Proposition 51K2128

Projet de loi relatif au Pacte de solidarité entre les générations.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 30, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

supplementary pension work tax relief vocational training paid leave direct tax disabled person tax on income young worker youth unemployment purchasing power cost of living pay pay policy pay scale redundancy cessation of trading traineeship older worker pension scheme personnel administration social-security contribution temporary employment corporation tax population ageing employment policy self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Ecolo

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 15, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

I also refer to this in my written report.

Madame Cahay-André, you have the word for your report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I have forgotten one or the other detail.

The Covenant of Solidarity between Generations was debated in the Social Affairs Committee on Wednesday 7 December until 02.30 pm. During this session, many remarks and attentions were made to the text presented by the government. I would add that the debate was conducted in a very dignified manner and that the content of the speeches was very positive.

I will stick to the main points and proceed in the order in which the project has been submitted to us. by

For Social Affairs, Minister Demotte, in his introductory presentation, specifies that this title consists of four chapters, namely the welfare link mechanism and social corrections, the additional reduction relating to young workers, the measures for the employment of low-skilled young people in the non-market sector and the alternative financing of social security.

With regard to the link to well-being and social corrections, it is the implementation of the decisions of the Council of Ministers of Ostende, to which have been incorporated the supplements agreed on the occasion of the discussions of the Solidarity Pact.

In view of the reduction of social contributions for certain target groups such as youth and older workers, the government proposes to allocate to the creation of additional jobs for low-skilled young people the theoretical amount that should be returned to the non-market sector as part of the additional reduction "young workers". As regards alternative financing, the Minister operates an extension of the alternative financing base of social security by adding 15% of the revenue from the furniture pre-count and of the excise taxes from tobacco. This chapter includes two points concerning in particular the social security of independent workers. These include the use of the scheme bonus as a result of the increase in alternative financing in an accelerated repayment of the debt that the scheme still charges to the State, and the establishment of a special alternative financing to finance the measure aimed at granting service titles to self-employed women in the context of maternity aid.

Mrs D'Hondt regrets that the Pact does not contain the way in which the government intends to guarantee long-term financing of social security while preserving social achievements. Even though reductions in social contributions are a first step in the right direction, they are not enough.

Ms D'Hondt also acknowledges that the government is making efforts to find alternative financing for social security, but these efforts are not sufficient. It is especially regrettable that the government does not structurally change the system. The government should continue to seek other sources of financing than those proposed in the Covenant.

by Mr. Delizée believes that all the topics developed by the minister have been the subject of negotiation between the government and the social partners. He stresses that, for his group, the linking of welfare benefits is a priority and that currently one and a half million Belgians live below the poverty line and that therefore it is urgent to adapt the benefits to welfare. by Mr. Delizée is pleased that the project provides for financing through IPP and ISOC, furniture prepaid and tobacco excise duties.

by Mr. Bultinck acknowledges that some measures are interesting in terms of reducing social contributions and hopes for a return effect. by Mr. Drèze emphasizes that it is becoming increasingly imperative to link social benefits to well-being, given the increasing gap between wages and social benefits. Regarding alternative financing, the speaker welcomes the allocation of 15% of the outcome of the pre-account to social security, but believes that further needs to be taken.

by Mr. Charles Michel highlights from the beginning that the themes that the committee deals with are essential for the quality of life of citizens today and tomorrow. It seems clear that the double objective must be to significantly increase the employment rate and to ensure, through social security mechanisms, a strong, just and equitable interpersonal solidarity within social security, given that this system also supports economic activity.

The government has had the courage to make bold proposals in this direction. While it is essential to guarantee economic activity in order to support employment, we must not forget the necessary social peace by prioritizing social dialogue. All living forces in the country must be able to join the proposals of the Covenant. To this end, all actors, including trade union organisations, should be held accountable. Ms. Genot believes that the government has missed the opportunity to completely refine the social security system and to provide for a completely new financing system.

The pact makes various attempts but does not provide for new social coverage.

The pact also does not contain — she says — a comprehensive reflection on working time, so workers will be penalized and will have to continue to “bricle” with the part-time system to try to reconcile their working life with their family life.

The pact simply tells workers that they must stay at work, but does not give them the means to do so as is the case in other countries.

Ms Genot approves the revaluation of the oldest pensions because Belgium has the lowest pensions in Europe. Unfortunately, nothing is provided for other benefits and in particular for unemployment benefits.

Our President Mr. Hans Bonte, believes that the pact constitutes a coherent set of balanced and ambitious measures that offer solutions, in particular to the problem of the ageing population. It will, of course, be necessary to verify in the facts whether the recommended measures have been implemented on the ground.

In order to be able to ⁇ the objectives of the pact, it is necessary that all actors in the sector assume their responsibilities, both the Regions and Communities as well as the employers and trade union organizations, continues Mr. and good.

It is important not to have taboo on social security financing and to try to diversify the sources of financing as much as possible.

The draft law under consideration is a step in the right direction, but it will probably have to go further in the future.

In terms of employment and pensions, Minister Tobback is prevented. Vanvelthoven who was present during our discussions. The Minister preferred to enter directly into the general discussion.

Ms. Turtelboom notes that the package of measures that constitutes this project is based on consensus within the government. It should be emphasized that these measures address different categories and are therefore modulated for this purpose, but that they are integrated into a general objective that is to change mentalities. This pact tries to initiate developments without dismantling our social security system.

Mrs D'hondt is extremely critical of this project, both in terms of its content and the method used by the government. On the bottom, she believes that the government has completely neglected to convince the population of the well-founded extension of the career. However, it was essential to show that the proposed measures are necessary instruments to make our economy work and thus create jobs for newcomers to the labour market. Of course, we must be aware that pre-emption is by no means an absolute right. However, it must be able to continue to exist as a rescue solution.

In any case, it will be necessary to send a strong signal to the economic world to get it to adapt to older workers. If the latter are asked to remain active on the labour market, it is also necessary to ask the employers to get out of the logic of yield that encourages them to push older workers out.

Ms Genot is of the opinion that the government has neglected to seek a consensus that would have given a broad foundation to the project. On the contrary, the impression prevails in the population that it is the small ones who pay. There is a shortage of explanations that the purchase of advertising pages in the press does not compensate.

Lahaye-Battheu notes with satisfaction that the Solidarity Pact can constitute the basis for a socio-economic environment in which work becomes the norm again. It is essential that everyone understands that the changes in the economy and the restructuring that they entail must not result in five-year-olds automatically in the situation of pre-retirement.

by Mr. Delizée insists on the fact that a concertation between the different actors has taken place. He emphasizes four points that he considers essential. These include prepensions and youth employment, conventional prepensions, time credits and reconversion cells.

by Mr. Charles Michel acknowledges that the government proposes a pact with a certain consistency but that its examination is entirely fragmented, given that it falls within the competence of different ministers. He adds that the debate is difficult because many provisions will be fixed by royal decree. This debate would have been more interesting and clear if the draft royal arrests could have been communicated to the members.

Personally, I made a small comment on the situation in our country with regard to the unemployed who can receive unlimited unemployment benefits in time. This situation is rare and sometimes the statistics are false. Furthermore, I insisted on the fact that we must try at all costs to avoid employment traps.

by Mr. Vanvelthoven, Minister of Employment, highlights the importance of this pact, which he hopes will lead to a change of mentality among the population. The scale of the demonstration demonstrated the concern of the population. However, many are those who understand that in Belgium, the government has opted for legality and gentleness, while moving forward. The reality shows that the unemployment figures are poor and that Belgium is in a weak position compared to neighboring countries. In the face of this reality, things must change. The Minister believes that a good formula, although softly, has been retained. He recalls that the present pact has been the subject of maximum concertation.

In the article-by-article discussion, some amendments were adopted. These are those coming from the government and some from the majority. They complete the pact.

All provisions of the bill on the Pact of Solidarity between Generations submitted to the Social Affairs Committee as amended by the amendments were adopted by ten votes and five abstentions.

This was a summary of the discussions that took place in the committee on this important project. For the rest, I refer to the written report, for which I thank the Commission Secretariat and the services for the quality and speed with which they have drawn up this report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Minister, the focus of the Generation Pact is of course in the committees for Finance and Social Affairs. So I will be shorter than Mrs. Cahay-André.

That does not mean that the part of Minister Laruelle is less important in the contribution of the Generation Pact than that of the other ministers. In fact, it is about important things, such as the welfare adjustment of the pensions of the self-employed and the beginning of the abolition of the penalization.

We have discussed this. There is consensus that it is a step in the right direction, of course with different accents. I recommend that you read the comments of Mr. Wathelet, Mrs. Pieters, Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Tant, Lenssen, Koen T'Sijen and Mrs. Douifi.

As it was a step in the right direction, that part of the Generation Pact was adopted with eight votes and two abstentions.

That was a brief report, Mr. Lano.

The following speakers have already registered. The list can still change after adjustments, which I am always willing to discuss. At the moment, 11 speakers have registered: Mrs D'hondt, Mr Drèze, Mrs Turtelboom, Mr Bacquelaine, Mr Bultinck. After Mr. Bultinck, we will pause for a moment.

After the interruption, Mr Delizée, Mr Bonte, Mrs Genot, Mrs De Block and Mr Lambert shall speak. These are the 11 speakers that have been registered so far.

The speaker list is not yet closed. For that, it is still too early. Maybe we can stay in that atmosphere.

Mrs D’Hondt has the word.

Mr. Speaker, gentlemen ministers, colleagues, see me standing here in my strip costume, looking my age or older, not flashy and not sexy. After all the commotions of this week, one might wonder what I actually dare to come to the tribune to do. One might say, “Your time is actually over.”

This is about the Generation Pact.

( ... ...

Your predecessor goes to a Belgian dressmaker.

Either, Mr. Minister, you have a very good ministerial life insurance — a life insurance on ministerial posts — or you have taken an irresponsible risk with that strip costume. I leave it in the middle. Time will show it.

Why I am here this afternoon on behalf of the CD&V group in the debate on the so-called Generation Pact, is because I, like so many colleagues from the CD&V group, actually attach more importance to the content of the dossiers and to the knowledge of the dossiers. This is also the input of my argument, as well as in previous interventions in other dossiers.

I dare, however, here, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, despite my appearance, today in this debate stand on the tribune because I also know the ordinary people a little and have more than side-side feelings with the economic life and business.

Did you know that by shuffling the Dutch ministers, all ordinary Belgian or Flemish citizens in stripes, who look older than their age and are not trendy or sexy, are also shuffled? I’m not talking about the members of parliament who can forget to once again become a minister. I think we can already choose who will still have that chance.

What I haven’t read anywhere in the text of the Generation Pact is that one has to be sexy or hip to have to work longer. The man in the striped suit, who is not sexy, must go to work with us to make this Generation Pact a reality. Per ⁇ I could submit an amendment to this Generation Pact, aiming to ensure that those who look older than their age should no longer work. That would be in line with what Steve Stevaert says, that it is the kilometre meter that counts, not the body. Per ⁇ we could indeed submit an amendment aiming at allowing those who, often through very hard work, look older, to go earlier. Their

I don’t have to do it too long, I think.

You worry me!

Many construction workers, metalworkers, plywood workers and caregivers might be grateful to me for that amendment, because they indeed carry the signs, also external signs, of very hard work.

Those statements—which are said abundantly by our faction leader, even if it is the late afternoon—are typical of the perception government that is purple. The packaging counts. This also applies to the policy: what is in it is actually side-by-side and more than once sub-sized. Until then, as long as it is about politics.

But the centralization of perception, of the look, of how it appears, is now also applied to people. Whether it’s Dutch or Flaming, it’s about the vision that one has of man. Not the qualities of a person are important, but how he looks. What a dedain and what a flaw!

This proves — and we insist on this — that we as CD&V, with our pleasures and our proposals for respect, were and are on the right track. Respect is the ideal antidote to purple. Respect for the strip dress, respect for the older employees, respect for less hip people, and above all respect for the truth.

Do you want an old-fashioned view of politics? I like to give them.

Politicians should not be your best friend. You should not love it, you need other people, such as family and friends. Politicians should not radiate on the cover of all kinds of magazines, there are professionals for that. They should not play in TV games, because there are also professionals for that.

Politicians must be professionals in policy making. They need to know their files. They must be moved to give the citizens of their country and of the world a future. That is conducting a policy. This is solving social problems. Whether it’s flashy or sexy, it’s what people expect from us.

If we want to address and solve the problems in our country, let us begin, ladies and gentlemen, with comprehensive and urgent measures to support our economy and to restore our competitive position with the reference countries. Make our economic growth more attractive. Ensure that the framework measures are taken and make agreements with the economic life and social partners on better translating economic growth into more employment. Have the courage to adjust and secure the financing of social security on a structural basis.

Turning more stable economic growth into more work is the only basis to convince people that there is work and that there is work to work with more people a little longer. That is our job as politicians.

A genuine generation pact should appeal to people to take responsibilities now, with effect in the future.

However, a genuine generation pact must also respect people. It should not only remove old assurances, but at the same time give new and stable perspectives and assurances.

The so-called Generation Pact leaves people in uncertainty on too many points. Various frames or lists are displayed, but what paintings or photos will be included in them is still a big question. Nevertheless, the companies, the workers, and today us in Parliament, are asked to say how beautiful that show garment is. This is, of course, not possible, because there are still too many very important points to be completed with all possible implementing decisions, whether or not linked to consultation.

Whether we fully agree with the content or not, it would have been honorable to the generations in this society that must bear the Generation Pact, or whatever name it gets, and to the Parliament, that at the moment when one asks the fiat about it, one at least knew what it was about and that one could answer the questions that the people ask us — and you too, if you are honest — with a much greater certainty than is today. It is both about the equal periods, the heavy professions, and many other matters.

The start was not bad, but this so-called Generation Pact has actually continued to stick in the promise of a powerful and future-oriented policy.

Colleagues, after our employment rate has remained stable at around 60% for six years, and the well-known demographic problems have come six years closer, it was actually in the summer the moment to force a breakthrough on three levels. This pact should have ensured that in the short term a number of pain points of our economic support, of our labour market and of the financial future of our social security were resolved.

In the longer term, these initial incentives should have been continued, in order to adequately arm our labour market, our economy and our budgetary starting position, both of the State and of the social security, to the economic and social consequences of the demographic challenges that will quickly hit us anyway from 2010 onwards.

In order to give these reforms a chance to succeed and to be carried by the population, they should actually have been more complete and more complete. In each of the three areas I have just cited, there are indeed no uninteresting incentives in the Generation Pact. However, it is winter and the government has asthma. It started well and then it did not go. I don’t know where it went, but the government apparently didn’t have enough breath to move forward and convince the public that we do not only hurt in the short term, but provide long-term assurances.

In this speech, I said in all honesty that the faulty way in which the negotiations on the Generation Pact were conducted was not due solely to the government. Social partners should also take responsibility in this regard.

I stand here today as a member of Parliament and I do not have the professional competence to judge the social partners. However, I have the professional authority to judge the government. It must be my heart again – I have already said it in the committee and on other occasions – that the Generation Pact today is neither enforceable nor a pact. A pact means that one has been able to go together to the final line and that one has been able to conclude agreements. These agreements are not included. In addition to an analysis of the commitment and responsibilities of the social partners, I would like to now analyze the contribution of the government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, until this summer, anyone who dared to say something about the economic situation of this country and about employment was an acidified opposition member. No statistics could prove that the Prime Minister had four others that proved the opposite. It went well in this country.

And this summer, the crickets had to say that we should become ants. I wonder if in the ordinary daily life you have ever experienced the flattering of a cradle to a ants. This is impossible in nature. This is also impossible in politics. The people know that.

Either it was the time of cricket and it continues to be so, or it was the time of ants and it continues to be so. CD&V has always said that it was the age of ants and that it will continue to be. To be able to explain with credibility and authority difficult choices – matters in which people are very emotionally involved – and to say that we must all put our shoulders under them because it is necessary for the future of this country, of our children, of our economy and of our employment, one must not be a crack.

One may not have to be a ants for this, but one must have the seriousness to dare to see the things as they have been drawn up for years and months ahead. This is precisely why you started the negotiations on the Generation Pact. When we came to the people, they wondered what exactly was going on. Everything went well, for seven years there was a balanced budget. What can happen to them now? Why did they have to do it now? The eighth, tenth, and eleventh would probably be good too. This was a mistake from the beginning.

The next one will then come. I have already said that the Generation Pact is not yet fulfilled, not yet sufficiently fulfilled. We do not know whose photo would be on the lists on the show jacket. For me, it should be a big picture. Their

We do not yet know who will be on the show. This is what people blame us very much. We decide tonight about their lives and their future. I invite the colleagues of the majority, including those who had the texts of the implementing decisions, to say with honour and conscience whether they can answer the concrete questions of the people. If they can do this, then they really have a reason to send this lady with the striped suit away forever from the tribune because then my time is over and I have missed the business. However, the majority colleagues do not know it either. If one wants to intervene in the lives of people, one must also be able to give them meaningful answers.

Much earlier than today, the Prime Minister at the State of the Union had and would make his great statement on the Generation Pact. Kilometers too early. If he could “keep his mouth in his plumes,” to say it on his Flemish, then it would probably have been different with the Generation Pact. But no, it was of course far from the only thing he could say in that State of the Union. It had to come out! He had to say that only from 60 years old can you get a bridge pension. The game was on the car! The fence was from the dam! In the negotiations, it was not 60 years, but 58 years with a gradual evolution to 60 years. Social partners felt betrayed and abandoned.

Finally, there was the claim that the modalities could be further negotiated. In reality, gentlemen ministers, colleagues, this also turned out to be empty words. In fact, the social partners have been able to take note of the changes in a thorough manner. The fact that 100,000 people came to the streets on 28 October was insufficient as a signal to give the social consultation a new dimension. Today there is again anger and frustration among the social partners, both employers and trade unions, over the retroactive introduction of the provisions on the payable contributions to the Canada Dry Schemes. I will not comment on the timeliness or non-opportunity of these decisions. However, what the social partners greatly blame the government is that this was not actually agreed with them. At least this is how they testify in the various newspapers today.

Worse, I think, is that the relationship between the social partners on the one hand and the social partners and the government on the other is disturbed at a time when so many more essential points of the so-called Generation Pact need to get a concrete fulfillment and there are also knots to be cut through on very sensitive files. I will name only a few examples: the approximation of the status of workers and servants and the representation of workers in small enterprises. These are things that one will not get out of if there is no great trust and respect for each other.

Ministers, colleagues, the way in which the text came into being materially testifies of a yet not really great respect for the tradition of social consultation, then the way in which the legal text came into being then again testifies of a very great contempt for the Parliament and the Council of State. Numerous authorizations to the King were carried out in as many as 41 of the original 101 articles. Observations of the State Council on these or other aspects were also considered inappropriate in the discussions in the committee. Everything is almost hurry, cutting and gluing, and the State Council was given only five days to comment on the draft. That is very little and hardly less than the Social Affairs Committee between the time of submission and the time of discussion of this draft. Their

The rapporteur, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that we have indeed conducted and completed the discussions in the committee in a constructive atmosphere around 2 p.m. at night. That is not too much, for you must imagine that this Parliament — your Chamber, Mr. President! — the plan for the future was actually difficult to read before having to start the discussions. Or this is indeed, what I think, the pact that was needed to make this government survive another last year. Or this is the Generation Pact, a pact with which all generations in this country want to maintain the future of the social welfare state in this country, our Rhineland model. Then we must give everyone in the field the opportunity to process and accept this. Then we must also give the legislature, this Parliament, time to ensure that that future is translated substantially and juridically correctly. This, Mr. President, is not given to this Chamber, as is more. This should actually be discussed quietly in this Parliament almost by the dimension it has, by the impact it has on the future, with the necessary time for a cooling period and a resumption. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, you will not be surprised that, in connection with the Generation Pact, I once again emphasize the difficult situation of employment and competitiveness in this country. In this country there is a declining competitiveness of our companies and a surpassing of the wage standard. The high oil price, in which the government has made some mistakes and is also responsible, and our impaired national economic condition, are an additional problem. These elements together make exports grow slower this year than our imports and also grow slower than in our neighboring countries. Their

This means that a lower than expected economic growth is already being announced. Everyone knows that this of the weather reversal is a lower employment growth. On this level, we bend to the tail of the countries of Europe. My colleagues, I say this very clearly. I am not based on home-made statistics but on the data of the ILO/ILO and Eurostat. These data show that the Belgian unemployment rate has increased by 0.3 percentage points compared to last year. This brings us to the tail of Europe. Only Cyprus, Hungary and Luxembourg have made it even worse. Our three neighboring countries recorded better performance. In the grey Netherlands the unemployment rate remained stable. In France it fell and in Germany, which faced a very high unemployment rate, it fell by 0.7 percentage points to note.

That we are more than far from the goal of Verhofstadt-II to create 200,000 new jobs during this legislature, even the smallest child in this country knew for a while. It took until this summer before Verhofstadt cracked that he dared to say himself.

In the European perspective, Belgium scores a ⁇ low employment rate of 60.3%. The employment rate in 2004 of 60.3% decreased from 60,5% in 2000 and barely increased from 59.3% in 1999.

If we want to speak of a genuine generation pact that not only tries to keep older workers working longer but also creates employment for everyone in this country who asks for work, then there is still a long way to go. In November 2005, there were more than 595,000 unemployed job seekers. That was more than 1,250 more than the year before. Ten years ago, there were so many unemployed people.

Beyond the tralala about appearances, there was also criticism of the type of policy that the Netherlands conducts. Minister Van den Bossche says, I quote: "What I do with you" — the Dutch — "see, is that WAO-ers" — people with a sickness benefit — "be transferred to the assistance instead of getting a job. This will never solve the problem of funding shortages. This will only be resolved if more people work. This is what we do in Belgium.” “Tarara,” I would say. 55,000 people are unemployed. This is what we do in Belgium!

The Minister continued: "There is a harsh policy being conducted in the Netherlands. There is a society of winners in which others fall out of the boat. We reject such a division of society in Belgium.”

What humility about that hard-moist Netherlands and the division there in society would still adorn the purple government. Indeed, there are 595,000 unemployed job seekers. Talk about winners and losers!

As for the shame over the transfer of WAO’ers to the aid and the claim that Belgium would provide work for those disabled, I am pleased that we have both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Social Affairs with us tonight. I want to say to them, "Shame you," unless they can convince me of the contrary tonight and give me in the plenary session the figures of the number of inappropriate and disabled persons working in Belgium and the increase or decrease thereof in the past years under purple.

In addition, the benefits in the Dutch aid are significantly higher than the Belgian living wage. The Dutch unemployment benefits are even significantly higher than our Belgian unemployment benefits. Who is carrying out a harsh policy? Who does the divisions in the Belgian society exist? If I were an unemployed or a WAO’er, I would not care that Minister Van den Bossche calls Dutch policy tough. I would look at my wallet and choose that Dutch hard moisture. It would earn me as a living wager at least 200 or 300 euros more and as an unemployed it would earn me up to 400 euros more.

So, a little modesty, not only about the appearances of the Netherlands and the Dutch ministers, but also about the policies carried out, would still be in place. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, gentlemen ministers, colleagues, whoever strengthens the economic support immediately strengthens the job market opportunities of all and of young people in particular. The incentives in this area are still insufficient even after the update in version 2. There is therefore the risk that young people with the measures that are contained in the Generation Pact, which are contained in the law containing various provisions, which are contained in the program law, will be cheaper, and that they will be able to work more frequently in public programs, that they may also be better educated — nothing negative about that — but that they also will not be able to work in the private sector.

The reduction of the burden for the elderly — which I especially emphasize — begins only from 1 April 2007. So, in the short term, we will actually see little effect from that incentive measure to employ more older people. A large part of the load reductions for teamwork is conditional, as made dependent on the efforts of the sector. Also, the regulation on teamwork will not enter into force until 2007.

For the high cost of wages in general, for the weak position of long-term unemployed – 40,000 people in this country have been unemployed for more than 10 years – for the problem of the crunching professions and the problems of illegal employment, the false self-employment, the black work and the constructions with dispatches, we find solutions in the generation pact nor in the policy notes.

As regards the long-term unemployed, I would like to stop at the proposal launched by Minister Vandenbroucke. Mr. Minister, this afternoon you answered a verbal question that the mind is free. I also think that the thought is free, even beyond the boundaries of state reform. What I dare to say here on the tribune is that Minister Vandenbroucke is right. For some of the long-term unemployed, there is no adapted job. It has always been so. My age allows me to look back. In my municipality I have always known people who couldn’t stand up because they weren’t adapted to the labour market at the time. At that time they still served in the town hall — I know it well — to indicate the births. It was also a meaningful activity. Of course, with the number we have now, 40,000, that’s too much for the births that have yet to be ⁇ in this country. In fact, this is no longer necessary.

What we do not realize, however, is that, in the increasingly open and competitive economy of just in time, with more demands in terms of effort, flexibility, knowledge and adaptability, this is a measure too high taken for some of the job seekers, for people - who I say as chief of our lord - you fill it differently - have not received the talents and not all the opportunities that you and I may be happy to have. They also have a place in this society, but we must acknowledge that our open and competitive economy cannot actually employ or pay these people. These people are also unable to meet the demands that are made today. To dare to acknowledge this is not actually passivity and not shame.

I will not comment on the figure used by Minister Vandenbroucke. Whether it really is 20% I really do not dare to say. That they exist, that we must respect them and that we must try – I also address colleague Turtelboom who asked the question – to activate them is true. However, there is a limit to activation. When you really know that it is not in it, do not plague those people. This is a given in society, not everyone has the same physical — that we have heard from Minister Van den Bossche — but also not everyone has the same intellectual capacities. We must have respect for that.

The more we can engage those people, the better. But let us call a cat a cat, and let us, with regard to today’s unemployment rates, especially those of the very long-term unemployed, have the courage to say, not that one may remain unemployed, but that one may have an income. Unemployment is not a basic income. CD&V has always said that. However, for someone for whom our society has no place, there may be an income.

CD&V has, but it is still dangerous to know too early where it is going, ⁇ 15 years ago – it can also be longer, my memory is getting old – ideas launched in connection with creating a sixth pillar in social security, in addition to child benefit, pensions and unemployment. We have proposed not to organize a witch hunt on those for whom we have to take care in a social welfare state, but for whom we cannot make room in our economy to treat them properly, but also to provide them with an income.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. D'Hondt, I have two comments on your speech. Their

First, it is about the debate that I have asked here today. I have said very clearly in my question that I also know that there are a number of unemployed who cannot be activated immediately in the ordinary, regular circuit at this time. I have also highlighted this very clearly. Their

The only thing I wanted to emphasize in my question was that I didn’t mind that we easily pick those people out of those statistics, say that we give them a benefit and leave out the Bplan. I have said very clearly in my reasoning that we should try to get those people, whether or not through a social economy project or through related projects, still in the regular circuit. If that fails, then there are a whole host of other meaningful projects that I absolutely do not want to look down on, about which I absolutely do not want to give any connotation. Their

I especially wanted to counter the tone of Minister Vandenbroucke in the article I read about it. The tone at a certain point was that one would take out that 20%, give the concerned a benefit for a long period of time and leave it for the rest for what it is. That would make it very difficult for me. After all, one comes into the debate that they are released for a bit. I don’t want to let those people go, I just want to see how to give them appropriate guidance.

However, it will also be a very difficult and important debate on how we define that group that is not adapted to simply go to the regular circuit. After all, we all know. We can easily say all this in theoretical terms. Their

I also referred to the statements of Mrs. Van den Bossche. She says that in the Netherlands one goes to the aid from the WAO and that one no longer tries to activate. I would be very sorry if we gave up. That activation can also be perfect for me in a social project. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. D'Hondt, I have another brief comment concerning the 40,000 unemployed who have been unemployed for more than 10 years. I know the unemployment statistics, the suspension of the unemployed. You will undoubtedly have them too. If I look at those figures compared to those of 10 years ago, I see that there are now also much fewer suspensions. You also know the criteria used before. Again, I do not give any connotation. I would like to point out this very clearly. Their

However, if you look at the figures, in the 1990s it was on average around 20,000 per year, but I do not have my list now, then I see that it is now significantly lower. You know the criteria. We are now working through activation. Then there was much more the criterion of family income, the average unemployment duration in the region and so on. However, your technical knowledge of the labour market is much greater than my technical knowledge. Their

However, I would like to point out the following. Why are there 40,000 unemployed? Per ⁇ it’s also because we’re less suspended.

Mrs. Turtelboom, CD&V leaves no one behind, not even the people who find their place in society very hard.

What I really know — I say it in my own name — is that we cannot, for various reasons, use our open economy for a number of people from the group of unemployed and also from the group of job seekers. I will not go into the various reasons, although the debate would be interesting. To acknowledge this fact, I find no shame.

Second, I would very much like to remind you of your position. I am also in favor of maximizing employment opportunities through all kinds of employment projects and social economy. I would very much like to remind you and VLD of that point of view, when the budgets for the social economy and employment projects need to be released. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly discuss this interim debate.

Mrs D'Hondt has actually been right that the group mentioned, which Minister Vandenbroucke also talks about, has existed for a long time. I remember in the eighties and nineties even reports from the HIVA that spoke about disappointed and about people who had cut off and who did not have the capacity to keep up with economic development. In that sense, it is not a new given.

I also remember the plea of the time to provide the sixth branch of social security with a full and human-worthy income, which is much to say.

Mrs D'Hondt, however, you are too rhetorical when you point out that CD&V leaves no one behind. This is somewhat contradicted by the fact that we have dragged such a group into our labour market and into our structural unemployment for years and days. I note that today there are a lot more jobs in the social economy and more investments are being made in the social economy. For example, the service checks were introduced precisely to try to de-pann people who are on the balance of the difficult group. However, I fully agree with you that we need to do more in the context of the social economy.

You say that it used to be much better, that CD&V did not leave a single person in the cold, and that it is now the opposite. Unfortunately for you, however, it is clear that there have been a lot more investments in recent years.

I also fundamentally share the opinion of Mrs. Turtelboom, who argues that guaranteeing an income is one thing. The ambition must always be to integrate people into a labour market, whether through labour care or through social economy. However, there is a nuance difference in the sense that it is also our ambition to continue to support initiatives in the regular economy among regular employers who try to give people with a weak profile or long-term unemployed a chance. At that point, we may differ in ambition.

Colleague Bonte, we know each other, I think, something too good to conduct the debate in this way. I didn’t say that the others abandoned the people. I’ve only said that CD&V definitely doesn’t leave people behind.

As for the number in employment, I will not talk about it any more. This debate may be carried out with a good pint.

But let us be honest. Who is at the source of the social maribel? Who lies at the source of the PWA checks, which were subsequently transformed? You, but we too. Once the car gets started, it begins to drive faster; you know that too. But who started the car? Who started the Hansenne experiments? Meanwhile we too. You, partly on the ride, and the VLD once on the ride. But we did it together, and I am proud of it.

So we must first have the courage, the sensibility, or the vision to think things out before launching them and making them operational. Of course, once there are four wheels on the wheel, it can light up quickly. We took care of the car and the four wheels. The speed was given to you. I think that is good. I do not regret that. But let us remain correct.

Let us, therefore, consider the service cheques as the fourth wheel.

Mr. Bonte, very clearly: the service checks are a well-improved version — which I have never disputed — of the PWA action. I only hope that next year and in two years we will be able to maintain the growth dynamics in service cheques – I mean their affordability – which we have been able to maintain in the PWAs. Maybe you will be happy, just like me. We still have to wait for that. But it does not affect the quality. In the meantime, we had painting checks and all sorts of things. Service checks are a refinement. It would be unfortunate if we could only do "sur place" Mr. President, you have already indicated that I must finish, but I have a few things to say anyway.

I would like to say something briefly, with the risk of being incomplete. There is something missing in the Generation Pact and, though to a lesser extent, also in the Programme Act or in the Act containing various provisions, in particular that the necessary and supporting legislative measures are not included in it to create an open Europe of workers. In my discussion on this in the committee, I said that the CD&V group is very clearly choosing for an open Europe. We are in favor of free movement within the Union of twenty-five Member States.

However, we must not put the chariot in front of the horse. Free movement is only possible for us if and only if governments can guarantee that everyone works on the same terms. Enforcement is therefore a priority, otherwise we will lay the foundation for unfair competition between our companies and the destruction of jobs. If we can give the guarantee that everyone here works on the same conditions, we can indeed work on deregulation, and this in the first place with a view to a flexible filling of short-term vacancies.

We have made concrete proposals in the committee. First, for foreign workers of foreign employers who come to work in our country, the Dimona obligation must apply, just like for Belgian workers. No more and no less. Secondly, every self-employed entrepreneur who comes to work in Belgium must register so that our social inspection services know that they operate on our market. No more and no less. Third, the fines must be strengthened. After all, at the moment fraud, given the knowledge of the fines, is a hundred times more lucrative than being fined. These three measures, together with the strengthening of the social inspection, should guarantee that.

CD&V has submitted amendments in the committee aimed at this. We will serve them again in the plenary session. It will not be our responsibility if on 1 May 2006 the borders cannot be opened. We now submit the amendments here. Replace them for my part with much better of the majority or of the government, but make sure that something happens in the very short term, so that we get 1 May 2006. If this is not done, it would be irresponsible to open the borders. I cannot stand still for too long.

Mrs D'Hondt, I do not repeat the whole argument of my party on this subject. You know that our party for the termination of the transitional measures is on 1 May 2006. However, fraud is indeed more cost-effective than the fines opposite it. Of course, at this moment, sometimes one is also forced to work in the illegality, even though I do not speak that well. At present, it is very difficult to employ workers from 8 out of 10 new Member States.

I had a few concrete questions in the context of your amendments. First, are you convinced that the amendments do not violate the stand-still clause stating that there should be no interruption of existing measures?

Second, the amendments sometimes remind me a little of the scenes from Asterix. We sit in our village and think that everything is going well and we forget what is happening outside. I will give a concrete example. Many foreign workers work here after dispatch. That dispatch does not actually fall within the transitional measures and should be included in the Service Directive, the Bolkestein Directive. A closing system of control can only be achieved by establishing systems with the new Member States.

A number of controls must be carried out there. This cannot always be solved with a good social system. One can, of course, deal with this a bit with, for example, a registration, and so on.

These are the most important comments. Their

Finally, I wanted to lose the next one. I have taken note with great interest of the position of your party mate, Miet Smet, in the Economy Committee of the Flemish Parliament. She said that she adhered to the party’s position, but that she did not fundamentally agree with it.

I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if Miet Smet said that. But she has only slightly settled.

Basically, I have already said this in the committee and I want there to be no misunderstanding about it. CD&V is in favor of an open Europe. It was up to you, it was up to the government, but not to us from the opposition, to take measures so that by 1 May 2006 the borders could be opened. In the fallrope we make proposals through a number of amendments. We deliver these to you. You should not accept these suggestions, do others, but make sure there is something.

I think the comparison with the village of Asterix fits better with the majority. To the extent that I ever read those books of my cousins and nieces, yet I have noticed that in that village they also lift their chief man on the shield every day. (Applause of Applause)

In the village of Asterix, they abortion giant evergreen pigs and drink them with locks. Maybe that’s another lesson for that grey mouse.

Mrs. Turtelboom, I mean it; I really do not want to conduct ideological debates on this. We are four months away from that famous date of May 1, 2006. Will Belgium again apply for an extension of the transitional measure, which then again applies for three years? Even then something must happen. We also have proposals to improve the procedure for granting work permits. However, if you do nothing and then present the village of Asterix to the opposition, then you can just as well knock on the Romans and make sure you win the battle. (Applause) I would like to emphasize two points. I will be very short, President, I promise you. Their

First, the refinancing of social security. Specifically, I would like to address Minister Demotte. For 2006 you have secured the funding of social security. and Chapeau! As one of the great supporters of social security, I am grateful to you for this. I acknowledge, the CD&V group acknowledges that this maintenance of the balance of the financing of social security also occurs with new sources of financing, other than the traditional ones. and Chapeau! I am grateful for that! The story, of course, ends at the end of 2006 and then we begin again for 2007. Their

Mr. Minister, we are indeed advocating structural measures that make the branches of our social security, which are personal and not statutory and which, to our pride, have become a general right in the growth process of our social security — I call the child allowance and the health care — be financed by general resources.

We discussed this in the committee. You are against it, you are afraid of communitarianization, and you say—there you thought to be at the heart of my heart—that it will also undermine paritary governance. I told you, Mr. Minister, that this is not true. The sectors of healthcare and child benefits are precisely those sectors that are still managed in an atypical way today. In healthcare, all healthcare providers are involved and mutualities are also involved. In the child allowance are the family organizations and the treasures that pay out. This is actually already acquired.

I tell you, Mr. Minister, someday — maybe “someday” it will take a few more years — any government will have to go to that formula. There is no other choice because it carries in itself the ability to finance not only our social security structurally — not from budget to budget — but also because it can reduce the labor costs of our companies in an unprecedented way. Cooking costs money. I know that of course. That money must come from somewhere. If you don’t tax the wages, you put the burden on something else. I know that, but before that read — the evening does not allow me and the chairman ⁇ does not — the notes of the Plan Bureau and the various studies. It makes sense: first, structural security of the financing, second, reduction of wage burden as has rarely been shown, and third, depending on the financial instruments you choose, an impact on employment that is also not insignificant.

Mr. Minister, I come to my decision.

Can the Minister interrupt you?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly, because I find the debate interesting and I would like all members to be able to give their opinion. It would be a bad trial to the government if one allowed to believe, through the nuanced intervention that has just taken place, that nothing has been undertaken, ⁇ in the two areas that have just been cited as an example, to ensure a financing of the secu by alternative means. I think of the healthcare sector.

Among the arrangements that have been taken, two of them should be of interest to the members of the House on this subject. First, there have already been funding means outside of social security and that are allocated to health care. Thus, tobacco excise duties are a track that has already been considered.

The second mechanism seems to me even more interesting, because it involves policy accountability as well, in particular on the growth standard of health care. It wasn’t easy, Madame D’Hondt. Indeed, at the very beginning of the negotiations with the social stakeholders, to which I referred in the committee, I proposed a mechanism, under which the goal of increasing health care by 4.5%, while the overall mass of social security revenues only grows by 2.5%, could only be achieved if the 2% delta was supported by the decision maker. My words are not diametrically opposed to yours. What I say is that if the financing of these two sectors of social security were taken out in a radical way, a crisis of trust would clearly risk to establish itself at the level of the social interlocutors.

Mr. Speaker, I could say a lot of things, including about training, but I will not do that. The pensions also remain. I will discuss this with the Minister another time, but I would like to say two things.

Mr. Minister, we have already said it in the committee, CD&V does not oppose the pension bonus. We only ask ourselves whether this is indeed the tool to mobilize people to work longer. You know our proposal: the silver jump. We want people who want to work longer, closer to the retirement age, to retain net more while they are at work. We think this works much more appealing than after their retirement. They do not know whether they will ever enjoy their retirement, or for how long. However, time does not allow me to go further on this.

Mr. Minister, after the New Year, I will interpell or ask intrusive questions in the committee on the measures concerning survivor pensions contained in the Generation Pact. You know our concerns. Mr. Minister, I have in recent days, other colleagues probably too, received some calculations from stakeholders that point to the dangers in the new proposals. However, we will still be talking about this.

This bridges me to my preliminary last point, concerning your plea for honoring the work of women in pensions. Mr. Minister, we must do this, of course, but it is about recognizing the time that people, men and women, but mostly women, let us be correct, spend on care tasks, in the broad sense of the word. This means that we will have to go further in equating the periods of care for the calculation of pensions. What I’ve heard so far is a plea for part-time. I follow a whole end. We still have the technical discussion to be conducted, but I will follow a conclusion. However, we must also talk about the further past, when breakdowns, with payments and equalization, still did not exist legally. It is about people who are now older than 50. For those people, the equalities, as they are now stated in the Generation Pact, are not enough.

This allows me to get to my last point. The CD&V group says clearly: yes, we really need to work with more people a little longer than it is today.

This, however, must clearly be done in a different way than it is today, especially forty years on a human scale rather than twenty years in overdrive. If we want our employees to work longer, we must ensure that they can work longer. When I speak of employees, the same applies to civil servants and self-employed.

If we ask people to work longer – and given the challenges we must do so – we must ensure that the pace at which work is done allows for forty years of work. I do not advocate for slow but sure. However, I advocate a policy that ensures that workers can reasonably combine work and care tasks without compromising the economic development.

To label those opportunities as luxury is not to give a correct picture of how people can be motivated to last it longer, and with more than today. Let it be clear: for CD&V, in those possibilities of combining work and care tasks, space must be left for the own choices of the people. Not everything in our society that has to do with care and warmth can be "verchequet". People must be able to make choices themselves. Checks are good in cases where other options are completely inadequate.

A genuine career policy with respect for the combination of work and care and of labour and continuous learning should also translate that respect into the calculation of the old-age requirements for pension and bridge pension. If not, it is a rhetoric with split tongue.

I’d like to have tonight — a few months later I would have been good too — fully voted “yes” for a generation pact. Our group is convinced that it is necessary to strengthen our competitiveness, stimulate our economic growth and turn it into as much employment as possible, even for the least disadvantaged in our society, with a tough guarantee for the financing of our social security. I wish the CD&V group could fully approve that today.

With the ornaments you have displayed, without pictures or paintings, you expect a very large blanco cheque for a domain that is so profound for the future of our country, for the social fabric of our country, for the security of the people. You would have better done your homework a little longer than present it to Parliament too early, too early today.

Mrs D'Hondt, you spoke for 1 hour and 8 minutes. You are the only speaker of your group. I can understand that.

Mr. Drèze, we must not necessarily imitate Mrs. D'Hondt.

That is in the way of speaking, Mrs. D'Hondt. You represent a major opposition party. I know the technique, too. Each speaker has 30 minutes of speech time. Many speakers make several half hours. You should not teach me that.

The word is for mr. by Dress.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you from the beginning of the game, the CDH group will abstain when voting on this Covenant of Solidarity between Generations.

I could stay there, but I will still justify this decision. We do not think that we should reject the entire plan presented by the government. Such a position would, in this case, be purely demagogical. Nevertheless, we believe that much greater emphasis should be placed on positive measures to strengthen the level of pensions and improve the labour market for people over 50 years.

We also think that the contract is too weak for young people. Finally, we regret that this contract is silent on the problem of combating employment traps. We make the same findings as the majority about the unfavorable situation in which our country is, including a very low employment rate for older and young workers, the deterioration of the level of social benefits and the reversal in the years following the demographic pyramid.

The CDH had initially contributed to the government’s reflections through various proposals from its Charleroi congress of June 4, 2005. We support the four objectives set by the government before the summer holidays, namely the planning of career goals but also the employment of young people, the alternative financing of social security and the revaluation of social benefits, especially pensions. Furthermore, if it constitutes the resumption of several of its proposals — which it welcomes — the CDH regrets the following elements. by

First, it is a reform rather than a pact. Minister Onkelinx had announced that the Regions would be associated with a large employment pact; unfortunately, this was not the case. A pact should involve both federal entities and an agreement of the social partners. On several occasions, the trade unions unanimously opposed the text advanced by the government. The federal government has therefore decided to conclude a pact with itself. We cannot then speak of a pact but of a project of reform; this is the term that Ms. Onkelinx used a few weeks ago in this hall. Yet, you know, the socio-economic life of our country is based on social concertation. In this context, any political decision taken without the participation of the field actors is executed against the heart and misses its objective.

The beginning of your speech seems to me very severe. The history between the pact and the reform is violent!

I come to the second point of my intervention concerning the complexity and application, which will be difficult, of a number of measures.

As you know, there are 230 measures for employment in Belgium. No one finds himself there. Employers and trade unions are not involved. Social secretaries find it difficult to get there. Often, the legislator does not find it either. It happens regularly that in committees, parliamentarians, including those of the majority, ask themselves whether they understand the texts correctly and in what direction they should vote.

With the pact, we now have a real "Catalogue Three Swiss", but without the prices. Seventy-six measures are presented, most often without numbers or budget. by

In some cases, these measures will be, and it is a shame, almost without effect. For example, any dismissal of a worker over 45 years old will now have to be accompanied by outplacement, otherwise the company will have to pay a fine of 3,600 euros. But, in order to do this, there will need to be a denunciation; the same is to say that this will not happen frequently.

The Verhofstadt-Onkelinx government is, according to the latter, an alliance against nature.

We suspect, Mr. Michel, that each of the camps has complicated the envy with certain measures that are not suitable for him, in order to curb, or even prevent, their execution.

The third point of my speech concerns the 900 million reduction in labor costs. by

These reduction measures are a priori interesting, but when we analyze them in detail, they don’t hold the road. by

240 million are planned for young people, which is positive. However, the aid is abruptly cancelled beyond a salary of 1,956 euros. This threshold will – it was mentioned in the committee – inevitably constitute a barrier to the granting of a higher remuneration. Take the case of a young 20-year-old graduate — an example that Minister Demotte knows well — engaged with a salary of 1.950 euros. The fixed reduction will be 300 euros per quarter. A salary increase of 1%, or 20 euros, would lead to the loss of the whole of the said reduction. There is no doubt that the employer will try either to limit wage growth or to offer other non-contributed extra wage benefits in order to maintain the flat rate reduction. 272 million will be allocated for older workers, which is also positive, but the aid is pulverized from 50 years old. We would have preferred to start at 57 years, which is the current average age of withdrawal from active life, but with a more muscular intervention because more targeted. by

As for the reduction of youth, I will not develop again here the alternative proposals that have been presented in detail on the occasion of the various amendments submitted in the committee.

450 million euros will be allocated to support night and team work. Again, this is positive, but according to our calculations, 100 million were enough to allow our industries, especially the automotive industry, to remain competitive compared to those of neighboring countries, at least in 2006. Six weeks ago, I expressed my reservations regarding financial support for night and team work ten times as compared to the initial measure of 2004. In addition, I remain concerned about the EU State Aid Directive. I would like to avoid Belgium being condemned in the future and suffering the enormous budgetary consequences we experienced with Maribel.

I asked the commission. Jamar — but maybe Mr. Will Reynders be able to respond quickly — to be able to have a copy of the notification and authorisation of the European Commission concerning the measures "nightwork and teamwork" and I have not yet received them. I would like to remind you that the Commission’s authorisation must take place before the measure enters into force on 1 January 2006. One million for the low-skilled. In fact, despite the effects of the announcement, the measure "low wages" is not reinforced. As the press has widely echoed at the time, Mr. Demotte had even advanced in July in his note, an additional budget of 450 million euros for low wages.

I would like to establish a correlation between the assertion of the beginning of Mr. Speech. Dress and this one. In this case, when we talk about 1,956 euros, it is because generally, people with a gross salary of this nature are not hyper-qualified.

I would like to add something that I only said in the committee. We like the measure regardless of the threshold issue in that it would constitute a first step forward for the low-skilled as a whole. I recognize that young people are a priority among the low-skilled.

I return to your July note and those 450 million. You say that for young people, you have achieved the goal, but it is never more than 240 million. What a disappointment, Mr. Minister! As a committee, I had reminded you of the call of your friends, the ministers Daerden and Van Cauwenberghe. Both have called for the federal government to strengthen this low-wage measure. In the committee, you responded to us that you were concerned with the general interest. I must confess that I did not expect this pivot. The truth in our view is that because of a political compromise of your dear alliance against nature, your party capitulated on a point it presented as essential.

I come to the fourth point. Training efforts are again postponed. Since 1998, we all know that Belgian companies spend on average only 1.3% of the wage mass on the continuous training of their staff. The target of 1.9%, i.e. the average of our three neighboring countries, has never been approached. The 2004 social balance sheet revealed, a few weeks ago, that the indicator had even fallen around 1.1%.

Within the framework of the pact, it seems to us that the government pretexts a statistical reform of the social balance sheet — we have long discussed this with Mr. Vanvelthoven — to postpone the evaluation of the device to 2007 and, in reality, to 2008. Years lost again! The CDH, on the other hand, proposed the introduction of an individual accounting.

In order to feed the reflection on the subject, I will now synthesize the essence of this proposal.

From the beginning of his career, the worker who does not possess a diploma of higher education, would automatically receive an open training account in his name, centralized with the ONSS. This account would be fed each year by a certain number of training hours. The cost would be covered by a fund, fed by companies that are below the 1.9% target. The worker could exercise his right to training either within the framework of the time credit, or outside of working hours, or during the hours with the agreement of his employer, or in period of unemployment. The compensation would then be activated on the basis of the accumulated credit for training approved by the Regional Employment Office.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, I would like to take the example of the cleaning sector. I can understand that in such a sector, spending 1.3% on training is sufficient. This could also be the case for a vendor in a large area. The problem arises when a worker is fired, the company no longer employs him, he can no longer ensure his continuous training. Our proposal has the advantage of also affecting job seekers who could, given the fact that the account is individual, manage their continuing training themselves during their period of unemployment.

The fifth point that I am addressing is related to pre-prepension measures; they seem to us to be poorly calibrated. The government wants to limit the use of pre-payments. Okay, but why does he use only the stick? The pension bonus beyond 62 years or 44 years of career looks like a carrot but it is not encrypted. Measure No. 41 of the pact is laconic on the subject. The answers given to the many questions asked in commission to the Minister of Employment always leave us hungry.

For the CDH, it is clear that, in order to be effective, the pension bonus must take place from the 38th year of career and must correspond to a 50% appreciation of the pension rights. In other words, a multiplier, or 2.2% would then count for 3.3%. For the CDH, the pivot year of the career should, in the future, be the 38th year. Furthermore, the bonus pension would intervene. In addition, some flourishing companies, such as Inbev, Belgacom, some banks, sometimes misuse the pre-emption system for restructuring. The use of public money for this purpose is shocking. This is why the CDH proposes to limit the restructuring scheme in the future to companies with a profit of less than 5% in the last two years. The bet is that profitable companies rely on all their staff to ensure their growth.

As for the sixth point, I had the opportunity to discuss it with Mr. This was followed by the Government Declaration of 11 October. We see a drift toward an Anglo-Saxon model in terms of social protection.

Indeed, with regard to social benefits, the CDH vigorously disputes a transversal option of the government, that of valuing only the minimum. Furthermore, the total positive incentives of the pension pact do not represent, according to the Minister of Employment, - this one responding in a committee instead of Mr. Tobback, abroad at that time - that a lean budget of 10 million euros in 2006.

In the absence of a real link to the welfare of allocations, the gap with the evolution of wages continues to grow. The figures you gave us in commission, Mr. Demotte, are, however, edifying. They deserve to be reminded now. These figures give the measure of the deterioration of different replacement rates, i.e. the average level of an allowance relative to wages: the minister indicated us the replacement rates in 1980, on the one hand, and in 2005, on the other hand, for three or four social benefits.

In terms of pensions, the replacement rate was 34.7% in 1980. It is only 31.7 percent. In terms of disability, the rate was 44.5% in 1980. It is only 31.7 percent. In terms of unemployment, the rate was 45.7%. It is only 27.3% today, a 40% drop that the minister himself called a real collapse.

According to the Committee for the Study of Aging, over the past fifty years, there has been an average difference of 1.75% per year between the growth of asset wages and that of pensions. This is why Belgium is currently ranked 12th out of 15 at the level of the European Union before enlargement.

According to the Advisory Committee on Pensions, 26% of people over 65 years old currently live below the poverty line.

During the joint front demonstration in 2001, the trade unions demanded €1.5 billion in recovery and, in addition, the link to the evolution of wages. According to figures communicated by Minister Demotte, the government forecasts, compared to 2001, a total by 2011 of 1.5 billion. To make me understand: in 2006 compared to 2005, 15 million euros, 160 million euros in 2007, 248 million euros in 2008, as announced by the minister and, in 2011 compared to 2005, we would reach 1 billion. Knowing that today, compared to 2001, we reach 500 million revaluations, we reach that 1.5 billion. The conclusion is that this is to ⁇ the catch-up requested by the trade unions, but in 2011, therefore not to have realised real links to well-being until then. In other words, the gap between wages and benefits will continue to grow over the next ten years.

Mr. Drèze, I was not present in the commission since I was in Canada at that time. I will therefore correct a few figures from your presentation.

First, you use the phrase "10 million euros" in 2006 for well-being adjustments while you should know that those 10 million are added to the well-being adjustments already planned not only for 2006 but also for 2007, which are several tens of millions already. These 10 million are a supplement to these forecasts for specific groups.

Then you refer to the figures comparing the rate of replacement of pensions in Belgium with other European countries. But these are gross figures that do not take into account, among other things, the tax system in these countries. In some of them, and even in a few of them, the tax on pensions is identical to the tax on wages, while in Belgium, the tax on pensions is much more favorable than that on wages. The net replacement rate is therefore much higher compared to other countries than the gross figure allows to imagine.

I wanted to specify these aspects. This means that pensions in Belgium are neither extremely favorable nor even high, but they are much more interesting than these direct comparisons allow you to imagine.

I will return to the 10 million when I address the point concerning women since it is mainly for women that these 10 million are destined. As for your comment on taxation, you are right in part but this does not change the fact that Belgium is today twelfth out of fifteen at the level of taxation.

If that changes! Since the net position is much more favorable than the gross position. Compare the real income of pensioners. So giving them a favorable tax system also represents a cost for the government. We have to look at the real situation, as well as on the property level. It is known that in Belgium, more than 75% of pensioners own their home while in the Netherlands, for example - Ms D'Hondt has alluded to this - there is only about 40% and a majority of pensioners must pay a rent. To compare the income situation of pensioners, it is necessary to use all existing data and not just partial figures.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, it is stronger than I am; I must react. Beware of statements such as the possession of a home for which one has saved with his income from labour should serve to justify that the replacement ratio of our pensions is not high! I would fully agree, Mr. Minister, if you analyze that the welfare or not falling into poverty of our seniors is largely due to the possession of a own home. This is a fact that is demonstrated, among other things, by the greater poverty of seniors in cities because the ownership of a home is lower there.

This data should not be an alibi for this government, nor for previous or future governments, to claim that the replacement ratio of pensions is not so low, or, worse yet, that it is reasonable that this ratio is lower.

Mr. Minister, we didn’t get out of that tonight. However, it is a good challenge that I will surely sweep out after the New Year. In this way, I have a few more days to study a number of things. We must study together in the committee the net and gross replacement ratio of pensions of comparable European countries. Together we will come to the conclusion that net and gross does indeed make us some position difference, but that Belgium is ⁇ not in the link. I am happy to accept the challenge and will come back to it after the New Year.

So there is still work.

What else should we do, Mr. Speaker? With our grey costume, we cannot become ministers. We have to deal with something else.

I thought about it like that.

I too, Mr President.

As long as we deal with the subject and there are reactions, I would like to ask the Minister of Pensions if he also disputes the figure I mentioned, namely that 26% of the over 65 years old would be below the poverty line. Is this number valid for you?

If you refer to the study that was done by Eurostat a few months ago, yes, I challenge this figure! Because it does not refer to real poverty but to the increased risk of poverty! This does not mean that all who are below the threshold are really poor, it is people who are at greater risk of poverty than others.

The fact of falling or not falling into poverty is related to the fact of being owner of his home or not, or to the fact of having or not having other income in addition to the pension, as not a lot of people in Belgium. No, this number does not mean that 26% of pensioners in Belgium are poor! Not at all! I strongly contest this number.

And, thus, I also answer to Mrs D'hondt, this does not mean that we should not be aware of the risk, not only with those 26% but also with other pensioners who, for example, would not be part of the risk population but who are not owners of their home. by

Yes, we have to do something! That is why we want to ⁇ this adaptation to well-being and take specific measures for women, who are over-represented within those 26%. by

I challenge this figure if you use it demagogically, saying that in Belgium, 26% of pensioners are poor. This is not at all the case!

I am not demagogy, it is not in my nature. I reiterate a central argument of the Advisory Committee for the Pension Sector regarding your bill called "Liaison to Well-Being". If you refer to Eurostat statistics, like Ms. D'hondt, we will also return to the commission on comparisons with other countries. You will agree with me, Belgium is not well placed compared to other European countries.

For the CDH, it is necessary to strengthen the statutory pension, in particular the first pillar by distribution, with proposals from Jean-Jacques Viseur regarding the first pillar bis by capitalization, and urgently establish a true link to well-being. I will add that to qualify as a link to well-being your text that is not, a priori, quite negative, is to add a layer on the risk of a rupture of trust with citizens. When you read the opinion of the Advisory Committee for the Pension Sector, the conclusion is that if you do not change the system, you can at least change the title. This creates a confusion between the measures decided and the effects of the government’s announcement in the matter.

Again, there are other sources than the Advisory Committee, which I also respect. In the text, what we do for both benefits and pensions is what the Ageing Study Committee demands, which speaks of well-being adaptation with percentages that are taken back as they are in the law. by

It is about adapting to well-being. Just look at the actual situation since 2000, when Frank Vandenbroucke started the adaptations, and compare them with the previous situation to realize that we are engaged in a real adaptation to well-being, even though I agree that we can always do more if we have sufficient resources. But I think we are very correct when talking about adaptation to well-being.

It can only be a partial adaptation and not a bond to well-being because when two things are linked, they move together. However, in this case, if the adaptation is partial, the gap will continue to grow. Since you are talking about means, it is actually the nerve of war. The trade unions had established the cost of an integral link to welfare...

As for this connection to well-being and with the concern not to polemize with you, Mr. Drèze, why do you not explain what are your concrete proposals in the matter and above all how you finance them? What would be your sources of financing? It’s easy to say that it’s good but that it’s not enough, that it’s ridiculous, that it’s peanuts but if you want to be consistent, you have to explain how you would finance the measures you advocate and how you estimate the amounts that are needed for what you think would be a just fit for well-being.

Thank you for your interest; I just get there. The trade unions estimated the necessary amount to 600 million. We can see the order of magnitude of what we are talking about. This is obviously a lot, but we must recall the budgetary choices of the Verhofstadt-Onkelinx government: first, a fiscal reform of 5 billion...

So, you advocate to raise taxes. In order to finance, you need to raise taxes, is that what you mean?

If we had been in government in 1999, we would have made different choices.

Would you have lowered your taxes? Tell it !

But yes. You now say that we intend to increase them, that’s not at all what I said.

You say that the budgetary choices are not the right and you quote the tax reform of 500 million. Say that you shouldn’t do it, so take it!

If you don’t want to argue, let me finish my sentence. Tax reform of $5 billion. Sometimes I’m told, “Benoit, don’t talk about that, you’re making a pub at Reynders!” I do it anyway.

Please forgive me, I did not understand you well. Are you talking about $5 billion? Five billion tax cuts? Five billion euros! It is terrible! Two hundred billion francs a year! That’s a lot of money, anyway! We gave it back to people.

Second, the reduction of contributions: 5.5 billion. Third, notional interests — and I return to you —: 600 million. Fourth, teamwork and night work: 600 million (450 million currently plus 150 million previously decided).

Make the total, it revolves around the 12 billion, that is 20 times the 600 million mentioned earlier.

That’s what could make political choices if we had been in the majority.

No to No! You should not let them hear; it should be said, on the amounts you have estimated, what you would remove to enable the goal you identify to be achieved. What are you removing?

For the past six weeks, I have taken the example of the additional 450 million for night work or team work. According to my calculations — and I am ready to compare them with the office of the Minister of Employment — 100 million were enough to align with Germany. This corresponds to 350 million unfair competition compared to other countries. Here is a very simple example!

I come to my first and last point: women, poor parent of the pact. We talked about 10 million for measures targeted especially for women. To plant the decor, I quote a symbolic figure: only 17% of pre-pensioners are women. This indicates the difficulty for them to be in the conditions currently required to access pension.

The CDH would find it unreasonable to provide for different access conditions for women and men. Such a technique would expose the government to appeals before the European Court of Justice, in the name of equality between women and men. Instead, we advocate objective mitigation criteria that are the same for all, while knowing that women will respond most often. In this perspective, the CDH supports four transversal ideas, the first three of which are suggested by the Women’s Connection Committee.

First, part-time work affects ⁇ 40% of women and only 5.6% of men. The CDH proposes that each calendar year be accounted for calculating the number of years required for access to prepension. This, at least for part-time, starting from half-time. In fact, it would be a parallel to what the Minister of Pensions promised, namely from 1 January 2006 on access to the right to the guaranteed minimum pension. I hope there is a government agreement on this.

With regard to heavy jobs that will be recognised for exemptions, the CDH recommends that the government and social partners take into account, in particular, nurses or nurses, workers or women working part-time in variable hours in large stores and workers or workers employed in cleaning companies with cut-off hours.

For assimilation to working days, the CDH advocates to simply follow the same rules as for the calculation of the length of the career. Furthermore, periods not paid by involuntary part-time workers should be recognised as assimilated periods.

Finally, it is essential to be able to ensure that years spent educating children are not penalized in terms of pension.

The CDH therefore proposes to grant an assimilation of the rights to the pension of two years per child in charge, with a maximum of 6 years.

I come to the last point of my speech.

I would like to thank my CD&V colleague, Greta D’Hondt, who “in the early hours” of the night presented a series of amendments concerning the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union on the labour market. Despite the delayed time, these amendments sparked an interesting debate in the committee. Mrs D'Hondt was right to remind us that there are only four months until May 1, 2006. The least we can say is that the government is not ready to face this deadline.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the pact represents for the CDH a very modest first step.

Asking social partners to profoundly change some of their habits and conventions is ⁇ not an easy task for a government.

Now that the Covenant of Solidarity between Generations is closed, we can ask ourselves whether it is sufficient.

Ultimately, what remains of this pact is modest in view of the demographic and socio-economic challenges that await us in the coming years. This weak outcome will have to be linked to a deterioration of the social climate that will leave traces.

The government conducted the negotiations in a chaotic and inexperienced manner.

Without a doubt, with such methods, it will find it difficult to cope with future socio-economic challenges. I think in particular of the implementation of the pact, but also of the announced debate on wage competitiveness. For this last point, I refer to the work of the Central Council of the Economy which estimated, on November 8, last year, at 2.1% the increase in Belgian wage costs compared to our three neighboring countries for the period 2005-2006. On December 5, then a few days later, Guy Quaden, governor of the National Bank, advocated for a competitiveness pact. According to him, and I quote, “It would be urgent to moderate our salaries.”

The CDH does not understand why the government did not anticipate this important element in the final pact negotiations with the social partners.

In conclusion, Belgium will very soon need a true pact, more comprehensive, more ambitious, involving, from the outset, the federated entities and incorporating too neglected elements such as research and development, training in all its forms, employment of young people and low-skilled.

See you soon, then!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, 15.6% of the wage-taking population in the Flemish private sector is currently over 50. That is good news, it is an increase of 4.5% of the number of older employees in the Flemish private sector. That is a stronger increase than the average increase in the full-wage employees in the same period, namely 1.1%. The worst news is that we are still on the labour market with a very low share of people over 50. Therefore, the bill surrounding the Generation Pact does not actually come a day too early.

However, the criticism is that the prime minister should never have set a deadline to finish the talks. I can say that this is a double falsehood. This gives the impression that the government would not have given a fair chance to consult with and between the social partners. The truth is that this law is actually on the table a year later than originally hoped. Exactly the same people who now think it’s too late stood last year on the speech floor narrowing the government by taking the sloth because it hesitated so long with the end-to-end debate. Furthermore, the consultation has not yet ended. Suppose there had been no deadline for the global contours of the Generation Pact, who of the present in this hemisphere would dare to put his hand into the fire that around this time there would have been an agreement at all? Let us be honest, if we have seen the reaction of some trade unions, it has become clear that any measure that would affect the bridge pension or other early withdrawal measures for a moment would have been blown down.

That right now the government is also accused in this bill of requiring too large delegations is surprising. We are talking about a substantially different context than in 1996 when the then-government Dehaene powers dropped. In addition, those delegations that have long been not carte blanche should allow additional contributions from the social partners to supplement this pact, although some would not want to use the term pact because the social partners have not approved it. However, this is a semantic discussion while in fact it is actually about one cross-border and then we can still wonder whether it is about the organization as a whole. As strange as it may sound, especially in FGTB media, one has sought to drown the Generation Pact at the same time, on the one hand, opening the debate to the youth and the problem of social security and on the other hand, narrowing to the symbolic file of the bridge pensions, the crown jewel of early retirement. Meanwhile, we have faced a number of strikes but that also has a good side. Thanks to the strike of 7 October, Flemish officials have been given the privilege to experiment with remote work. Let us hope this is a project that will continue later.

In the end, one cannot get rid of the impression that the main concern of some in this Generation Pact was rather working less than working longer. The combination of work and family is the same. The main concern for some is non-work and family. Nice, but I believe that none of us still believes that in this way we can keep our strong social security system affordable.

Some argue, especially in the context of the debate on the bridge pensions and the pseudo-bridge pensions: one underestimates the psychological humiliation and the emotional wounds of people who lose their jobs due to restructuring and rationalization. If that were the case, would we have the Generation Pact in its present form for us? After all, it was much simpler to say: we are just going to abolish the bridge pensions, but no one, at any time, asked for that.

Contrary to what some wish, abolition is not the ultimate dream of liberals. When we listen to some, it seems rather that the ultimate dream is to make people work as little as possible, but pay as well as possible. We know, of course, that we cannot build a social paradise on an economic cemetery.

Another complaint is that people can get tired when they are in their late fifty. That is correct. Why would otherwise the agreements have allowed exceptions that allow early bridge retirement? Those who do not yet realize that there is a general consensus on exceptions for heavy occupations or for special circumstances are blind, hardlears, or are conscious of sending colored information to their backbone.

The trade unions are also present at the table to draw up the lists of heavy professions and to define the special circumstances.

Anyone who is intellectually honest and abstracts from his trade union or employer rhetoric or any political rhetoric will not be able to deny that measures are imposed to counter the early withdrawal. Unfortunately, we will all have to work longer. But – and I add this in a breath – we will have to be able to do it in a more qualitative way, with the necessary resting points. We want respect for hard-working people, but we don’t want people who have to kill themselves. The fact that encouraging older workers to work longer narrows the opportunities of young people is entirely a killer. The first CAO on bridge pensions, in 1974, indeed aimed at replacing older people with young people. But the figures speak for themselves 30 years later: both the activity level of young people and those of the elderly is too low. Meanwhile, we know that work creates work, and this is exactly what we all ask: to create jobs so that our young people and our elderly people can or can remain at work.

The trade unions are rightly asking for a soft approach. This has also been heard by the government. After all, let’s bear in mind, bridge pensions have never been a generalized social right. Thus, its tightening also does not mean that we are tightening on a general social right. The increase in the statutory retirement age would have been so, but it has never actually been on the table, unlike in Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, where this measure is faced.

The achievements of the Generation Pact require a general change of mentality among employees and employers. A change in mentality is something different from the overall overthrow of the basic principles of our social security or of our labour market. Unfortunately, to do what is necessary, there are no miracle remedies.

Per ⁇ they have hidden talents at CD&V, but then they are very strongly hidden. They are, by the way, physically hidden, in terms of their presence at this moment. In fact, the party has completely stood aside in the final debate. When the Generation Pact was concluded, they presented their alternative.

I would like to quote a piece from the editorial of De Morgen of October 12: "It is an illusion that someone in this debate could invent the hot water. Without wanting to do so, the opposition party CD&V provided the proof of this. That revealed its own socio-economic program, strangely enough after the consultation and after the decisions. And what appears? Put next to CD&V a coalition partner who folds the sharpest sides of it and you get close to what Verhofstadt came to tell yesterday.”

This clearly shows that an agreement means that compromises are made and in that respect no one has the magic drink of Asterix, which ensures that one can overcome the world within one’s own little circle. Their

People now generally cost the government more than they contribute. Therefore, we must introduce the general principle that those who work longer are entitled to a higher pension. Collega Maggie De Block will later speak on the part related to the pensions. Their

However, it is not intended to minimize the problems. Some said there are only 100,000 bridge retirees or only 7% of the older unemployed. This was especially said by those who do not want to touch the bridge pensions. However, these are the same people who currently say that in four years only 115,000 additional jobs have been created despite the government’s heavy efforts. I wonder then which absolute numbers can still be compared with each other, and whether such reasoning does not testify to a ⁇ great fatalism. Their

We have already made it before. This Generation Pact is about so much more than the bridge pensions. The government has provided for additional burden reductions of almost 1 billion euros. Even colleague Greta D'Hondt acknowledged in the committee that the reduction of the wage burden that precedes is the most feasible given the budgetary possibilities. At the same time, however, she warned rightly for the fact that our neighbors are not sitting still. Their

An analogous warning came from VBO media. There, they fear a reduction of our wage costs by 2.1%, which could lead to the loss of jobs of 23,100 people. Their

That these employers, in turn, are placed for their financial responsibility through employment cells, through outplacement or through additional charges for canada drys when they want to dismiss older workers is fair. The same applies to the restrictive sanctioning measures for older workers who are unconstructive in their search for another job during restructuring. Their

The fact that our group is in favour of this Generation Pact does not mean that we have no concerns about it. Rather than singing the praise of foolishness, we want to start from the assertion that the initiative is good and that the measures proposed lead to a trend break, so that the basis is formed for a socio-economic environment in which work again becomes the norm and in which people who work more have the right to more retirement. Their

However, the work is not yet finished. The first is the implementation of the Generation Pact. This also spoke, among other things, about the training requirement, about the adaptation of the law-Renault, about the possibility of the employee to resort to the external service from the age of 40 for the planning of his career. Their

There is also work outside the store. The further elimination of inactivity cases, the introduction of remote work, a complete revision of the legislation on employment, the expansion of the system of service cheques and a serious follow-up to the activation policy for job seekers are just a few measures that we call for attention. Their

That the Generation Pact must go far beyond the two extremes of our labour market is clear. This was also the demand of the trade unions. Therefore, the VLD wants to meet the active work on a Second Generation Pact in favor of hard-working Flamings between 25 and 55 years of age. Their

Yes, we know that quatongs will label the term hard-working Flaming as a political marketing-technically well-found mantra. Whoever is honest, however, should say that the spitsur generation or the sandwich generation has legitimate needs that we also need to respond to.

Does this mean a choice for only the winners from society? No, we do not forget those who want to work but have no job, nor those who can no longer work and those who no longer need to work because they already have a career behind them. This has been widely demonstrated in the past with measures that help job seekers activate or attempt to eliminate unemployment gaps or, as in this Generation Pact, introduce the wealth resistance of the benefits. This will also be considered in the future. The VLD wants appropriate measures for all, the VLD is engaged in ensuring our prosperity and our social security. This Generation Pact is a first policy that unfortunately does not cover everything and that also includes a piece of franchise for every healthy citizen. Nevertheless, with this Generation Pact we have taken the right path. Their

Finally, I would like to briefly point out three elements of the Generation Pact. The first is the simplification of the social balance. This has been requested by us for years. Especially smaller companies perceive this as a huge administrative burden. I can say that State Secretary Van Quickenborne has done a great job here and that the third survey of the Plan Bureau shows that a clear trend break has been used for the administrative burden. These have preferably dropped by a quarter to 2.57% of the gross domestic product. In 2005 it was 3.5%. For companies, this represents a cost savings of 1.7 billion euros. Their

So far, the good news. I ask the Minister for special attention: we must, however, be very careful not to make simplifications a vest bag/broek bag operation, especially in the context of well-being at work. That is important, especially for the peak hour generation, but we must still be very careful that in the context of well-being at work we do not come up with a lot of paper measures and paper reports of stress policy and of what is done to recognize the well-being of the employee at the workplace. It should be a real improvement, preferably with as few papers as possible. I think that in this sector that fall is so big. Their

Secondly, as I have already done in the committee, I would like to step up discrimination on the basis of age in the labour market. You know that I am not completely reassured by the judgments we have because of the European Court of Justice, but since last week also because of a Belgian labour court. This is the first judgment based on anti-discrimination legislation. You know I’m not quite at ease. Nevertheless, I insist on getting the list of all laws and CAOs that use age criteria for our labour market as soon as possible. In the UK, it takes 10 to 11 months. Their

There are gaps and imperfections in legislation: our labour market legislation is very complex because it has grown over the years. Therefore, it was not possible to take into account a European Directive from 2000. I will continue to pursue this in the coming months, because I don’t want us to come to the conclusion on 6 December 2006 that our work is not finished and that we may face a lot of complaints based on our laws or CAOs. Of course, in this file we will never be able to prevent individual complaints of employees against their own company management. Their

Finally, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to decide to take a brief pause on the problem of foreign workers in eight of the ten new Member States.

I appreciate the work colleague D'Hondt has done to submit amendments on this subject. This makes a genuine effort to develop more controls. You know that our party is very strongly demanding party for stopping government measures, even though we know that we need to have a solid control system.

I would like to repeat what I said later. We will not only need to improve our control system in Belgium. We will also have to do so through bilateral contracts with other countries. After all, we can here as much as we want to approve amendments that give us a ⁇ good feeling but which ultimately do not remedy the illegality, the existing, cringing conditions and the existing, unfair competition on the ground. In doing so, we might feel good for an hour or a day. In the long run, however, nothing changes.

That is why I insist. We actually have only four months left. During the exam, I always said that I still have four months. I would like you to do your utmost to really use these four months to fill as much as possible the gaps that remain in our social system, so that we can effectively open our labour market.

This is the debate, Mr. Minister. We all approved with great conviction the expansion of Europe from 15 to 25 new Member States. The extension implies that there is a free movement of goods and services and therefore also at a given time a free movement of persons. Otherwise, we should not have approved the expansion with such conviction.

I am also not blind to the disadvantages that exist now. Occasionally, those involved are now forced to work in the illegality because it is very difficult to get someone in through the front door. So my plea remains that you ensure that we can get them in through the front door, but also that we can stricter controls so that we do not create unfair competition.

Even in this current debate, it will be very important to look forward to what our neighbors will do. We can decide again in Parliament and work out a fantastic, Belgian solution, by which we may not end the transitional measures on 1 May 2006, but maybe on 1 September 2006 or on 1 January 2007. There is no need to extend until May 1, 2009. We can stop at any time.

However, it will be very important to look at what the neighboring countries, especially the Netherlands, will do. I hear that in the Netherlands they have already made the principled choice for an open labour market. However, we already see the crushing conditions in the Dutch interim offices, which dropped foreign workers through illegal constructions, which we, of course, also know, into our labour market.

This is why I call for the opening of the labour market on 1 May 2006. After all, I think that otherwise we will come to the situation that our companies are fleeing to Eastern Europe. I honestly admit that I would much rather have them employ Eastern Europeans here against our working conditions, against our minimum conditions and against our conditions in the field of social inspection and that we bring the companies here. After all and again, work creates other work.