Proposition 54K3200

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 27 février 1987 relative aux allocations aux personnes handicapées en ce qui concerne le montant de l'allocation de remplacement de revenus.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 26, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

disabled person social policy social-security benefit social security worker with disabilities

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

The rapporteurs, Ms Lanjri and Ms Fonck, refer to their written reports. I give the floor to Mr. Raskin.

The rapporteurs are Clarinval, Janssen, Crusnière and Van Biesen.

It is a strange thing that this project has come to Parliament in catimini! This is about something important and we will return to it tomorrow or Thursday, on the occasion of the consideration of a large draft framework law for the protection of personal data.

But here, we invent an information security committee related to social security, a sectoral committee that had been cancelled in December and, suddenly, with the return of the month of July, just as spring comes back every year, the security committees left in winter to return to the beautiful season!

Another reason for surprise: while the framework law has been discussed for hours in the Justice Committee, here in the Social Affairs Committee, without expert or expertise, without answers to a whole series of specific questions, a small project is passed with the exception of the framework law that has not yet been voted in the Justice Committee.

There are many reasons for surprise! It was questioned whether, yes or no, this project was not contrary to the European Regulation. There is no answer! In the Justice Committee, I asked if there was no project in the committee for which the European Commission has warned of the possibility of being out of strict application of European rules. There is no answer! We do not know well...

In short, this is a rather surprising disorder, a lack of expertise and problematic professionalism given the importance of this debate.

The State Council opinion – because it is not only the opposition that says it, but it is that the majority is silent because it is easier – highlights that the two approaches to the framework law and the exception that is the current draft are radically different. They reflect a lack of a comprehensive vision, causing serious doubts about the respect of the principle of equality in the protection of the right to privacy. This is what is called “a joyful bordel.”

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this draft by Ms. Demir is actually something that is part of a decision taken during the budget conclusion of late March. The Council of Ministers then agreed on the distribution of the poverty envelope of 85 million euros from the Summer Agreement. As part of the fight against poverty in persons with disabilities, the decision was made to increase the IVT or income replacement allowance for persons belonging to category C. This is specifically for people who form a household and/or single persons with a family burden. That is a specific vulnerable target group that usually risks living well below the poverty line.

In order to implement the decision that was then taken by the Council of Ministers, we must today amend the law of 27 February 1987. First, the three categories of the IVT that are now interconnected by percentage must be disconnected. Secondly, the basic amounts for these three categories should be able to be modified by category. That is then, thirdly, achieved through the bill with an increase of 40 euros per month, indexed.

It is important to note that this is the third time that the income replacement allowance increases during this legislature. A first increase was observed in September 2015, then by 2%. The second increase of 2.9% occurred in September 2017. Today there is once again an important statement from our Secretary of State, although specifically for persons of category C. Compared to the previous government, the Secretary of State is taking a significant step. In the past, there was no more than a one-time increase of 2% in September 2013.

Of course, this is important because we are touching a field related to privacy protection. But we will abstain from voting on this particular project.

I would also like to emphasize, which I consider very important, that this is also part of a broader package of measures taken in the Summer Agreement for the benefit of persons with disabilities. A budget of 12.5 million euros was released to increase the five categories of integration support for persons with disabilities. Resources were also provided for the adjustment of the income limits for the partner of a person with a disability. Thus, the effect of the price for love is somewhat tempered. This was also the bridge to the draft law of the MR colleagues.

As for Ms. Demir’s draft, this is part of a package of measures that benefit persons with disabilities and the fight against poverty. This is well on the palmares of the Secretary of State and, in extension, of the Government.

I would like to talk about the proposed legislation by the colleagues of Mr. Of course, we also fully support this proposal, as I have already made clear in the committee. This has been long before. For a very long time, people with disabilities have been asking the party to undertake something against what is called the price of love. It is about negative, almost perverse effects, because it punishes the person with a disability who wants to cohabit with a partner. Nevertheless, people with disabilities often need people to live with, to get some support and assistance. In addition, many partners of persons with disabilities have doubts about working, given its negative impact on the income of the disabled partner. It cannot be intended that partners of persons with disabilities do not work because they do not want to see their household income increase significantly. Work must at least be paid. Through the proposal of the MR colleagues, this unemployment fall is removed for a bit and the price of love is also downsized.

A complete abolition is, unfortunately, budgetarily unachievable for the time being, but I would like to emphasize that our group is ⁇ satisfied with the proposal that, within the budgetary constraint, is once again an important step in the right direction.

Just as my colleagues did with the previous proposals and drafts, I would like to thank the members of the majority and the opposition who supported the story. Especially within the majority we have been able to make the agreement to jointly, in consultation with our committee and the Cabinet of the Secretary of State, take important steps in relation to the income of persons with disabilities. Therefore, we give our full support to both the draft and the proposal.

Mr Dedecker was also registered for the debate.

I want to play the game fairly. This is a project by Mrs De Block, who, as I have heard, is on the way.

However, what Ms. Onkelinx said seems to me to be of fundamental importance. This requires a response from the Minister concerned and I cannot imagine that the Minister of Finance can do so instead of Mrs. De Block.

The Socialist Group will support both texts.

Of course, we support the idea of raising the Income Replacement Allocation (ARR), even though this is only an increase in the amount for certain categories. This is a small advance. It is obvious that other people with disabilities also have needs, while being aware that this has a budget impact.

With regard to the issue of raising all benefits to the poverty line, we are still far from counting with regard to the announcement of the beginning of the legislature.

My main comment made in the committee – and from the beginning of the legislature! That’s not having a comprehensive view of this 1987 law.

Since 2014, I have been advocating for a reflection beyond the majority-opposition split to revise an outdated law. It no longer meets the needs and expectations of people with disabilities. It is a law that has been repeated thousands of times by various arrests.

The National Higher Council of Persons with Disabilities says the same in its opinions. We need a comprehensive vision. This council says they are asked to give their opinion on small changes but they would really want the government to start a real dialogue. It was clear that this would not be the case during this legislature.

Beyond raising the RRR and fighting the poverty of a number of people with disabilities, there are other challenges, such as strengthening integration and the right to integration for all. This is one of the biggest demands of the sector but it must be modulated according to income.

We need inclusive policies that take into account the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

There is also a need for administrative simplification. Mr. Secretary of State, you had the right idea to organize a visit of the Directorate-General Persons with Disabilities last March. The management encounters a lot of computer, telephone and personnel problems. When one visits this administration, one realizes that it must implement an extremely complex and tactile legislation. For people with disabilities who already have difficulties at the start, it is the fighter’s journey to understand, know his rights and to accomplish the steps, even if they can be helped.

Mr. Speaker, that is why my group leader had requested that this project, which is an exception, be joined to the discussion of this framework law. It made sense. I don’t know why they refused it.

The main challenge is therefore simplification and, unfortunately, we will probably not ⁇ this goal before the end of this legislature, which I regret a little.

As for the fight against poverty, the Court of Auditors indicated that, ultimately, the government had made a savings of 40 million euros. The measure proposed today will apply on July 1st rather than on January 1st. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that the amount can be used for the target group to which it was destined. In any case, this is not the case at the time I speak to you.

I would like to stop for a moment on the issue of the fight against poverty of this target group, but also in general. More than 40% of people with disabilities live below the poverty line, while poverty affects, on average, 15% of the population as a whole. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive view on this issue.

That said, people with disabilities are also faced with other measures such as consumption tax, VAT, increased healthcare costs, etc. That is why we really need a comprehensive view of the matter.

Finally, the budget has also been discussed. It is clear that no additional budget is allocated to this problem. We were confirmed in the committee that the amount concerned by the first measure relating to the ARR is taken from the welfare envelope. Initially, it could have been believed that there would be additional government investment, but this will not be the case and the necessary funds will be well taken on the aforementioned envelope.

Overall, I am not negative. We will support this measure because it is a step in the right direction, even though others still need to be made. We are ready to discuss this.

This comes at the price of the love that all parties demand. This is another step that has been taken. If I have noted correctly, according to the administration’s estimates, 3,555 people will benefit from this measure. I do not know how many couples there are, but there are approximately 150,000 beneficiaries of the integration allowance. Let’s see how many couples there are. However, this is also a step in the right direction. I recall that initially, the MR proposed to eliminate the price of love altogether. It is known that this costs, but we will support it because it will bring a plus to those affected.

The Conference of Presidents did not accept this.

First of all, I would like to comment on the text submitted by the Government. I totally agree with my colleague Raskin. This is a good step forward in the area of increasing benefits for people with disabilities. This is part of a package of measures on the table of Parliament that are in favour of combating poverty, in particular that of persons with disabilities.

In this package, we also find what is commonly called the price of love. In order to cover the costs related to their disability, the disabled person receives an integration allowance, the amount of which depends on their degree of autonomy. This benefit is granted due to the loss of autonomy caused by disability. This benefit is inherent in the disability and its nature. However, the current legislation provides that the amount of this allowance is reduced according to the income of the spouse of this person. This is what was called the price of love, since there was a reduction in the allowance, not because of the situation of the person but because of his choice of life.

Therefore, many of us regretted this injustice for people with disabilities. At the MR, we had, for a long time, prepared a proposal, but there was one on the banks of other groups. The defence sector for people with disabilities has also long claimed the abolition of the price of love. In fact, it should be noted that, in some cases, some people with disabilities remained isolated simply for fear of losing their allowance.

One can regret this fact because it can have an impact on their self-esteem as they are forced to live at the expense of the person with whom they share their lives. In addition, the integration allowance supports the costs of a disability that continues to exist, regardless of the family’s situation. Everyone has the right to love without discrimination. Equal Opportunities is this too.

Our request to include our bill as a priority among the work of the Social Affairs Committee was primarily aimed at the total abolition of the price of love, as Mr Delizée recalled. But as he also recalled, the budget envelope that was allocated to us did not allow the complete removal. So we worked in good agreement with Ms. Secretary of State and the MR was able to unlock 2.5 million. The Minister also entrusted us several millions. Thus, we got a fairly consistent budget that will mitigate the price of love.

As my colleagues recalled, a lot of people are involved. Part of the partner’s income will be immunized, passing from an immunization of 22 450 euros to 39 287 euros indexed. This represents an increase of 75%.

According to the administration, 3,150 people are affected by the increase in their integration allowance. The Secretary of State spoke of an average of 175 euros per month that will receive about 1,764 citizens. In addition, 1,391 people who, so far, could not receive an allowance, will now get one. New opportunities are also offered.

With the colleague Delizée, we discussed in committee when this decision could be taken. I promised to answer in the plenary session. I therefore confirm that the amount of the integration allocation will be automatically revised with retroactive effect on 1 July of this year – thus, for 1 August.

However, I must introduce a small nuance. The file of beneficiaries of a reduced allowance due to a too high income of their partner will be revised, while the amount of their integration allowance will be recalculated upwards from 1 July. The DG has included this information in the system. The review of the file of those who are already beneficiaries of an integration allocation is also scheduled from 1 July. On the other hand, it is clear that those who had been rejected because they would not return to the conditions will have to reintroduce a file. This means that they will have to take action. In this regard, I would like to extend my attention to the Minister. If this is technically possible, I think it is desirable that interested parties obtain information from the administration to signal them that they should reintroduce a file. It would seem reasonable to me.

At the end of the meeting, some of the members of the committee stated that this text was minimalist. On the contrary, I consider it to be a big step forward. Indeed, the price of love constitutes a real obstacle to the emancipation of people with disabilities. This is a question that concerns us. We are happy to be able to remedy this.

She is not always very wise.

That’s true, I didn’t say anything. and no! and no! It remains to what has been decided.

I would like to officially thank, of course, the colleagues of the majority, but also those of the opposition who voted in favour of this text. I must especially thank the Minister, who brought us a welcome budget supplement, as well as colleague Raskin, who defended this text.

Here, Mr. Speaker, in summary, is the intervention that we intend to develop.

In recent years, both in the Parliament and in the Government, we have repeatedly advocated for a gradual increase of the benefits up to the poverty threshold. During this legislature, the benefits have been increased several times, including through the expenditure of the wealth envelope. For example, I think of the living wage, the income guarantee for the elderly, the minimum pension, the minimum unemployment benefit and the employment allowance.

This bill increases the income replacement allowance for persons with disabilities of category C – that is, persons with disabilities who form a household or single persons with family burden – by 40 euros per month. For a disabled person who forms a household, this means 896 euros per month instead of 856 euros.

As people with disabilities are more vulnerable, we are very pleased with this increase. As the amounts of the income replacement allowance can now be set separately for each of the three categories, it is possible to provide targeted support to certain categories with a higher poverty risk.

The risk of poverty is greatest among persons with disabilities, and then especially those with family burden. We therefore understand that it was chosen to raise the benefits for this group. However, we would like to ask not to lose sight of the other two categories. Many single people with disabilities are at high risk of falling into poverty.

It is therefore important, Mrs. Secretary of State, to continue to strive to raise those benefits above the poverty line. This must of course be done gradually. We understand that the resources are not unlimited and that choices must be made. That is why it is so regrettable that we will spend only 40 million euros this year out of the total budget of 80 million euros. In the summer agreement, a budget of 80 million euros was agreed, but due to delays in the choices made, this measure came into force only in the middle of this year, leaving a budget of 40 million euros for 2018.

I insisted on this in the committee, Mrs. Secretary of State, and I will do so now. After all, I hope that you will still spend those 40 million euros because in the fight against poverty every form of commitment and support is important.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Onkelinx is right. Mr. Van Hecke fought at the Conference of Presidents, along with others, to ensure that this project was joined. If it cannot be joined by a Decision of the Conference of Presidents and given Mrs. De Block’s absence to answer our questions, I propose that, although it is not a Decision of the Conference of Presidents, we have this debate tomorrow, at the same time as Mr. De Backer’s Bill and Mrs. De Block joins the discussion tomorrow.

This decision of the Conference of Presidents cannot be changed now.

I have proposed to support poverty-fighting projects for which one-off funds can be used. Other trails are also good, as long as we don’t lose money. After all, every euro we can spend on poverty alleviation, we must also effectively spend on it. Forgetting 40 million euros would be a shame.

Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with both bills together, I would also like to take a closer look at Mr. Clarinval’s bill. It is a proposal that I have signed with great pleasure because we now find that people with disabilities lose part of their benefits and integration assistance when they get married or come to live together. This is called the price of love. They have to pay a price because they love someone. That is of course absurd.

In a previously submitted resolution, we have put in place various measures for people with disabilities. One of the measures I proposed was to abolish the price of love.

With the present bill, the price of love is not yet completely abolished, but we lift the limits of the amounts exempted for the calculation of the integration benefit. More specifically, a disabled person is currently exempt from the first disc of 16 354 euros, increased by half of the part of that amount. This means that the exemption is now increased by 75%. From EUR 22 450 to EUR 39 287, which represents an increase of 75 %.

We see a huge number of steps being taken, which is positive. We hope that through the next steps we can come to the complete abolition of the price of love as soon as possible.

The purpose of the integration approach is to help cover the costs of disability. These costs continue to exist. Whether one lives together or not, the costs do not change. Therefore, it is a pity that too many people with disabilities are still punished for getting married or living together.

It is therefore important that persons with disabilities who already live together are also informed of the new scheme.

Therefore, I propose that we suspend the meeting until the Minister is here. She is on the road, I learned through the services.

The income limit is seriously increased. That is a positive thing. However, we must also ensure that we now let those who have been rejected know that they can submit a new application. They can now submit a new application for the calculation of their integration benefit, even if they were rejected, for example, a year ago. In my view, therefore, a good flow of information on the new measure should be sought.

Furthermore, in the context of the automatic allocation of rights, it seems to me appropriate that the DG HAN sends a notification to all persons from whom, for example, they have received an application for an integration aid at least in the last year while they were unable to process it because one was just above the border, the notification that they can submit a new application because the limit amounts have now been raised. Thus, we reduce the risk that people who are entitled to an increased benefit do not use it because, for example, they were refused six months ago and do not know that something has changed now.

Mrs. Demir, I therefore ask you to take measures to first inform the people globally and secondly proactively enroll at least those who were rejected in the last year. You should not wait for them to act on their own. I think that most of them will not be able to make a new application. Those who were rejected last month will not think of submitting a new application now. This is a particular point of attention that I would like to give you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly address the proposal that aims to further advance the so-called “price of love” in the integration approach for persons with disabilities. This is, of course, another step in a very good direction, a step forward. I largely agree with what colleague Delizée said and we will therefore fully support this as well as the PS group.

Mrs Demir, you will remember our visit to the services. On that occasion and also in the annual report of the Federal Ombudsmen, we found that the problems faced by disabled people in this country are far greater than this price of love. We think there is still a lot of work on the shelf.

Can I make a practical proposal?

As for the legal aspect, the price of love is only one obstacle. Collega Kitir already submitted a written question a few weeks ago on the problem of eliminating the integration assistance for persons with disabilities who work for a period. If, after that work, they become disabled or unemployed and the social security rights they accumulated on the basis of their work performance must prevail on the IVT, they lose their integration benefit due to the very low exempt amount for the replacement income.

I have also asked a number of written questions on a number of similar issues. I would like to ask Ms. Demir to systematically examine all problems, both in terms of services and in terms of legal aspects – a few of them have been cited here – after the recess, in order to examine what could still happen. As I said, at least we will approve this proposal with conviction.

of course .

Mr. Speaker, we are actually facing a bill and a bill that aim to improve benefits for people with disabilities, both in the "income replacement" and "integration" sections. We can only support these two texts, while regretting that they are, in some way, limited.

We regret this even more because, in the government agreement of October 2014, the commitment to raise the various allocations to the level of the poverty threshold was included, and that is not the case or not yet. The gap is decreasing, but this is not yet the case.

These are obviously budgetary choices that do not belong only to the Secretary of State in charge of matters relating to persons with disabilities; this concerns the entire government. However, it must be noted that the government has not made the choice to raise all benefits, especially the benefits for persons with disabilities, to the minimum level of this poverty risk threshold.

We are in the logic of a small step forward, which lacks a more comprehensive approach, focused on a final goal, on the meaning of these allocations, their status and their integration into a comprehensive vision of policies that enable social participation, integration and inclusion of these people. We have effectively ratified, adopted and integrated into our national obligations compliance with the United Nations Convention on Inclusion.

Inclusion requires that people with disabilities can actually participate in the life of our society in the same way as other citizens. Heavy commitment of consequences, indeed, since these are measures that hit all dimensions of our social, daily, cultural, professional life and, of course, access to decent income.

As regards the income replacement allowance, i.e. the increase for persons receiving category C benefits, it is really important to increase it since, today, their income is generally at 70 % of the poverty threshold. But you increase it from July 1st and not from January 1st as it should have been the case and no retroactive effect is planned in this regard.

You may suspend the examination of this text. Where is the minister who cancelled an entire commission when we had a lot of oral questions? You passed texts while we were in a committee meeting. Could we suspend the review of this text and, in the meantime, address another bill to avoid wasting our time?

The reason you mentioned regarding the inability to apply the retroactive effect is the inability of the administration of the DG Persons with Disabilities to review the different files and to identify who is entitled, for what amounts, for how many months, etc.

It is disastrous to have these excuses as only arguments. This DG Disabled Persons has been dysfunctioning for several years: it is unable to correctly respond to telephone calls and properly handle files. You have made a whole series of arrangements, you have allowed additional personnel to be employed and you are still committed to recruiting more. But I must admit that the situation remains unacceptable with regard to persons with disabilities who are entitled to benefits and who would be entitled to this increase and this recovery from 1 January.

The political power, the government, tells them that this situation is due to excessive restrictions in the staff of the DG Persons with Disabilities, reduced by 20% instead of the 10 scheduled in the rationalization of public service. In addition, it has been experiencing internal governance problems for many years. These are the reasons why beneficiaries do not receive their adjusted and increased income replacement allowance since 1 January. We risk facing the same problem for people who receive integration allowances.

Mr. Clarinval, it is true that in the committee, I asked you about the wording of the article of your bill announcing that there will be retroactive effect and adaptation of integration allowances for people who have a new file or at the time of the automatic updating of their file. My question was whether those whose file will be re-evaluated only in three years will have to wait three years to have access to the correction of the "price of love" as proposed in your bill.

If it is possible, yes. We will re-examine this text later. We continue with Ms. Lanjri’s bill. We add points 11, 13 and 14.

Act amending the Law of 22 January 1985 concerning social provisions as regards parental leave (313/1-7)

This is obviously important. I highlight this and I ask questions about it because it will require work from the officials of the DG Disabled Persons, if the retroactive effect is adopted, which I hope. I hope it will be applicable from 1 August for all people who currently have an integration allowance and who either live in a couple or are isolated but with a dependent family. I would like to be sure that this retroactive effect will be done automatically for all people from July or August, for a regularization from July 1, and to make sure that all those people will really see their file processed immediately.

I also agree with the proposal to proactively warn those who had been rejected on the basis of the old criteria and who, now, will be able to recover this right to the integration allowance. Here too, it will require from the administration that it do a search, that it pick up the relevant files. I would like to get the commitment that this can be done.

I come more specifically to the content of this bill that we will also support, even though this is only a step and we are not yet reaching the automatic and full individualization of the integration allocation. I would like to use this intervention to remind that the integration allowance must be given to a person regardless of their own income (professional income, replacement income, other income such as disability or unemployment). This income does not have to be included in the account to benefit from the integration allowance.

The same applies to the income of the people with whom they live and which should not be taken into account either. In fact, the integration allowance is money given to a person who, in a given situation, suffers from a disability. This disability imposes additional costs to live like any person who is in the same situation, but without disability. The commitment made by the integration allowance is to enable them to live the same way as their disabled peers, regardless of their income. I really insist that by the end of the legislature, this “price of love” will be completely eliminated. This is a budgetary choice that will probably have to be operated, but the government has the opportunity to find the revenue necessary to meet this commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer Mrs. Gerkens’s question: there is a retroactive effect on all the cases that are ongoing. Those who are currently eligible for an increase in their allowance will receive it on the basis of a re-evaluation with retroactive effect from 1 July.

Those who have been rejected in the past must submit a new application. I asked the Secretary of State if it was possible to identify these people and contact them. This is a technical question to which I do not know the answer.

I would like to welcome the presence of the Secretary of State. These persons will have this right from 1 July, after the re-evaluation of their file.

The wording of the bill’s article is ambiguous, and in my view your answer, Mr. Clarinval, does not provide the accuracy I lack. Will all the files be reevaluated this summer to grant this advance relating to the “price of love” to all those who benefit from it, or will there be, from July 2018, every reevaluation of a person’s file, adjustment of his allocation, without taking into account the “price of love”?

It is not the same thing. This is from July, for some people, this will be done in summer 2018, while for others, it may be done in January 2019 or in January 2020, at the time of the multi-year automatic reassessment of their file. That is my question.

I think that Equity wants that this summer there be a reevaluation of all the files so that all those who benefit from these allowances are entitled to this step of improving the integration allowance decreasing the influence of the “price of love”.

We will vote in favour of these two texts.

I would like to make a quick comment. A very specific issue has not been addressed either here or in the committee.

Regarding, first of all, the component of increasing the amount of the income replacement allowance, only for persons with disabilities whose income was the most distant from the poverty line, let us recognize that the version presented by the government is characterized by its minimalism. Indeed, it leaves aside certain categories of persons with disabilities and who, however, receive ⁇ low incomes. Furthermore, even though, just a year ago, the government had announced in a blunt manner that it would increase the amount of the income replacement allowance, we now realize that the interested parties will not be able to benefit from it. You have the budget as of January 1 this year.

I do not know what will happen with the budget, which, in principle, was dedicated to the entry into force of the measure on 1 January. Following the announcements of the Monitoring Committee on fiscal reality in general and cross-sectionally, I fear that the government will return this part of the budget to its Treasury. This would mean that this amount would be permanently lost to the beneficiaries. Remember, from their point of view, they are not strawberries. In fact, during this year, the increase will target an average amount of 240 euros. If they had received the allowance for the whole year, the amount would have reached 480 euros.

This is a double missed opportunity. First, despite your great announcement effects, the date of entry into force is postponed by six months; and I find this frankly unacceptable. Only certain persons with disabilities will be affected.

Then, when it comes to the price of love, here too, you have retreated – as always in the case of persons with disabilities – compared to the original version. Some perverse aspects of the price of love are well corrected, but not the principle in itself.

The principle must be that a person who cohabits with a partner always has his disability. This benefit is directly linked to their disability. It is unacceptable to punish people financially. You are not going to the end of the process, so further steps will be necessary.

Employment traps and the punishment of people with disabilities who work remain an injustice. It is also not because we work that, suddenly, we are no longer disabled.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to make sure that these people will not be caught up because of the tax component. Does this partial correction of the price of love have implications for people going through the upper tax section? I would like you to commit yourself on behalf of the government to ensure that this does not happen. This has been experienced in other government files, for example, in terms of pensions. Here, it would be to take back with one hand what you give from the other. Has this aspect been properly analyzed?

Finally, I insist that those concerned can benefit from a quick and simple communication. I suggest that this goes through the SPF People with Disabilities. People who call to find out about this device are likely not to receive a response. We have sufficiently regretted what is happening, you know what I am referring to.

Second, we ask you to work with field associations, which generally have a facilitated direct hanging and which are often more effective – it must be acknowledged – than the SPF Disabled Persons. Indeed, even if I recognize the value of the work of the latter, it is no longer able today to guarantee a quality service as we would be entitled to expect it, mainly due to the human resources and this famous software that poses problems.

Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf, and I also think I can do so on behalf of the Government, I would like to thank the whole Parliament for the broad support for this bill. It shows that more needs to be done for this target group.

In general, I have heard here and there the question what the vision of the Secretary of State is and what direction I want to go.

I went to the United Nations a month ago on behalf of the federal government. I presented the general vision that I also presented in Parliament a year ago. In fact, all the measures I take or try to take for this target group are aimed at social emancipation and autonomy. I think, for example, of the integration response, for which the budget is 12 million euros, which we will increase for all categories. I do this in order to be able to live autonomously and independently. I also increase the disability benefits in order to live independently.

So all the measures I can take at the federal level – you know that this is a shared competence and that in many matters the counties are competent; except the benefits, the integration benefits and the parking cards, which are federal matters, the rest is regionalized – I take for the sake of inclusion and therefore for the sake of being autonomous and living independently.

For example, I have already put a proposal on the government table in the context of budget discussions. Mrs Fonck, I hope I will find a budget for my proposal. This proposal also costs money. It is about the price of labor. For example, there are people with disabilities who receive a benefit, but also want to start working for two days, without immediately losing their benefit. Of course it costs money. We have calculated something and it would be an additional budget of 20 million euros. I have put a proposal on the table. I hope it will be approved. This proposal also aims at inclusion and independent life.

There have been comments about the increase in category C.

For all clarity, when I would walk around ... (Mr. Flahaux coughs loud.)

Is it okay, my best friend? Do you want a little water? (Mr. Flahaux leaves the hemisphere.)

Continue with your speech, Mrs. Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about Mr. Flahaux.

We are now just from Mr. Flahaux. Not you yet, but we.

Regarding the disability benefit and the choice of category C, I have always made it very clear that, if it depended on me alone, I would raise the benefits of the most vulnerable in our society, and that is the disabled, up to the European poverty line. In politics, however, one must always seek a compromise. So we had to make a choice and decided that the category C would be persons with family difficulties. Of course, in the past we have also increased the benefits of the other categories. Now specifically selected for this category and that has to do with the extent to which those concerned are removed from the poverty risk threshold.

This is based on the Inter-Federal Poverty Barometer. A couple with two children has an income of 67 % from the poverty risk threshold, while a single person of category B has an income of 75 % from the poverty risk threshold. Category C is the most distant from the poverty risk threshold. For this reason, we have chosen a collection movement for category C with an increase in benefits.

A lot of questions have been asked about IT, the integration approach, and about people who have been given a negative decision in the past. This integration approach is, by the way, unloaded, for all clarity. Those who previously received a negative decision are now eligible. The question is what will happen to those people. I also addressed this concern together with my Cabinet and DG HAN. The communication will proactively take place through the organizations, the civil society, which, by the way, already fulfils all sorts of other formalities for this target group.

From the DG HAN, we will proactively communicate through the organisations and civil society to point out to these persons that, despite a negative decision in the past, they can indeed be eligible through a legislative change.

A question was asked about the delays in the service, about the information system and the service provision. We all share that concern. A few months ago, I explained in the committee what decisions I have made since I took office. These decisions are not yet sufficient. Therefore, we have drawn up an action plan from the cabinet itself, which is now in operation at the DG HAN for more than a month. At that time of the month we notice that a delay of approximately five hundred files has already been removed. Therefore, a collection movement is taking place. I will also address the questions of several colleagues, who wish to receive a general overview in September on the backwardness, the handling of telephone calls and the adjustments of various files. At the moment, thanks to the operational interventions, I already see a good improvement.

The trade unions, more specifically the ACOD, were asked to recruit additional personnel. You should know that at the DG HAN, too much was saved on staff. The general savings directive was 10 %, but I found that the savings in that service were 20 %. For this reason, last year I submitted an application to recruit 38 additional persons. These persons remain in employment; I have again asked for funds for that. In addition to those 38 staff members, another 22 people will be recruited. I think this is necessary in this service, given the increasing number of applications. As more applications are being submitted, I have therefore requested that 22 additional staff members be recruited.

You know that we reinstated the Tetra computer program because the product from Capgemini didn’t work at all. I hope that we will soon get the report from the experts who will investigate where the mistake lies. In the committee meetings I also communicated that the decision to reuse Tetra applies for 2018 and 2019.

The question is what will happen next, in 2020, 2021. Tetra is also wondering whether or not there will be an extension. I have now submitted a multiple question to the Government. Even though it may no longer be my responsibility after 2019, I would still like for my successor that a budget has been released and that measures have been taken for the ICT system after 2020.

Then there was a question about the decision. In the summer agreement it was agreed to release 100 million euros. I also realize that it took too long before the government reached an agreement on who gets what, with the consequence that the decision concerning the amount of 40 euros per month came into effect only on 1 July. I would have preferred it to enter on January 1, which speaks for itself. Everyone here here knows undoubtedly that there is no evil will involving it. If it depended on me, it could be from January 1, but practically it was impossible.

They asked what would happen with the remaining 40 million euros. As I just said — it requires a recurrent amount — eliminate discrimination against working people with disabilities. Now they are indeed discriminated, because as soon as they begin to work, they suffer loss. However, in order to keep them working, I need extra money and for that I have submitted a multiple request. This, of course, is not only for 2018, but also for 2019, 2020, 2021 and the following years. I hope that I will soon get the green light, to also address that problem that also has to do with independent life, with autonomy, with social inclusion and so on.

Mr. Secretary of State, thank you for your explanations. Beyond the comments that I will not repeat, the main challenge is the simplification of the system and the achievement of automatic rights. This is the question that Mr. Clarinval has asked recently. I think that is the real challenge. As I said earlier, if we could simplify this replicated law, automatic rights would be more easily achieved.

Indeed, this law is complicated to implement both for personnel and at the level of computer applications. We are asking for more and more. Every time a change is made here, it inevitably requires new applications. This will be additional work, as all this problem of workload, computer problems and other problems already arises.

Compared to equity for applicants, those and those who today benefit from an integration allowance, for the price of love, the new allowance could easily be recalculated. On the other hand, for those and those who have had a refusal in the past, equity would want, as Ms. Gerkens said, that at a given time, all cases be reviewed so that at the same date, they enjoy the same right, which unfortunately does not appear to be the case. As the automatic revisions take place after a certain period of time, this means that beneficiaries will experience the effects of the new measure in several months for some or in a very long time for others. This does not seem fair. This is my first comment.

Both of these measures are positive. We must rejoice and we will vote for them, but we must keep a lot of humility, one another, because the overall challenge of eliminating exclusion and poverty among people with disabilities is far from being addressed. There are still very difficult situations in the families and for those affected. This should remain a priority in the future. I hope it will be so.

I would like to thank you for the additional information you provide us. You express the willingness to improve the situation and I agree with you on the need for complicity with the other members of the government in order to ⁇ the ultimate objectives and to ⁇ amounts at least equal to the poverty line for all recipients of substitute income.

I take advantage of this session to call for this solidarity. Indeed, it is unacceptable that in a country like ours – with so much wealth – many people live with so low incomes, in addition to suffering the difficulties arising from their disability.

When it comes to funding, I come back to my question. A proactive approach of the administration and the associations must be undertaken so that those whose file has been refused can reintroduce it. That is very well. I believe that the municipalities and the CPAS should also be involved in this initiative, since it is through these institutions that requests are generally expressed. That said, will the file of the current beneficiaries of an integration allocation, who will theoretically be able to benefit from this increase, be recalculated within a maximum of three months or will the correction be made only at the time of the automatic multiannual review of the file? This question is essential. If someone knows that they are entitled to an increase of 40 euros a month since January 1 this year, but will only benefit from it in April 2019 or 2020, this is obviously unacceptable. I would like you to answer me specifically on this.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to make a first comment. At the beginning of your speech, you strongly insisted on the choice that you had to make to propose certain categories of people with disabilities, on the grounds that no compromise could be found within the government. I must conclude that at least one of the parties sitting there has prevented an advance that seems obvious to the Assembly. I regret it.

Then I asked you about the tax impact. I would like to do it again or then ask a question to Mr. Clarinval.

Oh yeah yes?

What is it, Jean-Marc?

No, I was talking about George, who said the same thing.

by George ?

Please continue, Madame Fonck.

Jean-Marc, is there anything that annoys you in what I said?

No, not at all!

But no, Madame Fonck, go on!

On the tax section, Mrs. Demir, I asked you the question but you did not commit yourself. Maybe I should do it with Mr. Clarinval or with the Minister of Budget?

By lifting the partial effects of the love price, the people concerned will earn a slightly larger income. One of the risks is that, if they go into the upper tax segment, they are penalized and they earn less than what they earned without this correctional part of the price of love. The big question is whether there are guarantees in this matter and whether the government should touch taxation, as it sometimes has to do. Do you have any guarantees that there will be no such disaster? If not, do you commit to review it extremely quickly? We shouldn’t find ourselves in the situation we knew a few months ago in another file, the one on pensions, where, in the end, one took back on one side what one had given on the other. This would obviously be completely unacceptable.

Mr Delizée, it is indeed very complex legislation, hence the work of DG HAN is difficult. I am now also trying to provide with my draft, if it is approved by Parliament, a simplification of the scales in view of the price of labour. That is necessary, but in fact we should update the entire law – this is also said in the committee – once.

Mrs Gerkens, we will communicate widely through the health funds and the municipalities, so that everyone who has the right to it knows that too and can submit his application, after which it can be treated.

Ms. Fonck, I will take your point, because it cannot be the intention that we give with one hand and with the other hand weigh again. That problem has already emerged in the past in another file, so I will take it to the colleagues who are competent in fiscal matters, and make them clear that that may not be the intention.

Finally, I would like to thank the officials of DG HAN. They have received a lot of criticism over the past year. Everywhere they were cheering for the delays, the things that didn’t work, the phones that were not recorded. They were under tremendous pressure, yet they really mean it well and do their best. So I would like to ask all of you to be a little bit understanding.

Step by step, we are moving in the right direction and I am confident that our officials will be successful. Thanks to the additional staff members – 66 in total, if we count the 28 additional employees – they can take a breath again. I have a good eye on it, also with regard to the operationalization of the various files. Therefore, on behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to thank the officials of DG HAN, who have been under such great pressure over the past year.

Dear Minister, I return to my question. When will there be regularization of the integration allowance for those who benefit from it today? Will regularization now be effective for everyone or will some have to wait for automatic multiannual regularization? This is unclear in the text of the bill.

To the question about how and what I cannot answer, because it is a question about the operational aspect and I myself do not stand behind the locks. My apologies for that. The law says very clearly that the person himself will have to submit an application. DG HAN will communicate through the civil society that the interested parties can submit a request.

I suppose that Mr. Clarinval’s answer also aimed at saying that the persons who will have to re-introduce a application are those to whom the right to the integration allowance had been denied.

In this case, I’m talking to you about those who, today, benefit from an integration allowance of an amount X because they had this or that income or because their spouse had this or that income. These people are now entitled to more thanks to the bill.

The meaning of my question addressed to Mr. Clarinval was to check with the administration and in the text of the bill, because in that text, it is specified that this correction of the amount related to the new provisions and new methods of calculation would be made for those whose application is new and then that it would be made for the others, at the time of the automatic multiannual evaluation. This means that people will only be eligible for this supplement in X months or X years.

Obviously, you cannot answer me now. But I draw your attention to the fact that everything must be put in place so that these people can access it now. My question is related to how the article in the bill proposal is written to allow these questions to remain.

I would like to say one last word about the staff of the DG Disabled Persons. I totally agree with you and it seems to me that in my speeches, I have every time pointed out the fact that these workers were subjected to unbearable pressures and stress, that there was a mistake in the choice of the software and that this staff was not trusted in the choice of the software. There have been interventions to promote this or that software and it is important to find the responsibilities related to these choices. The mode of governance and management of the service was not at the height and there were excessive restrictions on the number of workers in this administration.

I join you in the need to support those workers who are trying to catch up with the blow.

This issue was clearly discussed during the committee discussions. I questioned the services and I was answered that for those already receiving an allocation today, regardless of the re-evaluation period of their file, there would be a current re-evaluation. Those who have been rejected must re-introduce an application. That is what I understood. I am not operational but we seemed to be reassuring about the answer. I am not 100% sure.

I agree with Mr. Clarinval’s statement. Mrs. Gerkens, I will bring your concerns to DG HAN.