Proposition 54K2464

Projet de loi modifiant la loi de redressement du 22 janvier 1985 contenant des dispositions sociales en ce qui concerne la flexibilisation de la prise des congés thématiques.

General information ¶

Authors

MR David Clarinval, Stéphanie Thoron
N-VA Daphné Dumery, Wouter Raskin, Jan Spooren, Wim Van der Donckt

Submission date

May 9, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

labour law labour flexibility organisation of work leave on social grounds

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 17, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I assume that all the rapporteurs, in particular Mr. Gilkinet, Mrs. Thoron and Mr. Delizée and Lachaert, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, you mentioned, rightly, the three reports relating to these three texts to be examined. A committee meeting has just been held. To be purist, it would normally be necessary to make a quick oral report of the holding of this commission. If you allow me, and without wanting to cut off my colleague Delizée who probably wanted to intervene, we must proceed with a quick oral report. This will be brief. Dear colleagues who come in, it is too late, we have started.

As regards the adoption bills and those on the flexibility of assistance leave, care leave and parental leave, four amendments were submitted by the majority. As regards adoption, this is an adaptation of the entry into force, fixed on 1 January 2019, and therefore of the text accordingly. As regards the flexibility of thematic holidays, this is, on the one hand, a legal correction, with a reference to the correct article of the basic law, and a semantic correction, on the other. The vote came unanimously on these various amendments.

Thank you for this correction, Madame Fonck!

I give the floor to the first applicant, Mrs Lanjri.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that after a long period of approximately one and a half years of work in the Parliament, we have been able to find a breakthrough in the flexibility of parental leave. Workers with children can now take full-time parental leave for four months, either part-time eight months, or one day a week for twenty months. The current proposal makes it possible to include half a day parental leave per week, or one day every fourteen days.

We do not extend the number of days of leave, as the total number of days of parental leave is converted to four full-time months each. However, we offer the possibility to take parental leave more flexibly. Parents thus enjoy greater freedom in taking parental leave at times they find it important, tailored to each family. For example, those who are in a co-parenthood system will benefit more from the fact that parental leave can be taken every fourteen days. For example, those who want to include only half a day a week will be able to do so from now on.

The figures indicate that there is a need. In the past year, 63 739 parents used parental leave monthly, most of whom, ⁇ 44 000 parents, chose the formula one-fifth. The current proposal addresses the question of including, for example, only half a day a week, or one day every fourteen days.

Such possibilities of parental leave also weigh less on the family budget, given that the parent concerned will still work for 90 %. Parental leave can also be taken for a longer period. For parents in co-parenthood, it also means that they can incorporate parentality when they need it.

I would like to emphasize that this further form of flexibility, which we now add, is only possible if the employee requests it and if the employer agrees to it. The current systems of full-time, part-time or one-fifth parental leave are a right that remains as in the already existing legislation, but for those wishing to take one-tenth parental leave, it is a preferential measure, which means that the employer must also be able to find themselves in that flexibility.

We are confident that employer and employee will be able to come to an agreement here. The National Labour Council has already issued a positive opinion on this proposal.

Following the approval of our bill, we have already received a lot of questions, especially about when we will be able to enjoy that vacation in 1/10.

The RVA must also give its administrative approval for this. Implementation KBs must also be created. Therefore, I assume that the law will enter into force no later than 1 January 2019. But it is important that we can already provide people with information about the new scheme, and that we ask the RVA to post the information about the new modalities on the website already and to make it possible to submit applications from October. This way, we can start from January 1, 2019.

I checked it for a moment. If you want to take parental leave now, you must apply for it three months in advance. So it seems to me logical to urge the competent minister and especially the RVA to quickly disseminate information about the new measure and ensure that applications can be made already from October.

I would also like to briefly say something about the other proposal I have submitted together with Ms. Van Vaerenbergh and the colleagues in connection with the adoption and foster care leave. Currently, adoptive parents are given six weeks of leave if they adopt a child up to 3 years old. If the child is between 3 and 8 years old, the leave is four weeks. Children over 8 years of age are not entitled to adoption leave at all.

We found this inequality discriminatory and we wanted to eliminate it. This is what we have done with this bill. From now on, every adoptive parent starts at six weeks, regardless of the child’s age. It is important that a period is offered in which both parents and children can get to know each other and build a bond of trust.

The first period of an adoption is very important. This is not related to age. Children aged 6 or 8 years also need a period to be able to attach themselves. That is why we provide for that period and we want to eliminate age-based discrimination.

We also provide for the possibility for adoptive parents to take the adoption leave for cross-border adoption four weeks before the actual adoption of the child, in order to provide the possibility of taking the child abroad.

In addition, we also provide for a parallel arrangement of six weeks of parental leave for parents who have a child in long-term parental care.

We want to extend adoption and foster care leave in the future. We start with six weeks for each parent, but we want to extend that to 17 weeks in the long run for both parents together. That figure corresponds to the number of weeks a biological mother receives, 15 weeks of maternity leave and 10 days of paternity leave.

We also suggest that the six weeks be recorded by each parent and that the five additional weeks be divided over both parents or recorded by one of the parents.

I would like to say that we fully support Mr. Traoren’s proposal. He will later extend it himself. We believe that the inclusion of medical care leave and parental leave can be even more flexible. Anyone who wants to suspend his work performance completely should be able to do so. From now on, it can also be recorded weekly. This was added by an amendment to the proposal of Mr. Sporen. Previously it was at least a month. Now it can be done in a week. People who wanted to include this half-time had to record it earlier for at least two months. This can also be done for a period of one month. Therefore, we provide more flexibility to better combine family and work. In this way, you can include weeks in the period when you need it. In this way, employees are not obliged to include a full month. One can soon include only two weeks in a vacation period, for example. We find that positive.

This additional form of flexibility is a favor, at the request of the employee and only if the employer agrees to it. Of course, this must be planned. This must also be feasible for the employer. However, we are convinced that this is a win-win situation for everyone.

An employer who prefers that his employee returns faster will of course also grant it, for a shorter period, if that employee indicates that he does not need a longer period.

Until then, my presentation. I would like to emphasize that I am pleased that we have been able to work with the various political groups to really make a breakthrough in these files. I hope that we will soon be able to do so again for some things that still need to be refined and for some new proposals.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, and in conjunction with Mrs. Lanjri, I would like to say again that our group is very pleased that we will give the green light for the adoption and foster care leave. The adoption leave is increased.

As regards nursing leave, nursing grandparents currently have only six days of leave to arrange their administrative affairs and they do not have a leave to take on their care duties. We want to change this in the future. As of 1 January 2019, the pleasant parents will be given six weeks of leave each, which will then be increased every two years. This gives from 2019 17 weeks of parental leave, six weeks per parent plus five weeks to be distributed among each parental family. It should be minor children and/or children in a long-term foster care situation.

We are very happy. On 1 September, it is two years since the Act on the Statute for Childcare entered into force, which clearly defines the rights and duties of childcare parents, childcare parents and natural parents. We hope that with this leave we will be able to warm up even more people for parenting, because at this moment 600 children are still waiting for a family. So it is a good step forward for potential pleegoods.

I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have been mobilizing for a long time to ensure that adoptive parents are no longer “half-parents” and are regarded as parents like others. My colleagues reminded me of the current deadlines for adoption. Sure, the text voted goes less far than the proposal I had introduced myself, but I joined it in order to be able to make a first step for adoptive families.

Of course, there is still a long way to go. We have planned this development over the coming years, with the possibility of accelerating upgrade compared to other families with children. This seems to me obvious, since the time given by parents to children during an adoption is extremely important not only for establishing a bond between them, but also for the future evolution of that child in terms of social and school integration.

Mr. Speaker, as long as I am there, I would like to recall how important it was for us to move forward on everything related to the flexibility of parental leave with the possibility of a parental leave of a tenth time or a fifth time every fifteen days. This is a frequent request, especially for Wednesday afternoon, or even one day a week. It really matches the realities of families.

This flexibility is necessary. This goes in the same direction as increased flexibility for maternity leave, maternity leave and parental leave. Workers are increasingly required to be flexible, but this must be able to go in both directions. This is obvious to us in terms of conciliation between family life and work life.

I am pleased that we have been able to go through these stages. These are just stages. We will have to go further. I dare hope that we can also do this together.

I conclude by saying that I have positioned myself on this topic in a logic that transcends the majority/opposition fracture. First, because these are files that I have been carrying for a long time and that I really wanted to move forward. I have repeatedly asked the government to make progress. I congratulate the majority, but also the colleagues of the opposition who joined the vote. In the end, what is important is to get advances for all families.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are addressing all these flexibility proposals together. As a applicant, I would like to address specifically the proposal on the flexibility of the thematic arrangements. It is a short and fairly simple bill that can have a huge impact on the daily life of many people.

Within the framework of this bill, we have talked about three types of thematic leave, namely parental leave, medical care leave and palliative leave. What do we mean by flexibility? In this bill it is specifically about the fact that one can get a regime that differs from week to week. Until now, someone who took a fifth thematic vacation had to take one day each week. In the case of 50 % thematic leave, it would have to be two and a half days each week. Now one can slide between the weeks, with the understanding that this slide must be done within the same month. This gives the employer a certain predictability. For the employee, it also means that there can never be a loss of income. Therefore, one month will earn no less than the other. Additional administrative burdens are also avoided by re-calculations over the months.

What are the advantages of this? Until now, we had a fairly inflexible system that overlooks some of today’s realities. First and foremost, we have a lot more women on the labour market. As a result, many more children grow up in families where both parents work. Therefore, there is a greater need for flexibility to improve the balance between private and work life. Furthermore, there are new forms of family such as co-parenthood where there is not always a weekly recurring care scheme. The co-parent then has every interest in being able to take the leave at the time the child is under his or her custody.

In addition, we also have the school holidays of one and two weeks and the even longer summer holidays where it is appropriate that one can take a little more leave than in other periods.

It also has to do with other reasons for work tailored to the employee. There can be a variety of other reasons why a flexible inclusion can be in the employee’s benefit.

Finally, one can also often meet the needs of the employer. It is a mutual agreement. For example, absence on certain days can be difficult to accept, for example at a work peak or in the absence of other employees. These are features of a new reality that can be better addressed with a more flexible arrangement.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that these are not additional holidays and that these are also optional. Thus, at all times, the current rights of the employee with regard to thematic agreements remained if no agreement was reached between the employer and the employee. This agreement between the employer and the employee must also guarantee the employability for the employer.

I would like to thank everyone for the constructive cooperation and the relevant questions so far. I think this is a good example of cross-party cooperation for the benefit of the users of thematic engagement.

All our colleagues are very happy. I am also very happy that these texts, these bills are finally submitted to the plenary session to be first debated and then probably voted in the aftermath of this Thursday. We are very happy that these projects succeed, as they will improve the lives of parents and families. Indeed, our Socialist group was ready to examine and vote for them for a very long time. We were out, we were demanding and we hoped that this vote would take place much earlier.

Regarding parental leave at a tenth time, the good bill of Ms. Lanjri and the CD&V group was submitted to the government. But it took almost three years and no less than seven social affairs committees for this project to end in a plenary session and we can finally adopt it.

Last week, at the committee meeting, we talked about this almost three-year duration and we were answered that the social partners took time to decide. However, we note well in the report that the social partners gave a unanimous opinion on 20 December 2016, when they asked us to vote on this measure. There is more than a year and a half!

We live in the country of surrealism. Indeed, not seeing this project succeed, somewhat exasperated by disagreements within the majority on certain files on 16 May 2017, during one of the committees of Social Affairs, our group requested to put to vote the bill of the CD&V. Countries of surrealism, the majority voted against voting, including the CD&V group that did not vote for its proposal! We need to find consensus...

I would like to complete the history, Mr. Speaker, to say that we did not meet at the last minute. On 12 July 2017, approximately a year ago, we filed an amendment to the bill "Diverse provisions in social matters" that introduced this form of parental leave. In short, today we are happy, like the colleagues of the majority, to finally land and allow parents to organize themselves more flexibly.

Finally, this goal is indeed the subject of this debate and having gathered the discussions on parental leave is a great initiative. The aim of the project is to enable workers and workers to better reconcile work and family life.

We will also support the majority proposal on adoption leave, which was voted in the Social Affairs Committee. We would have preferred to vote on the text of the sp.a or the CDH, because they granted this leave directly and not in 2027, with slightly different terms.

There is a consensus on a text, we will get it, better late than never.

You understand, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, that our group, with enthusiasm, will finally vote for these texts.

(The applause )

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, after long months of patience, negotiations and debates, I look forward, like Mr. Delizée, to see this text arrive on the banks of this Assembly.

The leading thread followed by the MEPs during these debates is the desire to give workers more flexibility. In fact, the evolution of technologies, the progressive but rapid transformation of the labour market and the evolution of our societies and the family model lead the worker to sometimes face a dilemma: the organization between work and family.

We have therefore decided to bring greater flexibility in the working relations between the worker and his employer in order to better reconcile work and private life.

We know that well-being at work is a key factor in the development of the worker and contributes positively to the level of his production capacity. A contrary, a stressed worker who fails to reconcile family and work life risks significant burn out risks, in the long run, dismissal.

We wanted to bring more flexibility in the management of working time and for this, we needed to loosen our labour legislation which, we admit it, is far from being the most flexible of the countries of the European Union. Therefore, we have focused our reform on three points.

I will talk to you first about parental leave at 1/10th time, because many workers in Belgium benefit from parental leave which allows them to leave their work to take care of their children until the age of 12. It is important to note that this device has a very successful success. Until today, parental leave could be taken full-time, half-time or fifth-time for four, eight or twenty months, respectively.

Many were workers who took parental leave a fifth time by default. Others decided not to resort to it, either because the absence from work was too long, or because the financial loss associated with this leave was a heavy burden to bear financially.

Initially, some were wondering about the possibility of creating an additional modality for parental leave. What is the impact on the organization of work within a company?

That is why the National Labour Council has been asked for an opinion. Social partners are favorable. This has been confirmed within the framework of the Interprofessional Agreement 2017-2018. Employers and trade unions have informed the government that they wish to extend the parental leave system to the tenth time.

It is true that the extension of the device to the tenth time will have a budget impact of the order of 1.4 million euros at cruise speed. But, in the balance sheet, the gain that this type of reform can bring to the whole of the workers is greater.

As I said, this measure will bring more flexibility. Parents will have the possibility to take a Wednesday afternoon, leave a little earlier, every day, to go pick up the children to school or arrive a little later to be able to put them there.

As you know, it is not easy, these days, to perfectly combine your parent life with an increasingly taking job. This measure of extending parental leave will therefore bring a plus, a greater flexibility for working parents.

At the end of 2016, the Prime Minister had fully supported the interprofessional agreement, including the parental leave component. The Committee voted unanimously. Therefore, it is obvious that our group will support this bill.

This includes adoption leave and family leave. Like the discussions held in the Social Affairs Committee, the proposal to extend adoption leave and to introduce parental leave for host families has also been subject to long work.

As indicated in the title, the proposal voluntarily addresses two aspects: the first concerns adoption leave; the second concerns parental leave for the host family.

Until now, the law of 3 July 1978 granted parents who adopt a leave of six weeks if the child was three weeks old, and four weeks if the child was older.

The aim was to gradually align the adoption leave with the maternity leave, but, obviously, the intention is not to consider that the adoption leave should be assimilated to the maternity leave. Maternity leave should serve not only the mother-child relationship, but also and above all so that the mother can recover physically and physiologically from childbirth.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to gradually erase the difference that persists between the two. Indeed, both the adoptive parents and the child themselves need a period to acclimate to this new life, they need time to deprive themselves and make acquaintance, to fix roots. And here, citizens faced with this situation made it clear to us that the six weeks granted were insufficient.

As regards the second part of the proposal, namely parental leave for the host family, it is important to recall that a “host family” leave already exists. But the conditions are such that these thematic holidays can only be used as part of tasks related to the placement of children and not to take care of them. It is hard to admit that the limit is not very clear, and this has been repeated during our work. We are obviously very far from adoption or parental leave as we know it.

Since then, the idea of aligning these holidays has germinated. Each political group with its own vision, it was decided to constitute a working group in order to reach a solution that would please each of us. And to emphasize that beyond political considerations, we have achieved it!

Thus, for adoption leave, the Working Group added one week of adoption leave per year, starting in 2019. In case of multiple adoption, the number of weeks is increased by two. These extra weeks would be distributed among parents, at their choice.

As regards host families, it is important to remember that they cannot benefit from parental leave insofar as there is no blood bond. However, these families, especially when they host children for a long period of time, also devote much time to the education and care of these children. It is therefore clear that the working group was then inspired by the proposal of Mrs Van Vaerenbergh, and that is how this text is proposed. It is also clear that our group will support this proposal.

With regard to the flexibility of thematic holidays, it is the proposal that allows for greater flexibility for all such holidays. Therefore, depending on his or her wishes or personal or family needs, the worker may, in common agreement with his or her employer, decide to take his or her leave in a more flexible way.

All the subtlety lies in this last sentence: "in mutual agreement with his employer and according to his needs." Therefore, whether it is parental leave, for medical assistance or for palliative care, the worker will be able to use these thematic leave more flexibly, fractional or scaled.

This is a very good thing, there is no doubt. All these measures go in the right direction.

Our labour legislation must be modernized, it must become more flexible in the face of the changes in our lifestyles. A logic surrounds these reforms and it is a deliberate choice that has led us to this methodology.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we are of course also happy that a solution has come for some bills that had been blocked in the Social Affairs Committee for several years, which was not the best situation for the colleagues there. That that lasted three years is not due to the fact that there were in principle problems with the content of the proposals – everyone could get behind them – but to the fact that the proposals must also be financed. I don’t need to point out that the federal government’s budget is not evenly balanced and that no magic calculator has yet been found to ensure that. We should not make the hole bigger.

The files were eventually unblocked, as the government provided the Parliament with a budget of 10 million euros to finance them. In addition, I would like to mention two other excellences, one of which is here for me to work. Minister of Social Affairs Maggie De Block assumes the responsibility to include the surplus of the three proposals now discussed in its budget. I would like to thank my colleague De Block.

By the way, later there will be another proposal, which will be treated together under the responsibility of colleague Demir and for which there should also be a portion of the government budget Anyway, we, like colleague Delizée, are happy that the files were eventually unblocked, in part because two excellencies have made the necessary budgets available.

I will discuss the three proposals thematically. The inclusion of one-tenth of parental leave was pushed forward by the social partners some time ago, as part of an interprofessional agreement. Now that funding is round, it provides additional flexibility for families with children. Being able to take up a half-day parental leave instead of a whole day offers a lot of extra flexibility. The recording can be tailored to the period during which children are in school or at home. If one has to take a whole day on Wednesday, while the children are only half a day at home, one loses time and that is somewhat regrettable. Now, by applying the agreement, parental leave can be better tailored to the needs.

Second, our group had submitted a bill to grant full maternity leave also to adoptive parents, allowing them to enjoy the same leave and the same rest. It was also our intention to make the scheme come into effect faster, but in order to get around the budget picture, we have spread the path over several years.

The spirit of the proposal is that adoptive parents spend at least the same period of time to adopt a child. They do not experience the physical birth, but must also make the bond with the child. In addition, there are the long waiting lists and the fact that parents sometimes have to travel abroad, in order to realize the adoption. This takes time and it is therefore welcome to be able to equate that period with the maternity chest in the long run.

The same applies to Ms. Van Vaerenbergh’s proposal on parental care. Even in the field of parenting, the majority in the past has taken a lot of steps forward. Indeed, it also requires a sufficiently long period in which one can properly establish a bond with the adoptive child. Therefore, the measures we take in this sense are highly welcomed.

Finally, there is the proposal of Mr. Sporen. From the beginning we supported his proposal. After all, it is true that previously parental leave was applied for by one of the partners in a classic family. That leave should be taken in accordance with a fifth or part-time or full-time regime. Now, for several years, however, a lot more families are going apart and a week-to-week arrangement for the children is being agreed, which even at certain times was standard in youth law. It is then, of course, a pity that parents in weeks when the children are not there, have to take parental leave, while not even taking care of their children. Therefore, it is a pity that the leave was not adapted to such a situation. With Mr. Spooren’s proposal, we meet the needs of the new types of family situations with unconsolidated families. One week can be included in parental leave and the other week does not need to.

We, together with Mr. Spooren, insisted on this and watched that nothing changes in the way of taking the leave. Only the modalities are expanded with greater flexibility resulting, while the way the leave is taken does not change. It is important to emphasize that to avoid any confusion about it. For example, there is still a need for an agreement between the employee and the employer on the exact recording of parental leave, i.e. on the working regime when the employee works and when the employee does not work. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the employer to comply with the legal provisions on part-time work.

These legitimate concerns have been addressed by the amendments in the committee. Even today, the applicants have made it clear that – I repeat it – there is still a need for an agreement between employer and employee on the precise record. In short, nothing changes the existing system, which only becomes more flexible in terms of recording capabilities.

This was further clarified by an amendment, which was unanimously adopted in the committee.

Colleagues, the government asks everyone to work longer, but we can only do so if our careers are tolerable. We must admit that everyone’s life today is a bit more complex than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. A family often consists of two employees. There are many more newly formed families, with complicated mutual arrangements; children have to practice many hobbies and parents play taxi on Wednesday and Saturday. There is a lot of pressure on young families and young parents. With the proposed flexibility agreement, we are partly meeting that demand from society. Serious efforts are being made to do so in a budgetarily difficult context.

The deal still covers two other proposals from our group, which are still underway. Unfortunately, they were referred to the autumn by a second reading. These proposals, on the other hand, do not cost money and help to redeem the present package, since we can use the budget that has not been spent for the present proposals, which we will be able to approve to everyone’s satisfaction.

The present proposals to introduce thematic leave, parental leave and adoption and parental leave represent a considerable improvement for those concerned. Our group will therefore fully and with conviction support them.

We are a little surprised to see how the majority now so movedly agrees on those matters. After all, the proposals have already been challenged several times by members of the opposition and by members of the majority and even together by opposition and majority in all possible ways. Now they get suddenly, apparently out of nothing, their seizure. It was, therefore, a little lifting show last week, when the majority suddenly reversed the agenda in a few hours, leaving hardly any time to prepare us.

But well, we are ⁇ pleased, colleagues of the majority, with your unanimity. It is something else. We had hoped, however, that these obvious proposals could have come into effect a little faster.

I would like to make a brief, substantive comment on the proposal on adoption and parental leave. Our group regrets that this will not be fully seized until 2027. Colleagues from both the majority and the opposition have already pointed out how important this is to get a bond with adopted children.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure Ms. Jiroflée once again.

Mrs Jiroflée, you know that the budgetary context is difficult, as my colleague has already cited. We now start with 6 weeks of leave for all parents. Some adoptive parents, who adopt a child over 8 years old, now even have nothing. Suddenly we give them 12 weeks. Preschoolers, who currently have 6 days of leave, are now given 12 weeks.

It is true that we initially said that one week of leave would be added every 2 years. However, we have adapted this. Together with Ms. Van Vaerenbergh, I have submitted an amendment aiming to include the words "no later than that specified date" in the text. We talked about these dates in the committee.

If the next government suddenly finds the necessary resources, nothing prevents the government from acting faster. Per ⁇ we can reach 17 weeks in 2020 or 2021. That is not impossible. We have modified the design so that 2027 is an outward date, but that it can be earlier. I agree with you that it would be better to speak tomorrow if it could. Thus, the amendment can be implemented faster. In other words, we do not have to wait until 2027.

Mrs Lanjri, you have other intentions, such as balanced budgets and the like, but they are also apparently not realized. I am looking forward to this intention, but I would be surprised if it happened before 2027.

However, it is a relatively limited budget. You refer, like colleague Lachaert, to the budgetary context but it is indeed a matter of choices. If the majority really thinks of eliminating the adoption leave, which is ⁇ important for the bond with the children, then the relatively limited budgetary impact could be best taken into account.

This was the only point that I wanted to briefly address. In any case, we will approve this step forward with conviction.

Mr. Jiroflée, if you think this has been too long, then we should have realized it already during the previous legislature. But that did not happen at the time either. I am pleased that now we, the majority and the opposition, may finally approve this proposal.

The increase from 0 to 12 weeks is already a huge progress for which we received many positive responses. Of course, the work is not finished. We want full equality with biological parents. As far as I am concerned, non-biological parents should even get an extra appreciation, or at least our respect for taking care of an adopted child. These people deserve our respect and all our respect. Let us work together to ensure that, in addition to the 12 weeks they are given from 1 January, 5 weeks will be added as soon as possible.

I totally agree with you. Our respect is at least as great. On the basis of the matter, we all agree. However, you seem to repeatedly forget that you also participated in the previous legislature.

Mr. Speaker, these are three texts whose adoption and application will allow for a better balance between family and work life, as well as a greater flexibility for workers in the context of access to thematic holidays. We will support them, as we did in the committee.

They fall within a context, which should be emphasized, of increasingly frequent family recomposition, of workers comprising single-parent families with childcare, for at least part of the time, and fall within a context of increasingly strong occupational exhaustion, context in which workers need to do something else and to breathe.

The first text introduces a possibility of parental leave at 1/10th time, that is, one day every two weeks or half a day a week, for example, Wednesday afternoon, or even one hour a day with more flexibility. It seems obvious to us – the opinion of the CNT notes it in particular – that this type of formulas, which we promote, will allow for a better distribution of parental burden between mothers and fathers, an additional reason to support it. Moreover, it has been found that the more the ability to benefit from parental leave lasts over a short period, the more men use it.

The second proposal that I will cite concerns that of greater flexibility in access to thematic leave which, from now on, will no longer have to be taken on fixed days but possibly over a period of two weeks – this is useful for shared guards – or even over a longer period when one has the utility of grouping his days of parental leave during school holidays in order to also ensure a better functioning of parental authority, which generates, as we all know, a series of savings in terms of social intervention – school accompaniment or situations of any type of failure.

Finally, and it is fair, the adoption leave will gradually be identical to the maternity or paternity leave.

In this case, these texts have a limited budgetary cost. Colleagues highlighted how laborious their voting was since their examination began in 2015. As a natural optimist, I would look forward to their adoption. I would just like to indicate to the members of the majority that we expect more "scaling" choices, to take the term of a colleague from the Walloon Parliament, to provoke faster and deeper changes in the field of social policy.

The necessary budgets represent nothing compared to the economies decided linearly and brutally by the majority in terms of social security. I think in particular of the index jump, applied in an uncorrected way to the social benefits, or the savings achieved by billions of euros in social security.

We therefore hope that these texts will predict choices that will go further towards solidarity and the improvement of the quality and sustainability of employment. Faced with the deterioration of working conditions, this seems to be a priority for the future. If this is not done in this legislature, it will be done in the next, with the environmentalists in charge, of course.

Thank you, Mr. Cheron, for your presence and support.