Proposition 51K1767

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses relatives à la concertation sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 4, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work working time disabled person diffusion of innovations redundancy overtime shift work social pact social-security contribution social dialogue early retirement tax-free allowance unemployment

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 ¶

June 2, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill is de facto the implementation of the interprofessional agreement that was approved by all social partners with the exception of the FGTB which, although with a narrow majority, achieved the hard work but nevertheless referred to the garbage basket. Fortunately, the federal government has taken the initiative to implement the agreement for now.

I say “happy,” but that doesn’t mean that the VLD is so happy with what’s ahead. This will not surprise anyone, and with this I probably express the feeling that lives with all parties. An interprofessional agreement is a compromise in which each party must take a number of concessions for good. It has at least the merit of being an honorable compromise and that is fundamental. For example, we would rather have seen an adjustment to the regulations on bridge pensions — not an abolition, for all clarity — an adjustment of the modalities thus with regard to the future bridge pensioners. We have understood that this discussion will be part of the end-to-end discussion.

On the other hand, the bill proposes some measures that fit in the VLD street. Typical examples include the arrangements relating to the easing of overtime, the easing of the cost of overtime for employers and the greater benefit for employees who perform overtime. Here too, it is worth noting that the VLD would have preferred a more extensive arrangement, but we can find ourselves in the general philosophy and welcome that both employees and employers are getting better.

Furthermore, it is finally broken with the misunderstanding that performing overtime would by definition mean someone taking away work from others. The economic reality teaches us that this is not the case at all and that overtime is mainly used to capture peak moments. Anyone who, by the way, would allow structural overtime to perform as a substitute for an additional employee can best learn to count again, because no matter how you turn it or turn it, overtime remains more expensive than regular hours.

The system for teamwork, which provides for an increase in the reduction on the corporate advance fee from 1% to 2,5%, can also contribute to the maintenance of employment in the country. With regard to the active guidance and follow-up of unemployed people, we welcome the attention paid to this in this bill. Nevertheless, it will not surprise the Minister that we, as the VLD, continue to worry about the concrete implementation of the cooperation agreement, which, by the way, has yet to be submitted to Parliament.

There are numerous signs that the new scheme is not being applied very rigorously. We have already pointed out to the Minister the testimony of RVA facilitators that the unemployed should believe in their word — the famous declaration of honour — even in the absence of evidence, the claim that one receives instructions from above to grant a limited number of activation courses, and on the secrecy of the numbers. It makes no sense to go deeper into it within the framework of the bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to use this forum to remind of a number of dysfunctions, which must be followed in order to expand the target audience to the —40ers, coming from 1 July.

It seems to us important that the Minister pays additional attention to the equalization of the violes with the sub-regions. In April last year we witnessed the riot with Waals Minister of Work Marcourt, who once again proved that the south of this country views fundamentally differently against the activation idea than the north. Even in Flanders, however, it is not all pink smell and manish shade. The training offer is inadequate. A tooth will need to be attached. In fact, it is useless that the RVA facilitator pushes the job seeker under the nose of a route guidance agreement in which he or she undertakes to attend a training, if it subsequently turns out that there is a waiting period of one and a half to two years in Flanders before he or she can start that training. Also in this problem, the role of the private sector comes into consideration when it turns out that the VDAB has insufficient capacity to meet a training request.

Compensation for workers dismissed by closing companies has been a sensitive issue for years. On the one hand, it is indeed unreasonable that employees in smaller undertakings do not enjoy the same regime as their colleagues in larger undertakings, but on the other hand, the eternal problem of cost-price persists. Through the IPA, a solution has been found in an elegant way, by making the issue part of a compromise. In this way, a part of the financial envelope available for the IPA could be spent on this employment. The objective of course remains a uniform arrangement for all employees, but with financial feasibility as a necessary prerequisite.

Finally, the VLD points out the creation of the Fund for the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. Here, we would like to note that the intention is good, but that everything will stand or fall with the execution. It can’t be the intention to keep stuck in a paper mill of all kinds of studies or anything. The Fund should effectively result in improving the situation of disabled workers on the premises and, consequently, in increasing the level of activity of disabled workers. We therefore find it necessary that the Minister after two years make a thorough evaluation of the functioning of the Fund.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, being 100% happy with what is ahead, would be too much demanded for each party in this hemisphere, but we are satisfied because this bill presents an interprofessional agreement. Fortunately, the arrangement of the innovation premiums and the limitation periods were also included in the bill by amendment. We are confident that the Minister will do everything in his power to carry out what is stipulated in this draft correctly and timely.

The VLD group will therefore support the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene in the general discussion, but you know that I should not be challenged too much.

I want to say one thing. Since the ABVV has not signed, the government has indeed taken on that heavy duty. However, I have said from the beginning — I have said this also in the committee and I want to repeat it here in the general discussion in the plenary session — that the interprofessional agreement has been reached, rather despite than thanks to the government. Indeed, the ABVV has not signed, but the government has previously taken a huge risk by promising to the employers a burden reduction, which subsequently could not be fulfilled and which resulted much lower.

The other reason why I take the word from my bank is related to the activation policy. When the discussion here, following the Interprofessional Agreement, is extended to the broad discussion on the activation policy, I can only say that some of the comments made here and addressed in the committee as an oral question are not entirely correct. I think of rejecting the numbers. I need from the opposition, I think, not to defend the government, nor the minister, but to reflect the ordinary reality, to know that those figures are given.

I think that we should give the activation policy, in which I have also given a lot of concerns and criticism in the committee, plenty of opportunities and that we should not unnecessarily discredit it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to limit my attention to the discussion of the Social Compact to one point, namely the measure related to innovation. We have submitted a bill on this subject. Indeed, together with colleague D'Hondt and colleague Pieters, I have submitted a bill to abolish the social contribution on suggestive premiums.

What do we mean when we talk about suggestive premiums? Well, in many large companies and not just in industrial enterprises, there are more and more initiatives to encourage employees in some way and better engage in the whole process. For example, you can submit concrete improvement proposals that will, for example, simplify the work process, or reduce health complaints, or increase efficiency.

These improvement proposals are often rewarded with premiums. I call it suggestion prizes. Often it is not about classic innovations, but about suggestions, sometimes small improvements, that make the production process more efficient or accelerate or provide better working conditions. It is precisely those small improvements in productivity that have made our country one of the countries with the highest productivity for decades. I believe that this should be continued and that this should be encouraged. Through the system of suggestion premiums, employees feel connected to the company because they can participate in the process.

Take the example of Opel. But other companies such as Degussa or even the National Bank also know such premiums. In 2003, at Opel, no less than 14,353 improvement proposals were submitted by employees, of whom 78% were rewarded with a premium. The premiums ranged from a small premium to a large premium, from 7 euros to 12,400 euros, depending on the realised savings or added value. Each employee submitted an average of 2.9 proposals. The total amount of net premiums amounted to 343,000 euros. In our country — and that is important — we are punished for this, however, because for every euro of premiums, the company paid 3.24 times as much in tax and parafiscal charges.

It is noted that many employees are highly motivated to come up with such proposals, to think with them and to work with their company. It gives them the opportunity to think about how the company works and it also increases their working pleasure. The fact that they receive a premium is often taken well until they realize, of course, that their creativity has provided a premium primarily to the government. On the one hand, the ability to be creative and the premium will increase their work pleasure, but on the other hand, the government and tax authorities will reduce them.

The burden on such premiums is extremely high compared to our neighbors. I have already said that in Belgium, every euro net premium costs the company almost 3.24 times the tax and parafiscal charges, while in neighboring countries, such as Germany and Great Britain, with a similar wage profile and similar wage costs, it is still much lower.

Together with colleagues D'Hondt and Pieters, I submit a bill to exempt those suggestive premiums from social security contributions and income taxes.

This is on the agenda today. Our proposal was heard by the government. In implementation of the interprofessional agreement, the government proposed a concrete measure a few weeks ago with the intention of exempting innovation premiums from social security contributions and income tax. This is called the Innovation Prize. In short, we have chosen the word suggestion premiums because the word innovation premiums is already a term used on the Flemish level. We did not want to cause confusion.

Of course, a number of conditions apply. For example, innovation must lead to an effective application in the company. Of course, the premium should not come in place of the salary. The premium may not exceed a gross monthly salary per year. Report must also be issued to the RSZ and to the Minister of Economy.

We are satisfied with this. We would like to approve that proposal and, by the way, the Global Social Compact. However, we are not completely satisfied. We have left one important comment. We want to give it to the government. There is one important minus point, namely the following. The number of innovation premiums exempt from contributions is in the government’s proposal limited to 10% of staff members.

What happens if an employee proposes a suggestion or innovation after the 10% threshold has been reached? How will this be sold in the company? Will one say that the first 10% is eligible and that it is a pity for the rest, that it is a nice suggestion, but that one cannot reward them? Even worse, is this reserved for certain groups of workers? These are all things that are going to curb that innovation, that meditation and the involvement of employees rather than encourage. We believe that this reduces innovation. At this point, we find the government’s proposal less successful. The scheme that will now be approved has a one-year trial period. That trial period begins on 1 January 2006. Then follows an evaluation. We strongly hope from our group that this comment, which we make today on that limitation to 10% of workers, will be taken into account after the evaluation and that the measure in that regard will be updated.

After all, we find it essential to involve everyone, all employees, or at least to give the opportunity to show engagement in all their employment. This will keep people working longer. In this way, we can increase people’s work pleasure. We want to contribute to this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the text that the government today asks us to approve transposes a part of the project that was to be the solidarity project that involved social programming, social peace and a framework for collective negotiations for the years 2005-2006.

I will not return to the conditions of difficult birth, not to mention the forceps in which this agreement was found. However, I will express the disappointment of our group over the context in which these negotiations took place.

For us, an inter-professional agreement is the best guarantor of the socio-economic cohesion of our country. It translates the balances necessary for our social market economy. It is based on the legitimacy of those who negotiated it. And for many years, it has given a prospective socio-economic dimension.

During the negotiations, some have continuously devalued the interprofessional dimension of the discussions. We believe that this dimension is important because, contrary to what some think, it makes it easier to negotiate at the sectoral level. Moreover, and most importantly, an interprofessional agreement helps support the most vulnerable workers.

Initially, the interruption point was the principle of the wage standard and the increase of wages. However, for the first time, the social partners agreed that the wage standard was no longer imperative but indicative. Furthermore, this standard must reflect a balance between employment and wages.

However, we mostly felt that employers, on the contrary, demanded wage rigour in the name of competitiveness but that they did not commit themselves to employment.

The PS regrets that the social partners have not even discussed the problem of youth employment when the government had desired it. We have the clear impression that this draft agreement was only possible by acting on the federal banknote board, which cannot please us. Thus, the federal government decided to inject 250 million euros. For overtime, a tax bonus of 80 million euros was provided. The expansion of the closing fund’s competence will also be financed by social security, as employers have refused to make any further gesture.

The same applies to the work of persons with disabilities for whom a fund will be created within the framework of the ONSS. This fund will be partially subsidized by these disabled workers, paying the recovery of unduely paid sums.

I would like to point out that this can distort the work of the Social Assistance Committees under the Ministry of Social Affairs. There would then probably be a tendency to no longer provide protection to those who ask for it.

There are positive points in this interprofessional agreement. Employers, however, acknowledged that competitiveness cannot be reduced to salaries alone. Today, they take into account factors such as research/development, innovation, new market conquest and workforce training.

I recall, in this regard, that our country has subscribed to the Lisbon strategy, with the goal of reaching 3% of our GDP by 2010, namely 2% for the private sector and 1% for the public sector. We can welcome the willingness to plan the initiatives and problems to be solved and that the social partners have agreed on a single objective indicator of training that will need to be integrated into an adapted social balance sheet rather than the three previously existing.

Regarding the content of the bill itself, we found that the State Council raised a problem with regard to the allocation of 0.05% of the wage mass to federal entities, in order to enable them to carry out the policy that the federal has finally decided itself, namely the control of the availability of the unemployed and their willingness to enter employment. We share the opinion of the government. Since it is he who takes a measure to be applied by the federal entities, it is normal that he subsidizes. It may also be questioned about the rate of this contribution, which has remained unchanged since 1995.

We also believe that as long as there is greater and more systematic control over the availability and job-seeking behavior of the unemployed, it would make sense to empower employers more in terms of job creation, which is not the case!

The second point concerns the closing premium for workers in companies that employ between ten and nineteen workers. It is also provided in the law that, for some companies, this can go up to five employees. This is an obvious advance, but we do not understand that we are holding on to companies in bankruptcy. In fact, there may be closures of companies in terms of relocation, restructuring, merger.

And likewise, we would like to remind - today is a good day to do so - that the non-marketer does not benefit from this closing premium measure and has not yet been able to benefit from what we called in its time the PS the main in relation to the accessory, that is, access to fundamental rights in case of rupture of employment contract. Indeed, the law of 2002 called for a royal enforcement decree to enforce the law, which still does not exist. Therefore, as Sister Anne, we are waiting, but we wish that this will happen quickly.

The device for overtime is ⁇ not easy to understand. It is rather complex. However, I would like to focus on the 65 extra hours per year that we will bring to 130 and for which we will get the famous tax bonus of 80 million euros that I mentioned earlier.

We think this is an advance for workers, as they will perceive more on the net. Employers will pay less in gross. Nevertheless, we believe that this system risks to be detrimental to the employment of temporary workers and ⁇ young people. Why Why ? We offer workers the possibility of not recovering overtime. This measure may be considered positive for them, because in case of non-recovery your overtime is paid with the surcharge if you are entitled and paid, immediately at the end of the month, at the same time as the normal salary. On the contrary, in case of recovery, you only touch your surplus salary and you are paid your hours at the time of compensatory rest.

Obviously, workers will be tempted to opt for this formula. As for us, we believe that this can be detrimental to their health, to their family and private lives, and also to the employment of young people who will no longer be hired as a substitute, even though employers believe that this is not the case, since overtime is always more expensive than normal hours and that the tax advantage granted should whiten the overtime that is now paid in black. In our opinion, this will not be the case, because there is also a blackmail in employment among workers especially in SMEs, where there is no trade union representation.

Finally, for the single innovation premium, we are satisfied with the ten criteria included in the bill through amendments. Indeed, we believe that this premium to innovation should not remain in the state of gestation, but enter a process of activation, realization so that it is not a simple premium paid to cadres without control.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, you will understand that overall, it is with caution and without euphoria that we will now vote on this bill that transposes various elements of the draft inter-professional agreement for 2005 and 2006. No one will be able to contradict me: so far, cleverly or unclearly, we have avoided the major socio-economic questions that yet require urgent answers, in respect of justice and social progress.

Whether in the field of employment and training for the elderly, women, youth, immigrants, less skilled, disabled persons, whether in the field of pensions, refinancing of social security, the road is still long and difficult to go. We believe that these three sides of the triangle must be understood together, at the time of the start of this famous conference which is now called the "Carrier Conference". We believe that one cannot dissociate one aspect from the others, without hypothesizing the future of a society which has already faced many challenges, which will have to face it and which — we hope — will do it better than others because it will be better prepared.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the fact that I take the word in the debate does not have much to do with the content of the present draft, to which we hardly have objections or concerns. Rather, it has to do with the lessons we can and must draw from the way things go, more specifically in relation to the relationship between social consultation and government policy.

Indeed, I think that it was a good reflection of the government, despite the lack of a signature on the draft inter-professional agreement, to make the majority of the provisions interpreting that draft own and to submit it to Parliament. The unusual situation makes us formulate a number of concerns regarding the role, power and value of social consultation in our economy and even in our society.

My party attaches particular importance, in the past and today, to a structural consultation between employer and worker organisations and also to a consultation between the social partners and the government in order to address socio-economic and social problems as much as possible in consensus. Nevertheless, we can’t get around the conclusion that the social interlocutors find it increasingly difficult to reach consensus on certain challenges. I think of the final discussion. I think of the difficult question of alternative financing of social security. I think of the eternal record of equal status for workers and servants. I think that the social partners are increasingly moving the difficult dossiers — there is a pattern in them — either by powerlessness or by irresponsibility to the government table. I think it is clear to the SPAA that if the social partners continue to be stuck in the backs, the government and Parliament must cut the knots.

This approach raises a number of questions about the credibility of the social partners. I would like to give two precise examples which are especially important to us and which, unfortunately, are not included in the design of the interprofessional agreement or only partially. The first is everything related to risk groups. Again, we see that the social partners are making an important contribution. They want to spend 0.10% of the wage mass to give risky groups additional opportunities on the labour market.

That commitment, colleagues, is already accompanied by a number of inter-professional agreements, but unfortunately — this was shown again from the discussion in the committee — no cat in our country can monitor how the resources are spent, what their effects are and what their efficiency is. The only thing we can confirm, colleagues, is that the proportion of the so-called risk groups in the total unemployment is systematically increasing. Every so many months we are faced with painful analyses and reports about long-term unemployed, people with disabilities or people of immigrant origin, who have extra difficulties, are degraded and discriminated on our labour market. This can be determined exactly. We can see that exactly.

The fact that in 2005 we have no vision of the efficiency of spending that 0.10 percent of resources, hinders and complicates our political response, which is necessary when we are faced with discrimination and disadvantage. Nevertheless, the Parliament has already passed legislation on the explicit proposal of the social partners that must give us and the social partners access to the results of the 0.10 percent commitment.

For example, I would like to point out that a not so old law, which actually extends the law of 16 May 2003 for the implementation of the previous interprofessional agreement, very precisely stipulates in its article 4 how the government, the Department of Employment and the Chamber of People’s Representatives should write and report on the efforts in sectors and companies. Today, like so many years ago, we notice that that legal provision has remained dead letter and that until today we have no report in our House, despite the law on that point being ⁇ clear and clear.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, that we are debating here about a bill implementing an IPA, proves that the Chamber, the politics, has a particular respect for the social consultation, for the social agreements made between employers and trade unions. Well, the least we can demand is that the social partners also show some respect for our House, the government, those who are required by law to be informed of the results of their efforts in the field.

I myself will urge the Speaker of the House that his institute, the House of Representatives, be respected and effectively receive the reports that should inform us about how day after day attempts are made to give risky groups additional opportunities. I think we, as policymakers, can also draw our conclusions.

The second example may be even more painful, in the sense that we already see in various interprofessional agreements the social partners commit to eliminate the hopelessly obsolete distinction between workers and servants.

Also at the beginning of this year, during those difficult negotiations, we noticed a remarkable passage on this subject in the draft IPA. This time, the text was even slightly more accurate than the previous times, as the social partners committed to report on a new statute by the end of 2005 – another seven months to go. A paritary committee, headed by an independent chairman, would be established and the new statute would be worked out. Also here again we learned during the discussion in the Social Affairs Committee that there is not yet a draft of a new statute. Moreover, there is even no mention of the committee that should start working on this.

On this point, my group wants to be especially clear. If the social partners fail to develop a new unity statute within the next seven months, this becomes entirely a government responsibility. You cannot take over a part of the design interprofessional agreement and a part not. This commitment contained in the Interprofessional Agreement must be effectively implemented. If the social partners do not do it, the Chamber will have to do it. As far as we are concerned, we would prefer to do so on a proposal from the government, which is expected to present a draft in Parliament in the spring of 2006. For the present unjust and arbitrary separation between workers and servants creates acidification, inequality and injustice.

I want to give an example. Currently, in my region, negotiations are ongoing on a painful closure of a metal business due to a relocalization. The draft agreement under negotiation provides for a closure premium for employees based on the well-known Claeys formula, while workers will have to do so with the legally established minimum closure premium. A picky detail in this is that there are people both among the workers and among the servants who deliver exactly the same performance in the same enterprise.

This is only to indicate that we cannot and should not live with it. This effectively creates inequalities that have all sorts of perverse social consequences. I would like to point out that the removal of the distinction between workers and servants will undoubtedly lead to an administrative simplification that will put the efforts of the Secretary of State to nothing if we can effectively implement the statute of unity.

Mrs. Minister, so far a series of political concerns that I wanted to formulate on behalf of my group, with special attention to the risk groups and the worker-employed file. However, this does not exclude the fact that, despite the fact that these matters were not fully regulated in the draft law, the sp.a. does not fully support the present draft. That draft enables the implementation of matters on which an agreement existed, not least because it simultaneously regulates a number of legislative initiatives of our group.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I say this from the beginning: the MR group will today give its voices to the draft law "social concertation" that executes the Interprofessional Agreement 2005-2006. We thus seal the fate of a long and difficult negotiation, but the positive consequences of which must be measured in two titles: first, because it concerns the daily life of more than 2.5 million workers, and second, because the translation of this agreement by the government carries a strong political significance. As for the concrete consequences, I see three important ones. The first is flexibility. This word sometimes scares, it is stigmatized as if it was synonymous with precariousness. However, this is false: on the contrary, flexibility most often meets the expectations of the vast majority of workers who wish, for example, to ensure that their personal or family life is as compatible as possible with their professional life. This flexibility is therefore a way to make the various aspects of each individual’s life compatible and to help them organize their working time and family life according to the imperatives encountered in the various areas of their personal life.

This notion of flexibility is important and we should welcome the common sense of negotiators who have surpassed the ideological barrier that often accompanies the consideration of the principle of flexibility. This flexibility can respond to the need of companies to react to the demand of their clients and the different markets, but it also meets the expectations of workers who will now be able to increase their pocket salary, while returning to the rigidity of a rate of 38 hours/week, which does not necessarily correspond to their current aspirations or the requirements and specificities of certain business sectors.

It is the new mechanism of overtime that makes it possible to meet these expectations: it goes in the right direction by allowing the worker to choose either the path of a more comfortable remuneration or the path of an arrangement of rest periods.

I do not think that the worker chooses between wage or compensatory rest. Not at all! In any case, the surcharge is always paid to him, whether a rest is decided or not. The difference lies at the time when he will completely touch his extra hour.

You can also choose not to work extra hours. In fact, a surplus of freedom of choice is given to the worker. Either he continues to do what he did before, and the interprofessional agreement does not in any way obligate him to change his working habits; or, on the contrary, he considers that he will benefit and enjoy what this new possibility offers him. I think therefore that it is increasing the freedom of the worker and his free choice. This means, in any case, not imposing any new constraints on him. This seems to me to be a significant advance that goes in the right direction.

It would have been quite different if it had been done by imperatives, by obligations or by constraints. But of course this is not the case. It is simply made so that if he chooses to do a certain number of extra hours, he is more gratified in terms of remuneration. There is a new possibility that is offered to him and which does not entail any constraints.

You did not understand me.

and yes. It is like that.

I want to explain to you.

No additional hours are imposed on the employee. It is completely free not to do so. No text imposes it. The range of possibilities in terms of extra hours is simply expanded. It is an advance unless, ideologically, it is considered that the extra hour as such is a sacrilegious and quite inept thing. But then it becomes ideology, and the benefits or opportunities offered to the worker himself are no longer considered.

The second concrete achievement of this inter-professional agreement is the emphasis on research and development. In order to stimulate innovation, which is known to be crucial and decisive in relation to the competitive position of enterprises, the Interprofessional Agreement addresses a specific request to the federal government to create for a year, on an experimental basis, a legal framework in which the premiums granted to the worker introducing new products or new processes would be exempt from tax and social security contributions. With that in mind, the government has responded to an expectation. It thus complements its policy in favour of burden reductions and specific tax measures for researchers or as part of the creation of the idea fund.

It is obvious that our group fully supports these measures, as it is true that they are the primary key to opening the possibilities of a return to employment in our country.

Third concrete achievement and always in the same perspective or ultimately in the same logic, it should be emphasized the effort of our government for the attractiveness of low wages through the means consented to the success of the employment credit bonus. I will return to this element that I think is crucial in the fight against unemployment. Work is emancipatory, it must always be more remunerative than the social allowance, more advantageous than the social allowance. I think this is a basic rule. It is important to note that this is not always the case and that some situations are still currently employment traps that we must effectively combat. There is a need to increase the pocket wage of workers and this is what these governments have been doing since 1999, by reducing charges, especially and mainly on low wages, which I think is important, and by introducing the employment credit bonus.

I now come to the more political aspect of this project, to its political significance. It was said that the negotiations were difficult: at some point, we even talked about failure since one of the partners, the base of one of the partners, rejected a text that had nevertheless been signed by its governing bodies.

I would like to point out that no trade union organization of the Common Front has signed this draft agreement.

I’m talking about the leaders, the privileged class of organizations, who have accepted this agreement at some point. There was a distortion between the base and the direction that may live outside of reality. If this is what you want to tell me, I take note of it. There was indeed a gap between the interests as perceived by the working-class base and what determined for them by a certain direction of the organizations. Yes, it’s true and that’s why I say that these negotiations have been difficult.

Nevertheless, the government made the right move, fully implementing the outcome of the negotiations. And that is important.

These negotiations could only be achieved thanks to a significant fiscal effort made by the government on most of the negotiated points. I recall that this is a package of 252 million released by the budget control with, beyond the employment credit bonus, special attention for overtime, for teamwork, from the budget of the Minister of Finance. This is a further demonstration — it must be said — of social realization through taxation. So I think once and for all — but it seems that some do not see reality as it exists — that there is no antagonism between the fiscal and the social, quite the opposite! This inter-professional agreement sufficiently demonstrates that the tax pathway leads to social improvements.

On condition, however, not to empty the state or social security funds. Otherwise, what policy would you lead, for example, for public services?

I hear you, Madame God. In any case, I can tell you that until proof of the contrary, the reductions of tax charges that we have incurred in recent years have not prevented the surplus of tax revenues in this country, on a general level. On the contrary! If your reasoning was correct, you should explain how it happens that, despite the reductions in tax burden, we have, compared to the forecasts of tax revenues, extremely large surpluses of revenues. In fact, the ideal situation, Madame, would be that each individual pays less taxes but that all together we pay more taxes because everyone would pay a little. This is where the big difference between our perceptions of things lies.

For our part, we believe that the new growth that is possible if sufficiently reduced charges and taxes allows to expand both fiscal and social plates and thus generate sufficient revenues to guarantee social protection. The debate is not about whether, by collecting fewer taxes, we risk putting social protection or public services at risk. Rather, it is about ensuring that, by reducing the social and fiscal burdens, more growth and economic activity are generated, which would precisely guarantee the quality of public services and social protection.

The government and the political class in general have been widely accused of primarily dealing with, for example, institutional problems such as BHV and of doing only that. We have here the opposite demonstration since the government, I think, has done a useful and necessary work to unlock a situation and translate it concretely into reality.

Finally, it must be said to the opinion that our majority is working in coherence, looking for solutions to raise our employment rate. For our group, these solutions must be based – I said – on growth, on the ability to generate new jobs through economic activity. Of course, some targeted policies can be effective – I think for example of the success of service titles – but it’s important above all to focus our efforts on the best way to grow economic activity.

We therefore welcome the choices made by the social partners who devote this concern, somehow liberal. I think of the reasonable salary standard. It would be appropriate for our country to become competitive again in this area, or at least, that is the goal pursued.

The [...]

If it is not the companies that create jobs, I do not know exactly who will do it. I can understand that the usual spokesman of a miserabilist discourse, tending to say that everything concerning reductions of charges, taxes, etc. It is a policy that goes against the social interests in our country, be somewhat embarrassed.

Madame God, it must be agreed that this interprofessional agreement is the first of its kind, in the sense that, for the first time, indeed, it is not about jeopardizing the competitiveness of enterprises but rather about making the competitiveness of enterprises compatible with the possibility for workers to benefit from charges reductions and tax reductions.

I think this is a first. I understand your perplexity, your doubts about this, since you have never, it seems to me, been accustomed to this kind of agreement before. It is a new mode, essentially based on charges reductions and tax reductions that allow workers to benefit from better conditions than before in the context of social concertation.

This element seems to me ⁇ important. We should be pleased to have achieved this compatibility. There are, of course, many reforms to be made. This is clear, and I will not deny it. Today we should focus on the famous career debate. Not about the end of the career debate, as is said too often. It is not about targeting his policy only on the 5564 years, that would be insufficient. On the contrary, it is necessary to reconsider the whole career, to redesign the whole career path. It should not be allowed to believe that only one age class assumes today our low employment rate. It is not accurate. This is the whole career that should be considered, and not just the end of the career.

In such a sensitive case, it does not seem realistic to consider an outcome that has some ambition, while we would limit ourselves essentially to asking those at the end of their career to provide a little more effort. Sure, this effort is indispensable, but it will only be accepted if strong bonds between generations are imagined at the same time.

Flexible measures are needed to streamline the course of the entire working life. The success of such a reorganization can only be believed if concrete solutions of perfect integration between the time of private life and the time of professional life are developed in parallel.

In this regard, our aspirations have actually changed and modern technologies are probably opening up new perspectives. This renewal must be done. The example of the mechanism of overtime in the interprofessional agreement shows that ideological divisions can be overcome in areas that were believed to be closed or taboo. We must continue on this path and open the way for a set of new solutions, allowing to liberate both workers and employers.

The National Conference on Employment of October 2003 enabled an exchange of ideas resulting in a number of concrete solutions. The re-release of a forum of this type would probably allow everyone to advance claims, not limiting the debate to career purposes, of which we know the propensity to crush somewhat the different speakers.

In conclusion, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, how pleased we are to have been able to reach agreements based both on the need to maintain the competitiveness of our companies and the purchasing power of workers, as well as on the possibility of generating social benefits of a different nature, but which truly correspond to the aspirations of workers in the context of their daily and professional life.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, soon ⁇ a large majority will press the green button to approve the law that should translate the IPA into law. We of the Flemish Interest will not do that and will abstain, and for various reasons.

First, with our abstinence we want to send a signal to the social partners that those inter-professional negotiations were ⁇ not high-profile for social consultation, on the contrary. These IPA negotiations were the first of three obstacles that the social partners had to take this year, in addition to the upcoming debate on the end of the career and the financing of social security. It was actually the easiest obstacle of the three. But it was sad at the end of the day to see how the social partners went in clinch with each other and blamed each other to the head. The result was: long negotiations that ultimately threatened to result in nothing.

Without the many millions of euros of the government that had to serve as a lubricant to reach an agreement, that social consultation would have become a complete flop and it would ⁇ not have been able to fulfill the expectations. The miniature agreement purchased by the government eventually got to process the rejection of the trade union backbone.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that social partners should be well aware that they have an important role to play in our social consultation model, but that they should also take their responsibilities in this regard. It is our opinion that there should be clearer signals from the government to the social partners that the play time is over. We face important challenges that will require courage, both due to the Parliament and the government as well as the assurance and determination of the social partners. When I see the manoeuvres being carried out to slow down the pressing debate about career end, I am pessimistic about the near future.

Social partners should be well aware that they are threatening to put themselves out of play. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that you will be determined and will take your own responsibility if it turns out that there is no willingness on the ground to carry out the necessary reform of the labour market.

Regarding the measures themselves, we are of course pleased that some incentives are given in the IPA. I think of the adjustment of overtime and teamwork, as well as the establishment of the Fund to promote access to employment for persons with disabilities, the extension of the application of the Closing Fund. These are all positive elements that can be achieved thanks to the financial contribution of the government. However, we should not be euphoric about it. These are the first steps in the right direction, which need to be further expanded in the near future.

What we as the Flemish Interest cannot agree with is the way in which the active guidance and follow-up of the unemployed is organized. The State Council had fundamental observations in that sense that it correctly stated that there is an intervention in the territory of the regions by financing matters which are not within the competence of the federal government. This is, of course, because one does not work from homogeneous power packages and at the same time must see that the system does not work.

We, as Vlaams Belang, have been advocating for years to address such problems in substance and thus to defederalize the entire guidance and follow-up, including the unemployment insurance.

This would benefit an efficient governance and would thus also place each Region on its own responsibilities. The consequences of a loose attitude or approach by one of the regions would then have to be borne by that region itself and can no longer give rise to discussions, as we must have experienced too much in recent months. It would also lead to all kinds of cooperation agreements that are not being complied with.

However, these logical conclusions are not taken in this country. It limits itself to some clamping agents, which we will regrettably have to establish in the foreseeable time that they brought little sode to the dive.

I would also like to make a call here regarding the unity statute. I remember that in April 2000 we unanimously adopted a motion calling for an immediate solution to this justified problem. More than five years later, we must now conclude that we are still not a step further. In recent IPAs, this problem was repeatedly discussed, but it was always postponed. The only thing we always heard from the social partners is that the politics would not interfere with it. The social partners will solve it themselves.

I also read in this IPA draft that the social partners say they are best placed to do so. Once again, a committee was envisaged, this time even under the leadership, as Commission Chairman Hans Bonte said, of an independent chairman, who must ensure that a report on the new statute is drawn up by the end of this year.

Mrs. Minister, from your reply in the committee I understood that there is no movement at all and that, unfortunately, at the end of 2005, we will only have to establish that we are as far away as we were so many years ago.

In this document, our only message to the social partners is the following. The Parliament is tired of it, the social partners have seized their opportunity and the politics will and must take responsibility. I therefore hope that by the end of 2005, if we find that there is no shot in that file, we can begin to consider the submitted bills on this subject.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Flemish Interest, I say that the IPA is insufficient and that the reforms are developing too slowly. This may not surprise you. It is not five for twelve, but five for twelve. If we want to carry out the urgent reforms that are necessary to dynamise our labour market, we all, and not least the social partners, will have to pull out of a different vessel.

In any case, we are counting on a strong policy, also with regard to the upcoming dossiers, with the social partners where possible, but without the social partners as it should. For this reason, my group will abstain when voting on that law.

I have received a number of questions and calls about the innovation awards. It is useful for the government to target the suggestions that are not the subject of normal work. In other words, it is not just about suggestions that fall outside the normal work, so not within a predictable research assignment, for example, but that are also actually implemented in the enterprise. The chance that this is the case for more than 10% of employees in a year is relatively small. However, I am willing to do the evaluation after a year anyway and see if that constitutes a problem. I do not think that will be the case.

As regards the limitation of the expansion of the Fund for the Closure of Enterprises, I simply have to answer that that is the express will of the social partners. Per ⁇ I can formulate this a little more accurately by saying that it is the express will of the social partners, who, of course, must have found a compromise, also in that file. That is not to say that in the ideal of the worlds either partner might not have wanted to go a little further, but since the government has committed to make the IPA as it is integrally drawn up, a design of the social partners, it also means that for the decision on the Fund for the Closure of Enterprises we have done exactly what the social partners had in mind.

I come to the extension of the intervention of the 2002 law to the non-profit sector. The implementation KB has been in the NAR for research since May 2003. The committee also pointed to me this week and I also sent a letter to the NAR to urge him to urgently, because the long-term is indeed unacceptable. I can only give you the right. I try to get back with you.

Finally, the reason why the reporting of the sectors is too late, both to Parliament and to the government, is that my predecessor has rightly reinforced that reporting by framing it into global training efforts. Apparently, it took a little time to adapt to the new way of reporting. Currently, all these sector reports are collected by the FOD. This means that they will be there in the foreseeable time and that they will also be delivered to Parliament immediately.

Does anyone still ask for the word in the general discussion?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to apologize for not being able to intervene in the debate; I was busy with something else and I did not think it would go so quickly! I will summarize my speech.

I look forward to the conclusion of the Interprofessional Agreement. We should congratulate the social partners for being able to keep their cold-blood. Indeed, if the government put resources on the table, the circumstances under which this happened, in December 2004 and in January 2005, were ⁇ difficult. I remember a plenary session, one Thursday afternoon, during which I interpelled the prime minister because, that day, the press circulated significantly different amounts from those announced by the government.

I am satisfied with the refinement of the agreement concluded in the text and amendments because I think that the social partners are in phase with the “finished” product.

The CDH truly hopes that with its support on this plan, the government will address the socio-economic matters and will be able to catch up with the delay taken in other cases that have overwhelmed us all. The figure of 200,000 jobs to be created, set as a goal in July 2003, may have been quoted to impress. If we no longer focus on it, the goal of creating additional net employment remains.

The work in the committee indicates that the service securities and the social economy produce results but these two elements are quite accessory in the country’s overall economy. We also hope that, in the coming weeks, significant results will be recorded in the major sectors of the country’s activity. We will assist you in your constructive projects and we will help the government to realize its ambitions.