Proposition 54K2592

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 10, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

social legislation social-security contribution social-security benefit social security

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Stéphanie Thoron (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Stéphanie Thoron, rapporteur, renvoie à son rapport écrit.

The chapters on social affairs are primarily technical, such as the implementation of the IPA and the agreements between the social partners. It is important that we approve them, but I would like to use the discussion of these articles to bring two issues to the attention of the colleagues and the minister.

First, with this design, we extend the possibility of awarding innovation awards to innovative employees. I would like to point out, especially as we see what has emerged in recent months on wage policy, that there is a new trend in wage policy, which is devastating for our social security system and its financing. Without any shame, companies and organizations are currently advised to look at the amount from which it is better not to pay regular wages anymore. Companies and companies are advised, without any shame, in writing, on paper, to pay from 4,203 euros gross regular salary the best not regular salary anymore, but extralegal benefits. Today there are more than 86.

This is because the salary ceiling is 4 203 euros. From that amount, no one gets anything back from the social security. Up to the amount of 4 203 euros – which is the ceiling for the pension – contributions are paid for which you get something back. Above that ceiling of 4,203 euros, individuals are, as they say, no longer reimbursed from social security. However, the contributions paid above are vital to finance the solidarity embedded in social security. This is really becoming a rejectional system. Companies are constantly advised about this. I told this to the Minister in the Committee. We must urgently counter it or take side-by-side measures to limit it, otherwise we go to an insurance system and no longer to a social security system in which solidarity is preserved.

First, we need to think about a system where we still have the amount above the ceiling of 4 203 euros degressively counted for the pension or similar.

Second, we must consider whether we should not fix a maximum percentage of the gross wage that can be given to extralegal benefits in addition to a regular wage.

If this trend is confirmed and if this becomes a normal way of working, where one pays only a regular salary up to the gross salary for which one receives something back from the social security, then this means that our system of social security is simply undermined.

I would like to point this to the attention of my colleagues and the Minister.

For the interim sector, there is a provision that periods without outsourcing are equated with periods of activity, at least if the employee has been hired by the outsourcing agency under a contract of indefinite duration. That is a good thing, of course.

However, the problem remains of the abuse of day contracts. Yesterday I had a discussion with the artist sector. The abuse of day contracts in the interim sector is really heavy. We need to take measures to strengthen control. We need to make it especially easier for inspectors to do their work.

I propose that we process all day contracts electronically, so that all those day contracts are in a database, and that our inspectors simply have access to that database on their own behalf, allowing them to carry out the checks they wish to carry out without being hindered by any administrative obligation.

Third, we must also impose stricter sanctions, and financial penalties for those who abuse them.

I would like to emphasize these two points in the discussion of this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we recognize that this bill contains positive elements, in particular the measures aimed at implementing the Interprofessional Agreement. I think, among other things, about the extension of innovation premiums and changes in the field of occupational risks.

Unlike those measures that we can support, which transpose and execute the inter-professional agreement, there are others that cause us to experience a series of difficulties. We are making reservations about the future of social security financing. I partially agree with the comments of my colleague Stefaan Vercamer. I am also curious to see in the state what will happen at the time of budget discussions, since you are now in IKW, discussing a budget adjustment. The problem, in fact, is not the expenses, but essentially the revenues. In this regard, we will see what the minister, the whole government and my colleagues from CD&V will propose.

We also have reservations regarding the reform of social inspections. You know that we are extremely attached to this articulated triptych between the Social Inspection, police and justice, with the working audiences. You have decided, at the government level, to destroy this triptyque which worked ⁇ well. We will see what will happen in the future.

Finally, we are experiencing significantly greater difficulties regarding the form. In fact, the management of this case has been, for various measures, completely disrespecting the rules. I would like to mention two here. First, there was a clear deficit of social concertation. Even if they should have been consulted, the social partners of the public sector have not been consulted, while these are measures that require it, since we are talking here about the different aspects of the organisation of working time in the public sector and the determination of the average daily wage. Madam the Minister, you did not hesitate to return the ball to your colleagues, saying that it was the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Service who should have done it.

Sorry, but you are here to submit a government bill. So, your personal responsibility as well as that of the entire government is fully engaged. It is totally unacceptable that you decided to sit on the social consultation, allegedly because you were in a hurry to move forward due to the deadline of July 21st. You could have done it before.

A second element on the form that is problematic is the failure to consult the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission with regard to the transmission of data by the consulting physician. This was repeated in the committee. You explained very modestly that the so-called State Council would simply be wrong. I have full and complete doubts on this subject. I am not following you. You should have done it. This is obviously an extremely sensitive issue with regard to patient data.

It has also been heard, in recent days, that the medical data of 500,000 patients have been royally diverted in terms of the preservation of data on the electronic level. This is totally unacceptable and it demonstrates that locks are not necessarily sufficient and respected. In this case, the Privacy Protection Commission should have been consulted. It is not your responsibility to say that you comply with the legislation in this area. It is up to the Privacy Protection Commission to confirm whether the legislation on privacy protection is properly observed or not.

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote against, but we will abstain only because of the transposition of the execution of certain parts of the Interprofessional Agreement. For the rest, I was clear enough. You have heard our reservations, or even our regrets individually in relation to the social concertation. Dear colleagues of the CD&V, you have not addressed this topic. Maybe you should have.

Mr Vercamer, I agree with you that the abuse of those day contracts must be addressed. This will also be easier through the electronic declaration. The control of those Dimona statements is therefore indeed very important.

The artists enjoy a separate statute. It is also a separate and very diverse sector, with all the understanding for it. That doesn’t mean that we may have to look at the abuses that are possible in the assessment of the artist’s status, which makes it possible to build up few social rights, which we all worry about. We need to increase the scope. We were both involved when the very flexible artist status was established by colleague Vandenbroucke. However, there are now some negative consequences.

Ms. Fonck, we have already discussed your comments in the committee. I read from the State Council’s opinion, which states that the counseling physician would no longer take on that task. The law, on the other hand, states that the counseling physician will carry out that task. If you put those two side by side, Mrs. Fonck, you can, even though you may be wearing different glasses than I do, not other than decide that the State Council has made a mistake in doing so. Furthermore, if we do not change the role of the counseling physician, I do not understand why we should ask the Privacy Protection Commission for a further opinion on this subject.

You then add the hacking of the electronic waiting room, which has indeed happened. But I immediately take the opportunity to emphasize that it has nothing to do with the government and the eHealth story. After all, it is a private project, which doctors use to make their agenda. I do not want to minimize the facts. After all, it’s about patient data and it should be better protected, as we do. Now it is known who to which doctor when a appointment was made. However, there are no data from the patient’s medical record.

I do not endorse that well, but I would like to emphasize that it had nothing to do with what the government is now planning around eHealth and mHealth.

A private initiative is also considered to be sufficiently secure. I think the stakeholders know that too. Again, it has nothing to do with our projects. You must be careful and you can’t steamlessly lead such facts into the discussion here.

You have admitted that the text contains a number of positive aspects, such as the implementation of the IPA. You, along with others, asked why the text does not take over the innovation premium but other measures of the IPA. I have clearly explained in the committee that the measures for which I am jointly competent with Minister Peeters, Minister Borsus or Minister Vandeput, we have included in this draft various provisions containing. The implementation of the IPA is currently underway. That will of course take a few months.

In this way, we also show the social partners that the government is working on the agreements they have made, and that we continue to do so as soon as possible.

As usual, you only answer what you want to answer. Nothing about social co-operation. There is no comment on the financing of social security in relation to the problem, not expenditure, but revenue.

Furthermore, for everything concerning the sending of patient data, my statement obviously does not refer to the doctor-consultant. The problem is not the doctor-consultant, but to whom the doctor-consultant sends the data. I have explained to you for a long time that in the context of e-Health, where you persist in working with data that can go back to the identification of the patient, it is possible through an alternative to the benefit of everyone, including the patient, to establish random identification and, in this context, to fully protect the identification data of the patient when their consultation is not allowed.

Moreover, you persist in staying in a register without considering positive alternatives. I regret it. This is not only a personal opinion since it is also something that has been analyzed and proposed by doctors, themselves specialized in all aspects of computer science and who have done an advanced analysis of the subject. It comes from the ground. I think you have been widely warned about this. I regret it, but on this part, as far as you are concerned, you have not taken the effort to consult the Privacy Commission to see if, yes or not, you fully and fully comply with the legislation.

We are not going to repeat the entire discussion in the committee. But I will allow myself, in this replica, to recall that with regard to two government bills, the one of the law containing various provisions "Social Affairs" but also the one of the law containing various provisions in the field of Health, the government arrived like a cavalier of Offenbach, with 1000 pages (two times 500), which were provided to parliament just 48 hours before the committee debates. It is therefore not surprising to see that social consultations have been boycotted or that legislation has not been respected.

In this regard, I can only regret this, and I appeal to you in this sense. We have been very constructive in the committee but it is not acceptable, at the parliamentary level, to work with so little rigour and therefore, in the end, so little respect for existing legislation.