Proposition 52K1948

Proposition de résolution concernant l'application de normes sociales et environnementales dans le cadre de la mondialisation.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Stefaan Vercamer, Hilâl Yalçin
Ecolo Fouad Lahssaini
Groen Wouter De Vriendt
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

April 23, 2009

Official page

Visit

Subjects

degradation of the environment working conditions sustainable development globalisation resolution of parliament development aid human rights social inequality free competition

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 ¶

July 15, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report. However, this does not exclude that I would like to make another presentation later.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present resolution on social and environmental standards in the context of globalization is the product of a series of work of the Special Committee on Globalization and a series of hearings in the last working year.

As the proponent of the motion for a resolution, I would like to emphasize the constructive nature of this work, beyond party boundaries. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee.

Amendments were submitted to the original text. I think I can say that those amendments were dealt with in the greatest possible openness and in many cases, by the way, were also accepted by consensus.

Before proceeding to my presentation, I would like to express my regret that no representative of the Government is present at the discussion of this resolution. It is a matter of certain importance.

In September 2000, the United Nations decided to address the major global problems by January 1, 2015. Eight measurable targets were set in the areas of poverty, inequality, healthcare and education.

Today, we have exactly 1,995 days left to ⁇ these Millennium Goals. For a global community that could very quickly release more than $1,000 billion for the rescue of banks and the financial-economic system, this must be a sea of time.

In practice, it is apparently different since it does not appear that all the Millennium Goals will be achieved. I will return to that later.

Initially, the Millennium Goals paid too little attention to the importance of labour in the fight against poverty. After all, those who have work are no longer dependent on help and can take their lives into their own hands.

However, a job alone is not enough. In 2005, decent work was added as a Millennium Goal.

Two years later, in 2007, the World Social Forum in Nairobi launched the “decent work, decent life” campaign. In our own country, 11.11.11 burned the fire with a campaign “Worthy Work”, supported by the largest NGOs, trade unions and social organizations.

This campaign is still ongoing and also calls on politics to take some steps. With this resolution we wanted to address this.

According to the International Labour Organization, decent work is freely chosen work, with an income that covers family needs, respecting fundamental labour rights such as equality between men and women, freedom of association or prohibition of forced and child labour, and also with the opportunity for workers to defend their rights through democratically elected and independent trade unions.

What is the state of affairs? I’ll give you some numbers to illustrate something. Today, half of all workers worldwide earn less than 1.5 euros per day. 1.8 billion people work without contract and without social protection. For 12 million people, forced labour is a daily reality. More than half of all workers are allowed or unable to join unions.

For the 21st century, these are alarming figures. The economic crisis is yet tougher.

According to the International Labour Organization, over the past two years, between 2007 and 2009, 200 million working poor have increased. The United Nations forecasts 90 million more people in extreme poverty this year. Thus, the steady progress since the beginning of this millennium is overturned by the recession. The responsibility of the casino capitalism we have known is according to Green! Ecolo is also huge in this area.

If we, faced with these figures, do not want to fall into political lethargy, one misconception must urge the world out. Globalization as we know it today does not fall from the air. The lack of labour standards, social or environmental regulation is indeed the product of a global consensus between governments and a number of institutions such as WHO, OECD and the IMF.

This means that globalization depends on decisions and is therefore variable. That is good news in itself, because what we need is political will. It is that responsibility of politicians who Ecolo and Green! want to pass. We have a lot, if not everything, in our hands.

Tomorrow, if we vote on this draft resolution, we can take a modest step in the right direction. The House of Representatives may give its approval to this proposal for a resolution promoting globalization with social and environmental standards.

Globalization may offer new opportunities, it creates according to Ecolo and Green! There are also relevant inequalities. For example, the mandatory integration of weak African economies into the free world market is often destructive for the countries concerned and deprives them of the necessary opportunities for development.

Social standards, environmental protection and human rights should no longer be subject to any economic policy or trade agreement. In our resolution, decent work also occupies a central place. After all, we can see that governments are involved in an ongoing competitive situation and are easing labour rules to attract as many investments as possible. This race to the bottom is ⁇ harsh for workers and workers.

In the draft resolution, Parliament calls on the federal government to work with international organisations to uphold social, environmental and labour standards. An important part of the resolution aims to upgrade existing OECD guidelines from recommendations to truly binding regulation. These directives deal with fundamental labour rights, respect for international environmental conventions, the fight against corruption and more. The Parliament calls on the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that those OECD guidelines become binding for national and multinational companies in their activities abroad. This could be done, for example, by making companies registered in Belgium and Europe legally responsible for compliance with these standards in the entire production chain.

Social and environmental clauses should also be added to all trade and investment agreements. It would therefore be a good thing if the national contact point dealing with complaints about possible non-compliance by companies with the directives was sensitively strengthened. The Government should also make every effort to ensure that the complaint mechanism of the International Labour Organization can make binding statements and impose effective sanctions in case of violations. This would be a very significant social progress. Multinational companies must comply with a set of binding social and environmental rules.

The provisions of this resolution deserve the special attention of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2010.

As initiators, we are ⁇ pleased with the broad political support for a text that aims to subject globalization to stronger rules. However, the real work only begins. In order to be more than a piece of paper, the government must indeed put our resolution into action after it will, hopefully, be approved by the House tomorrow.

It will then be up to us, parliamentarians of both the opposition and the majority, to watch this vigilantly and to exercise our right of control in honour and conscience.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I just wanted to join the comment of Mr. De Vriendt about the presence of the government but I see that a member of the government has just arrived.

In any case, I agree with the comment of colleague De Vriendt on the constructive spirit in which the talks and discussions in the committee have taken place. It was the firm will of everyone to come to a as broad resolutions as possible.

Colleagues, last week in the Indian city of Bhopal, ten workers died in an explosion at a local factory. Bhopal will probably not sound unfamiliar to many of you. It was in this city in India that in December 1984 a cloud of poisonous gas escaped from Union Carbide’s pesticide factory. To date, this is one of the worst industrial disasters in history, killing 3,500 people in the first four days and another 15,000 would die from related diseases.

There were several incidents in the run-up to this disaster and due to poor working conditions, poor safety regulations and late payments, the morality of the local staff was also very poor. However, all these warnings, including an expert report, were ignored by the U.S.-India management until that fatal day.

In 1989, the American company Union Carbide Corporation reached a majority shareholder agreement with the Indian government under which it pledged to cease operating the factory site and to pay $470 million in compensation to the victims and families of the deceased. However, no one from the management has ever been charged. The factory area has so far been heavily polluted and as such continues to have a nefaste impact on the environment.

Much of the money never reached the people for whom it was intended, among other things because it continued to stick to the Indian authorities. Recently, 27 members of the U.S. Congress therefore openly demanded that Union Carbide Corporation would give medical compensation to the survivors, finally repair the site and send a representative to India to follow the still ongoing processes, so far without much result.

Why am I telling all this? The Bhopal disaster is a beautiful illustration of the various aspects that we seek to address in this resolution on the application of social and environmental standards in the context of globalization.

This resolution affects all aspects: working conditions and fundamental labour rights, the impact of industrial activity on the environment and the liability of international companies and multinationals.

Occupational accidents are a daily occurrence in a country like India. After all, it is a country that has undergone a rapid transition and rapid industrialization in the last decade, just like China, by the way.

According to a very recent report from the International Labour Organization, the number of workplace accidents continues to increase worldwide. Every day, about 5,500 workers would die in workplace accidents or work-related illnesses. Still, according to the IAO, between 2001 and 2003, the number of fatal work accidents increased from 351,000 to 358,000 and the number of non-fatal incidents increased from 268 million to 337 million. The IAO also identifies a gap between Western and developing countries, where the fatal numbers are much higher.

Nevertheless, we do not want to focus too much on just numbers and statistics, but above all look at the real people and the real situations behind them. After all, let us not forget that, in addition to human suffering, an occupational accident has an even greater impact in a developing country than here. In a poor country, it is often a matter of life or death for the affected people and their families when the only beneficiary of food is lost, especially when social protection and medical assistance are almost nonexistent.

The above also explains why our group has been very actively involved in the present resolution and has also largely contributed to it. The content of the resolution is closely linked to our so-called core business of the modern Christian democratic mindset: decent work, social rights, international cooperation and respect for the environment.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that the present resolution is ⁇ not an anti-globalism resolution. We are not against globalization. Economic growth remains a prerequisite for job creation. We do not deny that either. Economic growth alone is not a guarantee of new jobs.

In other words, it is not enough. After all, economic growth is a useless goal if it only creates jobs that compel people to take two jobs to get around, or if it fails to lift people above the poverty line. No less than 1.2 billion people have to deal with less than $1 a day.

We are therefore largely in agreement with what World Bank economist and Nobel Prize winner in economics, Jozeph Stiglitz, wrote in 2002 in his book “Globalization and Its Discontents”. I will quote for a moment.

“The opening of international trade has made many countries grow much faster than they would have done without this liberalization. International trade can help economic development when a country’s exports stimulate economic growth. Export-driven growth was the central element of economic policy that made Asia flourish and improved the lives of millions of people there.

As a result of globalization, many people in the world now live much longer than before and their standard of living is higher. Moreover, globalization has reduced the idea of isolation, which was felt in a large part of developing countries, and has given many people in these countries access to knowledge and information, in a way that was unthinkable even for the richest countries just a century ago.

The anti-globalization protests themselves are, by the way, an expression of this new connection and of the modern, global communication. Those who demonize globalization, therefore, overlook the benefits too often. But the advocates of globalization may have been even more unnuanced in the past. For them, globalization, which is automatically associated with accepting a triumphant capitalism American style, after all, is progress.

Developing countries must simply accept this if they want to grow and effectively engage in the fight against poverty. But for many in the third world, globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits. A growing gap between those who have and those who don’t have has left an increasing number of people in pure poverty, forced to come around with less than a dollar a day. Despite repeated promises in the last decade of the twentieth century to reduce poverty, the actual number of people living in poverty has even increased by almost 100 million. This occurred simultaneously with the increase in global total income by an average of 2.5 percent per year.”

That was a quote from a world bank economist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Therefore, this is not an anti-globalization solution, but we are against globalization when it is equated with an unbroken free-market thinking, with pure neoliberalism, without the necessary corrective mechanisms in the economic, financial and social spheres. As a result, multinational companies and large companies are given free play, so that environmental damage is not calculated and social achievements are denied or even denied to people.

Globalization follows its own logic and precisely for this reason it needs universal standards on which control is exercised. We therefore believe that there is a clear need for comprehensive control mechanisms in the economic and financial spheres, both at national and international levels. We see a role played by the European Union, the ILO, the United Nations, the OECD, and so on.

In addition to the international, we also have to look at the local. A globalized world also needs strong, democratic, efficient and transparent local governments that can benefit the common people from the positive effects of economic development, international trade and development cooperation. Economic investments in a developing country do not have to be negative when the local government ensures that local workers receive a full wage, that environmental standards are respected and that part of the income flows back to their own population through an efficient tax system.

The main points of this resolution are, for us, the following.

Decent work also gives an integrated place in the Belgian development policy, so not only continue to strive for the financial commitment to spend 0.7% of the GDP on development aid, but also to link decent work as a basic goal to our development policy.

On the international stage, we also call for continued compliance with the requirements of international labour standards, including freedom of association, prohibition of child labour and the ratification of all ILO conventions.

Strengthening the application of basic labour standards by enabling the existing complaint mechanisms of the International Labour Organization to make binding statements is also an important element of this resolution.

To ensure that the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2010 pays special attention to the provisions of this resolution and to include its objective in the renewed Lisbon Strategy is also an important focus in this resolution.

We believe that the rules of the game should be strict, but equal for everyone. This was also an important element in the discussion in the committee. Not only should there be binding rules for national and multinational companies on human rights, labour standards, environmental rules and anti-corruption, but those rules should apply to all companies throughout the European Union and preferably even at a wider international level.

After all, it cannot be that the competitive position of our Belgian companies, ⁇ in the current economic context, would be weakened by a unilateral Belgian regulation.

However, those who, in such an international context of strict rules for everyone, still cheat and do not comply with the rules, should be able to be sanctioned. Such a sanctioning policy should possibly be initiated by setting up settlement mechanisms, by setting up an international environmental tribunal, by strengthening the ILO and the like.

Finally, on behalf of our group, I would like to emphasize that this text is only a start and not a end. It is an initiative and should only be considered as a first step. We are, of course, very pleased that this resolution was achieved through close consultation, not only between our group and the colleagues of Ecolo and Green!, but also with the other groups, on the basis of engaging discussions and conversations in the special committee Globalisation.

There was also frequent contact and feedback with civil society, where we received a lot of input from the relevant organizations.

However, the challenge will be to ensure that it does not stay with paper promises and plenary speeches. We therefore hope that this resolution will be followed by legislative initiatives in the field of decent work and social standards and that the content of this resolution will be taken into account by the federal government in its foreign policy and its development policy, so that this resolution can be a teststone in the coming years both in the field of international, economic agreements and in the field of development cooperation.

We hope that the Belgian government and its representatives will take the next Presidency of the European Union to put decent work and the other objectives of this resolution higher on the EU’s agenda. In this context, we also hope that our new European Commissioner, Mr. De Gucht, will consider this resolution as an early New Year letter and may not always bring these too liberal ideas to the Commission.

In addition, we will, of course, ensure that the Ministers of Development Cooperation and Foreign Affairs will actively strive to strengthen the transition to decent work in the UN Millennium Goals.

Finally, I have a question for the colleagues of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its new, but appreciated chairman. Our group expects that this resolution will be used as a test stone in the discussions of new international treaties so that in the future they will not always be automatically adopted without critical reflection.

Mr. Speaker, considered member of the government, colleagues, the liberals stand for ethical globalization. Liberals struggle tirelessly for the freedom of present generations, but also of future generations, and this at the global level and for everyone, regardless of race, orientation, origin or belief.

The resolution calls for an ethical globalization that guarantees as many people as possible the right to social protection as well as to a healthy environment. I would therefore like to express my appreciation to the applicants for the work well done, as well as to all the members of the Special Committee on Globalization, under a good presidency, where indeed very constructive work was done and there was a good dialogue with civil society and the various groups.

Over the past 20 years, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. The percentage of people in developing countries living with less than $1.25 per day has halved between 1981 and 2005 from 52 to 26 percent, according to the World Bank. That is to say that just as many people are on their way to a dignified standard of life. The open economic policies of various countries have allowed these countries to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization. Progress in countries that have taken a place in world trade is immense. But, of course, there is still a very long way to go.

After all, at the same time, the gap between North and South remains unacceptably deep and hundreds of millions of people work and live in the most deplorable conditions. Many lack the most basic social rights and live in bitter poverty. This is, of course, unacceptable and ⁇ in the 21st century.

There are many causes. I will not list them all, but only a few: the lack of a liberal democratic rule of law in many countries, the reluctance of countries to open borders and participate in that globalization, the shameful protectionism of various rich countries, the neglect of the property rights of the poor in the world, the lack of acceptance of ethical codes in the free market and ⁇ , in my opinion, the core, the lack of a global democratic counter-power to that globalized economy we know.

The lack of a liberal rule of law is a serious cause of many misfortunes in our world. Take for example a country like China. There is no democracy, there are no political parties, there is no trade union freedom that can point the government to the fundamental violations of human rights that are taking place there. Equally bad is the fact that in its search for raw materials, the country lacks many rules, while almost all European countries provide development aid and associate with it many conditions such as ecological and social conditions, good governance, reduction of corruption. China does not do that. Corrupt African leaders are closing their eyes to the robberies China is currently pursuing on the black continent.

The lack of a liberal democratic rule of law is the reason why countless people live in poverty and impunity. The fact that people have no or insufficient social rights and that the environment is not adequately protected has to do with a lack of democracy and administrative capacity, not with economic openness in itself. That is why I also submitted an amendment that continues to encourage democracy, good governance and respect for the rule of law.

Another element of the many suffering in the world is the reluctance of many countries to open their borders and participate in globalization, globalization. I am convinced that globalization is not the problem in itself, but the instrument to solve those problems. It is not the cause but the lever to increase the prosperity and well-being of people worldwide. It is a fable that countries that open up to world trade would suffer the greatest environmental and social damage. On the contrary, that globalization and free-market activity have led to a spectacular growth in wealth and well-being is demonstrated by abundant figures, even if quoted by colleague Vercamer in relation to the statements of Mr. Stiglitz.

In 1900 the average life expectancy was 30 years. Today it is 67 years. That improvement was less rapid in the African countries south of the Sahara. The life expectancy is only 51 years. In countries with free market operations, poverty declined dramatically. In 1965, 60 percent of Asians were extremely poor, today 20 percent, which is obviously 20 percent too much. In 1970, only 30 percent of the third world population had access to drinking water. It is now available for 80 percent. In 1970, 35 percent of the population in developing countries suffered from hunger. In 1996 it had dropped to 18 percent. The United Nations expects a decrease to 12 percent by 2015. More globalization and economic liberalism, therefore, lead to greater prosperity, greater growth, higher standard of living, fewer child mortality and higher life expectancy.

In contrast, hundreds of millions of people living in countries that do not yet participate in international trade continue to decline. These are mainly countries in Africa, in the Muslim world, and one-party states such as Cuba, Burma and North Korea. They have missed the process of globalization.

Another aspect is the shameful protectionism of the rich countries. The lack of opportunities for people in poor countries is due to protectionism in those rich countries, to pressure groups who consider their group interests above the general interest. Who are the biggest protectionists? These are the rich countries: the United States, the European Union and Japan. They impose billions of dollars, euros, and yen of import duties annually, and they provide massive support through export subsidies, disrupting the development of local markets. The subsidies to food, textiles and steel hinder the development of poor countries.

They are powerful pressure groups, such as the Peasant Union and their friends, who maintain the economically and morally shameful system of protectionism. On a global level, this system is ⁇ ined by international organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO that have little to no democratic legitimacy and act as the belly speakers of the rich countries. They tell the poor countries to open their borders, but at the same time they allow the rich countries to shield their borders.

Another serious problem is the neglect of the property rights of the poor in the world. For decades, collectivists have said that nationalization was the best solution to get out of the problems. Again and again they are wrong. In order to give every individual and every family the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, the opposite must happen as the Peruvian development economist Hernando de Soto Polar demonstrated with his ownership story. One cannot advance in life if what one possesses is not legally recognized. As a result, one also has no access to credit and for him a beautiful system of microcredit can nevertheless make a world of difference. Muhammad Yunus has proved this.

Another fact is the total lack – and I think that is essential – of a global, democratic counter-power for the globalized economy. While financial and economic activities have long been borderless, we continue to stick to those outdated democratic control mechanisms at the national level. The recent banking crisis has clearly demonstrated that this is no longer possible, that this is no longer functioning. We need democratic control mechanisms at the global level, and for this, existing international organizations need to be urgently democratized.

How is it possible that there are still four European countries in the G8 and no representative of China, India, Latin America or Africa? In addition to a powerful World Trade Organization, we believe that there must be a global social organization that, like the WHO, has the power to minimise environmental standards and working conditions and effectively sanction violations.

I come to my last point. The free market is the best means to generate more wealth for more people. However, a free market can and should not be absolute. I strongly oppose the power fundamentalism of so-called neoliberals or libertarians who want to eliminate any control and thus give free play to direct exploitation of man and nature.

I would like to point you to the fact that Adam Schmidt, a well-known liberal thinker, long ago stated that a free market can only function properly when certain rules exist.

As a liberal, I oppose both unbroken and aggressive turbocapitalism that escapes any democratic control and the other extreme, a fearful protectionism that excludes the world. Both systems deprive opportunities of those who need them most, especially the poorest countries and their population.

We need more liberalism in the world. Liberalism is the solution, not the problem, for creating a more just world.

We will support the present resolution because it calls for attention to ethical globalization and emphasizes the absolute importance of social and environmental rights that every individual should have.

A number of important aspects of the problem, I believe, have not yet been addressed in this resolution. In this sense, it is not an end point, but a starting point. We could include many other measures that are indirectly relevant to the social and environmental rights that we are concerned with.

It is about a more representative and democratic organization of the international institutions and the removal of debts under strict conditions so that countries can have more policy space to make investments.

That’s the story of Hernando de Soto about property rights, Yunus about microcredit, but also the story of Amartya Sen, an Indian Nobel Prize winner who sees education and health care as recipes for further development.

There is also the promotion of genuine global free trade and the overthrow of the protectionist-subsidized agricultural policy from among others the European Union and the United States.

These vital instruments, the leverage for a more just world, could, in my opinion, already have a place in the present resolution. But we will be eager to address them when the Special Committee on Globalization talks about the role of trade as the engine of prosperity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision. Ethical globalization is a liberal story in which we seek as much freedom as possible for as many people as possible, especially for the weakest in this world. Statism and protectionism that spoils people will not get a chance, nor will a dogmatic ultrakapitalism that exploits people.

We must therefore dare to engage in the struggle against all the forces that prevent globalization from working for the benefit of all. The present resolution is a very good step towards more freedom for everyone. I can count on the support of my group.

Mr. Cornil and Mrs. De Bue are also registered as speakers, but they are not present at the moment. Mr Van der Maelen will be the last speaker to speak.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, as chairman of the Commission on Globalization, I think that what I have heard from the colleagues De Vriendt, Vercamer and De Clercq is an illustration of the fact that we have debated with each other in an engaging way. Our debates were enriched by the contribution of a number of academics and people from the civil society. Most of all, I am pleased that we have managed to land together.

In summary, we are not trapped in the trap of blind faith in globalization, nor are we trapped in the trap of antiglobalization. We are, I think, with all its differentglobalists. Other globalists, that is, we want a different globalization.

Those who have listened attentively to the speeches of the various colleagues will notice that there are still certain accent differences. Mathias De Clercq spoke of ethical globalization. For me, as a Social Democrat, this is a weakness. Ethics is quite different. I am for regulation. Well, we found each other to some extent. Even colleague De Clercq has just said that he does not believe in a totally free turbocapitalism without any regulation. I am also in favour of regulation. Moreover, I am in favor of social redistribution mechanisms that should also begin to work globally.

Globalization, as we have known it in recent years, is, after all, a globalization that has ensured that there have been beneficial consequences for globalization here and there for certain countries – on this point Mr. De Clercq was right.

Globally, however, it must be noted that the gap between rich and poor countries has increased. If we look at each country, both the developing countries where globalization, on average, has had effects, as well as the rich countries, it must be noted that the gap between rich and poor has also grown there.

For me, the outcome of the debates we have had in the committee is the conclusion that, with the exception of the Flemish Interest, all committee members have spoken out in favour of a different globalization.

I would like to summarize four points briefly. I promised to make a brief presentation. The aforementioned four points relate to some caution, which I would like to point out today.

Next week I will be 20 years in the room. The last twenty years have taught me that paper is patient and that words can sound beautiful, but also that actions must follow. In my capacity as a Chamber Member, I rely primarily on the members of the majority to ensure that the direction of the beautiful recommendations, which still contain accent differences and which will still provide ground for debate, is taken.

Let me start at the Belgian level. The recommendation makes it very clear that we want social and environmental standards to have a more central place and role in our Belgian development policy. From October 2009, when we resume our work, the Sp.a. group will pay close attention to the work of the Minister of Development Cooperation and of the entire government in this area. We are looking forward to seeing if there is a reversal in policy in this area.

Second, on the European level, I read – I pick out a recommendation – that the European trade and investment policy will no longer be subject to social and environmental standards.

In the second half of 2010 Belgium will assume the Presidency of the European Union. We will begin in October 2009 with the discussion on the programme that Belgium will push forward. I am curious whether we will see traces of the good intention stated in the present resolution on the aforementioned level.

Third, it is also stated in the resolution – we all agree on this – that decent work should be placed at the same level as the other Millennium Goals. It already stands in between as a goal, but the big difference from the other Millennium Goals is that the other goals have quantitative indicators, and decent work is not yet.

I am looking forward to whether our new Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of Development Cooperation, which we will see working in October, will take steps in that direction. Will they hear that voice?

Fourth and last, there is a point of reference that I am very pleased with. So far I have talked about recommendations and assignments that go to political governments, Belgian, European and global levels. Our resolution also states that we believe that large companies, which play a very important role in the global economy, need binding rules. If one ranked the states according to their GDP and the companies according to their turnover, one would come to the conclusion that the balance sheet is about fifty-fifty. So far, we have only given rules and orders to the government. In addition to non-binding codes of conduct and other international agreements, they should also be subject to a number of social and environmental, anti-corruption, and similar rules. I wonder if the majority will take that way.

I conclude with an announcement, colleagues. I hope that it will not remain in words but that actions will follow. If you want to participate, my bill is ready. I have prepared a very simple bill, formed on the example of what exists on sexual abuse. You all know that Belgium has been one of the pioneers in this regard, where Belgians who commit child offenses abroad can also be punished before the Belgian court and can be convicted.

Well, I have a very small and light bill ready for a step that we can all take. It stipulates that if Belgian companies employ children abroad, they can be prosecuted and sentenced for this by Belgian courts. I look forward to seeing, my colleagues, whether we will be able to take the first small step in this direction. Ten years ago I tried it once, but then there was resistance from my colleagues from liberal houses and the colleagues of CD&V did not want to participate.

I would be very happy to submit this bill for signature to the colleagues with whom we have worked fruitfully in the Committee on Globalization. If this was approved, we would have taken a first small step in the right direction.