Proposition 50K1583

Projet de loi relatif à la protection contre la violence et le harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 9, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work violence sexual violence criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Jos Ansoms (CD&V) voted to adopt.
• Paul Tant (CD&V) voted to adopt.
• Hubert Brouns (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Maggie De Block (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Stef Goris (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Georges Lenssen (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Eric van Weddingen (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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 28, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the fact of making sure Thursday’s sessions last systematically until late hours does not constitute moral harassment. This is a question that we will probably have to ask ourselves after examining the law.

Mr. Rapporteur, there was a time when we had night sessions two or three times a week. It was about 20 years ago. At that time, harassment may have been present.

Once we met once or twice a week at night.

Fortunately, since then, night work has probably been seriously regulated.

This bill on protection against violence and moral and sexual harassment at work has been marked by important debates, very long, sometimes postponed due to lack of quorum, but still very exciting. It aims to address two serious problems, encountered on the ground and revealed in particular by a European investigation. In 2000, in the 15 Member States, 3 million workers were victims of physical violence, 3 million workers were also victims of sexual harassment and 13 million were the victims of moral harassment. That is the interest of the debate. by

Overall, the discussions will revolve around three major axes. by

The first concerned the overall issue of the project. by

I think the rainbow will shine in all its colors about this project because it was specific to the world of work issues. It has emerged—and no one has been surprised—that the interests of employers and workers are not always convergent, although they are real.

Furthermore, as the social partners who had been invited failed to give their views during the discussions at the National Labour Council, we encountered the same tensions – they still exist – when discussing this point in the Social Affairs Committee. by

A number of us highlighted the interests of the workers, which are not denied by anyone. by Mr. It made it a problem of human dignity. He emphasized the work-related exclusion and the difficulties of reintegration caused by this problem. It was relayed by Mr. Visitor who insisted on the need for legal intervention to avoid the overall burden and the silence that often surrounds this kind of situation. by

They were also supported by Ms. Cahay and De Meyer, Mr. Wauters and myself, who recalled, in addition to the realities of the field, the studies carried out by the ILO and Europe.

Others, without denying the problems experienced in the world of work but concerned with the legitimate interest of employers and economic development, therefore insisted on other aspects. Pieters denounced the too heavy and too repressive aspects of the bill, ⁇ for SMEs in relation to employers, as well as the too high protection of witnesses. by Mr. D'Haeseleer, surprisingly, complained about the risk of judicialization of social relations. Denis highlighted the tax harassment that already faced small ⁇ . by Mr. Anthuenis and Mrs. De Block have been abundant in this regard.

The second axis of our work, which extended over at least one day, concerned the need to legislate beyond the law of 4 August 1996 on welfare, beyond Article 122bis of the Criminal Code which covers repressive aspects and beyond the law of 7 May 1999 on equal treatment between men and women. Everyone regretted that the social partners had not reached an agreement, but was mentioned the absolute need to distinguish facts from violence caused by third parties outside the company, which falls under criminal law.

I must humbly confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that, not being a lawyer, a number of legal subtleties relating to this problem have escaped me. But some prominent colleagues were enthusiastic, or even delighted with this problem. Finally, a majority agreed to signal the need for a comprehensive approach to this problem in a single law.

The third and final axis, from my point of view as a rapporteur, concerned the introduction of new measures on the occasion of this law. Thus, they discussed the need for a major information campaign, the training of prevention councils, the evaluation of devices that will be entrusted to the Department of Employment in consultation with the Department of Justice and the National Labour Council (CNT). All the issues related to the implementation of this new law have been discussed. Only the proposal for a free phone line was rejected, ⁇ because its author had called it a green phone.

This is, in a few words, the summary of an intense day of work, not counting the multiple intercabinets, the studies and meetings between social partners and all the studies or informal meetings. This is a problem that other European countries are working on. I had the opportunity to examine, with attention and interest, the great French bill on social modernization. This work has been underway, if not for many years, at least for many months and contains a chapter on harassment. by

Allow me to point out to this tribune that if the superiority that the French exhibit too often is real in football compared to Belgium, it does not verify itself in matters of harassment. I think the proposal that will be submitted to vote is much more interesting and much more comprehensive.

The debate is not closed. It will continue in the plenary session today. Major lobbyists have also acted this morning to influence the vote of a number of parliamentarians. However, as stated by Mr. Anthuenis, a member of the commission, in a quote that is now regularly recalled in the Social Affairs Committee: "Everyone must take responsibility."

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, as I have already said in the Committee on Social Affairs during the discussion of this draft law, I reiterate here that my group considers the principle of this draft positive because in it the government pays attention to the phenomenon of violence, harassment and unwanted sexual behavior at work and has the consideration to intervene, at the level of the company, with regard to the victims as well as with regard to the general and legal responsibility of the employer for implementing a policy of welfare at work, effectively and efficiently.

As I said in the committee, I repeat that I cannot agree with the way the government deals with this problem. The treatment of this problem is not in line with the usual practices of prevention. The prevention of harassment in the company threatens to fall into the background; the emphasis is on the external, judicial approaches and involves a greater risk of excessive legalization of employment relations.

The draft law, which primarily includes a preventive and information gap, stipulates that every company, both in its global prevention plan and in its annual action plan, must develop prevention measures against violence, harassment and unwanted sexual behavior. The employer should appoint a prevention adviser for this purpose, but the bill leaves the multidisciplinary approach because the occupational physician cannot intervene in this because this function, according to the minister, must be exercised by a psychologist. This is totally contrary to the workplace well-being law in which the prevention counselor was assigned a generalizing role.

The repressive part is too severely sanctioning. Not only the victim has the right to bring a legal action, but trade unions and external organisations that defend victims can also do so. Furthermore, the burden of proof is transferred to the opposing party, which means that the alleged perpetrator, which is the employer, another employee or someone from outside, must prove that he has not harassed or used violence. How can the alleged perpetrator of violence or harassment — the employer, another employee or a third party — prove that he did nothing to the alleged victim?

This law also greatly enhances the protection of workers. He or she will become a protected person for twelve months when the complaint is submitted to a prevention adviser in the company and up to 3 months after the final judgment of the labour court if the complaint is submitted to the court. If a witness acts in favour of a harassed employee, that person also automatically becomes a protected employee for the entire period.

In addition, during this period, the employer may neither dismiss the employee nor the witness. If, however, he would be dismissed for other justified reasons, he must prove that the dismissal has nothing to do with the employee’s complaint and must also provide proof that he did not harass the victim. The employer is heavily burdened by this and it does not seem to me to be excluded that at the moment when an imminent dismissal for a worker hangs in the air, it becomes very easy for him or her to quickly file a complaint for harassment at work which protects him for years.

Although the draft law stipulates that the employee may not abuse the procedure, it will be extremely difficult for the employer to prove that the employee has abused the procedure due to the reversal of the burden of proof. While the draft law provides that an employee who abuses the procedure may subsequently be dismissed, even for urgent reasons, this sanction will be ineffective in practice. Both the employee and the witness will have to be employed, if necessary, for a very long period of time, as long as the proceedings continue. The entire procedure will be heavy for many companies, in particular for SMEs, but also for administrations and staff managers. We advocate a shared burden of proof. The procedure for protecting workers will be ⁇ difficult for many companies, in particular SMEs. A legal action will almost always be brought, as other bodies can file a complaint with the court in addition to the victim. The initiation of a legal proceedings will therefore be free of charge for an employee, while the employer will have to pay the court costs. Their

I have also expressed a number of concerns regarding the interactions between the provisions of the draft text and the provisions contained in the Royal Decree of 18 September 1992 on the protection of workers from unwanted sexual behavior at work. This Royal Decree already contains measures, both preventive and curative, against unwanted sexual behavior at work. There is also a procedure contained in Article 5 of the Act of 7 May 1999 on the equal treatment of men and women with regard to working conditions, access to employment and promotion opportunities, access to the self-employed profession and the supplementary scheme for social security. I wonder, therefore, whether these provisions of the Royal Decree of 18 September are still in force. Does this bill replace that Royal Decree and Article 5 of the Act of 7 May 1999 or do all these legal provisions continue to exist side by side?

I also continue to ask myself questions about the added value of the draft text with regard to violence and harassment, since in Article 4 of the law of 4 August 1996, namely the law on welfare at work, the concept of psychosocial aspects at work has already been explicitly inscribed. It would be sufficient to anchor the problem of work-related harassment in the welfare law, by further describing the third domain, but you do not. In addition, a new eighth point will exclude the integrated, multidisciplinary approach.

The draft law also states in its memorandum of explanation that violence from outside is also discriminated against. It seems to me logical that workers also deserve the necessary protection against this. However, the question arises whether such forms of violence do not differ too much from the problem of harassment and therefore require other prevention and intervention mechanisms. Describing external violence, for example, hold-ups, violent robberies, robbery, violent behavior of customers, intimidation by persons outside the company and so on, falls, in my opinion, primarily under the responsibility of the government, which is responsible for order enforcement. The fear lives with me and my group that this draft will lead to and indirect transfer of this responsibility from the government to the enterprises.It is even less conceivable that an enterprise that is the victim of external violence would be punished in addition for this. I wonder what hell we are doing.

In addition, the ideas for the approach at the enterprise level are still in full development and I refer here to European discussions on this subject. Representatives of the employer organisations in the NAR came out with a non-consensual opinion. It is a pity, Mrs. Minister, that your social partners have not been given more time, because in fact they were not far from a unanimous opinion. The employer organisations have developed a detailed argument, while the trade union organisations have responded to this point very summarily, but correctly, and I quote: “that the bill will lead to an increase in the number of legal claims and that this is not always appropriate for resolving conflicts that occur by definition at the workplace and which they believe can be better addressed by the social partners within the enterprise than outside.” Our comments include various points of criticism translated into submitted amendments. Their

I would only like to emphasize that only SMEs are affected by the bill. First, they will not be able to solve the problems within the company and they will have to resort to external prevention advisors. If pest problems in small enterprises can no longer be solved internally, then the workplace will rapidly deteriorate and that is what the government aims to. Second, it is no longer permitted to the occupational physician to resolve the plague cases, but to psychologists. This creates additional problems. External services will have to hire additional psychologists, which will increase the companies’ contributions to the external prevention services, which will also increase the costs of the companies. However, the employment physician is familiar with what lives on the workplace. I wonder once again whether the labor doctor is not competent enough to solve this problem. Their

As I said at the beginning, the bill clearly has good intentions. An integrated approach within the existing laws had made everything much more transparent and simpler and had reduced administrative burden. The industry is once again faced by this government with ineffective and unrealistic government intervention. I am therefore fully aware of what I heard in the committee discussion of a member of the VLD majority: "Have our ministers been sitting asleep during the many discussions of the draft law that preceded them, Mrs. De Block, or have they shut their ears?"

I am convinced, Mrs. Minister, that the confidence of the business community in this design will be regained again. You do it, we look at it rather amused.

Moral harassment, whether on the workplace or in social life in general, is a reality that is unacceptable and deserves to be combated. The fight against harassment at work has an important place in the corporate policy, not only because it is serious problems in the victim’s head, but also because employers, whether public or private, have a responsibility to implement, within their company, a policy on well-being at work. Moral harassment must be combated in enterprises as long as it has adverse consequences on productivity, absence and employment relations. Moral or sexual harassment – should it be remembered? It is an offence to the dignity of the person and we cannot tolerate it. by

The bill submitted to us aims to prevent violence, moral harassment and sexual harassment at work and to protect those who are victims of such acts. At first, it is regrettable that the social partners within the National Labour Council were unable to issue a unanimous opinion on the matter, or even could not, on their own initiative, agree on such a problem. In fact, they are the ones who will ultimately carry out this file.

Employers share some fears that I hear relayed here, just as I did in commission. First, I would like to draw attention to the indirect costs that this project may generate, in particular for SMEs, through the use of external prevention advisors.

Secondly, although this concept appears in some European directives, the reversal of the burden of proof is regrettable, even if it only occurs when the victim can justify an interest.

It is important to be careful with the burden of proof and its reversal, given that in the light of the subjectivity in this matter, there may be accusations laid down lightly, which undermine the dignity of the person accused unjustly. In this regard, it seems to me useful to recall that the present bill consists of the principle that "everyone shall refrain from any misuse of the complaint procedure." Thus, the provisions 443 and following of the Criminal Code, relating to slander and defamation, apply to slander accusations of acts of violence or harassment at work. We care about having this guarantee in order to avoid any proliferation of unjustified complaints.

To conclude, I think, like you, that the preventive approach is definitely to be preferred. Employers, workers and social partners need to develop a preventive approach to the problem that concerns us. A serene climate, mutual trust, an appropriate dialogue of conciliation will avoid the use of the repressive aspect.

We hope that it is in such a context that this law will be implemented and that a judicialization of employment relations will be avoided. by

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the various remarks I wanted to make during the discussion of this bill which we will support.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, let me speak clearly: we would have preferred to fill this bill in a different way in terms of content. It is a public secret that the VLD group had objections to the content of this draft law and also expressed them during the discussion in the committee. The minister had no ears to it and so colleague Anthuenis and I followed her good advice — chacun prend sa responsabilité dans la vie — and abstained at the vote, adding that our group would still discuss its voting behaviour during the plenary session. A number of French-language newspapers saw in our attitude a manoeuvre to sharpen the profiling of our party. They are wandering. Let us not put the world on the head: it was not the VLD that submitted amendments without any consultation. Their

Another criticism that our party would be the speech tube of the VBO in this matter is also not correct. Curiously, these same newspapers have never wondered why the opinion of the NAR was divided and, more ⁇ , have not questioned loudly whether or not, and if so by whom, the call of certain workers’ organisations was solely answered. Their

There should be no misunderstanding that the VLD supports the objective of the bill — the prohibition of harassment and the avoidance of harassment. Of course, harassment at work must be combated! Does that mean that the end justifies all means? First, we would rather have limited the scope of the draft law to harassment at work. Unwanted sexual behavior has already been regulated since the Royal Decree of 18 September 1992. The Law of 7 May 1999 on Equal Treatment of Men and Women also contains procedural rules. In a positive sense, I would like to add that limiting the original definition of violence at work is a good thing. Initially, organizational forms and labor pressure were also considered as opportunities for harassment. Their

Secondly, we fear possible abuses by employees, like Ms. Pieters. The VLD may agree to a protection for employees in the sense that they are protected during the procedure, only where this relates to harassment. However, this cannot be invoked for other reasons that may lead to dismissal, such as restructuring or economic reasons. It cannot be intended that an employee who received a negative assessment wants to be protected under the pretext of being harassed. Their

For the VLD, the cost price is not an argument against the bill and this is for the simple reason that the surplus cost of the draft texts will not involve additional costs, the minister said. It was agreed that the flat-rate payments to be paid to the social funds to finance the well-being of workers should not be increased as a result of the extended task package of prevention advisors by this bill. We therefore insist that these agreements are carried out in good faith. It is also ensured that the prevention advisor to be appointed in an enterprise should not be a new person. In addition, the first-line surveillance for bullying is in the hands of a trusted person.

However, the most problematic for the VLD was the determination of the reverse burden of proof. In this bill, the presumption of innocence is ignored with respect to the employer. This is a dangerous principle in criminal law, where one is presumed to be innocent to prove the opposite. Their

For this reason, the VLD listened to the Amendment of Mrs. Pieters on the replacement of the reverse burden of proof by a shared burden of proof. In fact, it cannot be ruled out that the reverse burden of proof in this case becomes practically inoperable. It is often harder to prove one’s innocence than one’s guilt.

More than the substantive aspect, the VLD takes note of the fact that a PS minister introduces the principle of the reverse burden of proof. The relativisation of the principle of innocence as proof of the contrary may in the future also contribute to a solution in other matters such as, for example, the shell-picking or the laundering legislation.

Article 10 of this bill provides for a review within two years. I would like to insist that the article does not remain dead letter, but that the evaluation actually takes place and receives the necessary feedback.

Your bill leaves me with mixed feelings. Positive feelings, because the VLD of course agrees with a regime against harassment. On certain points such as the reverse evidence and possible abuses by employees, however, this bill is too extensive for us. I will abstain during the vote. The other members of the group will support this bill and this out of loyalty to the government on whose behalf you submitted this bill.

For several years, ⁇ have undergone major changes, major changes related to the globalization of the economy, meeting increasingly decisive requirements of productivity and flexibility to ensure the survival of ⁇ .

Often, these organizational changes are accompanied by increasing job insecurity and are aimed at adapting labor needs to fluctuating market needs. From the perspective of workers, these changes have marked their footprints on social relations. They have generated noticeable changes in the work environment: stress, relationship tensions, decreased quality of life. The world of work has profoundly changed.

In this context, various forms of violence at work have emerged and developed. by Mr. Timmermans recalled this in the report and cited a number of figures. For a decade, the phenomenon has been exposed, and we speak of this concept of moral harassment, in English "mobbing".

Of course, everybody agrees with the finding and everybody in the committee has recognized the phenomenon. No one denied it. But then what to do? Ms. Pieters says that this project is not lacking in good intentions but some think that we need to go beyond them and take action. Sure, moral harassment is probably inherent to the earliest forms of collective work, but all recent studies prove that it is a phenomenon of far from negligible magnitude. In a Europe where the quality of employment is constantly highlighted, the right to safety and dignity in the performance of work is a right that we consider fundamental and that should therefore be guaranteed in an appropriate legal framework.

Currently, no legislation in Belgium explicitly recognizes moral harassment at work. What is likely, in recent years, is the evolution in the recognition of the phenomenon, which has gone from a form of status of problems suffered by a minority, supposedly unadapted, to a status of important health and safety problems at work.

The first victory, therefore, is a collective awareness of the phenomenon and it implies that one can name the inadmissible, that one can raise awareness of potential victims but also all workers and stakeholders within the company. And this so that we do not regain our ability to indignate ourselves only when the facts appear on the public stage and are eventually relayed and amplified by the media.

Harassment has many consequences and often causes serious illness and, in the long run, results in occupational exclusion or difficulties in subsequent rehabilitation. It also generates costs for the company: guaranteed wage and sick leave, direct and indirect production costs. A difficult situation in the worker’s head leads to dismotivation, lower performance, absence and staff rotation. by Mr. Timmermans, in his report, said that the interests of workers and employers are not convergent. For my part, I think they are convergent and that companies have an interest in neither stress nor harassment so that workers can work in good conditions and be quite efficient.

I can understand that a number of employers or their representatives are not fully convinced of this. by

This is also part of the debate. Rather than focusing on victims, this debate has focused on abuse of law or possible derivations from law.

In the committee, some have argued that the general principles of seeking the well-being of workers already include measures aimed at preventing moral harassment, thus making it unnecessary to add a specific point dedicated to this phenomenon. If, indeed, the law of 1996 obliges every employer to assume, among other things, the psychosocial burdens incurred by work, these mainly refer to practices of productivity, flexibility, professional profitability and therefore also to stress and relationship tensions. While psychosocial load can be a possible cause of harassment, it ⁇ does not exhaust the phenomenon that should be named for what it is, a form of psychic killing or a process of systematic destruction of the individual and not an extreme form of social stress as some call it.

In this sense, we support the orientation of this bill which is to address in a quite specific way the prevention of different forms of harassment, but also violence in the workplace. Any other orientation would not have been appropriate neither to the path to collective awareness of the phenomenon nor to the political goal of the project which is precisely to break with banalization, with this kind of excess tolerance that is still found too often in the business world. In the commission, the minister used this formula: "We must break the silence." This was the conclusion after the white steps, in a different context of course, but there are similarities. She used the phrase “break the cycle of fear, isolation, humiliation.” We think that is exactly what it is.

This requirement to raise awareness of the fact that the phenomena denounced are a reality and that they cannot exist leads us to the pivotal key of all the devices under consideration, namely the entire preventive aspect that links the detection of risks and the establishment of appropriate measures for their prevention.

The debates proved this in the committee, some focused on repression. As we have already said and repeated, this is stated in the report, the activation of the "sanctions" window is subsidiary and necessarily based on a finding of failure, the aim being above all to create a climate of confidence that allows for an internal solution to the problem posed. The existence of this repressive aspect – I think, for example, of the right for organisations to be brought to justice – is good to make clear that prevention is not a passive measure that is treated with gentleness or disengagement, but a demanding process that involves the involvement of all actors within the company, in particular in the implementation of a voluntary prevention policy.

One aspect that has been debated and on which some have expressed themselves at this forum is the fear of a growing judicialization of conflicts and possible abuses in the application of the repressive aspect. We believe these fears are unfounded. As stated in the report, it was recalled in the commission that if there were charges laid down lightly, questioning the integrity of an unjustly accused person, not only the articles 443 and following of the Criminal Code relating to offences against the honor or respect of persons can apply, but also the rules of labour law. Hence the importance of the labour regulation which can, of course, set the penalties applicable to the worker who would abuse the complaint procedure. It is also not excluded that a worker who seriously abuses this law may be fired for a serious mistake.

Another positive aspect of this project is that the isolation in which the victim is usually found is now broken and a rapid investigation of acts of violence or harassment is required. It is true that action must be taken quickly because the effects and consequences are long-term if not.

While this bill aims first and foremost to guarantee the right to human dignity at work, too often it is forgotten that the quality of employment also participates in the economic and financial interests of the company and of society as a whole.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Socialist Group supports this text because it addresses the problem in an intelligent and coherent way, both in terms of the overall scope of the project and its scope and approach to the suggested solutions to different situations of violence and harassment.

In particular, the reversal of the burden of proof to the civil, a principle that is not new and will only be applicable when the worker justifies an interest, as well as protection against dismissal and unilateral changes in working conditions are all positive and innovative elements present in this bill.

We feel that this is a good law, a complete law whose effectiveness will be demonstrated in two years. Some have mentioned the assessment. For my part, I am optimistic and I am convinced, Madam the Minister, that the first assessment that will be carried out in collaboration with the social partners will be positive.

We will vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Everyone knows what it is about. Mobbing, however, is the English term for meute and comes from America. It was used in connection with the mafia that suppressed the exploiters of bars. Thus, with bullying, the unwanted aggressive behavior of the mob was emphasized. Today, we have a tool to combat this bullying in the workplace. It is important that the problem is addressed internally, on the workplace. Dramatic events have been ⁇ by the Post. However, the problem must also be addressed externally. I think then of bus and train escorts who are intimidated and bullied by external persons.

The testimonies of victims—who have severely affected us—showed what hell they should go through and how much they suffer. It is not only human suffering, but also economic suffering. Such behavior results in more accidents at work, longer periods of sick leave and a large loss of productivity. We believe that this is a social problem that needs to be solved between employers and workers. We also made clear in the committee that we fully support your approach in this regard. We are convinced that through this bill the workers will be provided with a number of means to break the taboo around this matter, the great silence as you called it yourself.

I would like to repeat the seven plus points that we have already mentioned at the committee meeting.

The first, very important point is that violence, harassment and sexual harassment require an integrated approach because the boundary between these crimes is very small, in the sense that one derives from the other.

Second, victims and witnesses are protected from dismissal and may receive compensation. This is a good measure by which the silence will be broken, because the persons concerned feel protected, even for a certain period of time, and know that they can speak safely.

Third, the reversal of the burden of proof. Liberals are ⁇ ly struggling to reverse the burden of proof, but since we are bound by the European directives in that regard, I have no problem with this. By the way, this provides better protection to the victim.

Fourth, this design emphasizes prevention and prevention plans. In fact, prevention is the first and immediately also the most important step to be taken.

Fifth, in addition to the trade union organisations, NGOs are also entitled to act and participate in the debate.

Sixth, through this bill, external and third parties can also be addressed and approached. This is also important.

Seventh, through this design, existing social instruments can be used in enterprises. Indeed, the Committee for Prevention is activated, the Rules of Work gets its place, the prevention advisors and the medical inspection are activated. In this way, the social consultation structures that exist in an enterprise are used. We can only be pleased that full attention was also sought for social consultation. However, it is a pity that the social partners have not reached an agreement, although that does not mean that we should not act. In addition, we had to act to cover both the private and the public sector.

Social partners will also be involved later through the law. They will not only need to develop rules for the application of preventive measures, but also measures for workers who come into contact with the public and to disseminate further modalities for information.

Mr. Minister, I have a few comments and questions.

First, this law will be voted later. How will you publish the law? What information material will you use? In what form will you pour that information and which target audience do you want to reach? We need to know clearly how you will continue to support this law. To what extent will you involve the victim groups in the information campaign?

Second, your predecessor, Ms. Smet, has abolished the green phone line due to budgetary measures. However, there were 15 calls per year from victims who did not know the advice. Can you reopen this channel so that, in addition to the instruments within the company, you also have another means by which the victims can break the silence. Their

Third, external prevention services are important to us. The implementation decisions were made four years ago. We also consider it important that the prevention counselor — a psychologist — can provide psychosocial assistance. Can you urgently issue measures regarding the training and diploma requirements that these people must have? These implementation measures are not yet available for the prevention advisors, to whom you want to appeal now. They play an important role in this matter for me. We must be able to specify what requirements and diploma requirements these people must meet.

In addition, there is a growing demand for the financing and the minimum services that these external prevention services must provide. We need to get answers to those questions so that your law can fully perform. Their

I would like to give you a suggestion, Mrs. Minister. We know that there is a checklist to check whether there is really bullying. The various organizations already use that list. I think you should include this important instrument in the implementing decisions so that we can also counter the misuse of this law. From the beginning, we must be able to correctly describe the problem.

Mrs. Minister, we are very pleased that you held the amendment for a review every two years, inspired by the Green Group. We find it very important that we learn lessons from this. In this way, we can make clear regulatory progress and update it where necessary. We believe that this law will contribute to a change in the corporate culture as such.

Mrs. Minister, I may also ask you to include the organization of victims in this assessment.

There is another aspect for which we have remained in the cold. We thought of making a lock by setting up an external anonymous notification point so that the circle is closed. After all, bullying does not only happen in the workplace. We note that bullying often continues in the private and recreational life and in the socio-cultural dimension. Mobbing is spreading and is therefore not only noticeable in the workplace.

Therefore, it would be good to have an external anonymous notification point where victims can report and from which any claim can be made. We want to continue to emphasize this. We are working on a bill to complete your law, in our conviction.

Our approach has always been straightforward. We fully support this bill. We do not understand the CD&V that crawls in the trees to say that the trader phones should be abolished. This is about more than trader phones. This is about fundamental issues and here the CD&V leaves the discourse. It is clear that the CD&V only draws the patronal card. We cannot understand that. It is warm and cold blowing at the same time. If they continue in this way in the opposition, it will not lead her further.