Proposition 50K1687

Projet de loi relatif aux fermetures d'entreprises.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 12, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work business activity redundancy cessation of trading

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Aimé Desimpel (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Pierre Lano (Open Vld) 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.

Discussion ¶

May 2, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the bill discussed today is a continuation of the work of the former Minister of Employment and Labour. It is a fair attempt to coordinate the different legislation on the closure of companies.

The draft law guarantees the employees of the social profit sector at the closure of their enterprise the payment of the contractual remuneration to which they are still entitled. This is my positive analysis of this bill. For the rest, this is the bill of missed opportunities. Employees in the social-profit sector and in the non-profit undertakings with less than 20 employees remain excluded from the right to information prior to the closure of their undertakings. Employees in the social profit sector and in the profit undertakings with less than 20 employees remain excluded from the right to closure compensation. For the exclusion of workers from undertakings with less than 20 employees, the high cost was cited.

The figures that we had requested were provided in a very short term and in a correct manner by the Fund for the Closure of Enterprises. These figures showed that undertakings with less than 20 employees actually paid an additional contribution. However, that additional contribution was not so large that it would put the undertakings in financial difficulties. Therefore, other arguments were taken. When large companies close or go bankrupt, a large number of workers suddenly enter the labour market, all of whom find new jobs at the same time. That is why employees from a large enterprise affected by a closure receive the closure premium and employees from the small enterprises do not. It is said that workers from these small enterprises find work faster.

This historical accountability is now completely outdated and is not even correct. I explain this with a very concrete example. In January of this year, a company with 200 employees closed because it was declared bankrupt. There are 200 employees on the labour market. They receive a closing premium for the historical reason. As a result of the bankruptcy of the company with 200 employees, two supply companies are in serious difficulties and must lay down their books in February.

The employees of these two small companies are unemployed. Employment seekers 201 to 218 and job seekers 219 to 235 receive no closing premium. Nevertheless, they reinforce the group of the 200 who have already become unemployed and who receive a closing premium. This discrimination is not contemporary and does not match the economic reality.

I feel supported by SP.A Chairman Patrick Janssens, who in his 1 May message yesterday advocated for equal rights for employees when closing companies. I will not be so flat to talk about the “friends” of the SP.A, as Mr. Vanoost sonet said, because one could get bad thoughts, but the good colleagues of the SP.A can serve their chairman on his advice and very soon after the 1 May message also help that discrimination from the world by approving our amendment, which we submit again.

Given the progress of that discussion and the continuing unfair discrimination against employees in the social profit sector and against all employees in companies with less than twenty members, we have again disconnected our bill to give everyone equal rights, as also Patrick Janssens demands, from the bill. We hope that our bill will be discussed again in the committee in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, it will take ten years, more than ten long years of work before the final text of this bill on closures of ⁇ is obtained. Of course, it was long, but the project was no less ambitious when one has in mind that the basic objective of the reform was to coordinate the different existing legislation on business closures, to integrate the different positions of the National Labour Council and finally and above all to ensure legal certainty, not only for the closure Fund, employers and workers, but also for social security institutions and courts and courts.

In a few words, this bill deals with the prior information in case of closures of companies, the closure compensation for workers dismissed in case of closures or restructuring of companies, as well as for workers not recovered in case of conventional transfer or recovery of assets after bankruptcy or judicial agreement, the different tasks of the closure fund, such as the guaranteed payment of closure compensation, remuneration and compensation, the prepension compensation or the transitional compensation, the conditions relating to these different interventions, the resources of the fund, privileges and prescription.

So we can easily doubt that this bill has aroused a lot of debate and raised a lot of questions on our part. Some members of the opposition, in particular, wished not to limit the intervention of the Closing Fund and, on the contrary, to extend it to companies with less than twenty workers. In order to do so, they had submitted an amendment in this direction. As far as we are concerned, it was totally impossible for us to subscribe to this suggestion, which was also rejected in the committee.

In fact, we feared that this proposal would directly or indirectly increase the burden on companies. First, the closing premium imposed on SMEs contradicts the policy of the federal government, as the administrative and financial burdens would be heavily increased, while the government is working on corporate tax relief and administrative simplification. In addition, this would weigh the expenditure of the Fund, resulting at the same time in an increase in the wage burden for all the companies that finance it, which is unacceptable from a competitive point of view.

More specifically, in her most optimistic forecasts, the Minister foresees that in the event of extending the scope of this bill to companies with less than twenty employees, these same companies should expect an increase in their contributions burden of an amount ranging between 0.19 and 0.21%.

In conclusion of this intervention, it seems to me that the guidelines adopted on closure of undertakings meet the praiseworthy and fair objective of putting workers on an equal footing in the event of closure of their undertakings, regardless of the nature and strength of the home sector of that undertaking.

Therefore, the Reform Movement fully supports the draft law on this Enterprise Closing Fund, being convinced that the measures envisaged will produce positive effects for the well-being of workers.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the VLD will support this bill. As Ms D’Hondt said, the draft law aims to streamline existing legislation and contains a number of adjustments that have already been proven useful in practice. The legislation on the closure of companies is by definition pragmatic. The times are changing and so are the needs of the workers, but that does not mean that the discussion of this bill must be taken to demand the full pot immediately, as some have done. It is, of course, sympathetic to immediately demand that all employees, hic et nunc, fall under the legislation, but between desire and reality shines another cost plate. The simulations show that the contribution in question should be significantly increased, which is currently not desirable. One must be consistent: the government statement states that we must improve our competitive position and that we must lower wage costs. Only yesterday we could read in the newspaper that the Belgian competitive position has once again deteriorated a little.

Secondly, colleagues, we must be consistent in our political action. Mr. Bonte, it was just May 1st and I would also like to make attempts to address certain discriminations, but I have a problem with an à la carte approach, to tackle a certain discrimination on a draft. What happens to other forms of discrimination, such as discrimination between employees? Some employees can go on bridge retirement at 50 years, while others have to work until they are 65. Why do we not address this discrimination? Their

There is a form of discrimination between workers and servants and you yourself are a great advocate for its abolition. Let us also not forget the discrimination — Mrs. Pieters will give me the right — between employees and self-employed. I now think of the maximum invoice: what is the difference between a sick self-employed and a sick employee? I really do not see the difference. Wouldn’t we even map all these forms of discrimination in order to work on them in a planned manner — to speak in your terms, Mr. Bonte — in the light of 1 May? Their

Mrs. Minister, I found the first version of this bill better, where the initiative to extend the scope of the Fund for the closure of enterprises to the social partners remained. The amendment submitted by the majority parties puts the possibility of initiative in the hands of the government, which mostly happened under the impulse of our President, together with Mr. Bonte and, loyal as we are, we will of course approve this. Social partners would be asked to give their advice within four months. On behalf of the VLD, I would like to say that of course we have sufficient confidence in the government.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I am not only happy that Mr. Anthuenis supports our ideas, but I am also happy that a draft will be approved that takes away our approval and that also largely follows the bill we had submitted. The bill is implemented by this draft for three-quarters. This is an important merit in itself because it is rare for parliamentary initiatives to succeed. Their

It is a great advance in a case that has been drawing for more than 20 years and that has actually been ripe for this decision for 20 years. However, no government has had the courage to take these decisions.

We all know that closures are also carried out in the non-profit sector. The Gaidis Hospital was the clearest example of this because a large number of employees were involved. I myself had the accident of having to close three smaller educational institutions. There is a huge discrimination between non-profit companies and industrial enterprises. When a business closes, people can rightly claim their rights. Their

Mrs. Minister, I am currently also facing the closure of a hospital is Boom. Here will be again the scattering scatterings. Employees will fall from the boat. It is more than necessary that the non-profit sector also be included in this law on closures of companies. Employees in the non-profit sector are treated equally. They should not be discriminated against. Their

The concept of business has undergone a great evolution. In 1966, the legislator opted for a narrow interpretation. The concept was then clearly defined economically. Today, that narrow concept, which also dates back to 1948, has evolved into our social legislation. Institutions without industrial or commercial activities are now also considered full-fledged enterprises. Their

The National Labour Council had already understood this in 1975. They had then drawn up a unanimous opinion to include all non-profit companies in the overall legislation. Only the government did not address this when in 1975 it implemented a coordination of the legislation on the closure of companies. She has rejected an amendment that was then submitted. As a reason, she stated that there are no closures. I have just given an actual example. Over the past 20 years, we have experienced that sometimes non-profit institutions also need to be closed.

A second argument that was then cited was that the subsidizing government of those institutions had no money for the premium. Mrs. Minister, if we want to respect the democratic principles of equal rights for all, equal right to information and participation, then we must work on that. We are doing this with current legislation. The government must also take responsibility for this.

We continue to strive to give equal rights to both the non-profit sector and to companies with less than 20 employees. Mrs. Minister, in your initial draft, you adopted a very cautious attitude both for the non-profit sector and for the companies with less than 20 employees. You have said that in the case of a closure in the non-profit sector, the government can intervene to pay the wages owed, the possible breakdown compensation, leave allowance, bridge pension and so on. However, the payment of the closing premium itself was taken too far. We are therefore very pleased that you have accepted our amendment and that the government may also charge the closing premium. The government has the power to decide on this. We expect that this possibility, which we opened up with our amendment, will be used.

We are of the opinion that there is no need to wait another 20 years to realize something and expect you to undertake something this legislature. You have another year for that. So you can perfectly put initiatives for the non-profit worker on the roof.

We also expect you to take action — this is our second amendment that you have accepted — in favour of employees in companies with less than 20 employees. For example, you can ask the relevant parity committees and the National Labour Council for advice, which we expressly urge. Then you will also be able to act. In our amendment we also provided a four-month limit. After all, it is often the tactic of the parity committees and the National Labour Council not to give advice so that the government or the minister cannot act.

We hope that you will also work on this. In our view, the interplay between the position of the social partners — who gave a limited opinion in the National Labour Council, which was less extensive than the advice they gave in 1975 — and that of the legislative power will help us advance the further construction of social rights.

I would like to emphasize once again that it is extremely important that we also consider the right to information and information as a fundamental right in the smaller enterprises. It must become a democratic right to further develop this. We count on you to bring this to a good end. We will gladly approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as already stated, the bill aims to coordinate the various existing laws concerning the closure of companies, to bring together the various proposals of the National Labour Council and to update the regulations within the framework of the Bankruptcy Act of 8 August 1997. This immediately entails an extension of the scope to the non-profit sector and the free professions.

My comment explicitly refers to Article 2, third, b, namely the notion of undertakings without commercial or industrial activity, i.e. the non-profit sector and the practitioners of the free professions. Thus, it is the workers in the free professions and the employers self-employed and free professions. From the date of publication of this draft law, employees will be entitled to the payment of the contractual termination compensation, outstanding wages and bridge pensions paid by the closing fund of enterprises. They will not be entitled to the closing premiums currently amounting to EUR 2,500. Self-employed and self-employed workers will contribute to the Fund. However, as I have shown in the committee fruitlessly, the free professions occupy a separate position. Contrary to the impression generated in the draft law by placing this group under the common denominator "enterprises without commercial or industrial finality", they are not necessarily equivalent to non-profit enterprises.

For the definition of free professions, this bill refers to the negative definition contained in the law of 3 April 1997 concerning unfair terms and agreements concluded between holders of free professions and their clients. Let us be clear, this includes the self-employed lawyer, the doctor, the Chineseist and the notary who employs staff. In most cases, it involves only one or several employees, much less than twenty employees. The free professions exercising their activity under a company are captured by the ordinary regulation, as being a "commercial or industrial activity". In the explanatory note, we read that this contribution will be small given the nature of the undertakings concerned and the small closure risks associated with it. Furthermore, the draft law stipulates that these contributions will amount to 0.04% of the gross wage mass. Depending on the number of bankruptcies that occur in these free professions, the amount may be adjusted up or down.

The consequences for the employer are primarily on the financial level, namely an increase in wage costs. Mr. Anthuenis, this is a target audience that you are very affectionate about. For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that the number of freelancers, the small self-employed who work with a limited number of servants, is growing. However, an increase in their wage costs is nothing but an incentive.

Finally, as I said in the committee, I would like to repeat again...

There is something I would like to understand.

I have heard Ms. D'Hondt who issued a vow to the tribune that the scope of the law may be extended, in particular as regards the closure compensation to workers in companies with less than 20 employees. I understand this very well. It is a desire that all workers, whatever they are, be treated equally. There is a logic.

I understand less, or ⁇ not at all, that you, who are of the same group as Mrs D’Hondt, told us: “Maybe for SMEs with less than 20 workers but not for liberal professions.” Is the philosophy to say that a worker is equal to a worker or is it something else? I do not understand your philosophy.

Mrs. Minister, you should understand that I am very consciously addressing this problem and addressing it to you. After all, you meet a target group that has less than 20 employees where you say to colleagues D'hondt and Bonte that you do not want to intervene on the bills in this bill to go to the target group with less than 20 employees while you do so for the free professions that employ 1, 2 or a maximum of 3 people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt Mr. Pieters, of course, but I want to say the Minister only the following.

We will take care of the clarity in our group. During the discussion in the committee responsible, you have always referred to the opinions of the NAR when we advocate for an extension to the —20's, the right to information and the closing premium for the social profit sector. The NAR has not issued an opinion on an extension to the free professions. You have taken a proposal in this regard from the administration, not from the social partners. Two things one!

Please allow me to continue my speech.

Mr. Bonte also wishes to interrupt you, Mrs. Pieters.

Colleagues Pieters and D'Hondt, I think there should be some clarity about the attitude of your group. After the words of Mrs D'hondt, it is not really clear to me whether Mr Pieters will approve the amendment of Mr D'hondt. If this amendment is adopted, which will extend to the —20s tomorrow, overmorrow will have to be discussed on the percentage at which contributions to SMEs should be increased. If you say A, you must also say B. Adopting the amendment of Mrs D'Hondt today means that tomorrow it will be mandatory to increase contributions to SMEs. Your entire story leads me to conclude that you will not vote for the amendment while Mrs D'Hondt is a fierce advocate of her amendment. It attempts to convince the whole Parliament to vote in favour.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the following.

It is necessary to be able to distinguish between the specific nature of a freelance profession and an enterprise. That is precisely the essence of Ms. Pieters’ reasoning. A freelance profession cannot simply be regarded as a commercial enterprise. A freelance profession has a specific mission in a society where independence is the rule. We want to see this specific character translated into legislation. For this reason, Ms. Pieters points out the problem of the practitioners of a freelance profession. Our group wants this specificity to be very explicitly incorporated into the legislation through the amendment of Ms. Pieters. The peculiarity of the free profession is something entirely different from the pure commercial exercise of an independent activity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the CD&V group to know the following. It is about an extension to the —20'ers. Is the CD&V group for this or not? I did not understand this well. I have understood that Mrs. D'Hondt is in favour while Mrs. Pieters is apparently against. I don’t understand it, but it probably depends on me.

Mr. Bonte, Mrs. Minister, if you have listened to my words, you have heard that I had comments on Article 2 of this bill on the definition of the non-profit sector and the free professions. I will limit my explanation only to this given. Only Mr. Van Parys apparently understood this. Mrs. Minister did not understand, Mr. Bonte did not understand, and Mr. Anthuenis did not understand.

It will probably lie to us: there is no one of us who has understood it. The question to the CD&Vfractie is very clear: are you for or against the expansion to the companies with less than 20 employees? It is yes or no. We are against it, I said clearly. What is your attitude?

Today I am talking about Article 2 and nothing else. If you have listened, you have heard it at the introduction of this speech.

In a parliamentary debate, you can try to reduce the subject to Article 2, paragraph 3.

I do that.

You do it indeed. However, your group will submit an amendment to Article 10 with the consequence that, if it is approved, contributions to SMEs will need to be increased tomorrow. You use that rightly as an argument in Article 2, paragraph 3: you do not want contributions to be raised there. If you support the amendment submitted by your group, the contributions will have to be increased. Our question is what will be your voting behavior regarding your group’s amendment, knowing that this leads to an increase in contributions for SMEs?

Mr. Van Parys, I repeat the words of Mrs. Pieters when she cited the example of a freelancer and two or three servants, i.e. workers. In our labour legislation, this means neither more nor less than being an employer and falls under the rules of SMEs with less than twenty employees. There is no legal basis for making a distinction regarding contributions. I share your plea for attention to the specificity of the freelance profession, but in the example given by your colleague this is very clearly a SME employer that falls under the rules of the SME contribution scheme.

In fact, they are very impatient. Voting is prompt. I only know how the committee voted. In the committee, SP.A, Agalev and the liberals voted against the extension to companies with less than 20 employees. That is all I know. Oh yes, there is the amendment: “The King can...” That’s for the Greek calendar! You voted against our amendment, that’s all. You will immediately see your voting behavior and see what we do with the amendments. We have voted in the committee and you will see how the CD&V group will vote later. You will also have noticed, if you have at least taken the effort to read it, that in terms of the free professions, Mrs. Pieters and I have signed. You will soon see our further voting behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear at the tribune that this has been a great progress since 1975. Eventually, this work will be done and additional benefits will be created for non-profit workers. The possibility is created, without the need to change the law, so that it would also be possible for employers with less than twenty employees. This applies to both freelance professions and non-profit enterprises as well as SMEs. In that sense, we are quite consistent and we have indeed created opportunities here. I have asked the Minister to take initiatives in this regard.

We will not introduce a different treatment for employees. An employee is a worker and the rights should apply to everyone, whether he works for a self-employed, a freelance, a small and medium-sized enterprise or a non-profit organization.

I repeat that I have tried to illustrate here by example that the measures for freelancers are not currently applicable to the SME company. That is the only thing I wanted to say in my speech, Mr. Bonte. At the vote, we will show what we think about the turn you took in the committee. I will return to what Mrs. D'Hondt has already emphasized. I find it ⁇ strange that the free professions have been divided into the law without any prior consultation, without giving any evidenceable reason that those workers will face the increase in wage costs. They were not consulted; they knew nothing about the draft law that applies to them.

There is also no certainty about the amount of the contribution. The 0.04% is an estimate based on eventful bankruptcies. I have been very clearly reminded in the committee that a free profession is not bankrupt. So how will it be measured? How will these percentages be calculated? They do not go bankrupt because they are not traders or merchants within the meaning of the Code of Commerce. This is not the case with the CSWs, for example in the social profit sector, which can go bankrupt and indeed go bankrupt. Mr Wauters knows examples of this. In short, the free professions are drawn into a legal conceptual confusion.

Finally, Mrs. Minister, you have agreed with the majority that in the case of an extension of the scope of application, advice will be requested to the competent parity committee or subcommittee and, where appropriate, to the National Labour Council, although within a period of 4 months. However, you did not want to consult with the trade unions of the free professions; you will now do so for the SMEs with less than 20 employees. Again, these free professions generally employ very few people and you have not spoken to them.

I submit my amendment to Article 2 again, in the hope that those in our house who still respect the consultation and the free professions — I address myself specifically to the VLD and the MR — and would very much like to confess this vocational group with words, but not with deeds, would reflect.

To you, Mrs. Minister, I say that you have already corroborated it in business with the law on harassment at work; now you will still corroborate it with the freelancers. The VLD stands there and looks at it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I did not actually intend to intervene in the debate that Ms. Pieters initiated. Their

I would like to cut another, non-substantial theme, but I will go into it in a second instance. First of all, I would like to come up with the debate that fellow Pieters initiated.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it is evident that any contribution to be paid to the Closing Fund will be included in the wage costs of both large enterprises, small enterprises, SMEs and freelance professions. This will lead to an increase in the wage burden in a country where the wage costs are already 7% higher compared to the countries around us. We must realize that. That is the choice this government makes. That debate must be conducted at a different level, Mr. Anthuenis, but it will in any case be included in the wage costs. The VLD thus contributes to an increase in wage costs, which are already very high.

Mr. President, Mr. Van 14.24 Hoorebeke, what you say is not correct. It would be correct if we had to support Mrs D'Hondt's amendment. The extension to companies with less than 20 employees has been stopped in the committee. It is only possible if there is an initiative from the government and the social partners provide advice within 4 months. Then this will be made possible. I have sufficient confidence in the government that this enlargement for the so-called min-twenties will not come. We will see.

Mr. Anthuenis, we know for longer than today that you have had a very difficult time taking all kinds of curves since the entry of the VLD into this government. Recognize that any contribution to be paid to the Closing Fund, as in the past, will eventually result in a recalculation in the wage costs and thus result in an increase in the wage costs. So simple is it.

I would also like to say that the freelance professions are wrongly involved in this debate. As colleague Pieters correctly pointed out, we are talking here about a contribution to the fund for the closure of companies. Well, a free profession — a lawyer or a doctor — does not go bankrupt. They are declared bankrupt. A lawyer or a doctor with more than 20 employees may not invoke the fund for the closure of the enterprises.

The [...]

This is not correct. You amend legislation that is incorrect because a free profession cannot be declared bankrupt, for which the fund for closing ⁇ was intended.

It is a project that provides not only for the case of bankruptcy but also for insolvency.

That is right. You, however, mistakenly add something because you really want to hit the category of the free professions. In that sense, Mr. Pieters’s criticism is correct when it says that freelancers often employ fewer workers and are harder affected than SMEs or companies with more than 20 employees.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, it would be good if you, for a debate like this, read the bill well. In this regard, there is no increase in contributions for SMEs with less than 20 employees. That was precisely the subject of the debate that we just talked about.

Therefore, there is no implicit increase in contributions for the payment of closing premiums for companies with less than 20 employees. There is, however, the addition of the free professions due to the fact that also a number of free professions — and colleague Pieters has rightly pointed out — have effective workers, I think of employees, telephoneists, and so on, and with this legislation we try to protect those workers from non-payment of delayed wages, which may result from the bankruptcy of that free profession.

I think this is a ⁇ legitimate requirement and that you would do well to read the text of the draft and also of the report so that you are fully involved in the discussion.

Mr Bonte, I have said that it is important that all employees are treated at the same level and with equal equality. I will return to this in my second point.

You are simply not consistent. Mr. Pieter also pointed out this. On the one hand, this is not extended to SMEs employing less than 20 workers; on the other hand, it is extended by an artificial extension to the freelance professions, which often employ only one or two workers.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I will try again to clarify exactly what the closing fund is. The closing fund does two things. First, it pays, on behalf of the employer, outstanding wages at the time of declaration of bankruptcy and there is still wage to be paid. Then you have a scheme that for companies with more than 20 employees, provides for the payment of closing premiums, a kind of moral damages compensation.

The only thing that is attempted in this bill is to regulate this first gap for the free professions with employees. Their

I therefore absolutely do not see where we would be inconsistent in our plea, for here we really try to apply the minimum of what the closing fund should do to those free professions with workers. That is all. I do not see any inconsistency.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will not go into this further. After all, you’re just going to give lessons and you think you’re right on your side. Their

I said what I meant to say. I see a total inconsistency. We will see what the debate will be when the amendment or proposal of colleague D'Hondt is addressed to reduce it to min twenty.

I would like to come to a second point, a point that has not yet been addressed today, in particular that ultimately the Closing Fund is there for the employees who are facing bankruptcy or the closure of their business. Their

You are talking about solvency, Mrs. Minister. However, this is not about this. There is an amendment by colleague Bonte that was eventually included in the draft law and which requires the closing funds to pay out within 15 months.

I have previously asked you about the bankruptcy of City Bird. Colleague Wauters also delivered the word. City Bird went bankrupt several months before Sabena went bankrupt. That is now almost a year ago. Mrs. Minister, you must then admit that only 50 dossiers of the 1000 were submitted and approved. The debate here is about the rise in wage costs and so on and the expansion into the non-profit sector. In principle, I do not object to this because I assume that a worker is a worker and that the rights applicable to one worker should also apply to the other worker. I remain in my view that it is incorrectly extended to free professions.

In any case, at the time of the bankruptcy of Sabena, everyone cried that the closing fund should be able to take swift measures in order indeed to have the employees of the bankrupt company paid out as soon as possible or at least to receive an advance.

Mr. Bonte, you didn’t talk about that. I can say that it is very important. You always talk about the interests of employees. I want to defend the interests of the workers! I say that the period of 15 months before the workers are paid out is still far too long. People need to get their money quickly, if necessary, an advance. Furthermore, I believe that there should be no distinction between employees of failed companies. The Sabena treatment should be applied to other bankrupt undertakings. What was possible for Sabena must be possible for other companies. That is my point in the discussion of this bill. I assume that no one can object to this.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I am pleased that you bring this point to your attention. Their

The committee was able to make improvements to the initial design. Currently, for various reasons — sometimes logical reasons — the rule that can be paid out at the earliest after 15 months applies. Through an amendment of the majority and supported by a large part of the opposition, this was changed to "at the last 15 months". In this way, we want to avoid workers having to wait for years for the closure premium. The 15-month period is a significant improvement. It is the maximum limit. Their

The fund — colleague D’Hondt knows it better than I do — must meet the 15 month deadline in all complex files. This will ⁇ not be obvious. With our adopted amendment, it is not entirely excluded that the fund works faster. For more than 15 months, no employee will have to wait for the closure premium.

Mr Bonte, I referred to the amendment and added that it is an improvement because the deadline is brought to a maximum of 15 months. My point is that the efforts that the Government has requested from the Enterprise Closure Fund to pay advances to employees of the bankrupt company as soon as possible in the Sabenadossier should also apply to other companies that go bankrupt, regardless of the number of employees. A bankruptcy is always a drama. The maximum term of 15 months is a good point. However, it should be taken into account that an employee of a bankrupt company should be able to be paid out as soon as possible, with an advance if necessary. Their

The current procedure before the management committee gives its approval is too long. It takes too long. For those who are unemployed, each month is too much.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, why did you not submit amendments on this subject. Contrary to your first argument, you now hold a plea in the employee’s interest. I support that. I hope that the employees will receive the closing premium as soon as possible. We have managed to reduce the deadline to a maximum of 15 months.

Mr. Wauters, the point is not whether 15 months should be registered in the law or less. The point is that the management committee needs to work faster. The Committee shall not wait until the 15 month period has expired. Their

An additional problem relates to the curators who do not forward the file to the fund in a timely manner. Colleagues, I just wanted to show that the problem is more complex than a debate about raising contributions. Their

Mr. Wauters, I have not heard the human side of the problem be discussed in this debate. The Greens and the Socialists did not.

I would like once again, on behalf of all those who participated in the work of the committee, to thank all the employees who, for years, have worked, and Mrs D'Hondt has said, to codify all the provisions concerning the Closing Fund of Companies. I think that was really essential. The discussion here seems to be technical but in reality, behind this discussion there are obviously workers who, following bankruptcy, following insolvency, find themselves in dramatic situations.

It was therefore important that we could, on the one hand, make the legislation more readable, more transparent, easier to read, this was done, thanks to all the collaborators, and on the other hand, that we could also take advantage of this exercise of codification to integrate the European directives that demanded us, and it was also a will of Belgium, to cover by a general provision all workers whatever they are.

Compared to the debate we have had here, it is true that as a result of this directive, we have extended the scope of part of the provisions of the law to workers employed by holders of liberal professions. And of course, I claim it. Because I am interested in supporting liberal professions. I don’t know if you knew it, but before I became a minister, I was a liberal professional. So I know their situation well, but I also know, because I was an employer, the situation of workers who work with holders of liberal professions.

I am interested in all employees. I therefore find it normal that if there is a situation of bankruptcy or insolvency, workers are not victims twice: one victim because they lose their jobs and the second time because their employer cannot pay the normal compensation because of his insolvency. by

The law will therefore extend the scope of part of the provisions to all workers. This is a good thing. by

Then, it is true that there is a difference between liberal professions, SMEs with less than 20 workers and companies with more than 20 workers. by

The discussion in the Social Affairs Committee was very broad and an amendment was introduced. This amendment — and it is not said enough to this tribune — is of the utmost importance. Indeed, despite the unanimous opinion of the National Labour Council concerning this codification, the amendment adopted in a committee ensures that, without having to wait for a request from a parity committee and a request from the National Labour Council, the government can immediately take the initiative in this matter after hearing — and I know that Mrs D'hondt is sensitive to social consultation — that the opinion of the social partners will be asked. by

From recent interventions, it appears that the opinions are divergent. It is well known that if we extend the legislation to SMEs with less than 20 workers, the consequence will be an increase in the rate of contribution; this is a non-negligible element that we must consider when considering the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises. by

I think it is normal to ask questions. However, I repeat here what I said in the committee, namely that I will ask the government whether an agreement is possible to put small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 20 workers on the same footing as those with more than 20 workers. If consensus can be found, we will seek the opinion of the social partners. by

Through this, it seems to me that I have responded to the expectations of each other in order to eradicate the discrimination that we still see, even though they are based on objective criteria within the framework of that legislation.