The Senate voted on Tuesday, September 30, on the proposal Participation Act in Balance. The law includes more than twenty measures that provide more space to support people at a distance from the labor market. The proposal was adopted unanimously. Three motions were also adopted. These include a motion requesting the government to keep the Chamber regularly informed about the effects of the law, a motion to start a proven successful project, and a motion requesting that gifts in kind, such as a bag of groceries, do not need to be reported to the benefits agency.
In the debate a week earlier with outgoing Secretary of State Nobel for Participation and Integration, the Chamber mainly discussed the feasibility of the proposal. Members expressed concerns about the language requirement being added, the risk of arbitrariness, and whether municipalities have sufficient resources to implement the law.
The bill amends three laws to improve the balance between income security, reintegration, and enforcement. Due to complexity, strict enforcement, and limited support, the Participation Act is sometimes perceived as too harsh. To address this, the outgoing cabinet introduces more than twenty measures to better support people. Initially to help them get to work and, if that is (still) not possible, to ensure a sufficient income and other forms of participation. The bill is part of the broader program Participation Act in Balance, which consists of three tracks:
- 1.short-term measures (this bill);
- 2.fundamental revision of the Participation Act;
- 3.strengthening expertise in implementation.
The motion-Ramsodit et al. requesting the government to regularly inform the Chamber about the feasibility and legal equality of the implementation and effects of this law. This motion received the advice Chambers Judgment.
The motion-Bakker-Klein et al. requesting the government to designate the Construction Fund as one of the initiatives that may proceed to the implementation of track 2. Nobel had advised against this motion.
The motion-Schalk et al. requesting the government to investigate how gifts in kind necessary for subsistence can be exempted from the reporting obligation. This motion received the advice Chambers Judgment.
