Proposition 54K1773

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 6 octobre 2005 portant diverses mesures en matière de sélection comparative de recrutement et en matière de stage en vue d'optimiser le quota en matière d'emploi de personnes handicapées dans les services publics fédéraux.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri, Stefaan Vercamer
MR Stéphanie Thoron
N-VA Wouter Raskin, Jan Spooren
Open Vld Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

April 19, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

recruitment disabled person public administration civil service worker with disabilities

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB VB

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 ¶

April 20, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

This bill is not just falling out of the air. It starts from a general problem, namely that the employment rate of people with disabilities in our country has been very low for years, even compared to other countries in Europe. Then we are talking about both the unemployment rate, 28% of people with disabilities compared to 9% of other people, and the employment rate, 40,7% is the employment rate for people with disabilities compared to an EU average of 47,3%, in France is that even 52%, in Sweden even 66%. We have been far behind this for years.

A second, more specific problem is that the target of 3 % employment for persons with disabilities in federal government agencies, which should be one of the solutions to raise that employment rate, has not been achieved for years. That level is even going down. In 2012 it was still 1.54 %, in 2013 1.51 %, in 2014 it fell to 1.39 % and in 2015 it fell even further, to 1.32 %, seen across all federal public services.

What is the cause of this? That has to do with mentality, with a lack of awareness and awareness. But there are also more objectively inhibitory factors that play a role in this. The first is that the recruitment of civil servants is increasingly recurring to higher qualifications, as the tasks have become more complex. We also see more and more of this knowledge economy in the public sector. Level D, where a large number of people with disabilities were recruited, is a category that is increasingly less concerned in our civil servants system.

Strict diploma requirements are also required. There are comparative recruitment procedures, making it difficult for people with disabilities to get through the recruitment rounds.

We also see that there are more and more pensions in the civil servants apparatus. Also there we notice, when we put the figures side by side, that especially in category D there are very many retirees, which are not replaced again by someone else of category D but by people of categories C, B or A.

In general, we also see savings in the civil service apparatus. There are generally fewer officials. There are also fewer people with disabilities working as civil servants.

Another part is also what is called the smoked officials with a restriction. These are people who have a limitation and could fall within the target of 3%. Because of the stigmatisation, they do not dare or want to stand out as someone with a disability. In this way, they are not included in the numbers, but they are still working.

Sometimes there are also physical factors, such as, for example, just all the mobility. Many public services are located in Brussels. Especially for people with physical disabilities who live a little far away and who have to get to Brussels, this is a very big problem.

There are a number of objectively disruptive factors.

In addition, there is clearly also a target group that has limitations in terms of employability and unfortunately often also in terms of training.

Despite a number of compelling efforts from various services, therefore, one remains very far from the target.

This bill is not intended to provide a total solution, but rather a piece of the solution, by allowing for the target of 3 % that the federal public services outsource a part. They then spend work on tailor-made companies and let that count for achieving the target.

Measurement companies are companies that specialize in employing people with disabilities, who have the necessary expertise in this area, and who thus can often offer a solution to the inhibitory factors I had talked about.

The bill itself is very simple. It is also optional. It allows 1 % of those 3 % to be outsourced while still being charged for achieving the target.

How will this be calculated? There are two ways. Either one looks at the number of outsourced hours or working days. Or one looks at the financial values of the contract, which are then converted into VTEs, based on the average wage costs of the public service that performs the outsourcing.

We have deliberately included a maximum of 1% in the bill, in order to avoid completely switching to outsourcing work and no longer making efforts to hire people with disabilities directly at the federal government service.

We also made this optional. It is an additional opportunity, an additional alternative, to get people with disabilities to work.

What is the argument for this? Many of those outsourced tasks are short-term and simple tasks, suitable for people of level D or for people with certain limitations. I have already said that those tailor-made companies have specialized guidance, specialized guides at home and have the expertise to work with those people.

There are also European and Belgian regulations that provide for the possibility to outsource certain public contracts by priority or even exclusively to companies specialising in working with people with disabilities.

In practice, this system is almost unused. Only 0.02% of the turnover is outsourced to such companies. Therefore, there is a need for awareness and incentives to better use this system and this regulation.

This measure was included as a goal in the government agreement. We also looked at other countries. France, for example, is a country that often uses this system. Fortunately, we see that this does not lead to a reduction in the direct employment of people with disabilities in public services. It is clearly an en-en-story, something that we want to try to ⁇ here too.

The objective is, therefore, to ⁇ , in practice, a net increase in the employment of persons with disabilities, which takes into account a new economic context, including the context of the civil servants, and which thus wants to provide a modern solution to it, though it – I have already said – partially.

Is there a risk that this will lead to less direct employment of persons with disabilities in those public services? That risk is certain. We have discussed this in the committee extensively and it is a legitimate concern. Therefore, that maximum of 1% can be counted. We also provide for the possibility of enclave operation. That is, a tailor-made company employs people with disabilities physically within the location of the public service.

At the proposal of Ms. Fonck of the opposition, an article was also introduced which each year assesses how many people with a disability employ all public services on the one hand and how many they already outsource to tailor-made companies on the other.

So we have a zero measure and can therefore see if that law achieves the goal of getting net to more employment, so that it does not become a mere replacement.

This reflects the rational and modalities of the law. I would like to express my gratitude to all the majority and opposition parties. It was a beautiful example of cooperation across party boundaries and across majority and opposition. Not all parties have approved this in the committee but most have, including from the opposition. I can only hope that Ecolo-Groen will be persuaded today to approve this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. Spooren has well summarized the objective and the modalities of the bill that is presented to us. Of course, the integration of people with disabilities at work is a challenge for our society. This is a challenge for everyone. This is also an international obligation mentioned in Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

We believe that public authorities should be the example. The issue of the employment of persons with disabilities in the private sector can of course be debated. I think our country should do more and better in this area as well. But let’s start by showing example at every level of power. Since 2007, a quota of 3% of persons with disabilities employed in federal administrations has been in place. Unfortunately, for all these years, we have not been able to reach this quota.

Mr. Spooren, you explained the objective correctly; 1% will be evaluated specifically. We discussed all this. That was really one of the conditions. It should not be a way of counting people differently. In the long run, there must be additional commitments. We will pay attention to it.

You have also stated in the commission that this system works well in France. Therefore, it is positive to implement it at our home, at federal level. This can also be discussed at the regional level. I believe that this already exists in the Walloon Region for public interest organizations.

The goal, we share it. All parties share it. Nuances can be made on the modes. Ultimately, it is about improving the proportion of persons with disabilities in the federal public service. They say 3% but that’s a minimum. This could be more, taking into account the reservations you mentioned. Some people do not want to declare themselves as disabled people. This freedom must be taken into account.

Only the contracts that will be outsourced from the entry into force of the law will be taken into account in the calculation, and not the old contracts. This is not a calculation on existing things. It is about giving something extra. This was confirmed in the committee and this completely reassured us.

As a committee, we also emphasized that this law does not exempt federal public authorities from continuing to be proactive in the matter. This measure will bring added value, but it may not allow the quota to be reached. It does not exempt us from further efforts. More efforts are needed, more initiatives are needed to ⁇ the goal.

I mentioned the separate assessment. The assessment by the National Higher Council of Persons with Disabilities will also give us clues on the effectiveness of the new mechanism in the future, over time. It is not an end in itself, but a goal of means.

I would like to conclude with a brief paragraph on the current situation. On Tuesday, we heard the guidance note of the State Secretary for Persons with Disabilities. The vote on this bill is now taking place. We heard the State Secretary’s explanation on the guidance note. We started the debate without finishing it; it is delayed to next week. But we read that Ms. Demir makes integration and employment of people with disabilities a priority, which is a good thing in itself. We will see later if there is an adequacy between the right words, actions and outcomes. In principle, we can only approve.

We want to remove the barriers that hinder people with disabilities from getting to work. So I took advantage of the debate that has not ended, you heard it, Mr. Spooren, to say that the sector’s main claim, the first obstacle, is what the sector calls “labour price.” This is really the demand of the Supreme Council and People with Disabilities. This removal was timidly announced at the beginning of the legislature by Ms Sleurs. It would try to make efforts to eliminate, in whole or in part, the price of labour. Eventually, two years later, she came to us and said, “I asked the question and they said no, there’s no money.”

We will see the outcome here, but we know that the bottom of the problem, Mr. Spooren, is this law of 1987. It is outdated and antinomic to the employment of people with disabilities, with its complex system of cuts, ceilings that are too low, etc.

Ms Demir writes it at the beginning of her note: there are no financial means. It already puts limits on the efforts it might try to make. Therefore, I will ask you to be our interpreter with the Secretary of State and within the majority. You know the disability sector, Mr. Spooren, so you know it’s important. May you be our interpreter to convince the colleagues of the majority that we need to work on reforming this law, which is completely outdated, on the question of work as well as on other issues. must be done. We have a bill. We are open to dialogue and hope that further progress will be made in this matter during this legislature.

We have approved the proposed legislation in the committee. We shared the objectives and were reassured about the modalities. There will be this annual assessment with people from the sector.

Finally, as regards the orientation note, we have a meeting next Wednesday to continue the debate.

In conclusion, we support this bill on the agenda.

We know that 3% of people with disabilities employed in the public sector is a line set for years. But our country is struggling to fulfill this commitment. In view of this observation, our group joins the reading of Mr. Spooren who, in commission as here, recalled the importance of being realistic in relation to the difficulty encountered by public services to fill this quota.

This proposal is not intended to bring a definitive solution, but at least has the merit of bringing a stone to the building and marking a step in the right direction by offering more opportunities for working companies suited to collaborate with federal public services.

As has already been pointed out, all opportunities must be seized. It is in this sense that our group has supported this file from its early days, in particular by the voice of our colleague Stéphanie Thoron, who is apologized, co-signator of the proposal.

We recognize that it is wise to have an objective assessment of the impacts of this law. That is why we also voted in committee on the amendment providing for this evaluation, one year after its entry into force, by the National Higher Committee of Persons with Disabilities.

You will then understand that the MR group will support this proposal.

Unfortunately, you will not convince us to support this bill. I listened to your arguments. These latter do not at all lead me to review the fundamental criticisms of the Ecolo-Groen group with regard to the bill under consideration.

You say that the text brings a modern solution that allows people with disabilities to work and work within the society. But what is a modern solution today? This is not a return to the development of adapted work companies, to the protected workshops of the past. For people with disabilities, a modern solution is a solution that allows them to share the same spaces as others in the context of their work, social life, cultural life, everyday life. This allows them to access places where people who do not have a disability work. This is what they expect and this is what is included in the United Nations Convention that states the inclusion of persons with disabilities. In fact, the term integration was abandoned to be replaced by the term inclusion.

What you offer us is not a solution to the problems that you have well identified that actually prevent disabled people from working in the private economic environment and in the public service. What you bring is a solution that does not bring the answers to the problems you have identified.

The decision was made to reduce the number of civil servants; by doing so, the number of persons with disabilities likely to work as such is automatically reduced. The answer should not be to make more people work in companies with suitable work.

Too few people with disabilities enroll in the Selor tests and manage to pass the different stages. At this level, solutions must also be provided to make the Selor tests accessible.

On Tuesday, Ms. Demir proposed to promote internships allowing meetings, to test skills and thus take a first step. This is a response to a difficulty encountered in accessing work in public service. This does not mean that they are going to work elsewhere, in specific places.

There is a lack of training, let’s provide solutions and let’s allow them to train before looking for a job or set up modules for coupling training and accompaniment of these people on the workplace.

I find it incredible that we identify the reasons why we fail to meet the targets set for 3% of public servants with disabilities, while providing solutions that are not adequate to solve the problems identified. This does not mean that we are against the increased use of social clauses in subcontracts. Of course, we support it. However, this should not replace a part of the obligation to engage in public service.

Social clauses already exist. We have adopted a law that sets stricter and more ambitious criteria, in particular for the award of public procurement. There is a desire to strengthen social and environmental clauses. This element can play in favour of this subcontracting. It might have been necessary to make social clauses mandatory in public procurement by public bodies of the state. We would have increased the use of suitable work companies and other companies that employ people in difficulty.

Again, it is a complementary dynamic, different and parallel to that of quotas in the public service. And I do not see how the development of subcontracting will stimulate the additional engagement of people with disabilities within the public service. The link will not be made. If this works in other states that use more social clauses than we do, the better. We can set ourselves this goal, but it should not replace the obligation of commitment.

The only positive element of this proposal, which has been added, is the evaluation after a year by the National Higher Council of Persons with Disabilities.

What will he evaluate? Will it look at outsourcing and the increasing use of social clauses in public procurement in this area, or will it continue to assess the number of people with disabilities employed in public service? It is therefore important that both sides are present.

When you read their opinions, their questions, their criticisms, you notice that their opinion is consistent with what I say to you right now. They are faced with an insoluble situation and a government that had vowed in 2014 that it would not impose respect for the 3% since – as I said then – the government statement, in this case that of Mr. Trump. Vandeput, planned to alleviate the obligation of 3 % through the resort for a third party to the subcontracting in the company of adapted work. This body and organisations representing people with disabilities are therefore facing a government that had promised this and now a bill that reiterates that promise. Therefore, they can only submit you criticisms and questions, as they are not on the move to guide the real choices.

For all these reasons, our group will oppose your bill. At the same time, it will pay particular attention to the proper conduct of an assessment and ensure that the administrations comply with the quotas. I remember that we had previously worked on this issue in the Social Affairs Committee, that we had suggested forcing the administrations to engage on a quota basis and that otherwise they would not be able to recruit other staff members. It was, in a way, to force them to comply with that obligation. It had been discussed in previous governments, but with no effect. Unfortunately, one must realize that in the absence of binding powers and accompanying services aimed at supporting officials, management officers and disabled workers, one is stagnating and faced with a lack of ambition.

We will not support your proposal.

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, 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, 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 Gerkens, in relation to what you have stated, I would like to point out that the National Higher Council for Persons with Disabilities (CSNPH) notes the positive nature of the measure, which aims to improve employment overall by seeking other ways than conventional recruitment. Furthermore, the CSNPH raised a number of questions and reflections that I find important. Of course, we will have to answer this question, and we will come back.

I have said it many times, there can be some negative effects. The best example is an administration that would reach the 3 per cent quota and that would already have recourse to outsourcing in companies of suitable work and that, tomorrow, could incorporate that outsourcing into its quota, without even having to justify a decrease in the number of disabled workers it directly employs. This is not because this type of arrangement can in no way offer public authorities the opportunity to waive themselves from their obligations in this regard. The public authorities, even more than all others, and especially the SPFs, must clearly set an example.

In relation to this risk, I have proposed in the committee that the situation can be closely monitored and assessed, by quickly reviewing the figures with the sector and with the National Higher Council of Persons with Disabilities to put things in place if these deviations occur.

That is, we do not deduct the administrations that fill down their quotas, even if it was not the case and they use the argument of the companies adapted. This point of attention is important to us. In committee, we found together the possibility to lock it in this text which, I said, we will support.

As other colleagues have done, I allow myself to associate another approach to things, equally important for the employment of people with disabilities. It is the price of labour that truly remains a trap to employment. I remind the colleagues of the majority that this price of labor is flooded in the government agreement and that, despite this, we have not yet seen anything. Obviously, the positions of the Secretaries of State are unfortunately not growing but, on the contrary, are declining on this subject. I can therefore only urge you to resolve this important problem, which is a real trap for employment on the price of labour. I consider it a key key to facilitating the employment of persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief speech to say that DEFI will support this project. We would like to support this bill even more as our representatives recently took a similar initiative for the Brussels municipalities. We expect a significant step forward for the employment of persons with disabilities in Brussels, where adapted work companies already employ some 18,000 people, many of whom are unable to find another job.

We also expect a lot from this federal initiative. It would be interesting to evaluate this approach in the medium term and to check whether additional initiatives need to be taken. This does not exempt public services from continuing their efforts to accommodate people with disabilities within them.

The assessment report of the Accompanying Commission for the Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities (CARPH) shows that the employment rate of persons with disabilities has declined in public services for the first time in five years. This rate was 1.45% in 2014 against 1.54% in 2012. This was already very far from the 3% quota provided for in the royal decree of 6 October 2005.

The reasons for this decrease are very clear: personnel cuts, increased use of subcontracting, the decrease in functions corresponding to lower levels of training; in short, the austerity policy of this government leads to a decrease in the employment rate of this target group.

The PTB clearly welcomes the Parliament’s desire to increase the employment rate of persons with disabilities, but it is concerned that the use of subcontracts will lead to a downward revision of the employment ambitions of these persons in public services. It would have been better to look for ways to actually increase their employment rate.

The PTB proposes to introduce a homogeneous quota of 5% of persons with disabilities in all administrations as well as in all bodies responsible for a public mission. In July 2016, we submitted a proposal aimed at this goal to the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region. To apply this quota, we must also give ourselves the necessary resources, which is not possible within the framework of an austerity policy.

For these reasons, we will not be able to support this proposal.