Proposition 52K2307

Projet de loi en vue de soutenir l'emploi.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Dec. 4, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work budget occupational disease cheque service industry youth employment medical examination socially disadvantaged class social-security contribution employment policy unemployment fight against unemployment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD FN VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers (Ecolo) voted to adopt.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Dec. 22, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This draft law aims at a whole series of employment support measures in response to the economic crisis.

The written report faithfully reflects the statements made in the committee. I refer to that. The bill was approved by 11 votes against two abstentions.

Registered are Mr Vercamer, Mrs De Bue and Mr Gilkinet, Mrs Smeyers and Mr Bonte. Let me give the word to Mr. Vercamer.

The CD&V Group fully supports the government’s measures to support employment. The crisis measures already taken to increase the temporary unemployment allowance for workers ensure that purchasing power is ⁇ ined.

The introduction of a number of measures to prevent redundancies has also resulted. The reduction of crisis working hours, crisis-time loans and the limited economic unemployment for employees make the unemployment in our country rise less rapidly than in the rest of Europe. That is a good thing.

More efforts will also be made on outplacement in case of dismissal with the extension of the scope of the employment cells to all –45-year-olds and the temporary labour force and the employee force.

The restructuring card is also a good tool to give dismissed workers more opportunities for herd employment because it is coupled with a reduction in burden.

In addition to preventing dismissals, this government is also concerned about the dismissed workers themselves, especially the least protected workers.

The extension of anti-crisis measures was linked to progress in the discussion on the status of workers and servants. Therefore, in conjunction with the decision to extend the anti-crisis measures, this Government has also decided to improve the status of the least protected workers by providing a crisis premium of EUR 1 666 in addition to the cancellation compensation for those workers who are not entitled to a salary pension payment for three or six months because their business has not been recognised as a restructuring undertaking or a undertaking in difficulty. It is thus for those workers who are dismissed in an individual case or in a bankruptcy that the premium comes. These are the least protected workers. It is a good thing that the government takes these measures.

Mr. Vercamer, you may have missed the debate from then on. Indeed, I find it a very good measure for the protection of weak workers, since it concerns the workers on the labour market, but I have since tried to point out that it is not correct to associate that measure with the improvement of the status of workers. Then you make an abstraction of the tens of thousands of workers who fall in that measure next to the boat. I, like you, have read in the newspapers that the government has decided to give all workers who are dismissed access to that premium in the next six months. The truth is that it is only about the workers who work in the competitive sector, who technically fall under the cao-law. All other workers, thousands of whom are put aside, can whistle there.

In short, I think it is a good measure, a step forward in protecting the workers. The government is a little upset because our workers are so poorly protected at this time. That’s a good thing, but let’s be honest. It has nothing to do with a better protection of the status of the worker and it ⁇ results in the introduction of a new discrimination between the workers who are entitled to it and the workers who are not entitled to it.

Mr. Bonte, we agree, in any case, that it is a good measure, because in this crisis those who are most affected and least protected receive additional support in case of dismissal. I think that is a good measure.

At the same time, it is a signal to the social partners, who are not out there. They have the firm will to come to an agreement on the status of workers-servants. We see this as a signal to the social partners to continue to work on this.

Employers can avoid having to pay a third of the premium by primarily exploiting the anti-crisis measures. It is a good thing that the government has built that cascade. One must first try to take anti-crisis measures and only then can one move to dismissals.

The reactions on the cost cost are often very strongly invoked. Especially in the perspective of the other aid measures worth 300 to 400 million, which enterprises receive in this crisis period, the cost of that anti-crisis premium is actually almost negligible.

All measures are temporary, until June 2010. The approximation of the statutes of workers and servants requires a structural solution. It is up to the social partners to find a definitive comparison on this in the coming months. Our group therefore calls on the social partners to make the employee status an absolute priority from 1 January 2010 and to bring results to this Parliament by June 2010.

In addition to the crisis premium for workers, there is also an improvement for employees, which is a minimum supplement of EUR 5 per day in case of suspension of the employment contract, and the equation with full-time employment for all reductions or suspension of the employment contract as a result of the crisis measures. It is also the responsibility of the social partners to amend the cao 77bis with regard to time credit. In any case, we expect that the social partners will adjust that cao so that this can continue effectively.

Mrs. Speaker, colleague Vercamer, if you allow me, I would like to make the same comment that I made last week to your good colleague, Mr. Goutry. After all, I have the impression that you are intervening about the wrong design. The entire dossier of the crisis premium is a government amendment to the draft containing various provisions, and not to a draft supporting employment. In fact, you should have kept your argument during the discussion of the bill containing various provisions.

Honestly, I can no longer follow the order of work. I notice that the government is also no longer aware of which draft it should intervene at what time. It would be good if one focuses and always keeps the right argument about the right design.

Apparently, my group is the only one that these days keeps the order of work a little longer and tries to be to the point.

Colleague, we have just discussed our interventions with colleague Fonck. Instead of intervening twice, we have decided to group our arguments around one element of the discussion on Social Affairs. We chose to do that around this design. Hence this statement, Mr. Bultinck, otherwise I would have to speak here twice.

I will conclude my speech slowly, colleagues.

This government has also provided additional opportunities for the weakest groups in the labour market to lead them to work. She made an agreement with the Flemish government on the activation premium for young people, long-term unemployed and the elderly.

Finally, I would also like to emphasize the important measure for the non-profit sector. The social Maribel is being extended to the public sector. There will also be an increase in the exemption from the transfer of the corporate advance tax, from 0.25 % to 1 %. Our group considers this a very important measure. We know from experience that a reduction in the burden in the non-profit sector almost automatically leads to more employment.

Also in this sector there is an improvement in the status of the workers, bringing the protection of dismissal to the same level as that of the servants, insofar as the requirements of old age are met.

This government has responded appropriately to the economic crisis. It has taken the appropriate measures to prevent redundancies and to support ⁇ . The provisional measures are reasonably extended. The accompanying signal of the crisis premium for workers should be a call to the social partners to finally reach a settlement on the status of workers and employees by June 2010.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, unlike the previous speaker, we believe that all proposals aimed at trying to counter the rising unemployment are worth speaking.

I was, in any case, a little surprised when I heard colleague Vercamer say that one had concentrated on one point, namely providing an appropriate response to the crisis. We do not find that in the report. Colleague Vercamer, your discussion in the committee was just as short and started about the same way. You started by saying that everything was fine, even though you immediately added the word “but”. I counted it, and you spoke the word “but” nine times. It may have been for the sake of time saving that you dropped the words “but” now. On some points in which you used the word “but” in the committee, I will come back for a moment.

After all, I know that all the decisions you are talking about are not immediately after your heart. For example, I think of the receiver holders, in which context you used the word “but”. I also think of the problems of student jobs. There is no one in this hemisphere, not even in the government, who now knows how the holiday work for students will be arranged. Mr. Verherstraeten, all this would be clearly communicated to the students, to the trade unions and to the employers by 1 January 2010. That would be round for New Year. Everyone would be aware of it, but today no one knows how the fork is in the stake. Mr Vercamer had the merit of questioning Minister Milquet and Minister Onkelinx. The answer was that they are still working on it and that they are not yet aware of it. In that verb you used the word “but,” Mr. Vercamer, and you took it into your mouth nine times.

In the present bill there are indeed some good things that we are pleased to support, but some obvious things are not in it.

The first sentence of colleague De Clercq — which is, of course, the disadvantage if one has to work with reports as it is today — was that this law and the measures around employment lack ambition. Mr. De Clercq, I think you are right. I also recorded what you all talked about. However, we will not hurry much. When I hear that everything is well and well, that everything is beautiful, then I want to focus on some points that I suspect will come back here in the coming weeks and months.

In any case, I would like to return to that activation story, the story that began in the committee. It was a good measure. All majority opposing opposition parties said such support measures were brilliant and that we needed it. When the opposition pointed out that there may be a problem on the Flemish level, the minister’s response was denying, she had consulted with Flanders, she had an agreement with Flanders and with Wallonia and Brussels. She had seen Mr. Muyters up to three times, everything is cake and egg. Until the committee votes what it votes and then Flanders threatens a conflict of interest. Then that good measure is suddenly almost no longer, neither for CD&V, neither for Open Vld, neither for the opposition, because for that he was already not good. This measure is therefore redirected.

However, I would like to reiterate that measure 2 brings serious problems. The first big problem is the budget, but we will talk about it in detail later. Apparently, this government has really found a new gold vein that allows to subsidize all recruitments with 1,100 euros whether it is young or old. So it can’t go. If we make comments on the basis of calculations that were also made by Mr. Muyters, and also by the Flemish administration with regard to Flanders itself, we find that the measure has not been underestimated 2 times, not 3 times, not 4 times but 10 times. It is 10 times more expensive than in the budget.

You know our criticism of the budget or you will hear it later. One can judge that one does too little, too little worries, too little reserves for aging, namely zero. That seems to me really little: zero euro in the Silver Fund. This seems to me a little sluggish for the near future. But what you do here is your social security empty milk. You subsidize and a lot of jobs that would come anyway. You subsidize substitution to say it in professional terms. You subsidize the regular recruitments that continue anyway even when the crisis is. This is all subsidized. In short, your activation becomes unpaid for social security. Then we will probably have to go back to election campaigns for the next government about how important the aging is and to guarantee better benefits and wealth balance of pensions and pension rights and so on. But at this moment, you are making decisions that make the Social Security run out.

My colleagues, there is a second problem. I heard the previous speaker like to say that this is a measure to protect the weakest in the labour market. Mr. Vercamer, as a result of your activation policy, you take away an incredible opportunity for people with a low degree. People with a low degree are ten times harder at work than those with a secondary education diploma. I’m not saying that, the statistics show it. This is true in Flanders, especially in Brussels and also in Wallonia. What do they do? Both groups are subsidized with a 100 euro difference. Mr. Vercamer, I think that in this time of crisis no employer will hesitate if he can have a diploma instead of a non-diplomate for 100 euro difference. I am afraid that with this activation measure we will make a lost generation, namely the generation that today enters the labour market with a degree in lower secondary education, in a crisis time. For them it is difficult anyway but now they come into competition with the support measure for people who have a secondary degree. That is a comment that Flanders have rightly made but which for some reason has not been prevented in the compromise. We must approve this here later, but I think this threatens to push young people with poor education definitively into unemployment.

Another element also concerns one of the “mares” of Open Vld. It has to do with training and training. That was all good, but the formation fund within the RVA did not coincide with the vision of both gentlemen and I suspect both parties. Colleagues, it is evident that in times of crisis the federal and regional governments seek and find each other to strengthen each other, also in the sense that one can put their own emphasis on the challenges of the various labour markets. That is, of course, the essence, realizing that in this small country, even though it is only a handkerchief size, there are still great differences in terms of economy, employment and the labour market. Even for the answers, it is best to allow diversity to take appropriate and targeted measures, best in agreement between the different authorities but above all, colleague Vercamer, with respect for the Constitution and the powers. As for the RVA fund, you know what it is about. It is about the unfulfilled commitments of our dear social partners in the COAs. Surpluses have been created, say, in order to safeguard efforts that had to be made to recruit risk groups. These surpluses are now brought together within the RVA and financed with RSZ money, thus within the RSZ, and will have to serve for formation.

This is not how our country works. Unfortunately to those who envy it, education and training belong to the home where the powers are clearly defined, namely to the Communities.

Mrs. Minister, I repeat that the Formation Fund will again cause torment. The Flemish government will again – who can be against; after all, it is the Constitution that we have made here – pull the alarm bell, if it is a little consistent. It will be called a conflict of jurisdiction at this point. In any case, the Formation Fund will again result in disputes about the efforts made by the governments.

Mrs. Minister, the above is separate from the fact that it may make sense and benefit to appropriately deploy the training resources in the regions and in certain segments of sectors within the regions. They can only be deployed when there are clear agreements and agreements with the regions.

The above was in the committee a thick “but” of Mr. Vercamer, whom he has forgotten here for a moment. However, I would like to remind him of his words, because I know very well that it is also the vision of CD&V or the vision with which CD&V telkenmale comes out, especially during electoral periods. However, she quietly forgets the above-mentioned vision once she stands here on the floor.

I do not say that, because I would play the political game in which someone is caught on his words. It is about the efficient and quality investment of the resources in the fight against the crisis and long-term unemployment.

On the point of the non-profit sector, I could also amuse myself by referring, in line with the following, to a response that the minister gave me a few months ago, in particular that measures should not be opened to the public non-profit. It wasn’t necessary then, but now it’s in the law. That is a good thing.

In any case, I would like to return to the service checks.

Mrs. Minister, if we can save our face even in Europe in terms of unemployment rates, this is largely due to the success of the service cheque system. In recent years, service checks have created thousands and thousands of jobs for low-skilled and low-skilled people and for long-term job seekers, especially women. So everyone here is won for the idea that we should take care of the service cheque system, update it where necessary and eventually adapt to new realities.

Mrs. Minister, what fundamentally disturbs me is that the government, both in its budget and in the present draft law, takes a number of measures that, in the absence of creativity – I cannot call it otherwise – square against the importance of the service cheque system.

It should be dared to do so, colleagues, knowing that 2010 will be a bad year in terms of employment. What am I talking about here? I would like to highlight two measures in this legislation, which have been communicated somewhat obscurely.

The first measure is the cumulative limitation between burden reduction and service cheque measures. Service cheque companies, whether they belong to the broadcasting sector, the commercial sector, or whether they are VZWs or belong to the PWAs, recruit, fortunately but sometimes, employees to whom the government’s target group policy applies. This usually gives them the right to a burden reduction, for example for older long-term unemployed persons or for low-skilled persons, in the form of RSZ reduction. Well, the government is determined to cancel that cumulative.

The question of whether or not this cumul should exist has been a discussion since day one of the service cheque system. Our colleagues from the PS were quite rejected against this cumul. By the way, it is a reality that we now need to make decisions, while the Social Affairs Committee is still curbing the latest evaluation report of the service checks and therefore there are recommendations coming up or have already been formulated. Well, in fact, the proposed decisions contradict those recommendations. Nevertheless, the majority will soon approve them without any problems.

Why is the measure in question dramatic for the service cheque system, which, by the way, costs very much money, namely 1 billion euros gross or 666 million euros net per year? This is because the financing of the service cheque system only looks better whenever a long-term unemployed is hired in a service cheque company. It is precisely at that moment that unemployment benefits are eliminated and social security contributions are created, which was not the case before. That is the mechanism of the revenue effects of the service cheque system, which is now to be stopped morbidly. It will limit the cumulative, with the result that the entire private sector for long-term unemployed will now receive 11 000 euros, or 1000 euros per month if a company recruits a higher skilled person, but not the service cheque sector. I do not understand this, Mrs. Minister. Nevertheless, the service cheque system is precisely oriented to get the unemployed to work and is also better able to do so.

Mr Bonte, the current measures on activation continue to exist. The exception applies only to the provisional measures, the anti-crisis measures, of two years. I mean the various measures for the employment of young people.

First you say it will be very expensive and now you want those new measures to apply to the service check system as well. This would then become even more expensive.

The service cheque system is already funded by the federal state. Getting two benefits is not possible. That is one of the reasons for the difference.

Mrs. Minister, I said in my first sentence that I agree with colleague De Clerk, when he says that this government lacks ambition and that these laws lack ambition. The ambition we would stand for, if we had it to say, was to effectively invest very large amounts of money to advance people who have difficulty in the labour market. What you are doing is taking a very general, widely lubricated measure, at the expense of social security, with which you are also financing heavily where it is not needed, but apparently it cannot. The service cheque system should at least be able to maintain its ambition to depane as much as possible those who have fallen into long-term unemployment. This has happened in the past, even in the recent past.

If we had not established the service cheque system in its performance to get job seekers to work, then we would be down to the statistics on unemployment rates. In large part, thanks to the service cheque system, we are in the middle of the peloton on unemployment rates in the European Union.

What you are doing here now is support to get unemployed, apply to the rest of the economy, but not to the service cheque system.

Mr. Bonte, at the moment 50% comes from unemployment, with the current support of the various assets. That support remains.

There is only one exception, namely the anti-crisis measures. That is also logical: they already have 13 euros per hour with federal funding. Another premium of 1,000 euros would be a little too expensive.

Mr. Bonte, I do not want to interrupt and disrupt your opposition work against this government, but there must be one thing of my heart, when you talk about “your” service check system. Today, this is purely subsidized work. You say we’re going to be down to the statistics. But we are already at the bottom of the statistics, because the service cheque system is neither more nor less than subsidized labour. And effectively, there is better control. Effectively, there are also people in another circuit. However, that does not mean that additional money needs to be pumped.

I think, by the way, it would be much better to choose a reverse path today, but I will leave that for another discussion. I would like to react to this again. When you say that thanks to the service cheques we do not bend to the bottom of the employment statistics, then you must be honest, then you must admit that it is purely subsidised labour and that in employment we actually bend to the bottom of the statistics.

We can discuss the usefulness and financing of the service cheque system for a long time. I just want to note that it is strongly, but not purely funded by the government. It is a costly system. I referred to it. It costs the federal budget 1 billion euros. If one looks at the revenue effects – the fact that one no longer has to pay unemployment benefits or living wages and one also receives RSZ income from the people who flow in this way into the system – then the net cost price is about 670 euros, which is very much money. You will not hear me deny that.

I have the following plea. If one wishes to invest that money for employment, Mrs. the Minister, then one can better watch that as many unemployed and livelihoods come in as much as possible and then one can also support them through RSZ reductions.

You say it only relates to crisis measures. If we can believe the forecasts, we can expect something in terms of unemployment in the next six months and ⁇ in the next year. Therefore, I regret that the government chooses to get indirectly fewer unemployed and therefore fewer earnings effects in the system. I find this ⁇ regrettable. This is a missed opportunity.

With the service cheques there is also a regularization of black work. This is also very important for the RSZ.

Of course, but you yourself refer to the fact that 50 % of the employees in the service cheque system come from a benefit scheme. I hope it remains at that level or it goes up. That is good for the unemployed and survivors and it is also good for the financing of your system.

This must be classified among missed opportunities and compromises. This is not a new discussion, but it is the first time that it is admitted. This is not good for the service check system.

Mrs. Minister, I read yesterday or yesterday that the measures related to the social service cheques – we have also discussed this in the committee – are coming from some sort of apparent white smoke. I read in the press that there would be a KB, which would be published.

It would be good for Parliament to have access to this. It is my feeling that it is impossible to do what you promise, namely to supply with 1 million euros all OCMWs to make the service cheques available to the people who need them.

You have, reluctantly as you are, admitted that the amount of one million is only for the first weeks and months and that the rest will be settled budgetarily through some budget modification. This, of course, makes me even more curious about the precise content of the social service checks.

Colleagues from CD&V, I remember a time when it was said that helping the needy and supporting family care was something for the regions or the OCMWs, that this was within the competence of the Communities. If I can guess the completion of the KB a little, after the minister has been questioned about it several times, it can be no other than that one there risks a conflict with the approved home care services and washing services at the OCMWs.

I am really curious about that KB. If it looks like you announce it, Mrs. Minister, we can put it on the list of incidents to be expected soon. This again means that we probably won’t see any social service checks yet.

You know our proposal on this subject, Mrs. Minister. It is so obvious, so obvious, and so administratively simple, especially give to single mothers or fathers with low income twelve cheques for the price of ten. So simple is it. It is apparently too easy to support that vulnerable group in this way and thus take risks, with the likelihood of incidents, in terms of budget and powers. This will also become clear in the coming weeks.

Colleagues, in these times we cannot talk about service cheques without thinking about the attack, the so-called hold up on the PWA service cheque companies. During the discussion in the committee I informed you, Mrs. Minister, that CD&V would take a curve here. I’ve said you didn’t know CD&V well yet. A few days later, a colleague who couldn’t keep up with the press said it was a scandalous measure, even though it was approved the same day. We saw the ACW’s wrestling in curves. One suddenly got pressure on the bladder when there was to be voted.

Meanwhile, the program law has been approved. I have been able to hear that the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities, where CD&V has a serious foot in the house along with others from your majority, does what I actually predicted. Indeed, after the law has been passed and one can return to the base, the arrondissement, the municipality, then only begins the resistance against the government. It’s called “Madame Non.”

Then it is said that Mrs. Milquet did not want to turn away, despite having tried and fought like lions in the cabinets. Then it is said that Mrs. Milquet did not want to “build.” So they have followed here well in this assembly and now they start down, through the cities and municipalities, the mayors, the OCMW chairs, the creators. Some of our colleagues cumulards — I meet them in that regard — now say that the measure is so unfair that they go with it to the Constitutional Court. The Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities announced yesterday that it will proceed to the Constitutional Court to destroy your measure, the CD&V mandators on top, followed by the Open Vld mandators. We are lucky because we can say “no” here and say “no” there. We are straight lines, that is the difference.

No, otherwise the government would have had a problem, if it had wanted to do it that way.

I would like to inform you, Mrs. Minister, because it can be useful if you prepare your court proceedings, that in my view that court proceedings have a great chance of succeeding.

I still remember as the day of yesterday how the CD&V delegates in the committee heard the opinion of the Council of State with great eyes. They had expected the State Council to kick them by saying it was a bad and unconstitutional measure. However, they had bad luck. The State Council wrote one sentence, notably “No comments”. They had bad luck and one argument less to, ⁇ behind the scenes, try to convince the minister to withdraw that measure anyway. I have pointed out to my colleagues that when the State Council is asked by the Government to formulate an opinion on a draft in the framework of an urgent procedure, in that case it may limit itself to the competence of the proposer of the draft, the legal basis and the formal requirement to be met. This is what the State Council should do at that time, namely, check the legal basis and the formal requirements to be met.

What, for example, does not fall within this, Mrs. Minister, is the compatibility with the constitutional principle of equality, thus the question of whether every Belgian, in this case every service cheque company, is treated equally. The Council of State should not take a decision on this issue when consultation is requested in the context of an emergency procedure.

Secondly, Mrs. Minister, I would like to point out the following. You said that the federal government, that is, you and the other members of the government, have the full authority to make selective interventions with regard to the PWAs because you have made the legislation in that regard. Well, this too has been concluded too quickly. What the federal government does is making an organic law on the PWAs; it organizes the PWAs. In all local governments this is a legal obligation. However, it says nothing about tax treatment. This in any case gives you no fiat to define the tax aspects, nor to determine which means of payment are, nor to determine what charges you unilaterally impose on the PWAs.

These two elements will undoubtedly be used by CD&V forwarders within the VVSG.

A third element that they will never let go, Mrs. Minister, is the principle of equality. Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution have been violated. It is a cold thing for lawyers to prove that. Your argument for collecting EUR 55 million from the PWA service cheque companies once and leaving all other service cheque companies uninterrupted is that those PWA service cheque companies have it easier. Their position as PWA provides support. This goes completely beyond your own legislation regarding the PWA service cheque companies. They must contribute annually to the RVA resources based on the number of service checks, precisely because they can rely on PWA services.

The principle of equality is infringed even more because it can never, often never, be demonstrated that the alleged benefit of that type of service cheque undertakings from under the dome of a PWA exceeds the 60 % taxes that this government intends to impose on those funds.

Mr Vanhengel, you have a problem of 55,2 million euros, but that is the least of your concerns. These are concerns for later. In any case, you will have to see where you get that amount. Mr. Vercamer, maybe we should, together with some people from Open Vld, within the VVSG, overcome the legal arguments, which I received from a specialist. We overcome them together with that specialist so that we can make that file stronger. In this way, we can deduct a very unequal and very unfair tax. In addition, the government takes the resources to carry out a local employment policy, away from the local governments.

The [...]

These resources come in large part from the service cheque system: two-thirds from the federal government, a third from the users.

[...] 55 million [...]

Mr. Minister of Budget, if you want to strive for equality, why do you not implement that measure for all service cheque companies? Now you reserve those funds in the PWA vzws as a cautious housefather.

I see around me, like you, that in the profitable broadcasting sector people buy beautiful buildings with the same subsidy scheme as the PWAs, Mr. Vanhengel. These are the same subsidy flows.

The structure of these institutions is different.

One is profitable, the other is a vzw formed by local governments, which could receive as an assignment what I have been advocating for years, namely the deployment of reserves for local employment. But you are missing something, Mr. Vanhengel. You do not know your rules. You know that the PWA service cheque companies, like all PWAs, have been able to invest in local employment initiatives since their inception with the 1994 Act. The former minister has encouraged the PWAs to invest in local employment! According to regulations, a PWA must invest a quarter of the resources it receives in training and training. What about the profitable, commercial broadcasting sector? He receives the same amount of subsidies, but does not need to do all that and is now completely left alone. That is the truth, the only truth.

Mr. Vanhengel, I will tell you what is going on. It is said in words that one is for the service cheque companies and the service cheque system. At the same time, one forgets to notify Parliament, unless we find it in the small letters, that in a KB the service cheque system is excluded for activation. In the meantime, this has been corrected. One forgets to say that 55.2 million is removed from the reserves of the PWAs. I would rather see the government allow that in this time to invest in local employment. The essence of the problem is that one does not dare to discuss whether that 13 euros is too much or not. One does not dare to argue in the government, because one does not get an agreement to put the tax deductibility on the slope. One does not dare to discuss a number of other interventions in the service cheque system. So one searches where one thinks it is easier, namely at the PWA service cheque companies. Around me I see that the biggest abuses in terms of service checks, which one wants to correctly address through the law, are situated in the profitable sector, which invests millions in cars, in extra-legal fees and in buildings. This is not meant to be touched.

Mr. Bonte, what you are actually asking is that the federal government would lend 55 million extra from the banks, at a fairly high interest rate, in order to leave those pockets with the PWAs. Do you know what you ask? You are asking us to make an additional submission of interest funds, which we must pay to banks to borrow from them money that we do not have to be able to leave those pockets untouched at the PWAs. Do you think that is good governance?

Mr. President, Mr. Minister of Budget, I have 20 different proposals for savings to be made to you that will effectively allow the State to have less to borrow from banks. You choose, together with the government, to penalize local employment actors. Certainly, we have already discussed this with the Minister of Employment, the question of the reserves that these actors have constituted is interesting to analyze. However, other actors in the profit sector, in particular the interim sector, also make significant bonuses, along with allocations granted to them in the framework of service securities. Now, there is no proposal from the government and the Minister of Employment to try to regulate things, to give more resources to the actors who work well and to check how it works.

The ALE companies mentioned here have public administration boards and are controlled. So it is easier to reach them. If, really, you want to make savings, we have made some interesting bill proposals that I will discuss soon in the framework of the budget discussion. It is necessary to correct the notional interest system so that, where there is abuse by some companies that pay "zero" tax, ...

Not at all! I want companies that create and maintain jobs in this country to be helped, but those that carry out tax collections through disproportionate laws to be penalized. This will allow us to ⁇ much larger and more useful savings than the one proposed here in terms of ALA!

I can understand my colleague’s new energy, but this is a debate that we have already largely exhausted.

Mr. Gilkinet, in relation to this kind of sudden miserabilism towards the ALE, I would like to add this. First, if the EEA needed this money and if they spent it wisely for employment measures, they would no longer have any reserves! When I see reserves of one million euros or more by ALE, I ask myself some questions.

Second, one-shot measures for a single quarter in 2011 to finance also non-structural measures, crisis measures to engage young job seekers and older unemployed, which the EEA cannot do in the current state of their capabilities.

AREs are public institutions that are subject to federal legislation and are funded by the federal government to take action in relation to target groups. The amounts made available are used to take massive measures in terms of target groups engagement during the crisis.

Obviously, there is an objective difference between EEAs and other private-sector service companies. I have already had the opportunity, on several occasions, to draw up a list of all the benefits they can benefit from, for example, the free provision of public servants, the achievement of scale savings in terms of premises, etc. I will not return to what I have already said on this subject.

Please do not try to get me to say what I did not say. I do not challenge the measures that have been taken in terms of supporting target groups. I contest the unilateral measure that was taken in relation to those who had reservations. And I wonder, like you, how these reserves were constituted. But I find that other companies do not have reserves because they have gradually spent these surpluses, either by paying for functional cars or by buying buildings. Those that have had prudent and transparent policies – these reservations being known, in particular to assume tomorrow the cost of old-age workers in service securities – are targeted unilaterally.

I do not question the diagnosis. In some cases – various audits have shown this, including that of the Court of Auditors –, too much profit has been made by some employers. But you do not structurally correct this fact. You punish those whose reservations are apparent.

The positive measures taken in terms of re-employment through this punctuation need to be the subject of another debate. It is still that the unilateral act of which we are talking about seems to us – and you have been told – somewhat exaggerated and does not respond to the structural problem. Employers who do a good job must be rewarded, including in terms of accompanying and training workers, and the margins of those who have a perspective of profit and sometimes of exploitation of workers should be reduced.

Mr. Gilkinet, Mr. Bonte, we are not going to repeat the debate here. We have done this in the committee and the minister has engaged. You imagine it as if it was a linear, unilateral measure. The Minister has committed to consider this specifically per PWA, in such a way that the financial viability of any PWA would not be compromised and that the commitments made with regard to certain initiatives or with regard to personnel will be perfectly fulfilled. It is not as you always want to imagine.

Mr. President, they are working again. I will go deeper into this last intervention. On what basis can the Minister engage to decide PWA by PWA? On what basis? Therefore, a KB is written that obliges the Minister to apply what is in that KB. Mr. Vercamer, you are once again trying to explain things here, but afterwards you are trying to do a lot of things.

Mr. Bonte, I have already said it: not a linear approach, but a personal approach, with different criteria: the number of reserves, the number of service checks they have received and a specific criterion with specific correction to never bring a PWA into a negative financial situation. You will be able to study our KB and that will be a very careful KB, with, of course, no linear approach.

I am very curious about this KB. In any case, I would like to remind you again, colleagues from CD&V, that there was a period when we discussed budgets here – now we are not at the budget – where the word one shot always made a few of you jump right. Mr. Bogert always jumped straight...one shot. It has been a few times that we in the committee and also here have to hear that it is a one shot, 55 million on the PWAs. Memory is selectively selective.

Mrs. Minister, I would also like to point out that the PWAs are not just public bodies, but VZWs, although with a specific status due to the legislation, m.a.w. A local government must be established by the Act of 1994. In any case, I would therefore like to make it clear to Mr. Vanhengel that those 55.2 million, which are in reserves there, which the government considers to be necessary to help sanitize the budget, would be much and much more useful if it could lead to the creation of jobs in the municipalities. You know better than anyone that there are very many needs coming to the surface. There are many possibilities, including in terms of cooperation with the regions, the Brussels Region, the Flemish Region and so on to enable local employment. I notice that the overwhelming majority of your service cheque invoice is not in the PWAs, but in people who handle it less carefully. It is precisely in the PWAs that the most is invested in training and in framing. It is precisely in the PWAs that we encounter the most long-term low-skilled unemployed of all types of service cheque companies.

They are the ones who have to bleed. This inequality and injustice drives the Association of Cities and Municipalities – in my opinion rightly – to protest against it.

In the future, we will be able to talk much more about the budget. I would like to warn you, Mr. Minister, if you say so easily that we will have to borrow for interest, and so on. Be careful, because the latest version of the activation measure – I referred to it later – costs 10 times more than what is in your budget! There is a hole of 250 million euros! You may already be able to apply for that loan. Do not say that you do not know!

I have already intervened extensively in the committee. I would like to intervene on two points. The second is actually about the law containing various provisions, but since Mr. Vercamer has already mentioned that point here, I will do the same.

A fundamental problem arises with the measure you have proposed to encourage education. I have already said this in the committee. You may ask yourself whether you respect the limits of your powers? Formation is exclusively Community matter. If you want to support them from the federal government with your instruments – through RSZ or through labour law, in anticipation of greater transparency regarding this competence – there is in the strict sense no question of exceeding competence. But then you must at least act on the initiative of the Communities, and not vice versa.

I think the roles are reversed here. I would have loved to get a response from you.

Furthermore, questions may be raised about the effectiveness of measures, such as the training premium for cramped occupations. A concrete proposal from you is the Formation Fund at the RVA. That is one of the measures by which, I think, you turn the clock back to the early 1980s, for the regionalization of vocational training and employment agency, and for the establishment of the VDAB, FOREM and BDGA/Actiris.

The proposals in question are at the intersection of the federal competence and the regional Flemish competences on labour market policy. Strictly legally, your new proposal colours you right within the institutional lines, as your proposals relate to federal competences in labour law and social security, but substantially the roles are reversed.

It is the Communities which have exclusive competence in the field of vocational training and employment facilitation and which should be able to take the lead in terms of a uniform status of training and the inclusion and vocational training of job seekers. The federal government can then act as a facilitator, but therefore on the initiative of the Communities. I think you are trying to turn the roles again. I would like to receive a concrete response from you.

I would like to have responded to your new crisis measures contained in the amendment to your bill containing various provisions, which we read last minute last week and for which the Social Affairs Committee has been summoned immediately.

That crisis prize was the scarce result of your failed consultation with the social partners to establish a unity statute for workers and servants. Then you came out with your crisis prize. Obviously, this is just a lean beast. I wonder if the workers will benefit from this crisis premium, but I would also like to look at the employers’ approach.

I have already said this in the committee. Employers do not dismiss anyone with pleasure. They see dismissal as the ultimate measure. Employers to charge 30 % of your crisis premium is, in my opinion, an unnecessary penalty. This crisis premium is rightly perceived by employers as a fine.

One would do better work of a supportive business climate, employer climate. Now, finally, work on the unity statute and maybe you can also think about a global burden reduction, instead of continuously incurring premiums, especially in times of crisis.

For employers, the dismissal of employees is a difficult task. I have already said that. It is regrettable that this crisis premium is a compensatory fruit for starting your social consultation. I have submitted an amendment in the committee to extract your amendment from your bill. I will now submit this amendment again. We are completely dissatisfied with that course of affairs and are also substantially dissatisfied with your latest new acquisition or solution, especially your crisis premium.

I can understand that when a government works hard, hard and fast, it is uncomfortable for the opposition to find arguments. But when I hear stating, in particular, that paying additional amounts to workers in times of crisis is not a good measure, I suggest repeating it to those most affected in this matter!

I will answer the various questions and views of Mr Bonte.

As far as student work is concerned, I have already said dozens of times that we will be ready by January 2010. I wait with my colleague Laurette Onkelinx for the RSZ’s final exercises to organize a very practical system. We want an extension of the current system. We also want students to be able to work about 50 days a year with a reduction in social contributions.

The RSZ is now almost ready to exercise real supervision over the number of hours per student by April 2010. Based on the most recent information and the most recent meeting of the current week with the administration, I and my colleague will submit a draft law on this subject to the Council of Ministers in January 2010.

I have already answered the questions about the service cheque companies. If we take the overall account, the financial benefit of 13 euros per hour and an additional support of 1 000 euros per employee would be two gifts. The current measures are sufficient.

As for the activation measures, as you know, the increase in youth unemployment in Flanders is very high. This is an increase of 34%. In the other regions, this is 3.5% for Wallonia and 6.4% in Brussels. The problem is mainly in Flanders. The various measures are very beneficial for the Flemish, job-seeking young people.

What did we decide after the small negotiations? That was my first proposal. I have been making a proposal for weeks, in particular to create a greater difference between young people without a diploma and young people with a secondary education diploma. We had already decided to reduce the social contributions by 1 000 euros per quarter. We also decided that no social contributions or charges should be paid for young people who are under 19 years of age and do not have a secondary diploma.

So we have a bigger difference, with a sum of 1 100 euros instead of 1 000 euros, for the young people who have a diploma of secondary education.

We are in a crisis period. There are young people under 26 in unemployment with a diploma of only secondary education, which is not so qualified. It is therefore normal that, if they are unemployed for more than six months, they also receive additional support. In doing so, we follow the recommendations of all international, European or national institutions.

I can understand the continuity of community issues. However, some oppose an employment measure that concerns a young high school graduate who has been unemployed for six months, while we see a 18% increase in these young unemployed in Flanders. We need to explain why we do not want this measure!

Of course, we need to differentiate. And that is what we did. An evaluation will be conducted after six months. In addition, we calculated the budget by following the same method as the CNT, namely by taking 10% of the target groups committed.

This is, therefore, a very bad trial and a conflict of interest that is detrimental not only to young people, but also to older unemployed.

The person over 50 who is unemployed has this right even after six months of unemployment. This is an activation of the unemployment benefit by EUR 1 000 per employment. This is very important for SMEs and self-employed. This is also a support for small ⁇ in Flanders. I do not understand this reaction at all.

We made two small changes. The proposals I submitted to the Prime Minister were welcomed positively and the outcome of the negotiations with the Flemish Region was also very positive.

As for the training fund, I smile when I hear that the Regions do not want the money we decide to give them. This makes me no problem!

That would be 6 million for the federal state. I have absolutely no objection to keeping 6 million extra in my power. It was very important that through this training and employment fund we provided additional resources for the precise action of the Regions, with which they can fully autonomously support the target group. If a Region does not want this help, then we will do something else.

When I speak about it and when I hear the criticism, I clarify that the State Council has said well that at first glance, the provisions in the draft are not contrary to the rules for the distribution of powers.

What is it about? Simply put, the federal state is competent for everything that falls within the scope of social contributions related to efforts for target groups; it is known. And where does that money go when there is no collective agreement and no effort is made towards a target group? It goes to the overall management of social security without being specifically assigned or to employment or training efforts in a target group.

Personally, I only requested that a small part of those 150 million allocated annually to social security be paid to a fund within the ONEM. I considered that this money should be granted, autonomously, to the Regions to assist them in their efforts towards these target groups, whether it is training or employment.

I have never heard that a Region does not wish to obtain supplementary means, not compulsory at all, but generously granted to allocate them to their target groups, in full autonomy.

This is where we are. At the end of the negotiations, we had reached an agreement on this point at the last interministerial conference.

As for the PWAs, I think I have answered.

As regards the various questions posed by Ms. Smeyers, concerning the various provisions of the original bill, the following. That discussion was on item 1 of our agenda and I think it is over.

On a few points, I would like to briefly replicate.

First, I would like to point out that there will be special pressure on the Council of Ministers of January, as everything we say refers to KBs, ministerial decisions or matters that will still be discussed at the government level in January.

The [...]

Mrs. Minister, if it were the first time that one says that student work will be arranged in January, then it was already a year in joint. Last year, around this period, it sounded about the same song. I would like to point out, Mrs. Minister, that Minister Onkelinx does not know in which direction the ball will fall, as regards the arrangement of student work. In January, clarity will be brought, as in so many matters clarity must be brought. I think of the false self-employed, the voluntary army service, and so on. That as a comment.

Your choice of words is sometimes enlightening. You say that if those crisis activation measures were also applied to the service cheque companies, they would receive a gift twice. That is your word choice. I don’t think it has to do with the fact that French is your mother tongue, but with the way you look at service cheque companies. If the government considers that the service cheque companies are too generously subsidized, then it should dare to intervene. This can be done either directly through the price or through the deduction. If that is the opinion of the government, it must do so.

However, I would like to point out once again that it is a victory for this government and for this country that the system of service checks employed a hundred thousand people last year. My appreciation in this regard is that it is indeed necessary to check whether the subsidy is of the correct level, but that it is necessary to ensure that every service cheque company is treated in the same way and is able to recruit as many unemployed people as possible, people who previously benefited from benefits. This makes the system portable. You argue that you have already had to pay for it, so you don’t have to do it again, while you give the gift you don’t want to give to the service cheque companies to any other company, regardless of whether it invests in training, training, framing, and so on.

This gift goes on, but the gift to the service cheque companies does not. That is exactly what I want to accuse and will undoubtedly be the subject of a procedure before the Constitutional Court.

I also refer to the Minister of Budget. You always refer to the fact that Flanders is heavily affected in terms of youth unemployment. The increase is faster. The crisis comes in an economy like the Flemish also harder than ⁇ in other parts of the country. By chance, however, I have a dramatic cover in my book bag, namely, “The bomb under Brussels: one younger in three without a job.”

Let us not forget that, too. The social drama in our capital is the persistent unemployment, especially among very low-skilled young people, who sometimes think they don’t have to work anymore. I’ve lived and worked with them in Molenbeek for a long time, so I know what I’m talking about. Well, those young people, who often belong to the second or third generation, are often so far away from the labour market that you may need much more, much better tuned measures, to address that problem compared to the problem you are addressing in Flanders. In both cases, it is young people that we find in the unemployment statistics.

My substantial plea, as the social partners indicate, is that the federal government should refrain from target group policies. To a large extent, give it to the regions. Make sure that you come to strong agreements in a concertation, where everyone does what they are strong in and what they should do.

Here happens exactly the opposite. From the situation in Brussels, you should have gained much more for my argument to target the unskilled and low-skilled people much more sharply in terms of burden reduction. If I were a minister in Brussels, I would add that that subsidy increases with years of unemployment. I would invest much more in guidance and activation than is happening today.

Okay, I am who I am. I am here, in the Federal Parliament. I find it an aberration that a federal government, after other colleagues have said that target group policy actually belongs to the regions, submits a program law with so many target group measures. I have never seen a program law with so many target group measures. In addition, the program law is still very inefficient in terms of spending of resources.

In this way I come to my comments to you, Mr. Minister of Budget.

During or shortly after the summer, you said that the Belgian State is virtually bankrupt. Now I hear Mrs. the Minister say that she does not understand why communities and regions are rejecting the fact that she still provides resources for education. She thinks they should be happy.

Mrs. Minister, if you are concerned about our social security, then you know that the reality of our federal government and our government budget is such that we cannot afford to invest massively in regional powers in this way. That should be done by the regions.

A good example of a measure in this regard is that of training workers. I don’t know if you know that employment measure, colleagues. Training workers are employees of a company under restructuring that can be recruited through a heavy additional burden reduction by the vocational training bodies of the communities, schools and educational networks of the regions. If we point out to the Minister that it is good to put experience in this way in the service of young people, but that it is not right to do so with federal funds, then I hear members from the majority and opposition say that it is a useful measure to refinance education.

Mr. Minister, what are we doing? The federal level has no euro too much. You just said you need to borrow to pay additional interest. However, they succeed in enacting laws that transfer resources from the social security to matters which are integrally within the competence of the communities. In the past, it was unthinkable that something like this would happen with CD&V. Now that is possible, even though it is well known that the bankruptcy of the social security is very close.

I would like to give you a last and short reply. It was about ambition. I love hearing about financial reserves for the ALE, as we are going through one of the most important crises in terms of economic, social, employment, etc. Similarly, I am surprised to hear about pseudo-conflict of skills in view of such a serious issue.

In any case, you can’t blame the government’s employment policies for not being ambitious. We spent more than €1.7 billion last year on boosting and support measures to counter economic unemployment and combat the crisis. The European Union welcomes us by recognizing that these decisions have prevented a much greater rise in unemployment. Belgium is one of the three countries where the unemployment rate has increased the least since the beginning of the crisis.

Then it is difficult to talk about lack of ambition when we create more than 7,000 jobs in the non-market sector (for example with the social Maribel); when we continue to take anti-crisis measures, according to the unanimous vow, for an amount of 123 million euros; that we invest in the protection of workers. Furthermore, nobody talks about it – as is usually the case when a positive action is taken – but we have implemented a reduction in labor costs for more than 42 million euros related to the “low wage” component of the structural reduction.

Ms. Smeyers, you are also talking about reducing the social burden. I remind you that we will organize more than one billion reductions in the social burden by 2010. This includes measures related to low wages. That is nothing.

We have invested, as the European Commission recommends, in measures to encourage training in internships in order to prepare the economy of tomorrow and prepare young people for the recovery. These measures, according to some, would be unambitious. Now, each of us recommended action, which was not the case in previous crises, due to the lack of a medium-term vision. But it was fundamental to take all these measures; they have also been considered positive both by all three Regions – the minutes of which I have the proof – and by the various partners.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, in connection with the training fund, you said in your first reply that you would rather keep the 6 million yourself. Well, do that then and let the Regents do their work. I still believe that there is double work being done here. As Mr. Bonte says, there is indeed no surplus. Do not spend money on double work.

I would also have liked that with a little less dedain would be answered to my question about the crisis premium. Mr Vercamer took the floor on this point. It is indeed true that this morning has already been discussed and that it falls under another theme, but after all, it is all about work. It cannot be said that the government has been very correct in this. A last-minute amendment should be submitted. If I then ask a question in the context of another “theme”, I get the answer that the point is not discussed here. I think that is highly inappropriate.

Mrs Smeyers’ question is addressed to the Minister, not to me.

Mr. Minister, I would like to add another sentence. You say you hear a lack of ambition here. That was the first sentence of colleague De Clerck in the committee: this government lacks ambition. It is from your majority that you need to hear it sometimes.