Proposition 54K2210

Projet de loi portant dispositions diverses en matière sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

occupational accident occupational accident insurance tax rebate occupational disease tax system database pension scheme social-security contribution social security health insurance

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 DéFI ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 21, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Evita Willaert and Jan Spooren, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.

The floor is given to Mr. Eric Massin, who promised to be very short.

You do not betray my thoughts or my words.

Madame the Minister, my dear colleagues – for those who are present in this session because it is true that at this advanced hour, it begins to become complicated – I will not extend to the project that has already been the subject of discussion in the committee, but to return to two elements.

The first concerns the 23 amendments submitted just ten minutes before voting, in a committee session, article by article and on the whole draft. The quality of parliamentary work does not benefit at all.

The second element relates to Article 28 of the draft law containing various provisions that confirms a royal decree. We informed the Minister that we do not have this order. Even if it was specified that the provisions were confirmed, it remained that, without exposure, we did not know the content. Nevertheless, we were asked to vote on the royal decree, indicating that there were few changes. I searched, and sometimes we find. So I found the text of the royal decree.

Contrary to the information transmitted to parliamentarians, who had to vote on a provision without knowing what it contained – which is also not very correct – this royal decree is not anodin. There are important changes here. It would have been correct to transmit it to parliamentarians, whether only in a committee or, otherwise, in a plenary session.

The first of these changes entails a change in the reference period for the amounts to which allowance beneficiaries can claim, whether they receive an invalidity allowance or an unemployment allowance.

This means that the reference period is the last day of the second quarter that precedes the realisation of the risk. In fact, any reduction in wages is not taken into account, as does any increase in wages. This important issue could have been discussed.

The second point, which seems to me even more important, is the exclusion of premiums and benefits if they are independent of the number of working days provided. This can therefore result in a change in the amount that may be collected by persons who are incapable of work or when they are unemployed.

The third point is that extra hours will only be taken into account if they are less than or equal to 10% of the salary instead of those regularly performed (which was the former reference). This means that a certain number of extra hours are not taken into account at all. Since this is not anodin, it shows (but it could have been clearly announced) that we are attacking the most fragile audiences, namely, the sick and job seekers.

Based on these elements, since we had abstained in the committee, I point out to you that our group, after having taken knowledge of this royal decree which entails changes that are far from being negligible, will vote against this bill.

I thank you for your attention.

First, the State Council’s opinion on the KB was immediately transmitted to the Commission Secretariat, even during the discussions.

Mrs. De Coninck also asked if the decree had already been signed by the King. This happened a day before the committee meeting, on 13 December 2016. Therefore, we could not deliver it earlier, because it had not yet been signed by the King.

Mr Massin raised a number of issues such as the reference period and the number of days performed, which will go from 120 to 180. All these issues were discussed during the discussion in the committee, in response to the questions of Mr. Massin and Mrs. De Coninck.

One wants to spray mist here, but there really is no problem with the implementation of the design.

Mr. Massin, you have made a few remarks concerning parliamentary work. The Minister is not responsible for this, but I understand and acknowledge the well-foundedness of some of them.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee is not here, but she also said during the committee meeting that it should not be customary to submit amendments late. This was ⁇ due to a very late consultation from a number of stakeholders to the committee members, including the social partners. That advice should be there first. There were also many technical amendments.

I understand this because I have been a member of parliament for many years. In any case, this should be avoided as much as possible.

In my opinion and rightly, we agree on this. It will never have to be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for confirming that this must not remain exceptional – which would mean that it could happen again – but that this must remain a unique fact. The comment was made. I hope that the House will take this into account, including members of the majority.

I would like to remind you that at the same time as you, I was a member of the majority. I also know the difficulties that may arise, I do not disagree with them. But receiving amendments ten minutes before the voting time is not possible.

Then I hear your explanations. We were asked to vote on a text that confirms a royal decree without having that text in hand. Even if, then, one receives the opinion of the State Council and questions have been raised, it remains no less that in the absence of a document, one cannot analyze it. Of course, this is not respectful either. Furthermore, as I told you, Mrs. Minister, no date was indicated for the royal decree. I heard that “it was impossible because there was the opinion of the State Council, that the decree had not yet been signed by the King, etc.” I would like to, but this is not normal in the context of a parliamentary work.