Proposition 51K3074

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 12, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work incapacity for work cinema young person child infancy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

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 ¶

April 24, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are several reporters, in particular Mrs. Storms, Mrs. Galant, Mrs. Marghem and Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu. Mrs. Storms, was an agreement made on the reporting? You will come to report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am reporting on the parts of the program law that were dealt with in the Committee on Social Affairs.

First, Minister Vanvelthoven came to explain which provisions in the Program Law fall within his competence. The first chapter deals with the registration procedure for the construction sector. It provides for a new regulation simplifying and disconnecting the registration from the withdrawals and the joint liability. In the future, registration will be done on a voluntary basis and a quality label will be awarded to bonafide contractors who thus enjoy certain benefits, such as the reduced VAT rate of 6%. The withdrawals and the joint liability will still be applied only if there are actual debts.

The second chapter was also explained by Minister Vanvelthoven. It refers to the absence of work for the purpose of providing foster care. The Program Act provides that workers may be entitled to a right of absence from work for the purpose of providing parental care for a maximum of five days per calendar year and from 1 January 2008 this may be increased to 10 days by royal decree, following the advice of the NAR.

The third chapter deals with permanent incapacity for work. It is more specifically about the dismissal due to force majeure for medical reasons. This will only be accepted if confirmed by a doctor-inspector of the FOD WASO.

The fourth chapter deals with the starting and staging bonus. This chapter provides the legal basis for the financing of this start-up and internship bonus from the RSZ Global Management for the RVA for the financial year 2007.

The fifth chapter provides for the financing of the RVA within the framework of maternity assistance for self-employed women, in the form of service checks. On 17 and 18 March 2007, the Council of Ministers in Leuven had already decided to increase the number of free service cheques for female self-employed in the context of maternity assistance from 70 to 105 service cheques. The program law now also includes that the RVA will have the necessary resources to make this possible.

Following the introduction by Minister Vanvelthoven, Mrs. Greet van Gool explained the bill concerning the establishment of a prayer leave. She said that the bill actually pursues the same goal as the bill, but in a different way.

In the general discussion, Ms. Lanjri said that little progress has been made on the alignment of the status of workers and servants. She regretted this and also pointed out that the Lisbon objectives on employment have not been achieved. In the committee there was also a discussion about which provisions belong or not to the Program Law, due to its budgetary or non-budgetary nature.

During the article-by-article discussion, Ms. Lanjri also asked for explanations on the new registration system for the construction sector. Mrs. van Gool asked whether the parental leave applies to the placement of adults. Mrs Lanjri expressed her disappointment over the parental leave. She wanted more resources to be released for this measure.

The section relating to the powers of Minister Vanvelthoven was finally unanimously adopted. The amendment was also unanimously adopted.

The second item, which has been discussed in our Social Affairs Committee, concerns the provisions relating to pensions. Minister Tobback has explained that the proposed provisions are intended to determine the parameters by which it should be possible to assess whether the capital of a supplementary pension that a person is establishing will eventually generate an interest that in combination with the statutory pension is higher than 80% of the last salary. If this is not the case, the contribution inherent to the supplementary pension for the employer is tax deductible. In the opposite case, it is not deductible.

During the general discussion, Mrs Van Gool submitted an amendment. There were no comments on the article, nor on the amendment. The amendment was approved with eight votes for and one abstinence. The article itself was adopted with the same vote.

The preliminary last part concerned the provisions relating to persons with disabilities. The State Secretary for the Family and Persons with Disabilities, Ms. Mandaila, has explained that when a person with disabilities who enjoys an integration benefit or an income replacement benefit plus an integration benefit benefit is included in an institution, there is currently a detention in the amount of one-third of the benefit. That withholding was reduced to 28% of the amount of the benefit.

Both Ms. Lanjri and Ms. Gerkens called this detention rather symbolic and insignificant. Mrs. van Gool had questions about the application modalities. Mr Delizée responded rather positively. Mrs. Mandaila, in turn, responded that the measure is not only symbolic at all, but that she intends to completely abolish the detention in the future.

Unfortunately, budgetary considerations have not made this possible.

In the replies, Ms. Lanjri further pointed out that there is indeed a consensus beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition on the need to end the discrimination that still exists in that area. Ms. Gerkens pointed out that we must be modest, however, when we look at the overall balance of this government’s actions for the benefit of persons with disabilities. Mrs. van Gool regrets that there is still a need for an application to obtain such a reduction in detention.

The articles themselves were adopted with ten votes in favour and one abstinence.

Colleagues, the last part dealt with the provisions on social matters. Minister Demotte referred to the explanatory memo to learn more about these provisions. In the general discussion, Ms Lanjri disagreed with the increased child allowance for single-parent families. She advocated the introduction of the CD&V bill that provides for a thirteenth month child allowance. She also said that the measure of the Program Act actually only benefits a very limited group of parents. She pointed out that the Family Union is also opposed to the income linking of child allowance. Mr Drèze asked whether there are already implementing decisions ready for these measures. He also pointed out that the increased child allowance will be deposited on 8 June 2007 and therefore calls it an electoral preferential measure. He also pointed out the danger that this measure would introduce a new type of Anglo-Saxon model of social security. He also pointed out possible violations of the principle of equality by this measure. He also had a few practical questions about the implementation modalities. Mrs Cahay and Mrs De Block asked whether this measure would also apply to single self-employed persons.

The Minister, in turn, gave all parliamentarians a response to their questions, citing, among other things, that the alleged violations of the principle of equality are unlikely to lead to a complaint to the Arbitration Court, since since 1992, at the time of the Dehaene government, there has been an increased child benefit for long-term unemployed, single parents.

He also pointed out that working with threshold amounts will always bring disadvantages. For him, the increase in child allowance is only a first step. In the longer term, the Minister plans to more gradually introduce a system of child allowance, depending on the income of the parents. As regards Mrs Cahay and Mrs De Block, he replied that the measure does not apply to self-employed persons, but that a similar measure is being prepared for self-employed persons.

Mr Drèze has repeatedly stated that he is convinced that the new measure will bring about an administrative burden. He is also convinced that the Family Union will challenge the new arrangement before the Arbitration Court for violation of the principle of equality.

Finally, Mr Servotte, the minister’s associate, explained exactly how the payment of the increased allowance will take place. Drèze said that he believes that the modalities for implementing the increased child allowance should be included in the law and should not be left to the State Service for Child allowance for Employees.

Ultimately, both the amendments and the articles themselves were adopted with ten votes for and one vote against. Until then, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, my report.

The general discussion is opened. Mrs. De Block is registered, but I don’t see her. I removed her name. Mrs. Lanjri is also registered, but I don’t see her either. I removed her name.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the Financial Lock. There has not yet been a report on this. Are you intending to have all speakers speak to each other or are you working on different topics?

I see Mrs. Marghem coming in. I think I have to work globally otherwise we will not get out of it. The speakers, of course, also want to conduct a general discussion.

Mrs. Marghem, I let Mrs. Storms speak for her report. Do you want to read a part of the report or have you arranged with it?

I refer to this in my written report.

I would like to say, however, that a lot of journalists are expected again. However, we note that even in these last days of the sessions of this Parliament the reporters, with the exception of Mrs. Storms and Mrs. Marghem who refer to the written report, do not appear.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as far as my presentation is concerned, I would like to have talked about the introduction of what the Minister of Finance calls “the greening of fiscality” within the framework of this program law. In Articles 124 to 127 one of the decisions of the last Leuven Super Ministerial Council, where purple came to the understanding to introduce a picnic tax, is converted into a legal framework. The picnic tax is a variant of the eco-tax, one of the many Reynderstacks that have seen the light of life in the last eight years under the purple rule. In any case, the picnic tax consists in imposing a tax on disposable packaging such as plastic bags, better known as the grocery bags, plastic dining dishes and household film made of plastic and aluminum foil. This is so-called to reduce CO2 emissions, but everyone knows that it is a purely budgetary measure that must raise 134 million euros annually.

As with the eco-tax on non-renewable beverage packaging, the introduction of that tax on mainly those commodity bags will also have a border area effect. Food stores in the border region will soon buy their carrier packaging across the border and therefore will not pay any CO2 tax, so simple that is. I assume that as far as the black circuit is concerned, after 1 July, a significant portion of purchases in black will happen again. This picnic tax will in practice be paid by the person who spends the plastic bags. If this is a cost item for the company concerned, the price of the plastic bags will be transferred into the total price and thus to the user, the consumer, while the company at that time prints its profits and then pays less taxes. That is, therefore, precisely the opposite of the intended effect, while it was clearly purple’s intention to stiffen the state treasury.

The government has looked to Denmark for the introduction of this measure.

I do not have sufficient knowledge of the Danish model, Mr. Minister, I only note that the Finance Inspectorate has determined that the Danish statistics are not sufficiently accurate, to the extent that it cannot express its opinion on the accuracy of the estimated return. Again, purple in this dossier of ecofiscality has, in my opinion, not been thought out.

The reason I speak today is because I have still been looking for some additional information on tax measures that other countries have taken in the context of the case of commodity bags. There are still a number of countries that have imposed a tax on plastic bags. Some of these countries are Scotland and Ireland. This is called the plastic bag tax.

Both the Scottish and Irish packaging industry have defended this measure to impose a tax on plastic bags. They came in defense, not because of the cost aspect, but because of the ecological aspect. For example, there are major misunderstandings around the efficiency of introducing a tax on plastic bags. As plastic bags are no longer available in Ireland, supermarkets and neighborhood shops have switched to pre-packaging their fruits, vegetables and bakery products in polystyrene packages, the weight of which is between 8 and 12 times greater than that of the previous plastic bags. Not only the weight has increased, but also the volume, and this is already seen in the handling of the quantity of household waste and therefore also in the collection of that household waste.

The morality of the story is that much less plastic bags are used, but that more waste is produced and that more landfills and more combustion capacity need to come. Whether all this is good for the environment is, of course, only the question.

The non-food distribution chain has moved from plastic bags to paper packaging, to avoid the plastic bag tax. The weight of a paper bag is 3 to 12 times heavier, and takes up 5 to 10 times more volume than plastic bags, to speak of the higher cost.

The consequences are dramatic. In Ireland, it has been found that the amount of waste by weight is increasing. Calculations show that, since the introduction of the plastic bag tax, an additional 13,500 tons of packaging material has been produced, while the government had expected it to drop.

The second finding is that much more waste is generated by volume. There are also figures available for this. 200,000 cubic meters of additional landfill would be needed to process the additional amount of packaging material.

Furthermore, more trucks are needed to bring the paper packaging from the paper manufacturer to the companies that make bags of it, and then bring it into the household via food stores. This is not really environmentally friendly, if you ask me.

Additionally, for those of us who didn’t know it, more CO2 and more methane gas are produced in the processing of paper waste than in the processing of plastic bags. As a result, the opposite effect is achieved. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions, there is an increase. Understand who can understand.

Colleagues, in Scotland, the consortium of carrying bags packaging has carried out a whole advertising campaign. I have such an advertisement with me. The advertisement shows the sharp contrast between the difference in plastic bags and the way the volume was boosted by switching to paper packaging. The consortium showed that 150,000 plastic storehouse bags require two pallets, which together weigh 1,300 kg. When switching to paper packaging for the same volume of commodity-house bags as we know them, there are a total of 67 pallets needed, the total weight of which is 16,000 kg or 16 tons.

For Scotland, this means that if the transition from plastic to paper packaging would require an additional 23,000 trucks per year to carry the same amount of paper bags instead of the plastic bags used in the past.

It is unnecessary to say that such a measure, in particular the introduction of a tax on a plastic bag, completely overlooks its purpose and therefore has no positive environmental contribution at all. The legitimate question that we can ask ourselves is, therefore, whether the prevailing measures of the purple government will all succeed.

For Ireland, where the government – I think in 2005 – introduced a tax on plastic bags, even numbers on the volumes are available.

When the measure was introduced, the government believed that the demand for plastic bags would drop by 90%. In practice, however, the volume of plastic base material used to produce plastic bags has not decreased, but increased.

In 2004, approximately 23,000 tonnes of plastic base material for the production of plastic bags were imported across Ireland. In the year of the introduction of the duty, at the end of that year, it must have been established that 27.700 tonnes of basic material were imported, or an increase of 20%. Here too, there is quite the opposite effect and there is no decrease in the number of supermarket bags, but an increase, despite the introduction of a tax.

Colleagues, I say all this to demonstrate that the environmental aspect of a measure to impose a tax on plastic bags, but also on plastic film and plastic bits does not provide any assurance that the environment will get better. Of course, there is another certainty, namely that the state treasury will get better. In the past few years, we have become accustomed to purple. However, I wanted to bring this to the attention of the colleagues, Mr. Minister, in the context of the discussion of the program law.

Two speakers were still absent, but everything is possible in the world of events. I hear that Mrs. Lanjri wants to ask questions to Minister Demotte.

Mrs. De Block, will you intervene now?

I am not intervening now.

The [...]

Mrs Lanjri, however, I need to know to whom you are asking questions. I cannot allow you to ask questions to Minister Reynders if they are intended for Minister Demotte, or vice versa.

Mrs Lanjri, we will try to arrange the work a little. You are asking questions to Minister Demotte. I will try to get Mr. Demotte here. Mrs. De Block, you also have questions, but to whom?

The Minister Laruelle.

Minister Laruelle is present. It might be good if you take the word now. I will soon see which colleagues specifically target which ministers.

The word is yours, Mrs. De Block, because Mrs. Laruelle is present. In the meantime, I ask that Minister Demotte would come here.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, I would like to ask Mr. Laruelle a few questions about the self-employed service cheques. These have now been raised from 70 to 105 service checks. It is said that it seeks to ⁇ an equal balance in the maternity rest of self-employed women with that of employed women. That is a very good thing. This is the first time in years that this has been done.

I have only one question for the future. On these service cheques, however, a portion of their own contribution must be paid. In fact, this is not entirely an equalization. Could there be any changes to this in the future? I think of it because it is just one-time, or two-time, events. Indeed, today, independent women no longer have twelve children. Thus, for example, through tax measures, one can grant a kind of exemption when it comes to cheques that are recorded in connection with a maternity leave.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik vind dat die maatregel heel important is voor van vrouwelijke zelfstandigen na het moederschapsverlof. In the future, we should do more for self-reliance, but still more for female self-reliance. De regering heeft al veel maatregelen genomen, for example voor de meewerkende echtgenoot in gratis dienstencheques na het moederschapsverlof. We have also decided the motherhood law out of breiden: eight weeks in no six weeks more. There is still a lot of work in the sector.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, I will retain in this draft law-programme, the main provisions of the tax order which reflect the constant interest and here reaffirmed that the government brings to the environment, to innovative enterprises in the framework of research and development, to the situation of single-parent families as well as the middle classes.

First, the first chapter that I will address, the newest and most caring, relates to the environment. In order to further promote the installation of a water heating system using solar energy or the installation of photovoltaic panels, it is proposed to adopt a supplementary tax reduction measure. The maximum amount will be increased from 2,000 to 2,600 euros, or 3,380 after indexation for expenditure made in order to save energy.

Then, a new environmentally-friendly measure will modulate the taxation of corporate cars according to the CO2 emissions per kilometer and according to the fuel used. The government, as part of this program law, also takes an innovative initiative to encourage the purchase of clean vehicles, i.e. low CO2 emissions and/or equipped with a particulate filter. We are here proposed to abandon the current system of tax reduction for the benefit of a reduction of the invoice. In this way, the tax advantage will remain at its current level, but it will now be acquired immediately to the beneficiary, by granting a reduction on invoice.

More specifically in this chapter, the amount of the bill reduction for low-CO2 vehicles will be identical to the amount of the tax reduction to which it replaces. On the one hand, this reduction will therefore be equal to 15% of the purchase price of the vehicle when it emits less than 105 grams of CO2 per kilometer without exceeding the amount of 3,280 euros not indexed. And on the other hand, it will correspond to 3% of the purchase price of the vehicle when it emits between 105 and 115 grams of CO2 per kilometer, but does not exceed an amount of 615 euros not indexed.

As for the reduction of the invoice properly for the use of a particle filter, it will also be identical to the amount of the tax reduction, namely 150 euros. Finally, it will be the vehicle supplier, acting as an intermediary on behalf of the State, who will be obliged to calculate the amount of the reduction himself and to impute it on the amount of the price of these services. The amount of these reductions will then be paid by the State to the supplier or installor as an element of the price of the services. This tax advantage, of course, has a provisional character, as it will lose its reason of being as soon as the European Commission has introduced the obligation for all vehicles to be equipped with a particle filter.

I now come to the second chapter of my speech, which evokes an initiative expected by innovative technology companies, which is in the right line of the so-called Lisbon commitments. I mean tax deductions related to patents.

The objective of the measure is to encourage Belgian companies to innovate in the technical field by stimulating research and development activities related to patent development or by encouraging the acquisition of patents and/or rights of use of patents as well as the manufacture of products on the basis of such patents.

The basic principle is to grant companies a tax deduction of 80 % on revenues from patents for which a Belgian company or a Belgian institution has granted a licence and on revenues from patents used by that Belgian company or the Belgian institution for the manufacture, directly on its behalf, of products thus patented.

I hope, however, that the packaging will be eased at a later stage and after evaluation, so that the unused deduction can be postponed in the future. Indeed, the unused deduction is not postponable in time and this could be detrimental for some high-tech companies in the start-up phase, for example, "spins off" from universities. They often suffer significant losses at the beginning of their activities, while a significant part of their revenue is often generated by patents. This limitation could therefore prevent them from taking full advantage of this new tax incentive.

At the present stage, the deduction cannot, unfortunately, be applied to the amount of the residual profit and, in so far as this residual profit is insufficient to enable the total amount of the deduction for patent income to be applied, it cannot, at the present stage, be transferred to subsequent taxation years. I repeat otherwise what I had specified a few moments ago.

Therefore, the restriction on postponement may prove unfavorable for some companies. Without going into the details of this project, very positive by the way, I wanted above all to welcome this "happy" initiative that will not fail to appreciate our innovative companies.

Regarding family allowances, I would like to emphasize that following the decisions taken at the Council of Ministers of Louvain, a supplement of 20 euros per child and per month is granted to single-parent families. Although it is intended for employees, I am delighted to know that the royal decree has been sent to the State Council to enable this measure to be extended to self-employed.

It is also by them that I will conclude my exhibition on the law-program, since the middle classes remain at the heart of our concerns and those of the government, as this law-program shows.

Creating and operating your own business is all but easy; unfortunately, this is the hard finding that many independent workers form today. According to the latest INASTI figures from 2005, there were 6,128 bankruptcies in our country. We are all aware of the disastrous consequences these events have for the whole of society, both for the self-employed and his family and for his employees, especially since one-third of the self-employed live below the poverty line at present. That’s why I can now only look forward to seeing the bankrupt insurance for self-employed persons being revamped as part of the poverty-fighting program. Not only will, from 1 July 2007, the amounts granted be almost doubled, since this benefit will be raised to the same amount as that of the minimum pension for self-employed but, in addition, they will be collected twice as long as we go from six to twelve months of collection.

These improvements will undoubtedly enable self-employed to cope with their sudden change of status, so that they will be able to turn back more serene to find or create another job.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to speak now about two points, namely the application of child allowances for single parents and the hospitality industry.

I have already spoken on behalf of my group on the first point in the committee. However, I would like to reiterate our main criticism in this regard. We also have to the draft law to increase the child allowance for single persons, which precludes, our bill no. 1192 to introduce a thirteenth month child allowance, linked. After all, we believe that an additional month of child allowance for each child who is entitled to it is much better suited to the social interests and the rights of each child. For us, child allowance is a right of every child.

The draft law presented by the government today provides for a minimum increase in the child allowance for single persons and then linked to a certain maximum income. There is a threshold of 1740 euros. The following points of criticism can be formulated.

First, there are also couples that remain below that threshold of 1740 euros. They are not eligible for this child allowance. We find it completely unfair that they are not eligible while they remain below the threshold.

Secondly, there is also the fact that single people can come to sit just above it, with half a euro or one euro and then suddenly receive nothing. Either you receive the full prize or nothing.

This is not the right system. We are not alone with this criticism. The Family Union has also repeatedly expressed this criticism and is opposed to any form of income linking of child allowances.

We are and continue to advocate that child allowance is a right of every child. That was the origin of the system, and so it should remain. Therefore, it is much better to actually leave from a thirteenth month or a general increase in child benefit, which is cost-covering. That is a much fairer system than to extinguish some fires here and there or to give something here and there. Much better than the system that now exists with the school premium, for certain children for certain ages, or even much better than the system that is defended here today, in the Minister’s draft, a surcharge for single parents, but with a low income, so not for low-income people who are with two, nor for single parents, who earn just 1 euro more than that amount.

Furthermore, we believe that the debate should be conducted more fundamentally. We find that the child allowance has come, because that is solidarity between families with children and families without children, that there must play a lot of solidarity, and not families with children, which belong to the modal income, and families with children, which fall under it. It is truly a solidarity between families with and without children and we believe that there should be no discrimination according to the portfolio of the parents. Especially because this is a cost-covering, cost-compensating expenditure, as is the case with health insurance, health insurance. As with health care, child allowances should be cost-covering. It is therefore not fair that one receives something for one child and does not receive something for the other, while one is actually facing the same costs.

This is our criticism of the present bill. We really find it insufficient. It does not adequately address a need that exists in all families. Therefore, we also propose our bill that calls for a thirteenth month child allowance for all families.

Regarding the hospitality industry, I would have wanted to ask the Minister a number of very concrete questions, which I could not answer in the committee due to circumstances.

First, I would like to ask you a question, in connection with the Dimona declaration. Will there be an amendment to the Dimona declaration on 1 July, so that the employers for the declaration of the occasional employees have the choice between either the full declaration of the start and end hours or the declaration in time blocks of for example 5 or 11 hours?

Second, will the government abolish the regulation of the superextra? Third, is the scheme relating to the fixed rate of wages applicable to the calculation of contributions? I recall that it was previously said that this would be the case on 1 January already. We are four months away and that is not the case yet.

We also wonder whether the sector’s social partners, both employers and trade unions, agree on all aspects of the new hospitality system. Is the planned recording of time blocks also kept on paper? Are not only the time blocks tracked, but also the real hours performed?

I have another question about the work bonus. It is now provided that the King may decide to reduce the burden for the employer. But what about the work bonus that applies to employees? How will it be integrated into the new system?

The State Council has also criticized the proposal. What is the Minister’s reaction to the criticism of the State Council that considers that the delegations of power to the King for exempting employers from certain contributions are far too broad and that they need to be defined more precisely?

How many regularisations has the RSZ had to make, and for what amount, for the employers who during the transitional period did not make the full declaration of the benefits through Dimona and thus lost the right to the flat rate scheme for occasional workers?

Are the social partners agreeing on the level of the fixed daily wages proposed now? Were the observations of the NAR taken into account, in particular the question of not starting from 21 days for the calculation of the minimum monthly wage, but from 21.73 in order thus to reach the daily amount?

Finally, why does the government say that it will reinvest part of the surplus revenues from the reform of the flat-rate system in burden reductions for the hospitality industry? Why is it a part and not the total amount of the surplus revenues invested in burden reductions? Otherwise, you are not talking about a burden reduction, but de facto about a burden increase since those funds are then used for something else.

These were my questions to the Minister. We also criticize the current draft on the child allowance for single persons.

Mr. Speaker, you have the word for your response to the questions. I will then make a proposal to the House.

I will not respond to everything. There were said matters about child allowances, which I have already responded extensively in the committee. So I will limit my answers to the questions about the catering sector.

First, there were questions about the changes made to Dimona from 1 July 2007.

On 20 April 2007, the Government effectively approved a draft royal decree relating to the hospitality industry. The draft is now for advice to the State Council. The draft implements the agreement concluded with the sector’s social partners.

The draft provides for a modification of the regulations relating to Dimona for occasional workers employed in the hospitality industry, with effect from 1 July 2007. Employers can choose between two Dimona systems. He may, first, opt for a full Dimona with the start and end time of the performance, as Ms. Lanjri repeated. He can, secondly, choose a Dimona light, indicating the starting time of performance plus the choice of a block time, coupled with keeping track of a new, social document, namely the register for working time arrangement.

Second, there were the questions concerning the abolition of the superextra scheme.

As agreed with the sector’s social partners, the superextra scheme will be abolished from 1 July 2007.

Third, there were also questions concerning the new scheme of fixed daily wages for the calculation of the social security contribution.

As agreed with the social partners, the system of fixed daily wages as the basis for the calculation of the social security contribution and thus also of the social benefits, in particular unemployment and health insurance, will be fundamentally changed.

Since 1 April 2007, the use of the fixed daily wages in social security is limited to the hospitality industry, seafarers, sports practitioners and occasional workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture and hospitality. The list of functions in the hospitality sector was therefore adjusted.

Since 1 April 2007, the fixed daily salary in the hospitality industry must never be lower than the guaranteed minimum income. It was effectively anticipated that this principle would come into force from 1 January 2007. However, the procedure did not allow to meet the anticipated timing. In the period between 1 July 2007 and 1 October 2008, the fixed daily wages in the hospitality industry will be gradually equalised with the commercial wages.

Mrs Lanjri, a question that was also asked by you was whether there was an agreement with the social partners. The new scheme was approved by all the social partners of the sector. You can find this in the press release of Ho.Re.Ca. Flanders on 21 April 2007: "Fed. After months of discussions, Ho.Re.Ca Vlaanderen is pleased that the entire government has come over the bridge with a package of measures that shines a light in the dark tunnel in which the sector had fallen."

Another question that was asked is about keeping track of a writing with the real hours performed. If the employer chooses Dimona Light, he must effectively keep a register for the working time arrangement. That register shall include the actual performance and all employers shall provide their occasional employees with a daily overview of the employee’s performance in an annex to the salary sheet.

I have a few small points.

First, it is about the work bonus and the hospitality workers. The hospitality workers enjoy the work bonus like all employees in all sectors. The system relating to the work bonus was adjusted to the increase in the minimum wage as of 1 April 2007. The social status of many employees in the hospitality industry is fundamentally improved.

You say that there are too large delegations of powers to the King. The principles are included in the proposed provisions. It mainly concerns the scope of the employers of the various sectors employing occasional workers who are subject to all branches of social security. The other elements of the delegations shall take over existing delegations. Some delegations even date from before June 1999.

For the RSZ-regularisations, I refer to my response that I gave to Mr Vandeurzen on this subject. There is an agreement with all social partners, here more specifically on the amount of the fixed daily wages. There is an agreement with all the social partners of the sector on future flat daily wages. There was a comment from the VBO and the Midstand in the NAR, regarding the division of the minimum wages, but given the fact that it was a first phase to "align" a flat daily wage with the conventional wages, the hospitality employers no longer pressed.

Your last question was about the so-called recycling. The Government spoke of the recycling of a part of the surplus revenues in social security, as a result of the implemented reforms on the calculation base of social security with regard to the workers rewarded with wages or a percentage of employment, as the reform also covers other sectors. According to the RSZ’s estimate, all the surplus revenues in the RSZ will be recycled. Partial recycling is effective if the impact of the measures on all sectors is taken into account.

Until then my answer. I think I gave a complete answer to all questions.

Can Mrs. Lanjri respond first? What about Mrs. Pieters?

I would like to thank the Minister for his answers. Collega Pieters, who has also followed the case of the hospitality industry over the past years, will immediately make a few more remarks. I have not fully understood your answer to my last question, why only part of the surplus income is invested. How do you see that? You say that it is actually only one over one part, if you take into account all sectors. Will it be re-invested in the hospitality industry or not? Can you give me a very clear answer to this?

Can you repeat it? I don’t hear it well.

Regarding the reinvestment of the surplus income, you answered that the whole is reinvested in the hospitality sector, or only a part if you look at all sectors. Can you explain this a little more clearly, because I did not fully understand that answer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I also have a question on this.

First and foremost, I dare say that after eight years of catering plans, a fragmentary solution has now come from the majority. The convention has indeed been established and by what is now filled in those KBs, a part of this convention has been realized. Therefore, it seems to me logical that the parties concerned have approved this. I have a few questions.

I read the press release of Ho.Re.Ca-Vlaanderen, in connection with the Dimona statement for occasional workers. I find that they conclude that electronic time recording is no longer necessary for temporary workers. I don’t think it’s the purpose of the concept that Dimona remains. Dimona is not bad in itself, but very difficult to apply in the catering sector. In the gardening sector, it is not difficult to apply Dimona: one starts at a certain time in the morning and before it becomes dark, one stops. In the hospitality, that is a completely different given. When you have a wedding party, you don’t know when it will end in the evening, and the patron can’t stand there until five or six o’clock in the morning to bring everything in via computer or GSM.

I feel like they won’t work with Dimona. Then that will happen with the formula Dimona-light, or the old system, in addition to block time. This will have to be done with registration. Who should register? Is it the temporary worker, the occasional worker who gives up his hours, or is it the employer who records it and ensures the coordination? These are two different things. That was the first point on Dimona.

Then there is the structural burden reduction. That is positive. It concerns both employees and employers, I read, not in the KBs, because I have not seen them, but in the press release of Ho.Re.Ca-Vlaanderen. I would like to know how much that structural cost reduction will amount, both for employers and workers. I suppose this was developed in the KBs.

The same applies to the reimbursement of the costs of the social secretariat. The government now provides for an intervention per quarter and per employee for the administrative costs of the Social Secretariat. How many euros is that? Is that a significant amount or not? Finally, there is something Mrs. Lanjri just said. The government has always said it would invest in the hospitality sector.

The prime minister has once forgotten that he would invest the difference between 21% and 6% of VAT total in the sector. It was about 500 million euros. Such a thing is impossible. Well, that was said at some point. Now you say that partial recycling in the sector will be stopped. I ask, then, like Mrs. Lanjri, what amount it will be about. Give me the result of that recycling that will be partially stopped in the sector.

I will then make a proposal on the two technical amendments that could further improve the draft.

There are four ministers responsible for this matter.

I will, of course, answer in terms of my own powers.

..., both as Minister Verwilghen, Minister Vanvelthoven and you, Mr. Minister. You are all competent in this matter. In the end, it becomes a crap.

Let me go to the registration first. Who should register? This is clearly the employer.

Second, as regards recycling, there are different ways in the sector to calculate the basis of the social burden. One can work with a system of fees or a service percentage on salaries. In the sector, for example hotels, there are several systems that exist side by side. If you look at everything box by box, there is a balance with the different systems. It may be that a system used so far loses some of its resources, but in general there is a balance.

Another question that was asked was how much the structural measures will bring. This is not about the employees, but about the employers. They will receive 9 million euros. There is a cost reduction of 9 million euros.

For the horticultural sector?

Yes, for the entire sector.

You say that partial recycling will also be spread across the various sectors.

Yes, I say that there may be differences within the sectors. After all, the way in which the basis of the social burden has been calculated so far is very different. In the text of my note it is stated that, according to the RSZ estimates, the whole surplus yield in the catering sector is recycled.

I conclude the general discussion. Before I begin the article-by-article discussion, I have received two technical amendments. One changes a date and one equates certain terms, at least in accountability: an adaptation of §4 to the words of §3. The first amendment relates to Article 28 of the Program Law and the second to Article 2 of the draft law containing various provisions. I propose that this be returned to the committee before the beginning of the article-by-article discussion.

There are two amendments: one on the draft law-program and one on the draft law containing various provisions. As the Social Affairs Committee currently sits, I will therefore return these two amendments to it so that it can return to the plenary session for an oral report.

Renvoyé and commission

Returned to the Commission