Proposition 54K2229

Projet de loi portant réforme du financement de la sécurité sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 19, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

financial management budget financing health care health costs national budget social security health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Marcel Cheron (Ecolo) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 30, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I was a little hesitant about the question of the report. The issue that is discussed here is obviously very important because it is the financing of social security. We talked about this for many hours in the committee. We have held auditions. It is also interesting to reconsider the views of the social partners on this project. I think the interest of the debate does not lie in an oral report of the written report: the text is there.

There are actually two texts because there have been two readings. The report has almost 180 pages in total. I am in favor of short speeches, unlike my colleague David Clarinval. I would like to show him the example by saying that it is more important to hear the views of the political groups on content in the plenary session. For the rest, everyone can read the report.

For my part, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we are currently discussing the bill on the revision of the financing of social security. We have been talking about this for hours and have had interesting auditions. The debate was at times fierce and sometimes on the brink of the emotional. That is logical and also good, because this is a very important topic.

It is sometimes forgotten that there are 85 billion euros in social security, and after the state reform still 75 billion, which is approximately twice the budget of the Flemish government, to take only a reference point.

Even more important, ⁇ , is that social security has an impact on the lives of every citizen and also on society as a whole.

A third reason why it is good to discuss this in a broad way is that this time it is a structural reform. It’s not a matter of rushing in the margin, but of a fundamental, structural reform. Our group considers this to be a good and urgent reform, but I will immediately return to that.

In order to correctly assess the necessity and scope of this bill, I will describe a part of the history of the financing of social security. In fact, it is two periods, namely the period 2009-2014, before the sixth state reform, and the period from 2015 to now, after the sixth state reform.

In that first period, our social security system experienced a structural deficit, in the sense that only 60 % of the benefits were covered by the social contributions of workers and employers. The remaining 40 % had to be supplemented through a number of public subsidies from the general resources, tax money, but also through alternative financing of social security, other revenues, investments and so on, as well as through the famous balance donation introduced in 2009 following the then prevailing economic crisis that reduced VAT revenues.

It became somewhat problematic because the percentage of VAT revenue allocated to alternative financing was a fixed and irrevocable percentage set at 23,5 %. This could no longer cover the rising alternative financing and therefore a set of laws was announced with new destinations for this alternative financing. It could not cover: administrative costs of the PWAs, paid educational leave, RVA, pensions, aviation personnel, social economy, service cheques. All of these things, part of which was transferred to social security in order to have sufficient alternative financing. As a result, alternative financing became very complex and very opaque.

In the second phase also came the sixth state reform, which transferred whole parts of social security to the counties, together for an amount of approximately nine billion euros. However, the parameters that determine what amount is deducted from the tax receipts were not adjusted. Thus, the constant rate of 23.5 % was still deducted from the VAT income and transferred to social security. One of the consequences of this was that in the preparation of the budget we were suddenly confronted with the fact that social security in 2014-2015 began to show a kind of artificial surplus because the alternative financing continued but part of the expenditure was overwhelmed. Therefore, the system of balance sheet grants was not renewed in 2015. This was a one-time correction. The N-VA already pointed out that a reform with transparent alternative financing should be implemented in the short term.

Following these two phases, a number of necessities led to the draft law that is now ahead.

To begin with, there was the balance donation of approximately six billion euros, which at the time was not responsible. There was the very complex alternative financing, with specific sources of financing and specific destinations. There was the effect of the sixth state reform, as I just explained. And then there was the tax shift which reduced social contributions by a number of billions, which had to be compensated by an increase in alternative financing.

The present reform largely preserves the structure of financing, with the three pillars. First, the social contributions, the weight of which is slightly increasing, from 50 % to 60 %. Second, there is still the state subsidy, but it is becoming slightly smaller. Third, alternative financing to cover the reduction of the burden.

In terms of content, there are major changes.

First, it is a simplified and transparent alternative financing. There are only two alternative sources of financing, namely the VAT income and the mobile capital advance tax. This was, by the way, something that the social partners also asked in their 2015 opinion.

Second, in the future, the percentage of alternative financing from VAT revenues and the mobile advance tax will be re-calculated annually in a transparent manner on the basis of any new fiscal policy, such as the expansion of the taxable basis for VAT. That percentage will no longer be fixed. It becomes variable.

Third, the balance donation is responding. The amount on this closing point is only established annually as a political decision, after charging a number of accountability factors. As for the latter, there are a few. I think, for example, of the agreements concluded by the social partners, which should no longer have a negative financial impact on social security. If that impact does exist, they will need to come up with alternative, corrective proposals. This also applies to the government. If the Government determines that a number of measures do not produce the expected effects, the Government must also take corrective measures. This has been debated in the committee for a long time. Another factor is if a measure is incorrectly executed or not executed, and this non-execution has a major financial impact on social security. We have already seen examples of this.

The performance of the social security itself is also rewarded in the new system. As the effective retirement age increases by four to six months per year, the balance donation also increases and consequently reduces the pressure on the social partners and the government due to this responsabilization.

A third loop is not so much of a material but rather of a methodological nature. This bill enables a better follow-up of the income and expenditure of social security. A Committee on Finance and Budget will be established with experts from the social security administrations, including from the FOD Finance. This committee has the task of monitoring monthly the evolution of social benefits and incomes on the basis of certain dashboards. We will also look at the effect of the communicating vessels. If they identify a risk of deforestation, this committee must inform the Government in a timely manner so that the social security management committees can also consider and propose corrective measures.

As a conclusion, I can say that this bill leads to a simple, transparent but also modernized financing of social security, which in some cases also takes into account the changed context. The adjustment of the structural deficit in social security is partly the subject of a political decision. I think the restoration of the primacy of politics for such important budgets is important.

We have already talked about responsibility. It also provides for the financing of the reduced social security contributions due to the tax shift. A recalculation has been made until 2020, but this bill also contains a number of guarantees to capture developments after that period.

I understand the concerns of some colleagues, I also understand the concerns of some civil society organisations, but I believe that this draft will only provide for a stronger social support for social security and a more stable financial support. In this way, our social security can become a little more social and a little more secure. I am confident that the practice in the coming years will show that this is a good bill.

With this project, we arrive at a key moment, at a crucial moment in the history of this government. He had accustomed us to a whole series of reforms that, in reality, degrade the quality of our social state: all the reforms on pensions, the index jump, the taxation of consumption. They are paying salaries, not dividends. There is a whole series of acquisitions regarding the quality of employment, but here we reach summits. We are attacking social security, not just to make savings here and there. and no! It is our social model as a whole that we are weakening.

This is done, I would say, in a particular context. Under this government and its budgetary approximations – it is known that we are very far from the goed bestuur that had been praised by a Northern party – the social security deficit for 2017 is three times greater than expected, mainly due to poor budget estimates at the fiscal level.

Secondly, according to the forecasts of the Plan Bureau, in order to reach the balance in 2018, it will need to find in revenue - it is also hoped - and in expenditure, about 6.5 billion euros. Finally, you still all have in mind the statements of the chairman of the first party of this government, Bart De Wever, who stated: "It is only in the social security that we can still grind money."

Indeed, it is in this context, it is in this perspective that the government has chosen to impose on us this bill on the reform of the financing of social security. I am convinced, the PS is convinced that with this project, you really offer social security as a dish of resistance to the appetites of the N-VA.

You know that social security is a topical issue for us socialists. We have always struggled to have the most efficient social security system. The mechanism of comprehensive management, balance allocation, diversification of sources of financing, the locks of accountability, we have all developed them.

We are especially proud to have succeeded in realizing, with this social security, one of the pillars of our democracy. In addition, across the world, Belgium is cited as an example for its social security system. I will say, to those who look at it a little like a five-legged monster, that social security is not something abstract. This is not a budget burden that we should bear. They often say, “Yes, but you know, it’s difficult. In addition, with you, social security has been in deficit.”

But yes, of course. And you applauded this. Why Why ? Simply because in times of crisis, social security has been the true shield of our state. We thanked her for this. In addition, thanks to our social security system, during the crisis, our economic growth rate remained higher than that of all the countries of the European Union.

However, it has actually paid a certain price, which is quite explainable. In a crisis, there are fewer jobs and therefore more spending; there are fewer contributions, therefore fewer revenues. In addition, in order to revive the economy, plans are being made to reduce social contributions. We did it too. This leads to a further decrease in revenues for social security.

This is not a malfunction of social security. These are not irresponsible people who have allowed social security deficits. This is inherent in the monitoring of the crisis, on the one hand, and in the modes of recovery, on the other.

Social security is the common heritage of all Belgians. It follows our fellow citizens throughout their lives. And I would say that it connects them in solidarity. It allows all our fellow citizens to treat themselves, through the refund of medical care or medications. It allows them, once older, to have a retirement pension. It allows, in case of dismissal, to benefit from an income to continue to live.

Finally, we know the virtues of social security. Remember that without it, the poverty risk rate in Belgium would be 43% instead of 15%, which is still far too high. It is a formidable tool for sharing wealth and reducing social inequalities.

I’m obviously not surprised that a right-wing government is attacking this identity, that DNA of social security, but it wasn’t thought – we and the trade unions, the mutualist organizations, all the academic specialists we’ve heard – that you would dare to go so far.

Definitely, this spring is really the spring of anti-social security. I think in particular of what will fall in the coming days, the savings imposed by Mrs. De Block which make that, on April 1, 2017, the price of a series of medicines will increase. On May 1, 2017, a very symbolic day for workers, it is the prices of antibiotics that will rise. I also think of the new measures that the Minister MR des Pensions is preparing to take, including reforming all grants for graduation, the years of study. We will then again be forced to work longer to get lower pensions. And today, this disastrous project really introduces worm in the apple.

Without wanting to repeat the long debates we had in the committee, interesting and in-depth debates, I would like to return to a few essential points. As part of the financing of social security, the government introduces an ageing coefficient. At first, we can say that it is really interesting. In fact, as we know, demographic changes will lead to new needs in terms of social security. In addition, those who were in the committee heard the mutual say it. I think, for example, of what Mr. Hermesse or Mr. Jadot said. In 2000, 186,000 people were over the age of 85 and by 2050, they will be 700,000. This is the number to be remembered and it is a certainty because people who will be over 85 in 2050 are born. That is a certainty.

There will obviously be very significant effects on social security expenditure and it is important to prepare for it, by adjusting the budget and the modalities of financing social security.

As I said, the government – ⁇ with good intentions, I don’t know – initially envisages the application of an ageing coefficient. Why can’t we rejoice? Because this ageing coefficient is doubly conditioned, first, to the achievement of an extremely ambitious economic performance – plus 1.5 % of GDP while the average GDP growth was 0.9 % and 1.2 % in the last five and ten years; these are the figures of the National Bank – then, to the realization of a partial political choice to lower the retirement age. If, by exception, these two conditions are met, it will be the government that will arbitrarily say yes or no to the adjustment of the ageing coefficient.

In the end, this coefficient is very likely to be merely a soft promise meaningless, while the needs, they, are real!

In reality, I think that by accepting this, you have given real tools to the opponents of good social security financing. There is a budget conclave. Does the company have a deficit? It is your fault! If you want an effort for balance allocation, you must commit to increasing the ageing coefficient and therefore, tighten the screw once again in terms of pensions. I think it’s clear like rock water. As we unfortunately know too well the ⁇ low degree of resistance of ministers who have social matters in their attributions, we feel the absolute trap!

The second is alternative financing. To compensate for reductions in social contributions and tax shift, it is normally important to provide for adequate alternative financing to prevent social security from being penalized. It is also not the social partners that have decided to reduce social contributions. This is the government’s tax shift. They can do nothing. This must be compensated. This funding must be sufficient. That is why the social partners, for all alternative financing, have requested that in the event of insufficient tax revenues, a part of the professional prepayment be withdrawn. This demand is all the more understandable as the government has once again misestimated revenues. For this fiscal year, the pre-account for furniture and VAT will yield €281 million and €40 million less than expected, respectively.

All social partners, trade unions as well as employers’ organizations, have agreed to address this request to the government. The latter, doing it only at his head, disregarding social consultation, refused and chose to take the risk that alternative financing would be insufficient by keeping as a reserve source, tobacco excise duties.

This also puts you naked, ladies and gentlemen Ministers of Social Affairs, in front of your opponents. You agree to be more in a position to quemand. This will require additional savings.

The tax shift increases the social security deficit. The government has provided additional funding. But it’s weak, because the government, as usual, is convinced there will be many effects back. This is a rhetoric that Mr. Laaouej and the members of the Finance Committee know well. The worst thing is that not only is a good tax shift compensation not foreseeable, but the government has said that, from 2021, to avoid transparency, to avoid tax shift being challenged, all alternative financing would be merged.

Therefore, it will become impossible to verify where the potential budgetary problems come from. In the committee, we felt that one or another minister opened up a little. We realized that they were somewhat sensitive to our arguments. The report shows that the Minister of Social Affairs even said: “To properly assess the consequences of the tax shift, we could work with the Central Council of Economics and the National Council of Labour.” We approved this suggestion, but by adding that we could then make it appear in the text, for example in the form of an amendment - confident in the fact that it would be voted. Obviously, as usual, these ministers were mocked by their colleagues.

Now I want to talk about health care. There too, the government preferred to refuse, to deny the unanimous request – hear me well: unanimous! – trade unions and employers’ organizations, in short, the social partners, who wished that the exceeding of the budgetary objective of health care would be borne by the state. Nevertheless, this request was perfectly legitimate, since the social partners have very little effect on spending and it is the government that sets the budget objective and imposes drastic savings in this area. I recall that the standard was, at some point, of 4.5% to meet in particular the needs in terms of fight against cancer and that we will soon, under this legislature, reach around 0% compared to economic growth. Imagine it ! This means that these are obviously net and brutal savings on the back of the sick.

Once again, the social partners are working on the project, proposing solutions, and the government decides to maintain its point of view as part of our negotiation.

The treatment of balance allocation by the government is the most serious problem. I had established it so that, no matter what happens, social security would be in balance at the end of the year. All the parties in the government agreed. It was at the time of the great crisis, when social security was the pump, the shield to protect our country from the effects of the crisis. At every moment, I was sure that the state could always pay pensions, refund medicines, compensate the sick, victims of unemployment.

Today, balance allocation is no longer guaranteed. In addition, for all those who followed the work in commission, in this area, the government says everything and its opposite. It’s incredible: not only do they say it, but they write it! In the text of the law, it is stipulated: "There will be no deficit due to the allocation of balance." This is ready to believe that the project has not been changed. Then, Ms. De Block shows us the opposite, page 80 of the commission’s work report: “It is still not automatic to increase the balance allocation to finance the exceeding.” “This donation cannot be a blank check,” he said. They say everything and their opposite. The most complete mistake.

In fact, I would say “not so much.” You will have, say you, a portion of balance allocation and for the rest, you will impose savings on the social partners in the spending in seco. This is why it has been so critically criticized by all those we have audited. By the lack of will on balancing, you impose substantial savings year after year on social security and social partners.

In the negotiation, you lost. They—those who don’t like the secu; I think of the N-VA that says it all the time—accepted a four-year extension of the balance dotation. But you paid it through a structural change in the way social security is funded with conditions – you said factors – of accountability so that you can even have a part of the balance allocation. They will impose savings and then a partial balance allocation, and they will only have it based on accountability factors.

I will tell you a few words about accountability factors because we do not see how the social partners, co-managers of social security, can be accountable through this.

The balance allocation will depend on the effects of measures relating to the fight against social fraud. What are the social partners responsible for this? In what ? It is extraordinary! And we put this first, to induce the idea that the secu deficit is ⁇ due to social fraudsters and the social security managers who protect these fraudsters. This is furious madness!

How can social partners be held accountable in this regard?

Mrs. Onkelinx, thank you for your presentation.

We, of course, share the first part of it, when you state that social security is ⁇ important. It is true that our social security has provided a counterweight in times of crisis, thus reducing the effects of the economic crisis in our country.

If we both agree on the importance of social security, then the question arises how we can maintain it. How can we ensure that the social security, as far as we are concerned for eternal days, persists and provides the same care?

If you also consider the maintenance of social security so important, I find it surprising that you oppose an obvious measure. We ensure that people retire after a normal period. When someone retires a year later, that has a huge effect, because that person costs a year less pension and he also contributes a year extra. You are opposed to such an obvious measure. You think that the retirement age should remain as before. Meanwhile, we know that the careers in Belgium are four years shorter than in the neighboring countries. Of course, we can raise money and provide balance donations; we and our group all support this. However, we must also do the other thing, namely ensure that the expenditure is structurally consistent with the revenue. If we do not, where does that lead us?

You argue that the government is attacking social security, but in my opinion this is not correct. In healthcare and pensions we contribute several billions of euros. We do not do that in unemployment, fortunately, because unemployment is falling. Significant efforts are being made: nominally, we are contributing several billion euros. You pretend that social security is being attacked, but I throw the ball back and ask you what your alternative is?

The increase in the retirement age is an obvious measure that is also taken in the countries around us, regardless of the composition of the ruling coalition. Why do you not support this obvious measure? I am ⁇ surprised about this.

Mr. Bogaert, you, like me, know very well that raising the retirement age does not contribute to longer working on itself.

We have always said that you need to work longer, that there should be longer careers. The Pension Commission says that too. But it is not enough to just raise the retirement age. What do we see today? We see a shift to health insurance because people get sick earlier, and to the unemployment system.

Despite the many promises, the government has not taken any measures to allow longer work, on the contrary. We have just had the discussion on this. The pension bonus was abolished and a few weeks ago Mr. Bacquelaine had to admit that the pensions of workers in landing jobs, a system that should enable them to work longer, are falling.

Mr. Bogaert, instead of constantly talking about the retirement age, the government must take measures so that people can work longer and you do not do that at all. That is our criticism.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I am ⁇ concerned about the following.

Your party and S.P.A. have repeatedly stated, even last week, that if they had to say it again in our country, they would reduce the retirement age from 67 years to 65 years. This has been stated by Mr. Vande Lanotte here, and I also hear all PS colleagues say that they will do so, à la française, like Mr. Hollande. I am especially concerned about this, because it is not just something symbolic. Definitely not, it is a reform that is unlikely to have an impact on the financing of the pension system.

Ms. Temmerman says that the measure no longer makes people work. Then you need to explain to me why we are halving the additional costs of aging thanks to that measure. Eight billion euros are being spent less thanks to the increase in the retirement age.

Onkelinx is concerned about the financing of social security. However, when such measures are proposed, I am much more concerned.

Onkelinx, you have to explain to me how you want to finance the €8 billion gap by reducing the retirement age from 67 to 65 years. Colleagues, the answer is obviously that those eight billion euros will be financed by capital. There we go again. Eight billion euros will be financed through capital. Listen carefully: one wants to finance eight billion euros through capital: by tax on speculation, in short, more taxes. The story is known.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will give you the true answer. The majority parties have the damn duty to do their work and to guarantee social security. The reality is that Ms. Onkelinx, when she was part of the majority not so long ago, herself initiated reforms which she is now returning to. That is the reality. These are difficult but necessary reforms, to enable the financing of social security.

Miracle interventions through a speculative tax do not exist. The only measure to ensure that our social security is sustainably financed is to ensure that more people work longer. That is the only thing that can.

I finish my reasoning.

Mr. Laaouej, last week the Planning Bureau published a study showing that for the first time in twelve years the employment rate, which in our country for years in a row stood at 67 %, will rise to 70 % in 2020. When we talk about reforms, it is not a small, but a big step.

Colleagues, it is therefore only by working longer and keeping more people working, that we will be able to finance social security. Thus, everyone who today returns to the reforms we have put in place is organizing the irresponsibility.

Mrs. Onkelinx, in fact, you should be ashamed to declare on the floor that the current government threatens social security. The opposite is true. This kind of populism undermines social security. That is the reality.

Colleagues, I want to, but Mrs. Onkelinx is isolated here in the long run. That is not the intention. The speaker should also be involved.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

Mr Van Quickenborne, longer work, we all agree on that. I must then explain to you how it is that the government, Minister Bacquelaine in particular, repeatedly takes measures that actually punish workers if they work longer, which make their pensions lower if they work longer. You have to explain it to me. This is quite different than getting older. Workers should be encouraged to work longer. The government does not do that. We are a hundred percent supporter of this: allowing workers to work longer, but you do not do that at all.

It was indeed short.

Madame Fonck, I ask you to intervene as briefly as possible.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the majority of two or three points.

Since you decided to increase the legal retirement age to retirement, what was the effect of your measures? Has the increase in the additional cost for pensions been less in the past two years? and no. Each year, this cost increases by an additional 1.5 billion. Have you raised the actual retirement age to retirement? and no. Have you increased the employment rate of 55-65 years old? and no. On the contrary, have you increased the number of departures in illness or disability? More than 15% in two years.

I agree with you on this point, Mr. Van Quickenborne: it is obviously on the employment rate that we should play, and even more, on the total employment rate and on the 55-65-year-old.

The [...]

For peanuts, dear Mr. Borsus! Let me finish!

Belgium, among the countries of the European Union and the OECD, is one of the countries with the lowest employment rate of 55-65 years old. What did you do as construction plants to increase this rate? You have removed measures that, however, quantitatively and qualitatively, allowed people to work longer to have longer careers. Indeed, these reforms are indispensable if we want tomorrow to properly finance social security and ensure its balance.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to intervene at this stage of the debate, but Ms. Fonck has just stated a fact that is false. Ms Fonck has just stated that the employment rate of people over 55 years of age had not increased in Belgium. This is strictly false. I think our assembly deserves correct and valid information. I add that the overall employment rate, as you have all just read, has just increased by 0.5%, which is the first step in the perspective that Mr. Van Quickenborne just described. At certain times, it is necessary to be able to agree on valid numbers.

Mr. Minister Borsus, I would like to hear a lot of things, but I invite you to consult the latest OECD report which is extremely interesting on this subject.

You glorify here the position of Belgium for the 55-65 years. If we compare our situation with that of the countries with which we can compare ourselves, whether at the level of Eurostat or the OECD, we are the records, but unfortunately from the bottom.

You removed the only measures that existed to increase the employment rate of 55-65 years old. And one of the major workshops to increase the employment rate in this age group in particular has not existed, for two years, thanks to your government.

I will be very brief, because otherwise we could spend the night there. This was the case in the committee, so why not in the plenary session?

Mr. Van Quickenborne, you say that, given the demographics, raising the retirement to 67 years is the only measure that can guarantee the long-term financial viability of social security, that there is no other recipe.

This is a political choice. This is an ideological choice. We do not share your point of view. According to us, there are other possibilities.

In their electoral program, the majority parties such as Open Vld, MR and CD&V, were they convinced that the retirement age should be raised to 67 years? I think no. None of these formations offered this measure to our fellow citizens. I say to myself that a divine truth fell after the elections to come to the conclusion that, ultimately, raising the retirement age was the only measure that could guarantee the sustainability of social security. As for me, forgive me, I don’t believe it.

I would like to thank my colleagues who participated in this debate. Social security reform is important. It is therefore normal that one is interrupted to hear one another.

That said, with Mr. Van Quickenborne, you’ll have noticed that it’s always the same thing: you have to make social efforts and “stumble” into the social basket! Take a look at the tax box.

You do anything in the fiscal basket with blatant budget estimates! This is a year in which we have 2 billion less than expected. And who pays? This is social because you have done anything at the tax level! Start by reforming taxation, by making it fairer, and maybe then you can be interested in the social basket!

Second, I know that it is necessary to find adequate ways to cover the surplus cost of social security due to ageing. You are right.

It is clear that the employment rate needs to be increased, in particular that of workers who enter the market after 55 years. I’m not talking about older workers. They are still young, brave, vigorous and experienced. But they are not all. There are different ways to increase the employment rate of the most experienced. With the CD&V, we had worked on the employment bonus. We had also submitted proposals to reduce working hours at the end of the career because some are more tired, at least in some professions, while ensuring that they don’t lose anything in terms of salary. This allowed an undeniable advantage to remain in employment for those who could. On the contrary, you are in compulsion and you have, therefore, a very sensitive increase in spending on disability benefits and health care, in addition to exhausting a whole series of men and women who have worked all their lives.

In my opinion, you are advocating wrong solutions. I use this to say that if we have the chance, at some point, to rework within the federal government, we will demand to return to retirement at age 65.

In addition, Mr. Bogaert, we worked together, as with other colleagues. What happened in each conclave? We looked at the prosecutor, we looked at the social and then the third basket that is a "different" basket. In terms of social, we worked together on actions that have been taken. We have taken our responsibilities in absolutely all areas, including pensions, including employment, including health care.

What is being done here, Mr. Bogaert, as part of the reform of the financing of social security, is another thing. It is really to say, "I find that there is a deficit." And some to say that, since there is a deficit, it must be filled. You may have a bit of balance dotation but then, you must take this and that measure and the minister will be able to say: "Through the reform, as it is planned, either I take new measures on which we agree, or I send the hot potato to the social partners" saying to them: "You only have to arrange to get together and agree on savings in all areas of social security, otherwise it will be in imbalance and we will leave it in imbalance, because the dotation will be insufficient." It is incomprehensible!

I return to the responsibility factors. The first factor, therefore, is the fight against social fraud.

The second factor of accountability – I remind you that we are in the provision of balance – are the effects of measures relating to the fight against mechanisms of improper use. What is this? What does it mean to combat mechanisms of improper use? This is what was explained to us, that is, something that is not legal. A mechanism is used for purposes that are not legal. In this case, you simply need to take your responsibilities by a law, as you should do in terms of tax optimization. Why do you want to hold social partners accountable in this regard? It is incomprehensible! A law would be enough.

The third factor – there are six – is the contribution of social security to the achievement of budgetary objectives as set out in the Stability Pact.

This is not the responsibility of social partners. It is not them who negotiate the stability pact, but they are responsible for imposing additional savings. So, somehow, social security really becomes the adjustment variable of support to austerity. It is unbearable!

Fourth accountability factor: the causes of increased volume effects. There was also a discussion in the committee. This was a mistake on the part of the ministers. They were unable to explain how social partners are responsible for the volume effects. If, in terms of health care, people are more sick because they have to work longer, for example, no matter what, it is the social partners who are responsible. They will have to take action. But finally! It is not the responsibility of the social partners to be responsible for the volume effects, in any area of social security.

They can, of course, be partners of negotiation, discussion, consultation, as they have always done. Our social partners in Belgium are responsible social partners. But to say “I, I am not responsible; social partners only have to consider measures” is very strange in terms of government accountability.

Fifth accountability factor: respect for budget neutrality or non-budget neutrality of agreements concluded between the social partners. This is interesting and very clear. Social partners are now simply put under guardianship. They can no longer make an interprofessional agreement, as they are used to do every two years. Oh no ! If you make an inter-professional agreement and this inter-professional agreement has a budgetary cost – it is an agreement that is concluded between trade union and employer organizations – and well, no matter what, we, the government, will execute one part and not another, because we want the neutrality of budgetary agreements, which is a condition for the provision of balance. It is in this that the social partners said that, through the mode of financing of the secu, you really put them under custody and this will not facilitate all the work of social peace necessary for the economic and social development of our country.

Finally, the sixth and last factor of accountability: the monitoring of the measures taken by the government. What is this? If you work on a royal decree in any way, that you do not take a good measure, that a royal decree is badly figured, what are the social partners responsible for? This is unimaginable, but one had to imagine it: the government has defined accountability factors to free itself from its own responsibility for the political choices it must impose. It is unimaginable! An irresponsible government throws the stone at social partners by saying, “Even if I hurt, they just have to catch up with the sauce.”

Here is, my colleagues, what I wanted to say to you, in summary. The most cynical thing in this whole case is that a budgetally irresponsible government is supposedly trying to hold managers of underfunded social security accountable. It should be remembered that, since it is in place, this government has never presented a credible budget, whose returns have been respected. Getting a lesson to social partners is crazy.

We see well the reasons why the government might, in the future, decide not to pay the balance allocation in full. They are completely arbitrary. It is not a question of accountability, but rather of laying the foundations for a paradigm shift, where social security would become, as I just said, a simple variable of budget adjustment. In addition, our colleague of the N-VA acquiesces.

Mr. Bogaert could also respond to his N-VA colleague who shakes his head when I say that all the financing of social security has been weakened. He is all pleased, he says, “Yes, yes.” Mr. Bogaert, answer him. It’s been like this from time to time when I say it’s weak.

I didn’t see what happened behind me. So it is difficult for me to comment on this.

We agree that social security is of particular importance and that it should be structurally financed. That there is a way to get there through raising the employment rate, we also agree on that. We even agree that if the government makes certain fiscal forecasts, it must fulfill them. Everyone in the hemisphere will say that if there are 100 while there are only 80, one will still somehow have to go to 100 during the fiscal year. If necessary, it must be picked up. We also agree on this.

The same applies to social security. If a hole falls, then one cannot say that it must be automatically filled out of the general pot? Is that a too easy way to look at things? Social security does not survive in the long term. That is impossible. I will not say that this is a third-payer system, but if someone has a deficit, then he must close the hole. Breaking a pot is paying a pot. For our party, this applies to tax receipts, but also to social security. If there is a hole, then it must be poetry. You cannot automatically say that someone else will pay for it. If you keep doing this, you create a “it can’t do it” mentality. If you then combine that with your long-term vision and refuse to cooperate on necessary measures, then the social security will go bankrupt. We must absolutely avoid this.

Therefore, with all respect, I agree with certain things, but totally disagree with other things you say.

Your party had accepted the allocation of balance. There were reasons for this. Either you were unconscious or you had poorly negotiated, unless you were ⁇ weak.

I am used to be held accountable. Everyone knows, in my political life, I have often made difficult decisions. Government after government, in the budget conclaves, I took my responsibilities - in particular to save social security. But what you do here is absolutely not responsible for the government to consolidate social security. You disrespect him and you find excuses. All “factors of accountability” are excuses for simply saying, “I underfinance and I send the hot potato to the social partners,” so that they reduce the means of the secu. In this way, you avoid the debate about revenues in favour of social security. This is exactly what was imagined by one and the other. I don’t know if they were aware of this at the time, but in any case they put social security at risk. "It is unknown to their full will," as they say ...

Ms Onkelinx, Ms Fonck would like to answer Mr Bogaert.

Please forgive me, Mrs. Onkelinx.

Mr. Bogert, I am impressed by the content of some of your remarks. Certainly, we will agree to admit the need for social security to the balance. Only, there remains a fundamental difference between us, which is about how to ⁇ this goal. This task falls under a collective responsibility – not only of the social partners – especially since this bill aims to return to a management entirely assured by the state. There is also the responsibility of the government.

The problem is that if the social security is not in balance, you have planned, whatever the cause of the social security imbalance, that a priori it will need to re-balance it through its own budget, so by cutting in pensions, health care or elsewhere.

The [...]

Yes and No! I read the post of your colleague Mr. Van Rompuy on Facebook or on his blog. You organize yourself the underfinancing of social security through the tax shift. With the reduction of social contributions, social security will be in the red. You know it! You are organizing it!

I have no problem with the reduction of social contributions for employers, but then it must be foreseen that this will decrease the financing of the secu! When one is responsible, one sees the indispensable measures that must be ⁇ ined, the social network that must be preserved and how to obtain secure financing. Otherwise, your model, your choice of company is clearly to say “so bad for the weakest, so bad for those who do not have private healthcare insurance.” Your logic is therefore profoundly different since, a priori, you constantly dig the hole more and more without taking your responsibilities compared to not ⁇ ining the balance of social security.

It’s a bit easy, let me say it!

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.

With this government, social security is no longer considered a right for our fellow citizens. It is, however, a constitutional right that the State must guarantee under Article 23 of the Constitution.

For us, the payment of pensions, the payment of sickness, disability, unemployment benefits, the refund of medications, access to health care must be guaranteed by the state. It cannot be otherwise! The rights of our fellow citizens cannot be of variable geometry and depend on the economic situation.

In a rule of law, the state must fully face its obligations, as our fellow citizens must comply with their obligations! This fully justifies that the provision of balance is not subject to accountability factors that are not, and which are, I said, a disresponsibility of the State!

Behind measures aiming at a goal announced by the minister, a goal that we could pursue at the outset since there are simplification measures on which we agree, are hidden very different ambitions.

These measures undermine our social model. I believe that the government reserves the discretionary right to do what it wants with the future of social security, by seriously infringing the fundamental principles that govern it and by reducing the role of social partners. You have, you can be proud, changed the paradigm and laid the foundations, I am convinced, of a splitting of our social security, which is yet the real cement of our country. For us, this is unbearable.

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. As early as 2014, it had planned to review this mode of financing in order to continue to offer quality social protection to all our fellow citizens. This reform was necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, the sixth state reform had to be taken into account. In fact, more than 11 billion euros of spending have left the federal social security budget since 2015, while revenues have remained in the budget. In addition, since 2014, there was no longer a legal basis for balancing allocation. Furthermore, alternative financing was required to be simplified. For example, it took no less than 20 royal decrees to be able to pay each year the amounts listed in the budget. It was obviously necessary to take into account the tax shift implemented by this government and the reductions in social contributions associated with it, and therefore, to provide alternative financing to compensate for them.

This tax shift is obviously at the heart of the government’s action: it will create jobs, generate new revenues for social security and reduce spending.

The tax shift is not funded. He even defined social security. The National Bank explains this in its reports. How do you position? You present the tax shift as one of the central elements of government policy, but you measure well, at the time we are talking about the financing of social security, that the tax shift defined social security.

Mr. Laaouej, I simply explained that the tax shift creates jobs. This work creates new...

The [...]

No, these are not the return effects! Mr. Laouej, you make the questions and the answers, it’s a bit easy!

The [...]

Madame Fonck, you even anticipate my answers! This is the Divine Spirit of the CDH!

Three points were stated by my colleague, Mr. Laaouej. I will not come back. You are talking about tax shift. This is not funded and it creates a deficit that will largely be borne by the social benefits.

First, you talk about the effects of the tax shift on employment. It is quickly said. Mr. Borsu tried to make you believe before you that the employment rate in Belgium was rising. It is false: since the beginning of the legislature, Belgium has retreated in the European peloton, moving away from the target of 71.5% of the working population.

You were not present at the committee meeting on Tuesday morning!

The employment rate, which is the indicator to be taken into account, decreases, not to mention the quality of the job created. Be precise about the effects of tax shift, i.e. a state deficit and an employment rate that does not take off, not to mention the quality of employment.

You talked much earlier – at that time, I already wanted to interrupt you, but I decided to leave you the benefit of doubt – of quality social security. This is another beautiful concept, Mr. Clarinval. I vote for quality social security. I find this extraordinary. What is Quality Social Security? Is it the exclusion of young people from the benefit of insertion allowances? Is this the abolition of periods equated at the time of calculating the pension? Is it the abolition of credit time? Is it the abolition of the unemployment allowance supplement for part-time workers who are often female workers? Are all the pension reforms of Minister Bacquelaine, week after week, showing their effects on the incomes of those receiving the lowest pensions? Is this your quality social security? How, tomorrow, will it be of higher quality with the shutter you put on social security with this funding law?

If you use concepts, be precise! Tax shift: the creation of jobs. Give us numbers showing that the employment rate is increasing! Quality Social Security. Tell us what it is to assume what you make our most fragile fellow citizens live with the linear economic measures you have already taken and that you are planning even more dantesque for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laaouej, Mr. Gilkinet, this Tuesday morning, in the Social Affairs Committee, where neither Ms. Fonck nor Mr. Gilkinet were present, we heard a report demonstrating that the tax shift had been positive, had been job creator. This report comes from the European Commission. You can suspect the government is partial, but here it is the European Commission.

No one can deny the numbers. More than 100,000 jobs have been created over the last few years. The unemployment rate is declining significantly. Tax shift increases revenue and reduces expenditure. To deny it is to deny the obvious.

Mr. Clarinval, I will return to the debate I had previously with Mr. Peeters.

You deny the creation of 100,000 jobs and you deny the reduction of unemployment, Mr. Gilkinet? You deny the obvious. However, the figures are accurate.

If there is a decrease in unemployment, it is because you exclude job seekers from the benefit of unemployment benefits, starting with the young beneficiaries of the insertion allowance, continuing with the people you refer to the CPAS of Mr. Borsus.

This is not true! One out of five marks the CPAS. The other four are not able to do so, Mr. Gilkinet. Others find work. This is the truth! These are the numbers! The FGTB says it.

It’s not the net figure of 100,000 jobs you’re trying to sell week after week, it’s the employment rate.

The employment rate, based on Eurostat figures, has decreased since the establishment of this government and Belgium, in the European peloton, compared with the goal of having the maximum of the working population beneficiary of employment and which can, by its contributions, naturally finance social security, is decreasing. These are the real indicators. What’s more, compare the number of new jobs to the cost of tax shift for public finances, you’ll realize that the price per job is absolutely extraordinary! You would give the non-market sector a quarter of the cost per job created through the tax shift, it would create four times more jobs! This is what he has been doing for years with the social maribel.

These are subsidized jobs.

Mr. Clarinval, if you refer to the report on Europe – you have the full right to do so – you must do it right.

That report says there are indeed more jobs, but that they cannot be linked to the tax shift. There is simply a better economic situation across Europe and it is seen that in all EU Member States the number of jobs is increasing. In proportion, the number of jobs in Belgium is growing much less than in our neighboring countries. One of the explanations to be further investigated is that government interventions have reduced the purchasing power of many people, resulting in less domestic demand and resulting in fewer jobs created.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the debate to last longer than necessary, but there are some things that are clearly false here.

The European Commission said in its report that not only has the number of jobs increased by as much as 100 000 in two years. Even if you say it’s only part-time jobs: if you recount it, it’s about 66,000 full-time jobs created in two years. The forecasts for the coming years give much more. You can continue to deny that, but that is discussions that lead nowhere.The European Commission has nevertheless – as I was also at that hearing – said that we need to implement even more reductions in the burden of work. This was a first step and we must continue on that path. However, the European Commission has literally said that we need to incorporate even more flexibility into our labour market. I would like to have a discussion here, but please stay a little bit with the truth.

Another thing is that it is said that the tax shift is not financed. Look at article 5 of this bill: there are, with name and surname, year by year, figures that make it clear that the costs of the tax shift, the reduced social contributions, therefore, are covered just by this bill. This makes the network stable. This has not been the case so far and will be the case now.

If it does not work out, if it is not enough, Article 5, paragraph 2, further states that the numbers can be adjusted year after year. Article 7 states that if the VAT and the mobile charge are not yet sufficient, there will still be cash collected from the excise duties. This design is so closing and the only thing I hear is that the tax shift is not financed. This is manifestly wrong.

Mr. Trailer, you have to learn to listen. You must learn to listen! You never listen! I said the number of jobs had increased. I said this two minutes ago!

The [...]

You just don’t listen! You just don’t want to hear it!

The [...]

You have the word, Mr. Trailer. Mrs. De Coninck has the word.

I have only said that the relationship between the increase in jobs and the tax shift is not proven and that in the countries around us all jobs have risen, without tax shift.

The [...]

Please keep an orderly discussion, my colleagues!

We perform less than the other countries, while we do-know-not-how many gifts! That is the reality!

The word is to the Minister.

Please allow me to react. I was arrested three times by Mr. Gilkinet. At the third call, I have to react.

First, let’s talk about the employment rate. I communicate to you the latest findings of the Statistical Directorate General of the SPF Economy, confirmed by all the relevant Belgian bodies. “The employment rate of people aged 20 to 64 increases by 0.5 percentage point in 2016; 67.7% is now the employment rate of 2016. After five years of stabilization around 67.3%, this indicator increases by 0.5 points."

The [...]

Mr. Gilkinet, I listened to you patiently. Let me finish. You are right to say that this employment rate is still in the second half of the European ranking. This is entirely true. But at the same time, note that for the first time, in 2016, the employment rate is back up by half a point.

Ms Fonck, in a very adventurous way, in front of the whole parliament, indicated the opposite, but I quote: "As regards the over 55 years old, the employment rate of the 55-64 years old, which has continued to progress in recent years, shows a rise again in 2016."

Furthermore, I hear this endless debate: is it related to the tax shift or not? I have some figures and analysis for you. Do you know SD Worx? It is the largest social secretariat in the country. I think no one will question the seriousness of his analysis, often quoted by all political families. What does SD Worx say in a recent delivery? I have all the coordinates, if you want them. SD Worx surveyed an extremely large panel of all affiliated companies and encrypted the link between earnings and tax shift.

I quote: “7 percent of companies say that it is only through the tax shift that they have made the commitment. 39% say the tax shift has provided the necessary boost for these commitments. The number of job seekers has fallen below 400,000. This is the best rate in 15 years. The number of bankruptcies, 9,170, is the lowest since 2012.

Do you want it again? the number of independent persons. Does anyone know here how many independent main titles there are in addition each month?

A time full?

at full time. A full-time employee is by definition a full-time employee.

There are more than 1,000 more per month. How many were there, for example, in 2013? by 267.

We have here at least ten undisputed indicators that show that something important is happening in our country. Instead of denying it, instead of fighting it, your duty is to support it. I have to say, ladies and gentlemen, for a second, that if a French president, François Hollande, had half of this result, he would now be in the election campaign in France. I thank you. (The applause)

Mr. President, you have given a lot of figures. I will give you two. The first is taken from an OECD diagram. The employment rate of the 55-64 years of age in 2016, between the worst and the best, Belgium is fourth by the bottom. I persist and sign. You are the least good in this. (Brouhaha) by

This demonstrates how much effort remains to be made to increase the overall employment rate, but also the employment rate of the 55-64 years old.

The second number. Mr. Minister, you speak to me of your employment rate at 67.7%. What is the goal you have to ⁇ , that you have assigned yourself in your government agreement? The employment rate is 73%. If you really did as well as the other European countries, as well as the other OECD countries, this rate would now be much higher than 67.7%.

In fact, you benefit from an economic conjunction that is obviously significantly better than in previous years. While the economic situation at that time was not good, we had in Belgium a much better situation than that of other European countries!

There is now, but there are also prospects for the employment rate. The Federal Bureau of the Plan released its report on Tuesday. It is quite speaking. The employment rate in 2020 will be 70% and in 2022 71.3%, which means that we are getting closer and closer to European standards and what we are asking. All this is thanks to the action of the government and the competitiveness that is restored.

I wanted to tell Mr. Borsus that employment is increasing, of course, but it is increasing less than in other European countries, which means that the effect of the tax shift is counterproductive. It is even seen that the jobs created were higher than today when there was no government in Belgium.

Regarding independent workers, Mr. Borsus, in La Libre Belgique of today, what does the Neutral Syndicat pour Indépendants (SNI) say? He says that everything is not as pink as Minister Willy Borsus claims. The Neutral Syndicate for Independents has, in any case, a more pessimistic analysis of all these data.

According to him, “the overall increase observed is mainly due to the increase in the number of women who are self-employed as complementary (+5.5%) and the number of self-employed persons who remain active after retirement (+5.8%)” because you have to work as self-employed to get to survive with your pensions. “The total number of self-employed persons at the primary level has increased only by 1%,” the SNI regrets.

At the employee level, the same is the case. For a full-time job created, there are five precarious jobs created, which means that this government is actually creating a precarious work, simply.

Let us return to the question that was raised initially. The figures of Mr. Borsus but also the figures given, Tuesday morning, by the European Commission, I insist, unfortunately in the absence of Ms. Fonck and Mr. Gilkinet, demonstrate that the action of the tax shift is a source of job creation.

I would like to remind, in conclusion, before moving to the next sentence, that the heart of our device is obviously to create jobs to increase social contributions and reduce spending. This will simply save the social security. Point to the line.

The [...]

This was the fourth reason for this reform.

The fifth reason, as underlined by the social partners, is that it was necessary to restore order in spending, transferring a whole series of “cowcow eggs” – these are actually devices that didn’t have their place in that place – so that at some point they could be taken back into the state budget mechanism. It was also to meet this rather technical demand. What are the objectives of the reform? There are four.

The first objective is to improve the financial and budgetary management, on the one hand, by providing accountability mechanisms and, on the other hand, by creating a Finance-Budget Committee responsible for the regular monitoring of revenue and expenditure.

The second goal of the reform is to have a more transparent, clearer, simpler system that ensures structural financing of social security.

The third objective is to take into account the impact of population ageing by allowing the indexation of state intervention on the basis of an ageing coefficient linked to the actual retirement age.

Finally, the fourth objective is to take into account the different opinions of the social partners.

On the financing itself, there are, in fact, three sources of financing, along with the personal and employer contributions that mainly feed the overall management. The core of the financing remains the social and employer contributions. This is always the lion’s share in the financing of the social contribution.

There are three additional sources of funding. The first is the traditional dotation of the state. It is a solidarity intervention, an intervention in the sustainable financing of solidarity expenditure. It will be indexed through the health index, as is currently done. And it can increase through an ageing coefficient. For this, there are two conditions. If economic growth is sufficient (at least 1.5 % of GDP) and if measures to curb the cost of aging are implemented, in particular with regard to the actual retirement age that increases, then there may be an additional index to the health index.

The ageing coefficient is a new system, an additional means of securing the financing of social security.

The second method is alternative financing. It allows a limitation of state subsidies and compensates for the reduction of employer contributions. This has already been discussed extensively in the introduction. Instead of taxing labour, we are looking for alternatives to fill the social security boxes. Therefore, there is a distinction between the basic alternative financing, which is a compensation for the reductions of contributions before the tax shift, and the alternative tax shift financing, which is a compensation for the reductions of the tax shift period. Here, Mr. Laaouej is right, the effects of return are taken into account in this calculation.

Contrary to what has been said, the alternative financing of the tax shift is defined in the law. Alternative funding sources are limited to two. A reserve financing source will be retained in case the basic financing sources are not sufficient. Each year, it is a percentage that will be collected from the VAT product and the furniture prepaid. We can therefore clearly say that we will reduce the tax pressure on labour and orient it in part towards capital, among other things, since we will take a part of the revenues of social security from the furniture pre-count, which some call their wishes. By the way, it should be noted that through the furniture pre-count, capital will therefore finance more social security than before.

The third social security allocation mechanism, in addition to contributions, is the transparent and accountable balance allocation, whose amount is defined each year and whose objective is to cover the deficit, without creating bonuses. With this allocation, the government guarantees that at the end of the fiscal year, social security is in budgetary balance, it must be said, contrary to what we have heard for a while!

The new thing is accountability. Social partners should be held accountable, just like the government elsewhere. Therefore, the balance allocation will be fixed after examining whether each has done his job, after taking measures in both revenue and expenditure that have an impact on the financial balance of the secu, and after anticipating budget neutrality, otherwise additional measures will need to be taken.

I also note that the 1/9th distribution key has been inserted into the law, in order to strengthen and guarantee the long-term social status of independent workers. This is, in my view, an essential contribution to this reform.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the role of social partners, which has been mentioned many times. Disinformation must be stopped. They will always fulfill their role. The competence of the Global Management Committee remains unchanged. Similarly, the coordination is not weakened. In addition, a Finance-Budget Committee is created to improve financial and budgetary management. It will be responsible for monitoring revenue and expenditure. It was specified that there would be officials and experts from public institutions of social security, which are subject to parity management. There will be no representatives of the government or cabinets. The goal is to stay focused on the technical and numerical aspects. This is also a major step forward, as a monthly monitoring of the evolution of revenue and expenditure will be organized.

In conclusion, our social protection must meet the challenge of the ageing population and the increasing costs that it will involve in the future, both for the payment of pensions and for the management of health care. It is also a matter of ensuring for the years to come its fundamental role, which is to support citizens who are faced with an accident of life, such as the loss of a job or the occurrence of a disease. Therefore, we had to ensure sustainable secu financing as part of global and parity management.

Meanwhile, financing is still largely based on contributions paid by workers and employers. The priority therefore remains, in order to sustain our social security, to raise the employment rate – too low in Belgium, as has been ⁇ . It is therefore essential to pursue policies that support the development of economic activity, the creation of jobs and the improvement of the employment rate. This is the royal way to save our social security.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, what is ahead is the third major bill in a short time, which was also discussed in the committee. Following the Law on Wages and the Law on Workable and Agile Work, we are now discussing the bill concerning the reform of the financing of our social security, especially the accentuation of the financing.

I would like to point out that since 2014 we no longer had a legal basis for a closing balance in the spending on social security, thus no closing balance for pensions, unemployment or sickness benefits. In this regard, the draft reform of the financing of social security leaves nothing to chance in the future. All expenses for which there is a commitment, any benefit based on regulations in the social security, any pension, any social insurance for which people have contributed, will always be paid out at the moment people are entitled to it. That is the essence of this bill. The guarantee we give today to the people is that our well-functioning social security system provides good social protection in case of disaster. The financing of that system is and remains guaranteed for the future. That is the essence. That is more than what some ministers who have been in charge for years have been able to realize in the past.

I hear here many considerations from the majority and the opposition about concrete measures and about evolution. We may have different opinions on this, but this bill is not about. This bill deals with the new agreements that we make on the financing flows responsible for social security, so that the financing is guaranteed in the future.

I therefore regret that from various angles, often from genuine concern – at least I hope that – misunderstandings have arisen on this crucial topic and that things are sometimes misrepresented as regards the content of the text submitted for voting. In between, the social partners were also largely unanimous on this bill. I would like to point out this for a moment.

This bill does not fall from the air. It was thoroughly prepared, including in the social security management committees, which, as you know, are under paritary management and where representatives of workers and employers are also present and debate with. We have already debated this law extensively in the committee, even with a second reading. It is good that we have held this debate and continue today, as the parliamentary debate also gives us the opportunity to correct and clarify a number of issues. Thus, points on which there may be different interpretations can be clarified.

A first clarity that this law creates, I would like to repeat again explicitly by quoting the law: “At the end of the exercise, the social security is in all cases balanced.” From the parliamentary discussion we have already held, in the meantime, it may be very clear that, once the budget formulation is done and the budget control behind, with any measures taken for additional income or extra savings — nothing new under the sun — this law guarantees for a hundred percent that the remaining deficit is covered by the balance subsidy. There can no longer be the slightest doubt about this on the basis of the texts presented today and the declaration made by the ministers in our committee.

In other words, this law stipulates that every citizen in this country at all times receives what he is entitled to, and this without ever creating a deficit or an excess in social security. That is a good, clear, simple and transparent arrangement made possible by the so-called balance donation. First, all other fixed sources of social security financing are addressed. These are of course, first of all, the social contributions of people and employers, accounting for approximately 60 % of the income or more than 40 billion that employers contribute through social security contributions.

Second, there is also the classic resource allowance, which may be supplemented with the new ageing coefficient to be introduced.

In that regard, I ask the Government to work swiftly on the Royal Decree that will determine the parameters for the significant increase in the effective retirement age. This needs to be clarified quickly because there must be a realistic view of the notions of withdrawal and increase of the retirement age, so that they respond to the social reality. The social partners are now working on the issue of the retirement age and the link between the ordinary public subsidy. I hear that the first discussion has shown that there are still shortcomings in the current measurement by the European and national institutions. When did someone leave? This should be clarified. When someone is retired, or is no longer available for the labour market, that is clear. But what if older long-term unemployed persons are considered to be out of work, while they must still be available for the labour market? It is one or the other. Here, therefore, there needs to be rapid clarity about this, so that one can continue to work on the definition to determine the ageing coefficient in a proper way.

Third, therefore, in addition to the contributions and the government subsidy, there is the alternative financing through VAT, the mobile advance tax and a supplement from the excise taxes on tobacco, which finances the social security. Here too, I ask the government to closely monitor the excise taxes on tobacco as a reserve source. This third source should be evaluated in a timely manner in the light of any remaining risks in the event of a systemic crisis. This resource should be expanded.

I say this because when determining the amount of alternative financing as a source of financing for social security, one will also take into account the return effect, which will be calculated by the Planning Bureau. You have explained in the committee that you will seek advice from the Central Council for Business and the NAR. This is important. For part of the tax shift, additional compensation must be sought.

The question is whether the additional spending on social security has been taken into account by creating tens of thousands of jobs. This, of course, has very positive effects, but also creates expenses, because people who work build up social security rights and will also be able to enjoy them. There are also additional patronal contributions reductions. And what about the lower incomes resulting from the increasing employment in exceptional regimes? What about the creation of new exemption regimes such as flexi jobs, student jobs, occasional work, artist statutes? What about new costs of the social security system, or of new extralegal benefits such as ecochecks and meal checks? Per ⁇ a new cheque is invented where no contributions are paid? Who knows? Also for those lower incomes for social security, additional compensation will be sought.

Also this can therefore be best considered in consultation with the Central Council for Business, the NAR and the Plan Bureau. We urge, both for the self-employed and the employee systems, a reasonable analysis of alternative financing and a possible adjustment of the reserve resource if it would prove that this reserve resource is insufficiently shock-resistant or if the income would be insufficient.

After these three sources of financing, the contributions, the grant and the alternative financing, at the end of the trip all expenditure of social security is guaranteed with the closing part of the balance grant which in all cases must cover all expenditure of that year. The bill that will be adopted here today – let there be no doubt – provides the guarantee that any remaining deficit will always be covered by the balance sheet donation. It will be extended after 2020.

Of course, the measures are best taken on time and were subject to an evaluation. Like a good housekeeper who puts resources in somewhere, it is normal to check for a moment whether the resources are spent as efficiently as possible. On the other hand, we evaluate too little. We are not sufficiently aware of the measures taken and their effects. The needs are huge in our current society, especially with the pressure of aging. Each euro is used as efficiently as possible. Does such an assessment, as some speakers have shown here, mean that only one party should be responsible? No, the accountability factors apply to the three actors responsible for the financing and management of social security, namely workers, employers and the government.

Structural consultation on the causes of more or less income or expenditure and on the measures underlying those matters demonstrates good governance both by the social partners, who are responsible partners in the management of social security, and by the government. This can only contribute to the better realization of the preconceived objective of good social protection for our citizens and that we can assist, where necessary and in consultation, as the Minister has indicated in the committee meeting. There is no slightest doubt about this as well. The Minister explained this well in the committee. Both the evaluation itself, the reporting and the decision on additional measures will involve both the social partners and the government, and social agreements will be needed.

Is it possible that adjustments are needed at points where none of those three parties has any power? and no.

Let me give you a small example from practice. No one will be held responsible for the fact that there are 10 000 additional pensioners each month, which in turn leads to higher spending. These are purely demographic developments that have nothing to do with politics. No compensation should be sought by anyone.

Let me briefly address the criticisms about the insufficient financing of the tax shift. There may be comments about this. We have done this with our group several times. The revenue will have to follow to cover the expenses. In fact, this law stipulates that insufficient income from falling tax revenues, which jeopardise the financing of social security, must be corrected by the balance donation. It is therefore important for us that tax revenues follow because otherwise debt will be re-accumulated and we will tax the next generation again. The latter cannot be the intention.

In addition to a positive anchoring of expenditure, I call on you to further work on good guarantees of income, taking into account the dynamics of the labour market and the contribution landscape. In this way, I believe, all conditions are met for a sustainable future of our social security.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it was the initial intention to get this bill approved before the end of the previous calendar year, but this has not succeeded. It failed because we, as a majority, and I, as the chairman of the Social Security Committee, have been very coulant towards the opposition. The opposition asked for hearings, a first reading, a second reading, amendments, Council of State, plenary and Council of State. Finally, we are now arriving at the final debate on an important bill that deals with the core, the essence of our socio-economic model. Social security expenditures amounted to more than 75 billion euros in 2015.

It is, of course, about how we want to guarantee our social model in the future. That social model is based on the philosophy of redistribution of solidarity between working and non-working, redistribution between healthy and sick, redistribution between young and old. This is the system we built here after World War II and we can be very proud of. In order to maintain this redistribution, it is important to have sufficient economic support.

I want to repeat the legendary words of late Willy De Clercq. When I was a young man, my father embraced this with me. He said, “On an economic cemetery you can’t build a social paradise.”

Therefore, this bill must be read together with all the other reforms that this government is implementing and has implemented: the pension reform, the tax shift, the labour market reform. These are step by step reforms to increase the economic support and to ensure that social security is and remains affordable.

At the time, in a previous government, we even carried out reforms with those in the opposition today. Consider, among other things, the time limitation of youth unemployment benefits, the so-called employment allowance. We did this in the previous government. We must be honest, that has not gone smoothly, but we can now see the effects of that reform that came into full force at the beginning of 2015. The figures of the RVA published two weeks ago speak book parts. Half of the unemployed young people who lost their watch allowance in 2016 because of that measure, due to the time limitation of watch allowances, have found a job within six months. This means that people have come to work in a very short-term benefit. This can be counted as a job plan.

Colleagues from CD&V and I address in particular Mr. Bogaert who has already intervened several times on behalf of his entire group, as always, or is that not so, Mr. Vercamer? Mr. Vercamer is in doubt. Mr Bogaert, where is the courage to limit those other unemployment benefits for other people, for the elderly, for the middle groups, too in time? If it works for the youth, why would it not work for the other professional groups.

Finally a little debate, I realize because we threatened to fall asleep.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, why are we against this? What can be done to reduce unemployment over time? Which countries do not have it yet? Belgium and Greece are responding. We are indeed in bad company, you might be upset.

What is the reasoning that can be used? If you do, what does it help? In the previous government, with the help of the coalition partners, we decided on the degressivity of unemployment, thereby converging the support at a given moment with a benefit, such as a living wage, that one would receive. Now, suppose that one passes that limit in time, then one wins nothing. And if one would already gain something, then it is the municipality that provides the support instead of the central social security. They solve nothing. The two curves just come together, that is decided together. Supposing that one will accentuate the degressivity even more, then the effect is even greater, but the only thing that would happen is to push it to the communities. Honestly speaking, there is nothing more to push, because the difference between the unemployment benefit and the living wage is 0 and in some cases, depending on the family situation, it has even become negative. It does not help at all.

I think this is a symbolic struggle, a semantic struggle that you are still conducting, but in practice it has long been resolved.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, are you starting to follow the line of N-VA and you find that people will not be able to pay their bills first and then find work? If you are on that line, I would like to hear it from you.

What line is that? Did I say that?

First, they can no longer pay their bills.

The word is to Mrs. De Coninck.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, you must discuss intellectually honestly.

First, we have indeed done something with the previous government about these employment benefits, which does not affect your statement that we as socialist partners never want to change anything and never want to take responsibility. We have done it.

Second, if you look at the numbers of the impact of the employment benefits, you can see that it is not the young people that are severely affected. Who has been severely affected? This was ⁇ in the press last month. Married women or women with a partner who have worked for a short period and for the rest of their years are always adjusted with an employment benefit, who are severely affected.

Third, the philosophy of the start-up reimbursement is not primarily about cents. Employment benefits do not exist in almost any other European country. Nevertheless, we have clung to it because we at least know which young people are looking for work. When this is not done through an employment allowance, there is a high level of unemployment among young people. That is why we defended it.

Why did we defend that these benefits should be limited to only three years? We defended that because in the context of the state reform we believed that the regions should also take responsibility in the field of activation. Young people have the right to work and should be properly guided in their job search. The deployment rate is a signal. Those who, after three years, still have no work or have not worked enough, usually have something wrong. These young people had to be followed much more intensively at the regional level. If they did not, it could be good that the regions did not assume their responsibility, because it is the federal government that pays the unemployment benefits from the social security.

The story is therefore much more complex than you think, namely: when the employment benefits fail and they therefore have no income, they will work. This is somewhat like the saying: If they are hungry, they will go to work.

When you stand with your feet in reality – I advise you to agree to speak with the Chairman of the OCMW of Kortrijk – you will notice that there is much more going on.

I would like to thank you for the small discussion that we have about the measure.

First, Mr. Bogert, I have a lot of respect for you. Now, however, you sound like a PSer, by asserting that the measure has a very high symbolic content. That is not correct. This is manifestly wrong. The measure has no symbolic content at all. It has an effective effect. The figures are there. You cannot contradict the figures of the RVA. The time-limiting of unemployment benefits or youth employment benefits has resulted in more than half of young people finding a job after six months.

What I ask is now to do the same for people who are 30 years old, 40 years old or 50 years old. Also limit their allowance in time. You will see that not all of them will fall back on the living wage, as you think, but that a significant part of them will go to work.

That is what we need in our country. These are incentives to get people to work, but at the same time sanctions, if they do not want to work. Therefore, I believe that the lessons we have learned from this measure should also be transferred to that other system of unemployment benefits.

What is the difference between the two files? In one case, one loses his employment allowance, which leads to a job search. I can imagine that. In the other case, there is no difference, because if one takes off someone’s unemployment benefit and he has exactly the same amount as a living wage, then I don’t see in what exactly the financial sanction is and why one would then look for. That is the difference between the two things.

With all sympathy, Mr Bogaert, but if a younger person loses his employment allowance, he may also be entitled to the living wage. That is the system. In that sense, you cannot make that distinction. The reality is simply that when one stops a benefit – you, as an entrepreneur, should know that – people are simply looking for alternatives. The most important thing is that a large group of those people are going back to work. This is what we have sought to ⁇ with this measure.

The SPA has defended that measure and continues to defend it, for which congratulations. Fortunately, there is still a difference between the SP and the PS. There is not only misery in this country. Mrs. De Coninck, you say that you did so to ensure that the Regions would then effectively activate young people. That is very correct, but shouldn’t the Regions also activate those other groups, namely the thirty, forty, fifty, and sixty? They also have to do so. Again, the argument you use is the perfect legitimation to also limit the unemployment benefit for those other groups over time. Our country absolutely needs that.

It is so unfortunate – I tell you it as it is – that in this government only CD&V makes this a fundamental problem. That objection is focused on the symbolism rather than the fact that it would have an effect, just like in the pension discussion. The increase from 65 to 67 is not a symbolic debate at all. This is an effective measure, as it has been.

That measure could also prove that a lot of young people who did not get a job through the VDAB had to then turn to the OCMW and there were indeed much better supervised and found a job much faster. That is an equally good conclusion of this story.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I am a little upset that you colleague Bogaert constantly blames on symbolic discussions. You also have symbols. Will we talk about tax systems? You have an equally large symbol. We have already seen the symbol of the tax shift. I advocate an honest intellectual discussion based on facts.

You are asking for facts, Mrs. De Coninck. This brings me seamlessly to my second position.

Why do we carry out these reforms? Some think that I personally or the government is obsessed with reforms: reforms to reform. The essence, however, is that we reform to make our country stronger.

Are the results there? Well, when it comes to job creation, under this government we are still making a nice path, of course with great thanks to the companies and employees, but also, as Minister Borsus has said, thanks to the efforts that the government provides.

For months, the opposition has denied job creation. At first, it was said that there were too few jobs created, until it was heard that there were 35 000 additional jobs in 2015 and 60 000 additional jobs in 2016. Then the opposition asked whether these were all real jobs; maybe they were jobs at the government? Then it turned out that it was all about private jobs and that in the public sector there is finally a decrease in the number of jobs. Finally, the opposition found that those private jobs were not all very high-quality, that they were all part-time and interim jobs, and that are not real jobs. One may even wonder what image one gives when one speaks about an interim, but well, that is not the debate today.

Mrs. De Coninck, you have argued here that only a small minority of those 60 000 jobs are full-time jobs, and all the rest are part-time jobs, but what is shown now? Now it shows from the figures published by the RSZ today that in 2016 60 990 jobs were created in the private sector, Mr. Degroote.

Mrs. De Coninck, you are wrong. I’m not going to say you lie, I never do, but you’ve been wrong, because 64% of those jobs are full-time jobs. These are the figures that the RSZ published today. That is the truth, that is the reality.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, those figures are published today. You can hardly blame me for not taking into account the reality of the figures published today in a speech a few months ago. You have to be a little honest.

I just said that there are indeed jobs added, but that this is mainly due to the conjuncture. For all clarity, even in the most difficult years of the banking crisis and afterwards, when we were together in the government, there were still 20 000 jobs created each year, so this is not so exceptional. You should not blow from the tower.

By the way, we are, and also Europe says that, the worst pupil of all European countries in terms of job creation.

I see that you are beginning to admit that the government provides job creation, that there are private jobs, that the majority of them are full-time jobs. Mrs. Minister, I see that in that wall of defence, that line of defence of the opposition, when it comes to job creation, we are bridging success. In other words, the opposition can make neither wood nor arrows.

The reality is that the reforms are coming into effect and the results are visible. That is the undeniable reality in this country. That is what friends and enemies say about this government, so in that sense good work is done.

Mrs. Minister, I tell you that all because those reforms must provide economic support to continue financing social security. This reform of the financing of social security is based on two key concepts. First, security and secondly, responsibility.

Security, because this government, with these two ministers, guarantees for the first time that there is a long-term balance in social security. Colleagues, in the past, social security was balanced ad hoc, year after year, and without a clear vision. Today, we guarantee that balance in all budgeting, budget control and multiannual planning. And that’s good, because that proves the government’s commitment to a good, healthy social security. All those who accuse us of taking the Anglo-Saxon tour, dismantling the social security, dividing groups into those who are insured privately and those who are insured publicly, make absolute caricatures of it. On the contrary, what we are doing here is strengthening our social security, and that in the long term.

The first principle is security. We give that certainty, but we combine that with responsibility. The opposition has a terrible difficulty with the fact that we point out to our partners their responsibilities. For all clarity, it’s not just about the social partners, it’s also, and first of all, about the government. Ms. Onkelinx, you talked about the six factors of responsibility. I will not teach here who they are. However, the reality is that five of the six factors are entirely in the hands of the government. In other words, it is the government that must be responsible for balancing its social security budget. This includes the fact that social fraud must be combated and that we can also finance social security. It is about volume effects and also about closing back doors, which apparently according to the opposition can only happen in fiscality, because in social security one must stay away from it.

Colleagues, there is a domain for which we ask the social partners to be responsible themselves. Let’s be honest, the social partners are part of our social system. We respect them and we value them high, except when it comes to files such as the ecocheques, Mr. Vercamer. These social partners are now for the first time also being reminded of their responsibilities. This means that if they conclude social agreements in the future, the invoice can no longer be subsequently forwarded to the Parliament or to the citizens. This means that the social partners will have to be accountable and that they will have to ensure a closing financing of any compromise they make. This is the strength and the conclusion of the reform. As Mr. Spooren said, this will finally restore the balance between political and social partners.

Mrs. Minister, to say it with a boutade, it is nice to go to eat at a restaurant when someone else pays the bill. It is time for everyone to pay their bills, the social partners and the government. Therefore, of course, we fully support this draft.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going around.

Some say we would endanger social security. I have referred to the Anglo-Saxon caricature, but I want to translate what my good friend Mr. Vercamer said into French.

I read it in English so you can understand it. On page 14, black on white: "Mr. Frédéric, at the end of this exercise, the social security will be in balance."

At the end of this exercise, social security will in any case be balanced. Colleagues, isn’t that a commitment to the beautiful monument of our social security? What we do here is fundamental. We ensure the survival of social security, which we are proud of, through solid financing and solid reform. It is a pity that our sympathetic Laurette Mitraillette is no longer here. You should have listened to her when I asked her something.

“This Van Quick, with its reforms, its reforms, its reforms.”

Well, colleagues, do not make illusions: the reform train has begun and, as long as this government is engaged, the train will remain and continue to go. It is only through reform that our country will become stronger.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Ministers, Dear colleagues, the discussion is very interesting. For all clarity, the adjustment of social security through the state reform, we have no problem with that. It must, that is obvious.

Mr Van Quickenborne, adjustments, reforms, we have no problem with it. One must look at what the future requires, and then one must adjust its instruments. What we struggle with is with the change of ends and goals. I just heard you preach the passion very loudly. Then I was taught: farmer, take care of your chickens. We have absolutely no problem with discussing this and implementing reforms.

You also started with this: solidarity is a very important value. I hear many colleagues here often say that the values of the Enlightenment are extremely important. Well, brotherhood, brotherhood is very important and that means solidarity. For all clarity, that value is the basic principle of our social security. This solidarity is also very typical for Western European countries, for European member states. It means that everyone should be able to participate in our society, whether you are sick, unemployed, or on retirement after a career. We help each other and everyone needs to join. In addition, we also stand for affordable, quality healthcare. Whoever follows the discussions about Obamacare in the United States today understands what that means.

It is also recalled here that social security must primarily provide security. Nothing hurts people more than when an insurance company claims that they are not insured for what they are doing, even if they have an insurance contract. This makes people angry. In this way, a distrust is created and that comes back in the face like a bumerang. This applies to private insurance companies, but also to society. People want to be able to count on that security.

Today we have already discussed some decisions – Mrs. Sonja Becq must always speak – that affect the security of citizens. Consider the reduction of 20,000 pensions. I warn you about this.

They also act as if social security is a mess. But the social security system, which was installed after World War II, is constantly adapted to the new needs of our society. Should there be more transparency and simplicity? I have no problem with that, as long as you keep the finality in mind.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I have heard you as the chairman of the Social Affairs Committee declare that you are in the meantime a Marxist, though referring to Ive Marx. I think you don’t always read all of his pieces. Last week, the latter wrote, among other things, that the decrease in purchasing power also reduces domestic demand and that fewer jobs can be created. I know you don’t like to hear that. There is such a thing as selective perception in the human mind, and you have put that position aside.

By the way, social security is financed by employers and workers. Sometimes they try to forget that. They are responsible for this. They have a responsibility for this. Everyone contributes to this. The government is adding a piece. There is a lot of alternative financing. Finally, in order to balance everything, there is the balance donation. It is actually a stable system. If you look at social security over a period of 70 years, you don’t actually see any major fluctuations. There are two factors that make them fluctuate a little: the conjuncture, in case of economic crises, and the population composition. If more older people have worked for their retirement, one will, of course, have to appeal to it more.

What I have a big problem with is that the government works at two speeds. Many decisions are made here for the benefit of the rich, and many decisions are made here to the detriment of ordinary working people.

One decision in favor of the rich is the tax shift. Of course, we are not against lower taxes on labor, but we find that the tax shift gives relatively little result. What is less received by the tax shift is also not compensated. The National Bank has figures on this. In the long run, we will get a heavy account for this, especially because you have misestimated the return effects.

The social security contribution on low wages, the tax on low wages, is almost zero. You can create jobs, but the return effect remains low, except that you do not have to pay unemployment benefits.

Then there are the flexi-jobs and the catering industry. What do they actually care for? In addition to the many rising accounts, the hospitality industry is one of the main causes of rising inflation. In other words, the hospitality industry makes prices rise very strongly, despite the fact that that sector is getting a lot of measures to make it more flexible for the sector.

If inflation rises, that is a hold-up on the savings of all of us. We are not sufficiently aware that this is a very important factor.

Meanwhile, the government is cutting the income of people who are in trouble. I am talking about pensions and unemployment benefits. I have already referred to the phrase “If they are hungry, they will work.” All kinds of systems are cut in order to make people work longer, despite the fact that they want them to work longer because they are less expensive to social security. I think of the landing tracks for the elderly. I’ve heard many men say they want to work longer with a landing track. However, this is no longer possible.

There is a great discussion about time credit, including with the social partners. The necessary money was also allocated for this. The social partners wanted to take responsibility to finance this system, but it does not. The government wants to save $20 million. When I see that practice, I would like to believe that you have all this incredibly well arranged for the future, but I only see signs that make me ask whether you believe it all yourself.

I come to the responsibility. This has also been cited several times. They want to raise money for aging, but this requires a growth of 1.5%. Ageing comes, whether you want it or not. Whether there will be growth, we do not know. It is precisely at the moment when the urgency is highest — that is the insurance system — that one first wants a growth of 1.5%. Otherwise, 0 euros will be paid.

The [...]

and supplementary? Maybe you will really need it!

Mr. Vercamer, we are about the same age. I hope for you, the day you will be old and you may need it, that everything will be as you now imagine it.

I just want to ask two short questions.

I would like to hear you talk about social security as an insurance system in which people have justified expectations. If you consider it as an insurance system, do you agree that we should strengthen the link between contributions and benefits, which is a basic principle of any insurance system, including a social security system?

I remain in the same philosophy of an insurance system. Do you agree that the totality of the contributions, even if that is a basic principle, must cover the totality of the benefits?

Do you agree with these two principles when you talk about social security as an insurance system?

Mr. Spooren, if you know me a little bit and have followed my career, you know that I have always brought the story of rights and duties, at all levels where I have worked.

You must acknowledge that some people, for all sorts of reasons—genetic, by accident—sometimes cannot contribute, but they are people to whom one should respect and who one should be able to give a decent life. It can be your son, your daughter or your mother who needs it at some point. We must also look at it openly, critically, honestly. If you ask me if I am against profiters, I say, yes, I am against it. I do not say that simply. You can test my entire career on that.

Now to your second question. This cannot be said in advance because there are also needs. That is politics. These are priorities and choices. One thing I know for sure, if you make sure that people are not able to participate in a society, you may not have a problem in the short term, but in the long term. The same applies to education. We organize education, but does everyone get the same amount out of it? No to. If one is wise, if one has many competencies, then one will benefit from it more than one who does not have it. Therefore, one must also look objectively at what people can do. Soon a lot of people will be retired. That is a reality. It is necessary to adapt the resources, which is a policy priority, to the situation. That is a choice. It is based on values.

I would like to follow your reasoning, but that implies that you are not really looking at social security as an insurance system. If one follows this reasoning that you build here, the emphasis will be placed more on solidarity than on social security.

That is not true.

I think that both functions should be included in a social security system. What we are doing with this government is a little bit that balance restore, a little bit more going to a social security system. That is not to say to abolish solidarity, but rather to monitor the link between contributions and benefits.

Of course, there are people who really need it, but if you look at it at the macro level, we must go there. Therefore, a number of measures should be revised, concerning equal periods in which no contributions are made but rights are accumulated.

That is one of the differences. These differences may be there, but I would like to note it.

Mr. Trails, such things cannot be calculated one-on-one. I will probably work until I am 64 years old. I have never been unemployed and have always contributed. There is a great chance that I will not get back so much, apart from my retirement. However, I can have a child who needs that. How should this be calculated? Does this apply to family solidarity?

It is about the human image. I assume — I have experienced this in my capacity as OCMW chairman — that most people want to live as normal a life as possible. They want a job, a home, a good partner and children. You should not assume that people want a replacement income. They do not want that. They do not want that in the long term. In this regard, our society also has a responsibility. I talked about the reimbursement benefits. It is also about cents. For me, it is primarily about guiding and giving opportunities to people so that they have a good job for the rest of their lives.

Alternative funding is needed because a lot of decisions have been made, which means that contributions for certain jobs or below certain levels no longer need to be paid. So when the government decides A, it must also decide B. This is the consequence of this policy. At this point, the tax shift is a very big problem.

Responsabilization is an incredibly beautiful word, which is used a lot. I wonder if employers and trade unions were not responsible in the past. They pay a large part of the social security contributions. So why should they not deal with it responsibly?

Nothing is worse than what you are doing about accountability. You hold someone responsible for something for which he or she is not responsible. Do you know what you will cause? That they say, “Fire!” Let them say, “Stop the pot, because I can’t do anything about it!” In my opinion, this decision will lead to irresponsibility in the future. I will give an example. You are looking for measures regarding the long-term unemployed, because you want to save money in that area. Often, someone becomes long-term unemployed because a number of early retirement systems have been discontinued. The system of communicating vessels. Well, you will need to provide very good guidance to get those people active again, which will cost you a lot of money. In addition, I challenge you to seriously responsibilise employers to hire those people. Do you know what is organized? People can be fired for medical reasons. This will be applied massively. Do you know where they are going? towards social security. Who is responsible for this? Think about it carefully, because I do not want to charge Mrs. Becq, who must always come to repair, too much.

Mijnheer Vercamer, u hebt gezegd dat of social partners daarbij absolutely betrokken zijn geweest in heel gelukkig zijn. Misschien leeft u in a different world, but i krijg toch informatie waaruit blijkt dat geen enkele vakbond en geen enkel ziekenfonds tevreden is. It is quite a service if it is in all sickness funds one sluitend akkoord you get over what here forligt. That has I never meegemaakt, although I am nochtans my best for done have. It must be done.

Evaluation is very important and I advocate it. I don’t know if there is one government that has invested more in combating social fraud than the previous government, under Di Rupo. Do you know why? Because the socialists must be the first to correctly apply social security and social benefits. From that drive, a lot has been invested in the fight against social fraud.

Maybe some people might even think about taxes. Just because tax systems are very important, it would be better to invest well in the control of tax fraud. That would make many people happier, who are now often grieving about it.

Dear colleagues, we think that what goes ahead is an attempt to change things, things that need to be changed and adjusted. All this is no problem. However, we believe that some elements — which have already been said here by several members, and therefore I do not repeat them all — are destroying the financing of social security. The system is very simple: first one calls out that there is a big problem, then a number of parties say they will fix it. Then one actually does just the opposite, one creates a system in which there are wells created by the own decisions, after which one says that the system becomes unprofitable, while one could make perfectly different choices.

I am talking about pensions. If everyone works for 42 years, if everyone has a career of 42 years, it will contribute very strongly to social security. What did you do? You made everyone raise by saying that one must work until 67 years old, and now blocks Everyone. That wasn’t ⁇ smart.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, there are founding texts that lead us to more positive futures and there is your text, a "defunding", destructive text, which while pretending to want to ensure the future financing of social security, modernize and strengthen it, will rather create the conditions of its weakening, of the decrease of its capacity to intervene and therefore, of the decrease of its effectiveness in the fight against inequalities, to respond to life situations, such as disease, retirement after having worked for a long time, the absence of employment in case of unemployment, the refund of health care.

Yes, you aim for balance. But what balance? Which Social Security? There are at least two ways to reach balance. The first, which traditionally founded our social security, is to adapt the means to the needs, to see the aging of the population, the emergence of new diseases, the stress at work, the burn out resulting from it... The second way is the one you choose, the one that says: “Here, you have a closed envelope, more closed, get along and you will refund tomorrow what you can.” It will also be less effective in the ability to allow everyone to flourish. But it’s not important, we’ll be in balance.

Rather than adjusting the resources to the needs tomorrow, we will have the social partners assume the fact of reviewing the interventions of social security since the expenditure will have to return absolutely and whatever the consequences, into the budget.

Not that money should be thrown out the windows; environmentalists are against waste! It is not that we should not take social security seriously. But, Mr. Borsus, Mrs. De Block, who can claim that, since its creation to the end of World War II, the social partners have mismanaged the most important of the heritage, political, economic, social, envious by many states in Europe, in the world? Who thinks social security needs are static? Do not the ageing of the population, the emergence of new diseases, the high rate of unemployment call for a public response in the form of solidarity, assumed by social contributions and alternative financing, existing for many years?

You want to change the paradigm. We, as environmentalists, accept to change it, but for the better. You want to change it for a worse: we are moving from an effective social security system, based on solidarity between the active and non-active, between those who have a better salary and those who do not have it, to a minimalist, Anglo-Saxon system, as Pascale Vielle of the UCL, a social security specialist, described very well during the hearings.

The [...]

Pascale Vielle explained that this minimalist system must be complemented by a private insurance for pensions. Mr. Quickenborne, Mr. Bacquelaine have somewhat this agenda in mind: a private insurance, which drives to overconsumption of health care in hospitals and therefore, to budgetary departure, a system less efficient, more expensive, less stable.

This government wants to take this measure without announcing it, subreptically, quickly, like the decisions it has already made, for example, the increase in the length of the career.

The project was submitted on a Tuesday. We had asked, about him, to be able to hear the social partners, academic personalities, but it was necessary, in a half-day, on Friday, to have organized these hearings, without a real social debate about the future of our social security system.

Responsibility and accountability are not problematic words in themselves. We need to be responsible managers. Every citizen must be responsible. But responsibility is also accompanied by taking into account inequalities between citizens, between particular life situations, and by assuming real responsibilities with regard to the difficulties of financing social security.

Indeed, if there is a imbalance today in the social security budget, it is everything except the responsibility of the social partners and the people who benefit from social security. This is the consequence of the reduction of social contributions that have been granted by billions by the different governments, by yours, but also by the previous ones. This was done without guarantees in terms of job creation and in terms of alternative financing. It is corporate para-wage practices, such as corporate cars, coffee shop plans, and now, in banks, the fact of paying wages in virtual currency, such as the units at BNP Paribas, which deprive social security of significant revenues, under the complacent eye of governments. They do not react, except when they find that there are not enough social security revenues to ensure solidarity.

It is also a consequence of the financial crisis of past years, a lack of regulation by public authorities and the greed of shareholders. It is also the objective increase in social security needs, linked to the aging population, to the deterioration of working conditions, which lead to more and more workers getting sick, but this increase is also due to the deterioration of living conditions and the environment, which lead us to suffer more and more environmental diseases such as cancer. This is what needs to be done!

It is also, from a macro-economic point of view, the transfer of the creation of wealth from labour to capital; in the share of wealth created each year, Mr. Borsus, the share of wages is only decreasing. This is a general trend. We need to adapt our social security financing system to this reality, rather than compressing more and more spending and therefore, interventions for those in need.

This is, finally, the absence of an alternative system of solid social security financing, guaranteed through a collection of capital income, of a revision of its environmentally damaging wage policies; I think of corporate cars. It is also the absence – we have repeatedly often called for it by the voice of our colleague Kristof Calvo – of a tax shift, of a decrease in the cost of labor, but strictly and completely compensated by other revenues, which you did not. You have created a deficit that tomorrow – this is the Machiavellian side of your text – will have to be assumed by the social partners and therefore by the people who benefit from social security. Rather than addressing the causes of this social security financing imbalance, you are addressing its consequences.

The future mechanisms that are envisaged in the government project are problematic at various levels. They are first and foremost uncertain. The increase in the state subsidy linked to common parameters of the ageing coefficient does not provide sufficient guarantees in relation to the evolution of means. Alternative financing is not balanced. In fact, there is no guarantee that the reductions in contributions will be fully offset by alternative tax revenues. And most importantly, future alternative financing is linked to criteria, which do not depend on the social partners who will have to assume the consequences, but on the choice of government policies. The government decides. This does not work. It will be the social partners to assume a political responsibility for reducing intervention and, behind them, to all persons, women, children, the sick to assume the consequences.

The government decides, the social partners assume, the allocators pay the note. This is not a system that we can approve. We have been fighting it for months.

This government, Mr. Borsus – I recalled it recently, don’t dislike it – has already carried out, in terms of social security, linear dark cuts in terms of interventions that hit the most fragile. Just recently, Minister Bacquelaine has, once again, been taken into consideration of the consequences of his pension policies on persons with a long career who, during their career, have been sick and who may lose per month, according to a study of the Office des Pensions, hundreds of euros with the new calculation mechanisms.

Women, who are too often forced to work part-time, have seen the salary supplements they were receiving decrease. In terms of health care, Mrs. De Block, despite the repeated commitments you have made, you have accepted savings that will drive even more of our fellow citizens to postpone health care or not take care, creating even much higher future costs. This is called false savings, safer savings.

What you are anticipating, and which will be the consequence of this new text on the financing of social security, is that, tomorrow, these phenomena will be further multiplied. This time, the difference will simply be that you will put the responsibility for economies on the social partners, where it is the government that decides. Beyond a lack of vision, it is an obvious lack of courage on the part of the government.

All the strikes carried out since the beginning of the legislature by the government go in the same direction: the consequences of the poor budgetary choices that you have made budget after budget, the tax revenues announced by the Minister of Finance that never confirm, the inability of the Minister and then the Minister of Budget to demand from this Minister of Finance and his party a true struggle against tax fraud that costs us every year billions of euros, which costs every citizen thousands of euros each year in Belgium, weakening social security and I don’t even talk about social concertation. We are very far, Mr. Borsus, from the stability promised by the government.

However, there are alternatives. Criticism is one thing. It is important that the opposition analyzes and expresses itself but proposing is an obligation that environmentalists systematically give themselves. So, if you want a balanced social security tomorrow but not at the expense of its beneficiaries, there are lots of things to do, Mr. Borsus, Mrs. De Block.

The best savings to ⁇ in health care, Mrs. De Block, is to have fewer sick. Prevention is a competence of the Communities, you will answer me, but it is also a competence of the federal state in relation to employment policies. We talked about this, a few weeks ago, in parallel with your text on feasible work.

Flexibilising work, extending careers without allowing tired or sick workers or in extreme situations to lift their feet, is organizing transfers from one budget to another. We know the increase in the numbers of allocators who benefit from replacement income because they are sick. There was a transfer of the pension budget to the disease. Nothing has been resolved except that the well-being of our fellow citizens is declining in an obvious way.

Reducing work-related or non-work-related stress, developing preventive measures, better combating pollution, against those corporate cars that not only create congestion in our cities and harm our economy, but also cause fine particle emissions that are problematic for health, would be a good way to ⁇ interesting and smart savings on health care. Why not entrust a reflection on this subject to the social partners and imagine the organization of society differently?

Mr. Borsus, the best economy in terms of unemployment insurance, is to increase the number of active people benefiting from a real employment contract, with employment security, with an income that allows to subsidize their needs. How will we get it? Improve the sharing of available working time. Environmentalists propose the Tandem Plan: allowing older workers to lift their feet, gradually reduce their working hours and be replaced by young people who demand only one thing, not to be excluded from the benefit of insertion benefits but to be able to have a first professional experience and gradually enter the labour market. Businesses should be allowed to switch to a four-day week system. Where are the government’s proposals in this regard?

Developing a mechanism of reduction of social contributions that focuses on the lowest wages, what you have not achieved, and which is strictly compensated in terms of new revenues, what you have not done, investing in future jobs, having a real plan aimed at energy autonomy, the development of new green technologies – my colleague Vanden Burre spoke to the prime minister recently about the investment plan that we expect from the government and all governments – these are solutions to create jobs!

And then, as I said, we need a solid alternative financing of social security, based on the income of capital. Over the years, the share of Belgian income generated by labour has continuously decreased to the benefit of those of capital, concentrating de facto wealth on bank accounts, in shares or real estate assets of a minority, but also putting under pressure this financing of social security – which until now relied mainly on professional contributions.

An alternative financing of social security based on a fairer collection of capital income is the best way to ⁇ a fair and effective balance of financing of pensions, health care, health insurance, unemployment insurance, family allowances and, ultimately, of all Belgians who benefit, in one way or another, from these interventions.

All this is possible, Mr. Borsus and Mrs. De Block. It is a question of vision, of political will. Rather than organising the gradual dismantling of social security to replace it with a less efficient system, which will share the private and the profits it will capture, its future financing should be set up in favour of a better shared prosperity among all our fellow citizens. This is our hope. But, in this case, we will not vote for your very bad text.

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. The first, which we supported in committee and in which we voted, concerns all the changes made necessary by the Sixth State Reform, but also several measures in relation to the social partners. I say it right away, these provisions are positive and we voted them in the committee. I will not extend it.

I will immediately address the second part of your bill. This fundamentally changes the principles of social security. If I had to describe it in two words, I would speak of breakdown and insecurity.

The central question we must ask ourselves is what kind of social security model we want for Belgium. Do we want to keep the principle of insurance as a cornerstone of social security? Do we want to guarantee the financing of social security in the light of developments that will be imposed on us anyway, such as the ageing population? Do we want to keep the social partners at the forefront? To these three questions, I answer by affirmative, but your choice of majority is to answer three times by negative.

You have chosen to break with the existing model. And you organize the weakening of social security. This is a voluntary choice, primarily political. In essence, this government, as has been seen several times in the last two years, still considers social security as unnecessary spending. It is just a burden in your eyes. It is a terrible, infernal burden. For some parties of this majority, the social security budget is first and foremost a horror, but also a manna where one must go looking for the maximum amount of money.

You decide to lock it, in parallel, from underfunding it. No matter for the real needs that would no longer be covered and for those who could stay on the side of the road.

So I said that the insecurity was generated by your project. You have come here to glorify the fact that social security would finally be balanced. I have no problem with balancing social security. very well ! The big question is, how will you balance social security? Dear colleagues, I tell you, your social security may be balanced, but it will most ⁇ be amputated.

On the guarantee of funding, an important part, you know very well that what will be imposed on us is an extension of life and it is so much better! But this is also a challenge, a major challenge that must be addressed, that of the aging population. And you never cease to say to me, already in commission: “But if, but if, but yes. We will take into account the ageing of the population. Look, it’s written.”Yes, it’s true. It is written. However, you say that this will only be taken into account if two conditions are met. On the one hand, the actual retirement age must be significantly increased. On the other hand, real GDP growth must reach at least 1.5%.

These are two cumulative conditions and acknowledge, dear colleagues, that there is a terrible paradox in your reasoning. In fact, you know as well as I do that it is when the circumstances and economic conditions are bad that we need a little extra boost in the level of social security. On the contrary, when the economic situation is better, social security is generally better.

Furthermore, if you really want to take into account the ageing population, then let us work together on what the social partners have proposed, namely taking into account the ageing population on an objective basis.

This objective basis is determined annually by the Plan Bureau, through the Aging Study Committee. However, you refuse to take into account the ageing population on the basis of the objective elements of the Ageing Study Committee. You simply refuse. This is the best proof, if needed, that the way you supposedly want to take account of aging is purely facade. In my opinion, this is what may have emerged from one of your political negotiations, as a result of which it was still necessary to pretend to write something on this page to save the face.

We just talked about another element of uncertainty: the current non-financing of the tax shift. New projections were published this week. I will not repeat here what the Chairman of the Finance Committee said about what remains to be funded at the level of tax shift. He does it much better than me. The number of billions is significant. The consequences of this on the social security budget will be anything but banal. I think you can agree with me on this.

Beyond this insecurity, there is also a budgetary weakening of the financing of health care. I have just long talked about the challenge of the prolongation of life and the ageing of the population, which will in any case impose on us, in one way or another. But much less is spoken, in terms of health care, of increasing costs related to innovation. Innovation of technologies, technology. The innovation of new medicines, and especially those treating rare diseases, which are known to be ⁇ expensive. Innovation also involves immunotherapy. Innovation still for everything related to personalized medicine, and therefore the issues related to genetics.

All of these challenges will result in an increase in costs. But this could be a formidable opportunity for tomorrow to fight against serious or rare diseases.

Through your budgetary decisions, and in particular through the latter, for the 2017 budget, you have prefigured what would be included in your draft law on social security. You yourself provided a health care standard of 1.5%; this was in your government agreement. Remember that the Plan Bureau had, in its forecast, estimated the necessary needs at 2.2%. Finally, in 2017, you cut and even amputed the standard of health care by placing it at 0.5%. It was basically only the prefiguration of this bill: we will use the health care and social security budget to manage and fill the budget gap.

I was talking about budgetary balance. As for me, I have no concern with the fact that I want to hold the actors accountable. But these are many. Speaking of social partners’ accountability while there is not a single word, dear colleagues, about the accountability of the government, for example, about its tax revenues; not a single word in this bill is aimed at empowering the government! I don’t dare to write black on white: no! We prefer to write, I do not know how many times, through the whole bill, we will be responsible for the social partners. I don’t have any problems with this, but empowering the government ... When you see your results for two years, singularly in terms of tax revenues, you say to yourself that you might at least have had the courage to insert this into your bill.

Not only do you not clearly write accountability factors in the head of government, but in addition, you quote the six accountability criteria by announcing that the list is not exhaustive. If the social security is not in balance, you impose the amputation of the social security budget by an amount, which would necessarily lead to the abolition or reduction of certain allocations, subsidies or the health care budget. So you write in this bill, black on white, that you could impose leaving people on the side of the road. In some budget decisions and especially in 2017, you had already expressed this kind of proposal. I am not surprised by your text.

The way you decide to challenge social partners in the management of social security also surprised me. Rather than keeping a model in which there is a strong co-administration, you want to introduce a first step: a stateization of social security. Where the social partners controlled the situation, you decide to destroy the entire system installed and question the work done by your own commissioners, the social partners and the financial monitoring carried out by the different operators.

You are inventing a new Finance and Budget Commission, of which we do not understand very well what it will be able to do – except that it will be in the pure and harsh name of the State – than this monitoring which was already practiced today by paritary bodies, composed of the social partners but also of your government commissioners. Yes, this is clearly a questioning of the social partners and a first step towards a stateization of social security. This is a great paradox for a right-wing government. This is also a beautiful paradox, dear colleagues of CD&V, for those who say they are attached to social concertation!

On this bill, dear colleagues, I have already submitted a whole series of amendments in the committee that I am submitting again today, amendments that are balanced, that are not completely foolish and that I think reasonable. They were drafted with the social partners in order to try to correct the most unacceptable aspects of your project.

You make the choice of a social security that comes out weakened. You make the choice of a law that regulates its underfinancing. You choose a model that will no longer be insured. As far as we are concerned, at the CDH, we advocate for the maintenance of a social security model based on social solidarity as well as on an insurance logic, with rights, duties, but retaining rights in an insurance logic. Tomorrow, it may concern us. Each of us or a member of our family may be seriously ill or disabled tomorrow and need a strong social security model.

For us, the law must clearly guarantee the financing of this model with a basis that must continue to rely on the social contributions paid by employers and insured, with a state supplement, in order to address the challenges of aging, to adapt to all health care innovations and to compensate for the effects of the tax shift, while ⁇ ining a close co-management with the social partners.

This is the model I advocate. It is obviously not the one who supports this majority. Your choice consists in a dismantling of social security, but even more in a detriction of a company project. We do not share this option, especially since the more inclusive a society is, the more profitable it is on the individual level, but also on the collective level.

Eric Van Rompuy is in his post this week. We will not vote for your bill and, like him, I will say: not in my name!

Mr. Van Rompuy seemed to be willing to intervene. Do you not intervene, Mr. Van Rompuy? No to?

No, Mr Van Hees! When you talk, it’s not in my name.

Mr. Van Rompuy is in good shape, despite the late hour.

Dear colleagues, I will not be long. My colleague Raoul Hedebouw has already largely intervened in the committee.

Nevertheless, I still wanted to quote you a statement just sent by the CSC, the CGSLB, the FGTB, the Christian Mutualities and Solidaris. The title is “Social Security becomes uncertain.” “If the parliament comes recently to approve the reform of social security financing, workers will lose part of their income security. The new law no longer guarantees, in the long run, a balanced and sufficient financing of pensions, unemployment benefits and sickness benefits. We call on parliamentarians not to approve the law.” and Raoul shares this view. “And above all, budget balance, in this project, is linked to a series of conditions involving that in the end, a balance will indeed be achieved – as the majority says – but after achieving savings and therefore, at a lower level.”

This is one of the major problems of this bill. And I remind you, dear colleagues, that the 2017 budget was drafted and voted at the end of 2016 taking into account this bill, which was not yet adopted.

It might be tonight, but it wasn’t at the time. This poses a democratic problem of drafting a budget on the basis of a bill that is not drawn up.

In what context is this project included? We have a government that has taken the secu as its primary target; the secu is a, still largely, federal instrument of solidarity. It is understood that this government, with very right-wing and very nationalist components, is against both the federal and the solidary aspect of this instrument.

This government is carrying out three simultaneous attacks on social security. First, there are repeated budget cuts against all aspects of social security (pension, unemployment, illness). We have been talking about a new attack on pensions.

The second attack is the tax shift. He defined social security through reductions in employer charges of €4 billion. It is said that it is financed, but in vain a full financing of this tax shift is sought.

Finally, there is this reform. Reform is necessary, but not in this way. Indeed, the government is using the need for reform to shake up the social security system itself!

With this project, social partners are put under tutelage. Furthermore, in the future, the social security budget will serve as an adjustment variable to allow the government to cover the deficits generated by its policy. The planned reforms are under the cover of ensuring the sustainability of our social protection system, but in reality lead to its planned death. How can a system be viable if the revenues that feed it are constantly decreasing?

Although the government speculates on hypothetical return effects of the reduction of contributions, these will never be able to compensate for the abrupt drop in revenues resulting from this reduction.

Rather than seeking to empower the social partners, who are held accountable for the consequences of the government’s choices, it is the latter who should be put in front of its responsibilities regarding the underfinancing of social security; the government should be held accountable!

One of the things that should be taken into account is the employer. We finally realize that gifts are granted unconditionally to the employer, through reductions in social contributions that define the secu, and that these gifts are eventually compensated by fixed percentages of tax revenues. On the one hand, there is an unconditional element. The bosses get their gifts no matter what happens, whether they create jobs or not, whether they dismiss or not, whether they apply restructuring like ING or Caterpillar or not, no matter! However, in the absence of tax receipts, the gift compensation does not occur.

This bill thus challenges the fundamental principle of financing social security. “The mechanism of accountability included in the bill is in fact to anchor in the law a lever that will allow, during each budget discussion, to initiate in advance a debate on antisocial economies and to challenge the agreements concluded between social partners.”

Instead of saving, making dark cuts in social security, we should give it more resources. What is needed is not to activate the social allocators, but to activate the great fortunes, with a millionaire tax: 420 billion assets are held by 1% of the richest population in Belgium. They should be activated to finance pensions, as well as multinational companies, for example, medicine. There is the kiwi model that the PTB has defended for years and whose Minister Maggie De Block has decreed death. It would, however, make it possible to finance health care quite effectively.

I will not be surprised to say that the PTB will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, as many speakers have been able to say, this is not a bill reform of social security or defense of our model of social protection, it is nothing more than a budget framework project that aims to prepare the dismantling or, at least, the weakening of a number of sectors of social security. Indeed, if your government majority really wanted to save social security – which is a real societal debate – it would dare more ambitious reforms such as, for example, a reflection on expanding the financing of its plate. It would even dare to reform the financing of the pension system. Instead, your majority made a very ideological choice. As others have said, you make social security and its financing a variable of budget adjustment, and nothing else. In short, you gradually slide, but determinedly and certainly, towards the Anglo-Saxon model that is a model of reduction of social benefits.

For the annual grant, you will only take into account a population ageing coefficient if two conditions are met. First, if economic growth reaches 1.5% of GDP each year, which is far from being established in this period we know. Proof of this is that for 2017, the growth forecast will probably not exceed 1.4%. And you will also take into account the actual retirement age, which must increase by six months per year.

The actual retirement age does not increase. The Catholic University of Louvain and the University of Ghent have recently ringed the alarm bell. The restrictions on the provision of the pre-pension scheme – and it is true that a reflection had to be made but it was done in a partial and partial way – cause the dismissal of older workers or slides toward disability health insurance. Thus, the condition of the actual retirement age postponed by six months each year will also be difficult to reach, which will allow you to consider that, therefore, it is necessary to hide the reality of aging and of covering its cost by the social security budget.

However, the cost of ageing is well known from a budgetary point of view. Its evolution is regularly monitored by the Aging Study Committee. In 2016, it was revised again upwards from 2015 forecasts and, between 2015 and 2040, according to the Study Committee, it is expected to reach 2.9% of GDP.

So you already know that the limiting mechanisms you put in will make the envelope insufficient to meet the need for this ageing population. But instead of reforming the financing of pension schemes or reintroducing incentives for the work of the elderly, which has long been debated, you choose to reduce the veil of social security. And you claim, however, that the budget will always be in balance because the balance allocation is ⁇ ined.

But when you read your bill clearly, the balance will be conditioned by a series of so-called accountability factors – the term is a very daring word to hide a much more sinister quality – which the government will be able to almost freely appreciate depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, the list of criteria for determining these accountability factors is not exhaustive, since your listing in Article 23 begins with the words "among others".

The balance allocation can thus decrease if your anti-fraud policy is not effective or if the tax shift does not deliver the expected effects, which is likely because you have not planned its full financing, or even when your colleagues in Finance are mistaken in estimating tax revenues, which happens quite frequently and which has become a difficulty for this government.

These factors, called accountability, are formulated in such a vague way in Article 23 that the government will be able to evoke almost anything that suits it to reduce financing and the veil of social security. Therefore, you introduce a mechanism that allows for the addition to be paid by those who have not chosen the menu. It is the government that will choose the menu, through the elaboration of its government agreement, but it is it that will fix the contribution of social security, in the realization of budgetary objectives. So it is all social insurers who will have to pay for the imbalances and failures.

Social partners are misguided. Whether or not the budget neutrality of the agreements reached between them will be taken into account. They will be required to make corrections. The Government reserves the right to execute the agreements they would have concluded, in whole or in part, or to take compensatory measures. These social partners will be put apart from the management of social security, while it was precisely the pledge for a responsibility of these in the management of social security and in its budgetary evolution, to the advantage of officials and experts. The Finance and Budget Commissions that your project establishes, both within the ONSS and INASTI, only reinforce the fears of the social partners for the future of the concertation in the management of social security.

The creation of a budget reserve is fragile. You have chosen tobacco excise taxes as a source of financing. All social partners have invited you to prefer another, wider plate, namely the professional pre-count, which would have been more cautious or, in second choice, the excise taxes on energy and electric products. It is paradoxical to retain, to constitute this reserve, a source of funding that should decrease if a health policy against smoking should finally be seriously carried out in our country.

The Government has therefore reserved all the levers of decision in relation to the assessment of the needs of social security and its financing. These margins of manoeuvre, arbitrary, totally discretionary, left to the government, have been the subject of criticism from the State Council. Similarly, the social partners are suspicious of the formulation of these delegations and point out, for example, the cases where the text provides that “the Council of Ministers will be able” – to take the terms of the legislative text – “to do”, which is nevertheless a formulation that is not legally precise, rather than affirming its precise obligations.

This is the case for example in Article 6 which stipulates that "if new reductions of social contributions are decided, the minimum and maximum percentages of alternative financing may be adjusted by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers". Moreover, we do not rely on your government majority to determine the compensation for future social contributions reductions for social security financing.

Also, I regret, once again, as I had already done in the committee, that this project does not say a word, not even in the exposition of the reasons, of the risk of poverty in our country. I recalled how far we are still far from achieving the objectives set by the European Union and the United Nations in terms of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty or precariousness.

Since the commission’s work, other figures have been released equally worrying. Since there has been reference to studies of the Federal Plan Office, it is sometimes necessary to read the studies of the Federal Plan Office, in particular its latest report on complementary indicators to GDP. This is a February report of this year.

What does he teach us? This is the real concern and the real concern. This year, the poverty indicators were divided by quintile, more specifically by thirteen income levels. Today, almost 22% of Belgians, or one in five, are in the lowest quintiles, i.e. in a situation of severe material deprivation. In particular, they cannot cope with unexpected expenses. Health indicators such as those related to obesity, smoking, and healthy life expectancy are equally worrying for the most precarious.

That is to say how much in particular the reductions of wages that have been practiced in recent years and the limitations of wage growth are seriously damaging not only the health of a whole part of the population, but its chances of not being dependent, tomorrow, on social security interventions. The percentage of households having to cancel or postpone health care for financial reasons quadrupled between 2008 and 2014, to 2.1%, which should, I think, worry the Minister of Public Health.

For all these reasons, ladies, gentlemen, dear colleagues, we believe that your bill is not a draft reform of social security to make it more effective in the face of the rise of poverty, but is only a budget draft that will aim tomorrow to give the government the means to blindly or even completely unfairly reduce the benefits of social security. We cannot accept it!

I want to reassure you, I will be brief.

Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, my group leader Laurette Onkelinx has clearly denounced the adverse effects of your reform. Convinced that your text needs to be adapted and, naively, that it can still be, we submitted amendments for which the opinion of the State Council had been requested. It follows from this opinion that except for a few adjustments of form, nothing was emphasized on the substance. This confirms that another policy is possible. It is a political choice: that of ensuring the sustainability or not of our social security.

I would like to briefly present these amendments. Since they are many, I will bring them together. The goal of the first package is to ensure that the tax shift is fully offset and does not increase the deficit in the social security budget – in order to ensure full and legitimate compensation for the new measures to reduce social contributions. In this context, an amendment aims to ensure that alternative financing actually follows the evolution of the cost of reductions in social contributions.

The second group of amendments concerns alternative financing, which should compensate for exemptions from contributions. The interlocutors we received during the hearings re-expressed their finding that billions of euros are escaping social security contributions. Our amendment aims to make full transparency on the amounts concerned and to adjust the amounts of alternative financing so that they fully compensate for the lack to earn.

The third series of amendments provides, in order to guarantee this alternative financing, for professional pre-accounts as a reserve source. Several of our colleagues talked about this. In fact, this idea corresponds to the agreement reached by the social partners, which must be respected.

They fear that the resource for tobacco excise is insufficient and that there is a deficit in VAT revenues. Some figures go in this direction.

Fourth, an amendment to ensure that exceeding the budgetary target for healthcare is offset by an increase in the balance allocation. Our group leader explained all the risks if it did not.

Fifth, an amendment aimed at giving the Central Council of Economics the opportunity to define a methodology and criteria for determining the ageing coefficient. Indeed, Madame the Minister, your method, given the conditions set, is inappropriate to this reality of aging and is, in some way, a deception.

Sixth, an amendment to ensure that the balance allocation continues after 2020. For if we think that this provision of balance is necessary, and we are convinced of it, let us foresee it indefinitely, and not for a definite duration. And above all, let’s remove the accountability factors that the government has sought to put into the law, which unfairly question the balance and ultimately transfer your responsibility to the social partners, who are not responsible for most of the criteria provided in this legislation.

Finally, the last point concerns the Finance and Budget committees you set up. We want to eliminate them. Indeed, they create a real guardianship of the government on the management of social security.

Here are some important amendments, which allow to re-balance this text and avoid this paradigm shift. It is still time to resume, Mr and Mrs. Ministers!

First of all, I would like to thank the reporters, Mr. Delizée and Mr. Clarinval. I would also like to thank the services of the House who remained on mail during the long committee meetings.

This reform of the financing of social security was necessary after the sixth state reform and after the tax shift. It has already been said, social security is very important for all citizens in our country. This reform came after an opinion from the social partners, which we have taken into account for the most part. The classic pillars of the past continue to be ⁇ ined: the grant, the alternative financing, which indeed becomes clearer and more transparent, and the balance grant, which we will enter into the law until the end of 2019, after which an evaluation and a possible extension may take place.

I have heard a lot to say about the six responsibility factors, but I must say that everyone should take responsibility for it. Therefore, it is not only the social partners, and Mr. Vercamer has also made it clear, who are responding in this. I think it is normal that when one makes decisions and has political responsibility, that one also has responsibility.

For the first time, we also take into account the ageing coefficient. We have held committee meetings on ageing for years and here the ageing coefficient is taken into account. There are already discussions in the NAR and the Central Council for Business. These people will advise us which parameters we should take into account.

Then there is also built-in monitoring, a monthly monitoring, which has never been, by the Committee for Finance and Budget, to make discharges immediately visible, after which the global management and the government can be informed.

With regard to healthcare, Ms. Fonck, it is true that we have to repay a lot of new things, and we do so. We make money free by working cost-efficiently for the rest. Cost-efficient work is not a slang word. That can. We have the refund for medication against hepatitis C. People heal from it. I think this is a good thing, for themselves but also for the social security. So far we have already allocated 150 million more for the Cancer Plan that existed but for which no money was provided. We have the refund of new immunological medication for oncological conditions. We also immediately repay medication to HIV-positive people who previously had to wait until they were sick.

These are some of the many measures we are taking.

With this reform, the financing of our social security is ensured for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in thanking the rapporteur, the staff of the Chamber and all those who contributed to our debates.

As you know, 60 to 70 percent of the income of social security schemes comes from the contributions of workers, employers and self-employed. This is a reform that has been ongoing since the beginning of the legislature. Regardless of the polemics about the numbers, they clearly show that we are on the right path. And when you are going in the right direction, you must not only continue but hasten the step.

I have heard that we would not use the ageing coefficient. I give you an appointment, because I think that the two criteria, which we have described as never met in the past, have all chances of being met! This is a 0.5% growth. We acted 0.4% but I believe in 0.5% or 0.6% thanks to the work of our entrepreneurs and a number of social actors and thanks to the reforms taken by the government.

The second criterion is being met with regard to the later departure to retirement.

In addition, I would like to focus on the aspect that concerns me as Minister of Independents.

In the end, there were very few, or not at all, criticisms about this aspect of the reform. On the contrary, I think it is widely appreciated, both by representative organizations and by speakers. As far as I am concerned, I think we will not need the part of the balance allocation that is reserved for the self-employed regime for this year 2017. This is a further sign of the good health of the self-employed social security regime. A large number of indicators are still demonstrating how the 1,050 million self-employed in our country occupy an increasing share of economic activity.

I hear and listen with great attention, in this tribune, the opposition announcing us the worst, the most absolute catastrophes, the most unbelievable social earthquakes. They always tell us the worst for the next day, for the next day and the next day. But because we announce the apocalypse every day, we end up no longer being credible.

The last word is for the members. But there is such an emptiness. Have you noticed? We are radically transforming the way we finance social security, weakening what is our common good. There were only five minutes for the Minister of Social Affairs to speak. It is surreal! And then a minister comes to tell us that we must believe in it and that next year will bring us growth that will allow us to adjust the ageing coefficient.

And if you have a new crisis, what will you do? Could it be possible for you to anchor yourself in reality? Do you go to the field, to the men and women who currently suffer, interpelate, worry about the future and are afraid? It is known that turning to more populist movements is due to this fear, and that fear, you do not even see. “Everything is fine, Madame la Marquise.”

I just want to say that this is a very big disappointment for me. Both ministers, as we know, have been completely taken over by their partners, who do not have this desire to save social security. They take this lightly. I think this is indecent!

Ms. Onkelinx, you should know that in life sometimes one can say a lot by speaking little.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, if that were true, then the members of the government might have had to keep silent. But the minister wanted to say that he had the certainty that the two criteria for determining the amount of the annual subsidy would ⁇ be met in the coming years. So they had to be removed. They are useless. If you have such certainty, why provide criteria that would allow you to review the annual subsidy downwards? So it is the confession that you are not sure of what you announce.

For the surplus, you constantly tell us that there is job creation. There is always job creation in a country, except really in times of crisis and recession. But what is the trend compared to the average of other European states? This is the true comparison. In absolute terms, your performance is not unparalleled with other countries of the European Union; and you are below the average of other states, not only of the European Union, but also of the eurozone. This is the truth. Statistics are provided by both national and international bodies. I have quoted you the study of the Plan Bureau, which states the increase in poverty. This is another effect of your policy. Now there is probably job creation. As I said, job creation is not a new fact.

Let us be honest. I will not criticize some government measures, including the reduction of social security contributions on certain jobs. This is a good measure that has ⁇ supported job creation, as measures taken by the Regions have also helped create jobs. It should be noted that there may have been convergences of policies.

One of the major weaknesses of this government is that the labor income of many workers is decreasing. This is why the increase in poverty figures is worrying. This is the result of your tax policy and your salary policy. You create a disadvantage of economic growth in this country.

Mr. Prime Minister, in general, you tell us that everything is fine, and that this text will not change anything. Keep calm people, move around, there is nothing to see! I will make two comments: one on the extension of life and the ageing population, and the other on health.

First, if everything went so well, if you were so sure to adapt to the ageing population, as I explained just recently, you would not bind it to conditions that would allow you to ignore it. And most importantly – I give you the text back – you would base yourself on objective bases, with the Aging Study Committee providing the adjustments to be made each year. But you don’t have the courage to do that.

This government decides, under a great make-up, by placing a small phrase indicating that it will take account of the ageing population, not to have the courage to assume what, anyway, will impose on us. In doing so, the benefits will of course be compromised.

Secondly, I come to health. I have listened to you well. But come here to play your little sympathetic music after making, in two years, more than three billion euros of savings on health care, of which one billion in 2017, it is still swollen on your part!

While you had announced that this would be very problematic, it is all the more daring to come here to glorify you.

You advertise a small additional medication, etc. But you have decided to increase the price of a whole range of health care benefits. It is not just about medicines. There is also a question of other types of treatments, reimbursements which, however, are existential, including for serious pathologies in children.

I must remind you, Mrs. Minister, that unlike the countries around us, a whole series of treatments are still not available and refunded in Belgium. However, this is not a "small flu" but serious pathologies.

Be careful not to go backwards in the healthcare budget. You know that the breaking of trust is total. I’m not just thinking about patients, but also about healthcare providers.

The path you set up with this bill further aggravates what you have already set up in the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, I had another suggestion regarding responsibility, since approximately everyone should take the bath and take responsibility.

I have found nothing in this draft about the responsibility of the Regions and Communities and their powers and the extent to which they should make efforts to limit or co-finance a number of phenomena, for all matters for which they are responsible. For example, I think of the support and activation of the unemployed. This has an impact on social security, but there is no word about it.

Mr. Speaker, to reassure Mr. Borsus, I would like to add that the general criticism that we have formulated on the future financing of social security was also, and unfortunately, valid for the self-employed system. As for his last reflection on the people who would announce misfortunes that do not happen, I would like to encourage him and further camp his feet in the reality of the many families that are now in difficulty, the rate of child poverty, the number of people who postpone health care yet necessary. If you try to make you believe that the billions of savings you have imposed on social security are painless on the daily lives of the most fragile of us, it will be without us. In your system, there are few winners and many losers. And it will be even worse in the future if the majority votes this text.