beyond the amendments, in relation to the basic text, it is only a real step back all that has been made. I can understand that, compared to the original text deposited, even before a government agreement, some changes must ⁇ be considered.

But compared to this basic text, there is still nothing dramatic, even though some questions may arise.

Instead of an ambitious text, we find ourselves with a reduced text that is, in fact, a declaration of intentions. You allow me to say that it is not with this that we will get the 472,000 people concerned out of poverty or risk of poverty.

The debate was interesting, everyone was able to present their ideas in the committee, but I have to recall some elements that I find important. In the government agreement, I believed to understand that fighting poverty, beyond other measures, was an absolute priority. According to the Minister’s statements, this was a real absolute priority. This week, in a committee, she said that her third poverty-fighting plan should be released in the course of the last half of 2015 and that it would be debated in parliament.

The fact that you have removed the qualificative of absolute in the new draft resolution seems to demonstrate that, in your head, it is no longer an absolute priority. This may be one of the government’s goals. The resolution proposal states that this is a priority. Based on the statements made during the presentation of the government agreement, this was expected to be an absolute priority. This is no longer the case at all. You will easily understand that we can only regret it. We could have expected something else from you, especially based on the statements we had heard.

The fact of having an ambitious federal plan, with strategic and operational objectives clearly numbered and accompanied by a strict timetable, was included in the first resolution. This is not an insurmountable requirement for the government. As I just said, the Minister will submit its plan in the last half of 2015. What did it cost to leave this?

I can understand that programming clearly encrypted operational goals with a calendar is difficult. But it can be scaled during this legislature or the next, depending on the budget availability. This is how we usually act. No one will contradict me on this point. It is purely and simply removed. Please admit that this is not to show a great ambition! When we propose to re-inscribe it through an amendment, you delete our suggestion.

There are other elements that I find important. In her general policy note, the Minister addressed the networks of civil servants. This was reflected in the basic resolution proposal, filed by CD&V in August. This is no longer in the news. That was your statement, Mr. Minister. Why remove these networks of officials? They must allow each minister to see what is happening with the implementation of policies; they will understand the transversal aspect. The role of the contact person, refer to the minister, within each administration is fundamental. It allows for consultation. I think in particular of the experts of the living, of whom you talked in your general policy note. This simply disappears from the resolution. It is still unfortunate, don’t you think? What a lack of ambition! Experts allow the Minister to refer to it. I’m not going to bother you to repeat the answer you gave me this week. But it would have been so good that it would be mentioned in the text. It costs nothing, especially since this is what you want to put in place. It is very sad!

Another ambition was included in the Prime Minister’s statement on raising certain incomes so that they reach the European poverty line. It was important to know where we were on the budget. The first resolution might go a little further by talking about a growth standard that provides for fundamental increases to reach the minimum above the poverty line, namely structural well-being adjustment of replacement allocations and income so that they are more aligned with the real needs of the beneficiaries.

All this is scratched purely and simply. However, the aim was to bring them to the level of the European poverty threshold. This is a resolution. This was a government statement. This should be done taking into account the social benefits associated with certain social benefits. This is stated in the government agreement. With the resolution, one could afford to go a little further than just acting the government statement. We find ourselves in the framework of a resolution; we call on the government to go towards a better for people, to go towards a better consideration of their situation, including in relation to their income, so that they truly enjoy income in line with their real needs.

As you know, this often happens depending on the budget context and the resources available. This could simply have been ⁇ ined. I find this sad and unfortunate for people. They are not given the opportunity to have greater goals than the simple government agreement.

I really understand you a little. It is very sad to abolish some measures and to take others in order to develop a just, simple and transparent taxation, ensuring that it applies in a balanced way to the different forms of income (work, wealth) and consumption, by reducing and rationalising the number of deduction points.

This makes me think about a big debate at your house today: the tax shift. I expected that CD&V would absolutely want to keep this element within the resolution. It contained important things. I do not understand, if I refer to the statements of your President, Mr. Beke, and the statements of Mr. Peeters, who said it was appropriate to make a tax shift to respond to the feeling of social injustice. I do not understand that this is not ⁇ ined in the resolution.

Per ⁇ the statement of Mr. Delbaere saying that the tax shift is not necessary is more important than that of CD&V president or Deputy Prime Minister Peeters. I think that element could have been ⁇ ined within this resolution.

In order not to repeat the whole debate, I come to other elements in terms of income and social tariffs. You are planning an evaluation and improvement of social rates, this is again the content of the government’s sole statement.

The only good element is the automation of rights. Let us recognize him! Fortunately, you kept it. That is already that.

Let’s talk a little about work.

You changed the entire economy of the resolution you had set up. Compared to the original proposal, only activation remains and nothing else. Finished the fight against the traps of inactivity, the improvement of the situation of persons with disabilities on the labour market, etc. Nevertheless, beyond activation, re-employment, it is known that the number of people who work and receive in addition an integration income – a pity that Mr. Borsus is absent – because the income they get from their work is too low, is on the rise. There were 6,000 people in 2013. In ten years, the number of workers receiving social inclusion income has fallen from 3 to 6%. It is huge!

But what do you do? To ensure that “the weakest groups and the people most removed from the labour market receive additional attention in the context of the employment policy in general and the policy of activation of the unemployed in particular and that, as far as possible, a tailor-made intensive follow-up can be established for the specific target groups”. This is fundamental in the fight against poverty! As you know, this is fundamental for accompanying people on the job market. We must start with social integration before we begin with employment integration. You are simply removing it!

You also remove the point calling for "in the context of supporting the economy to be sufficiently attentive to the resulting job creation while also taking useful care to offer low-skilled people quality jobs." What about low-cost jobs for them? This is what you say by purely and simply removing this phrase while it had all its meaning.

You also remove the point aiming to “increase the minimum wage to avoid employment traps and reduce the number of poor workers.” However, this is what I heard in the government statement of the prime minister before the parliament. I also believe that this is one of the guiding lines of the government to encourage people to work and avoid getting into the benefits system.

This is what you say in the majority. And you simply remove that sentence from your resolution! What coherence do you have in the way you proceed and implement a resolution to fight poverty?

As far as healthcare is concerned, as I have already said to you, Mrs. Minister: we want a transversal policy to combat poverty. We know well, and you know, you have already said, that this is not just a problem of income or social inclusion. This is often a mental health problem. This was stated in the first resolution. But we know that mental health care isn’t necessarily accessible and affordable for everyone. There is not necessarily adequate refund for the treatments of clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, orthopaedologists, as part of care courses. It seems to me that it would have been important, in terms of future prospects and the establishment of genuine cross-policy policies, to keep this point on mental health in the resolution.

In the fight against poverty, should public hospitals be the only ones to take care of people in poverty? I do not believe. Nevertheless, you have removed the point aimed at imposing on outpatient care providers, for example in private clinics, the obligation to meet the same quality standards and to comply with a range of collective tasks and agreements that guarantee continuity and availability of care. The idea is to drive the poor out of private hospitals. Is that really fighting poverty?

In terms of energy, virtually all the CD&V proposal was removed. There remains only the reform of social tariffs, a large melting pot of social tariffs. Practically, this means a slide down. In any case, this is the impression it gives, while there was a big and real ambition: to make energy prices affordable, guarantee access to energy and enter it into Article 23 of the Constitution. It was an ambition in the head of a resolution that to tell the government to place this within the framework of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is no longer in the text.

I believe that limiting itself, within the framework of a resolution, to the government agreement is below what is expected of a resolution put forward by parliament. This way of proceeding is a real step back on a first resolution that has been submitted. It is simply to say to people who have demonstrated against certain measures you have taken and who announce that they will re-manifest against those same measures because they do not accept them, that the goal of your government is not to fight poverty.

How can we fight poverty when we support measures such as index jumping, reducing the income guarantee allocation, removing the pension bonus, restricting the compulsory third-party payer? These are all measures that present an increased risk of poverty. People are weakened by these measures, by this policy: the unemployed, the part-time workers, women for the most part – but you say, Mrs. Minister, be very attentive to the situation of women –, the monoparental families or the elderly.

How do you fight poverty when you refuse to plunge this policy into this ambitious federal poverty-fighting plan based on numerical goals and accompanied by a strict timetable? Today, he is not there. This is announced for the second half of 2015. I hope that there will be numbered goals with a strict timetable and that your commitments will be kept.

How can we fight poverty when we refuse to effectively raise the minimum social security and social assistance benefits beyond the poverty threshold while guaranteeing the associated social benefits? I want to remind you of what you announce: “Yes, we will rise but considering the benefits and therefore decrease because the benefits will be taken into account.”

How do you fight poverty when you decide to no longer clearly mention the need for a tax shift lowering labor tax and increasing taxes on capital income and large fortunes?

How to fight poverty when, in the final text, you purely and simply remove the need to strengthen compulsory solidary health insurance? How to fight poverty, when you refuse to extend the application of the social paying third party scheme? How can you fight poverty when you do not agree to defend access to justice for the most disadvantaged and low-income citizens by improving the quality of legal assistance? How can we fight poverty when we refuse to provide for the maintenance of aid from the Oil Fund as well as the social tariff for electricity and natural gas? How can we fight poverty without allowing adequate funding for the CPAS, which are crucial players in this struggle?

You are not fighting poverty. You claim to do so through this resolution in an ambitious title, but which is far from meeting the expectations of people in precarious situations and the expectations of field actors. You will apologize to me, this is a real missed opportunity and it will be up to you to explain it to people who have taken the effort to move in commission to get heard.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the debate that took place in the committee was extremely interesting and gave rise to very thorough analyses. A number of amendments have been proposed. It is important to note that we are not always on the same wavelength.

What is certain is that with this resolution, the majority is committed to addressing poverty – some dislike it! Put it at the heart of your concerns. This issue is widely addressed in the government agreement. That’s why we refer to it and we have decided to move the matter forward.

Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon, against which we must fight in the different political fields that are also the different levels of power and the different actors, which does not make the situation extremely easy.

This resolution proposal is quite dense and defined on eleven axes. I joined Mr. There is no miracle solution, and you can’t do everything at once. I will allow myself to highlight a number of clear advances reflected in this resolution.

In terms of income, it has been repeatedly stated that the government aims to gradually raise the minimum benefits of social security and social assistance to the level of the European poverty threshold. I clearly think that this resolution proposal reaffirms this objective.

It can also be recalled that the distribution of welfare envelopes 2015 and 2016, which was carried out in perfect consultation with the social partners, gives priority to allocators with the highest risk of poverty, avoiding the traps of employment and inactivity. I will return to this point.

In terms of pensions, there are critical elements: an increase of 2% for minimum pensions, a specific revaluation of older pensions, an increase of the holiday pension by 15% compared to the 2012 pension pension, an increase of the minimum pensions applicable in case of mixed careers to guarantee to the pensioner concerned the equivalent of the minimum pension provided for in the 2015 employment plan. Let us not come to say that with this resolution, there is no progress. On the contrary! The question is whether we want to move forward doing everything at the same time or whether we work in an orderly way. As part of this resolution, we chose the second option.

In terms of health-invalidity insurance, I would like to emphasize the pick-up premium for disabled persons who have been incapable of work for more than two years and which is increased by 160 euros per year. It may not be said enough, but this is a reality. The maximum daily allowance for persons with disability will also increase by 1.5 per cent from 1 April. The minimum amounts will increase by 2% from 1 September. This time, in terms of social inclusion, I point out that the basic amounts of the integration income will be increased by 2% as of 1 September 2015.

Another element is very important to us: work. It is, in our opinion, the best remedy for poverty. Bringing people back to work. We want to avoid employment traps, as they discourage certain categories of social workers from starting or continuing a professional activity.

Disability also contributes to the vulnerability of the person in terms of employment and social inclusion. Health care financing and disability management increases the risk of poverty. This is one of the reasons why the MR, ⁇ , will pay special attention to the need to restrict or eliminate what is more commonly called the "price of love" and the "price of work".

Unfortunately, for people who are precarious, health is too often a luxury. The right to quality and accessible healthcare for all is obviously fundamental. I believe that the Minister of Health is working on this by taking measures of simplification, transparency, accessibility and democratization of care. We can only encourage them in this direction. It should be recognised that the Minister of Health regularly comes in committee to inform us of the state of progress of his projects. We welcome its effectiveness.

Access to housing is also a major issue. This struggle requires negotiation with federal entities. That’s why it’s not always easy to move forward as fast as we want.

In terms of social inclusion, I heard a few elements relating to the proposals of Minister Borsus. I would simply like to point out the political priorities that have already been mentioned, namely: activation as the best lever to break the vicious circle of poverty; the improvement and simplification of the right to social inclusion and the right to social assistance; an active policy for CPAS in order to preventatively reduce poverty. When I hear that Minister Borsus has not gone far enough in his work, here are at least three themes that clearly prove that time should be left in time. This way, of course, we will be able to develop new measures in terms of social inclusion.

Finally, a lot has already been talked about tax fraud, but social fraud also exists. This is an important aspect that this resolution addresses. It is necessary to ensure that the available resources are allocated to those who are entitled to them and who need them most.

As I said, although this resolution is extremely dense, you will not find all the concrete actions that everyone would have wanted to see there. In the meantime, we are advancing a number of concrete actions that are feasible. This is what we want to emphasize, because the text initially presented has undergone significant changes by consensus. This is what we will support soon.

Mr President Mr. Thiery just said that social fraud was important. Do you know what percentage of integration income recipients these cases represent and what is the average amount of these fraud? If not, I have the answer and I will give it to you. I’m waiting for you to tell me if you know these numbers or not.

Bringing the debate to a certain percentage is a question that could ⁇ be asked at the committee, in which case I could have given you an extremely clear answer. However, I understood well when I heard your speech that you are probably trying to resume the debate that has already taken place in the committee, because you have reused all that argument presented in the committee.

not at all. But from the moment you talk about major fraud, I ask you if you know the numbers.

I am not able to give you the exact numbers. What is obvious is that hiding one type of fraud by another is absolutely unacceptable.

This is not at all what I said. Do not betray my thought, please. The fraud affects 1.6% of beneficiaries of the income of social inclusion. The average amount of this fraud is 1,600 euros. Do not say that this fraud is important.

It is important because fraud is not acceptable in our system and we must fight it.

This is another way of presenting things.

Let things be clear. We have already had a discussion on this, and we will have another. It is obvious that this resolution does not advance quickly enough, but at least it has the merit, Mr. Massin, of moving things forward. We are not on the same wavelength, this is not the first time and it will ⁇ not be the last either.

Mr President, that Mr Thiéry has a different assessment of the scope of the resolution, that’s normal.

But there are two things that I cannot accept. On the one hand, to state that this resolution is an advance while it contains no different elements from the government statement. A parliamentary resolution is for parliament to ask the government to do more than it already does. I wonder what this resolution really is for.

On the other hand, when you say we had an in-depth debate, the opposition conducted a provided debate. What happened in the commission? After half an hour, there was no response from the majority. It is deplorable. The majority did not dare; they did not argue for their choices to reduce the scope of the initial resolution.

Mrs. Gerkens, you do and you have done your job as Chairman of the Public Health Commission. I acknowledge that this work is not always easy, we also have some discussions in commission on how. At the same time, I think you have a right to disagree with what we have proposed. You have the right to give your opinion. I imagine that you will come to speak here at the tribune to expose not only your position, but also to defend a number of amendments.

Just acknowledge, Madam the President, that there are times when we are not on the same wavelength. It simply needs to be respected.

As for the work carried out within this committee, I was there, I closely followed what was said there and I also closely followed the presentation of the fifty amendments in question. It was not just the 50 amendments of Mr. Massin, in any case of the PS; there were other amendments that were also studied in depth and taken into account. To come to say that we rejected the work of the opposition as if it had done nothing is completely false. There are some amendments that absolutely did not correspond to the will and context of the written resolution; for the latter, we did not actually want to go further in the debate. You must accept it too. This is the right of everyone.

I held out of the 50 amendments that they did not correspond to our mentality and our desire as part of the preparation of this text. It is exact. That is why we did not vote for them. It is as simple as this.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, 15 % of the Belgians, or 1.6 million of their compatriots, are at risk of falling into poverty because they have to deal with a low income that is below the European poverty line. For those who don’t know yet, the European poverty limit is €1,074 for a single person and €2,256 for a couple with two children.

When we make the comparison with a number of other European countries, we find that Italy and Spain vary around 19% and 20%, while the European average is close to 17%. Therefore, we can say that Belgium is still not doing so badly. In the end, 15 percent is still too much.

Behind these figures are people. Every person who lives in poverty is one person too much.

Colleagues, there have been years in the past in the last legislatures in which we have even surpassed that percentage. Still, 15% is too high, ⁇ because we have to establish that we have one of the better social security systems, ⁇ even the best system in the world. However, we do not seem to be able to provide adequate protection to everyone. The umbrella of our social security is leaking.

There is still a lot to be done to tackle this poverty. Every poor is a poor too much. After all, it’s always about a person, about someone who doesn’t get the ends tied together at the end of the month, who can’t pay for a trip for the kids, and more. For them, we must continue to fight poverty.

Anyone who has been involved in politics for a long time can argue that, unfortunately, there are no magic tools. If we had them, we would probably have used them for a long time. There are no easy ways to address poverty. Otherwise, we would have already used them. Even in the previous governments, together with the Socialists, we may have already used those solutions or that spell.

Indeed, we were in those governments too, but we also had no magic tools. I admit that. However, I am very realistic and at the same time very ambitious in addressing the problem of poverty.

If we want to tackle poverty, we must work on all fronts at the same time. Not only in terms of income – which is important – but also in terms of employment, fair taxation, education, housing and so on.

With regard to federal powers, we have listed in the resolution eleven domains in which the Federal Parliament can operate.

Therefore, with this majority, we have drawn up a resolution that wants to be active in all these areas. I am pleased that my resolution has served as a starting point and that we have come together to a set of recommendations. We can go to the government with very concrete proposals and then also hold the finger on the wrist to see if the proposals we have formulated are implemented by this government.

I would therefore like to thank everyone who contributed to this resolution, the majority and sometimes even the opposition. My thanks goes especially to the people who fight on a daily basis, the people on the ground who are specifically engaged in poverty alleviation and not only in their daily work.

They came to the committee in Parliament and we heard them there in hearings. We have all heard of them: the Support Point for combating poverty, insecurity and social exploitation, the VVSG, the federations of OCMWs, both on the French- and Dutch-speaking side, the Network against Poverty and le Réseau Wallon de Lutte contre la Pauvreté.

We have taken their comments into account in our resolution. They could also determine it themselves. Their daily engagement in the field should be an example for us politicians and should make us realize that nothing, but nothing, in our welfare state is obvious.

Poverty is a murderer. Like a slave killer, poverty increases among people who absolutely don’t see it coming, someone who suddenly loses his job due to restructuring, someone who gets ill for a long time or who has a work accident.

This is also evidenced by the figures: 46% of the unemployed live in poverty. If we want to tackle poverty, we must focus on work. Work is the main buffer against poverty.

That is why this government wants to be fully engaged in work. The assistance of the unemployed is of course a matter of the part-governments.

According to the latest figures from the Planning Bureau, the burden reductions and other measures taken by this government, together with normal economic growth, represent 200 000 additional jobs by 2020. These figures take into account the proportion of jobs that are lost.

This is a major boost for the many unemployed who are now in vain looking for a suitable job.

Not only are people who are unemployed more likely to fall into poverty. Even people who live on a benefit or a small pension can fall into poverty. To avoid this, we will raise the minimum benefits up to the European poverty line.

Mr. Massin, you may criticize it, but this is the first time that a majority includes this in the government agreement. I wish it had happened before, but unfortunately this is not the case. Now it is black on white in the government agreement. We will stick to raising the lowest incomes, benefits and pensions to the European poverty line. The minimum pensions will even be raised up to 10% above that poverty line. This is not an empty promise, because the government has already allocated 1.5 billion euros for it.

Mr. Thiery has already mentioned some figures. All minimum levels increase by 2%. The vacation allowance for disabled persons increases by as much as 50%. It will go from 308 to 468 euros. We will be working on this in the coming years, because income is important.

Colleagues, who cannot tie the ends together, is often poorly housed, saves on heating, eats less often, worse or sometimes not at all, and is also more often sick. Nevertheless, people in poverty often cancel their doctor’s visits because of the cost. Poverty is often a health enemy. That is why in this resolution we advocate for guaranteeing quality but also affordable health care.

We do this through very concrete measures: transparent prices and tariffs in hospitals, affordable mental health care, the mandatory third-payer scheme with general doctors, the limitation of eras supplements and so on.

Colleagues, poverty is also a merciless liquidator, because often people live in poverty with debts. These are often caused by high housing prices and high energy prices. In addition, there is the interest on the amount owed. For example, you get situations where people sometimes have to pay more interest than the amount originally owed. Sometimes one has to pay interest and court fees for an amount of 7 euros in default up to 200 euros. To break that spiral, we suggest that payments be made first on the principal amount and then only on interest. That is one of the many new proposals in this resolution, but one must make the effort to want to read and see them.

In this resolution, we also advocate the automatic allocation of rights. Too often we find that the mattheuse effect plays, that those who know their way get more and more, and those who do not know that they are entitled to something, for example, leave a certain benefit. Therefore, we advocate that these rights be automatically granted everywhere, as far as possible. This can be about the income guarantee for the elderly, the social telephone tariff or the health care.

Colleagues, the examples I have listed are just a few of the many concrete policy measures we have included in this resolution. It is clear that the fight against poverty must be carried out simultaneously on all fronts, not only at the federal level, but at all policy levels. Everyone has a great responsibility in this. Sometimes it sounds like the reproach that it is just a resolution, that it could have been more, or that it was more, but that it has been weakened. For us, this resolution is not simply non-binding.

The resolution that we will adopt later is a reference document. Not only the competent secretary of state, Mrs. Sleurs, but every minister will have to do his homework and work with that resolution. I consider Ms. Sleurs actually to be the guard dog of a good poverty policy and that is what I mean positively.

Mrs. Secretary of State, you must be careful that the other ministers do their job and that poverty is addressed on all fronts at the same time, because it is not a matter of one minister or of one policy level. It ranges from municipal through regional and federal to even European level.

According to external stakeholders, including the Network against Poverty, our resolution is very ambitious and contains very ambitious measures. That is true and that is the intention. After all, behind the poverty figures are people and every person in poverty is one too much. So we have a duty to be ambitious when it comes to poverty alleviation. Leteness or indifference to poverty is the worst thing that could happen to our prosperous society. This majority has the ambition not to be indifferent to poverty in our society. Moreover, this majority wants at least 472 000 Belgians less in poverty by 2018 than in 2010. In the past this number was 360 000 people, but unfortunately this number has increased because poverty has increased in recent years, so now we are unfortunately with a number of 472 000 Belgians. By 2018, we want to get those 472 000 people out of poverty. This is our commitment in the framework of Europe 2020.

I therefore call on everyone, including the opposition, to support our resolution and to work together to eradicate inequality and poverty from our society.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, here we usually climb the speaker to defend a position with fire or to raise counterarguments with fire. Today, however, the dominant feeling is disappointment.

I feel disappointed at the missed opportunity, in particular the opportunity to give a clear signal here in Parliament that we are in the position of fighting poverty.

We missed that opportunity.

I also feel disappointment because a colleague, whom I generally highly value for her views, transforms her own substantially strong proposal of resolution into a weakened version of the majority, which only aims to save the government.

I also feel disappointment, because CD&V, of whom I had expected a real statement on poverty, plays that majority play and that is still in connection with a topic that I until recently thought was her corebusiness.

Combating poverty is not an issue. For SP, this should be one of the priorities of the policy. Therefore, we were very willing to work together on a proposal for a resolution that could be carried across the chamber.

Mrs Lanjri’s first text was perfect for that and a good starting point. However, the government decided otherwise: game over for Mrs. Lanjri.

Colleagues, we need to discuss a proposal for a resolution here, which above states that it aims to combat poverty.

Mrs Jiroflée, Mrs Van Peel would like to interrupt your speech for a moment.

Mrs. Jiroflée, it must be a moment of my heart that I get a little tired of that played outrage of you and your party in such debates.

Now you want to talk about the question of who exactly are the signatories of the draft resolution instead of talking about the content. You want to pretend that poverty has begun with our government, while the figures contradict you.

I will tell you more. It has already been cited here that the current government is committing for the first time to do something very structural in the fight against poverty. It wants to raise the lowest benefits up to the level of the poverty line.

Do you know why this is such a big challenge today? That’s because your governments, the governments of which your party was part, have made the poverty gap so large and have never taken that commitment before. That is the reason.

Mrs Van Peel, the government has written that in its government statement and let us keep it up for the time being. What will happen for the rest, we still have to see.

I really want to talk about the content. I will prove that I am right. The present draft resolution, which above states that it is a draft resolution on poverty alleviation, is full of blank words. Let me give you a few examples, Mrs. Van Peel. It is a detail, you will say, but it is drawing. Poverty has become a “priority”. The concrete recommendations relating to experiential experts, with which one could get to work, have been shrunk and reduced to a formulation that one can get out of all directions.

The phrase “the structural welfare balance of benefits and replacement income” was deleted. In the same paragraph, again, I find a bit of a cryptic phrase that the minimum social security benefits will be gradually increased to the European poverty line, taking into account the social benefits associated with some benefits. I have already asked for an explanation on this in the discussion of the policy notes. What does this last part mean? What benefits will be taken into account? Are these benefits granted by other governments? How will this be taken into account? I did not receive a response at that time and I did not receive a response at the committee last week.

Subsequently, the passage over honorary salary supplements in healthcare has been weakened. In relation to energy, the first version made eight concrete recommendations, including the inclusion of energy as a fundamental right in the Constitution. Now it is stated, oh poor, that the social energy funds will be evaluated and, if necessary, restructured or adjusted. This wording can also be used in all directions.

I can continue for a while, my colleagues. The first strong and robust draft resolution has become a piece of paper that should especially enable the government not to do too much about poverty reduction. It has become a shame that must hide the provisional stall in the field of poverty reduction – I am looking forward to Mrs. Van Peel’s proposal.

Last week we saw a beautiful piece of it. According to the state secretary, the DAVO will have enough money to pay all advances on alimony. After raising the ceilings, the applications only drop in. Of course, they will only drop in, when people do not know that they are entitled to it. Raising ceilings stands beautifully in the newspaper, but informing people about their rights, so that life becomes financially more sustainable, you do not. That is the hypocrisy at the top. If they really ask for it, you will give it, but you will not advertise it. In this way, of course, the policy is financed.

Colleagues, we have the impression that poverty alleviation, especially for the majority, should not cost too much. We will not lay down on that. We will continue to place the majority on its responsibility for poverty reduction.

We will therefore not approve this piece of paper that should propose a proposal for a resolution on poverty reduction. People in poverty earn more than a piece of paper. People in poverty deserve respect and help. They do not get that from the majority.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in building my speech, I wondered what title I was going to give him. I hesitate between two titles: "How to move from 'say' to 'do not do what is said'", or "How not to take responsibility and choose hypocrisy through this text." The first project was ambitious. I would like to admit that this put CD&V in a schizophrenic situation, since the government’s statement, its issues and its policies were contrary to all the major concerns about it, and to all the measures needed to fight poverty.

The index jump, the measures of exclusion and degressivity of unemployment benefits: all this contributes to the precarization of the population. I can understand that there was a discomfort. It took several months for the majority parliamentarians to come to an agreement on a common text. The new version, I acknowledge, contained key elements in the fight against poverty, such as the transversality of policies between levels of power, the transversality between skills, the participation of poor people in the process, decent income, access to health care and quality housing. These essential elements are always present, but at every item, at every line, they are systematically mitigated. They are conditioned by the budget. Here is the government agreement.

What does a resolution use if it is not more ambitious than what the government does or has pledged to do? It is simply enough, and this is what the majority has done, to adopt the government statement, and to trust the latter. One could then renounce a resolution if, as parliamentarians of the majority, one did not find that more needs to be done.

You had the opportunity to say that the government was committed to certain things, as part of a policy that could be approved or not, but that, in the fight against poverty, you were asking it to examine other paths. You did not do it. We will vote on an unnecessary text.

It is embarrassing to question the purpose of this way of doing.

Is the aim to show the government that it is closely monitored and that we will really make sure that it implements the government agreement? Or, what I fear, is the intention to make citizens believe that Parliament is concerned, wants to fight poverty, wants ⁇ ambitious measures, while realising through its government policies that exclude and increase the precariousness of the weakest citizens?

As proof of the impact of these policies, the European Commission published a report at the end of April last year analyzing the so-called fiscal consolidation measures recently adopted by the Belgian government and their impact on poverty. Their conclusion is that the effects are disastrous. The report highlights the following reforms: the transition from social security to social assistance for a large number of job seekers among the most vulnerable; budgetary restrictions in public service and sociocultural; austerity measures disproportionately affecting the poorest and middle-class households as well as the inactive population; the index jump applied to wages and not rent. It is a European assessment of the impact of government policies. This resolution only repeats government policies.

Other colleagues have already spoken on some points, and my colleague Anne Dedry will complete my speech. I would have wanted to draw attention to the hearings we organized. They were ⁇ interesting and fruitful. The speakers, coming from different backgrounds, were all competent in combating poverty. One of the elements on which they all insisted is that, if it is really necessary to aim at the automation of rights, that is not enough. In fact, automaticity can remain theoretical. People who have rights do not believe enough in themselves when they are in poverty. Their negative image of themselves causes them not to manifest themselves, to take the minimum steps necessary, or even to be identified. Even the automation of rights does not guarantee that the person will actually have access to them.

They all called for measures to be put in place to verify the effectiveness of these rights. For this reason, we had filed an amendment, which I re-depose today with my colleagues Anne Dedry and Georges Gilkinet, in order to examine at least this possibility of setting up in Belgium a tool that can be called "the observatory of non-recourse", as it has been done in France, and which allows to have a barometer of non-recourse. It is about identifying, with the poor, the actors in the fight against poverty and the social services, if this right for people, this measure that I consider automatic, is actually in fact. If not, what are the reasons?

I regret that this proposal was not accepted because it is not about giving more money or more rights. It is simply about checking that the policies we put in place succeed and come to fruition on the ground.

In terms of health, this is something that strikes me deeply very regularly. Although this may not be considered sufficient, a whole range of measures exist to ensure that people have access to health care. Now, because of non-information, people today believe that they do not have access to health care because they should pay it expensive. They do not use it and they are not given sufficient information. This is a ⁇ important example of the need to observe mechanisms and establish processes for these people.

I have already explained one of the four amendments we have submitted. If these amendments cannot be adopted here in the plenary session, we can only vote against this resolution. We do not accept government policies.

One of the elements that we obviously cannot accept is that before declining requests, it is indicated "within budgetary limits". The policies are always made within budget limits but these are politically fixed. These are choices. How is the budget organized? How do you set priorities? Obviously, having organized the text in this way, it means that, among the requests made, many of them will only be executed in half or will not be executed for budgetary reasons and not by bad will.

However, in the explanation and in the considerations, it is stated that “fighting poverty should be seen as an investment for the economy and society in general,” which you do not advocate. This is also the fight against poverty. It allows for a lasting relief of the financial pressure on social security, without putting it on the diet.

The bill proposes raising the minimum social benefits to the poverty risk line. But, again, you take the measure that specifies “taking into account the social benefits associated with certain benefits.” This addition did not appear in Ms. Lanjri’s first version, and this phrase simply means that this increase will have no everyday effect for the poor. Once again, a way to say but a way to do that is diametrically opposite.

In the resolution, you also propose to examine whether the integration income regulation is still sufficiently adapted to current forms of living together and/or care. We rejoice when we read these terms, thinking that this is an open door to the individualization of rights. I asked the question in the committee. We were answered negatively. But if we do not examine or deepen the individualization of rights, it is especially women, who are overrepresented in this status of cohabitants, who will be the victims.

Non-individualization is associated with reductions in allowances for cohabitants, but also with difficulties that will be linked to housing fraud. This will prevent housing sharing and solidarity. Other mechanisms must be invented, but one must incorporate the fact that the person is not penalized in his or her minimum income, such as allowances, because he or she chooses to share a space or life with a person.

The same applies to people with disabilities. Since I am a member of Parliament, questions have been systematically asked and questions have been raised in the heads of parliamentary parties of the current majority but also others to say that this price of love must be put to an end. It is necessary to put an end to the fact that a disabled person, because he or she lives with a person who has another income, sees his or her integration allowance decreased.

It could be expected that in the present case it will be inserted in an ambitious way. And well no! We will consider it, but we will not do it, while we have the numbers on the matter. There are figures on the cost. They were established by several successive ministers. It is a matter of will, but it is not. These people will again be betrayed and deceived by phrases that make them believe that action will be taken, but it won’t.

In the proposal, you removed several points relating to the special attention that needed to be paid to those who were most distant from the labour market. In doing so, you enter into a logic in which the weakest people will have to bend to the requirements of presence on the job market without benefiting from the sufficient accompanying measures that must be provided to them.

I will not go further. I would like to address the Secretary of State. In the resolution, I would have wanted to replace “poor threshold” with “poor threshold of poverty risk”. It is the official European name. This is the official name that should also be that of the SPP Integration. We forget about it regularly. Sometimes it is used, sometimes not. In the text, colleagues refused to change the formula. I think there is a difference in the translation between French and Dutch. The important thing is that we should not aim for the poverty threshold, we must aim for the income that will allow us not to cross that threshold. The concept of poverty threshold is fundamental. It will be necessary to ensure that this expression is used in the texts that come from the Federal Public Service.

The proposed resolution does not protect against this risk of poverty. We will therefore vote against, unless you accept our amendments. But in terms of trade, I don’t think that will be the case. Our vote against will mean that we are not fooled to copy/paste the government statement. This resolution devotes the abandonment of any parliamentary ambition.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Massin in the case of hospitals. He sent the message that public hospitals were the ones that hosted and treated the most disadvantaged patients. I would like to remind him that the figures demonstrate that associative hospitals welcome and treat patients belonging to weaker social classes as much as public hospitals. The encrypted reality has its rights and I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity here rather than interrupt it so far to say this.

We could discuss each point of this resolution proposal. We would have it for a whole day. I am not going to discuss each point here. I will limit myself to a brief political intervention.

If the resolution proposal that was yours, Madame Lanjri, had been put to the vote today, we would have supported it and voted positively. The goal of the CD&V – this can only be that – was, it seems to me, clearly to put pressure on the government and more specifically on you, Madame the Secretary of State, who are in charge of the fight against poverty to advance things far further than what is provided in the government agreement.

When the majority came to an agreement on a common text, one had to make the constatation that it had made back machine all and that the text that was interesting, that of CD&V, was no more than a noble ambition but unfortunately without future.

I understand that you are embarrassed by the surroundings. It is complicated to vote for measures that aggravate poverty and, at the same time, come up with a resolution outside the government deal.

Dear colleagues, I'm sorry, but if it's about filing a simple copy-paste of your government agreement's "poverty-oriented" measures, then it wasn't worth writing a draft resolution.

I will go a step further by submitting a request. We can spend hours here discussing a copy-paste of the government agreement. On the other hand, when auditions are organised, external stakeholders are listened to for hours and, once their views are expressed, they are sent out for a walk, applying the exact opposite of their ideas and, worse yet, going backwards from the initial resolution proposal, I find it more than disrespectful to them. That’s why, next time, avoid inviting outsiders by taking time on their already well-loaded agenda to, in the end, almost say “strong” to them in full face.

I will not go further, although I feel that there is no point to conclude, but I would like to invite the majority to look at the OECD studies. As far as I know, this is not for the left. Still, she continues to advocate for more inclusive social projects – not for fun. Be very attentive, colleagues, to the OECD reports, in which it is shown that the countries that do best and have made the most socio-economic progress are those that have developed the most inclusive policies. This is a matter of consideration for the majority.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, it is true that after the debate devoted to this resolution, one begins to question what is still the meaning of adopting a resolution in a parliament and what is still the interest of such debates.

I proceed from the principle that the submission of a resolution must enable the expansion of debates beyond what are the commitments of a government statement and to carry out a long-term reflection, on a certain vision, a broader approach than the only imperatives of immediate management of which the government is responsible, which should inspire the action of successive governments over the long term and where the Parliament would give goals to be achieved according to a timetable, a timetable, according to a methodology that would be determined.

When I read the text of the resolution, with all the respect I owe to their authors and to the work that has been done - in this text everything is not to be neglected, ⁇ not - I cannot hide my perplexity about formulas that engage us on very moving sand.

When you say “in tax matters, take new steps in order to develop a fair, simple and transparent taxation”, I mean, but what does this mean concretely?

"In income policy (point 2), gradually raise the minimum benefits of social security and social assistance to the level of the European poverty threshold, taking into account the social benefits associated with certain social benefits." This is the real debate. But at what rate? Which stages are numbered? We know the budget costs. If we put the social minimum in Belgium at the level of the European threshold tomorrow, it will cost the state 1.5 billion euros. This is the reality. If this is the objective, which is a necessity that the European institutions recommend to us, then we must say at what pace we will ⁇ it rather than having a phrase that lets everything be heard but that does not commit more than what everyone wants to put in it.

And I could multiply the examples, which have something pathetic. When you say “to grant social rights automatically” and add “when possible,” what does that mean? What does it mean to “discharge the necessary budgets in order to be able to conduct an energetic policy and to fulfill the commitments made by the government”? What budgets are these? In what amounts? What concrete measures? And we could thus resume the whole resolution and we would see that it is totally vague, if not insignificant.

However, there are budgets to be made. At some point, we have to go to the essential. Of course, the fight against poverty is a transversal subject; it affects health policy, housing policy and access to employment. But at the heart of the debate, there is the question of whether we want to revaluate the social minimum. This is the first big bet. If so, at what rate? With what objectives?

The second big question is what is the place of an institution such as the CPAS. In the hearings, a large place was reserved for representatives of the CPAS federations. And quite surprisingly, when you read your resolution, you find that the role of CPAS is neglected. Almost nothing is said about it. It is the first institutional political instrument in Belgium in the fight against poverty.

And representatives of the CPAS came up with very precise requests, which concerned, for example, the rate of coverage of reimbursements of social integration income by the state. Then we begin to have real discussions. They came with very precise requests to not misrepresent their work and, in particular, to not engage in the path of the common merger-CPAS, which would have the effect of ending a number of guarantees related to the protection due to the beneficiaries of the income of social integration, so that the specificity of the administrative action, which has been proven, can be preserved. Because the CPAS have proven in our country, they have demonstrated the effectiveness of a number of policies. They are asking not to become an auxiliary of the ONEM. They demand not to become auxiliaries of social control. Their role is not that. To all these requests, you do not respond. You are removing all this! The institution that is at the heart of poverty-fighting policy is ignored!

The same representatives of the representative associations of the CPAS raise a real substantive debate: the individualization of rights. This is a difficult debate. We know that this has budgetary consequences. But here is, if we had a vision, a prospective field. The role of a parliament would be, together with the experts, with the professors of the academic world, to ask the following question: how can one tend toward what everyone considers a necessary goal? Individualization of rights is the best way to fight social fraud. With the latter, we will no longer discuss the methods of combating social fraud. Of course, this is not an easy debate. This is not a debate that can be undertaken in a few months. We could not even ask the current government to ⁇ it. But it is the role of parliament that wants to be a room of reflection, of prospection, if one wants to make a resolution.

All of this, you have evacuated him. I challenge you. In a few months, and even at the end of this legislature, we will take back your resolution, which contains about sixty requests to the government. For each one, we will ask you, what was, concretely, the exact achievement? I am afraid that this would be unfavorable for the authors of this resolution. This is regrettable, because I do not doubt the sincerity of their intention. But I think they have made a mistake of the record, of the level of debate.

Yesterday, France took this very republican and very French measure of transferring the remains of four personalities of the resistance, including that of Geneviève Anthonioz-de Gaulle, who was the president of ATD Quart Monde. For those who could listen back to the message that this great lady delivered... By the way, she never agreed to return to Ravensbrück where she had been detained, because she always wanted her testimony to focus on current challenges, to better preserve what she had experienced. She has always said: “My real struggle today is the fight against poverty.” She said terrible things. She said, in particular, that the people she met in reception camps had the eyes of her fellow prisoners in Ravensbrück; that the people who knew the hardest of poverty had the eyes of anxiety and fear.

This questions us all. But we cannot take up this challenge if we do not defend other ambitions than those of the text you submit to us.

Of course, we can join you on some points. Obviously, the mechanisms for seizure of securities and how to resolve certain problems related to debt mediation need to be corrected. By the way, you are not talking about the SECAL (Service of Maintenance Claims), while the law is not fully enforced. However, it was one of the first measures to combat certain forms of precariousness, affecting women who do not receive their alimony properly. This has never been fully implemented by successive governments.

We could talk about many problems that have ultimately been accelerators to forms of precariousness in successive policies of governments. At some point, we need to raise the debate and focus on the essential. The first objective is the individualization of rights. Second, the raising of the social minimum to meet the European standards, as we are invited to do. Finally, the preservation of the political institution that, in this country, safeguards access to several social rights in respect of human dignity; I speak of course of CPAS. As long as you have not agreed to carry the debate on these three primary topics, I simply believe that you will only do a seeming job.

This is not the first hypocritical resolution that comes from the majority. Today we have reached a summit. I'm wondering when you'll submit a resolution against index jumps. Why not ? You do not know how far you will go. In this case, we are going very far. We are very strong!

Contrary to what the text suggests, poverty is not stagnant. It is increasing. The number of people under the poverty line is increasing year by year. I mean the number of people who benefit from a CPAS allowance, as well as the number of SDFs in Brussels and ⁇ in other cities. This is a first observation.

A second finding, other colleagues have pinched it, are the differences between the two resolutions, the initial resolution CD&V and the final resolution that is submitted to us today. I don’t know if I should laugh at it because it doesn’t matter. This is indeed quite constructive. In its first version, the text talked about making the fight against poverty an absolute priority of this government. In its second version, the epithet "absolute" is removed and "taking into account the available budgetary resources" is added. This is quite significant. The same is true when the words “to raise wages to avoid poor workers” are removed or when the phrase “to guarantee access to energy” is removed. I could have given some more examples, but given the time, I thank you for the exercise. It is quite edifying.

I have heard many colleagues say that there is no miracle cure for poverty. I tend to answer that there may not be a miracle remedy, but that an effective remedy would be, above all, to avoid a policy that impoverishes people. To avoid poverty, let’s avoid impoverishing them. Let’s avoid pursuing a policy as you pursue it, a policy that attacks people’s wages through an index jump, a policy that reduces pensions by removing the retirement bonus, and that provides for additional taxes with non-indexing the replacement income tax reduction! Avoid increasing the costs of accessing justice by increasing the fees of the office! Avoid the exclusion of unemployment, even if the faults are shared with the previous government! To avoid poverty, let’s avoid pursuing a policy that makes people poor. It is essential! This is what makes me think that there is a fundamental hypocrisy in this resolution.

Two visions are confronting. At PTB, we have a vision that says that poverty is not a matter of charity but of social justice. What can we do against poverty? This is to strengthen the walls against poverty. By “rewarding” I mean social achievements. The index, for example, is a social achievement.

Here is ! Preserve this wall! Social security is also a backbone. It is important to avoid attacking pensions, to make people work longer, to reduce the amount of pensions. Public services are also an incredibly important bridge against poverty. But what do you do? Just through your budget, you are removing thousands of public service jobs and you are reducing public service, which is an important fence for people, especially the most precarious. Public service is a way to escape poverty.

Compared to this vision, which seems to me logical, but too logical for you, you have a pile and face vision. Pile, I plan a few measurements for, in the long run, one day, to do a little something if the means allow it. Face, you break these three walls that are social achievements, social security and public services.

I will end by raising the big taboo that we do not dare to address. Victor Hugo once said, “It is from the poor’s hell that the rich’s paradise is made.” The Misérables is a classic.

Indeed, the number of poor is increasing and, in parallel, the number of rich, the number of millionaires! You can consult the investigations. Every year, there are more millionaires than the previous year.

Indeed, it is the big taboo to establish the link between the increase in the number of rich, a minority of 1% of rich, increasingly rich, in particular as the works of Thomas Piketty have shown, and the impoverishment of the population. This is the hard point to recognize! You are no longer responsible for the fight against tax fraud. But this matter – the effective fight against tax fraud – would have helped strengthen the fight against poverty. The technique would have been wise, but we can no longer do it!

In conclusion, I will give you a single number. A millionaire tax such as the PTB advocates for only the 25 wealthiest families in Belgium, those of Spoelbergh, Albert Frère and Cie, would allow to give 173 euros more per month to one million pensioners.

Look at the choice that is available to you, members of the majority and the government. Either we introduce a small tax on twenty-five very wealthy families, or we prevent a million pensioners from having 173 euros more per month.

We are not going to multiply amendments on such a hypocritical draft resolution. It would have been ineffective. But we have yet to introduce one to say that the increase of social benefits beyond the poverty risk threshold should not be fixed in the future, one day if the budgetary means allow it, as is envisaged in the resolution. Our amendment requires that this adjustment be applied this year. by Mr. Maingain gave the amount that it represents, or 1.5 billion euros. If you want to demonstrate your real willingness to fight poverty, vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my colleague Eric Massin has broadly addressed the substance of the measures and I will not return to them. I will speak about the method and mindset of the majority on this ⁇ important topic.

In 2012, I was honored to present to the European Parliament the report on the establishment of the European Platform for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. In this context, I have had the constant concern of bringing together the different sensitivities of the political groups to send a strong message to the Council and the Commission: the message that austerity is not the path to follow and that there must be a more important place for social progress. We must fight global and concrete poverty that deeply threatens our social cohesion.

Here, no strong message, no precise goal, no strict timetable for the government! I denounce the partisan attitude of this majority in a topic on which we must, however, make common cause. By systematically rejecting the constructive amendments of the opposition, you are sending a very negative signal to our increasingly numerous fellow citizens who live or are threatened by poverty. The fight against poverty must be considered horizontally, transversally. It must involve all levels of power but also all democratic sensitivities of this parliament.

The government’s measures are likely to further increase the precariousness and inequalities in this country. If I take the example of pensions, the situation will get worse for our elderly. I think, in particular, of the postponement of the legal age to 67 years, in total contradiction with the will and ability to work up to 67 years of many people. I also think about access to survival pension. The same applies to young people, with the tightening of access to insertion allowances. However, not later than yesterday, the SPF Social Inclusion still highlighted that one in five pensioners in our country lived below the poverty line.

The partisan attitude of the majority is really damaging in the face of the social urgency experienced by many fellow citizens. It is incomprehensible and counterproductive. To illustrate this, I will take only one example, that of the amendment we have proposed in the committee on food waste.

You know that more than 200,000 people are using food aid in Belgium. The decrease in available food, coupled with increasing precariousness, make the situation critical for many families and associations. We proposed to add a point, a small point on this topic, calling for measures to combat food waste at all stages of the production chain, while promoting redistribution to aid associations to the most disadvantaged.

While this common sense proposal, initiated in Herstal, has just been voted unanimously in the French National Assembly – I insist: unanimously – while legislative or governmental initiatives have been taken in the three Regions of this country, the majority has swept this chapter with a back of the hand, which I deeply regret. But the struggle does not stop here. We will not lower our arms, we will come back, especially with my colleague Eric Massin, whenever necessary, with substantive proposals in order to ⁇ one goal: to act to eradicate poverty in a concrete and effective way.

Mr. Speaker, I also speak on behalf of my newly born colleague Evita Willaert and I share her concerns on this matter. She enjoys her baby. Thank God, mother and child should not live in poverty.

The original resolution was very ambitious and included a number of essential elements that are important in the fight against poverty: a transversal policy, structural global measures, decent income. We found that a very good first version.

The restriction with which the resolution now begins, “taking into account the budgetary resources,” is really disturbing and gives the feeling of taking out the resolution.

We expect a government to choose what and how much resources it will put in the fight against poverty and say what choices it makes.

The most unfortunate thing is that the tone of the resolution has changed. It has lost its most important ambitions. It has already been said by many speakers, so I will limit myself to this example. It is claimed that the social security benefits are aimed at increasing to the European poverty line, however taking into account social benefits linked to certain benefits.

That addition was not in the first version, but is in the government agreement. If this continues, that increase is unlikely to make a difference in the daily lives of people in poverty.

There has been so much said by the other speakers that I can finish here. This resolution emphasizes very often and above all “return to work”, but without really essential concern for the quality of the proposed jobs, nor for the guidance of the most vulnerable people.

The Ecolo-Green group would have very much supported this resolution, but we cannot give our support to an empty box.