Proposition 54K3656

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 décembre 2016 instaurant un droit passerelle en faveur des travailleurs indépendants et l'arrêté royal du 8 janvier 2017 portant exécution de la loi du 22 décembre 2016 instaurant un droit passerelle en faveur des indépendants.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Caroline Cassart-Mailleux, Benoît Friart, Isabelle Galant

Submission date

March 15, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

financial aid cessation of trading social policy welfare unemployment insurance self-employed person health insurance

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 ¶

April 24, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr Werner Janssen, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill is part of an operation to redesign the bodies responsible for ensuring and controlling the payment of social contributions of self-employed workers.

In particular, it is planned that INASTI will now be responsible for the granting of exemptions from social contributions and the control of social insurance funds. These tasks were previously assigned to the DG Independents of the SPF Social Security. Furthermore, the control service of the social insurance funds will be transformed into an audit service where there will no longer be a question of imposing, but only of accompanying or advising.

It is true that this bill was adopted without much debate in the Economic Committee on 26 March. However, the plenary session offers us another opportunity to discuss this.

My group had based its support, on the one hand, on the positive opinion of the General Management Committee on the social status of self-employed workers, and, on the other hand, on the opinion of the State Council, which also does not object, with the exception of a comment on the date of entry into force. I will return to this point. However, Mr. Minister, we have received, in the meantime, a number of interpellations and critical remarks on this reform that I would like to relay here.

The first note concerns the individual situation of certain agents. You will be reminded that, in order to follow the opinion of the State Council, an amendment aimed at changing the date of entry into force on 1 April 2019 was deposited in the committee. However, in Article 38 of the adopted text, the date of transfer of personnel is not changed and remains fixed on 1 January 2019.

It goes to us that, for four agents who have obtained a mutation since then, this creates a problem since it will cancel the effect of their mutation. We are told that they can go to the Council of State and win. But it will take a lot of time and create a lot of stress.

We are also told that the date of April 1 itself is too short because the government still needs to issue an implementation decree requiring, in advance, a negotiation and an opinion of the State Council.

This decree cannot be adopted and published before 1 April. Officers could be seriously injured by this situation.

Can you shed light on these issues? We do not want to vote here for a text that puts certain agents at risk.

A second note concerns the ability for INASTI to assume in full independence its new competence of control of social insurance funds. In fact, the INASTI is led by a board of directors where there are in number the direct and indirect representatives of the social insurance funds. The latter could, in the future, find themselves in a situation of controller and controlled, with the risk of conflict of interest at the key.

It is not here to make an intention trial, but to relay the concerns that are submitted to us. The social insurance funds are responsible for collecting several billion euros annually of social contributions for the self-employed regime. They are financed through management costs; it is a very large amount of money.

The [...]

I am referring to point 10. Maybe there is a change in the numbering?

We are discussing point 10.

Are these provisions the result of the transfer of the competences of the SPF Social Security to the National Institute of Social Insurance for Self-employed? You may have changed the numbering because I was told that it was the point 10.

This is the proposal for the law on the gateway right in favour of self-employed workers.

Apologize to me! It is in point 11 that I have to intervene.

The Minister was right. You have asked questions to the Minister. When we address point 11, just repeat your questions to the minister, so that he can answer them.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly address this proposal of law on the gateway right in favour of self-employed workers. This is an extremely important point for many independent workers. Indeed, as a self-employed person, one may, during his life and depending on the risk incurred by this activity, encounter problems and face a cessation of activity.

Together with the government, we wanted to further expand the gateway right, this replacement income for the independent who did not exist and which constitutes a beautiful achievement of this legislature, to allow more independent people to resort to this right. The bill covers the object related to our intention, namely the extension of this gateway right as we have presented it in our general policy note.

The bill provides for an enlargement that sees forced cessations no longer be based on an exhaustive list of situations contained in a royal decree but respond to a more comprehensive definition. It will actually increase the number of independent persons who will be able to make use of this gateway right. It also doubles the maximum duration of use of the gateway right for the entire career of an independent. This period extends to 24 months. This is an extension of the law.

These are the points I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker. This is a proposal that aims to bring back the social injustice that still suffers independent people in our country compared to other categories.