Proposition 52K0167

Projet de loi déterminant le seuil applicable pour l'institution des conseils d'entreprise ou le renouvellement de leurs membres à l'occasion des élections sociales de l'année 2008.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 2, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work occupational safety works council workers' representation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

LDD

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 ¶

Oct. 18, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

A number of speakers were registered, Mr. Vercamer, Mrs. De Block, Mr. Flahaux, Mr. Delizée, Mrs. De Maght and Mr. D’haeseleer. Are there other people asking for the word in the general discussion?

Mr President Mr. Gilkinet, who was absent for a few moments, would like to be included in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the rapporteur refers to his written report.

I intervene to remind that our group wishes to respect the agreement reached between the social partners, with a view to the organization of the social elections to take place in May 2008, and within which the thresholds set forth in previous social elections have been resumed: a threshold of 50 workers for the establishment of the prevention and protection committees at work and 100 workers for the business councils.

We believe that the problem of thresholds, which is in itself a subject of debate, should not be an obstacle to the establishment of the procedure that should enable the organization of future social elections.

We pointed out that, for example, a postponement to 2009 presented many disadvantages, in particular as regards the legal certainty of workers’ representatives, the replacement of posts that are no longer occupied. In addition to this, there is a timetable problem with the inter-sectoral and inter-sectoral negotiations that will take place in 2009.

As the social partners have pointed out, the agreement reached is far from “emptying” the subject. Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Justice in March last year for failing to transpose, in Belgian law, the March 2002 Directive on information and consultation of workers.

In the Committee, Mr. The Minister said that Belgium was threatened with a fine of almost 3 million euros, accompanied by fines of up to 3,500 euros per day of delay. We are at the foot of the wall.

That said, in the agreement, the social partners explicitly indicate that they will continue, in the coming weeks, the negotiations in order to reach a solution on this directive. They set as deadline the end of November.

We are confident in the outcome of the negotiations and hope that they can lead to a true social consultation with information and consultation of workers in companies of 50 to 100 workers, but also to a social consultation in the field of hygiene, safety at work – the problem of work accidents is also very important in small enterprises – and information of workers.

The design proposed is minimalist. It is a project of troubleshooting, rescue; it is as such that it must be considered.

We also have a bill. Therefore, we will not submit amendments to this minimalist project, nor will we approve any amendment. This debate must indeed be held. We want to enable the social concertation to complete its work in a quick timeframe.

Of course, in the absence of a solution between the social partners, this matter will have to be returned to Parliament to find a legislative solution. We are ready for this debate. The bill is signed by the PS and the sp.a. We are looking forward to this debate, because we are looking forward to achieving this issue.

Here are some of our considerations, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, the Socialist group will approve the minimalist bill of law, of troubleshooting, which is submitted to us.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I address the word to you today for the first time, because List Dedecker considers that it is necessary to stand up for the taxpayer.

We note that the current purple government of ongoing affairs has been negligent and was sentenced by the European Court of Justice to a fine of 2.9 million euros. In order to quickly save the furniture, Minister Vanvelthoven has submitted a bill that will be submitted to you today for approval. This draft aims to give preference to corporate boards in companies with more than 100 employees in May next year. This does not comply with the European Directive of 11 March 2002 – I would like to point out that today we are already in the year 2007 – which obliges Belgium to organize information and consultation of employees in companies from 50 employees. Belgium was sentenced by the European Court of Justice to a heavy fine of 2.9 million euros and high coercive sums. The Minister has previously admitted in the committee that he has yet to have a conclusive answer to the European demand to modify the Belgian legislation.

In its opinion, the Council of State also highlights in abundance the fact that the draft presented here for approval today does not meet the European obligation. Minister Vanvelthoven also has no promise that the European Commission would not claim the fine. He has now been given time until mid-December, in the hope that the social partners in the Labour Council will work out a sustainable arrangement. On the part of the labor council, however, nothing should be expected, since the trade unions and the employers have been in line with each other for years, when it comes to whether the doors should be opened to the trade unions even in small ⁇ .

List Dedecker, on the other hand, proposes that the information obligation in companies with more than 50 but less than 100 employees be entrusted to the committees for prevention and protection at work. The reason why this proposal has not been followed so far is not far to be sought. The trade unions are not in favour of this simple solution because Mr. Leterme signed a charter several years ago in which he promised a corporate council to companies with at least 25 employees.

However, the amendment submitted by the List Dedecker is sufficient for a solution that complies with the European directive. In companies with more than 50, but fewer than 100 employees, no corporate council is elected. This is not necessarily the case for Europe, but the right to information and consultation is exercised by the representatives of the Committee on Prevention at Work. They are chosen by the staff.

The adoption of this amendment eliminates the risk of the effective payment of the fine and the penalty amounts. Social partners are therefore still free to conclude a new agreement on the representation of trade unions in SMEs. It will also give the next government the opportunity to develop a sustainable arrangement, which is indeed necessary.

If the parties of the future orange-blue majority vote against this amendment, they willingly and knowingly choose to pay the European fine, because in the absence of an agreement between the social partners, which the government claims to hope for, there is nothing but to pay.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, your responsibility in this matter is very large, because neither the outgoing ministers nor the social partners will collect the fine, which will be paid with tax money.

We are convinced that it is our duty to point out to the members of this House plenary session the possible consequences of not approving our amendment. The amendment to the List of Dedecker provides a solution that complies with the European directive, thus avoiding the fine, and which also frees hands for a future arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, List Dedecker offers the future orange-blue government the opportunity to avoid a heavy winding for the State Treasury. This is a first step. Once the penalty has disappeared, we will do everything we can to further save SMEs from additional social and administrative obligations and burdens.

Dat was of maidenspeech van mevrouw De Maght. (The Applause)

On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, our Social Affairs Committee met for the first time in this new legislature. Our first theme of discussion – and I see it as a strong symbol of our Belgian democracy – was that of the debate on the social elections scheduled for May 2008. Indeed, the MR is ⁇ attached to social dialogue and democracy, whether political or economic. In this, we are the faithful and proud descendants of the great tradition of 19th-century progressive liberalism. Let us not forget that it is major politicians – and Brother Orban was such a strong example – who were the drivers of social progress in our country before being joined in their struggle by others.

We can therefore only work in favour of the permanent social consultation as it is experienced on a daily basis in the consultation bodies which are the corporate boards. In this sense, we can only agree with the bill discussed today. The bill that we are discussing regulates the problem of the 2008 social elections and should, at this stage, only regulate this election.

Minister Vanvelthoven, ⁇ unintentionally forgetting that we are in a period of ordinary business, had, in the comments to the articles of our bill, put the chariot before the oxen and made commitments for the 2012 social elections. In the Social Affairs Committee, I pointed this to him with panche and the minister acknowledged that he went too far from what had been agreed by the political and social partners. In addition, the Commission’s report includes this necessary correction. However, it remains that the MR will be a dynamic interlocutor in the discussion of the norms of the subsequent social elections.

However, the current bill does not yet resolve the problem of Belgium’s non-compliance with the 2002 Directive of the European Parliament establishing a general framework for informing and consulting workers in the European Community. This will be an urgent workplace to be dealt with with the new government if we want to prevent our country, which we are so proud of – Belgium – from acquiring the image of a bad student of the European class and also suffering the financial constraints of its delay in applying European regulations.

The MR will once again be present at this issue, as it was at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Committee this 16 October. We were somewhat alone with the Ecolo group.

This was Mr. President’s first speech. Flags in this Assembly!

(Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today we are discussing the bill that should so-called enable social elections to continue at the scheduled time, i.e. in May of next year as decided by the National Labour Council. The fact that here now a bill is approved while the government is in ongoing affairs is indeed, as a newspaper titled, a prime for Minister Vanvelthoven. He apparently has already taken place on the opposition banks rather than on the government banks.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, I would not be proud of this right away. In our view, calling this draft law an ongoing matter is the violation of the conduct adopted by the Conference of Presidents in 1988 which resulted that, with the exception of urgent drafts concerning the continuity of the State, for example the provisional twelve which we apparently will soon need, it is excluded that a resigning government submits draft laws to the Parliament. One tries to circumvent this by asserting that the substantial concept prevails, relying on – I quote – “the urgent and important nature of the draft law”. Furthermore, the Prime Minister’s letter states that the absence of a legal provision concerning social elections would cause serious damage to society, quod non. As if you did not know before that social elections are held every four years.

The only thing that is really urgent in this matter is the transposition of the European Directive on information and consultation of workers into Belgian law. It is a directive that must have been transposed into Belgian law not later than 23 March 2005. Both the government and the social partners have been drawing this case for years, with the consequence that the European Court of Justice sentenced this country for the first time in March 2007 and now a fine of approximately 3 million euros above our head with the associated coercive amounts of 300,000 euros per day. Furthermore, the fact that this draft does not comply with the provisions of the recently cited Directive is problematic by the State Council in its opinion.

This bill is not just an ongoing case but, on the contrary, a very strongly politically loaded dossier. The proof of this is the fact that the Minister of Labour was flown back by the Prime Minister before the elections and put in his shirt when the Minister presented some KBs relating to the social elections to the King for signature. The Prime Minister then personally prevented the King from signing the KBs, precisely because this is not an ongoing matter. Not only was there no consensus in this case, there was also a pattern between employers and trade unions. Even the trade unions were unable to reach a unanimous position. So it would have been logical if these files were arranged in one move.

I think this should be done with a new government. In this House, however, one has only respect for tradition, for customs and arrangements to the extent that it fits in the hands of the government.

Colleagues, the fact that the government wants to press this bill today gives me the opportunity to introduce in the bill a number of provisions that should lead to greater trade union freedom. In theory, social elections should be a thorough exercise in democracy, giving workers in all freedom the opportunity to determine who will represent them in social consultation for the next four years. In practice, however, the column-linked trade unions have organized and installed a monopoly for themselves through their friendly political parties by establishing that candidate lists can only be submitted by interprofessional representative workers' organisations with 50,000 members.

With this standard of 50,000 members, the law sets the threshold for any newcomers so unrealisticly high that non-collar trade unions do not have any chance of being representative in the short term and therefore do not have the opportunity to participate in the social elections, which is fundamentally undemocratic. So also for the trade unions, supported in this by their Belgian sponsors, participation and democracy are ⁇ ined where their own power structures, the posts and especially their own financial interests are compromised. The growth and emergence of more contemporary, neutral trade unions is thus prevented. Elections where only three monopolies are always involved, of course, generate little enthusiasm among the workers. Trade unions often have the greatest difficulty in finding candidates in the absence of employee interest. Often there are no elections.

An article in The Standard in 2004 shows that in 2000 in 7% of companies where a corporate council was to be elected, no candidate appeared. Leading in the absence of candidates was education with 28.1%. In the absence of candidates or because there are fewer or as many candidates as the number of mandates to be issued, elections are often suspended. The remaining mandates are then assigned directly to the candidates. Of course, this is also a result of prior agreements of the three major trade unions. In 2000, in 18% of companies with elections to the business council, no vote was eventually cast. For the prevention committees, this was even up to 30%.

In some sectors, the failure to hold social elections by employers is even paid cash to the trade unions through large amounts that are funded through the subsistence funds. A good example is construction. Indeed, in this sector, a quarter of large companies do not hold social elections. In exchange, the trade unions receive huge amounts from the Construction Fund without further control. In state-owned companies and former state-owned companies, the benefits that column-linked trade unions enjoy are so great that social elections could only cross the agreed distribution of posts and mandates. For example, with the listed company Belgacom and with the partially privatized De Post, there were no social elections in 2004.

We believe this is the ideal time for change. In addition, there are numerous legal elements to say that the current monopoly of the three pillar-linked trade unions is contrary to the Constitution, contrary to the anti-discrimination law and contrary to the conventions on labour law and collective consultation ratified by Belgium.

In connection with the Constitution, it is true that freedom of association implies that, according to established jurisprudence, not being a member of an association must not lead to disadvantage. A worker who is prevented from participating in social elections because he does not want or should be a member of the three major trade unions is, of course, seriously disadvantaged.

In addition, for several years, the Constitution has guaranteed the basic social right to information consultation and collective bargaining. This is flagrantly denied to an employee who does not want or may be a member of any of the three monopolies.

The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on political beliefs. As the three major trade unions confess a clear Christian-democratic, socialist and liberal political conviction, it is clear that the monopoly of social elections for these three trade unions is a discrimination based on political conviction.

Based on the anti-discrimination law as it is in force today, rejecting as a candidate an employee who does not want or may join one of the three major column-linked monopolies is a prohibited discrimination.

Furthermore, various international conventions and agreements, including those of the International Labour Organization, guarantee a worker the right to participate in individual and collective labour negotiations as well as the right to participate in normal trade union operation. In the current situation, a large number of workers are prevented from exercising these rights.

Are we against social elections? Of course, we are not! If there is one task assigned to trade unions and workers’ associations in general, it is not, for example, to pay unemployment benefits, but precisely that social consultation where they can play a valuable role. However, we cannot agree with the way social elections are organized to this day.

Mr. Speaker, with the amendments I have submitted on behalf of my group, we want to create more trade union freedom and abolish the monopoly of the three major trade unions. Thus, we want to restore the fundamental rights and freedoms of workers in order to enable genuine free social elections, adapted to the 22nd century.

First of all, I would like to thank Minister Vanvelthoven. Indeed, it is thanks to him, with the complicity of the outgoing government, which has not been able to resolve the issue in time, and that of the potential incoming government, which no longer ends up not agreeing, that we will now live a rather rare moment of our political life with the vote of a bill presented by a resigning minister in period of ordinary affairs. Information received from the House services, this is not a first. But this is all but anodin, the previous example dating back more than a quarter of a century!

Before we break maybe in a few weeks the long-term record for forming a government, we will live a period of our political history, a period that will remain in the minds.

Ecolo and Green! are responsible parties and deeply attached to social concertation, which is the tradition in our country and which has enabled to build an enviable model of social security. It is, regardless of the political context, to confirm the consensus reached between the social partners. It is obvious that our group will vote on this bill necessary to hold social elections next May. The fact that it is voted today represents a relief for the actors of social consultation, who have long feared that this important deadline will be postponed or will not be able to organize it in the best conditions.

However, it is without enthusiasm that we will carry out this positive vote. Indeed, this small piece of law is only a step-by-step that highlights the inability of the outgoing government to deal seriously and serenely with this issue, as evidenced by the incident within the outgoing government in mid-June, when the prime minister asked the King not to sign the royal decree that was submitted to him by the Minister of Employment. This is not an example of this good management so fashionable, at least in speeches.

It is also a step-by-step on the bottom because despite the European directive on workers’ information, this project consists of fixing the trade union representation as it was in the 2004 social elections. For once, would I dare to say, that Europe is pushing us to a more social and participatory approach, here is our country getting the ear to respond to it. But I will come back.

Why have we taken it so late when we have known for four years that it will be re-elected in 2008, while the National Labour Council has already issued its opinion on the date of these elections on November 21, 2006, largely in time? We will have to vote this law in a context of emergency generated by the failure of the violet government to take this issue in hand in time and to help the social partners to grant their violins.

But that is not all. A few important issues that I will detail here remain pending. Our Ecolo-Groen group! It will be ⁇ attentive in the coming weeks and before these social elections are held.

1 of 1. The question of calendar.

The first official steps regarding these elections should be carried out as early as December. It is necessary to rush to agree on the concrete arrangements relating to these social elections which are to be the subject of a new law.

I come to hope that we will not celebrate the birth of the blue orange too soon to not see this work interrupted and, on the contrary, to be able to finish it as soon as possible. However, this also depends on how quickly our colleague and outgoing minister will submit these new texts to the Social Affairs Committee. In any case, on our part, we are ready to work on this, and that, in addition, since June 10th.

2 of 2. The question of legal certainty of the text and the upcoming social elections.

Since we know that there is no shortage of zealous lawyers able to offer their services in a proactive way to attack this device, in particular because it will be voted in periods of ordinary affairs and because of the non-transposition of the directive, we hope that the friction and delays of the violet government in organizing social elections will not open the door to appeals that would further hurt social concertation.

We will also return as part of the next work of the commission on the exact procedure of these social elections, so that their legal basis is effectively unattainable and in accordance with the request of the CNT.

3 of 3. The issue of the expansion of social consultation and information of workers.

As I had the opportunity to say in the committee, if the social partners finally agreed on the minimalist position of organizing the 2008 social elections in the same way as in 2004, it is ⁇ not a joy of heart, at least with regard to the trade union bank. This is much more due to fear of having to postpone these elections by one year, which would have been catastrophic given the concordance with the regional and European elections, and problematic, given the turnover of delegates within the companies themselves.

Meanwhile, the opportunity has been missed to expand social consultation and enhance workers’ information. Indeed, we believe that a permanent dialogue and transparency within the enterprise can only be positive, both for the economy and for the workers, including in the context of smaller enterprises than those that are today and will, in May 2008, be concerned by the social elections.

4 of 4. The risk of financial sanctions by Europe.

While waiting for Belgium to comply with the directive providing for an extension of social consultation, this issue remains unresolved, putting Belgium at risk of heavy financial sanctions from the Commission. The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Belgium for delays in transposing the Directive. Furthermore, the Council of State notes in its opinion on the preliminary draft law that the proposed wording does not remedy the problematic situation of non-transposition of the directive.

The Deputy Minister well informed us in the committee that a contact was made with the said commissioner in order to negotiate a new transposition deadline. There is still a need for it to be granted, which seems well compromised. Furthermore, the incoming government must quickly agree on these new provisions in agreement, if possible, with all the social partners who have committed to finding a negotiated solution.

Therefore, we will not vote on the amendment introduced by the LDD group. We trust the social partners to find a negotiated solution in this matter.

Nevertheless, we remain concerned about this risk of European sanctions. In addition to the symbolic force of such a sanction, it would cost the Belgian State a small amount of money which, however, would find its usefulness in social or environmental matters quite easily. In the commission, the figures of a fine of 2.9 million euros and a compulsory fine of 3.500 euros per day were cited. If you do not have a project to spend these sums usefully, we have full of cartons!

I come to my conclusion. The management of this matter by the violet government, the period of uncertainty we are living in and what we already know about the potential future agreement of orange-blue government, all this does not promise very positive future for dialogue and social policy in this country. On the contrary, the non-action of the violet, combined with the orange-blue project, prepares us for a famous social melancholy.

This fully justifies, despite our positive vote on this bill just recently, a sharp vigilance that we will not miss, my colleagues from the Ecolo-Groen group! To exercise myself in the future.

Recommendations to M. Gilkinet for his first intervention in this Parliament. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our CD&V group is highly engaged in the social consultation. The present bill, which was drawn up at the request of the social partners, responds to the demand to implement the option of the social partners to meet the 2004 thresholds before the 2008 social elections.

In addition, the content of the present draft law concerns the way social consultation works in our country. The draft law is therefore a good first step, so that the organization of the social elections can take place in a good way. It can also count on our approval.

But our CD&V group also holds Europe high in the lead. Unfortunately, we have become a bad European student. That many European directives that remain untransposed in our country for years has long been a thorn in our eye. For example, the European Directive on the right of workers to information, which dates from 2002 and which had to be transposed into domestic law in 2005, has been removed. The European Commission has initiated the procedure. Therefore, we are subject to heavy fines and coercive sums above our heads.

The present draft law is a first step in the organization of social elections but does not provide compliance with the European directive. There is no point in wearing ourselves out here today in long discussions and accusations over and over how it could have come so far. It is better to focus our energy on how we can bring our legislation into line with the directive in the short term.

The key will be the agreement of the social partners, who want a solution at the end of November. But immediately we must add that the Minister in the Committee on Social Affairs stated that from his contacts with the Commission it has been shown that the Commission will not be content with a solution that only begins to work at the social elections of 2012.

All these elements do not make it easy to come up with a sustainable solution. But there is also good news, because there was very large consensus in the Social Affairs Committee and that is definitely a surge. The willingness of the social partners to reach a solution is also a reason for moderate optimism.

Personally, I am very pleased that we have been able to use the bill to extend the scope of social elections to the service cheque companies that are part of a PWA. The PWAs have so far had their own consultative body and that will continue to be so. However, there has not yet been an organized consultation for the service cheque employees in the PWAs, even if it involves more than 50 or 100 employees. From now on, these service cheque departments will also be covered by the legislation on social elections.

Finally, I have a few questions to the Minister. During the discussion of the bill in the Social Affairs Committee, he announced that a second bill on the subject would follow. It would include the provisions that are normally included in a KB before each social election. As we are in ongoing affairs, the Minister considered it advisable to work with a bill this time. As far as I know, this bill has not yet been submitted. When will this happen? Will this be followed by another draft law?

Social elections also involve extensive procedures with precise time limits. Social partners are currently unable to write manuals or develop software. The Ministry can also not yet prepare circulation letters, because there is no electoral regulation yet. What initiatives will the Minister take to ensure that the electoral regulation comes into force as soon as possible and what timing does he provide for it? What other preparatory measures has the Minister taken to ensure the proper organisation of the social elections? Could there be additional difficulties?

Thank you, Mr. Vercamer, for your maiden speech. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, during the presentations of the previous colleagues, I made myself concerned that the next social elections may not be so important, because – I say it with permission – this hemisphere is nothing more or less than an egg market.

It is said that women are talk shoes. I see my colleagues calling without shame. I see all sorts of things happening. I’m not saying that you must listen to me, but if you carry the next social elections a little in your heart – I leave in the middle whether you are for or against, Mr. D’haeseleer – then I mean that some attention has been permitted. Mr. Speaker, I thought you would say that, but I say it here.

This being said, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister of Current Affairs, the present bill is a two-sided sword. It is a pity that we still need to present it, because the case should have been settled for a long time. You have rightly said in the committee, Mr. Minister, that you have done enough effort and effort for this. However, there was a fundamental problem, not only between the social partners, but also in the previous government, between the purple coalition partners. There was no consensus on this issue. All parties were convinced of the usefulness of the participation of workers in the bodies provided for this purpose and of the transposition of the European Directive, but in fact it has never been possible to reach a compromise on the representation of these workers. It is ⁇ regrettable that such an obvious fact is hindered, if not sabotaged, by a trade union requirement whose stakeholders have so far failed to demonstrate that there is a direct link with the European directive, namely the trade union representation in small enterprises. Thank you for your attention, Mr Bonte.

Despite an invitation from the previous government to legally demonstrate black-on-white that the transposition of the European Directive also means a reduction of the trade union thresholds to the companies to 20 employees, it remains earsome silence on the side of those who have screamed this statement loudly from the roofs and added force during actions, in which, in my opinion, it was done directly to disinformation by expertly throwing the distinction between the concepts enterprise and establishment on a bunch and systematically concealing ...

The [...]

Mr. Bonte, if I can finish my sentence, then you can better respond.

... and systematically disguise that the European directive is merely about information and in no way a tower to the trade union structures.

Mr Bone, you have the word.

Thank you, Mrs De Block. I have known your position on this for a long time. We have moved ahead of the government in ongoing matters also given that there was no agreement within the government.

I would like to draw attention to two things. I would like to address first and foremost my colleague, Mr. Vercamer. You have spoken several times on behalf of the CD&V group. I’ve heard you twice say “the CD&V faction”. The question that spontaneously arose to me was whether it was really so, was it the CD&V fraction or the N-VA fraction?

There will soon be an important political debate in this Parliament, but that will have to happen first in the government. The debate will focus on the response that the Belgian government must formulate with regard to Europe.

If I have listened carefully to Mr. Vercamer’s presentation, it is evident that the social partners are the first to take action. Let us hope that they will reach an agreement. However, it is as well as it is written in the stars that there will be no agreement. The government will have to tranch.

So I want some clarity in this debate on what exactly the positions are related to the reduction of the thresholds for trade union elections. This is the core of the problem in which Minister Vanvelthoven has formulated a proposal.

So the question is very simple. Will the CD&V group, on the basis of Mr. Vercamer’s explanation, be inclined to agree with what Peter Vanvelthoven then put on the government banks? What Mrs. De Block says and what she has always advocated in this dossier, however, is directly opposed to that.

The question is how it is now. Is it a position of CD&V and N-VA to continue to effectively follow the piste-Vanvelthoven or will you, Mrs. De Block, continue to hold a position that will at the limit hinder a social agreement?

Mr. Bonte, I have never changed my position and I will not. I thought you knew me better after eight years. You have asked a question to Mr. Vercamer.

Then I interrupted you while Mr. Vercamer might have done it better.

Per ⁇ Mr. Vercamer can answer in the context of an open debate.

Mr. Vercamer does not have to answer.

He has a desire. Give him a chance.

First, the draft law concerns the organization of the social elections for 2008, which should be organized in the best possible way.

As for the agreement that the social partners still have to work out by the end of November, let’s first wait what comes out of the bus and then we’ll see what needs to be done.

Mr. Bonte, I think your statement is quite strong. You know very well that, normally speaking, the Directive had to be transposed by March 2005. I think your statement is quite scandalous. So do not come here in the Chamber to ask our position, while you have failed to formulate a position when it was necessary.

Mr. Bonte will have the word. Then we close.

This is a parliamentary debate on an important draft. So when you hear arguments...

Now you have the word.

Ms. Vervotte, effectively, we cannot ignore the fact that the government has not reached a compromise that complies with the directive. We regret that. We have also taken a very clear position on this. In a period of ongoing affairs, the Minister has also tried to put proposals on the table. We have tried it, in all clarity.

In any case, there is a time bomb that threatens to weigh financially very heavily. It would be good for the debate to know the views of the different parties.

Of course, it would be good to have a social agreement first. Mrs. Vervotte has already been robbed and robbed in it. You know as well as we do that the chance that a social agreement will come first is relatively small.

At a time when we are discussing such an important topic here, it would be good to know the various points of view.

I asked two questions. To colleague Vercamer I asked if he speaks on behalf of CD&V or on behalf of the CD&V - N-VA. The second question is basically. What is the position of CD&V, in the case of N-VA, in response to the question whether we should reduce the thresholds to organize trade union representation?

We say clearly that we are in favor. This has not been achieved in the previous government, nor in the current government. Mrs Vervotte, you call that "scandalous", but our position is clear in this debate.

My question is what your position is, knowing that Mrs. De Block is virulent against it.

Mr Bonte, you would have better asked those questions when Mr Vercamer was speaking. That was the normal course of affairs. When Mrs. De Block was speaking, you barely asked her a question.

I had raised my hand. I had then asked for the word, but you looked over my hand.

That will never happen again.

Mrs. De Block, do you want to keep the word? Mrs Vervotte wishes to answer first.

Mr. Bonte, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Minister had nevertheless said that the social partners had undertaken to reach an agreement by November 2007.

I think the entire penalty that you come here declares that you do not believe in social consultation and that the matter needs to be resolved politically while your minister has informed here that there will be an agreement by November 2007, which is also the reason why we want to approve the draft with.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to Mr. Bonte. Over the past few years, I have been able to experience three Ministers of Labour in the Social Affairs Committee in a relatively short term. We started with Mr. Vandenbroucke, then came Mrs. Van den Bossche and finally Mr. Vanvelthoven. None of the three presented a solution in the conscious file.

I would like to oppose the appearance of a political virgin who has recently wanted to demonstrate. I note that Mr. Bonte in the dossier of BHV suddenly appears as the great, political virgin. He does this again in the present case.

Mr Bonte also points out that the social partners are now in action and that we will see what they will produce in a few weeks. He immediately added that we should not expect an agreement at all.

I would therefore like to know from the current minister, Mr. Vanvelthoven, who has been very quiet on his bench in the past time, whether it is really true that the European Commission, as I have read today, has granted a postponement until mid-December 2007. After all, Mr. Bonte, if that delay does not come, this means that the fine of three million euros and the coercive amounts begin to run.

Mr. Bonte, I only establish – with this I decide – that the successive, socialist ministers of Labour have not proposed any solution to the matter.

Mr. Bonte, this is the last intervention.

Otherwise, I will have to refer to personal facts.

Mr. D’Haeseleer, that’s exactly what distinguishes you and me. Over the past years, we, including myself, have submitted telkenmal bills in order to ⁇ a reduction of the thresholds on trade union representation. We did this year after year. We, by the way, together with the ACV colleagues of CD&V, intervened heavily at the time and placed a heavy emphasis on the reduction.

The only reason why the Parliament has never commented on the issue in recent years – as was the case at the time of Miet Smet and Mrs Van den Bossche – is that the Parliament absolutely wanted to give the social consultation a chance. In my opinion, we, in our capacity as legislators, often exerted too much patience with regard to social consultation. However, the choice was always made to give the social partners a chance.

The social partners had committed to reach an agreement on the matter.

That agreement has not been reached. The European Commission has imposed a penalty. The Minister of Labour, Mr Vanvelthoven, has managed to show the Commission patience so that the social partners can still reach an agreement. So, do not blame us that we would not have forced it. It is purely from respect for social consultation.

Now we are in a situation where, after I heard the report yesterday correctly, the European Commission no longer wants to hold with the imposition of the fine and with the imposition of the compulsory fine of 3,500 euros per day until mid-December. In other words, the social partners must reach an agreement by the end of November. If you stay a little at home, Mrs. Vervotte, with the partners of the social consultation, you will agree with me that it is ⁇ ambitious to reach that agreement by the end of November.

I hope they get out. I really hope they get out! The only thing I want, Mr. Speaker, in the political debate on this draft law that is so important is that the positions of the various political parties are also clear. I know very well the position of Mrs. De Block. The only thing I repeat, Mrs. Vervotte, is that you apparently do not want to explain what the CD&V position is about lowering the thresholds for social elections to companies with twenty employees.

That is a very clear question. In the past, there were CD&V people who answered this. Mrs. D’Hondt responded constantly. Now I hear you say that it is a shame; for it is assumed that social consultation does not take place. The only question – and a parliament serves it – is a question of explanation of the political views on a particular subject. I repeat my questions. First, is Mr Vercamer’s argument a discourse on behalf of CD&V, or on behalf of CD&V – N-VA? Second, what is the position, Mrs. Vervotte, of CD&V regarding the demand of the trade unions to lower the trade union threshold to companies with twenty employees? Are you for it or are you against it? So simple is it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am already pleased that my small intervention has led to a political debate here. I think it is not unimportant what is said here, and what is not said here. It is a fact that this design had to come because there was indeed no social agreement. This legal adjustment has been made and was indeed a compromise between the social partners, or at least the first loop of a compromise. It was agreed that there would remain a status quo regarding the thresholds for the social elections in 2008, as they were in the previous elections. Indeed, Article 3 of the draft clearly stipulates – we have also emphasized this in the committee – that a structural agreement must be reached before the next social elections in 2012.

In this regard, we emphasize that Article 3 of this bill must be interpreted in such a way that it is up to the social partners to develop a new, sustainable arrangement in mutual consultation. As for Open VLD – Mr. Bonte knows our position but I repeat it again to the new colleagues – we insist that that sustainable scheme should not lead to inflation of the number of protected workers in smaller companies. Such things are detrimental to the flexibility of the labour market and reduce job opportunities for others. It cannot be intended that those who belong to the happy few of the trade union-protected may enjoy far too much protection at the expense of those who, anyway, already have fewer opportunities on the labour market and who would then receive even less than before. This is also the case with the highly acclaimed trade union mentality. I thank the Minister of Labour for coming to the committee with this draft in these hopeful waiting times for good governance. It was actually a better idea than the two original KBs he had in mind.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we are well aware that the issue of trade union representation is sensitive to everyone. For one it will always be too much, for the other it will never be enough. Moreover, the reasons why social partners should bow over it and get out of it. This guarantees at least an arrangement that allows both parties, employers and workers, to at least live.

On the other hand, the problem remains – it has already been cited here – of the transposition of the European Directive and the fines that hang over our heads. The Minister has announced in the committee that he has requested a postponement from the European Commission. We are delighted that this has actually happened, until mid-December. However, we also realize, as Mr. Bonte says, that one will have to play the ball very quickly and very shortly, between the forming of government, in order to get an agreement on that too.

As far as we are concerned, we remain in favour of the minimum transposition of the Directive on the right to information on the course of business in the company. We also fully supported this proposal in the committee. We will continue to support it here too.

Mr Bonte has the word.

Mr. Bonte, can I ask you to be brief?

Mr. Speaker, you can ask that, because I already planned that. I have already said a lot in my speeches.

I would like to point out briefly that the S.pa group fully supported the bill. Social elections must be conducted effectively. It is not that while political democracy is silent, economic democracy must also be silent. We hope that something has been fixed with this.

Furthermore, we have very enthusiastically supported the amendment of the colleagues of CD&V to allow social elections in the PWA service cheque companies. There is a gap that we have helped solve with great pleasure.

I would like to refer to the debate thereafter. Following the present draft, which at the limit defies the procedure of social elections, we must also anticipate what will happen in the coming days, weeks and months. I share the view of several colleagues that it would be absolutely good if the social partners jointly reach an agreement on the basis of which the European Commission directive can be effectively met.

Other colleagues pointed out that it is thanks to the efforts of Minister Vanvelthoven that we still have no fines. We have no fines yet, because the European Commission has decided to wait until mid-December. The penalty that comes is huge. In the worst scenario, where the social partners do not respond, it is of course up to the Parliament and the government to formulate answers, so that we do not have to pay those three million euros and 3,500 euros per day fine.

Mrs. Vervotte, you gesture again that it is a shame. What is a shame in a parliament is that one does not dare to confess color about a problem that is on the table. I find that scandalous! It is a shame that when a political group asks for a position on something that is on the table, there is silence. You do not say what the view of CD&V is. Do you say it, right? Mr. Vandeurzen, if someone should be able to say it, you may be, but you are silent. I know why you are silent: in your cartel, the N-VA has always strongly opposed the reduction of the syndical thresholds. That was the position. I also want to give the people of the N-VA the opportunity to interrupt me to make clear what their position is today. In any case, if you do not say anything, it is clear to us that you will also meet urgently on that important topic.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you can see that I am especially dressed for this special occasion. I have a purple dozen because this is probably the last bill of the purple government that is put to vote in this Parliament.

I gave in the committee a comprehensive history of this ⁇ difficult dossier. Of course, I will not repeat this extensively. I would like to mention the moments in which we have tried to reach an agreement. I want to make it clear to everyone that there have been attempts because some pretend that no attempt has been made in the last five to six years. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that this dossier is a difficult dossier not only for the social partners but also for the various political parties.

The file began in April 2002 when the then government requested advice from the social partners. The social partners did not give the government a shared opinion until 2005 – so they took a lot of time. There was not only a division between the employer and the employee banks, but also between the trade unions there were disagreements as to how this dossier of the transposition of the directive in question should be followed. The social partners took three years to do so. The social partners rightly say that this is the core business of social consultation, that this affects the heart of social consultation and that it is therefore evident that they must speak about it first. However, they did not reach an agreement.

The file then reached the government’s banks in March 2005. Also at the government level there was at that time and so far, to my great regret, there is no consensus on this matter. From January to September 2006, I worked with the social partners to find a solution. Unfortunately, we had to reiterate that there was no solution between the social partners. Again and again it was emphasized that politics should temporarily refrain from it because this was the essence of social consultation.

In September 2006 I submitted a concrete compromise proposal to the government and handed it over to the social partners. That compromise proposal consisted in the fact that in the companies between 50 and 100 employees, in addition to a prevention committee, we would also establish a corporate council, without additional social elections and without additional protection, but in which the people who already sit in the committee would also assume the role of member of the corporate council.

In addition, for companies with less than 50 employees, I proposed to do something in those companies that statistically record much more work accidents than other companies and at least to set up a prevention committee there. This proposal was also not accepted by the social partners. There was no chance in the government either.

Meanwhile, it turned out that the 2008 social elections were approaching and that the directive and the discussion on the thresholds had implications for the social elections. At that time, it also emerged that failure to reach an agreement on the transposition of the Directive could have consequences for the 2008 social elections.

Just before the 2007 parliamentary elections, Friday before the election Sunday, I still sat together with the social partners, the group of 10, in the evening, again to try to come to a compromise in order at least to organize the social elections and transpose the directive. You know what the consequence was. Social partners were not able to reach an agreement. I then issued two KBs, which were the mere transposition of the law of 1948 and which were not more, but also not less, than the mere application of the law. You know that there has been disagreement about this in the government and that the King ultimately did not sign the two KBs.

So the situation at the beginning of September was that, despite all the efforts, nothing had happened and that the social elections of 2008 were about to be organized. Further consultation with the social partners has resulted in the fact that we have been able to resolve one aspect. What is presented to the House for voting today is the organisation of the social elections, but not a regulation on the transposition of the directive.

Nevertheless, in this regard, I also made a number of proposals at the beginning of September to settle at least provisionally a number of matters so that the directive would be transposed, at least provisionally. There was no agreement between the social partners.

The only thing they agreed on was the arrangement of the social elections by means of the provisional law, which is forthcoming for approval today.

I would therefore make it clear that this does not provide a solution for the transposition of the directive, that it does not provide a solution to the real threat that now exists from Europe to have to pay the significant fine of almost 3 million euros, and even more the threat of having to pay the high coercion amounts of up to 3 500 euros per day if the directive is not transposed.

Since there was no agreement between the social partners and since the social partners themselves indicated that they would at least continue to discuss this issue and reach an agreement by December 2007, I contacted Commissioner Spidla a few weeks ago.

Yesterday we received confirmation from the European Commission that the file concerning the transposition of this Directive was not dealt with by the College of Commissioners yesterday. That means that it will be de facto discussed at the meeting in mid-December. This means that we have been delayed for approximately two months.

Half December, however, is still too early if the social partners would not reach an agreement until the end of December. Therefore, I urged the social partners to reach an agreement faster. They have made a written commitment to reach an agreement by the end of November. I have understood that they will begin the consultation on Monday.

The other draft laws related to the social elections have yet to be signed by the King. They will go to the Palace tonight or tomorrow and then they will be submitted immediately to the committee so that we can discuss them.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me be clear. The transposition of the Directive is ⁇ urgent. If nothing happens, there will be a lot of dead. In my opinion, it will be primarily the employees of small enterprises, but in addition, every taxpayer will face those high fines.

The moment of truth is approaching with race steps. I hope from the bottom of my heart that the social partners will reach an agreement on this terrible issue at the end of November. To be honest, I would like to add that they have been discussing this topic for five years.

I hope it from the bottom of my heart, but I fear that the social partners will not get out of it. They carry a great responsibility. This means that we will have to take the tax into our own hands in this Parliament in the Social Affairs Committee in December. I still believe that this issue is at the heart of the social consultation, but if there is no solution, it will have to be done in this Parliament.

I listened very carefully to the presentations. I know what the views are and they are very clear. Socialists want thresholds to be lowered. The liberals do not want the thresholds to be lowered. List Dedecker also wants very clear that the thresholds are not lowered and that is also the subject of an amendment. Vlaams Belang goes much further and claims that trade unions should be abolished.

From N-VA I have always understood that there should be no reduction of the thresholds. So it will indeed – the discussion then went over and over again – depend on what CD&V will do in the present file. This is ⁇ unclear. However, he, like the social partners, has another month of time to calmly think about it. But then comes the moment of truth.