Proposition 52K0890

Projet de loi complétant la transposition de la directive 2002/14/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 11 mars 2002 établissant un cadre général relatif à l'information et à la consultation des travailleurs dans la Communauté européenne.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Open Vld Verhofstadt Ⅲ

Submission date

Feb. 26, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive European Union work occupational safety small and medium-sized enterprises workers' representation social dialogue worker information

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 19, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We should be able to start this discussion in the presence of the Minister of Labour. I let him inform before and after 10:00, but apparently there is a meeting of ministers ongoing. I do not know which and I do not know what. In the absence of the Minister, we cannot discuss this important bill. Therefore, I suggest that our meeting be suspended until 11 a.m.

Collega’s, de minister van Werk is ondertussen aangekomen, zodat wij de bespreking van het wetsontwerp over information in raadpleging van de werknemers in the European Community can aanvatten. Before I give the floor to Ms. God for her report, I would like to suggest a meeting of the Conference of Presidents at noon for the agenda for this afternoon.

I have no problem with this meeting, as long as it is relatively short. The meeting of the Finance Committee must be delayed.

It will be very short.

The Committee on Finance and Budget should be delayed by a quarter of an hour. I would find it a pity that we arrived late to attend the closed-door hearing of Mr. and Quaden.

The meeting takes place at noon.

As far as I know, it is at noon.

The Commission should also be delayed by a quarter of an hour. He will be contacted by Mr. from Donna to this end.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the Conference of Presidents will be very short. I think there could be a way to keep it very short.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Social Affairs Committee examined during two meetings, last 4 and 11 March, the bill transposing into Belgian law the European Directive 2002/14 concerning the information and consultation of workers in the European Union. The minister recalled the Belgian problem and the historical history of the case, dating back to 1997, when the management of Renault decided brutally and unilaterally to close the Vilvorde site and announced it during a press conference at the Hilton. This has triggered a vivid indignation among us, as you will remember, which has crossed our borders.

The European Commission has taken up the issue, considering it important for the functioning of our economy that workers can receive this kind of information and thus anticipate by opting for measures of re-qualification and reinsertion in employment.

The Commission has therefore tried to establish a social dialogue at European level, a dialogue that failed due to the refusal of UNICE, representing employers at this level. Therefore, it has decided as authority to resolve the issue by means of a proposal for a directive submitted to the European Parliament and the European Council. It took some time to reach a text, with the directive finally produced in 2005.

Belgium had to adapt its system of information and consultation of workers since it was only planned that workers should be informed in the business committees for companies employing more than 100 people. Below this figure, no information was expected.

The dialogue between social partners was not easy. A first disagreement was observed at the National Labour Council in 2005, disagreement which was also manifested at the political level, the question being to know from what threshold to inform workers, in so far as it was spoken in the text of the directive of the technical unit of operation, a term unknown to us.

In 2007, as Belgium still did nothing, it was condemned by the European Court of Justice of Luxembourg for failing to transpose the directive, with threats of significant fines and daily strikes at the key.

The bill under consideration today is therefore the result of a difficult process: seven years of consultation, action, negotiations at the federal level and a conviction by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Finally, in November 2007, the social partners reached an agreement to transpose the directive, an agreement based on the minimum requirements of the directive, namely companies with 50 to 99 employees. This is what you find in the bill.

In addition, the social partners also agreed, on the one hand, on additional skills to be assigned in enterprises of 50 to 99 workers, and, on the other hand, on a part of workers information and consultation for enterprises employing less than 50 workers. It is the famous convention of 27 February 2008 which amends CCT No. 9. All this is hard, I agree.

The draft law amends Article 3 of the 1996 Law on Welfare at Work in the competences assigned to the Committees for Protection and Prevention at Work (CPPT). In addition to the current competences of the CPPT, competences that meet the requirements of the European Directive for the information of workers have been added, in the absence of a corporate council or a competent trade union delegation for all staff.

The new article 65decies of the 1996 Workplace Welfare Act is therefore extremely important in this regard. In fact, it provides for the CPPT to take over the competences of the business boards in their absence and those of the trade union delegation related to all staff as well. But the Minister also clarified that “Collective Agreement No. 9 was amended in 2008 to incorporate information and consultation on decisions that could result in significant changes in the organization of work or in labour contracts, this in order to fully respond to the directive”. Thus, the committee also receives its new powers in the absence of a corporate council or a competent trade union delegation for all staff.

During the general discussion, Mr. Vercamer mentioned the complexity of the agreement concluded between the social partners, the scope of which is difficult to understand without a joint reading of the bill and the content of CCT No. 9 as amended.

According to M. Vercamer, it would have been simpler and more logical to provide for a corporate board consisting of members of the CPPT committee in companies of 50 workers and more, which did not increase the number of protected delegates.

The speaker also questioned the notion of trade union delegation, as contained in the text of the bill itself in article 65decies new, specifying that a delegation represents only the trade union workers and not the whole of the workers. In accordance with Article 65d, Mr. Vercamer and your rapporteur questioned the Minister about his new “cascade” mechanism in social dialogue, a sufficient and clear explanation of which does not appear in the explanation of reasons.

In addition, your rapporteur argued that, when a trade union delegation is present within the company, this will result in a dispersal of information between two different bodies, the CPPT, on the one hand, and the trade union delegation, on the other.

The two speakers then raised the question of the future of the law of 1948, which provides for the creation of a corporate council from 50 workers, a provision that has never been applied, since the first provision including a corporate council from 100 workers, which dates back to 1979, was systematically postponed to the time of social elections, given the urgency.

Your rapporteur also questioned the scope of the bill as the State Council itself notes that “the European Directive applies to any enterprise with economic profitability, whether public or private”. So what about autonomous public companies?

Finally, your rapporteur also spoke on the SME component of the Group of Ten Agreement. Indeed, if this agreement contained in the amendment to CCT No. 9 notify a threshold of 20 workers – which already constitutes an improvement – it will nevertheless be necessary to return to more precise concepts regarding workers’ representative organisations than the respect of our own Constitution in its article 23.

by Mr. Gilkinet, Mrs. De Block and Mr. Jeholet expressed, on behalf of their respective groups, their support for the bill. by Mr. D’haeseleer welcomed the agreement of the group of ten that puts Belgium in compliance with the European directive but, at the same time, questioned the scope of the bill and asked the minister what would be the consequences for Belgium of the second procedure initiated by the European Commission in February 2008: I am talking here about coercion and fines. Ms. De Maght said she shared this concern.

In his responses, the Minister of Employment referred to the content of the collective agreement No. 9ter of 27 February 2008, which complements the bill. He insisted on the urgency to adopt it, due to the existence of the problem of mandatory penalties and the fact that he had sent the content of this bill to be immediately communicated to the Permanent Representation of Belgium at the Commission (COREPER) to warn him that we have finally fulfilled our obligations regarding transposition.

Several members regretted that the Minister did not provide more precise explanations on some of the issues raised. We then went on to review the articles; they were all unanimously adopted, as well as the whole project.

I would like to say a word on behalf of my group.

This is a somewhat arduous subject. I will emphasize the position of the Socialist Group in this regard. On the one hand, we are pleased that this European directive has finally been transposed and that an agreement has been reached between the social partners. In this way, we hope to escape the scheduled daily fines and compulsory penalties.

On the other hand, some questions have not been answered. For example, the CPPT, we are told, sees its extensive competence for economic and financial records. In the absence of a competent trade union delegation for all staff, he also sees his competence extended in two areas: employment and major changes in the company resulting in repercussions on the situation of workers. This would be settled by the convention of 28 February 2008, which the minister has long mentioned in a committee.

But, since we do not have the changes in question, we can only get lost in conjecture about this, asking ourselves how to bring this puzzle together among the various skills thus attributed. We hope that there will be no collapse in the transposition of the requirements of the directive.

Even if we are told that this is a matter that concerns the social partners, it is not less that it is the Belgian state that is responsible before the European Commission and not the social partners.

For example, one can legitimately question the exact meaning of the terms "significant changes in the organization of work or in employment contracts" which are the subject of the famous CCT 9ter which has been modified. There was no response and I regret it.

One can also question the choice of the social partners to have established a new social dialogue within the company that shares the competences between the CPPT and the trade union delegation competent for all workers, being understood that the text itself speaks only of trade union delegation while the explanation of reasons and the commentary of articles speak of trade union delegation competent for all staff.

We believe that the health of a company is a whole and that the information to be delivered to the workers’ representatives relates both to the economic, financial, employment, training, etc. In this regard, the bill I had submitted with the sp.a during the previous legislature simplified things since we had anticipated that from a threshold of 20 workers, the CPPT was competent for everything and this did not increase the number of protected delegates, which could satisfy employers. This might not be the ideal, but it was better than the project that is on the table.

Finally, I come to the second part, the social partners have nevertheless managed to overcome a mechanical and restrictive reading of the directive, since they spoke for the first time about informing workers in companies with less than 50 employees. Therefore, it seems to me, the trade union fact in the company is recognised, because I would not see that workers are informed by a way other than a representative organization within the meaning of the Act of 1968. I mean in fact that the PS group will never accept that one goes through a domestic trade union, an ombudsman or a human resource adviser.

I think this project is a step forward. Employees will be able to have a comprehensive view of what is happening in their company. This is a progress in terms of social democracy, which we can emphasize.

The fact that we talked about a threshold of 20 workers at the time of the discussions in February might suggest that we will finally reach a general threshold, without any further distinction between the different thresholds of companies. But this general threshold will nevertheless not respond to the concern of Article 23 of our Constitution, which speaks of information for all citizens.

Mr. Minister, the PS group will obviously vote on this project, even though we believe that it is not closed and that the matter will return to the table before the 2012 social elections. Indeed, there remains still that provision of the law of 1948 that was not executed, namely the establishment of a business council from 50 workers. We hope that this time things will go to the end.

I thank you for your attention.

The present bill is the implementation of an agreement between the representative organizations of employers and workers in our country.

I want to emphasize three things. It is a good thing that an agreement has been reached on this and that there is now a arrangement for companies with more than 50 employees. That arrangement meets the demand of Europe, but does not at all stand out in transparency, simplicity or clarity. A new CAO was also needed from the National Labour Council to supplement this bill. As a result, the whole has become a cloak that few can unravel.

In addition, the Minister in the committee had to provide a number of additional necessary explanations, as Ms. Dieu just said. In companies with more than 50 employees, it would have been much easier and more logical to have the Committee for Prevention and Protection at Work replaced the Board of Directors. This is already the case for companies that previously had more than 100 employees and a corporate board, and which have fallen below 100 employees but remained above 50 employees. It would have been better to take that arrangement.

However, it should not have been. Social partners have arranged it differently and more complexly. As you know, we respect what the social partners agree. However, we now call on them to make this matter simpler and more transparent before the next social elections. They will be able to do so because within the group of 10 it was decided that there will be an evaluation moment in 2010. This is necessary and has been agreed. After all, it is not because we today adopt a draft law that responds to the demand of Europe that there is already a solution for the social elections of 2012.

We do not amend today the law of September 1948, which remains unshorted and stipulates that a corporate council must be established in a company with more than 50 employees. The housework is not done today. Today we get in line with the European Directive and take a first important step towards a definitive solution that must come before the 2012 social elections.

CD&V-N-VA will support the bill.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I am very pleased that just you, the Minister of Labour, on your last working day as Minister, submit to us the present draft law. During the last three months – the short period in which you were Minister of Labour – you have managed to have the present bill approved unanimously in the committee and submit it today to the plenary session. You have done that in the style that characterizes you since the time you were still in charge of the largest trade union of our country, the ACV. Your style is to deal with the case, work hard and, first of all, find solutions through dialogue.

Mr. Minister, you did this very well. I would like to thank you for the good cooperation we have had during the last, short period.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, like Mr. Vercamer, I would like to address the word to you. However, it will be more nuanced.

Colleagues, with the discussion of the present three bills, the approval of which is actually forced upon us by Europe because they are translations of European directives into Belgian law, we also arrive at the end of the short career, at least in terms of his mandate in the federal government, of the current Minister of Labour, Josly Piette.

The least that can be said about Minister Piette, a notorious and government-respected trade unionist, is that he has taken a very strange course. I want to look back a moment.

Colleagues, it begins somewhat unexpectedly with the formation of the interim government Verhofstadt III, thus the first of the two interim governments. The interim government of Leterme I.

In the formation of the interim government Verhofstadt III the necessary ministerial posts had to be filled. You know that according to the Constitution of our country in principle the Head of State – for now that here in Belgium is the King – appoints the ministers and also puts them at the door. Of course, this is only a theory. In practice, it is the party chairs who have the honor and pleasure to make or break ministerial careers.

However, in the formation of Verhofstadt III there was something special. The MR of Mr. Reynders and the CDH of Milquet could almost drink each other’s blood. By the way, I don’t have the impression that much has changed in that area when I look at the show within the majority. The CDH was not allowed to form part of the majority of Minister Reynders and therefore of the interim government.

Initially, the CDH was asked to support the majority from the opposition. In exchange, they would receive the chairmanship of the Chamber or the Senate. In addition, there was also the thinking track of a CDH cabinet without a minister, in which the employees would be added to the cabinet of Mr. Yves Leterme. Then the idea was launched to introduce a so-called technician, a non-politician at the top level, as had already happened at the Flemish level with Kris Peeters.

A number of people were also polluted. I read in the newspaper that Mr. Jean Hilgers, director of the National Bank, who has also worked for many years on the cabinets of CD&V’ers and CDH’ers, was asked to play in this bizarre construction. He thanked solemnly for the offer. Milquet was finally asked if she did not know a corporate of cdH-signature in the army to lead the Department of Defense. However, there was no result here either. Other polar travellers such as Alain Hubert or climate professors such as Pascal Van Ypersele were rejected by Ms. Milquet, according to the blackberry’s very well-informed press sources.

Eventually, the Department of Work, which was originally promised to the current Minister of Public Affairs and Public Companies, Mrs. Vervotte, was gifted to cdH with the suggestion to tax Mr. Josly Piette with this. Mr. Piette was thus the so-called white rabbit with which everyone could reconcile so that the interim government could take action, though there has been little to notice of the latter. Then there was another battle, Mr. Minister, about who was the discoverer of yourself as a minister, but the most important thing was that one could start the serious work. At least that was shown out.

There is a link between the experiences in this government of Mr. Piette and the reasons why we can only vote here today on this bill. To be honest, I must admit that I was looking forward with great expectation to the achievements that Mr. Piette would produce in the short time period at his disposal. Despite this interim government being proposed as being of great importance to address a number of urgent social problems – you know: purchasing power and more – everyone knew that the interim government must primarily serve to buy time to eventually lift Yves Leterme in the seat to be able to fulfill his great dream of becoming prime minister of this Belgium. The fact that with much poeha a ten-point plan was announced, of which in the end bitterly little has been realized, is the best proof that one actually did not intend to control, on the contrary. However, Mr. Piette did not see it that way. He had an idealist mood and saw it great. We will see what we will see. He put the latter very high at his seat. He did not have the slightest uncertainty in the press about this, on the contrary.

I would like to read a few fragments that clearly illustrate this. In The Morning of 10 January, under the title “The First Plans of Minister of Labour Josly Piette” is the great announcement “my palmares will be imposing”. Mr. Piette says that the Generation Pact must now finally be concrete. He says his palmares in March will be impressive. In that same article, by the way, he could not let go of wiping the floor again with the note-Verhofstadt. He said that this was not actually a workpiece of a prime minister standing above the wool. In that conscious article in The Morning, Mr. Piette also says – I quote for the people who would not have read it: “Let’s not be naive. I wonder if he made this note to help Yves Leterme or to serve him.” Josly Piette does not say a bad word about the prime minister, but about the notary Verhofstadt he is much less positive like his chairman. He says: “Guy Verhofstadt has clear qualities as a team leader but plays too much the Flemish leader in his note.” Of course, we do not agree with this. This proves that even Mr. Piette can hit the ball wrong from time to time.

According to De Morgen, Piette struggles mainly with the purely liberal logic of Verhofstadts throw, especially in his own field. “Economically, Verhofstadt follows a rigid liberal line. The rest remains very vague. He does everything that fits the business. For the interprofessional consultation, he makes pro forma some statements and the sectoral agreements go to the regions. In the note, Verhofstadt smuggles the restriction through a backdoor” – that is, the limitation of the unemployment benefit – “because it becomes possible through the regions. A very clever and strange move,” said Mr. Piette. “H ⁇ , I had understood from the orange-blue negotiations that MR and Open Vld had dropped their claims on that restriction. You see, when it comes to my powers, I can be even more bitter than my chairman, Joëlle Milquet.”

De Morgen reports that Piette has done his homework within his own domain in the last few weeks. In his cabinet the computers are not yet working, but his plans are ready. “We will be honored to implement all the concrete measures that have been missing for six months. The bridge pension after 40 years for the heavy occupations, one of the obstacles to the Generation Pact, will soon come, just like the paid maternity leave.” As for the activation and guidance of the unemployed, he takes everything out of the closet to prevent further regionalization. “What we need is an objective, precise and quantified balance of the activation and guidance of the unemployed. The report should be completed by the end of January. In February,” says Mr. Piette on 10 January, “my cabinet is working out the concrete measures.”

He also says that he is an executive. Particularly the slashing of youth unemployment plans, according to Mr. Piette, had to be urgently sharpened. “There are more than 100 measures that only a specialist with an IT program wisely defeats.” He also talks about a number of other pressing issues such as the flexibilisation of outsourcing work, but he does not dare to do so. “I respect my contract,” he says, “I’m an executor and the empty Treasury should not prevent a reduction in charges for the lowest incomes. There’s a small envelope, but there’s one.”

In another article in De Morgen, Mr. Piette says: “In the coming months we will streamline the youth employment plans.” In that article he also says: “Now there are a hundred measures that no one has wisely done.” Regional employment plans are also subject to evaluation. What we need is a precise objective, a quantified balance sheet of all regional measures, a balance sheet that clarifies where the differences between the regions lie, where adjustments are needed.”

In order to prepare the report, a consultation will take place with the regions and they should forward their own assessment to their cabinet as soon as possible. In January, the minister said that if necessary, he came up with his own plan during the month of February.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a final article from The Standard. There was the title: “Mr. Piette, interim job as Minister of Labour. Not a marionette, not a revolutionary.” In this, it is even stated as an introduction that the former unionist of the Christian ACV even returned from bridge retirement, the career statute that he was still fiercely defending at the time of the Generation Pact.

However, they say, “Piette has only three months to make himself a minister, but he promises not to fall like a gray mouse in the history books.”The interview took place on the 19th day as a minister, 75 days before he would resign.

In that article, the minister is asked a number of questions, such as “How were the reactions?” He says: “I have received many friendly phone calls from a number of colleagues from the social consultation and other trade unions, from Pieter Timmermans of the VBO for example, from Karel Van Eetvelt. You know, I even have staff on my cabinet from both Unizo and UCM and VBO. Just to say that I am open to all actors and not just a trade union minister.”

The Standard then asks Mr. Piette: “Is it okay to dive into politics?” “Today I got up at 5am,” he says, “and left for Brussels at 6am. At 8 o’clock there was a nuclear cabinet. This is how it goes. This was as usual as a bridge retiree,” laughs Mr. Piette, “but it goes. Unfortunately, I don’t have such a political weight that I can get a few hours late on that nuclear cabinet.”

The question was, of course, also correct, because at the CDH at the time of the interim government-Verhofstadt many felt called to become a minister.

Also at CDH,” asks De Standaard “have you not had bad reactions there?” “Really not,” he says “but the situation was such that my profile was the best out of the party and the other coalition parties.” “Someone like Melchior Wathelet is of course more qualified to become minister. I can understand that. But his time will come. I understand his disappointment.”

The Standard asks Mr. Piette: “In the note-Verhofstadt there is no talk of a regionalization of social security but that is of course not the note-Leterme?” “To speak of my policy area, about employment policy, almost everything has already been regionalized except labour law and working conditions. They do not belong in a regionalization. Will we impose other safety regulations on working Brussels or Flamings? No of course. We will not organize competition between the Belgian regions. Which employees benefit from this?”

As a result, he actually wiped out the entire split scenario from the table.

The Standard also says: “You carry the image of a minister from and for the trade union.” “Everyone knows where I come from.” It’s not about you, Mrs. Vervotte, I was dealing with your colleague Piette. “Everyone knows where I come from. I am a real ACV man. I have my beliefs and values. I will not change that because I am a minister. I am not a marionette.”

Then follows the main question of the Standard. “Wouldn’t you, as a minister, really just deal with files in which you are the executor of agreements already made between the social partners?” Mr Piette says about this: “I am a great advocate of social consultation. So I am very pleased that there are files on the table on which there is consensus between unions and employers. Why should I change something about it? Last year, the social partners incorporated their responsibilities in the implementation of the Generation Pact and in the implementation of the European SME Directive” – which we discuss here today – “and the trade union. This is underlined too little. I want to emphasize that.”

Then the question is, “Do you really stop Easter after three months? Or maybe not?” he leaves no doubt about the existence at that time. “I’m going to go on Easter,” he says.

“What if Mrs. Milquet and the others continue to insist?” asks De Standaard. “No, no,” says Mr. Piette, “my deadline is fixed. It is temporary. Joëlle knows that she must prepare someone for Work or for another job, because actually Work was destined for Mrs. Vervotte. I, by the way, called her that Tuesday to say that I didn’t just want to get into her job. It is unclear whether the CDH is still working after March 23 or not. Maybe someone else will be Minister of Labour.”

Then he also sets out in that article in The Standard his great ambitions: “In that period I will not conduct revolutionary policy, that speaks, but I give rendez-vous in March” – there we are now – “to overcome the list of all the dossiers we have addressed and where we have taken concrete measures, black on white, on paper, as minister-executive, but also by taking our own initiatives”. Then the Standard asks, “What initiatives are you going to take?” The minister says: “Take interim work, for example. The social partners do not agree on a generalization of the use of interim work, but I will put a balanced proposal on the table. I can follow the employers’ request for the introduction of interim contracts in the public services for the local governments, but the CDH does not want interim contracts in the government and in the federal ministries. I can fully find myself in that. The interim contract can also not be the single-seasoning first contract for all young people. That cannot be the intention. That is my belief as a former trade unionist.”

Mr. D’Haeseleer, what does all this have to do with this? I think nothing.

I will say that immediately. I will read another article later. That will illustrate how it is that bills, such as the one we must pass today, take years before they are submitted here in Parliament. I will, by the way, conclude with the interview given by Mr. Piette a few days ago, which illustrates what is the basis for the long-term delay of the respective draft laws.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with the articles in De Standaard on 10 January. “Will you make real decisions in three months?” Mr. Piette says: “I will help implement and value agreements between the social partners, but I will not, in their place, issue all sorts of measures that would contradict their consensus.”

Until then the press cuts, which, of course, again caused a reaction. The progress of the minister during his transition as Federal Minister of Work, in which he also evaluated the regional jobs plans for a while, quickly received a response from his Flemish colleague, Mr. Vandenbroucke. He said that in the Flemish Parliament and in the Flemish government they would evaluate their jobs plans themselves.

But well, with the interviews, the minister had made clear what he thought about the note-Verhofstadt and the expectations towards his department were therefore very high tension. I was therefore, together with colleague Bultinck, prepared that we would be presented in the Social Affairs Committee one draft after another for discussion and vote, but it was slightly less than announced. No, it was even an opponent. During the short trip, the minister must have experienced that in national politics there are different laws and plots than, for example, in the trade union or in the administration of a small Walsh village, where the minister will take up his job again tomorrow.

For example, when he himself provided a number of pistes to keep the service cheque system affordable, he was even blown up and openly defeated by his own party cdH, which made it clear to him that there could be no limitation of the tax deductibility of the service cheques. With this, the track, which was launched by the minister himself, was immediately shot down.

It was therefore not surprising, colleagues, that the course that Mr. Piette had drawn for himself was not as smooth as he had predicted and probably hoped. Mr. Speaker, it may be time to take up the proposal of the Minister who, as I have already quoted, gave a rendez-vous in March to overcome the list of all the files he would have dealt with. Colleagues, of the imposing program is actually not much to notice. It remains with the transposition of some European directives, as we are expected to do today. For the rest, the big promises have not come into the house so much.

The term of maternity leave has not yet been defined. There is now interim work in the ministries. From the announced analysis of the activation of the unemployed in the month of January, followed by the necessary adjustments in February, nothing has come into the house. Yesterday, by the way, we only received the presentation of the reports and their discussion was postponed until after Easter, despite the fact that the issue of government formation has already been discussed extensively and a number of decisions have been taken. Also on the promised adjustments to the wild growth of jobs plans, which were scheduled in the month of February, it is still waiting. No personal initiative has been submitted, let alone realized.

This is the final balance sheet of the Minister of Labour. Other than imposing. If I can believe the press I have read in the last few days, we will not see Mr. Piette again in our hemisphere. He has been clear and clear about it over the past few days. He is all but disappointed that after a few months he has to clean the track for a newcomer, on the contrary. I have actually known few ministers who are happy, because they are gone after three months.

That, of course, is in sharp contrast with all those young politicians to whom he may later pass the torch – I hope for you, Mrs. Vervotte, that you are the lucky one – and who today will sit glued to their phone device all day, hoping for a redemptive phone call from their party chairman. I think Mr. Bogert gets a phone call. He is probably one of the lucky ones.

The voluntarism with which the minister began his task has given place to disappointment and bitterness. An article in De Morgen of 18 March in which the Minister of Labour looked back on his three months as a minister is significant in that regard.

Mr. D’haeseleer, we expect the redemptive end of your presentation.

The article in The Tomorrow is more than clear and enlightening on this subject. I do not want you to remember that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to give you the words spoken by Mr. Piette in that article. They say everything about the atmosphere in which the majority should function.

The Morning, the official newspaper of the majority, asked Mr. Piette: “You are apparently relieved, Mr. Piette, that your intermezzo as minister is about to come.” I am satisfied with the excellent work that we have done at the Cabinet of Work.” “We acted as a real collective. We have listened to the aspirations of the social partners. We kept as much as possible out of the battlefield, but it was not easy. Of course, the political climate has been absolutely unpleasant in the last few months. I do not have to tell you. The distrust was enormous. The mutual attacks, the accusations over and over again, I am terrified of that. The parties and the ministers stood constantly with knives pulled against each other. I am the mayor of Bassenge, agreed, a small village, in nothing comparable to governing a country. However, the government can take an example of how we work together as a college. Every decision we make is collegial and solidary and no one who will say to the journalists afterwards what an idiot the mayor Piette is.” I do not parafrase them.

“I now make a little caricature of it,” he says, “but that was the course of affairs in the Wetstraat.” De Morgen asks: “As a trade union leader you must be used to it somehow?” to which Piette answers: “I was just negotiating on the sharp of the cut. I was just going straight against the opponent’s views, but then at the negotiating table we played always on the ball, never on the man. I was surprised, even shocked, that there are no rules in the government. Every political deontology was entirely sought. As ministers we govern Belgium, which is an immense task, but that responsibility hardly penetrated."

There is therefore great disappointment by the complete lack of trust between the various parties, which will now be able to sit together weekly in the Ministerial Councils that will run in the coming weeks. Because of this way of working, because of the lack of force, and because of the unwavering consultation and quarrel, which often stands in the way of efficient decision-making, we must today approve a transposition of a European directive dating from 2002 and whose deadline for transposition into Belgian law was fixed on 23 March 2005. Six years after the issue of the directive and almost three years after the deadline for transposition, we will finally be able to transpose the directive.

The reasons for this are clear. The directive has led to many debates, different interpretations, not only by the social partners, but also between the government parties, resulting in an inefficient decision-making process.

In the run-up to the 2007 elections, there was even a real confrontation between the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Vanvelthoven, and Prime Minister Verhofstadt himself, who personally advocated with the King and obtained that the King did not sign a royal decree of the former Minister of Labour concerning the matter.

By overloading the chariot with the requirement to introduce a general mandatory trade union representation in small enterprises, it was clear that a quick agreement was not in it. Social partners have a clear responsibility.

The Flemish Interest is also for social consultation. This, by the way, is the essence of the functioning of trade unions and their core task, as opposed to, for example, paying unemployment benefits and more, but there are limits to the consultation.

Our social consultation model should not be abused to postpone necessary decisions, which has actually happened in this file. Social partners were consulted on this issue in 2002. That opinion has been waiting until 2005.

There are other files. I think, for example, of the unity status in which the social partners abuse our consultation model to ensure that, above all, no decisions need to be taken.

The endless turmoil brought our country a condemnation from the European Court of Justice on 29 March 2007. They were threatened with very high fines.

Mr D'haeseleer, you have two minutes before your thirty minutes of speech time to be. You must keep your mind or I will take away your word.

I will keep my 30 minute speech time.

Last week in the committee I interviewed the Minister on the judgment of the European Court of Justice on 29 March 2007 and how it is with the second procedure, which was initiated on 27 February 2008, because the European Commission had to wait months for the approval of a regulation in the Council of Ministers. The Minister then replied that the Permanent Representative of the Government at the European Commission would convey the message that today there would be a vote on the transposition of the European Directive.

My question is whether this is sufficient for the European Commission. Are we really getting rid of those penalties and those high penalties?

I have 30 seconds. To conclude, I can say that the Flemish Interest is satisfied that eventually a arrangement has been established that responds to the European aspirations and that limits us to the essence of the matter.

We also consider that the transposition of this Directive should not be accompanied by an aggravation of the structures in the smaller enterprises and by an increase in the number of protected workers.

We can therefore be pleased to stand behind the bills.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister – since you are still there until tomorrow – I have long asked myself, “But what devil would you do in this gallery?” Likewise, what fundamental project would you be able to carry out, with your experience as a former trade union manager, during this short interim period? For the benefit of which social cause could you work decisively during this quarter?

I first thought of a reform of the service titles, which would have allowed to correct the faults of the system, to limit to reasonable proportions the benefit of the companies of the commercial or parapublic sphere that are active there, to offer the best possible status to workers, to make pay a fair price to users taking into account their income or to avoid a wild and unwelcome expansion of the services titles to sectors such as childcare or assistance to the elderly.

We have talked a lot about this issue in the committee over the last three months. This was one of the major challenges of the budget conclave, which did not solve many problems. Similarly, the pentaparty negotiations brought nothing really new. We will continue to ask the government about this.

I had also imagined, Mr. Interim Minister, that you could correct the difficulties that appeared in the unemployed accompaniment plan, which leads to an ever-increasing number of exclusions, so that we see more and more radiated unemployed flowing to the CPAS and reach the minimex. Unfortunately, the evaluation of the system does not end up being postponed. Our Social Affairs Committee welcomed representatives of ONEM and IDEA Consult yesterday. We were drunk with statistics of all kinds. As for the discussion itself, it will only open after the Easter holidays with, probably, Ms. Vervotte as Minister of Employment.

In this case, I regret that you did not take the file hand-to-hand and a fortiori that you could not close it. The strength lines of the pentaparty agreement in this area are, by the way, unwelcoming, as evidenced by the willingness to limit allocations over time. This project will pose a huge problem in employment basins where there is virtually no available job. Again, here is a case that we will have to deal with without you.

Now, to the topic of today, Mr. President. After a long search, I finally found the file that justified your presence and demanded your art from social negotiation to Belgian. Europe does not always give as positive impulses as we would like. I think of the issue of the liberalization of public services, which will occupy us throughout the coming months, especially on the postal market.

On the other hand, it sometimes has good ideas in environmental matters (CO2 quotas) or social matters (the Workers Information Directive). In this case, it is necessary to take his footsteps and use these impulses to make social or environmental advances in our country.

In this regard, one cannot be proud of the action of Belgium – within three months, it cannot be your responsibility – since the transposition of this directive, which dates from 2002 and which was to be transposed into Belgian law by 23 March 2005, has taken a lot of delay, leading Europe to threaten us with heavy penalties.

Our impression is that Belgium has progressed backwards in this matter, that it has been laborious and that too much distrust of the social concertation has polluted it. Moreover, the consensus reached and which will be translated into a vote just recently is somewhat weak in our eyes while in terms of social consultation and representation of workers, Belgium is behind other European countries.

In December, and with his predecessor, Mr. Vanvelthoven, we thought we had reached the end of the road with the agreement reached within the National Labour Council but the current affairs government then made the wrong choice to question the text negotiated a little earlier by the social partners. You then had the merit, Mr. Minister, of bringing everyone back to the negotiating table and of reaching a consensus which, although insufficient in relation to our own expectations on social consultation, will enable Belgium to meet the expectations of the Commission and above all to see advances in terms of consultation and informing workers – hopefully because it is still threatened by strikes – especially in companies employing more than 50 people.

For Ecolo and Groen!, the dialogue in the company is a positive thing, which must be reinforced and not feared, like this Wallon business leader who proposes to buy the non-participation of his workers in the social elections by doubling the cheques-meals. Therefore, as stated in the committee, our group will support this text as well as any initiative of the same nature.

Mr. Minister, after your long trade union career, you have tasted the status of temporary worker and you will return to the status of active pensioner. If you had not been able to launch – to the impossible no one is obliged – any measures that could improve the status of this type of workers or social benefiters, your presence could have profoundly influenced the view of your government colleagues on these topics. Looking at the events of the last three months and the pentaparty government agreement we will discuss tomorrow, I fear that this is not really the case, on the contrary.

That is why, not to mention the text that will be voted soon, I can guarantee you the vigilance of the Ecolo-Groen group! So that in the coming months there will be no social downturn but rather proposals that give rise to real progress in terms of pensions, health care or employee status.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is 12 a.m. For this discussion, Ms. De Maght has yet to register.

I don’t know if you thought you had a long talk.

My presentation is very short.

I suggest that Ms. De Maght take the floor. Then there is the report on the second bill on the agenda, on the cooperative company. It will also be very short. Then we can conclude these two bills.

There will be a Conference of Presidents. We will arrange the work for this afternoon and tonight.

Mrs. De Maght, I ask you to take the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, unlike the previous speakers, I will keep it very brief and limit myself to the essence, or what is still essential for us today.

First and foremost, we would like to thank from our group the Minister and his administration for the efforts made to reach the draft law that is now under vote.

However, we continue to knock on the same nail, Mr. Minister. We are very pleased, of course, that our bill, which we submitted to the House in September 2007, is actually included in your bill submitted today. This is a sign of common sense for us. However, I would like to point out that at that time, in September 2007, it was also our intention to accelerate this file, given the long period of entry.

We regret that this file took so long before it was submitted to Parliament in this form. In fact, the question of meeting the European Directive dates from March 2002. It is now six years after the date.

Even today, it is still unclear whether, given the fact that the European Commission has already opened a second infringement procedure, Belgium will have to pay a flat-rate fine of EUR 2.9 million and a fine for each day of delay. In March last year, our country was already convicted because it was already two years late with the implementation of the directive. I hope from the bottom of my heart – and my colleagues hope that together with me – that we will not have to pay those fines because indeed we have started so late to make an arrangement.