Proposition 52K2003

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière d'emploi pendant la crise.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

May 20, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work work contract working time economic recession socioeconomic conditions social-security contribution employment policy employment aid unemployment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Vooruit N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

May 28, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report. I would like to thank the services who worked quickly and efficiently. The report is on the pupitres of colleagues. I will speak a little later in the debate.

I do not see Mr Kindermans, co-rapporteur, but I assume that he also refers to his written report.

Mrs. De Block has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies Ministers, Dear colleagues, this bill is entitled “diverse provisions on employment in times of crisis”, but in fact it is not all said. In fact, it is primarily about no or less work in times of crisis, though in order to preserve jobs in the longer term.

In these times of acute crisis, employers should indeed be given the opportunity to allow their workers, both workers and employees, to work equally less or not at all in order to maintain employment in the longer term. The crisis is striking hard. We should not throw the child away with the bath water. Some ⁇ find it difficult to survive and are eager to leave this difficult period behind. This requires some sort of crisis management.

It may sound utopian for now, but we hope to maintain employment until the time when the labour market recovers. We hope that workers can keep their jobs and not fall into unemployment. The system of economic unemployment was able to accommodate that evil until now for workers, but not for servants. That is why I, together with colleague Van Biesen, submitted a proposal for economic unemployment for employees a few months ago. It is obvious that my party and I are pleased with the variant included in the bill.

A sui generis arrangement has been chosen, in order not to interfere with the old discussion concerning the equalization of the status of workers and servants. As parliamentarians, we do not want to interfere with our crisis measures in this discussion between the social partners.

The bill contains provisional measures. It is an acute remedy for an acute problem, more specifically, for a period of six months and possibly subsequently, on the advice of the National Labour Council, renewable. It is important to say that the measures are provisional and not structural, as in your proposal Mr. Bonte. This is a crisis measure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt, but colleague De Block refers to a bill from me, which will also be discussed in the future and which advocates both collective reduction of working hours and crisis-time credit.

Mrs. De Block, you say that we propose structural measures, but nothing is less true. We have very clearly stated in the bill that it is for 2009 and 2010, which provides the clarity that is missing in the draft, in particular by indicating a very simple, transparent period indicating who is entitled to and who is not. With you, all this must be done through an administrative mall, it must be submitted to committees, there must be negotiated and closed COAs, business plans can be introduced of which no one knows the statute, and so on. You are mistaken when you say that we are introducing a structural measure. No, we want to provide for temporary COAs and temporary measures for 2009 and 2010, in order to save jobs through the division of labor.

You know well that it is a crisis measure, which needs to be evaluated after six months. We do not want to seize the crisis in order to push through a hidden agenda, such as the introduction of a less-working week, with very limited wage loss. You have also developed your arguments in the committee and those have been wiped out by the Minister of the table. You cannot make a short circuit to prevent your measure from being discussed and evaluated and then implemented for two or three years anyway. The Open Vld does not participate in that story, unfortunately to those who envy it, Mr. Bonte.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I know a little about the sensitivities in the file between socialists, liberals and Christian Democrats. Mrs. De Block, you say that although our proposal is temporary, it actually contains a blurred agenda to ensure that people need to work less in order to earn almost equally. That would be the socialist agenda.

I have pointed out in the committee, Mrs. De Block, that what is coming up and out of Mrs. Milquet’s computer can perfectly result in people starting to work a lot less without losing 1 euro net income. So you should not come to explain to us that we have a hidden agenda and that we want to make people work less while retaining wages. It is now perfectly possible and it is also good that it can. I would like to support the government initiative. Don’t tell us that you didn’t vote for our proposal, because it would involve working time reduction with salary retention. We have not explicitly provided for this, while this is perfectly possible in the government draft. I would like you to evaluate the matters before you today in a correct and intellectually fair manner.

Mr Bonte, you know very well why we did not support your proposal. It was also a very strange method. You wanted to intervene on a royal decree and thereby restore a law ...

The [...]

Yet yes.

I just came from a committee meeting, which was held during the plenary session. We had to discuss an amendment that we find here. We summoned the Committee for Business and read the amendment there stating that some royal decrees are to be amended.

I clearly asked the applicants in the committee to explain to me how they thought on Tuesday that the proposal we defended should not be discussed here as a royal decree is being amended. I still hear you say. Read the amendment that you will defend later. It amends two royal decrees, neither more nor less. What is your criticism about?

You are working on two different proposals. I am still talking about your proposal in the Social Affairs Committee and you are taking the proposal that was now discussed in the Business Affairs Committee. So we are dealing with two different things.

We can support the amendment to grant the reduction of contributions also to employees who are victims of a bankruptcy. This is how we come to the business committee. Until now, the system only applied to victims of restructuring. It is good that this temporary arrangement was introduced, and by legal means.

We ask not to forget the category of self-employed or employers in these times of crisis. This is why Ms. Laruelle is present here as Minister of Medium. They must not pay the price for it, because they also provide work.

We were right to provide a loop for self-employed and employers in these crisis measures, in particular through bankruptcy insurance. Mr. Bonte, you know the sensitivities. I don’t put it under chairs or benches. There you come to the point where you say that we do this by interfering with a royal decision. That is correct.

In the future, it will be the task of all of us to fully accompany bankrupt self-employed or self-employed persons who have quit their business to work – which is primarily a regional matter – and to open all employment plans and contributions reductions also to these people.

I am pleased that, despite the election campaign and the pre-electoral fever that manifests and makes sensitive on various banks, we do not lose sight of these important issues and in these times meetings and committees dedicate to measures that can combat the possible consequences of the crisis.

Someone here or there will say that it had already happened before, but we all know that this had to be negotiated and that the file was first blocked by certain interest groups for a long time: it was connected to the negotiations on the status of worker and servant and that has delayed things sensibly, Mr. Bonte. I think everyone looks at it in their own eyes.

Mrs. De Block, I have the impression that Mr. Bonte is a little bit bitten on you.

I would like to come up with a determination. Ms. De Block, you say that the arrangement should have come earlier, but that it has been slower because we had to consult the interest groups first. I repeat what I have done in the committee and I look at the draft itself and the discussion of it. You will find that the State Council also notes that there is no advice from the social partners. Therefore, this consultation may not be the cause. Do you know where the cause lies? The division of the government. I would like to go deeper into this in my presentation later.

Please do not abuse the social partners! I also address colleague Vercamer, whom I know he is closely involved with one of the social partners. Stop abusing the social partners to serve here as an excuse for the fact that the government has numbered, because that is the problem. The legislation on which we will now vote comes six months after the crisis began and exactly four months after exactly the same bills were submitted in this Parliament. She comes there months after we submitted amendments from the opposition to do exactly the same, but then it couldn’t. Don’t say it’s up to the social partners. It is a shame that you use this as an excuse. It is a much bigger shame that it took six months before it was put to vote.

Mr. Bonte, I will listen to you later, as I have listened to you in the committee. I just hope you won’t be interrupted as much as I do.

Colleagues, ladies ministers, I think that these days there is much being said that here in Brussels, in the Parliament, no action is being taken and that we are not dealing with the people. I think the present draft proves the opposite and Open VLD will therefore fully support it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are all concerned about the effects of this crisis on our economy and on employment. This crisis is heavy on our economy. Let me just mention a figure for today. Volvo Trucks sold 54% fewer trucks in the first four months of this year than four years ago for the same period. Explain the consequences of the economic crisis.

As a CD&V group, we therefore advocate measures that give companies maximum opportunities to temporarily overcome the consequences and to maximize employment protection or, let us say, reduce unemployment.

At the end of last year, the government has already taken a whole range of measures to address the impacts of the crisis on companies and workers: the measures for reducing costs for companies, the extension of the accompanying measures in the context of restructuring, and above all the improvement – Ms. De Block also referred to this – and the strengthening of the system of economic unemployment for workers. Through these measures, this first set of measures, the government has already made an important contribution to minimize workers’ redundancies and to provide oxygen to the companies.

However, the scale of the crisis requires additional measures to reduce the impact of the crisis on ⁇ and unemployment. These new measures are now available: measures on temporary reduction of crisis working hours and temporary crisis measures to adjust the workload.

As a CD&V group, we will support the present draft, because we are convinced that this will now prevent dismissals among employees and that companies can temporarily adjust work performance to the recession caused by the economic crisis.

The present draft now also creates clarity, as in recent months workers and employers have been very creative in finding a solidary way to realize a temporary reduction in employment among employees. There is now a clear framework for this. For us as the CD&V group, it is very important that there is also a framework of agreement, in which employers and workers, before temporary measures can be introduced for employees, must sit around the table together to make agreements on this. In other words, the introduction is embedded in social consultation.

Secondly, for us, the introduction of that measure is bound by conditions. This is a second important given. Companies must demonstrate that they are effectively affected by the crisis. Also, the shared financial responsibility of government, companies and employees with regard to the loss of wages is a very important data for us.

Therefore, I would like to emphasize once again that these are temporary measures, limited in duration until the end of 2009, which may be extended by six months, eventually after consultation and depending on the economic circumstances. This is also important for us, because, along with the other restrictive conditions, there is no advance reduction in the debate about the unitary status of workers and servants. Therefore, the Minister has given the maximum opportunity to the social consultation to reach a solution. This has not succeeded, and then the government has taken its responsibility.

Finally, on behalf of our group, I would like to reiterate that we want to continue our efforts to activate the periods of decreasing work performance by linking it with training and training during the periods mentioned above.

Therefore, we warmly call on the social partners and the government to continue their commitment to education and training during periods of decreasing work performance.

We are convinced that the aforementioned measures will contribute to the maximum reduction of redundancies, that thus in a solidary way the employees can contribute to the reduction of labour costs and that at the same time the employment is protected to the maximum.

We will approve the present draft law.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, we are experiencing a serious economic crisis and this bill is therefore for us of capital importance.

The number of jobs lost is very high and yet we have not yet come out of the crisis.

Let me go further in the analysis that can be done on this subject and give you a few precise examples:

Employees have been asked to reduce their benefits or to use their right to time credit, whether they like it or not;

Employees have been dismissed and re-engaged temporarily.

- Employees have been forced to exhaust their right to annual leave, or even forced to take unpaid leave, with all that this implies as losses in terms of social rights;

Employees were forced to perform the work of their fellow workers. I think here especially of team leaders who often have employee status.

Worse yet, we have witnessed administrative transformations from employee contract to employee contract in order to use, or even abuse, economic unemployment. However, I would like to recall that in law, the recalification of the employment contract must be based on a qualitative criterion of the functions performed, a criterion that must prevail over the quantitative criterion. It is not me who says it, it is not the PS who says it, it is the specialists of labour law who believe that half of the workers could be re-qualified to benefit from the employee status, taking into account the nature of the work performed.

Therefore, it is urgent to make every effort to safeguard the maximum of existing jobs, but also to stop these scandalous practices that I have just mentioned.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that economic unemployment is an integral part of the employee’s status, which is not the case for the employee. Therefore, imposing economic unemployment would obviously have led to the amendment of the 1978 Law on Labor Contracts. This would have been unacceptable for two reasons.

First, this problem cannot be isolated from the ongoing debates on the harmonisation of the status of worker and employee, which must go upwards. Nor was it a matter for us to impose a partial political decision, namely the decision concerning economic unemployment. This is part of a matter that needs to be addressed globally. As mentioned earlier, this is a sensitive point and it is up to the social partners to regulate the harmonisation between the two statutes. This way of doing has already proved itself and has long enabled social peace in Belgium.

Should we recall the black years, the so-called "Martens-Gol" of the early 1980s, which dismissed social concertation and broke up entire sections of social protection?

Secondly, it must be known that, in order to respond to the legitimate concerns of companies and workers, there were in the legislation instruments to which one could have immediately referred, with the necessary adaptations to the crisis, to get out of this problem from the very beginning. Why has it not been done? It was not because of the social partners! It was not because the PS listened to the FGTB! No to No! This was because it was necessary to impose economic unemployment on employees, that is, to reduce their status according to the difficulties of the economic context. It was unacceptable!

We support your bill. We will vote for it. It meets our concerns and those of workers’ organisations, because it offers alternative temporary situations and allows for more serene discussion afterwards.

Two conditions were not negotiable in our view: on the one hand, the need for precise criteria to objectivize what is called "companies in difficulty" and, on the other hand, the need to subject the process of adjusting the working time or the volume of employment to a strictly negotiated and controlled framework.

I would also like to thank you, Mrs. Minister, for your diligence in the case of the so-called "double sanctions" with the ONEM. A circular in this regard is annexed to the report. It lifts the sanction against a worker (worker or employee) who, having found employment during the sanction period it is subject to, finds himself in economic unemployment and therefore again sanctioned. It was unacceptable!

Finally, we can appreciate the submitted amendment allowing the granting of the restructuring card to workers dismissed following a corporate bankruptcy. It is perfectly normal to place them on an equal footing.

We will adopt this proposal, but we hope that in the future it will be perpetuated in another law-programme, for example.

The bill includes three regulations. The first is the temporary reduction of working hours. In addition to the already existing target group reductions, three new reductions are introduced, namely a reduction in working time by a fifth, with a fourth or a combination of both, each with a certain amount of discount per quarter per person on the RSZ contributions.

The condition, unfortunately, is that these measures can only be introduced through a COA, a collective agreement, which contains a minimum content. That minimum content should then be determined later in KB. In any case, there will be compensation for the loss of wages for the employees. This is the N-VA shoe. The draft does not specify this in itself, but the explanatory note states that that compensation must be at least three-fourths of the amount of the flat-rate reduction. In that sense, we believe that this measure becomes an empty box for the companies affected by the crisis, because the financial burden that is removed from them, on the one hand, is returned to them, on the other. However, in her answer to a question I had asked earlier, Mrs. Milquet spoke only of a compensation of a fourth, while that now appears to be three fourths.

Furthermore, the measure is subject to the agreement of the trade unions, as opposed to temporary unemployment for workers, where there is only a reporting obligation and no express consent, no express consent of the trade union is required. The trade unions will, of course, use this opportunity to make themselves valid again. For example, the measure, which has been delayed for almost a year, threatens to be further delayed and to cause more social unrest for ⁇ than to provide a solution to the crisis.

The N-VA does not want poker and hates profiling behavior to the detriment of companies and staff in difficulty.

The second measure is a temporary individual reduction of employment performance by a fifth or by half for at least one month and up to six months. The employee then receives an additional benefit that is adjusted for higher benefits from the current scheme for the time credit. There are strict conditions here too. This applies only to undertakings that meet the definition of undertaking in difficulty. That is, a 20% or more turnover decrease compared to the same quarter of the previous year or the application of 20% more temporary unemployment among workers.

This only applies to undertakings that have concluded a special agreement on this subject, either at the sectoral level or at the level of the undertaking, or by submitting and approving a business plan to a new paritary composed committee. There are strict conditions here too.

The third measure in the draft law is the possibility of temporary collective arrangement of total or partial suspension of labour. There are also conditions attached to it. It applies only to undertakings that have concluded a special agreement on this subject, either at sectoral level or at enterprise level.

Our general observation is that this is a good measure globally. N-VA has been in favour of temporary unemployment for employees from the beginning. This is also evidenced by amendments that Mr Bonte had just discussed and which were submitted by several members of the opposition, including N-VA. Many SMEs are heavily dependent on their staff and see the dismissal of their staff not as a first measure but as a last resort to be able to keep the head above water. In this sense, the temporary unemployment of the servants gives them room to breathe through this extraordinary decline of economic activity.

Again, the measure comes more than a year late. With some cynicism in my voice, I say that we are amazed at the power of the government. After ⁇ a year of crisis, Mrs. Milquet, the government comes to an agreement on something that everyone agreed on, with the exception of the unions. The affected companies must now negotiate with these trade unions. The measures you take, Mrs. Minister, leave the key in the hands of the trade unions who are fundamentally opposed to this arrangement. In the introduced system, they decide whether a company is allowed to make a collective adjustment of the workload. Thus, together with your government, you step into the principle “for what belongs to what”. This is the logic of the trade unions, which of course will use their dominant position to impose concessions from the companies. In this sense, the measure with the current modalities is a poisonous gift for needy ⁇ .

N-VA finds it, as I said before, sorry that you have not used this design in a slightly more creative way. It was an ideal opportunity to educate the employees involved and to create a recruitment movement in the field of further training. In the Netherlands, this is understood. We then, of course – we come to the old story – clash with the broken distribution of powers in our country.

It is high time – the minister is currently on the phone – that work is finally done on the labour market policy, of which every majority party except yours, Mrs. Minister, has already declared that we are best transferring that to the states.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, we know this: the whole world is suffering an economic and financial crisis. There is nothing new under the sun. According to the IMF, global GDP would fall by 4%.

Belgium is not spared because our country has entered a recession. This is a difficult time for our companies. Unfortunately, many of them have to deal with restructuring, dismissals, and even bankruptcy. These difficulties experienced by companies immediately affect employment. I quote a few figures: slightly more than 13,000 jobs lost between September 2008 and March 2009 as a result of restructuring; a temporary unemployment recourse for exploding workers of more than 122% in April 2009; a recourse to time credit for employees also increasing by ⁇ 6%.

Despite these figures, it appears that Belgium resists the crisis better than its neighbors. According to Eurostat, unemployment increased in our country by only 0.1% between September 2008 and March 2009 against an increase of 1.2% for the euro area countries. It should also be noted a slight improvement since April 2009 as there is a decrease in the number of job seekers compensated by slightly more than 23,700 people compared to the previous month, or a decrease of slightly more than 5%.

These figures are modestly encouraging although the situation remains difficult and less good than last year.

This slight improvement is the result of the continuous attention and monitoring of the government. Belgium has already taken various measures as part of the recovery plan to safeguard employment, preserve the future of companies and the purchasing power of citizens.

Safeguarding employment is also a priority in this crisis we are going through. This is at least the priority of the CDH. For our group, it is indispensable – I had said this to this tribune at the time of the adoption of the relief plan – that one is not content with it, even if it was already provider of many measures. It should be strengthened as soon as possible by supplementary measures to avoid dismissals as much as possible.

The bill, which is currently under discussion, responds to this demand by introducing exceptional crisis measures to reduce employment benefits in order to avoid as much as possible dismissals. Specifically, this project allows three types of measures to reduce benefits.

First, a temporary adjustment of working time in times of crisis. It is a collective reduction of working time applicable to all or a category of workers in the enterprise. The working time may be reduced by a fifth or a quarter of the time, with a financial compensation paid by the employer.

Then, two temporary crisis measures aimed at adjusting the volume of employment are reserved for companies in difficulty. First, an individual and temporary reduction of benefits: it is a reduction of the working time by a fifth or half-time over a period of one to six months. The employee will then receive a financial compensation paid by the ONEM. In addition, a temporary and collective regime of total or partial suspension of the execution of the employment contract: it is a complete suspension of the execution of the employment contract for all days of the week or a reduced-time working regime applicable to a certain number of employees of the company depending on the lack of work. The financial compensation for the worker will here consist of an allowance and a supplement paid by the employer.

This project is advantageous from many points of view.

First, it provides an oxygen balloon for companies while preserving employment and workers’ purchasing power. In fact, they will receive a financial compensation and, in addition, will be considered as full-time workers, which will preserve their rights in relation to social security, in matters of pension or unemployment, and to the rules of labour law, whether it is notice, right to credit-time and I pass.

Second, it is truly an exceptional crisis measure, as its name implies, that is, the project is temporary for 2009, with a capacity to be renewed until 30 June 2010. The project represents a strong investment for social security as an envelope of 100 million euros is devoted to it. The figure may seem significant, but it is necessary to take into account the savings achieved while avoiding, in parallel, an increase in unemployment.

The project can be implemented quickly because it will come into force as soon as it is published in the Moniteur belge and measures have been taken to inform companies and social partners of the new opportunities that will be offered to them.

Third, this project makes it possible to find an acceptable compromise among the social partners.

Mr. Prévot, like all your predecessors in this speech, you point out the high urgency for the government to take crisis measures, but you very strictly emphasize that the bill will come into force after the date of publication.

Does this mean that the ad hoc committee, which is to judge the functioning and criteria of business plans, does not have to exist before those provisions, which relate to the composition of that ad hoc committee, enter into force?

Is it just a matter of waiting ten days after publication? Or does the King still need to make some serious arrangements before the entry into force? This uncertainty was not resolved in the committee. I hope you succeed in that.

I would like to thank Mr. President. Good for the attention he pays to my exhibition, it pleases me.

I would tell him that regardless of the legal deadline after publication, the government's will is to explain to all actors, social partners, companies - who have been consulted in advance in the process - the provisions that will be implemented, in order to avoid informing them of administrative procedures and their effects in a too long time after the adoption of the document.

The main thing is that once adopted in this assembly, this text is quickly integrated by the actors themselves so that the measures can be implemented as quickly as possible.

You remain vague about it, just like the minister and other members of the majority. We then discussed in the Committee on Business on the extension of the insurance scheme for self-employed, for companies in difficulty. All the provisions that should define which self-employed are concerned, how much the support will be, how exactly it all should go, must still be done through the KB. You have committed yourself, Mrs. Minister.

The [...]

Mr Bonte, please complete your presentation, because the Minister has also asked for the word.

Mrs. Minister, I have well understood – you may later clarify that – that the King must write something else before one can help a self-employed. The King will still have to determine a number of criteria on the basis of which a file will be approved or not. The king has to arrange it.

It is not so, Mr. Prévot, that the provision comes into effect automatically. The King still has a lot to do. I would like to hear you say that the drafting and the provisions will also be submitted to the social partners. The workplace must be involved. It is so that I need to understand you.

The Minister has said that she does not come to Parliament with the KBs. She said: I should not know about that Parliament, I do not come to Parliament with that. There was a discussion in the committee on the extent to which the government should be unanimous on this subject, depending on the formulation proposed.

You now say something entirely new, in particular that the implementing measures will be submitted to the social partners. I hope you are right, but I would like to see that confirmed by the Minister.

Mr. Bonte, the goal of all of us being to avoid structural redundancies, we must be able to resort to these measures as quickly as possible. That is why we started an emergency procedure today and I look forward to it.

I point out that the circular was already sent yesterday to all the chairmen of the parity committees to explain the procedure in detail. In addition, royal arrests are also ready. They obviously wait only for a final adoption in order to enter into force. Thus, in parallel with the legislative process and publication in the Monitor, the parity committees will be able to work. The circulars have been ready since yesterday – I was waiting for a vote in the committee – as well as the royal decrees. These will be deliberated in the Council of Ministers and will be sent to the Council of State.

In the meantime, the affected persons were informed in an informal manner so that they could move forward. The royal decrees will come into force as soon as the law is finally adopted. A period of time, as you know, will pass before we can finally adopt collective agreements.

We therefore work in compliance with the procedures, without losing sight of the notion of urgency which is important if one considers the aim pursued. Of course, social partners who have been informally involved in the entire arrangement will continue to be.

The question was asked to both ministers. Mrs. Milquet has effectively engaged, including in the committee, to bring her royal decrees that had to arrange everything to the committee. You did not do it. You have explicitly said that you did not.

My very simple question is the following. I hear from Mrs. Milquet that her royal resolutions – say the left-wing proposals on reducing working hours – have been passed by the government. The question is, Mrs. Laruelle, to what extent are your proposals – say the right files – already ready, and have they been passed to the government?

I answered that question in the committee. For the part concerning the self-employed, we must make three royal decrees. Two of them are almost ready and will pass to the government next week.

For the third, I said that at the latest it would be in 15 days and that, if possible, it would come next week at the government level; that is, the first two to the government next week and the third either next week or, at the latest, in 15 days.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go back to the question of the social partners: it has just been widely addressed.

To continue my presentation, our group welcomes – and the Minister has confirmed it in the Social Affairs Committee – that workers whose working time will be reduced under this bill will be able to devote this period to training and also to increase their skills, as is the case in the case of economic unemployment of workers. It is essential – and one of our priorities – to be able to invest in human capital and, therefore, to be able to train at any age.

Finally, I find it important to return to the amendment that I have had the pleasure to file and co-sign with many majority and opposition parties, an amendment allowing to extend the restructuring card to workers affected by bankruptcy, liquidation or closure of enterprises. The restructuring card entitles workers to various benefits: not only does it increase the chances of re-employing since the employer who recruits a worker with this card will benefit from a temporary reduction in employer contributions, but it also increases the net salary of the worker who benefits from this card and finds employment through a temporary reduction in personal contributions. Before this amendment, the restructuring card was only issued to workers who had lost their jobs due to a collective dismissal. This is a form of palliated discrimination.

The extension of the granting of the restructuring card thus allows to help workers victims of the crisis through bankruptcy. In this period of crisis, many workers are affected by bankruptcies. We are in the sixth consecutive month since last year of a steady increase in the number of bankruptcies: that is, if this measure was expected, like the others, and significant.

These measures have been desired by many actors for some time. As soon as I submitted the economic recovery project, on behalf of the CDH group, I mentioned the need to supplement this recovery project with other measures necessary in view of the scale of the crisis. These are now submitted to our vote and I look forward to this. I thank the government and in particular the Minister of Employment for the energy deployed in order to ⁇ these results.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, I would like to briefly return to the incident at the beginning of the plenary session. This is not the first time that the majority submits in session last-minute amendments, not agreed with the opposition, of a significant volume, which cannot be the subject of a detailed analysis due to the deadlines, which have not been the subject of the State Council opinion or of a precise budgetary assessment. Regardless of the urgency that can be recognized to them, regardless of the interest of the texts, regardless of the proximity of elections and with the best will of the world, we believe that this is not a serious and effective way of working. I would like to repeat this as an introduction.

I come to the fact. Due to the financial crisis that our country has experienced, the overall economic situation has deteriorated, characterized in several sectors of our economy by a net slowdown of activity due to the loss of confidence of investors and consumers, the difficulty for companies to obtain credit, the loss of purchasing power of our fellow citizens or the slowdown of international trade. In fact, it’s been officially recently: after two quarters our country is in recession.

In companies, workers were forced to exhaust their overtime, take their leave in advance, reduce their working hours. Self-employed persons associated with ⁇ suffer. The use of economic unemployment of workers has exploded. However, companies that benefit internationally – I think in particular at the Saint-Gobain plant in Sambreville or Arcelor in Liège – have made the choice to interrupt investment plans or to proceed with dismissals.

We reject that some use the crisis to impose restructuring. Certainly, some bosses do the big back and try to maintain activity despite temporary losses, look for transitional solutions but there are others for whom one can fear that the crisis is a pretext for dismissal and rationalization. At least, one can fear that irreversible decision-making of dismissal will be made, with great difficulties to go back in a few months as the necessary investments have not been agreed, as the know-how of some workers has disappeared.

Another example: the way some apply the Renault Act or violate the basic rules of social dialogue, as is the case at IAC-Fiat, Ms. Minister, is also worrying. This situation requires – regardless of the provisions examined today – a strong and quick response, as I have already pointed out several times in the committee.

Today, national and international forecasts are ⁇ pessimistic. My colleagues cited figures. The outlook of the Plan Bureau announces a 4 percent decline in economic activity, which would constitute the largest decline in 60 years. GDP, which is not the only valid indicator, but is a useful benchmark, would experience negative growth for 2009 and zero growth for 2010. This will not be without consequences for employment. The Plan Bureau estimates that the effects of the crisis on employment still need to be felt, its forecasts report a loss of 37,000 units for the year 2009, 53.000 units for the year 2010 and a decline in the employment rate for 2014.

In the face of this crisis, strong public responses are needed. It is both about amortising the shock and giving short-term answers to try to avoid the worst, which is the subject of the text we are examining today. But we also need to offer prospects based on our situation to redistribute and reorient our economy, to integrate the issues of sustainable development, the goal of a relocation of the economy and a response to the challenges of reducing our CO2 production. I will return to this point later.

Therefore, it has been a few months, Madam the Minister, that this file says – erroneously ultimately in view of the adopted provisions – of “economic unemployment of employees” occupies us for the taking of urgent measures. And we can regret that they could not have been adopted faster, even though things were not easy to negotiate.

The issue is clear. In the face of the momentary recession that we know and the fact that economic unemployment among workers has increased sharply, it is a question of responding by easing the rules on unemployment or the sharing of working time, to the risk of dry dismissals among employees, which would pose a double problem: the increase in the number of unemployed and the loss of skills within companies.

However, it should not be done in any way. It was out of question, in our view, to make workers pay for the consequences of a financial crisis of which they are already the victims, to destroy the rights acquired in the field of social security, to open a Pandora box, as you ⁇ did by proposing the application of a formula of unemployment in case of force majeure, which could have constituted a heavy precedent. By persisting in this track, you could have, Mrs. Minister, provoked a rupture of the social dialogue that is even more important in this period of crisis.

It is in order to avoid this type of problem, to avoid you from taking the wrong pistes and to frame as best the measures to be taken, Mrs. Minister, that I have repeatedly insisted in the committee and in the plenary session on the tags to be placed in this discussion.

For us, it was also out of question to apply to employees the same rules on economic unemployment as those applied to workers, as this would have constituted for them a regression in terms of status. We are therefore pleased that, as was requested by the trade union representatives, the government has finally put on the table the much more reasonable track of a crisis-time credit and a collective reduction of working time.

Similarly, in our view, these measures should be strictly framed and limited in time to the crisis period we are living in. This is what is ultimately proposed in the text, with provisions whose application is limited to the end of 2009, with a possibility of extension by six months after notice of the CNT.

It was also necessary to ensure a high degree of selectivity with regard to the companies affected by the measure and to condition their access to real economic difficulties, so as not to open this possibility to sectors that do not really need it. This clarification has also been made.

Furthermore, the rights of the workers concerned should be guaranteed with regard to the maintenance of their wages, including in case of prior notice, with regard to their rights to pension or to the subsequent use of time credit options. Some of these guarantees are provided by the text that we will vote for soon; others will be made by royal decrees to be deliberated in government. We take note of it.

This discussion on employee economic unemployment could or should have been an opportunity to advance on the employee status, towards a harmonization with the employee status. It is known that the differences between these two statutes, for example in terms of notice, days of lack, guaranteed salary, vacation fee or possibility of economic unemployment, are an archaicism. They no longer justify themselves. In 1993, the Constitutional Court ruled that the difference between workers and employees, essentially based on the manual and intellectual nature of work, could hardly be justified in an objective and reasonable manner, concluding that progressively a greater harmonisation of the statutes of the different categories of workers should be pursued.

It is not every day that these provisions regarding the status of workers are amended. The work on this text could have been an opportunity, despite the urgency to decide – we have seen that it took us almost six months – to move forward in this matter. This is a missed opportunity that we regret.

Finally, there is the question of the financing of these measures. Certainly, doing nothing would have also had a cost with the arrival of unemployment of new workers. The cost of this measure is estimated at more than 100 million euros by the end of the year and it will be borne by social security budgets. The same amounts are to be provided if those measures were extended beyond 31 December of that year.

Once again, it is social security that will play its role as a network in this case proving its effectiveness but also recalling the importance of solid and sustainable financing. Since it is known how important, especially in terms of pensions and unemployment, the future challenges it must address are, how huge the budgets necessary for its proper functioning are, since it cannot be considered to increase the burden on work, it is more urgent than ever to put on the table the question of alternative financing of social security in order to ensure its financing in the medium term. Again, we must regret not having received a response on this matter, leaving all the uncertainties about the future financing of social security. This is clearly one of the challenges of the coming months.

Overall, it would have taken some time for these urgent measures to be finally adopted and may one day come into force. The labels we set up have been relatively well taken into account. We would like to thank the Minister of Employment. The final text is the subject of a consensus, ⁇ not always enthusiastic, but consensus nevertheless, of the social partners. And we could even introduce, on the proposal of our colleague Mr. Bonte, an amendment to improve the situation on the labour market of workers victims of a bankruptcy.

Similarly, beyond the method I denounced, Madame Laruelle, and the fact that many provisions are referred to the royal decrees, we supported the amendments proposed this afternoon by the majority to address the particular situation of SMEs, especially those related to companies in difficulty.

Therefore, as a party of constructive opposition, we voted in favour of this text both in the Social Affairs Committee this Tuesday and in the Economy Committee this Thursday. We will do it again soon.

It was necessary to take action in relation to the situation of employees in the sectors affected by the crisis. The future will tell us whether the provisions adopted are feasible and effective. I must admit that these measures, if necessary, are not sufficient in our view in relation to the enormous challenges of employment maintenance and economic redistribution that are facing us.

You will allow me, therefore, to return to some urgent measures, which we advocate and which we have already had the opportunity to express in this tribune or in the commission. Sometimes it is necessary to refresh the memory before one or the other TV interview! A lot of things still need to be implemented. You will probably reiterate to me that they do not all belong to your sole competence as Minister of Employment, of course, but they belong well to your capacity as Deputy Prime Minister of this government, or even to your capacity as an actor of the political life of our country.

The first and most urgent of the steps to be taken is to change the paradigm, the financial system, which has led our economy to the stage it is. We are still waiting for the first concrete measures of the government in this area. After saving the banks, a fundamental reform of this system must be undertaken.

In the same area, it seems urgent for us to ensure that banks play their role in terms of corporate credit properly, which is not sufficiently the case, as my colleague Philippe Henry pointed out.

It is also high time to consider a review of the policy of accompanying unemployed people to serve employment, as well as an accompanying work of employers that is essential to help them define a job profile, to recruit the right people, to provide the appropriate training program, to carry out ad hoc assessments. This aspect is not sufficiently taken into account. Obviously, some entrepreneurs, especially in the SME sectors, are disarmed in relation to this dimension. It is also the role of an employment policy to help them in this direction.

It is also necessary to ensure the saving of public employment, in particular in the field of postal services. Should I remind you that the options you accepted regarding the liberalization of the postal market are extremely dangerous? Thousands of jobs are already lost and thousands of others are likely to follow. Similarly, it would be useful to ensure a re-investment of important La Poste bonuses to maintain employment instead of rewarding its shareholders.

You have also announced the launch of a large plan to support employment in the green sectors. We still look forward to its effective and targeted implementation, in any case better oriented than the decision to reduce for one year the VAT to 6% in the field of construction without a criterion of sustainability and for a much too short period! Everyone claims that this is the future and I quote in this regard a passage from a very interesting document entitled “The London International Trade Union Declaration” dated April 2009: “The time will never be more appropriate to launch an ecological ‘new deal’, as advocated by the United Nations Environment Programme. Green employment requires governments to make large-scale investments in green infrastructure, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, thereby stimulating the creation of highly qualified jobs in several sectors, as well as a shift in the scale of financial resources for research and development, the dissemination of new technologies and vocational training programs.”

Mr. Minister, I hope that in the coming days, in the coming weeks, in the coming months, such advances will be made possible and, if necessary, starting from the Walloon and Brussels Regions.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, colleagues, the bill that finally comes here, comes, to enter an open door, nothing too early. The product is once again an example of how this country works, though I would rather say: how it doesn’t work. While other countries are acting vigorously, quickly and efficiently and taking measures in full crisis, it turns out that in this complicated country, given its complex state structure, the political relations and the persistent contradictions that play between employers and workers, in addition to the linkage of files that have been blocked for years – I refer, among other things, to the file of the employee statute and the employee statute that one wants to bring closer together – we face a complete immobilism. This, of course, takes a lot of time, which we do not have in a crisis situation like today.

It is clear, colleagues, that employers have been in favour of extending the system of temporary unemployment to employers for years. Until now, this measure could only be applied to workers. In a crisis situation, where the workforce volume decreases as a result of the economic crisis, it is more than ever a topical topic. Especially in industrial enterprises, as well as in the service sector, the system of temporary unemployment for employees is a bitter need to prevent more jobs from being lost.

In a number of sectors, they are rightly asking for the extension of temporary unemployment to the employees, to capture a temporary dip in production and to prevent too many people with a C4 being put on the streets.

The distinction between workers and servants is – let me say it again, because the files are linked to each other – completely outdated. In fact, it depends largely on arbitrariness.

The possibility of temporary unemployment therefore implies a certain arbitrariness at a given time. The impossibility of temporary unemployment for employees can in practice lead to all sorts of absurd situations. I refer very specifically to the situation where a team boss, who has a servant status, can come into the situation that he does not have a worker team, while he must indeed be repaid, but actually is not productive, which causes the company to charge extra costs.

In recent months, trade unions and employers have tried in vain to compare the temporary unemployment rate for employees. Let’s be honest, it has sometimes had a lot away from a mold game in the last few months. It looked like a bad soap. The file evolved. Employers and trade unions evolved along with them and began to seek a kind of consensus that the temporary unemployment rate for employees would only apply for a short period. However, a number of trade unions are still in trouble.

Why were they intertwined in the file to extend the temporary unemployment rate for the employees? Because they wanted to link this file to the harmonisation of the statute of workers and servants. As long as no work was done on that harmonisation, no progress was sought in the other file.

The unification of the statute of workers and servants has been pulling for many years. This country is one of the few member states of the European Union where the absurd distinction between workers and servants is still made. The issue has been on the agenda of negotiations between trade unions and employers dozens of times, but has always remained unsuccessful.

We may have to ask ourselves whether it is not time to take our responsibilities as a Parliament and no longer hide behind the social partners, who are not willing to make progress in the file. Per ⁇ Parliament should force progress on the matter.

Not only the social partners adopted an obstructive attitude in the case of temporary unemployment. The federal government also had problems with it and, as in so many files over the past two years, reached no potential solution.

Everything in this country is blocked. This file is also blocked. Colleagues, it will not surprise you that the line of separation is also in this file truly community-based. Nor is it a coincidence. It was not by chance that the French-speaking parties CDH and PS stood heavily on the brake, while on the Dutch-speaking side quite quickly, also in the government, the consensus grew to go towards a solution in the file, namely the extension of temporary unemployment to the employees.

We can argue from the speaker that in this file one can speak of guilty failure. While many jobs are threatened, the government parties find it again permitted to cuddle and fail to make progress.

While everyone, even the smallest child in this country, knows that there is a very severe economic and financial crisis, the government believes that it has time to continue doing what it has done in the last two years, in particular not making decisions and ensuring complete inertia and blocking.

This is for us an additional element for the as soon as possible transfer of the socio-economic powers to Flanders and Wallonia, so that we are no longer restricted. The file of temporary unemployment for employees is also a Community file. The blocking has been evident in the last few months.

Could it be even more absurd? This government has even permitted itself to keep cuddling over the terminology that was intended to be used in the design for months.

The PS did not want to talk in terms of temporary unemployment. At some point it went so far that Mrs. Minister Milquet sought to introduce the notion of “superior force” in the servants’ file in order to get out of it. In the end, the draft law, as it now appears, received the almost unreadable title as being a draft law relating to a temporary collective arrangement of full or partial suspension of the execution of the employment contract.

How absurd is this game of mold, this terminological game that leads us to no longer call things by name? In this country, we continue to waste time on semantic discussions. Colleagues, the months-long slump has caused many jobs to disappear in the meantime. Ultimately, we have a bill that is a bit of everything but fundamentally won’t solve the problem.

I refer to the attitude of the SMEs and in this also the important factor Unizo which, as a speech tube, clearly stated that the current regime is quite inapplicable to SMEs.

Mrs. Minister, what do you think of making the arrangement, as it is now drafted and whose spokesmen of the SMEs make it very clear that its procedure is very complicated, feasible?

I am now very explicitly addressing to Minister Laruelle the second part aspect of the draft which took a very special turn this afternoon. The draft has been expanded with a number of measures in favour of self-employed persons who are obviously experiencing major difficulties in the same period of economic crisis. Let this be clear: as Flemish Interest in the committee, we have made it clear that we want to fully support all measures in favour of the self-employed. We are fully aware that self-employed people need action.

You may not blame us, as the opposition, that we dare to ask this question: could it be a coincidence, Mrs. Minister, that an eminent MR-minister, less than ten days before the regional elections, wants to distribute an electoral candy soon? From the discussion in the committee for business, it was very clear that the concrete implementation of the amendment, as we were discussed in the committee, has yet to be elaborated bitterly little on the ground. One dares to come to Parliament with this amendment; one dares to convene the committee for business with an important amendment, but at the same time the minister concerned must admit that she will with that at the earliest next week go to the government.

In human language, the minister actually says that there is not even a consensus within the government on this amendment, because who can guarantee that this government next week Friday can reach some consensus on an amendment that must be approved here by this Parliament on a draft? Is it too silly of us to ask whether this is an electoral candy?

If, then, some critical questions are asked, Mrs. Minister, and if I see how fiercely and emotionally you react to committee members who dare to ask critical questions, then, frankly, I am much more convinced.

We have tried to persuade you from the opposition to throw out the amount now registered in the accountability of the amendment, the famous 6 million euros that we have discussed in the committee for quite a long time. After all, we find it stupid to include a limit, even a sum, in an amendment. In practice, it may sometimes appear that the crisis is even worse and that we will soon need to spend more money on the measure in question.

If we get answers showing that only 200 dossiers are taken into account on a monthly basis – everyone who follows the dossiers knows that there are 1,000 bankruptcies per month – then you can’t blame us for putting additional questions into what we need to approve today on a draft.

Ladies ministers, colleagues, therefore I tell you very honestly that we are inclined to support the measure for self-employed, but it is clearly insufficient. We do not understand exactly why you want to hunt this today on a draft through the Parliament.

Furthermore, we also continue to say that for the Flemish Interest the prepared measure concerning temporary unemployment for employees is too complicated and too half sad and does not satisfy the Flemish Interest. This will soon be shown in our voting behavior.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, four months ago, companies were ringing the alarm bell. Employers, having used all the means at their disposal to avoid redundancies, called for additional measures to cope with the crisis. The extension of economic unemployment to employees is primary for them. And for cause.

This temporary unemployment allows companies to breathe without having to dismiss their staff. It has also increased significantly in the last few months among workers. In March, 313,200 workers were affected; this is an increase of 75% compared to March 2008. This system of temporary unemployment avoided structural unemployment, the cost of which would have been much greater for our society, both budgetally and socially.

If we often talk about business creation and employment today, it is our duty to take action to maintain existing employment. In order to enable companies to survive the crisis and maintain jobs, three measures have been taken. We wanted to introduce an economic unemployment system for employees as soon as possible. This is done. It was time, we waited four months.

The first measure is a temporary adjustment of crisis working time. To do this, a special system of ONSS reductions for the reduction of working time is introduced. Then, there are two temporary crisis measures aimed at adjusting the volume of employment. There is the individual and temporary reduction of labour benefits; we can speak of crisis-time credit. There is also a temporary and collective regime of total or partial suspension of the performance of the employment contract. Even if it doesn’t have that name, we can talk about economic unemployment.

We can therefore be pleased to have been able to obtain economic unemployment for employees. We wanted a quick and simple mechanism. Our only concern lies in the potential length and complexity of the chosen procedure. Indeed, heavy and complex formalities are put in place. Some small and medium-sized enterprises may encounter difficulties with this procedure; this is harmful. We hope that this will not slow down the implementation of this key measure in times of crisis and exclude many small and medium-sized enterprises from its scope.

These last two measures apply to companies in difficulty. Two criteria will be used to determine whether a company is in difficulty:

a significant decrease of at least 20% of turnover or production;

- the use of a minimum of 20% on economic unemployment for workers.

A third criterion is currently being discussed. It could be added by royal decree. This is a reduction in orders. We strongly support the introduction of this criterion. We need to prevent financial difficulties of companies and not expect a decrease in turnover that occurs much later.

Many companies are in difficulty and do not yet meet the criterion of a 20% reduction in turnover. These companies also need to be helped.

These measures are exceptional and limited in time. Rapid implementation is essential. Also, let’s move forward and prevent workers from losing their jobs and getting stuck in structural unemployment!

I will conclude my speech with a few words about self-employed workers. I can only welcome the amendment we adopted this afternoon on insolvency insurance for self-employed. This insurance involves ⁇ ining the right of self-employed workers to family benefits and health care for a maximum of four quarters without payment of contributions during that year as well as a monthly benefit for a maximum of 12 months.

Unfortunately, it is hard to see that the crisis we are going through leads to an increase in the number of bankruptcies. That is why I am pleased that we have decided to temporarily extend this insolvency insurance in the event that self-employed workers see their income fall due to the economic crisis and find themselves in trouble.

In practice, an indemnity equal to that received under insolvency insurance will be provided for a period of six months. I am convinced that this measure will preserve employment by preventing the bankruptcy of certain self-employed workers.

I give the word to Mr. Bonte, who has actually intervened several times from his bench. This is deducted from the speech time.

I think we may have fundamentally different opinions about the role of the President. The role of the House Speaker should be to provoke the debate and give everyone the guarantee to intervene. You always start by saying that someone has already spoken a lot and asking to keep it short!

Indeed, a lot has already been said. I suggest that I actually begin to intervene on the draft before clarifying the bills that are also on the agenda and also exchanging a series of ideas on this subject.

I would like to start by pointing out that I have remained in the hemisphere and listened attentively to almost everyone. Almost everyone here has emphasized how important it is to take measures in the fight against the crisis, how urgent it is, how right it is that the government has requested and obtained the high urgency, that the amendment that I will return to later on is even so important. It is the amendment, I can say, of Mrs. Laruelle, even though her name is not mentioned.

Will we maintain hypocrisy or not, Mrs. Minister? Should I address my questions to Mrs. Lalieux or Mr. Vercamer, or who has signed them all? Or can I ask you the questions? This is a matter of agreement. In any case, I would like to point out that even to that extent it is urgent that we should not consult the State Council, that we should not consult the Court of Auditors. When I look at the draft, Mr. Vercamer, and the opinion of the Council of State on the first provisions and there read that there is no advice from the social partners, all because of the high urgency to combat the crisis, if I hear and repeat all this and see the procedures overboard, I wonder: what has hurt the majority to formulate exactly these proposals in the six preceding months? What has prevented the government from taking measures on working hours as a remedy for the economic crisis?

I would like to give an example, because it is partly contained in a bill linked to it. One element of the design is effectively the equalization in supporting employees who have lost their jobs due to a bankruptcy. They are now rightly supported in the same way as the victims of restructuring.

The measure must now be passed and approved urgently.

I would like to simply point out to my colleagues that our group has repeatedly urged to resolve the aforementioned issue. We have repeatedly addressed the problem here in the questionnaire. Telkenmale there were new figures of failures known, we have addressed the case. We also addressed the problem in the committee.

Mr. Minister, in the committee we have pointed out that the aforementioned discrimination has existed for months. We did this even in the context of the discussion of the bill on economic recovery a few months ago. I wanted to be very precise and so I searched for it.

On 17 February 2009, in the context of the discussion of the Recovery Act in the Social Affairs Committee, we submitted an amendment to eliminate discrimination. On 17 February 2009, we called for no longer making a distinction between workers dismissed for restructuring and workers dismissed for bankruptcy. We then called for the removal of this distinction in the committee.

However, the majority did not consider the abolition necessary. The amendment was rejected without boe or bah. The majority did not have an argument. The only argument that apparently played was that the amendment came from the sp.a or the opposition. The amendment was simply rejected.

Colleagues, exactly the same measure is included in the draft today. All procedures must now deviate, because it must be very urgent. The crisis demands it. There was no bankruptcy between February 17, 2009 and today.

I searched it. You know that Graydon keeps a count of bankruptcies. Mrs. Minister, between 17 February 2009 and today – I hope that we will approve the measure – there are 5,017 workers who have been victims of bankruptcy. That’s 5,017 people who can’t appeal to the same support and who are thus 1,000 euros per quarter more expensive, just because of the vanity of the majority who couldn’t get the heart to accept the sp.a. amendment of then.

Today, the measure seems to have to be implemented urgently. We could say, “Better late than never.” Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the hypocritical phrase that the measure must be implemented urgently, because it is a crisis, could have been consistently used in the last six to eight months to take a series of measures. However, you did not do that.

This is also a response to your position, Mr. Speaker. When the amendment that is part of the draft we are talking about was sent to the committee for business, you get the opposition a little overwhelmed that we always ask for action and criticize, because nothing comes from the government. Well, there have been bills waiting for treatment for months. They come from the opposition, but they are waiting for treatment, exactly to do what is in the design today.

The accusation that the opposition filibusters, slows down, or wants to stop this, really does not save anything. Over the past few months, we have been constantly trying to encourage the government to be more active in the fight against unemployment, especially since we must do everything we can to preserve jobs.

Mr. Bonte, I didn’t blame you for filibustering. I only heard Mr. Laeremans say this afternoon that he asked for a postponement until next week. The question of the applicants was to deal effectively with it today, which we are now doing. I am not talking about the past. I just wanted it to be added to the agenda today. There was a consensus on this issue at the Conference of Presidents yesterday. I did not want to blame you in this. You misunderstood this.

Thank you for this explanation, Mr. President. I can only conclude that three of the five provisions contained in the draft are a blatant reflection of the bills that we submitted to the House months ago, but which, for various reasons, could not meet the agenda. That may be the responsibility of the majority in that specific committee.

We could argue as follows, colleagues. Why are the Sp.A. and Mr. Bonte so angry? Better late than never, it is good that the government has seen the light and yet has looked at the possibilities that exist to save jobs also through the reduction of working hours. The lessons we learn from the long discussion we had in the committee on Tuesday are as follows. As we look more closely at the provisions of the draft law, we find that three points of criticism can be formulated that lead me and my group to conclude that we may be dealing with a more or less sterile legislation and that, in other words, the measures contained therein will have little or no effect in the great challenge facing us all. For the colleagues who are not part of the Social Affairs Committee, I would like to try to clarify the technical aspects.

First and foremost, there is already such a thing as collective reduction of working hours that is supported paraphiscally. Collective reduction of working hours to save jobs dates back to the time when Di Rupo and Vande Lanotte still had a lot to say in the government. It was informally called the law-Vande Lanotte-Di Rupo. So that already exists.

What we find today is that the government makes a temporary window, but actually provides very little extra incentive for the companies. Today, in the existing regulations, when one closes a COA – thus negotiates a collective reduction of working hours – one gets 400 euros per quarter per saved job. In the current draft, the government will go to 600 euros, or 200 euros more per quarter.

So far we have seen that the law-Vande Lanotte-Di Rupo does not work. The social partners found that the law does not work because the incentive for business is far too small. What is the government doing now? It adds 200 euros, but immediately adds that three-fourths of that amount should go to the workers. It will not leave me, but it will directly result in no appeal to it, ⁇ not in times of crisis. It has not been done in good times, so it will ⁇ not be done in times of crisis. An entrepreneur will not conclude a collective labour agreement in this way for 150 or 200 euros. That is the sad reality.

This brings us to a very perverse discussion. After all, in our bill, which is linked to the draft, we propose 1,000 euros as RSZ discount, but without the foolishness that three-fourths of it should be used for income compensation.

I would like to point out again, Mrs. De Block – contrary to what you and your colleague of the MR said – that our proposal in theory does provide for a system in which people give in a fourth working hours and thus work three-quarters, but net have the same income. You do not need to gesture now. It is a matter of mathematics. Look at it carefully and you will find that it is indeed the case.

But comfort you with the words I have just spoken. No entrepreneur will appeal - you may have taken your stroke home from a blue corner - to conclude a COA, to carry out a collective division of labor and to collect 600 euros per quarter, when he must return three-quarters of that to the employee. No entrepreneur will appeal to it. In other words, colleagues, no job will be saved through that rail. Symbols have their importance.

I come to another symbol. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the European Council for Consumers is still working, for which Minister Van Quickenborne apologized at this plenary session. A second element brings me close to its competence, namely the administrative simplification.

Mr. Speaker, I would really appreciate if you would check whether Minister Van Quickenborne is near the hemisphere. I also urged his presence during the committee work. Then he could not be there. I also pointed out this at the committee meeting. I called him for help. However, he could not be there for some reason. I said that I absolutely didn’t want to philibusticate in the committee. I do not want to do that here either. I would be pleased if the Minister of Entrepreneurship came. I do not think it is a shame that if we are debating here about measures against the crisis and to support business, the Minister of Entrepreneurship would join us. That is almost the logic.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, for which I absolutely need your help, it is for removing the incredible administrative labyrinth in which you are dumping the companies, in which you are also dumping the workers’ organisations in order to be able to conclude a COA or to transition to a collective division of labour.

What should we all do? Now I am really talking about the individual time credit, the crisis credit, about the collective division of labor, about what we should not call temporary unemployment for servants. That was a taboo for the PS. We cannot call this temporary unemployment for employees. But yet it is so.

Colleagues, for these three systems there is an incredible procedure in the design. One must first conclude a COA at the level of the parity committee of the sector. One may wonder whether the person who wrote the text has ever experienced social consultation. One week after this law has been approved, the sector committees, metal, food, rabbit leaves and the like, must conclude a COA if one can appeal to it. Mrs. Minister of Labour, I assume that you have already sent the letters to the parity committees or that the Collective Labour Relations service of the department has already sent the letters, because if we approve it now, within the week that cao must be approved.

I hope the letters are gone. I will check it. In any case, I know a number of representatives in sectors who do not yet know anything about this whole story. However, I can also have informed myself at the wrong people, knocked at the wrong people. I assume that Mr. Vercamer also knows people who are active in the parity committees. I invite you to consult some of your acquaintances. Within a week they are considered to close a cao.

I note that the circulation letter was sent yesterday to the various chairs of the parity committees. My cabinet will hold a major meeting on Monday to provide more intelligence. Everything is in order and the letter has already been sent.

Mrs. Minister, I am curious how many sectoral CCOs will be closed within the week following the entry into force of this bill. I will submit a question about it. I would even like to give a forecast, because the number will be between zero and two. I think it will be closer to zero. This is how social consultation does not work. Okay, we’ll see what happens but it all has to go quickly because it’s all very important. When that sectoral cao does not come, one can close it at the level of the company. The delegation must then be invited and the discussion will be conducted within the business council. What if all this fails?

Then there will be another good one. If the COC is closed, it must go to the office, to the service Collective Labour Relations at the FOD. There is a real chance of failure, which can be the prognosis in a period of difficulties, in a period of difficult social consultation, also in companies as it is about how many jobs need to disappear, who should leave and what alternatives are possible. There is no obvious social climate in the companies. Therefore, the chance is very real that one cannot close a cao. For this there is a solution. This consists in the fact that if one fails to conclude a COA at the enterprise level, the employer must 14 days after the start of the discussions...

The [...]

Mrs Vervotte, it would be really good if you could go a little deeper into the procedure proposed here for the social consultation. I do not want to distract you from your work, but you must listen to what you will agree to here.

There is no COA at the interprofessional level or at the corporate level. So what is provided? An absolute innovation in our social consultation model: the entrepreneur can send a business plan to the FOD 14 days after the start of the consultation on a corporate chao – trade unions and employers have been brought together and there will be no cao. A new committee will be established. Maybe that is to create mandates. I would like to link the question directly to whether the people who will sit in that committee ad hoc are known. Mrs. Minister, is that the object of the KB that you launched by the government? Who are the government representatives in this ad hoc committee? After all, it is the ad hoc commission to which the employer will send the business plan that will finally assess whether someone is entitled to crisis-time loan. Mr. Vercamer, that committee will judge whether someone is entitled to crisis-time loan.

That committee will assess whether collective labor distribution formulas are possible. That committee will assess whether there will be temporary unemployment for employees.

The question is: what status does that entrepreneurial plan have. One fails to close a COA and then the employer gets the authority to submit a business plan himself. What can be in it? It can be said that 10% of the staff should be displaced. This could include: two weeks of temporary unemployment for employees, 5% fewer employees, 5% dismissals. This is the business plan to cope with the crisis.

And then comes the strange. I questioned colleague Vercamer, I questioned the minister: what is the statute of that entrepreneurial plan, what is the statute of the plan that the employee sends to the department? Well, says the minister, as a legal source, it comes a little above the contracts.

The question was asked by Mrs. Becq. She has rightly asked the question of how it is with the hierarchy of the legal sources, where the entrepreneurial plan is situated. There is the legal regulation, there is the COA at the National Labour Council, there are sectoral COAs - we know the line - up to the individual employment contract.

According to Article 51 of the Collective Labour Relations Act of 1968, it prevails over individual contracts. It is just above the hierarchy of sources.

I have noted that for all clarity to write that also in the law: the entrepreneurial plan is located there, according to article 51 of the law of 1968 on the collective labour relations, a monument in our social legislation.

I am referring to Article 51. My prediction comes true. There is no letter, no half letter, no comma, which refers to a business plan that, hierarchically, would be above the individual employment contract. I want to read the entire list, but I hope I don’t have to do it.

What does that mean in practice, Mrs. Vervotte? That is why I would like to draw your attention. In this legislation, something is proposed as being something that has been consulted with the trade unions, while it is a one-sided document, drawn up by the employer. It is a discharge plan, which is sent to the department and which is now claimed here, as in the explanation, in the discussion mentioned in the report, that it is above the individual employment contract.

In other words, the employer is given carte blanche to do what he would like to do, independent of the existence of employment contracts. That, my colleagues, is a legal uncertainty that we must absolutely avoid. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that one will have the fairness to correct this yet. Therefore, we would like to submit some amendments.

Greta D'Hondt would never accept that.

Mrs. Minister wants to replicate, Mr. Bonte.

I would like to add that the different texts are very clear. For example, I refer to Article 14. The business plan provided for under three and four shall have binding effect with respect to the employers and employees in the enterprise.

We have also formulated a clear response to the State Council opinion. This was also the case for the 5-3-3 plans and cao no. 90s in the 90s.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for people who are still a little familiar with social consultation in companies and sectors and I am looking for the real advocates of social consultation.

What you say, Mrs. Minister, is exactly what I mean, namely that here something that is proposed as collectively negocated is actually a one-sided plan that can violate the individual employment contract.

An employer can make a plan, for example: all people between 30 and 35 years old leave. He can bring that to the committee and that committee can respond to it according to its composition and criteria. We really have to guess that, because those KBs have yet to come. This is how it is managed in the socio-economic field.

As you know, you must have the approval of the specific committee. Otherwise, that plan is not valid. The committee consists of representatives of the various trade unions and of the social partners.

I have well understood that. Then I asked a question, which I also asked two days ago. All we know is that that ad-hoc committee consists of thirteen people: five representatives of employers, five representatives of workers’ organisations, and three members to be appointed by the government.

I predict to you that that commission will be almost by definition divided, and that therefore it will be to those three to decide whether that business plan is valid or not. Therefore, I repeat my question, in all openness and sincerity. Are these three known? Are the representatives of the PS, CDH and the liberals named in that committee? That is what I want to know.

They will transcend. They will report to the entrepreneurs whether their plan is good enough. The question is who will tranch. I would like to know how this committee works.

With a majority.

I repeat what I said in the committee. I don’t ask these questions because I’m thinking creatively about what criticisms we can throw at the feet of the government and the majority. The questions I am asking now flow literally from the comments of the State Council.

The Council of State notes that there is no appeal for the legal validity of the committee, nor for the business plans and the statute.

The State Council itself makes these comments. I submitted them to the committee and received no response. I repeat them here and I look forward to your answer. Do not think of intentions. I only repeat the legal uncertainty that is also demonstrated by the Council of State.

This will be decided in that committee by a majority of its members. The government will make a decision on the members next week. You want to know the names now, but it will probably not be possible until Friday next week.

Finally, I would like to address the people who value social consultation. I will not mention your name anymore, Mrs. Vervotte.

If I understand you right, Mrs. Minister, that committee will decide by a majority. In case of division between the workers' representatives and the employer's representatives, the defence of the workers depends on the three persons appointed by the government. Hopefully there will be a few PS members. I can also be positive about CDH. I fear that the balance and the tranching depends on those three people. The questioning of the sanitation plan in the committee and its possible approval depends on who the government sends.

As regards that one measure, I would like to conclude by stating that there is a positive intention to reduce collective working hours. Al threatens to remain that dead letter because of the weak incentives, the administrative malls and the legal uncertainty that is created. There are comments from the State Council on the ad hoc committee and the statute of the plans.

The only remaining question: if the majority really believes that collective division of labour is a means of job creation, then why has one created such a difficult administrative procedure, so much arbitrariness, and so soft incentives? The truth is, colleagues, that in the government there is disagreement between blue and red with CDH in the middle. Of CD&V we never know. They act as if they are protecting social consultation. Mr. Vercamer started in the committee with the statement: it is a good proposal, it shows respect because the partners have considered it.

We pointed him to the State Council’s comment that the government could best submit the proposal to the social partners because the social parastatals have not seen it.

This is based on the defense of social consultation. The collective division of labour is sterilized because of the very great contradiction between the progressives, the laborists, the PS and ⁇ the CDH on the one hand, and the blue guard on the other.

The result will be that the heavy crisis measures that we need will be missing again and again, and we will therefore, despite all the high urgency, see little result of what is out here.

I would like to conclude with the announcement that we will make another effort to simplify and strengthen things through amendments.

I would like to finish with the cinema we experienced this afternoon, Mrs. Laruelle, when suddenly an amendment came to this highly urgent design. One apparently saw the light last night and there should be a text by Parliament soon, because the crisis is intense. We had six months of time, but last night the majority at some meeting apparently determined that the symbolic victory for the PS was too big and that the MR is somewhat behind. The MR will undoubtedly have threatened that such symbolism did not appear a few days before the regional elections and that they also want a symbol. Then there was a text related to self-employed insurance.

I would like to say two things on this.

A first element will again seem somewhat technical-legal, but we do legislative-technically what we have been accused. I explain myself more closely. Mrs. De Block cited it later. One of my bills has not even been discussed because the majority is of the opinion that the legislator should not change KBs.

The [...]

I have already seen this, Mr. De Croo, and you will undoubtedly have seen it many times in your long career. According to the majority, the content of my bill is good, because it wants to eliminate the difference between victims of bankruptcies and victims of restructuring, but the technique that the legislator changes a KB is not good.

Well, colleagues, then, in the committee for business, for a few hours we discussed exactly an amendment of the government that through a law will change some KBs.

Mr Bonte, you say that we have not discussed your bill and then you say what we have stated about it. So we have discussed it. We all have the opportunity to express our views on your bill.

Mrs De Block, I just want to point out that yesterday, Tuesday 26 May 2009, you refused to vote on a bill, because it changes a KB. That was the reason. You had no problem with the bill. However, the bill changed a KB and so you could not vote on it. As a legislator, we are not able to do this.

Today, however, a majority amendment is being submitted to amend a series of KBs. And today it can be. This is very strange.

This could be counted as the classic game of majority and opposition.

It is not about the same thing. There has already been a change in the business committee and so it can be. After all, there is no longer a KB modified, but a law, while you want to change a KB directly.

It is here in the plenary session and not in the committees that laws are made.

We are working on two different proposals.

Exactly ! However, you cannot approve a single proposal because it modifies a KB and the legislature thus goes beyond its competence. It changes a KB.

I do not want to talk about it anymore. I see that it causes you a headache. I do not want to talk about it anymore. Now I want to talk about the content, Mrs. De Block.

You will remember that I later stated that the reduction of working hours remains a sterile matter. The measure is administratively heavy. There are also too few incentives and the measure creates legal uncertainty. There has since been a very long discussion in the committee on the fact that the majority submits an amendment. More than half of the applicants, by the way, were not present and probably also do not know what it is about. It should serve to not have to ask for advice from the State Council, which is a classic trick, Mr. De Croo. It is therefore intended to avoid the Council of State. I think the majority also has good reasons to avoid the Council of State.

That all would me not disturb. Mijnheer De Croo, wie hier lang genoeg zit, krijgt immers inderdaad krokodillenstreken. That doesn’t bother me. What me echt stoort - i zeg dit vooral tegen de liberale collega's -, is dated er en amendment wordt ingediend waarbij in de memorie van toelichting de wetgever zich permitteert te poneren dat de voorgestelde regeling slechts 6 million euro op jaarbasis mag kosten. This sentence was ongetwijfeld ingevoegd op question van van de PS. In my opinion, Mr. Giet, it was the PS who wrote this little phrase.

That means that here we are now beginning to pass laws in which we grant rights, but in which it can be just as well – that is the comment made by colleagues from the majority and opposition – that due to the very large failures and bankruptcies among self-employed, on 1 October at the bearer behind the corner that goes bankrupt will be said that the baker from a little further that went bankrupt, with the last euros of those six million is gone. This is indeed rough. Such legislation creates discrimination or budgetary displacement. The only plea that we wish to keep, and now I am addressing the colleagues of MR and Open VLD is that if you really want to substantially strengthen the bankruptcy insurance for self-employed, then you must erase the phrase from the memory of explanation stating that it can cost only six million euros. This is not a big intervention. The question to the applicants is to remove a sentence from the memory of explanation, Mr. De Croo. If you really want to do something for the self-employed, then remove this phrase, or you will do peanuts for very many self-employed and something substantial for a few self-employed.

Mr. Bonte, you can never amend a memory of explanation, you know that.

Hence, Mr. De Croo, that I make the appeal to the applicants of the memory of explanation. Apparently, it is technically perfectly possible for the applicants to have their explanatory memory adjusted in this way, even if it were only before the report.

I predict you, Mr. De Croo: you will come into a situation where you will cheat a bunch of self-employed people anyway because the budget is up, or because you will only be able to distribute peanuts. Six million euros go to the social security system, Ms. the Minister of Middle-Earth has noted, where there is a pot of six hundred million euros.

Can I stop for a moment in connection with the discussion about those six million euros? Since then, the committee has made it very clear that it is a budget margin that can still be discussed after an evaluation. If you read the text of the document correctly, it states that the maximum costs are six million euros, but that a periodic evaluation of the state will also be held. I don’t think that it can be said that when budgetary restrictions are imposed on a particular proposal, it means by definition that it is a bad proposal or even does not meet what it intends to be.

If we assume that 200 files could be submitted per month, this means that with this amount 1,200 self-employed individuals could receive an amount of approximately 5,000 euros in six months time. That is substantial. We will then see in the evaluation whether any funds need to be added.

Mr. Kindermans, the advantage of the fact that it takes six months to submit super-fast measures against the crisis here is that we now know a little about how many bankruptcies there are per month. I have subsequently also pointed out in the committee that ⁇ no one in this hemisphere is pleased that we are now already six months in a row breaking absolute historical records in terms of the number of bankruptcies and bankruptcies.

These are sad records of hard-working self-employed workers who are seeing their business go bankrupt, even if it was only because you are with a domino effect of suppliers who themselves went bankrupt and do not pay. You have also mentioned this in the committee.

It is now six months in a row that we are breaking historical records. We have 1,000 failures per month. This amendment also has the ambition to work preventively. Preventive is about companies that have a decline in terms of turnover, who remain with too many open invoices for a period of time, the criteria have yet to be determined. It is very clearly intended to prevent self-employed workers from bankruptcy. Today there are 1,000 bankruptcies and there are hundreds of those who are in need and virtue of those preventive actions.

If it’s your ambition to save 200 per month, then you might have enough of those 6 million. However, if it really is intended to assist the self-employed and to start working preventively – I think of the self-employed who is now working day and night to get there – you will not be able to help them. It is that hypocrisy that is embedded in the phrase of 6 million euros.

Mr. Kindermans, I would like to give you the right on the principle point. It’s not because we’re talking about 6 million today that it can’t be 12 million tomorrow. That’s a bit of what you say. However, I invite you to try to delete the phrase of the 6 million euros in the explanatory memory. I really invite you out. If you really mean what you say, that it can be more after evaluation, then I don’t see any more reason why you let those 6 million stand there. I invite you to try to persuade your PS colleagues to erase that phrase from those 6 million. You will not succeed or there will be no design.

You hear it, Mr. Schiltz, you must be silent. The protest comes from majority banks.

Mr. Bonte, I enjoy your speech. I could have ⁇ it before. I propose that, after you have explained all this, you submit a bill to abolish the committees and do the work in the plenary session. After all, you repeat exactly what you have said in detail in the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Bonte has the word. Regularly there is a time period of 30 minutes. This is Article 48, 2b. He also has the opportunity to speak on any amendment. As colleagues participate in the debate, the debate will of course take longer.

Mr. Bonte had just said that he would finish slowly. I would like to support him in that ambition.

I cannot imagine that my colleagues in my group do not have dozens of questions.

A small correction, Mr Bonte. There are four groups of self-employed. The €6 million you are talking about is about the third group of self-employed. For the first two groups of self-employed persons for which something is provided, it is an unlimited amount. You are confusing things. You are not doing it correctly.

Mr. Vercamer, the same challenge as Mr. Kindermans. If there is uncertainty about the size of the envelope, let’s delete that envelope into the explanatory memory. One sentence from the memory of explanation on the budget is not even deleted. Are you going to tell me that I am mistaken about the budget? Remove it and there is no discussion anymore. You cannot remove it, because if you remove it, there is no design anymore.

Last night he threatened. The symbolism of the reduction of working hours and the temporary unemployment that the liberals of Open Vld have is too heavy. The MR must also have something to go to the voter, namely an insurance for the self-employed.

The reality is, that is my conclusion, that six months of time has been lost. Today it is said that urgent action needs to be taken. We can only conclude with regret in our hearts that both in terms of the distribution of working time and in terms of the self-employed insurance it is formulated in such a way that it cannot work. That is your pure farmers’ deception, both toward the companies, the workers in those companies, and toward the self-employed who may hope that there will finally come something out of this Parliament that looks like a measure to support their difficult position in this crisis.