Proposition 54K3098

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 20 juillet 1971 instituant une assurance indemnités et une assurance maternité en faveur des travailleurs indépendants et des conjoints aidants, en vue de supprimer la période de carence.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Frank Wilrycx
PS | SP Frédéric Daerden, Paul-Olivier Delannois, Jean-Marc Delizée, Elio Di Rupo, Daniel Senesael, Fabienne Winckel

Submission date

May 15, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

incapacity for work disability insurance social security self-employed person

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 ¶

March 14, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work. A sick self-employed must wait 14 days to be eligible for a sick benefit. If the employee is an employee, he or she has an allowance from the first day. This is unfair to the self-employed.

For the PS, a worker is a worker – whether he is a self-employed, an employee or a civil servant. That’s why my colleagues and I submitted a bill aiming to grant an allowance to self-employed people from the first day of illness. This proposal did not gather a majority, but after discussion and compromise, a first step can be taken tonight with a broad majority and maybe even unanimous, which I hope.

The waiting time for an illness benefit for self-employed workers will thus be reduced from 14 to 7 days. The entire period of the self-employed’s disability will be fully compensated, provided that the illness lasts beyond the seventh day. Thus, thanks to the Socialist bill, sick self-employed workers will benefit from better social protection.

This is a significant step forward for the independent. This is a significant step forward in social protection for more than a million self-employed people. This is a significant progress, both in terms of public health and equality between different categories of workers.

However, we will have to go further. The PS will again file a bill, from the beginning of the next legislature, to allow the granting of sickness allowance to self-employed people from the first day of illness.

My colleagues, the Neutral Syndicate for Independent Workers (SNI) has set the goal that eight out of ten independent workers continue to work while they are sick or burn out.

According to a study by UCM and UNIZO, 72% of self-employed do not follow the advice of a doctor who prescribes a work break. In other words, the postponement of health care is a sad reality for this category of workers. The main reason is related to the weakness of their social status. People are not sufficiently protected socially. Therefore, the PS wants to grant them an allowance from the first day of illness.

One in six self-employed people live below the poverty line. Low-income self-employed pay a higher rate of social contribution than large self-employed. In case of loss of income, they do not receive unemployment benefits. The amount of their statutory pension, let’s admit it, is too low.

Therefore, beyond the measure we will adopt today, I believe that it is urgent to rethink and re-value the overall social status of independent workers.

The purpose of the present bill is to reduce the waiting time for an intervention of the disability allowance for self-employed persons. Here it is even completely removed, or even for self-employed persons who have been sick for more than a week. The proposal also takes into account the opinions requested from the self-employed organisations. Each of them had an arrangement for this.

Given the regime applicable to employees and officials, this adjustment appears to be logical, fair and therefore fair. After all, they do not have a carence period, while self-employed workers still have to wait for fourteen days for an intervention.

Our party was and is also in favour of better alignment of existing social statutes. At the same time, it is important for us that actions are taken within a clear financial framework. In other words, the account is correct.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me make the following comments on this bill.

First of all, I would like to point out the work of the government-Michel I. He was able to present a good palmares on the strengthening of the social status of the self-employed. This work was made possible by the tax shift of former Minister Johan Van Overtveldt. For example, the carence period has already been reduced by that government from thirty to fourteen days. For this operation an amount of EUR 9.7 million was included in the budget.

The arrangement developed here will further increase the account with at least 11 million euros annually. This was calculated by the Court of Auditors, which also noted in its opinion that the budgetary impact was in fact difficult to estimate because there was no reference material available.

UNIZO had also made a calculation for its proposal, which was less extensive than what is being discussed today. That proposal would cost 20 million euros per year. This is a better amount to take into account. This amount is not included in any budget.

Therefore, it is also better to speak of a starting figure. It is not only difficult to estimate how many self-employed individuals will effectively use the scheme. According to a worst case scenario, this could be up to 200 million euros.

It is also difficult to estimate how much abuse will be made of the scheme. This risk also exists. I do not think of the butcher around the corner, but, for example, of the false self-employed who are registered here, working a few days and then living a few days at the expense of the State. This will need to be closely monitored, otherwise our honest leg hoarder will be threatened to face increases in his quarterly social security contribution.

Social security now shows a positive balance, but that can quickly reverse. Therefore, we abstained in the voting in the committee on two specific amendments.

Finally, I would like to point out that, although the measure was intended to bring the existing statutes closer together, that is not necessarily the case. I explain myself more closely. Employees who get sick are not paid by the state in the first month, but by the employer. Further socialization of spending can be a defensive choice, but the extent to which one can be solidary is not unlimited. The ever-increasing spending on disability in the employee statute shows that too.

All this does not mean that we would not support the proposal. The strengthening of the social status of the self-employed is also in our program and self-employed people deserve that too. After all, they are the engine of value-added creation that generates a wealth that we all can enjoy. Furthermore, the reinforcement responds to a demand from the self-employed organisations, our group supported an amendment at the end of 2018 calling for the abolition of the carence period and the budget of the social security of self-employed persons currently has a surplus. For these reasons and taking into account the comments made, we will support the agreement reached.

Many progress have been made in recent years in terms of revaluing the social status of self-employed workers.

Twenty years ago, the shortage period lasted three months. It was under the impulse of liberal ministers having the independent in their attributions that it was reduced. No government without the liberals took care of them. It was under the auspices of Sabine Laruelle that their status was actually taken into account and modified. Even recently, Minister Ducarme has reduced the period of shortage by half. Before January 1, 2018, it was still up to a month. It was obviously too long.

Given the financial difficulties that this can cause, some self-employed persons who are unable to work – who must therefore support themselves and those of their families – end up not taking sick leave, although sometimes necessary, and continue to work until the limit of their strengths.

A bill has been submitted by our group to purely and simply remove this period of shortage. Regardless of the form, the main thing is that the debate has been able to advance for the benefit of the independent. Yes, we want a period of shortage reduced to zero. That was our first wish. We are pleased that a compromise has been reached between the different political parties and between the different members of the Economy Committee to bring the short-term to seven days.

From now on, the disability to work can give the right to compensation after seven days, based on the date of constatation of the disability appearing on the medical certificate, with retroactive effect from the eighth day. In other words, an independent employee will receive compensation for his first seven days of sickness stop from the next day. This is a real step forward for the status of self-employed workers, which will enter into force on 1 July this year.

If we are satisfied with this, we obviously regret not being able to find a majority to grant us a pure and simple removal. Our group – I, in particular – is always very attentive to the status of self-employed workers and is just as concerned that their illness coverage is strengthened. Indeed, it should be noted that some self-employed persons still give up the possibility of being recognised in ill-treatment and of receiving the compensation resulting from it.

For all these reasons, our group will support this bill.

Colleagues, the proposal, which is put to vote, builds on the step-by-step work carried out over the past years to strengthen the social status of self-employed persons, including in the field of disability. As many colleagues have already stated, in recent years, a lot of space has been liberated and investments have been made to improve the situation of unemployed self-employed persons. For example, a first step was taken to reduce the carence period from one month to fourteen days. After the discussions in the committee following my resolution on improving the situation of unemployed self-employed persons, some legislative proposals were eventually submitted to further reduce the carence period, a principle that we ⁇ supported. The original proposal could not satisfy us, but thanks to some amendments submitted in the committee, a consensus could grow and the proposal became acceptable for us.

I reiterate my call to the government and all partners to include the other elements of my resolution, which was unanimously adopted here in December last year. Especially for self-employed persons who are long-term disabled, who do not see improvement, who have a low replacement income and cannot re-integrate into their own business or switch to another status, the situation is critical. There is still work to be done for this group, because it also deserves our attention. It is often a matter of crushing situations.

Furthermore, I urge to promptly work on the guided reintegration paths, which give long-term disabled people an opportunity to move into another form of activity.

In addition, I ask for the implementation of the second part of the resolution in practice and for prevention, so as to prevent people from becoming unemployed. On these points we want to continue to work.

Let me refer to the present text as a step on the way, as important measures still need to be developed around reintegration paths for long-term work disabilities and prevention.

The increase from 14 days to 7 days for the period of shortage is, in fact, positive. The CDH obviously welcomes this advance, which is the fruit, let us recognize it, of teamwork and above all of consultations with representative organizations that I would like to thank at the passage.

Belgium has a very high rate of self-employed: more than 1.1 million full or complementary. Proportionally to the 11 376 000 inhabitants in Belgium, this is a not negligible figure. Remember that the independent contributes to the economic growth of the country! Behind the workforce and behind this economic contribution, there are obviously individuals, families, problems of precariousness and public health issues that need to be considered and settled politically. Today’s proposal is involved.

For the CDH, independent workers should no longer constitute a risk group. The above parameters must be taken into account to make this status attractive and accessible. We must be able in the future to remove purely and simply the barriers to social coverage. There is no need to go without counting. As part of the drafting of this proposal, we received opinions from the various representative organizations. Beyond some differences, we also have common points, namely that self-employed workers contribute more than they receive compared to the INASTI bonus and that they have priority expectations, especially in terms of pension.

Nowadays, moving from 14 to 7 days is reasonable. This is a political choice that the industry demands. At the CDH, we believe that it is necessary to choose to legislate intelligently and logically and that it is necessary to be able to proportionally return to the independent sector what they contribute.

Some questions remain: what about the proportionality of disability benefits? Self-employed persons are in favour of more proportionate benefits in case of disability to work. Today, allowances are flat-rate, but with a modulation according to whether the self-employed person has or does not have family care or according to whether he is isolated or cohabitating.

What about the inability to work part-time? Self-employed workers often do not completely discontinue their activities in case of disability, because the impact on their business would be too heavy.

It also happens to us that too many self-employed people also put their health at risk by continuing to work to the limit of their strengths, because living without any financial return while continuing to have to assume a number of obligations (wages, leases, loans, etc.) is obviously insurmountable. And when they have to take some rest time for reasons of health problems, the economic reality catches them up and they continue to work. This can lead to the inability to work part-time. It will probably be for later.

In short, today, let’s take what is there! We support this advance that we have taken with regard to the shortage period, while ⁇ ining the need to have a comprehensive view of the problem of the social status of self-employed workers and to provide answers in accordance with wishes and priorities.