Proposition 53K1280

Projet de loi ouvrant des crédits provisoires pour les mois d'avril, mai et juin 2011.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

March 8, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget provisional twelfth

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit ∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

June 15, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

For these bills, we have three rapporteurs, Ms. Marghem, Mr. Uyttersprot and Mrs Dierick, as well as thirteen speakers.

The word is first to Mrs. Marghem. This is a matter of quotas, Mr. Uyttersprot!

Mr. Speaker, I, who am for diversity, just recently let go before me Mr. Speaker. Van Hecke and now, vice versa, Mr. Uyttersprot allows me to pass. You can find that here there is an interesting balance, which is not the case everywhere.

I will deal with the part of the report concerning the description of the proposals and amendments submitted in this regard. Then Mr. Uyttersprot will speak of the hearings and Ms Dierick of the development of these proposals and amendments after the State Council’s opinion.

As you recalled, Mr. Speaker, a series of bills aimed at imposing a percentage of opposite sex directors, i.e. women, in the board of directors of listed companies, companies publicly appealing to savings, public companies and La Loterie Nationale have been submitted to the House and debated in the Commercial Law Committee.

First, the proposal of the PS, no. 53/211, states that for autonomous public enterprises covered by the law of 21 March 1991 reforming certain public economic enterprises, it is proposed to introduce a requirement of gender balance so that at least one-third of the members of their board of directors and their board of directors are of a different sex than that of the other members. In the case of listed companies, the composition of the board of directors must respect the same proportion, i.e. one-third of the members of different sexes.

The proposal of sp.a., no. 53/381, is limited to listed companies and imposes the same quota of one-third of the members of the other sex. It provides for a transitional provision and the entry into force on the 1st day of the 3rd year following its publication in the Moniteur belge.

The proposal of the CDH, no. 53/649, provides for a quota of one-third of members of the opposite sex in the boards of directors of listed companies and public enterprises of the law of 1991. It provides for a transitional period of seven years and compliance with current mandates. In addition, it provides for a criminal sanction in the event of non-compliance with this obligation, set out in Article 652 of the Corporate Code and the preparation of an annual report on the efforts made to ⁇ the goal of the third of the other sex administrators.

The Ecolo-Groen!, Bill No. 53/686, provides for a quota of 40% of members of the opposite sex in the boards and board of directors of public enterprises law 1991, the management functions of public enterprises law 1991, the management functions of all public legal entities referred to in the Code of Companies and the board of directors of listed companies. The management report must include a description of the gender distribution within the company and a transitional period of 5 years is planned as well as the establishment of a directory of competent women. Magnificent ...

As for the proposal no. 53/694 of the CD&V, it aims to obtain a quota of a third party also, but in all listed companies that make public appeal to savings. This is a broader concept than listed companies as described in Article 438 of the Company Code. It imposes the same quota in the public undertakings referred to in the Act of 1991, but also in the CBFA (Banking and Financial Commission) established by the Act of 2002 and the market undertakings referred to in the Act of 2002 (e.g. Euronext). It provides for a transitional period of seven years and compliance with current mandates. The proposal also provides for a criminal sanction in case of non-compliance with this obligation, as set out in Article 652 of the Corporate Code, and the establishment of an annual report on the efforts made to ⁇ the target of one-third of managers of the opposite sex.

by Mr. Uyttersprot will tell you about the many hearings that took place. All groups submitted amendments to the Commercial Law Committee. As a member of the MR, I will start with those submitted by my training - don't bother me! - the Open Vld and the N-VA (...) If you want, next time I will state them in a different order. Do not see it as evil. Would you like me to start with the N-VA? They were identical to ours!

Thus, these amendments aimed at four goals. I will describe them quickly.

The first was to introduce in the Law of 6 April 2010 on Corporate Governance a reference to the new recommendation of the Corporate Governance Commission issued on 11 January 2011 with a view to achieving a third of the presence of opposite sex directors in the boards of directors within seven years, in accordance with the comply or explain principle, and above all by making quotas immediately mandatory.

Then, it was a question of imposing a quota of 50% in the boards of governments of public companies, which we reduced to a third, at the request of the N-VA, at least in terms of the number of directors that the state shareholder is entitled to appoint.

In addition, it was requested to establish the establishment of an annual report on the efforts made to improve the feminisation of the boards of directors.

Finally, it was about introducing a date clause in seven years – and not a galantine date, of course! Parliamentary assessment of the mixedness of the board of directors. The message for ⁇ is that if nothing changes, there will be no way to escape a binding legislative solution, as some today wish.

The other amendments, submitted by the CD&V, the PS, the sp.a, the cdH and Ecolo-Groen!, provided for the following elements, which I will briefly describe to conclude my report.

In listed companies, four elements are involved.

1° An annual report of the efforts made to reach the third quota of the opposite sex directors included in the management report under the Corporate Governance component. This provision comes into force from the first accounting year following the publication of the law in the Belgian Moniteur.

2° A quota of one-third of the members of the opposite sex in the boards of directors of the listed companies, the number obtained being rounded to the nearest whole number in the case of numbers with a decimal. This provision is in force from the 6th accounting year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge. From that date onwards, if there is less than the planned quota of a certain type of administrators within the Board of Directors, the next appointment must designate a missing type of administrator. Nominations contrary to this obligation are null. This was the case before the State Council opinion and the new amendments of this group. The same applies to appointments that would result in the number of directors of a certain genre falling below the required quota.

For small listed companies, the obligation of quota shall enter into force only on the date of the 8th accounting year following the publication of the law in the Belgian Moniteur. These are listed companies that meet at least two of the following three criteria:

the average number of workers during the financial year concerned is less than 250 persons;

the total balance sheet is less than or equal to EUR 43 million;

the annual net turnover is less than or equal to EUR 50 million.

Article 5 of the law shall enter into force only from the beginning of the eighth fiscal year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge.

If, from that date, there is a number less than the planned quota of a certain genre, it is necessary that the next appointment designates a missing manager of the genre, as I said earlier.

3° If the current composition of the Board of Directors is not consistent with regard to the representation of each gender, the next General Assembly shall compose a new Board of Directors consistent with the quota. In case of non-compliance, the decisions of the Board of Directors are void, this provision entering into force on the date of the 7th financial year following the publication in the Moniteur belge.

For small listed companies, this provision would enter into force only on the date of the 9th accounting year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge.

For companies that are listed for the first time, the quota obligation shall take effect only from the 6th accounting year following the entry to the stock market.

This provision comes into force from the first accounting year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge.

As regards these amendments, I will conclude with the matter they aimed at for public enterprises law 1991: they provide six elements for those that do not yet have such regulation, namely Belgocontrol, Belgacom and bpost.

First, there is a quota of one-third of the opposite sex members in the boards of directors of public undertakings for the directors designated by the Belgian State or a company controlled by the Belgian State, the resulting number rounded to the nearest whole number.

Second, if the current composition of the Board of Directors is not consistent with respect to the representation of each gender, the next appointment must designate a missing gender administrator. Otherwise, appointments contrary to this obligation are null. The same applies to appointments that would result in the number of directors of a certain genre falling below the required quota. These two provisions shall enter into force from the first accounting year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge.

The last three conditions issued by these amendments concern the National Lottery, established by the law of 19 April 2002. A quota of one-third of members of the opposite sex in the boards of directors of public undertakings is required for the directors representing the Belgian State, the number obtained is rounded to the nearest whole number. If the current composition of the Board of Directors is not consistent with respect to the representation of each gender, the next appointment must designate a missing gender administrator. If the nominations are contrary, they are declared null. These two provisions shall enter into force from the first accounting year following the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge.

I will communicate to you the assessments of the MR regarding all these amendments and these laws in my subsequent speech.

You can intervene immediately. I will then give the floor to the other two rapporteurs.

It is often the case that the rapporteur asks to intervene, on behalf of his group, in the extension of his report.

Madame Marghem, make your speech! I will then give the floor to the second and third rapporteurs.

Is it really a problem that I make my speech, given that all the speakers know the subject well? I am at the disposal of my colleagues. If we want to expose the entire report and move on to the interventions afterwards, I will come back later.

Mr. Uyttersprot, since you have wanted to intervene for a long time, and to have a male voice in this debate... Then it will be Mrs. Dierick’s turn.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the context of political simplification and greater efficiency, it is good that we reach agreements on the report. We have done that too: Mrs. Marghem will address the legal aspect, Mrs. Dierick the last two meetings and from the State Council and I the testimonies.

The starting point is the underrepresentation of women in the boards of governments of state-owned companies and 125 listed companies. There have been ten committee meetings on this subject, including four with hearings and testimony, under the chairmanship of Mrs De Wit and Mrs Marghem. It would lead us too far to explain these eleven testimonies in detail, but yet I would like to report on the most striking.

The first witness was Professor Herman Daems, chairman of the Corporate Governance Commission, the Good Governance Committee. The Code of Corporate Governance has been in place since 2004 and imposes a number of control and operational obligations on listed companies. Since 6 June 2010, the code has been made mandatory by law and therefore it is not non-binding. He works under the principle of comply or explain, or, in Dutch, apply or explain. The obligation of a minimum representation of female drivers is also included in the code. In this way, one hopes to ⁇ good results, while taking into account the specificity of some listed companies, such as family shareholders or high-tech companies, which find it difficult to attract good managers in the short term, let alone to provide for that gender diversity. In addition, a study by the FSMA shows that the principle of comply or explain works with our listed companies.

The most notable observations made by Mr. Daems in connection with the present bills are, firstly, that it is the role of the general meeting to appoint the directors, secondly, that the board of directors must reflect the shareholder structure, and thirdly, that the necessary protection of independent directors may be compromised. The quotas are included in the Code of Corporate Governance and provide for a seven-year transition period to reach 30% gender diversity. It also stipulates that the possibility of spreading all types of managers into the gender diversity should be created in order to avoid that only independent managers would be subject to that obligation. The Code also provides for an annual report.

The second witness was Ms. Lutgart Van den Berghe, Deputy Governor of Guberna, the former Institute for Governors. For Ms. Van den Berghe, there are three methods to address the problem of underrepresentation of women.

First, the companies are left free to evolve towards a 30 % scheme. The second variant is the application of the principle “comply or explain” or comply or explain through the code of corporate governance. This approach is preferred by the European government and the Council of State. The third way is to impose legal quotas and is that of the present legislative proposals.

Ms. Van den Berghe says she is not a big lover of quota, but she is also not opposed to it, for obvious reasons. First, it fears that the category of independent drivers will become the victim of it. Second, there is a lack of effective sanction options, as it is not the board of directors who appoints, but the general assembly. Third, the shareholding of listed companies is by definition international and highly volatile. Furthermore, internationally operating undertakings which have their registered office elsewhere are excluded from that measure. If the measure is introduced, it must be accompanied by a flankering policy.

The third witness was Dominique Estenne, chairman of the Commission Femmes et Entreprises, and of the Conseil des Femmes francophones de Belgique. She evolved from an opponent of the quota to an advocate of accelerating evolution. According to the Commission Femmes et Entreprises, it can be found that the natural evolution of the presence of women in the board of directors is ineffective and progresses too slowly.

Since 2007, they have revised their position. For them, it is now an indispensable tool to accelerate the process. Ms. Estenne points to the Scandinavian countries as brilliant examples: Norway, Finland, Sweden, where that legislation has brought everything into a current acceleration.

The fourth witness was Ms. Dekker of the Foundation Talent to the Top, which brought the Dutch model forward. The diversity of men and women is not regulated by law in the Netherlands. The various sectors of business and government set up their own codes.

The fact that three-quarters of working women in the Netherlands have a part-time job – less than 35 hours a week – explains why the flow there is so low. I make the comparison: three-quarters of women in the Netherlands work part-time, while the EU average is 41%. The Foundation Talent to the Top was established in 2007 as an independent advisory body at the initiative of the government and has as its goal to get more women at the top of companies in the Netherlands.

However, the flow must be done on a voluntary basis, by signing a charter. Once it has been signed, it is no longer non-binding. The Dutch diversity model is successful. Meanwhile, more than 160 large companies have already signed the charter “Talent to the Top” and have taken concrete and sustainable steps in the field of diversity. Among them there is a very large variety in number and size to observe.

The most eloquent testimony awaited was those of Mari Teigen and Marike Stellinga.

Mari Teigen is a spokeswoman for the Institute for Social Research in Oslo and one of the pioneers in gender diversity. Teigen’s statement concerned Norwegian legislation adopted in 2003, which introduced quotas and requires at least 40 % of each sex to be represented in the Board of Directors.

There are about 400 listed companies in Norway, 240 of which are listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. There are also 800 companies that are fully or partially owned by the government. These are mainly cooperatives that are active in the mineral and energy sectors.

According to her, the success is probably the result of the heavy sanctions that can result from a violation of the law on quotas. A company that does not have a legally composed board of directors, despite various warnings and the opportunities offered to comply with the law, can be forced to dissolve.

Another consequence of that law is that in the boards of governments many more young women than young men sit. On the other hand, it is noted among the unlisted companies that there are a lot of female CEOs lacking. The vast majority of these CEOs are still men. In fact, the quota law has led to an increased demand for competent women in the boards of directors of listed companies, with the potential side effect of reducing the supply of women available to sit in the boards of directors of non-listed companies.

The question of whether there has been a change in the functioning of the board of directors since the introduction of the quota could not be answered unambiguously. Another question was whether the quota law led to more democratization of economic power in Norway.

What was pushed forward as a major reason by the government is that a quota law should bring about a parallel democratization alongside the representation of workers in the boards of directors. The government found that the absence of women in the board of directors constituted a democratic deficit. One can decide that this would have been somewhat succeeded.

The quota law has demonstrated that changes can indeed take place in a domain that at first sight was not susceptible to change. To search for female candidates, those who selected candidates had to greatly expand their range of action in which they normally work.

To the decision of Mrs Teigen: the quota law contributes to the creation of female role models. Even though there was fierce resistance in the introduction of the law, once the law came into force, results were achieved and criticism has melted away.

One last witness I would like to bring forward is Marike Stellinga. She is the author of the book The myth of the glass ceiling. She is the Director of Economics at Elsevier. Marike Stellinga has deepened in the gender pay gap, and in the effects of the female-friendly Scandinavian policy, which influences through childcare, task division between men and women, and this in the framework of preparing a book she wrote about the Norwegian quota legislation that was evaluated by her on the spot. She interviewed government officials, researchers and people from the industry.

Her findings are surprising. Ms. Stellinga believes that the result of this study on the quota law is negative. For example, 100 of the 600 listed companies left the stock exchange after the law came into force. According to her, the quota law is in principle incorrect, harmful and probably also legally unsustainable. The European Court of Justice condemned Germany in the Kalanke case for favoring women over men in promotions. The jurisprudence, according to the speaker, could also be applied to Norwegian law. This is discriminatory towards men. There is also American jurisprudence that condemns quotas. As an illustration, refer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Grutter case in 2003.

Despite the women-friendly policy of the Norwegian government, which grants generous parental leave and quota for study directions, it is also noted that society is still very strongly traditionally structured. This is reflected in the wage gap between men and women, which is still very large in Norway.

Marike Stellinga is of the opinion that the government could only impose quotas if it can demonstrate that women – this also applies to other groups of population – are systematically and in all aspects of social life, which, in her opinion, is not the case here.

She also has the impression that the Norwegian quota law is not inspired by a sense of justice but rather by an interest in the image.

In conclusion, she notes that for her, feminism must pursue the view that women are considered as individuals and not as such as women, ⁇ not as women who can only occupy a certain position, because a law helps them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there were also interesting testimonies from, among others, Michèle Sioen, CEO of the same name listed company, Mrs. Clarisse Ramakers of UCM, Mrs. Frédérique Fastré of the Institute for Gender Equality, Mrs. Darville of the VBO and Mrs. Laga, lawyer, who each explained the subject with their own approach. You will find the impact of their statements in the report.

I think you have thus provided a representative overview of the main testimony in the committee. I can conclude that the ten committee meetings were exciting and experienced.

As agreed, I will present the last part of the report.

After issuing the requested opinion of the State Council, the committee discussed the bill again in the committee during its meetings of 31 May 2011 and 1 June 2011.

Amendments were submitted by the various political groups.

Representatives of N-VA, MR and Open Vld submitted several amendments which can be summarized in the following principles.

The composition and control of the Board of Directors is and remains the responsibility of the shareholders. Change must come from the sector and the shareholders themselves. The government should not interfere in this matter. Legislative intervention can even have a counterproductive effect.

It was also proposed that the Minister of Justice should submit a progress report on the evolution of gender diversity to the legislative chambers during the second half of the seventh year following the entry into force of the law.

During the various discussions in the committee, representatives of N-VA, MR and Open Vld have repeatedly stated that they have full confidence in the code of corporate governance.

The supporters of quota, namely PS, sp.a, CD&V, Ecolo-Groen! and cdH, have also submitted amendments, in order to respond to some of the comments of the State Council. They can be summarized as follows.

The word “shares” was replaced by the word “effects”. Indeed, the State Council has pointed out the existence of companies whose securities other than shares, such as bonds, have been admitted to trading on a regulated market.

The sanction of invalidity of the decisions of an invalidly composed board of directors shall be repealed and replaced by a provision suspending any benefit, financial or other, of the directors associated with the exercise of their mandate until the board of directors is validly composed.

In addition, a new provision is added to the bill, which requires Parliament to evaluate, during the twelfth year following the publication of this law in the Belgian Official Gazette, its impact on the representation of women in decision-making bodies.

The State Council states in its opinion that the bill does not specify how the quota should be calculated when the function of a manager is exercised by a legal entity. In this regard, the legislators have clarified that the sex of the permanent representative is eligible for the calculation of the quota rule.

The submitters of the quota proposals satisfied that the State Council considers that the underrepresentation of women in the governing bodies of certain undertakings has been demonstrated, that the imposition of quotas is in principle compatible with the principle of equality and, finally, that the imposition of quotas is useful to eliminate that identified inequality.

The applicants emphasize that the proposed quota scheme is not intended to make it impossible to evaluate candidates objectively or to undermine the obligation to compare merits or qualifications.

The applicants then note that the State Council considers freedom of association almost as an absolute right. It is indeed an important fundamental right but not an inviolable right. Restrictions may be made to the extent that they are necessary to ⁇ another legitimate goal, in this case, the restoration of equality between women and men, and that they are proportionate to the aim envisaged.

The last clarification given by the applicants is that in the case of public-owned economic undertakings listed on the stock exchange, the quota scheme applies cumulatively. Those undertakings must therefore respect the obligations of both categories of undertakings.

Eventually the discussion was closed and the amended bill was adopted with 9 votes for, 5 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will begin with a quote from a white card from the boss of the Lintinera Institute in a large French-speaking economic newspaper. He says, I quote, “Artificially paralyzing women at the top everywhere is not a guarantee of quality but, on the contrary, a threat.”This quote is simply extraordinary as it reveals altogether what many think in conservative and machist circles. Women in the board of directors is a threat! Women in the boards, this is the promotion of parachute ...

It’s not me who says it, it’s him. I just repeat his words.

This is the parachute promotion. We knew the promotion sofa, now we are talking about the promotion parachute. Obviously, we are rising in grade; there is a certain evolution here.

We all know it: women are not stuck under the glass ceiling, we have to go find them from nowhere and parachute them! Obviously, a woman in a board of directors is less skilled!

On the day after the banking crisis, we can’t help but smile because apart from Romy Schneider, we don’t know many bankers. Women in boards are therefore a threat and parachute promotions. It looks like we are back in the 19th century. These words are worthy of those who have always opposed the liberation of women. The word “threat” is revealing. It finally translates well the fear of seeing the barriers of machism fall and the loss of male bastions. It must be believed that the sector is trembling from having to open up more to women in a world until then very machist and conservative.

However, tomorrow, one-third of women will be in the boards of directors of large companies, in public companies and in companies listed on the stock market. This is a struggle that is going on today. This is a major new advance for women in the world of work, it is the beginning of a change that was needed. Indeed, there are three legislatures in which my group is advocating such progress on gender equality. I would even say that this is a fight for women, but it is obviously not an ultra-feminist struggle. This is simply a reality. Today, the vast majority of managerial positions in companies are occupied by men. Women, it has been said, make up less than 8% of the positions in responsibility.

Despite all the beautiful discourses on equality, heard for many years already, parity in the economic world is unfortunately still not a reality. The figures prove this: women still have very difficult access to leadership positions, too difficult.

This unfortunate situation has also occurred within the European Union. We are not the only European country to legislate in this direction. The measure has already been adopted in Norway and – the report refers to it – it bears its fruits, as well as in Spain, Ireland and France.

Better yet, the European Union is calling for an outbreak of archaic mentalities. We recently learned that the European Commission also wants to diversify the composition of the board of directors of companies to make them more efficient and raises the question of possible quotas for women. The President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, and the European Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, Viviane Reding, have already pledged, in early March, for the introduction of quotas in the boards of directors of large companies.

Obviously, we are far away – I quote – “from career concerns of a club of high-level female executives.”

We have heard grinding teeth and saying that a quota system is probably not the ideal. of course . The best solution should have been the natural change of mentalities, the openness of mind, but, unfortunately, in view of the environmental conservatism and machism, my group believes, after six years of waiting, after the debates that took place then in that same parliament, where it was said that self-regulation would solve everything, my group believes that the only thing to do to remedy this disparity, this flagrant immobilism, was and is the establishment of quotas.

Indeed, action had to be taken and quotas were the only effective way, unfortunately, to change mentalities. We have waited long for self-regulation and the Code of Good Governance to act. Again, it was unsuccessful.

Some in this assembly made a last attempt to delay or fail the project. Remember, when the debate was on the agenda in the plenary session, at the end of March, a few political groups demanded the opinion of the State Council, ⁇ without doubt late, but it was their legitimate right. From there to imagine that this was a desperate manoeuvre to delay the debates...

We received the opinion of the State Council and read it carefully. It is important to note that it clearly recognizes the inequality that strikes women in access to managerial positions in large listed companies and public companies.

The opinion does not in any way question the well-founded and the objective of the bill. He even believes that quota policy is a good remedy, a proportionate and adequate remedy to correct this situation. Of course, having taken note of the nuanced opinion of the State Council, we found it important to respond to the comments that were made. Amendments therefore modify certain aspects of the proposals and the original bill; Ms. Dierick referred to them.

Therefore, we have introduced an evaluation within 12 years, in order to allow the legislator to measure the impact of this new measure. Why 12 years? Because the last penalty will apply after 9 years. However, we consider it necessary to leave three additional years for companies to supplement this law with evaluation measures.

Furthermore, we well understood the State Council’s comment, which believed that the nullity of decisions, which was the final sanction, risked to result in serious dysfunctions or even a paralysis of society. The purpose of this text has never been to sanction companies in such a way. This approach is counterproductive. Therefore, it was decided to remove this sanction.

However, the PS group wants a change of mentality. Women, for everything they bring positive in a company, must be present in the boards. Unfortunately, we know from experience, things will only move if we legislate and introduce sanctions for companies that do not comply with quotas. The Norwegian example demonstrates this.

Therefore, as recommended by the Council of State, since it is he who, in the end, gives us the solution, we inspire ourselves from the French legislation and introduce a financial sanction in particular in the head of directors for listed companies: when the board of directors of a listed company is irregularly formed, it will first be subject to the nullity of appointments that do not contribute to go in the sense of the legislation, then a year later, to a sanction that removes the advantages attached to the mandate of directors.

In fact, the sanction for the invalidity of decisions has been replaced by a sanction aimed at suspending all benefits, such as presence tokens. In the Chief of Directors, these suspension means that no benefit will be granted during the period where the composition of the Board of Directors is not in accordance with this Act and that no benefit from that period will obviously be paid retroactively.

This sanction will therefore not harm the life or good health of the company. In addition, administrators will ⁇ want to quickly find quality women in order to meet the requirements of the law.

The State Council also makes other remarks that we can easily justify, in particular the one concerning the opening clause. It is obvious – even though this has never been the goal of this bill – that no woman should be promoted if her skills and abilities are less than a male candidate. We demand strict equal treatment at this level. The nomination must always be based on the titles and merits of the candidates. Nevertheless, it is not difficult for us to think that it will not be impossible for a company to recruit a third of competent women. Another important precision: if one of the directors of the company is a legal entity, the natural person representative will obviously be accounted for in the calculation of quotas.

The PS Group therefore took note of the few remarks made by the State Council and reworked the proposal accordingly, together with other groups. Today things will change! There is an important start in the economic world. This is a change in several times. Public companies should be the example; we have insisted on this. They will therefore have to fold into the system within a year. For companies listed on the stock exchange, the deadline is much longer with, in addition, a distinction made between large companies and SMEs.

I repeat that the aim of the law is a change of mentality. So we took our time. We conducted hearings and heard the testimonies of those who came to tell us about their experience. We took the option of giving time to listed companies to initiate this change. There is obviously no question of sending a negative signal with a quick and disproportionate punishment. This is not an additional constraint for the entrepreneurial world.

Companies will therefore be given the necessary time. On the other hand, it is clear that once these transitional years have passed, the company that does not respect the quotas will be punished.

For my group, the message sent to the economic world is very clear: mentalities must change, immobilism on gender equality is over.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the debate that we are holding today and that we have been holding in the committee for a year now is not about whether more women should come to the summit. Of course, more women should be at the top, and not only in listed companies. Women should be on top everywhere, including in managerial and managerial positions. I think everyone in this Parliament agrees with the goal. More women should get to the top. The question is how we will ⁇ this and I regret that we have not discussed this in the committee. How will we, as legislators, ensure that more women come to the top, that there are more women in the boards of governments?

The proposers of this bill have already chosen a certain remedy, in particular the quota. The quota is, in my view, nothing more than a symbolic measure, rather even a decorative measure. We are going to intervene here in a rather radical way without doing anything to address the structural problems. It does not address the problem of why women do not grow.

Colleagues, my group is not convinced that quotas are the means to ⁇ the goal. We have four reasons for this. First, I see quota as an attack on freedom of enterprise. We know that the shareholders decide on the directors who enter the boards of directors. The shareholders decide this on the basis of one criterion – if it depends on us – and that is competence. This criterion is also contained in the opinion of the State Council. The State Council does not find this criterion in the bill of my colleagues socialists, Christian Democrats and Greens.

I am expecting that the government itself today does not comply with what it will impose on private companies tomorrow. I wonder where those 33 percent of women – for me it may be 51 percent – are in the economic public companies. Where are those women at KBC, Dexia, bpost and NMBS?

My colleague, Karel Uyttersprot, who was also involved in this file, asked Minister Reynders the question. It is a pity that the Minister is not here.

The question is in which financial institutions the government is currently represented and which persons the government has now appointed. I read Minister Reynders’ response: “For BNP Paribas there are two members in the board of directors: the gentlemen Michel Tilmant and Emiel Van Broekhoven. In Dexia is Mr Koen Van Loo. In Ethias Finance are Claude Desseille, Mark Bienstman and Chris Verhaegen. In Fortis Bank is Mr. Wim Coumans. Mr. Jean-Pierre Hansen is at KBC.”Well, dear colleagues, this says enough about the government. The government was able to appoint people in all those boards of governments a few months ago. They are all men; a missed opportunity. Yes, Mr Tuybens

I thought it was the president who gave someone the word.

If a woman stands here on the floor, colleague Tuybens, then she may allow herself to do so.

Do you want the word or not, Mr. Tuybens?

I just want to say that I agree with Mrs. Demir: in my opinion it is not acceptable that the government has designated seven men at that time.

Thank you, Mr Tuybens.

I totally agree with the striking conclusion that has been made about public enterprises. This demonstrates that it is first and foremost up to the public sector to set an example. This also demonstrates that it is always the same small club – if I can express myself this way – which is called to occupy the positions that have been targeted. These elements prove that a change is needed at the level of mentalities, but also decisions that will need to be made.

Collega Fonck, Minister Reynders also says why there are no women. It has nothing to do with the reason you cite.

I think you really give a good illustration, but for all clarity I would like to point out that Chris Verhaegen is a woman.

It is about one woman. I will give you the answer of Minister Reynders to the question of why women are not appointed. This is what the discussion is about. We need to deal with the structural problems. I quote Mr. Reynders: “It may also be a possible evolution in the future. We have received very few candidates from women, in general. It may be possible to do not only the quota, but also a reform of the sectors and stimulate a greater interest among women in the boards of directors.” I have also repeatedly stressed in the committee that we need to do something about it.

I just want to react to what I hear. I will continue to speak later on for my speech on this subject.

I am surprised by your way of presenting things. The reason you refer to justifying your vote against this proposal is the same as on the first day of discussions. There was no unanimity in one direction or the other. A political choice is made, but what is certain is that everyone has noticed that there was an insufficient presence of women in listed companies but also within autonomous public companies. Everyone also found that the fact of not having candidates was the result of this absence and that voluntary steps had to be undertaken to expand the network, to go to find those competent women, which exist.

I would really like that by the end of your intervention, it appears that competent women exist. We need to go to find them and fight against the fact that the “men” network works between men and that they occupy all the positions today.

Colleague, I am glad that you cite those examples and talk about Dexia.

These are all political nominations. What is this law about? The government is interfering with private companies.

Instead of interfering with private companies, it would be better to wipe off the door. All these political parties have made these appointments. With every name you mention, I can even mention the party.

The PS is the first, as 68% of political appointments in Wallonia are from the PS.

It is a lesson to be given to private companies, but in public companies one does not yet dare to wipe out at his own door or wipe out in his own house. What I find scandalous about the whole legislation is that private companies are being taught here. One would better look at the beam in one’s own eye rather than the splinter in another’s eye.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify, in order not to be mistaken in the debate, that there are no PS administrators sent into the banks by the government.

When we named them, we chose, for example, Laurence Bovy as head of the SNCB.

We have no lessons to learn from anyone.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am convinced that the proposers of the bill should actually start looking in their own ranks. Before we intervene, we must try to create a role model for private companies in public companies. I personally think that the regulation in this country is already high enough for private companies and entrepreneurs.

Then I find this quota not a good measure because it is not a social, but an associal measure. This has also been shown in Norway, which colleague Tuybens would like to refer to. This measure, specifically for listed companies, affects only a minority of women; only a small, selected group of women is placed on a privileged level and that is, in my opinion, unaccountable.

As regards the reference to Norway and the Scandinavian countries, so far no research has shown that the introduction of the mandatory quota at the governance level in Norway has led to better business performance or to a greater presence of women in management positions. In addition, Norway has a completely different economy than us. In Norway the quota was introduced because 40 to 50 % of the companies are state-owned companies. In addition, Norway has a completely different family policy that is in no way comparable to the family policy here in Belgium.

Colleagues, it is a pity that there was no discussion in the committee about what the government should do or want to address this problem. It is scandalous that in 2011 fewer than 10 % of women were in the boards of directors. I am the first to say that this is not possible. However, the committee has not addressed the need for the government, the legislature, to create conditions that allow women to develop more effectively in companies and to have opportunities for growth and to reach the top. Government should not create equal outcomes, as Marike Stellinga has said. But that is what the government will do, while creating equal opportunities. That is the task of the government.

I have already said in the committee that we need to take a different approach. We must ensure that women are given more opportunities, but not through the stigmatizing policy of quotas.

Government must solve the real problems. What are the real problems? These are flexible working hours. I think every woman knows this. If a woman wants to pick up her child at the nursery at 18:00 and then at 16:00 wants to stop working because she still loses some time in the file, then it is still strange to look at it.

Why could this woman not work at home? Therefore, I say that we should focus on flexible working hours and promote, for example, homework.

Finally, what we are doing here is the same thing. We also have children in kindergarten, but we are working. The nurse makes nights, works in pauses: ⁇ , she also encounters kindergarten and childhood problems.

A woman, head of business or who should be appointed in listed companies, will find it difficult to go and pick up her children at the nursery. But here we are organizing!

I don’t understand how you can talk like that. Women, or other men, who have irregular hours must organize themselves, whether they are parliamentarians or business leaders. I do not understand the difference.

Before speaking to Mr. Tuybens, I would like to say that as chairman of the House, I have proposed to the College of Questors to consider the installation of a child care facility. I was very much supported by Mr. Bracke: I have to say it, because the truth has its rights. I hope that we will be supported when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is something unfair in the reasoning that the N-VA is developing. It is as if the proposers of the bill would only choose quotas and would like to put aside all other accompanying measures. Nothing is less true! We very explicitly request that an en-en policy be carried out and that other measures be taken in addition to the quota, such as those developed by Flemish Minister Kathleen Van Brempt in the past.

In this regard, Mrs Demir, I would like to draw up a Dutch daily newspaper dated 26 May of this year. The top companies in the Netherlands were asked to accept an initiative for more women at the top. We determined that only 7 of the 25 AEX companies wanted to sign it. However, multinational companies such as Shell, AKZO, Philips, DSM and many others deliberately left the charter "Talent to the Top". They are currently not even willing to participate in the initiative to lead more women to the top of companies.

We say very explicitly that an en-en policy must be carried out. This is very clear. However, we note in the figures that this has not happened in recent years. Therefore, quotas are needed. Quotas are the last refuge. We stand for an en-en-story. It is unfair to suggest that we only want quotas and want to lay down the rest beside us. That is not the reality.

Mr. Tuybens, I have had to hear your and-en-story in the committee several times. However, the fact is that today there are only quotas on the table and no accompanying measures. In Norway, which you would like to refer to, all accompanying measures were introduced simultaneously. Quotas have no meaning, as long as there are no more women flowing from below to the top positions. The imposition of quotas is unproductive.

It is not an en-en-story. Those accompanying measures such as improving environmental factors for female careers are needed first. You refer to the Netherlands, I would like to refer to Germany. In Germany, the Minister of Family Affairs has developed a steep approach. Germany does not work with mandatory quotas, but begins to improve environmental factors such as childcare and leave structures, all in accordance with the Scandinavian model, so that work and family are better aligned. In the second phase, voluntary quotas are introduced.

Companies that do not meet the objectives are evaluated. I think they have time until 2013 to accomplish something.

If they do not comply, they are obliged to set themselves goals and present themselves with a plan of action. This gives companies time to grow women from the bottom, which is a approach that is a hundred times better than imposed quotas, which only put more pressure on the companies.

What we propose is an evolutionary model in which the code of corporate governance fits perfectly.

Over the course of seven years, employees evolve until they are mature for it. In your proposal, employees who come out of nothing will be dropped. However, they must be able to experience an evolution in their own company or in another company in order to grow to the top. You want to put a number of people in high positions without indicating any other qualification.

We have submitted an amendment to make this qualification mandatory. A number of qualification requirements for state-owned companies should be the standard for us. You voted out of all that.

I fall here over a word. I am always surprised at the lack of sense of reality.

We are talking about management mandates in listed companies. I hear talking about childcare.

Do you know who is the director of listed companies and what they get paid? Do you think paying for a childcare is about it? I have here the beautiful example of Mrs. Morrissey of London, a 45-year-old CEO of Newton Investment Management, who gave birth to 9 children.

She can do that because she has a nanny and a homeworking husband, but takes eight weeks of maternity leave and is extremely fat-paid.

Either we talk here about nurseries, about the flow of women – and I will talk about it later in my presentation – or we talk about management mandates in Belgian top companies, where you get paid tens of thousands of euros per year. Let me take Solvay as an example. The minimum mandate at Solvay amounts to 64,000 euros and if one goes, one receives another 1,500 euros. We are talking about that. Stop talking about childcare.

Through the discussions we have had, we have highlighted that other arrangements are needed to promote women’s access to a range of responsible positions. At the same time, I thought that in this federal assembly, one should not start to talk long about skills that fall within other levels of power, in terms of early childhood reception, for example. We abstained and remained within our federal powers.

But the reason I ⁇ wanted to intervene, is that it is completely unacceptable to hear, even today, Mr. Uyttersprot, someone say that competent women will need to give them a qualification so that they can exercise a mandate of administrator. We have never asked ourselves the question before and suddenly, when we talk about the presence of women, we say to ourselves that we must be competent, that we must go to school, that we must be trained to be a company administrator. For me, this obligation is for everyone and it should have been the case for a long time, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. And competent women, I regret having to remind you, they exist.

Mrs Gerkens, you will not be able to put us in the corner of the women-hating or women-hating parties or people. There are competent women. When it comes to creating a framework with accompanying measures, it is just about pushing those competent women up, so that they can take those functions.

Mr. Dedecker, excuse me, but it is not because those women make a lot of money that they should no longer be given the choice to spend time with their family. This applies to men and women, colleagues.

We need to get out of the debate about kindergartens that only concern children from zero to three years of age. In fact, a woman’s professional career is not limited to these three years. Furthermore – and I hope there have been, there are, and there will be, among this assembly – there are also men who will take their child(s) to the nursery.

Let us also not pretend that nothing has been done at any level of power whatsoever and that no signal has been given, in particular, to administrations and ⁇ . These issues have been discussed in the committee. Initiatives have also been taken at the level of private companies, in particular, with the notion of gender diversity in the boards of directors and the famous corporate governance.

For my part, I am not a fanatic of quotas and even less when it comes to women. But it is true that, if a real boost is not given, in ten years, things will not have changed.

Furthermore, I find denigrating and irritating the argument mainly invoked by those and those who are opposed to change, which is to say that there are not enough qualified and experienced women.

I would like to remind you that there is a predominance of female academics. Furthermore, the Women on board association, which brings together a whole series of female candidates administrators in the form of a computer directory, has identified, in a recent project subsidized by the Minister of Equal Opportunities, about sixty women who are ready to sit immediately in a board of directors and who are not simply depository of a “good sex” degree to meet the quota, but who possess the skills to assume this kind of responsibility.

Let’s stop saying that we don’t have competent women. Let’s stop saying that women do not have the desire or have no time to find themselves in this type of position. Let us also stop invoking a problem of organization of society.

If you wish, I will communicate the list – it includes 60 names per month – because 100 to 150 jobs will have to be secured as a result of the adoption – which I hope – of the bill.

and advance. Things can be done and done well. And it is not only – I repeat it – a question of belonging to the right sex, but also and above all of competence.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the recent discussion here on whether or not there is enough potential in women, everyone agrees that there is enough talent and potential in many women. However, just the difficult combination of work and family and career and family makes it difficult for many women in reality. They also make sure that they do not choose the top jobs.

On the above level, the calf is essentially bound.

However, you prove it yourself here too. Mrs. Demir has proved it here. You argue that it is only a matter of will. Why is it then that your government, your government, and your political parties in the boards of directors of listed companies do not delegate women? How does that come?

I conclude from this that you actually state that the government and political parties do not want women in the boards of governments.

I am even inclined to think that there is a great willingness among the heads of all companies and also of political parties and governments in this regard to effectively dismiss women in the boards of directors.

It is not a lack of will. Essential is what Ms. Demir has outlined here, the assumption that it must be taken care of creating the best conditions in order to ensure that women voluntarily choose such jobs.

Dear colleagues, it is very interesting to have a debate, to consider that the essential debate is the one we conduct between us, while finding that the speakers then limit their interventions to their simplest expression! This is a first thing.

The second thing. The world consists of more than 50% of women. Fortunately for those gentlemen who are less numerous tonight in our Assembly – they are 14 and we are 21, I counted – we represent practically, at that precise moment, the composition of the world. This composition is not questioned by anyone.

With the evolution of mentalities and education, I consider that all women are competent. I don’t know what kind of debate you’re in here.

As a lawyer exercising in my office that I called “Lawyer’s Office,” I only work with women. I don’t want that in my private company – and that’s the only point we’re discussing here, I think – gender quotas are imposed on me! I thought at one point that female collaborators, lawyers, worked better than employees, and so I made the choice of these collaborators. On the other hand, I would like to tell you that in the chapter of men and women and discrimination, I know a bit of it! This is not a discrimination, it is simply a choice of business; I found that, for some subjects, they were specifically more competent, which does not question the competence of men.

Third, in the judicial world, which is an institutional world, you see more and more magistrates. While this world is seen, at first, as an eminently macho and conservative world, with the machist and conservative atmosphere, it might now be necessary to foresee a mixture of genders in some courts. In fact, it happens that men who are in front of a correctional court or an appeal court find themselves in front of three magistrates while they are prosecuted for abandoning family for not paying the maintenance to the mother of the children. This is an a priori annoying position that should also be able to remedy.

It is therefore neither a problem of competence, nor the problem of the evolution in society; it is in the private environment that things are imposed or not imposed that cannot be imposed elsewhere, and this, by deviating from the freedom of association enshrined by the Constitution. This is the only point of the debate.

I would just like to point out for the correction of the minutes that there are 16 men and 20 women in the Assembly.

The minister is no longer there, but I had not counted it!

I am convinced that there are enough competent women. This is not the discussion. What I just said is that the government, like in Germany, should focus on creating the necessary conditions to make it easier for women to grow up to the top.

Among other things, I talked about flexible working hours. I didn’t talk about childcare, because this is a Flemish competence. I also talked about parental leave, because soon the parental leave will be extended to 4 months. I hope that this parental leave will be distributed and that it will not be the woman again to take it. If we look at the figures of the time credit, we find that 80 % of the thematic promise of time credit is included by the woman, because the woman must take care of the family. How do you want the woman to grow up to the top if the woman stays away from her job for 5 or 10 years?

Finally, there must also be a change of mentality. The reality is still the classic role pattern. As long as there is no mental change, I fear that this Chamber will be able to approve thousands of quotas.

In the committee, my group submitted an amendment to the boards of directors of both public companies and listed companies. In public companies, we want to combine gender diversity with transparency and competence. This is, by the way, what the State Council said in its opinion. I have found that the subjects of this bill have rejected this amendment. I can therefore only conclude that for the proposers of this bill not only the gender, but also the political color is important.

For the publicly listed private companies, we, together with the colleagues of Open Vld and MR, had proposed to combine gender diversity with the comply-or-explain method. This method has recently also been applied to listed companies. I hope that the proposers of this bill realize that the work has not yet been completed with the approval of this quota. On the contrary, the work only begins. Mr. Tuybens, I have not yet seen much of the accompanying measures. I hope that I will see them soon, because I only assume that you first put this bill on the agenda and then, together with the colleagues of the PS, the bonuses, while you perfectly could have submitted a bill on the accompanying measures.

I only note that the priorities appear to be somewhere else.

Finally, I would like to address the female colleagues in this hemisphere, with an apology to my male colleagues. I do this with a quote that reflects the core of my argument very clearly. It comes from Mrs. Stellinga. She says: “I thought that feminism was fighting for me to be seen as an individual and not primarily as a woman, and at all not as a female who can only reach the summit with the help of the government.” I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I have decided, in my speech, to be optimistic and to consider that the text we adopted in a committee, which we are discussing today and which will be adopted tomorrow, I hope, is in fact a step that devotes respect for equality between men and women in the concrete dimensions of our economic life.

That is what matters. In our Constitution, we have inserted equality between men and women in our country. In fact, this equality is not respected. Now we provide the tools to enable the observance of this equality in the organization of economic life.

I also consider that the proposal to which we came after hearings, after meetings, many discussions, a State Council opinion, which we accepted – I remember other proposals where the State Council opinion was rejected – because we considered that this opinion was an element that could add credit and strength to the arrangement we are planning, is a practical, moderate, reasonable, argued text that has truly integrated all the elements.

What concerns us now is to proudly carry this disposition and to ensure that it is surrounded by a work of promoting all those women who have the skills to perform such functions.

However, since we started discussing this proposal, things have already evolved. I do not believe a coincidence that at the time when we are working on the bills in question, the representative of the Corporate Governance Commission comes to submit to us in commission a proposal that – except for the fact that it is not a law because companies spontaneously do not like the regulation that a law represents and prefer self-regulation and explanation in case they do not respect the obligations that they set out between them – once deprived of its “regulation” aspect, stipulates that, from now on, they will undertake to alternately replace any administrator arriving at the end of his mandate, by a man and a woman. In doing so, by 2013-2014, the mandates to be conferred (about 150) will be, at a rate of one-third, women.

We are facing a true philosophical and political positioning: can politics give itself the right to regulate or can it only follow what the economic environment agrees to do without engaging or being coerced? We opted for quotas and for the obligation because the observation of facts demonstrated that it was necessary and because we really believe in this role of regulation.

This regulation also applies to autonomous public enterprises. It is clear that they are the first to meet these obligations. We, as men and women politicians, as representatives of parties, as political mandators, also have this obligation to appoint women in these boards of administration in such a way as to reach these quotas and even go beyond the third of women.

Another positive element since we started working is that the word has been given to business leaders (and bosses) and administrators. More and more, the speech of these women who are executives, directors, administrators is as follows: “We are bored to be confronted with a tool like quotas. It is true that we had to fight to make our skills recognized. We have had to face conservative and machist reflexes and we have obtained our position, our mandate thanks to our skills and our strength of character."But they add: "We have to see that in fact, the number of women is too low and that it does not evolve."

Some are pro-quotas and those who say they are against also recognize that it is necessary for things to move and that the quota is the only concrete tool to do so. This is ⁇ the worst means, but the only effective, which makes it indispensable. That is why we also provided in our bill a evaluation after 12 years. If after 12 years, you find yourself with enough women, that things work, that it has become normal for everyone that it happens this way, the law can simply be removed or modified. After 12 years, the board of directors will have been renewed virtually twice since the mandates are generally six years. At that time, the device can be revised if necessary.

These women are increasingly making the same conclusion as us and agree on the need to have a binding tool to ⁇ this goal.

In my preparatory text, I had indicated that no one would dare to say that competent women are difficult to find, or that they will probably need to be trained to become more competent so that they can properly execute these mandates. I realize that I was a bit too optimistic and that there is still work to be done to change the perception of women.

However, at no time was it in the intention of the authors to favor a woman who would have lower skills than a male candidate, simply because she is a woman. All individuals should be appreciated for their qualities. It is also not about adding new qualification criteria for becoming an administrator due to the mandatory number of women in the board of directors. There would be hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Finally, experiences conducted and evaluated across countries and companies clearly indicate that the more gender-diversified management or decision-making bodies, including board of directors, are composed, the more creative and respectful these companies are for their workers, their environment and their customers, and the more able they are to adapt to the market and their environment.

We see that these new analyses, these new ways of doing and new looks allow for modernization and a new life in the company.

Administrators tend to search for other administrators in their own relationship network. Today, these relationship networks of administrators are actually essentially made up of men. The interest of the law we have filed is to force the opening of the network to meet and seek other partners who are women. Through this, it is about integrating them into the different networks, sources of personalities and people resources.

Finally, by this law, companies, whose boards are 100% female, will be forced to open themselves to diversity and integrate a third of male members.

It will also be a way to bring fresh air, creativity and diversity to companies and their boards.

Finally, I will insist on the fact that the law that we voted in committee remains a moderate and progressive law. Companies have at least seven years to meet their obligations; sanctions will not appear immediately, but only after the number of years left to companies according to their characteristics, and the evaluation will be carried out only after 12 years. If things need to be changed, they will be.

How can we then build a more concrete, more respectful and more progressive tool than the one adopted in the committee?

I believe that the parliamentary work we have carried out was responsible, respectful of economic actors, but in a context of clearly affirmed will to respect equality between men and women: it is an unavoidable and indisputable obligation in our society.

The glass ceiling and the underrepresentation of women in decision-making bodies and in top positions of companies is a reality. However, gender diversity pays off. Companies where women participate in top positions are successful, adaptive, can crisis better boss and so on. This is also a reality. Everyone here shares the noble and important purpose that the present bills serve. This is also a reality.

That the current legislation would ⁇ this goal is a fiction. It is a fiction that has caused fierce emotions and for principled statements. This is not surprising in the light of the Constitution and the various rights to be included in it. This exercise has also been made by the State Council in its opinion.

There is no automatic and unconditional priority. The benefits should be taken into account and there should be opening clauses. The State Council has tried to highlight all this in its opinion. In my humble opinion, this is somewhat inconvenient by the proposers of the proposals.

An important difference in the opinion, which is also reflected in the positioning of our group, is that between public companies and private companies. Some colleagues have already said it, my group and I have absolutely no problem with the government being a good example and showing that gender diversity is very important. For private companies it is different. The balance between the different fundamental rights is different. In my opinion, and I also read this in the opinion of the State Council, the freedom of association still weighs a little more than the translation of the principle of equality and of non-discrimination, which is at the basis of the quota.

We are in favor of a voluntary approach. This will not surprise you. There is already reference to the code for good governance, the method comply or explain and so on. In the committee I have often heard the argument that this has never worked and that nothing has been done about it, but we have only since 2010 a legal basis for that code. I am convinced that through this code, a result will be achieved faster, respecting the specificity of each enterprise. I think that is of capital importance.

A legally mandatory quota testifies to me of mistrust in business, especially since that code, as mentioned, has only been in force since 2010. Such things create distrust. I think business executives and shareholders are prone to reason, to arguments that prove that they enhance the well-being of their company. Gender diversity is such an argument. That is a reality. The Dutch model, already detailed here, and the German model prove that.

A legally mandatory quotum is for me the blind wrath of the bundles you see here next to me. It is an intervention in the organic tissue of an enterprise and also of society, precisely while the matter of gender diversity is so delicate and organic. It is something in the mentality, in the will, in the view of the world. This is not a Dura lex, sed lex. This has also been shown in Norway. Norway has already been mentioned as an example, but I will bring it up for a moment.

The following should be of interest to me regarding the content of the amendments. For me, it just comes down to the fact that one wants to squeeze his conscience. It is to make a wrap around the finger that the Council of State has placed on the wounds that were present in the original texts.

Nor do I consider the present proposal to be a remedy for a wound that I, together with other colleagues, would like to put my finger on. The real injury is the situation in the workplace. Such are the circumstances, it is the possibility to choose as a man or as a woman for the contacts, family or work. These are structural measures for the reform of our labour market.

Mr. Tuybens, you said that in the committee meeting and I rejected it. You repeated it in this plenary session and I will repeat it again. There has been no movement along your wing to put flexible working hours on the agenda. And then I do not agree about service checks.

Mrs. Speaker, I would like to comment on Mr. Schiltz’s arguments regarding the State Council. I think this is exactly an example of proper and constructive consideration of the State Council opinion.

Mr Schiltz, we have had a very long discussion with the six parties who submitted the compromise text. First, we talked about the desired sanction. We wanted the nullity of all decisions. We eventually agreed on this, but since the State Council had advised that there might be a problem with the proportionality of the legitimate restriction on freedom of association, we considered it more cautious to reduce the sanction. As you know, Mr Schiltz, freedoms can be restricted when there is a legitimate purpose for it and when the restriction is proportionate to that purpose.

Of course, the guarantee of another fundamental fundamental right, the equality of men and women, is a legitimate reason.

It only depends on that proportionality. In a situation where we are dealing with conflicting fundamental rights, it is obvious that it is up to the legislator to make a well-informed and well-motivated choice. I would like to point out that it is remarkable that the State Council did not use the argument, however obvious to some, that there was a conflict between the rights of men and the rights of women. No, the State Council found that there were good grounds to consider and adopt this quota measure, in view of a serious problem of gender inequality. We have then brought to our attention another, much lesser problem of conflicting rights, which relates to the freedom of association and which we have addressed by improving proportionality and by considerably lightening the sanction, though without wanting to give up its effectiveness.

Mrs Brems, I would like to return for a moment to the opinion of the State Council, which, in your opinion, has been greatly received. In some technical remarks, this is indeed the case. The sanction of invalidity was so grounded by the Council of State that it could indeed not otherwise be adjusted.

However, there is no solution to two fundamental comments of the State Council. The State Council makes it clear that it would be better for the quota rule to be set as a principle and a goal rather than as a law. A second principle that the State Council cites and clearly presents is the guarantee and freedom of association, Article 27 of the Constitution. In my opinion, this is being addressed too little.

Mrs. Speaker, I quote: “The main criticism of the State Council is that the bill is contrary to the freedom of association. However, this is a constitutional right. This means in this case that the general meeting of shareholders of a company should be able to freely choose who may sit in the board of directors. The General Assembly must be able to do so in all sovereignty. That freedom of choice must be ⁇ ined, but by unconditionally imposing that one of the three directors must be a woman, the basic rules in the Company Act are put on a slope.” Regarding the sanction: “The sanction here affects executive directors because their remuneration is bound to a decision not taken by her, but by the general assembly.”

When you read a State Council opinion, you can at least read it in its entirety! We are all excellent lawyers or lawyers and I think we can interpret the State Council’s opinion as it arranges us.

In the paragraph you cited, the State Council mentions, in the beginning, the example of independent administrators. The fact of imposing quotas of directors in the boards of private companies listed on the stock exchange is not a first.

The State Council cites the case of independent administrators without drawing any conclusions. He then says that there may possibly be a contradiction with the freedom of association. I do not see where the difference is, as regards the violation of the freedom of association, between imposing quotas for independent directors and imposing gender quotas.

There are three elements.

There is what Ms. Brems has outlined and which is very clearly outlined in the principles of the State Council. The State Council also notes that there are criteria that must be met. Finally, there is the principle of proportionality. This is about different fundamental rights. One fundamental right is freedom of association. Another fundamental right is the principle of equality. This is the balanced balance we need to make.

Second, there is an exception that is not punished and for which no discussion is left, in particular the exception of independent directors.

Third, I read in the opinion of the State Council that sufficient freedom of choice for the general assembly should be ⁇ ined.

If I can choose to make up a third of my board of directors from 50 percent or more of the population, my freedom of choice will be large enough. In fact, reading the opinion of the State Council shows that I can still choose even on the basis of the criterion of persons with a certain degree. For example, the number of psychologists will be smaller than the number of women in our population or the number of people with other degrees. The freedom of choice is thus guaranteed, even when we set out that for a limited margin of 33% the attention should go to the woman.

Mrs Becq, I thank you for your contribution.

As is clearly apparent, a judgment of the State Council can be read in various ways, which I also find evident. If I were to sit in the Council of State, I would also like to give a nuanced opinion and to balance both fundamental rights as delicately as possible.

The above is, by the way, the reason why, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the debates were so hot. After all, everyone has their own view of the matter.

Of course, the Council of State will have left an opening and have noted that the principle of equality must, of course, also be pursued.

Mrs Brems, we, in our capacity as lawmakers, should rightly choose the best means for this purpose. When choosing a means, we must choose a proportionate means, in order not to impose or restrict too much force on another fundamental right.

My criticism is simply – I follow in this regard the members who have given some quotes – that it is not true what Mrs. Brems declares, namely that the Council of State has also accidentally pointed to the fundamental right of freedom of association. Both rights, on the other hand, stand colossally side by side in all their importance.

The problem I have in this regard is that you have only intervened on the sanctions. We, like MR and N-VA, submitted amendments that were also more nuanced and deviated from our initial position. They also went further in the search for a nuanced approach to the problem, in order to move away from the rigid, stigmatizing quota and more toward a reality-oriented policy. That opportunity has been missed.

Colleagues, that’s what I have called a “shell” for the finger that the Council of State has placed on the wound. We have missed an opportunity to find an even greater consensus on this issue.

That consensus can consist of finding real, structural measures on the workplace, whatever that workplace may be, whether it is a board of directors, a management function or everything below in various ranks of society.

I disagree that a nursery or flexible working hours are not important. I think that is crucial. I think the beginning of gender diversity and gender equality is that both men and women can choose the extent to which they spend time with their families.

Let us be aware, it is very often the family that causes a woman, ⁇ from a slightly more sharpened sense of responsibility or ⁇ because of an old-fashioned role pattern, to be pushed faster into that role. That freedom of choice and equality of choice is essential. I think we need to commit ourselves permanently to this.

What ultimately strikes me is the following. It is about a change of mentality, about awareness, about the minds that need to change.

In all other fields of law, about which we make laws here, the opposite happens; there I see the left side – you call yourself the progressive side – advocating coaching and guidance. That is logical.

Youth crime is another example. If one has to let someone go through a awareness, and that is also common consciousness in crime, it makes no sense to simply lock someone up and not try to make it clear to him in what way he made a mistake.

Well, colleagues, I also do not see how you here with this strict, strict law – even if it comes into force only within seven years, I still find it a strict law, for that I am of course a liberal –, with these green bundles of the hard law, you will try to change the mentality in our country. This is also a reality, I fear.

The good thing about men and women is that they don’t understand each other. Godfried Bomans said. Colleagues, I must say that I myself do not understand the women who are so persistently in favor of that denigrating women’s quota and a lot of ladies in top positions who have been hit by their own strength share that opinion.

In practice, we find that today, indeed, there are very few women in the boards of corporate governments. We must establish a segregation between men and women in the labour market in general. In several professions, there are huge differences in the male-female relationships.

One prior concern is that today apparently only the companies are fishing. I wonder then why the debate is not opened to the representation of women in top organs of, let alone those, trade unions and hospital funds and so on. In a next step, men may also be able to claim women’s quota for professions that are almost entirely male until later. I think then, for example, of the sewage worker, road worker, plumber. So why not a male quota in professions such as teachers in primary school?

Today, however, there are only quotas in the boards of governments. As colleague Demir has already said, on the goal today everyone agrees. What we oppose is the means: the legally mandatory quota. Are we against the equality of men and women? Of course not, on the contrary. The fundamental rights, such as the right to education, should be guaranteed by the government. The government must ensure that men and women, all individuals, have equal opportunities. If the government imposes quotas in top positions, it goes a step further than offering equal opportunities, then it also wants to determine the outcome.

The quotas are, it has already been said today, an attack on the freedom of enterprise. In this criticism we are also followed by the Council of State. A Director must be appointed by the General Assembly. The shareholders should appoint them and they should have the necessary freedom to determine the ideal composition of their decision-making body. One of the pro quota arguments is that companies guarantee a noticeably better return as gender diversity in the boards of directors increases. Be assured that nothing stops shareholders from appointing those managers who guarantee a better return. They do not need any imposed rules. A board of directors should simply consist of competent managers, nothing more. The assignment of functions must therefore be based on the competence, personality and profile of the candidates.

Women can make their own choices. The feminists may not like to hear it, but one must be able to accept that women make different choices than men. Sociological research shows that a minority of women want to make a career. After all, many women are unwilling to make great sacrifices on a personal or family level in order to reach the top.

A better balance between work and family is therefore much more useful than an artificial rule.

We fear – and that fear was fuelled by what we heard from the mouths of some speakers during the hearings – that all anti-discrimination laws are getting a perverse effect. The anti-discrimination laws and all kinds of positive discrimination threaten to divide the population more than ever into the categories of male and female.

As a woman, just once, after the approval of the proposal, be dumped into the board of directors of a company, because one is a woman, because the law requires a woman to sit there, and not primarily because one is competent and has the necessary qualifications.

That will be the perverse effect of the present proposal. The women who will sit in the boards of governments will no longer be considered full, because they have come there on the basis of legally imposed quotas. The concept of excommunication is not taken out of the air.

Several self-employed organisations have conducted a survey showing that no less than 81 % of surveyed business executives are opposed to legally mandatory quotas. Although this is not a case for listed companies, it is clear that the fear is alive and that it is real that the mandatory quota scheme will eventually spread to SMEs as well.

Are they self-employed against women in the boards of governments? Of course not, but on the contrary. They find a mixture of women and men equally enriching, but in fact they find the gender not decisive. Currently – and should remain – the knowledge, competence and experience to sit in a board of directors are decisive.

In many companies, a woman leads the board of directors and she does it well. She does this not well because she is a woman, but because she has the knowledge, the competence and the experience.

We have heard the example of Norway several times today. In the discussion in the committee, the existing quota in Norway was also repeatedly referenced with a surprisingly obvious nature. Through a compulsory law, it has indeed been achieved to bring the percentage of female drivers to more than 40% in a few years. If it succeeds there, it must also succeed here, one reasones then, although there are some elements in which one does not stand still and for which I would still like to put the points on the i.

First, Norway has a very different and, above all, much longer history in promoting equality between men and women.

Second, there are major differences between the Norwegian and Belgian economies. The ownership structure of the Belgian and Norwegian companies is also fundamentally different.

In Norway, the government owns a large proportion of the listed shares. As I just said, in Norway, a whole range of accompanying measures were taken simultaneously with the quota, such as a 18-month training programme focused on networking, women’s leadership development, more women in management positions and the improvement of the balance between work and private life.

Despite these favorable conditions and accompanying measures in Norway, this success story must also be nuanced. I recommend everyone to review the results of the scientific research of Professor Wim Voordeckers of the University of Hasselt. This shows, among other things, that in Norway there have also been perverse effects of that quota, such as the fact that men who have worked to the summit for years are still overlooked, in fact discriminated, by inexperienced female colleagues. Following the introduction of the quota, one in six Norwegian listed companies has left the stock exchange. So the Norwegian success story is just a little more nuanced than it would like to be suggested.

Indeed, the proportion of women in top positions in this country is quite low today, in 2006 it was 6 %, in 2010 10 %. In the last two years, however, we have seen an increase. Last week, we could hear in the media that the number of women in higher positions among employees has doubled.

The same goes for the Corporate Governance Code. The latest version also includes gender diversity. My former professor at KU Leuven, Herman Daems, said in the committee that the mentality is already changing and I think he has a good vision on this as chairman of the Corporate Governance Commission. Give that code some time to create a change of mentality instead of interfering brutally in the law without providing the necessary flexibility. The comply-or-explain rule makes sure to ⁇ the intended goals with the necessary flexibility. Contrary to today’s proposal, it also shows confidence in companies.

The imposition of quotas for women in board of directors may sound morally good, but why should it be legally absolutely forbidden that a board of directors may deviate from them? Why should a company that runs well, where good profits are achieved, where social harmony is sought, where workers are well remunerated for their performance and all possible social services are made available, be obliged to use in the board of directors quotas for women if, for example, in that company women are not available for this?

Finally, focusing on the board is a wrong focus. It is not because quotas impose more women in the board of directors, that there will also be more women in higher management positions.

This is only the case if that mentality change comes from below. As long as there are no more women flowing from below to top positions, imposing quotas is a very unproductive method.

In conclusion, we have heard a lot of quota quotas today, but there are still a lot of principled objections to such a quota rule for women. First of all, it is another paternalist government bullying and a new brake on free entrepreneurship. One does not create a better business climate by parachuting people in management positions or higher decision-making bodies on the basis of quotas. Quota combat the symptom without correcting the system itself. So give the corporate governance code some time to continue the mentality change. Work on a broad, positive approach and make every effort to create and encourage a family-friendly business environment rather than putting it under pressure.

The initial proposals could not take away our approval. The compromise proposal, which had to be amended after the Council of State and which is put to the vote today, cannot do so either. The different tracks and distinctions that are made, by the way, only make it more complex. During the discussion of the proposals, the mouth was also always politically correct with a correct reflection and a proper representation. After approval, this will be the second bill that will be passed without a majority on the Flemish side. The Flemish Interest will not support the quota at all.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. We could have hoped that sociologically, culturally, things would have evolved and that with the first bills that were submitted here, the parliament should not, ten years later, be forced to take this matter in hand.

The first bill was submitted in 2000 by Mrs. Willame (PSC) and Mrs. de Bethune (CVP).

Since then, the road has remained crowded with obstacles and – it must be noted – in this sector, things have not evolved, despite an opinion issued in 2006 by the Council for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women, opinion that quotas are the only effective means for a legal representation of men and women.

In 2008, less than 7% of women were in the board of directors of listed companies.

In 2009, the Minister of Employment and Equal Opportunities launched, with the kern agreement, an intergovernmental working group on quotas. You could then believe that things were going to evolve.

Proposals of laws have been submitted. One of them came from the CDH. They were discussed in a committee and one of them was the subject of broad consensus.

I repeat that we should not have legislated.

Why should this still be done when we have witnessed feminisation in all professions over the last 20 years? If one considers the liberal professions (the doctors, architects, lawyers), the public service (the magistrates), all the functions exercised in schools, universities, if one considers the success rate in the latter, one finds that everything has evolved. Nevertheless, there is still a small island of resistance that does not want to believe that evolution can take place and in a positive way.

Why Why ? Is it impossible in this sector to reconcile work and private life? and no. Is this due to the presence of stereotypes in this sector? I want to believe that not. Is this due to a networking culture of people who know, meet and protect each other?

As I said, less than 7% of women are represented in listed companies. Self-regulation, the natural trend, did not help move things. Some countries have therefore decided to take over the problem and legislate, which is why we, in turn, have submitted a bill.

Why not let things happen naturally? Why do we need a quota?

For two reasons. First of all, because behind the societies that depend on public authorities – the economic public enterprises – lies the public power: the citizens and citizens. It is only normal that they are represented within the organs in which the public power designates its representatives. As for listed companies, is it not the money of all our citizens and citizens that is collected there? Why should women’s and men’s money only result in allowing men to sit in the boards of directors? There is also functional equality, economic equality, recognition in relation to the democratic legitimacy of companies, autonomous public enterprises and also the fact that the companies listed on the stock exchange draw their essential means of subsistence from the Stock Exchange and therefore from a harvest of financial means that come from the portfolios of ladies as well as from the portfolios of men.

The solution to compose the boards of one-third of female representatives seems a world, something unattainable! A third and again, rounded to the lower unit, because it is a mathematical third. When they are five, it will be enough that one of them is of a different genre. This is not in any way exaggerated! This is not a revolution! This is not something unattainable! At Women on Boards, there are over 70 women who are willing to take on their various responsibilities. And if we give ourselves a few calculations, it would be missing in the long run, in six years, 150!

I hear reactions like, “Let’s let things be done!” The Echo of the Stock Exchange titled this morning in its second section: "In terms of salary as well as extra-legal benefits, the gap between men and women has grown." We are not in 1897 where, on the last page, it was stated: "Women are now admitted to the School of Fine Arts in Paris."

It is important to note that this is also a fact. When the latter is not acceptable, it refers to the rule of law, which is expressed through the whole of citizens and citizens. All powers emanate from the latter, from a parliament that sets rules, a framework and, if he hears it, also sets priorities. This is the situation!

Some will reiterate that we are infringing on freedom of association. Do you still believe that in listed companies all shareholders are equal?

Anyone who believes this economically would do well to review his literature on the subject. In listed companies, it is a minority that determines the composition of the board of directors and it is false to believe that all shareholders come to vote in these listed companies. This minority is the one who from the Board of Directors conducts the General Assembly. I would like to invite you to read the Commission report on the financial crisis in this regard. The mechanism is perfectly described here as in the rest of the literature.

For the association, is it not the responsibility of Parliament to say that it imposes independent directors and that it intends quotas to be respected? Is that not also our responsibility? However, it is the Parliament that creates the conditions under which corporate law is exercised. It is up to him to do so and if he wants to add training conditions to exercise a responsibility or if he wants to prohibit the appointment of an administrator, for example following a criminal conviction, he automatically reduces the right of association. This is our right, not to dislike those who interpret the opinion of the State Council otherwise!

Article 1a of the Treaty of Lisbon states: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for men, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to Member States in a society characterized by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.”

Article 3 states: “The Union shall combat social exclusion, discrimination and promote justice, social protection and equality between women and men.” To promote, that is to say, to act positively, is not to find a fact, it is to be able to react in a timely manner, and in case of discrimination, to be able to legislate to avoid them, as in terms of salary. In the name of freedom, will some say that salaries will be set differently for men and women while the disparities are only growing? Or do some want to go back in 1897 and ban the school of Fine Arts for ladies? We also need to know where we are going.

In the face of this situation, a mechanism has been established. What does the State Council say? It is very clear in point 9: "In the light of the preparatory work, it can be admitted that the existence of a manifest inequality is sufficiently established."The State Council says it: there is a manifest inequality, it is sufficiently established and the preparatory work demonstrates this.

Mr George, you also cited the argument of the Lisbon Treaty in the committee. I also addressed you at that time. You rightly argue that it is encouraged to do something about it. For all clarity, I repeat once again that everyone here in the hall wants that. You stand there swinging with a newspaper from 1897 and a newspaper from 1997. That speaks to the imagination, but that is not the essence of the debate. It is about how we will solve those problems. This is not stated in the Lisbon Treaty. You have also mentioned that this is the higher legal norm. I also told you that there are other high legal standards. I think that argument in this debate is not quite down to the essence.

Mr Schiltz, we could provide solutions in several ways. But it was important to give a strong signal. The proposed timetable allows companies to adapt. If we had imposed this measure overnight, we would have undermined the durability of institutions, the continuity of mandates and the functioning of societies. I understand it perfectly. But the Council of State tells us that the rule of quota constitutes a arrangement not only admissible in terms of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, but also useful in terms of the purpose clearly assigned to itself by the legislator.

The technique of quota is obviously a step-by-step compared to an evolution that could have been natural. However, it did not occur in the sector for several reasons. The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU responsible for promoting equality between men and women. In view of this situation, the arrangement that is in place is the only one that is likely to ⁇ this objective.

In the 1960s, the parliament passed a law against the abuse of economic power, which was never implemented. In all the faculties of law, you are explained that if this text had not been voted, there might have been such abuses. The law is a fool. We can be pleased that no company has transgressed it. For the present question, the most appropriate legislative arrangement was the quota technique.

We are not going to repeat all the arguments. I think we must take a step forward. There are times when you have to take responsibility. All powers come from citizens and citizens. That is why Parliament must take this situation into its hands; it must take its responsibilities and explain that it is no longer possible that, in autonomous public companies, in the companies listed on the stock market that are going to raise the money of our fellow citizens, the gender difference is ignored.

I ask you, gentlemen, to take your responsibilities too so that power is shared in these companies. For tomorrow, the quota system may be used for you. Ladies and gentlemen who will support this proposal, I tell you, I am proud of you!

Mr. George, I want to make a small comment. Of the 125 listed companies, there are companies with a free float of 2%, and others with a 100%. Among them, there is a very large variation of companies that resort to the public market.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I fall with the door into the house. The past years have demonstrated that there is little or no progress on feminizing the boards of corporate governments without a stick behind the door. According to the European Professional Women’s Network, only 11% of the board of directors of the 334 European companies with the highest stock market value are women. In the boards of the BEL20 companies, the number is 8.5 %; 5 of those 20 companies have not even a single woman in their boards.

The figures show that the board of directors are still male bastions, an old boys network, where clones of current board members, men, are constantly sought. As long as the governing boards are populated in this way, the female potential will have no chance. We are in a vicious circle. After all, men seek competencies that they recognize in themselves. Therefore, it is almost always re-elected for men.

Furthermore, the European Commission is considering the introduction of binding quotas, as it is not so well established across Europe. Only Norway, Sweden and Finland account for more than 20%. The Netherlands and Germany account for approximately 15%. In Spain, in 2007 it was decided that by 2015 at least 40 % of the board members – both in public companies and in listed companies with at least 250 employees – must be of a different gender than the dominant gender.

The evolution of the feminization of the corporate boards over the last five years – or rather the lack of it – inspired six political parties to submit a bill for quotas. Such quota proposals have ensured that in politics we have 39.3% of women in the House and 42.5% in the Senate, which means a doubling in 9 years.

Therefore, even in private companies, the imposition of quotas can be regarded as one of the most important elements of feminization at the board of directors of multinationals.

Second, if there is a decision to be made about ourselves or about something that is very important to us, then we all hope for a well-prepared and thoughtful decision. For optimum and balanced decision-making within a particular group or institution, it is essential that the composition of the group of decision-makers is as diverse as possible, especially when the social impact of that decision is very large. The more diversity within a decision-making group, the more different perspectives are considered, the greater the likelihood that all the interests of the different stakeholders are considered and therefore the greater the likelihood of socially balanced decisions, both organizational, financial and service-related. This diversity is not only about gender but also about age, social background, available preparation time, and so on.

For the sake of greater social interest and responsibility, it is necessary that we impose a minimum of diversity in the composition of the decision-making group on the main decision centers. Politically, we have already done that in part. That is clear. Listed, mostly transnational companies and our public companies play a very important role in our society. Many decisions affect us as a citizen, customer, employee and as a government. The companies are not only there for the shareholders, they have a large social responsibility and have a substantial impact on the interests of various stakeholders. Here comes the story of sustainable, socially responsible enterprises to look around the corner.

Our group believes that the role of enterprises does not stop in doing business in itself. They also have a social task to fulfill. There are large companies that generate revenue rates greater than the GDP of some Central European Member States. Their impact on society cannot be underestimated. Globalization has clearly given the company greater opportunities. On the contrary, there are more responsibilities.

(Mr Schiltz asks for the word)

This is an introduction, Mr Schiltz.

I understand that. It is a beautiful course of ten kilometers long. You dig the story. If you really think that you will learn a lesson in good gender policy from those large transnational, transcontinental companies, then you are far from there. The Norwegian story just proves that imposing such rules too strictly causes those companies to simply move. Do not make illusions. If that law comes through, then we will with all sympathy extend your hand for accompanying measures, but they will really have no message about that in Hong Kong or New York.

Mr Schiltz, it goes without saying that we advocate that it be organized in a supranational way, preferably global and at least European. There are many initiatives in that direction. However, it is important that we define sustainable and socially responsible enterprise as conducting a policy that also indicates long-term perspectives and that looks at the broad economic, social and cultural effects of decision-making processes. There must be dialogue and there must be transparency. In this way, these companies will play a much greater role than just paying out those people and those institutions that provide capital. Lack of gender diversity or diversity in general is nefast for women, for companies and actually for all of us, for society as a whole. The greater the diversity in the composition of a decision-making body, the more likely it is that good, conducted decisions will be made, taking into account the broad societal implications and the long-term effects of those decisions. That is what we have to do.

Several references were made to Norway. I will not repeat anything unnecessarily, I just want to formulate the decision. In Norway, ⁇ apparently had no problem finding qualified candidates. Men and women have similar qualification profiles, studies and work experience. Women have a slightly higher degree qualification, namely 36 % having university studies of at least 6 years compared to 22 % for men. The main lesson we must learn from Norway is that without quotas and sanctions there is hardly any change.

Mr. Tuybens, you know the situation in Norway. The vast majority of the companies are state-owned companies, are companies from the energy sector. One in six is out of the stock exchange, partly due to gender. Who came out of the stock market? These are mainly the real private companies.

A second comment. Sanctions are imposed on drivers who grant themselves a remuneration at a time when the gender obligation has not yet been met. The same measure does not apply to internationally operating companies with registered office abroad, which, however, have a large market share here, even far greater than that of our own listed companies.

Mr. Uyttersprot, as far as public companies are concerned, it is obvious that I do not feel attracted. This bill also effectively refers to measures for our own state-owned companies, without any transitional period.

In this regard, it is obvious that we would like to wipe off our own door.

We had the story of Norway and discussed it extensively in the committee. In an immediate response, the VBO said that the bill we are discussing today testifies to a lack of confidence in the companies. This has already been said by some colleagues. Some say this happens too little, but for once I fully agree with the VBO. Indeed, I have no confidence in the voluntary fulfillment of greater diversity. I do not believe in such a voluntarism which too often leads to non-binding, even in the feminization of the boards of directors.

According to the business world, we are too impatient. They say that the tide is turning, and that we should therefore give them some more time to voluntarily carry out the feminization of the boards of governments, and so on. A little patience. How long should we continue to practice patience? Five years, ten years, fifty years? Given the evolution of the last five to ten years, we would have to wait until 2060 before the boards are occupied by 30 % women. Given the pace of the so-called progress, it will take fifty years or more.

As colleague George has pointed out, one can even say that the companies owe the gender quota to themselves. Companies now harvest what they themselves have sown.

When hearing such statements, employers’ organisations and the entrepreneurial world are on their backs. Then they get their stick of the corporate governance code of stal, a self-regulatory code that they believe is not non-binding, since the comply or explain principle is in it.

Mr. Schiltz, I want to talk to you about this. Suppose we both have a fifteen-year-old son, who can go out until 01:00 p.m., but comes home only at 08:00 p.m. or 09:00 p.m. The moment we get up, they look up their bed, saying that they had a lot of fun and find themselves mature enough to decide when to come home. Comply or explain. It is easy, but it is non-binding.

Now there are companies that say they don’t have women in their boards because they don’t think it’s appropriate. In this way, the 2010 law is respected, because there is an explanation.

This is my criticism of your opposition. You say that the comply or explaint theory, the corporate governance code, is now legally anchored. But also the explain is legally anchored, and there are no formal requirements included in the law. The fact that one simply gives an explanation is sufficient. I have given the example in another file, but I will not repeat it, because we have already done that too many times. The fact that an explanation is given is sufficient. Well, if a company says it doesn’t have women in the board of directors because it doesn’t find it appropriate, then that’s completely in accordance with the law. And you think it is so important that there is a legal anchoring!

Furthermore, during one of the hearings, Mr. Daems, the man of the corporate governance code, said that he did not understand why the current gender quota law was not included in the Good Governance Act of April 2010. I almost fell from my bank because during the previous legislature I submitted some amendments to the draft law on good governance of the minister, in order to guarantee the feminization of the boards of governments of state-owned companies and listed companies. Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected by the majority, including you, because it was not the right place to conduct the debate. I still remember the discussion of April 2010, when the factions of CD&V and Open Vld thought that I should not come to initiate the women’s quota at that time, because it was about something else, especially about the law of good governance. Now Mr. Daems himself says that we should have actually arranged that then. Of course, we can no longer turn the clock back, but for me it is painful to hear from Mr. Daems in January of this year that it was at that time the place and the time to introduce such legislation.

I feel like you are doing the committee debate.

We have not yet discussed this in the committee; this is a novelty.

Mr. Tuybens, your comparison with a fifteen-year-old is well-founded, but of course does not stand as there is no sanction attached to it. For a listed company that endorses a code but then deliberately fails to comply with it and must give an explanation about it, it is subject to a sanction. After all, there are shareholders, customers, in short, a whole business environment.

My point in the discourse, if I referred to it, is that the spirits – ⁇ not all – have evolved since 2010, or even since 2009, after the crisis.

Indeed, as I have already cited in my speech, Mr Tuybens, it has been shown that companies in which women also hold top positions are better resilient to crises. Again, a business leader is listening to rational arguments, to facts. They will also acknowledge that gender diversity contributes to this; this has been demonstrated by the naked figures. So comply or explain, a company with so many stakeholders, you cannot compare with a fifteen-year-old whose only stakeholder he is himself at that time.

I am not so sure of that. Furthermore, I am not sure that there are no sanctions associated with the fifteen-year-old. I would give you a penalty, and maybe you too. In any case, it would be our responsibility to ensure that the fifteen-year-old comes home on time the next time. I mean that the companies will also ensure that no one ever comes to those sanctions, by ensuring that within five years a third of the members of their board of directors will be of a gender other than the dominant. Otherwise they will of course not want to include the reputation damage, so much is clear.

If they do not want to bear the reputation damage, then you do not need a quota, then they will do it on their own. The penalty for a company is reputation damage. This is not the case for a fifteen-year-old who, by the way, is not yet major. A company is considered to have a certain degree of autonomy. It can move autonomously, there is no parent to watch over it, and so on.

Of course, we do not continue to make that comparison, but it is obvious that it needs to be organized in a different way. We do not see any progress in the current situation, so there are quotas.

Therefore, we remain at least a advocate of corporate social responsibility. A long road has been taken. The gender quota has taken another step in the right direction, I am convinced of this.

A recently published survey of 257 Belgian women in senior management positions in public and private companies shows that as many as 63% consider that women still find it difficult to get to the top. In addition, only 19% of women executives believe that companies give women and men equal opportunities. In other words, there is still a lot of work to be done, so much is clear.

That not everyone has won for the idea of quota, we understand. We even understand many of the arguments cited. Also for us, quotas are a kind of last resort, but necessary to provide a response to the failure of breaking the glass ceiling.

I think the entrepreneurial world should think firmly about the need for a shift of operational leadership needs towards women. Otherwise, the legislator will also have to act in the group of executive directors and top executives.

There has also been a lot of talk about stereotypes. One of those stereotypes is that we still associate men with leadership more than women. A scientific study has also been conducted on this. It is important to read this too. In any case, women leaders have a more democratic, participatory leadership profile. The gender gap is the greatest in terms of being aware of the opportunities and needs of employees. There is apparently a global difference between ways of leadership, autocratic, directive, where women reward better performance of employees.

In any case, it is clear that this should not be an argument in our effort to get more women in the boards of directors.

Two months ago, there was also an interesting opinion piece in The Time of Jesse Segers, a lecturer at the University of Antwerp, which also goes in that direction.

Ms. Deom has already done extensively from the fabrics what the bill contains. I just want to point out that the government itself is a good example. Large and medium-sized companies will have five fiscal years to adapt to the new law. That means enough time to adapt to this new law.

I think this should be possible for all companies. For the smallest listed companies there is a longer transition period. It is also true that the sanctions have been drawn up in two phases, so that a yellow and a red card can be issued.

I am pleased that we can finally go to this vote tomorrow. Not only women, but everyone benefits from this.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs, the services of the Chamber, all colleagues and the staff of the various political groups who have worked on this.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the real debate on quotas in the boards of board of directors of listed companies should in fact only be about government interference in private companies, but as always in this matter it is a gender debate and it is about contradictions between men and women and about the discrimination diabol.

I do not believe in gender equality. If I believed that, Kim Gevaert would have to face Usain Bolt at the Olympic Games at the 100 meters. I am 100% sure, Mr. Schiltz, that the feminists would shout murder and fire, and that would be called an unequal struggle. What I believe in, Mrs. Brems, is gender equality. This is completely different from gender equality. Women and men should not be equal, but equal. Both should have the freedom to choose the social role they want to fulfill.

Mr Schiltz, I went to college. You hear it immediately. The debate about women’s quota at the shutdown has been poisoned by a trial-woman and anti-man and a sterile discussion between biologists and culturists. Through the politically correct men with a feminist glasses, it is often traced back to the victim culture of the woman: the woman as the victim, the man as the perpetrator.

According to the biologists, women genetically choose for their crust rather than for a top career. For the culturists, the culture of our country obstacles the careers of women. I hear it here. In addition to the prevailing culture, however, there is also the free choice, Mr. Schiltz. You are a liberal, right? The free choice determines the distinction between equal opportunities and equal outcomes. For politicians and quota supporters, choices are only free if they comply with their standards. If they give a different outcome than planned, then the bullying drive of an interfering government begins.

Quotas try to equalize the outcomes, not the chances. If there are more nurses than nurses, that doesn’t mean that men’s chances of becoming nurses are smaller. It has to do with choices, Mr Schiltz. If certain categories of people systematically underuse their equal rights, differences in outcomes arise.

Quotas are therefore a discrimination organized by the government under a symbolic layer of linen of equality. Skilled people need to clean the place because they don’t have the right sex for the job. Could it be, for example, that women choose less for a top position because they do not want to fight for it? After all, business is also survival of the fittest and driven by a boundless ambition. Could it be that women avoid, for example, some business sectors? If only 14% of engineering students are women, their presence on the workplace is automatically even more sharp and at the top rather exceptional. However, in such occupational groups it is about the knowledge economy and not about physical skills.

Quota requires in fact that a small elite of successful, female top executives would replace a small elite of successful men. In addition to the informal network of Vlerickboys, there is now also a crown of Vlerickgirls. Liu who reward each other with lucrative board seats in various companies – the number of mandates is unlimited – under the motto “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Now there is a criterion. You are chosen on the basis of your “can” and not necessarily your ability.

A picky detail while we still talk about the Vlerickboys. In the Advanced Management Programme of the Vlerick Management School, which teaches key competencies to sit in board of directors, only 6 women were in charge and wrote last year. That is 16% of the total. And this despite the fact that women get 50% discount when enrolling for the part-time MBA.

Michèle Sioen visited the committee. She is CEO of Sioen Industries. She is managing director at D’Ieteren, Belgacom and ING Belgium. I will repeat what she says, otherwise I will be accused. I will quote her literally: “I don’t think quotas are a good solution. I am against that quota because it is difficult for some companies to find suitable candidates and also because there are not so many women available. I’m pro women, don’t be mistaken, but they should stand more up to their male. The reality is that sacrifice requires holding a top position. And not every woman has the ability or the ambition to impose that. In order to become a driver of a listed company, you must have a certain baggage. If we post an advertisement for a higher position, then on 19 men you probably have a woman applying. That wants to say something. While there are more women graduating from universities, they are apparently not found for a higher framework position. It is likely that imposing statutory quotas disrupts the functioning of a board of directors. Quotas may be contrary to the requested competence profile of a driver. They do not take into account the position of the reference shareholder and the role of the independent directors. In addition, quotas pose a threat to the quality and independence of the Board of Directors. In a free country, it is the shareholders who choose the boards of directors. Through the quota, the government limits this freedom of choice and reduces the competition between individuals.”

I quote someone from the other ideologically destroyed camp, namely Ms. Sonja De Becker, general secretary of the Boerenbond: “If you really want to change the number of women in top positions in companies, it is also not the best solution to conduct the quota discussion at the level of boards of directors. Let’s be honest, the board of directors has its powers and assignments but does not make the company. An enterprise is created at the workplace and at the management level. At management levels, you cannot work with mandatory quotas."And yet I have heard a previous speaker say that this is the next step. That would be completely stupid. Encouraging companies to allow women to flow through would have a much greater impact.

I have often heard of Norway. This is the fourth or fifth time that this is repeated, because in that healthy state of gender equality, 50 % of the board members in the listed companies must be of the opposite sex. Those Norwegians, and I have not yet heard it say, however, were so clever to exclude foreign companies from the quota act. Nevertheless, 167 companies out of 600 left the stock exchange when the law came into force in 2008.

Despite this rigid legislation, only 5% of top managers in all Norwegian companies are women, and only 15% are middle managers. That is the reality. Young men are discriminated against and can still find it difficult to move into board of directors. The glass ceiling actually makes quite a bit of scratches.

Nevertheless, women continue to work massively in government and mostly in care professions, including in Norway: 64% in education are women, 83% in healthcare are women. And then there is the childcare, to show how ridiculous it is: to guarantee gender neutrality in education, there is a statutory quota of 25% for male educators in kindergartens. They only account for 9% of the employment. Norwegian children continue to be massively pumped by women, namely 99%.

Therefore, coercion is not the appropriate method to remedy this, not even in the overcrowded Norwegian refuge. In the Scandinavian model, 80% of women work and all children go to the nursery.

Where do these women work? In the reception! "The motherwalhalla of the knäckebrödeters is an absurd round pumping of money, children and mothers," says Marike Stellinga, whom you have heard in the committee, in her book The Myth of the Glass Ceiling. That round pumps are so expensive that women have to work to live comfortably. The Vikings themselves continue to choose traditional male professions, such as construction, industry and oil companies. Only 16% of the employment in the oil industry and 28% in the transport and communications sector is occupied by women.

The walhalla of gender equality, however, can afford some cosmetics: the Norwegian welfare state relies on the enormous gas and oil reserves. It is one of the richest countries in the world, with huge pension funds and without government debt. Half of the listed companies in Oslo are owned by the state.

Some Belgian state-owned companies, such as Infrabel and the NMBS, are now seeking gender quotas. However, this does not make the trains run smoother. After all, the boards of directors are in the first instance a range station for vassals with the right political colour and only in the second instance counts the competence. Political testosterone is stronger than estrogen.

Another such myth is that women at the top make the company more profitable. This is based on a study by McKinsey. However, the McKinsey study must be interpreted correctly. In the Women Matter study, McKinsey finds that diversity positively affects performance in companies where women are part of “executive management after a normal career path”. This study does not concern the Board of Directors. If that were the case, the majority of toplui would be guaranteed female. No company is so stupid, so blind, and so unfriendly to women that it acts against its own interests. Profit is the creed of every business. Skill is almost the only criterion for achieving that, regardless of whether the toplui is white or black, male or female, Chinese or Greek.

Compulsion can supersede the real criteria for good governance. When gender becomes a decisive element, one discriminates and underestimates the talent of the individual. Gender requirements should not be more important than competence requirements.

Sophie Dutordoir is the CEO of Electrabel and the most powerful woman in the country. I quote her, “Don’t talk to me about quotas, not even for women. I hate quotas, because they inherently involve the danger of ignoring the intrinsic qualities of people.”

We can always raise Mrs. Stellinga, but for every Mrs. Stellinga there are at least ten other opinions.

Mr. Dedecker indicates that there would be no scientific studies indicating that where women are in top management, there would be better results.

A study was conducted in 679 companies of the Fortune 1000. It has been examined whether greater gender diversity in top management also leads to better financial results. The answer was clearly positive. More women in top management predicts better financial results, so return on assets, regardless of the complexity, stability or generosity of the environment.

Similar results were found in another study of 353 companies from the Fortune 500. Within the final five industries surveyed, companies with more women in top management scored financially better. The return on equity was on average 35% higher and the total return to shareholders was on average 34% higher between the highest and lowest quarters in terms of gender diversity.

First of all, I would like to show that for every scientific study there are guaranteed at least as many other scientific studies that prove the opposite. In any case, I have much more confidence in a study that examined 353 companies from the Fortune 500.

I find some things strange. I meant that you had invited Marike Stellinga here as a great specialist. She came here and said things here. I read her book. I got some numbers out there. I don’t have the time to follow all the committees. That is the problem.

What you say clearly is correct. It’s about management, but it’s about a law for the boards of management. I have also served in board of directors, not within the framework of a political mandate in which one must be present, but in working boards of directors.

In every board of directors I was sitting in, the only required qualification was skills. They did not ask if I was a man or a woman, that is evident, but they always asked about abilities.

People are asked for a board of directors on the basis of competence. Let me take the example of a large fish smoking store. Find a woman to sit in the board of directors. To you the honor to do so.

Companies, where making profit is one of the first tasks in relation to the shareholders, who choose the members of the board of directors, will never be so stupid that they would discriminate against women and thus make less profit. I don’t believe in a crack of that. Those people are smart enough to make choices based on their abilities.

Mr. Dedecker, the guests invited to the hearings of the Chamber Committee are determined by consensus between various parties. At least I did not invite Mrs. Stellinga. That is one.

Second, you assume that setting quota automatically means that we should ask a question about skill. I really disagree with that. That is precisely why quota may finally be considered as a last resort, in order to ensure that such thoughts are countered. You understand very well what I mean.

According to the Corporate Governance Code, managers are personally liable. They go for it. The code also says clearly that the goal must be achieved by 2018. I find it difficult to constantly point with the finger. This is done by politicians and parliamentarians who, in public companies and in politics, do not do what they will now impose on private companies. I have difficulty with that. That is happening, that is constantly happening today, Mr. Tuybens.

The law we are going to adopt concerns both private companies, but also public companies. Therefore, we also impose it on ourselves because we are unable to perform the operation spontaneously. The law therefore imposes it upon us after a transitional period; we are stricter with ourselves.

Political firms in that country are engaged in clientelism. People within the NMBS and all those government companies are appointed on the basis of a political membership card. Per ⁇ a certificate of competence is required. You have been in power in Wallonia for a long time. Why haven’t you put that 30% into the state companies yet? Today you introduce a law and point your finger to the private companies. In the meantime, of course, we are also doing so for public companies. It would be pretty bad not to do that!

I say that one must first wipe off his own door and give the other the time until 2018. That is the essence.

I believe that a private company will employ ten skilled women if there are ten skilled women; the same goes for men, by the way. It is primarily about competence.

Men and women should primarily do what they like to do and not what they are instructed to do. Could it be that many women do not want to push to the top but choose a part-time job or a nine-to-five job that fits the school grid of their growing crust? Could it be that companies can charge neither the costs nor the flexibility for the combination leather resulting from work plus family care for women of childbearing age? They are soon an absence disaster for the company with months of pregnancy and breastfeeding leave and time credit.

Gender cannot be drawn out like a pants or a dress. Biology may have to do with predetermined role patterns, but it is not discrimination in itself. Absence hampers career opportunities in the ruthless ratrace to top positions. It is the free choice of each to participate in it. Everything has a price. Only 25% of Dutch women work full-time. Of the number of full-time men, 1.12% move to the position of CEO or director. For women working full-time, this is higher, 1.44%. I have not heard anyone complain about this.

Mr Tuybens, you should definitely know Henny De Baets. The lady is the general administrator of OVAM and the wife of someone from the Board of Directors of the National Bank, of Norbert De Batselier, a fellow believer. I quote her: “Quota in the civil servants, but also in business, I find nonsense. They are humiliating to women. You should judge people by their competencies, vision, management capabilities, commitment, and so on, but not by their gender. I don’t think women need quotas, but the courage and confidence to climb the career ladder.”

This was said by a socialist, a designated person.

The government must fight discrimination and promote diversity, but not organize discrimination itself. Let the companies do what they should do: enterprise, create jobs and make the profits that drive the entire santen boutique. As a government, ensure that companies pay taxes and social security and that they do not play casino at the expense of the taxpayer, that they do not waste the environment and that good competition keeps everyone sharp. These are huge political priorities that are now beautifully covered under a symbolic layer of lacquer from the old feminist box.

For a long time, gender diversity in business has been on the political agenda. This week, the House is preparing to vote on a law to introduce a quota of women in the boards of public companies and publicly listed companies.

If this bill is followed, it would require that in the future, at least one-third of the directors be of a different sex. In most cases, this concept will target only women. I am, for my part, resolutely opposed to this practice of quotas, whether it is based on a Manichaean will for good governance or on a principle overflowing with primary humanism that is equal opportunities. In fact, the important thing is not to impose a definite number of women who will have to engage for the sole reason of their sex. No to No! The important thing is to guarantee meritocracy, that is, the choice of the most competent person for the most suitable position!

By wanting to moralize the business, the public authority does nothing but create discrimination – if it were positive – which it should, on the contrary, fight. Furthermore, such quotas could lead to the opposite effect of the expected effect. Imagine a woman who would find herself in a board of directors simply because she is a woman and not for her skills or experience. Sooner or later, this could lead to an uncomfortable situation.

I take as proof what is happening at the political level where, very often, on municipal lists, women are called to fill the electoral lists, while sometimes they have no ambition at the political level. This is often a hole hole!

You mean that male candidates have all the skills!

Not at all, Madame Gerkens. However, in some communes often rural, we will look for the wife of the baker or the spicer simply because she is a little known and that gives voices, even if she has no notion of defense of the political party in question. This approach has just an electoral objective and you know it very well!

This is why you have chosen quotas at the political level.

I will not deny that sometimes we will look for people to complete a list! But don’t say we’re going to look for women. We are looking for both men and women to complete our lists! Do you really think that all the men who are candidates are always hyper-motivated, hyper-competent and all want to become shevin and mayor of the municipality?

Mrs. Gerkens, I am based on the experience I have. And I can tell you that it is often in this case! But I will not mention the communes or the lists, except to shake my socialist friends!

Leave Modrikamen where it is, that is, nowhere!

Mr. Louis, please continue!

As you will understand, I am ideologically opposed to quotas. A position should not be acquired because one is a woman or a man, as it should not be acquired because one is white, black, yellow or socialist, as is often the case, or liberal, as is also the case. He should not acquire himself either, because one is Jew, Christian, Arab, old, young, ugly, beautiful, big or small. No to No!

You have no choice of being a woman. That is the difference!

It is true that in some places, one has no choice to be a socialist! We are in office!

The [...]

Mr. Madran, please leave Mr. Louis goes on.

Anyone who likes to be punished well, Mr. Madrane!

In my opinion, a job is earned because we have skills. Do you know how it is called? No to? The meritocracy! But it is true that this notion is somewhat complicated for the left, which favors the mate or sons or daughters to dad! However, this concept is primary. I hope that the parties that fundamentally share this value of meritocracy will have the courage to vote against this law.

Furthermore, let me emphasize the fact that this law concerns only a very closed club consisting of a small female elite that will then share the new positions to occupy and which will seem to have to handle the cumulative mandates with as much brilliance as some politicians in the country. In fact, this law is hypocritical because it will not touch the lambda woman, it will not touch those who, however, are made to believe that these quotas will be another symbol in the feminist struggle. It will be nothing.

It should not be fooled: the place of women in the labour market will not be altered by this law. Rather than taking the problem at its source, the lawmakers think of resolving it by attacking the most selected and elite areas of our society from the front. For the real obstacles to non-discrimination of women are situated altogether elsewhere, at the boundaries of precariousness, of the choice of studies, in the distribution of roles in the household and of career choices.

This proposal leads to an untimely struggle. In reality, it is the mindsets that need to change and, frankly, quotas will never allow us to ⁇ this goal. Some would like women today to be perfect wives, exemplary mothers, true house fairy, great chefs, and people who are fulfilled and ambitious in their work. I tell you, those who ask for this and those who defend these ideas do not help women. Instead, they are exhausting them.

Rather than voting a law for quotas, I would like to change profoundly the mentalities and also the distribution of tasks within the families and society itself. But even if I read and re-read the proposal, we are very far from it.

(Outside of the micro)

Oh! the This is a bad attack, Mr. Giet. Oh well ! As a legalist, you should inquire before you raise any serious charges within this parliament. You should be informed, there is no judicial action in this matter.

The [...]

Yes, of course, you talk about harassment as by chance.

Mr Schiltz, you can intervene. This may simplify the debate.

Colleagues, I advocate to stay with the essence of the matter. I have already heard some intriguing arguments from a number of colleagues, but now you are again taking the discourse of meritocracy.

You start the debate about meritocracy, but we all agree that there are competent women. It is not about this but the way to get there. I have not yet heard this from you.

Well, but I’m not in power, right? It is up to you to find solutions and to us to criticize them, but for years you have not found solutions. It’s a bit easy to go asking for solutions only to the representative of a political party.

Yes, I have ideas! Changing mentalities, encouraging women to be able to have a different lifestyle, not constantly subjecting them to a slow pace as they say, changing mentalities in family life, offering more opportunities, more facilities, developing services to families. Here are things to do! But I see nothing of that.

For example, help for the elderly: where are you? After years of socialism, where are we? To homes and rest homes with waiting lists of 300 people, for example in Nivelles!

It is unacceptable!

The [...]

Mr Madrane, please

Mr. Louis, I would like to ask you to stay in the framework of our discussion so as to avoid talking about everything and nothing. And for now, I feel like we are talking about nothing and everything!

I am asking for my solutions. I do what I can!

I invite you to continue your speech and return to the essential, as suggested by Mr. by Schiltz.

I continue to.

It is also important to put the points on the “i”. In fact, it is not up to the political power, nor to the public authorities to dictate to companies what they should do, nor does it disagree to the PS or to the left party.

The role of companies is crucial in our society. They must drive the economy, pay their taxes and taxes, and create jobs. But how can they do this if the state constantly puts them sticks in the wheels?

To make a mistake in fighting is to believe that freedom of trade and enterprise can be broadened on the altar of good feelings.

Let me think that opposing this text is by no means a way of opposing women, but rather a way of giving them the weapons that the authors of this proposal would like to take away from them.

A woman doesn’t have to highlight her femininity to succeed in the job market; ⁇ not. It must, like everyone else, be competent.

Competence and merit are concepts that are too often forgotten. And those of you who feel that women are not sufficiently competent, as it seems to be the case of those who create this measure of positive discrimination towards them on the job market, have very little respect for the female condition.

For my part, I will vote against this proposal and I invite all defenders of the cause of women, gender equality and freedom of trade and enterprise to also oppose it, for the reasons I just mentioned. Competence and respect for women is not a matter of quotas! What would you say if we imposed a quota of Belgian players in our national football team? The well-thinking left would scream directly – and rightly, I admit it! To the stigmatisation.

You do the same with women today, without even realizing it! That is regrettable!

I let you think about it!

Today, I have one word in my mind: finally!

Finally, this bill is again included on the agenda of a plenary session and a vote may take place.

Finally, because I remind you that my group filed a text on the introduction of quotas in the boards of governments of public companies and publicly listed companies already in 2006. Since then, we have been constantly calling for a debate on the subject.

Finally, because, as I said in the committee, we had to dare to take the step. In 2006, we could have been real pioneers in this area, but other countries have made the big leap in the meantime.

They are the ones who serve us as examples now. The discussions were very long and intense. And the oppositions have been many and persist even in some. However, we are convinced: we had to legislate. Awareness has not produced the expected effects and it would never have produced them, be sure! The recommendations of the

Corporate Governance is objectively insufficient to produce change.

Let’s just look at what happened in politics. In this so masculine world even a few years ago, a turning point took place in the 1999 elections. The proportion of directly elected senators rose from 12 to 19.3 percent and from 22.5 to 30 percent in the Senate. Thanks to what? But thanks to a law passed in 1994, introducing quotas in the composition of electoral lists that can not, since then, contain more than two-thirds of candidates of the same sex. This law was strengthened in 2002, with the principle of the "traction". Since then, electoral lists are composed of as many men as women, and gender alternation is imposed on the first two places on each list. The percentage of directly elected voters then increased from 19.3 to 34.7 percent in the House and from 30 to 37.5 percent in the Senate.

Without the introduction of quotas, many of us would not be present in this assembly. This is a real key factor for increasing women’s participation in politics. It was therefore crucial for us that the same should be the case in the economic world.

Indeed, no matter what some say, it has not been difficult to find women willing to appear on electoral lists and it will ⁇ not be different in the boards of directors of the companies concerned by our bill.

Whatever some think, and my female colleagues will not contradict me, this quota imposition has not taken away value from this parliament: the people who sit there are not less competent. I repeat, it will not be different in the board of directors.

So, yes, my group is delighted that finally an agreement has been reached in the committee, that finally a major change can be initiated for women in the economic world and that finally a new concrete evolution can occur in matters of equality between women and men.

Mrs. Becq, Mrs. Fonck will listen to you with great attention.

Mr. Speaker, there are other members who have to wait even longer to make their statements. You can support them until the end.

In the end, the debate will be brought back to the quota. Nevertheless, I dare say that CD&V, and that is also important, has a long tradition of equal opportunities for men and women. We are not talking about quotas, but about accompanying measures.

CD&V first had a Minister of Equal Opportunities, Ms. Miet Smet, who put all measures to promote the combination of work and family on the agenda, paying attention to childcare and what is associated with it, and paying attention to a number of other themes, such as the vulnerability of individuals, intra-family violence and the intervention of the police around certain subjects. These are issues that are ultimately addressed by women.

As stated later, we have been able to go a very long way in this regard because a number of women individually were strong enough to act, to stand up and to make clear that they wanted to stand their male.

This is what many people indicate here. Quotas would not be needed, because women can stand their male, which in some cases is ⁇ true. However, it is equally important that a global movement is triggered and that an emancipation movement is initiated, in which not only a number of white rabbits, whether they are male or female, for example, are active in boards of governments or get an opportunity, but also involving others in that global movement.

Companies and boards of directors should be a reflection of society. Few doubt the added value of gender-diverse councils; some do. Ultimately, however, research shows the following.

Stefaan De Clerck and Mrs. Reding quote in an article from the McKinsey study, which states that better long-term results can be achieved if there is greater diversity in the boards of management. However, we note that there are very few women in various places in the boards of directors, including those of listed companies, ⁇ less than 10%.

In the European Union, the number of female drivers has increased by half a percentage point per year in recent years. We believe it is important that this can be done on a voluntary basis, but at that rate we will need another fifty years before there are as many men and women in the boards of governments.

Of course, I would have preferred not to have quotas being used or to be given an incentive by imposing quotas for the people who sit in the boards of governments. Indeed, it is difficult to understand that the percentage is so small, while one knows that women are on average higher educated than men and that they also participate actively in the labour process, but apparently never progress to the highest positions. Apparently, this does not happen by itself. I also don’t think anyone else dares to claim that there would be no or insufficient expertise. I hear the eminent professor Daems also say, by the way, that he would not dare to claim that there are no competent women. I hope we all agree on this.

Ultimately, and unfortunately, the last incentive we can give is the imposition of quotas. I would rather not do that, but I conclude that this is ultimately the only possibility, just as we must also at other times and in other fields propose legal measures before some elements are taken into account on a voluntary basis.

Why is it now said in the business sector that it will be voluntarily ensured that women are allowed to participate in the boards of directors to a greater degree, up to 30 percent?

Because one knows that those bills are on the table, because one knows that one takes this seriously. The same applies to quotas. I have also experienced this in my career as a member of Parliament on other topics. Take the sector of the legal profession around mediation, a proposal that I know very well. Since we had a proposal on divorce mediation on the table to which we also wanted to submit lawyers, they provided training and training on their own initiative, within their own booth, precisely because that pressure was on them. In the same way, this proposal also puts pressure on a sector to ensure that more women can sit in their boards.

I do not believe that Mr. Dedecker forgets what to say. Go there, please.

Mrs. Becq, I understand your reasoning very well. You are talking about 10 or 11%. I have no doubt that there are just as many skilled women. There are more studying at the university. I also gave the example of the Vlerick Management School: 16 %. Give me the reason why it is so. I do not believe in discrimination against men. Why is it only 10%? Or are you convinced that this is the result of discrimination by men? I would like to hear the reason from you.

There are various elements involved. One of the elements is ⁇ the visibility of women who can perform such functions. Another element is their presence in networks that represent people or communicate to which place or level they want to name people. This is also happening within the business.

It is up to them themselves.

It is not their own. Let me give you an example, Mr. Dedecker. I know a staff manager in a company. He has several services, where he effectively promotes people, guides managers and coaches. In a certain department, a managerial function was released. Someone was presented, a man. A little later, in a conversation, they ask him why he proposed that man and whether he had not thought of a particular woman. He had not thought of that. In fact, he regretted, because she was ⁇ as competent, not to say more competent, but she was not visible at that time in the network of that involved manager. This is an element that definitely plays.

If you take the example of the Vlerick School network, it is quite right, because networks are important. Women are much less at home than men. They learn that, but they are much less there at home, they are much less involved in it. This is one of the elements that play in it.

Mr. Dedecker, you are a man of facts, of facts and figures. You should look at what scientific research exists. It has been scientifically proven that people in general, ⁇ not only men, choose according to their own image and likeness, when they are to make a judgment.

The most imaginative example is the example of the selection for an orchestra. An orchestra is by definition something auditive. Scientific research was conducted and a selection of musicians was made for an orchestra. This was done once before and once behind the scenes. This means that one time you could see who you had in front of you – a man or a woman – and the other time you could only hear the person because he or she was behind a screen. The results were astonishing. In cases where the jury – mainly men – could see the candidates, mainly male candidates were selected. In the second case, when it happened behind a blind screen... You know that, because you yourself are a supporter of anonymous applications for migrants. Here, the same logic is used. In the second case, only the quality of the music was looked at and there the representation was fifty-fifty.

What do I mean by this? Apart from the objective appreciation, namely whether one has capacities, one unconsciously also projects one’s own fears and desires. Do I recognize myself in the person sitting in front of me? Will this succeed? Or I think: that’s a young woman, she needs to have children, she has to start a family. Will she be able to travel with an orchestra? That subjective appreciation is in each of us.

If you ask me why this is not happening today, I agree with Mrs Becq’s explanation. She says that often one doesn’t even get on the radar and that it’s not just about objective qualities. That is the explanation. Therefore, too little is happening today and ⁇ this will come someday, but it will take too long if you ask me.

Mrs. Rutten, I will no longer refer to the foreign examples. We have talked about this later.

What Ms. Rutten says is only partially true, of course. There are not many female conductors in the world, so it is probably because they cannot be judged separately, because one must see them conduct or otherwise it will not succeed.

Your reasoning is partially correct. I will give the example. Have you ever wondered why women – there are more than 50 % women in this country – no longer vote for women but for men? If they are on the list, you have the option to vote for them. Why do women vote more for men? I will repeat it again. When you talk about networks, I don’t know of a network that is forbidden for women. It is up to the women themselves to make themselves more visible, to be at the forefront. This is my...

Mr. Dedecker, when you say “fight for yourself,” I fully understand that this is your reasoning. I take care of myself, take care of yourself. In that philosophy I can perfectly follow you, but not in the philosophy with which I want to stand for another. That was the philosophy we wanted to follow. I also refer to the foreign examples where quotas are imposed. Unfortunately, we must go to serious measures, to signals, to say that we find it important that there are initiatives to come to a more balanced composition of boards of governments. We are not simply saying that these quotas should be applied from tomorrow. It has been emphasized enough here, we have provided a broad transition period for the listed companies. As they appeal to the public savings system, they must also be able to obtain a part of the legitimacy of the entire population. Second, for public companies, we do not provide for that transition period. However, I would like to point out – I think it has been said later, but I am not sure – that also within the NMBS-Holding, within the NMBS tout court, we have half women in those boards of directors. We have given the example from the government. However, it must be done even more effectively. That is a certainty. We give entrepreneurs space first. I don’t think more will be needed, because companies will keep the honor to themselves to effectively ensure that they are not covered by the provisions of this law.

The State Council’s opinion clearly states that positive measures are possible if they want to combat an apparent inequality. This is indeed the case according to the State Council, which not only states that the principle of quota is acceptable, but also – and I think it is important – that the principle of quota is appropriate. It can have effect. I think we should take that element.

We respond to the question that it would be a temporary measure through our amendment that provides for an evaluation. Of course, this should enable the evaluation to be effective in the longer term.

The Council of State talked about rights that should not be unnecessarily restricted, the proportionality principle. We have already said that there are various elements to say that the rights of third parties are not restricted here and that the principle of proportionality is indeed respected. For example, it is respected when it comes to the famous appointment authority. There was previously said that women would be chosen because they are women. However, the State Council considers it important that there is a principle of motivation, a principle of comparable competences and equal qualification requirements. We also find that.

I find it strange that such a thing comes out when it comes to quotas for women, but that it is not evidence when it is only men and when in a group of men appointments or appointments are needed. We believe that this principle of proportionality should always apply. We do not believe that this will be interfered with the proposal that is presented.

We talked about freedom of association versus the fundamental right to equal opportunities. I will not go into that again. I think we have discussed enough about this. The sanction has also been eased. The annulment of the decision is no longer sought, but the responsibility lies with the members of the Board of Directors, who ultimately take charge of the proposal for the appointment of the future members of the Board of Directors.

Therefore, it is rightly stated that quotas alone will not be enough. It is not just about private companies and public companies. I believe that this proposal can make an important step forward. We still need to look at other areas of civil society. I think of universities, for example, where women make up 16.5% of the board of directors. The professor will correct me if it is incorrect; 11.5% is dean, allegedly.

In hospitals, 8 out of 10 nurses are women, but 50 % of the directors are men. There is a balance there.

In the magistrature, we note that at the Court of Cassation 4 out of 28 councillors are women. In the State Council it is 30 on 127.

So there are still some areas where we can actually give incentives and incentives.

In addition, it is true that quotas not only do not help, but it is also important to take supporting measures, to carry out a proactive policy. I would therefore also refer to the policy that is being carried out with the Flemish Community, where one effectively, on the basis of volunteering, with the work of an emancipation officer, ensures that women become visible, that women find support with each other, that women are in networks, are aware of vacancies and are prepared for vacancies. It shows that 25% of the higher positions are effectively held by women.

We need similar programs, similar incentives and support. We must pay attention to work-life balance, to support women’s networks, to mentor programs for ambitious and competent women, to recruitment. We must make sure that women come into the vizier and that they effectively also have the necessary self-confidence, because women can do as well as men, and they are there too.

At that time, very long ago, in 1996, there was a small booklet, an idea from Miet Smet, it counted more than 200 pages. That book was called Say not too fast, there is no woman. Indeed, there are entrepreneurs who claim that they do not find women. That was a booklet in which about different professions were listed with women who had expertise in certain topics. That booklet was then used by the then BRT to find people who could comment on certain items, so they could effectively also ask women, but those women were not known. Study work has been done to give those unknown but competent women a bit of visibility. Do not say too quickly there is no woman.

Mr. Minister, I give you a suggestion. Therefore, you should not make a book. You can try it via Facebook or Twitter. In any case, it can also be an important signal.

I would be very pleased, firstly, if it turned out that this law should not be applied and turned out to be superfluous, and, secondly, if a great visibility is given to the many skilled, expert women for boards of directors, but also for other professions.

Mr. Minister, first of all, I would like to say, among other things, to Mrs. Deom, because I was surprised by the revenge tone she used, that I am a woman but that I do not grind my teeth. I do not ask for the opinion of the State Council as a desperate attempt to delay a text. I am neither conservative nor machist. Thus, things are very clear and we will be able to talk seriously about the project and the problem that is presented to us.

My colleague, David Clarinval, will tell you this too soon when he talks about public enterprises. We believe that gender equality should be guaranteed in all spheres of society. This is why we are working in a man-woman duo.

In particular, the remaining stereotypes, for example in access to responsibilities, including in the economic sphere, must be combated.

The role of women in all professional fields is no longer to be demonstrated. Mr. President is absolutely convinced of this. He also tries to ensure that the female representation in his womb goes growing. As Colette has recalled, this parliament is the expression of an accelerator that the public has given itself in terms of female representation for the interests of the political sphere. As we are in the public, we believe that the public must make taxes to show the example, where it can intervene. That is what opposes us! In the private sphere, it is something else.

I will return for a few moments to the gender mixture within the boards of directors, which is an important objective but which in fact represents only a fraction of a larger challenge that is gender equality. We can talk about this in politics, because even if we discuss physiological equality indefinitely, it does not exist. Equivalence or affective equality, on the other hand, is also a completely different notion. In this case, we are simply talking about people who have identical skills and the fact that they may have, at a given time, the same chances of acquiring the same levels of development or positioning in a company.

The famous glass ceiling that would prevent qualified women from accessing high-level managerial functions is built by some prejudices that remain, including in women themselves, while other elements also contribute to the construction of these barriers. There has been a lot of talk about the division between private and professional life, between working time and family life. I’m not quite sure if this is really the discussion to have or the goal to pursue.

This is part of the things that need to be considered, but a woman who chooses to work, to make a career is able to solve all these problems. Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental element. Indeed, the gender pay gap remains a very important obstacle that may prevent women who would like it from developing their careers.

There was also the possibility of working full-time. However, it should be noted that 82% of women work part-time and that should ask us. This choice should not be explained by the fact that they cannot do otherwise because they have a family life, that they must take care of auxiliary tasks because these gentlemen prefer to be top managers in the board of directors rather than taking care of the casseroles. It must also be possible to say that they made this choice on the basis that, for the same work, they do not receive the same salary and that, in doing so, they prefer, in consultation with their spouse, to devote themselves to their family life.

The pay gap is, in my opinion, the most important and most unbearable element. Fortunately, this is not the case here, nor that of women who, like me, are independent. But for all salaried professions, efforts must be made to reduce this wage gap.

With this parenthesis closed, we remain convinced that change must first come from the sector. And it is the main stakeholders, namely shareholders, who must sanction a composition of the board of directors that is too little representative of both sexes. The question at stake – let’s not be mistaken – is less the guarantee of equal access for men and women to high-level managerial functions than the imposition by the State of rules of conduct on private companies, which we denounce.

The task of public authorities is to guarantee equal opportunities between men and women of equivalent competence and to enable all, regardless of their gender, to form, to develop their careers with the same opportunities and the same tools; not to impose decisions on the compressor role, as some would like to do, without taking into account the peculiarities of the Belgian companies, since they are the ones concerned by our legislation.

Imposing someone on the simple fact of one of these characteristics...

I would like to speak on two points. On the one hand, as Ms. Marghem knows, we are actively working on the problem of the wage gap within the opinion committee Social Emancipation, with all the parties that support this bill and others as well, including yours.

When you highlight freedom of business, your speech gives the impression that it is absolute freedom. Can you give us examples in which you accept that the state intervenes as a regulator?

This is a very good question. We have a recent example of how some financial firms have wanted to make profits, beyond any economic rule.

As you know, a discussion is still ongoing in the Commercial Law Commission on bonuses and on the broader problem, called in the previous legislature that of "golden parachutes". In this case, concerning the freedom of companies to provide, sometimes in an unreasonable way of the interests of the company, shareholders, or even of the company, remunerations that may be criticized, on the one hand – a difficult problem to solve given the divergence of angles chosen, whether remuneration or bonus – and, on the other hand, the fact of achieving financial profits through means uncertain for shareholders, solely on the basis of profits, out of any spirit of economy, surplus value and economic profitability, this is what I consider to constitute a problem on which we should be able to intervene. Indeed, we must also act to ensure that the Belgian economy produces added value in a consistent manner. This is not the case for any company.

But I do not see the relationship between this aspect of things and women.

You consider that from the moment when self-regulation and entrepreneurial freedom no longer allow to avoid excesses, intervention is necessary. For you, 8% of women in the board of directors, this is not abnormal, it is not an excess.

This is not what projects Belgian companies or companies economically into problems that concern everyone. It is not the fact that a board of directors is composed of so many men and so many women that makes the society work less well or the Belgian economy works less well. To say this is even quite insulting for women who have skills and who put them at the service of societies. I disagree with you. The impact is not the same. If the company works well – in addition, it proves it, otherwise it no longer exists on the market – and it believes that in the competence of its board of directors, it must have this and that profile, regardless of whether it is men or women, there is absolutely no difficulty.

A bunch of rules encourage the promotion of gender equality, but some – and you are – want to put an accelerator and binding regulation by saying that if we don’t, we won’t ⁇ gender diversification. This is your point of view. We believe that legally, these companies would not function better because they would have a higher quota of women. Furthermore, it is obvious that, for a multitude of reasons, ⁇ also related to sociology, the fact that women gradually – as in the magistrates – reach higher positions would happen by itself. The academics who finished their studies a few years ago do not arrive in the boards of administration at twenty-five, nor the men elsewhere! It takes some experience, a certain curriculum vitae and therefore a certain age, to get into board of administration of a certain level and to assume responsibilities. These women may also have chosen to put their careers in custody to take care of their children and when they are raised, they use their free time to recover a career and invest in it. We must therefore also be able to analyze things from a sociological point of view and realize that there will naturally be more women in the economic world, as is the case in the magistrates.

What is not right is to want to impose it, because I found relatively hypocritical your way of saying that, thanks to your new amendments, you responded to the criticism of the State Council. In fact, the Council of State issues a fundamental criticism, to which you absolutely do not respond and you completely go by.

You propose to impose on the general assemblies of shareholders of listed companies the obligation to respect an absolute and unconditional quota of members of a certain sex in the composition of the board of directors, although they have, so far, decided this composition in full freedom.

The draft law under consideration does not fundamentally challenge the current rules governing the right of anonymous companies, since these are organized around the principle of sovereignty of the general meeting of shareholders and thus concrete the freedom of association.

That means that according to the freedom of association, contained in Article 27 of the Constitution, it is up to the shareholders and only to them to freely decide on the composition according to the profiles, skills, gender, whatever you want. It may well be that shareholders consider that women are much more relevant for specifically one or that profession than men. I made this decision myself in my small business.

Obviously, wanting to categorically impose percentages in board of directors means not worrying about how a company works.

Madame Marghem, I understand your purely legal reflection on freedom of association. How do you justify the imposition of quotas for independent administrators? They were also imposed through a law.

And this date from when? It is a collie! I’m glad you can tell me about it, because tomorrow...

There are also independent managers. That is stupid! However, you voted for it at the time, in your great evolution, saying that at a certain point, self-regulation had its limits indeed!

I think colleague Déom is absolutely right when she states that many companies say of themselves that they can work better if the CEO would get a golden parachute for, for example, three years. In the past it was possible. Previously, with self-regulation, a company could perfectly decide on its own that a CEO could get a gold parachute of three annual salaries. We all found this very exaggerated. The legislator then judged and decided, even with a large majority in the House, that this was no longer possible.

I think effectively that a comparison with the quota can be made. We want to realize a change in the practice of these companies, just as there were no independent managers before. The legislature decided four or five years ago that there would be independent directors in the boards of corporate governments. That is for good reasons, we all agree on that, I think. I really wonder why you think that while there are manifestly social issues to make changes to the way a company is organized and makes decisions, such adjustments should not be made effectively? Auto-regulation has a certain value, but is not optimal. We have seen enough of this in practice. Therefore, it is essential that we act as legislators where necessary.

I find the comparison that colleague Déom makes between, on the one hand, the quota for women and, on the other hand, for example, the decision that we have made to let golden parachutes pay no more than twelve or eighteen months, ⁇ and ⁇ relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the paragraph from the State Council opinion that was just quoted. It is true that the Council pointed out that there will be a change in the views of the boards of directors compared to what was so far, but the State Council does not say that the legislature does not have the ability to change that.

One simply asks if we are aware of what we are doing, or that has been considered. Our answer to this is: Yes, we have considered it.

It indeed means a limitation on the sovereignty of the general assembly, which is not absolute even now. It will now be more limited, because we have carefully balanced it against a weighty interest, namely the importance of an adequate representation of both sexes.

There is a distinction between pointing somewhere and saying that one cannot do so because of the conflict with a higher law. This was not stated by the State Council.

The evening will give me advice, Mrs. Deom, since I will study this story of an independent administrator closely. I would be curious to know what his nomination is. And I wonder if there is a fundamental legal difference between this type of designation and the one that occupies us. I have a few hours left before I see you again tomorrow morning.

As for the opinion of the State Council, this is an opinion, I agree with you. We are not told, "You can't do this."We are simply told what is possible according to a legal analysis.

To summarize my speech – because it is 22:21 and everyone would like me to get to the point – there are two things to remember. First, on the legal level, it is necessary to talk about this obstacle, which is not arbitrary, since the majority can promote this text that imposes on private companies a measure contrary to the principle of freedom of association that governs them.

Other legal obstacles have been mentioned in the committee. You also know them well, since mr. Clarinval and I have sprinkled them. They pose a legal risk to this legislation. Rely on the companies that are imposed such a arrangement to submit to the Constitutional Court the one or the other request that will harm this law!

I will cite two small examples. The first concerns legal persons who are members of board of directors. We had a fun discussion on this in the committee. Some have told us that legal persons who are represented in a board of directors of listed companies are obviously represented by natural persons. Therefore, it will necessarily be a man or a woman who will be sent. Depending on this, the legal person will have to choose the right sex to complete this board of directors, at the risk of not being able to participate in it or seeing the decisions of that board of directors cancelled. However, you should know that this legislation will compel companies that are not yet compelled to do so – for example, a non-listed company, which is a legal person, therefore a legal interface – to observe a legislation that does not concern them, and this in order to continue to be present in the board of directors of a listed company. This is a major legal issue.

I also heard Mr. George once said that in board of directors or in listed companies, the weight of directors is not the same, and then confuse the ratio of force and equality between persons in the same legal category who must receive the same rights and have the same obligations. These are two completely different things. The relative weight of shareholders between them is not an inequality that can be criticized. The equality that must be sought and which is protected by the Constitution is that which obliges persons being in the same conditions to enjoy the same rights or have the same obligations.

This equality that you seek through the legislation that you promote, we also seek it but it must be accounting for true equality: all shareholders are equal, all shareholders have the right to vote at the general assembly, all shareholders have the right to choose freely which representatives they want in the board of directors. This is the true constitutional equality as it expresses itself and it cannot apply to gender differences.

The second major obstacle I see in this legislation is purely economic. As seen in the examples in the Netherlands, where a charter based on consensus with each company according to its needs can be applied, in the northern European countries, in Norway for example, companies no longer wanted to benefit from the listing on the stock market, i.e. funds for their operation because there was an obligation of this type.

Do not make yourself any illusion: companies that could be attracted by investments in Belgium observe a number of parameters before settling there, wonder if that country will allow them to settle, if there is enough space, if the regulation is not too heavy, if there are no legal constraints and this is part of the legal constraints that a company examines before settling in a country.

We are well placed to know, the regulations in this country are already extremely heavy and do not necessarily allow companies to grow as they would expect, while otherwise, we are seeking to fill the deficit of the Belgian state, at the height of 17 to 22 billion according to estimates.

We would therefore like to heighten the obligations that weigh on companies, to prevent companies from settling at us, participating in a value-added, participating in turning the economic engine of this country, to generate profits and therefore solidarity by imposing somewhat artificial things and which in any case, I think, would have occurred very spontaneously over time, in particular because women will reach age and level. Trust me: a woman who succeeds, who makes the choice of a career, will succeed.

Mrs. Marghem, this is the second time in the debate that this comes up. I think this was also stated by colleague Uyttersprot. When it comes to the number of companies in Norway that have left the stock exchange, the truth is not spoken. Only 7% of 17 companies mentioned the women’s quota as the only reason why they left the stock exchange. That is not insignificant, as it is often said that this is the reason why one in six companies left the stock exchange. It is mainly due to a new law in Norway that no longer required financial companies to be listed on the stock market that so many companies have left the stock market. Don’t say that one in six companies in Norway has left the stock exchange due to the new women’s quota scheme. This is only true in 7% of cases. The truth has its rights.

When you say that a legal person who designates his representative in a board of directors will be obliged to send either a man or a woman there because of this law and that he will lose his freedom of choice by being subject to a law that does not concern him, I cannot accept this reasoning. In fact, there are other obligations that apply to persons who will be part of a board of directors. When you are a member of the board of directors of a company, you are included in the project of that company. At that point, it is no longer the obligations that concern the company of which we are part that are the engine of our action but rather the guiding principle of the company of which we are shareholders.

In addition, a board of directors is a set of members; they are not just individualities that can be treated separately. With our bill, we say that it is the board as a whole that will have to ensure that a third of women are included. This does not mean that some will have to "sacrifice themselves", the fact of reaching this third of women will be the fruit of collective reflection.

It is necessary to incorporate the fact that a company, even listed on the stock market, is a collective work and that it has, in principle, values that should guide its choices.

As for Belgium as a place of settlement in relation to our neighboring states, some of them have already crossed the line and adopted laws imposing quotas. Other countries have chosen so-called more progressive formulas. In our law, companies have between seven and nine years to do so. They will not have to do it overnight.

In Germany, of which someone spoke just recently, companies have a deadline to get there before the obligation. This is the same for companies that would hesitate to set up based on an assessment of the constraints that are imposed. We are surrounded by countries that make the same choices as us, with sometimes different forms; so it seems to me that this constraint does not become an obstacle to an establishment in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the words of Mr. Tuybens.

We were present at the conscious testimony. Ms. Demir then explicitly asked whether it is correct that one hundred out of six hundred companies have left the stock exchange for the sake of the quota. The above question was answered affirmatively.

Mr Tuybens, Mr Teigen, in her report, indeed, refers to 33 % for a quota scheme in general and 7 % for re-registration or delisting, merely because of the mere fact that it is withdrawn from the stock market.

Ms Teigen, however, speaks pro domo. It is actually the speech tube of the body that contributed to the quota. Marike Stellinga, on the other hand, is the neutral person, who conducted a scientific study and who stated that one company in six companies applied for the delisting for the aforementioned reason.

Mr. Speaker, I will read one sentence from the study. It is a phrase in English, for which I apologize:

“Upon closer examination however, it became clear that the key reason for the change in most of the cases was a different law that took effect at the same time and which no longer required financial firms to be registered as publicly held corporations.”

The aforementioned sentence speaks for itself.

Mr. Uyttersprot and Mr. Tuybens, you are holding the same debate for the third time.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking here about what the witnesses said during the hearing. We were present then. We then asked the above question and received the above-mentioned answer.

The incident is closed. You just have to make a trip to Norway to find out what really happened!

Madame Marghem, I give you the word for your conclusion.

I will conclude.

I thank the President for making a proposal that I find tempting: to go to Norway to see what really happened. Without a doubt, at a lower cost, there would be a way to conduct in concreto and quickly a study of the situation in Norway.

This is not because Mr. Tuybens interrupted me that I feel obliged to immediately issue a humorous conclusion!

I just wanted to say this: I’ve heard a lot of sexist arguments. These arguments either annoy me or leave me cold. Indeed, the problem of gender, duality and separation between men and women has existed since the world is world. It is not we, in our small parliament, or anywhere else in this world, that will resolve this distance, this tension, this difference.

Imagine that, when I had to make the return speech to the Tournai bar in 1998, I had chosen this topic precisely as a pretext for reflecting on the difference between men and women, a problem as old as the world. I had chosen the title – a little difficult for translation and I apologize for it –: “Conversation between Shéhérazade and Socrates or The Maïeutique of the Other Sex.”

Sheherazade is the woman by excellence: she saves her life because she tells every night, for a thousand and one nights, a wonderful story to a barbaric sultan who has been deceived by his previous wife and who wants to kill all women. Socrates is an old barbon, at the limit more oriented at the end of life towards the male sex than towards his wife Xanthippe whom he met while young and who he abandons.

This gaillard is on the edge of a road – I had obviously projected my characters in the modern age –; he tries to talk to one or the other, but no one cares about it. He is overthrown by a car and taken to the hospital emergencies; there he meets a pregnant nurse named Shéhérazade. Thro ⁇ the evening when this unfortunate Socrates is treated, they will exchange the female part of the man with the woman and the male part of the woman with the man.

In fact, each of us has two parts of humanity: the male side and the female side. Simply, we are oriented at a certain moment of our lives in one direction or another. This is what makes this distance. While, in reality, with maieutique—that is, the art of giving birth to ideas by asking questions to others and their answers that bring about the things that exist and that maintain the conversation—these two, who had nothing in common and could only be separated, exchanged their opposite parts during the conversation.

This is the characteristic of the other sex. Meditate on this tonight and maybe your legislation will be better tomorrow.

Mrs. Marghem, I would like to point out that a pregnant nurse is removed from her service.

Not always, Mr. President, it depends on the type of service of the hospital where she works. There are services that are considered non-risk. In this case, there is no gap between pregnant nurses.

The service has not been specified and I make sure that no mistakes are made.

I just specify that this person had come to be treated for dermatological problems.

I am aware of the advanced hour. Even those who absolutely do not want to put their children in bed can now safely go home.

I am also aware that I am the second speaker of our group and that Mrs. Gerkens has already stated our position. I will be short.

We are enthusiastic about this bill. It is no secret, however, that we actually wanted more, with a quota of 40 % that would also apply to the board of directors of public companies.

We are genuinely pleased with the constructive process, in which this proposal was adjusted until it eventually comes up with a text in which at least six parties can be found, in addition to a number of members of other parties, and which in addition responds to the comments of the State Council by providing for an evaluation and by mitigating the sanction.

Much has changed in our society since the first secretary of state of what was then called Social Emancipation in 1985, but truly completely equal opportunities we have not realised yet. Yes, the wage gap is an important issue that is currently being addressed in this Parliament.

The glass ceiling is another problem. That invisible barrier that makes women scarcely underrepresented in all areas of society and which cannot be reduced to one factor. It is a complex set of factors, but it has been extensively documented, including by the reports of the Institute for Gender Equality, and it is still thick in our society.

The boards of board of directors of listed companies and public companies are a very clear example of this because the representation of women there is so extremely low.

As mentioned earlier, the problem is not limited to companies and board of directors. Our commitment to a decent representation of women in leadership positions should therefore not be limited to this sector.

As far as our group is concerned, this law is ⁇ not the closing point of the action in this area. It is rather a spearpoint, a break iron.

There has been a lot of discussion about it in recent months and not only here, but also in the wider society and in the media. And that is good. We hope that this law will have an impact not only on companies and women, but also on the wider society. If even private companies have to take into account gender, how can it then, everyone rightly asks, that this does not happen in the same degree in the highest courts, in the universities, in the trade unions and in many other places.

We already see that these debates are going on. For example, I note in my own university that there is already a spontaneous improvement in the representation of women in the board of directors. We see that organizations are starting to question their own practices from the perspective of gender equality. This should become an obvious concern.

Yes, it is a punishment that we will compel large companies to take into account gender when compiling their board of directors, but it is especially a punishment that it is necessary to compel such a thing and that it does not go by itself at all, although it has long been shown that diversity in decision makers primarily benefits the company and that the glass ceiling is ultimately nothing but a pure waste of talent. We are convinced that quotas are a good and necessary solution to break through a stubborn glass ceiling, but we are not happy that this should be the case. I hope that all those who have claimed in recent months that those same results can also be achieved on a voluntary basis will take up the gloves and reach the required gender ratio, a bit before the deadline, or that they will go a lot further than the third one we want to impose. Finally, we have provided a very generous deadline, which meets the concerns of the companies. We give them a lot of time.

During the transition period, however, we should not stand still. It is necessary to work on flanking measures during the transitional period. There are many measures that cannot or should not be imposed by law, but which the government can do. I think in particular about awareness raising, recruitment and the use of existing databases of female talent.

The quota law is an important law, but it is not a magic rod. It will ensure a good representation of women in an important field, but it will not alone realize a gender-like society. Therefore, it is important that both Parliament and Government, after the final vote on this law, which hopefully comes soon, do not look at this as if we have done enough for gender equality again for a while. On the contrary, the large mobilization around this file and the progressive coalition that has formed around it requires more. We must keep the debate on those last measures that our society has yet to take towards genuine gender equality. This does not mean that we have to introduce quotas everywhere. If it can be without, please, please, but if it does not prove to work and as quotas are needed elsewhere, then we can impose them. We will prove this today and tomorrow.

I need one last one, and I will be that one.

I will not surprise you by telling you from the beginning that the MR will not support the text that is submitted to our attention today. We do not want any caricature of our position. We therefore want to say unambiguously that the contribution of women in all economic fields is essential. Tending toward a better representation of women in the boards of directors of large companies in this country is a goal that the MR supports 100%.

However, this is the chosen method that we regret here. I will go even further by stating that this bill has failed its purpose. It is a double disappointment. First, if the objective of adequate feminisation of the board of directors is shared by the MR, we think that it can only emerge from the example and not from coercion. That’s why we found it essential to seize the opportunity given to assign this role to our public enterprises.

An obligation to represent a third party already exists for many of them. The opportunity was therefore a good opportunity to uniformise the rules and to rethink our ambition to the rise. Therefore, we submitted an amendment aimed at introducing gender parity in the boards of management of public enterprises. Unfortunately, the majority that came out to support the text in committee did not have the courage to go so far. Why, in fact, limit ourselves to a representation of a third of women only in companies where the state, as the main shareholder, can move mentalities? If public authorities can act, they must do so with ambition and immediately aim for the most optimal outcome. Parity in the boards of public enterprises is, in our opinion, the strongest example we could give today.

I regret therefore this lack of ambition and long-term vision. The text presented to us today only follows the practice. As we see today, women are increasingly taking the place to which their training, skills and qualities must naturally lead them. According to the SPF Economy, women occupy ⁇ four out of ten top positions. The proportion of women in senior positions is higher in the Brussels-Capital Region with 43% of women in these positions compared to 36% in Flanders and 37% in Wallonia. True parity was a more ambitious and evolving goal. If a law is adopted, as much as it is effective.

The second reason for disappointment concerns companies listed on the stock exchange. We have always emphasized that the right to determine the composition and to appoint the directors of the listed companies belongs to the shareholders and only to them. by Mr. by Uyttersprot, Mr. Schiltz and others have already ⁇ this before me. The State Council has fully confirmed this position and, like him, the MR believes that this appointment should remain the responsibility of shareholders. My colleague Marie-Christine Marghem has just detailed the statements of the State Council; I will therefore not go back on this.

For several years now, the debate on the effectiveness of self-regulation and corporate governance codes has been open. Some believe that this does not work and propose that the legislator impose strict conditions on listed companies without taking into account the specificities of these companies: the international environment with which they interact, the family structure and shareholding in Belgium, the necessary competitiveness to be preserved and above all the need to alleviate unnecessary and counterproductive constraints. Unfortunately, this is not the direction the text voted in the committee takes.

The risk is high, in fact, to see Bel 20 companies leave the Belgian market and, in the short term, cause a leak of investors, as has been seen in Norway – as Ms Demir and Mr Demir recalled. by Uyttersprot. We believe in the virtue of example and encouragement. And we regret the blow of force against private companies. If a change of mentality is to occur over time, it will only be able to do so based on the example and not on compulsion. This is why I prefer to refer to the clear recommendation of the Corporate Governance Code: to ⁇ a 30% representation of women in board of directors by 2018.

Furthermore, I am disappointed that the legislator is not consistent with himself. Just a year ago, in April 2010, we voted here for a law that introduced corporate governance provisions into the law, and more specifically in terms of administrator remuneration. Basically, this law for the first time obliges listed companies to have a reference code through the Royal Decree of 6 June 2010 – it is the Belgian Code of Corporate Governance – in various areas, in particular as regards the composition of the boards of directors.

Our amendments advocated that this law should be allowed to produce its effects, as it should only begin to apply in the general assemblies from 2012. So, the text we voted last year didn’t even have time to come into effect. Unfortunately, the MPs who supported the bill preferred too intrusive legislative intervention that could lead to perverse and counterproductive effects.

As I have already said, the Norwegian example, which is frequently cited, but which shows less perverse effects, testifies to this.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and in order not to be too long, I repeat here the position defended by the MR in commission. We will not vote on this text and we will abstain because we regret the authoritarian method chosen for listed companies and we regret the lack of ambition for public companies for which a 50% quota could have been provided.

March 31, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I will read the report. In the meantime, you can get a little bit of the animated discussion.

It is about the draft law opening the provisional appropriations for the months of April, May and June 2011. At the meeting of the Committee on Finance and Budget on Tuesday, March 15, the bill on opening provisional appropriations for the months of April, May and June was discussed.

Guy Vanhengel, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget, noted that the Finance Act of 22 December 2010 for the financial year 2011 opened provisional appropriations for the months of January, February and March 2011. The draft budget has not yet been submitted to the House. In order to ensure the functioning of public services in the coming months, it is proposed to extend the system of provisional appropriations to the period of April, May, June 2011. The Deputy Prime Minister calls for an exception to the basic salary allowance and for four twelve. An additional twelfth is taken into account to guarantee the payment of the holiday fee in May and to allow the coverage of inflation.

Mr Melchior Wathelet, State Secretary for Budget, Migration and Asylum Policy, Family Policy and the Federal Cultural Institutions, points out that this bill also contains some essential general legal provisions, which are normally included in the general spending budget. The derogatory provisions are fourfold: increase in expenditure due to exceptional circumstances, specific legal indexing mechanisms, volume effects and early expenditure. As regards the increase in expenditure, the Secretary of State points to the granting of a loan of EUR 1.3 million to Belgocontrol in the form of a recoverable advance. He states that when this was necessary for contractual or legal reasons, some credits were anticipated. He also suggests that various international organizations have a strict timetable for the payment of the contributions of the Member States. So in order to avoid Belgium having to pay default interests or fines, the credits were anticipated, according to the State Secretary.

Furthermore, as regards the balance sheet, the other derogations are in line with those granted under the first series of provisional credits.

The Secretary of State declares that the statutory indexing mechanisms, with the exception of wages, concerns grants to public companies and grants to social security institutions.

Regarding the transfer to persons, Mr Wathelet points out that both the indexation and the available, favorable estimate of the number of beneficiaries were taken into account.

He further states that the allocation for Fedasil and the appropriations for asylum and migration policies have been adjusted as a result of the latest decisions of the Council of Ministers.

After the presentations, the committee went on to the discussion. In addition to Mr. Hagen Goyvaerts, Mr. Veerle Wouters, Mr. Georges Gilkinet, Chairman Muriel Gerkens and Mr. Hendrik Bogaert also asked when the government plans to submit a draft budget for 2011.

Mr. Guy Vanhengel indicates that the European Commission obliges EU Member States to present a new stability path for the years 2011-2015 by mid-April 2011. This course should be based on a full-fledged budget for 2011.

In addition, if the provisional appropriations scheme is extended, our country will not be able to meet the expectations of the European institutions, in particular to reach a budgetary balance in 2015. For this reason, the budget amounts currently eligible are too high. Therefore, within the government was reached an agreement to submit a draft budget to the House.

Nevertheless, that draft budget will be prepared taking into account all the constraints arising from the fact that only ongoing matters may be managed. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, the government will act cautiously and conservatively.

He points out that the 2011 draft budget will be prepared on the basis of the figures provided by the Monitoring Committee in February 2011 and of the latest data made available by the High Council of Finance on 16 March 2011. On the basis of the above figures and after the federal government has determined the main basic parameters for its own budget, it will consult with the decentralised governments so that the new multiannual plan can be submitted to the European Commission within the set deadline.

In his replica, Mr. Hendrik Bogaert pointed out that the expenditure is automatically reduced when working with provisional credits. He expressed concern that the adoption of the 2011 budget will incentivise the ministers to increase spending soon during the second half of the year, thereby addressing their backwardness, and with retroactive effect to spend appropriations that they previously could not use.

The Minister considers that the impact of the provisional appropriations should be proportionate, as part of the savings thus achieved is overturned by an early index jump and by volume effects.

Mr Goyvaerts said that the credit for election expenditure will be reduced by €2.7 million because no more elections will be held in 2011. He wondered what this was based on. The Deputy Prime Minister, however, assured that the necessary budgetary resources will be provided to hold elections in 2011 if necessary.

Mr. Bogaert asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the budget of the Brussels Capital Region. He says he learned that part of the expected revenue from a possible state reform by the Brussels Region would already be registered in the budget. He wants to know the impact on the common budget.

According to the Minister, the Brussels Capital Region has not taken into account any increase in its own financial resources that could result from a future state reform. On the other hand, it subscribes an amount of EUR 54 million, which it considers to be entitled to in the context of the discussion on the distribution of the salaries relating to the employment programmes. This was the case last year, according to the Minister.

In response to the questions asked by several committee members in connection with Belgocontrol, the Minister indicates that the advances provided are intended to address any liquidity problems.

He indicates that air traffic has increased sharply and says that the financial difficulties of Belgocontrol are due to the fact that that public company is not paid any financial contribution for the services it provides for the regional airports.

We are pleased to find that the Minister recognizes the urgent need to conclude a new cooperation agreement, says Mr Goyvaerts.

Ms. Wouters notes that the personnel appropriations in the first split of the provisional twelve were indexed by 2 % and that a reduction of 0,7 % was also taken into account, as decided in the 2010 budget control. She says that there is no trace of a 0.7% reduction in the previous second disc of indexing.

In his reply, the Minister indicates that, as in the Fiscal Act of 22 December 2010, the principle of reduction of personnel appropriations by 0.7 % is ⁇ ined in respect of personnel expenditure.

The figures contained in this bill also take into account the indexation of wages. In her replica, Ms. Wouters still regrets that the amounts are calculated in a non-transparent manner.

I gave a summary. I have not been able to present all the interventions. For more details, of course, I refer to the written resolution of the committee meeting.

Article 1 was adopted by 13 votes against 1. Articles 2 to 29 were adopted successively by 8 votes against 1 and 5 abstentions. The entire bill was adopted with 8 votes against 1 and 5 abstentions.

So far, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, the report of our committee work.

Mr. Bogert, you are listed as a speaker. I will save you the move, considering your age. Mr Goyvaerts agreed.

Let me now come to the position of our group on this subject. We work with temporary loans. Meanwhile, important results from the budget situation of our country are also sinking in. I must honestly say that I am positively surprised at what is rolling inside. Also this afternoon shows that the result for 2010 instead of 4.6 % of GDP is 4.1 % of GDP. That means that quite a few critical voices here will soon come to apologize about the state of the public finances. That is not necessary.

In any case, it is a spectacularly positive result. We must say this in all objectivity. The 3.6 percent that we anticipate for 2011 is in sight. I don’t think we can stretch 0.5% linearly to 2011, but I think it’s, more than a little, an uptick for 2011.

How does that come? Many economists wonder how it is possible that Belgium does well there along with Germany, as one of the only large or medium-sized countries. I think, again in all objectivity, that it has to do primarily with the very efficient anti-crisis policy of the government. First of all, it has taken a VAT measure in construction. Some parties, including the N-VA, considered that an unnecessary measure. She sent Belgaberichten to say that it was reckless and unnecessary and completely discouraged it. Nevertheless, this measure has proved to be one of the cutting-edge measures of the government’s anti-crisis policy.

In addition, the government extended the temporary unemployment rate for workers and established the possibility to do so also for employees. We must not underestimate the impact of this measure. If one can save more than 50 000 people from unemployment, it has a social relevance. If only one person of 10, 20 or 30 people who celebrate Christmas together, for example, is fired in a harsh way, it has a huge impact on the rest, including family and friends. If a government can save 50,000 people from unemployment, then that is socially very important.

Economics also has to do with psychology. That measure of temporary unemployment has had an enormous psychological support in a positive sense and has avoided many traumas in our society, anywhere in our country. It is a symbol of cohesion in our society that such measures could be taken.

I also refer to the possibility for companies to postpone payment. Unlike France, which has taken measures that weigh heavily on the budget and still today would weigh heavily on the budget, the government has taken cash or liquidity measures, the proceeds of which automatically return to the budget. This has been one of the key cornerstones of what we now see in that budget.

As one of the only countries, we have perfectly implemented what the European Commission has called for, namely reversible measures. We did not take 1% of the gross domestic product, we implemented a limited plan of 1 billion. I remember very well that we had a tough discussion here to ensure that the anti-crisis measure would cost not 1 % of the gross domestic product, but actually only 1 billion.

With our open economy, that was a smart strategy. The money has been rolled into our country and we now see the positive effects on the current budget.

Can we then be satisfied with a 3.6% budget deficit, ⁇ later in the future? I think of no.

One of the major dangers of what Europe means to us, whether it is general policy, socio-economic policy or euro policy, is that we are satisfied with an average, because Europe imposes on us to ⁇ a certain, average result, including in terms of employment rate.

I think it is a great danger if we as a country pursue only the average. That is not our ambition, and it has never been our historical ambition. We have always been part of the wealth axis in Europe. Southern England, West Netherlands, Belgium, Southern Germany and Northern Italy.

If we are now satisfied with the average of Europe, it would, in my opinion, not be consistent with the ambition of our generations. We need to look at the input. Belgium is a country with a world-class education, which should lead to a better outcome. Belgium is one of the countries with a huge workforce, which should lead to a better result. Belgium is a country with an extremely good geographical location, which should lead to a better result.

So the average is not an ambition and will never be the ambition of our country. We need to do better and our ambition must be to be among the top three of Europe.

Therefore, structural reforms are important in order not only to balance that budget, but also to make it structurally sound. There are significant imbalances, including in our Belgian economy, that need to be addressed.

There are important transfers between the regions, which can be resolved if things go better in certain regions as well. CD&V is, of course, the requesting party and wants to do everything to ensure that it goes better everywhere in the country.

There are opportunities and reforms in the field of end-of-life. One cannot expect to reach the top three of Europe while our population works four years less than in our neighboring countries. This requires major structural reforms. They are called community, but I think they are not just community, they go much deeper than that.

I think that in our country there is a need for major reorganizations in the field of the labour market, just like community reforms. Only then will we support our ambition to reach the top three in the European Union and the eurozone.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to use my speaking time to formulate some concerns regarding the present bill on opening of provisional credits for the months of April, May and June.

We are not here for the first time. We stand for the second time on this floor to comment on those preliminary twelve. The first round of the provisional twelve, for the months of January, February and March, we discussed during the plenary session of 16 December last year, I think to remember. I could make it easy to myself and repeat my argument from then. In the meantime, there has not been much done in preparing a full-fledged budget, let alone in the meantime a policy programme is facing.

More than nine months – 291 days to be precise – since the elections of 10 June 2010 we still have a government of downward affairs. In fact, it has become a concierge government. As in 2008, by the way, colleagues, when a certain Guy Verhofstadt at the end of March, early April was still prime minister of a government of outgoing affairs, waiting for the appropriate moment to lift Yves Leterme in the seat. The difference is that today, March 31, 2011, we still have no perspective when a new government comes. If there is already one, colleagues, who will say it?

Today, 31 March 2011, there is still no full-fledged government with full powers. Therefore, it remains to wait for a government with a government program and with a budget policy. Therefore, it remains to wait for a government that addresses the budget deficit in a kordate way. It remains to be awaited for a government that addresses state debt in a structural way, that addresses the financing of pensions incrementally, that addresses the socio-economic policy incrementally, that addresses the stormy fiscal pressure structurally, that addresses the high burden on labor structurally and that provides for a drastic transformation in the asylum and immigration dossiers instead of mowing with the crane open. In this way we can continue for a while.

Meanwhile, this government of decreasing affairs, this concierge government, runs a flat path, to say in wheel terms. Sunday is the Round of Flanders. It may be appropriate to use some wheel term.

It is primarily thanks to the attractive conjuncture, the economic recovery and the additional income generated by it that this government can already fluidly reduce the budget deficit to 3.6% of gross domestic product.

I would like to point out that this is not a normal condition. We are in an exceptional situation. I would much rather hold a full-fledged budget discussion with a corresponding government program. I would rather see ministers sitting on government banks with whom we can discuss the policies they are going to pursue and the budget translation thereof.

Yes, but they are still not there to this day. We are in a joyful expectation, but in the meantime we cannot debate the budget and the policies opposed to it, and that is the difficulty in this Parliament.

I would have preferred to have a debate on the structural improvement of the budget deficit and government debt. We should call a cat a cat. I estimate the structural improvement of the budget in 2010 to be approximately 0.0 %. I expect that in 2011. The structural improvement of the budget deficit will be a figure behind the comma.

I note that the structural health of the Belgian public finances is progressing by no meter. You can make the beautiful weather in Europe with the preliminary twelve and by driving a flat course, but then you must always assess the risks: the wind can still turn and around the corner there is another rising road. The final meeting is still far from you.

What will happen if public spending continues to rise stronger than the growth of the economy? That is already a problem. You know very well that Belgian public spending has grown twice as fast as national income in the last ten years. How vulnerable will your budget be to a growth slowdown?

The High Council of Finance has already curved on this and has estimated that, if the current expenditure growth continues and if the economic growth grows 0.5 % slower than the pink-colored base scenario of more than 2 % until 2015, the budget in 2015 will slide to a deficit of control and write 7 % of GDP. So there is still some work to be done to put those public finances in a structural way in a quiet watershed.

I would like to remind you of the statements made by the current Minister of Finance, Mr Didier Reynders, on 14 December 2010. He explained the following. I quote: “The resigning government must announce a budget for 2011 in January with €4 billion of savings in order to reduce the budget deficit in 2011 by 1% of GDP.” he added that this should be a feasible effort and that if it is not a new government that does, it is up to the government in ongoing affairs to do so with parliamentary support.

Well, since that judgment on 14 December, I have not heard much about it. The outcome, both within the outgoing government of downfall matters and in consultation with the Parliament, is not known to us. Where are all these feasible efforts now? I am sure that no effort has yet been made.

I close with an explanation to the amendment that my colleague Gerolf Annemans announced during the questioning hour. The amendment concerns the removal of the registered credit for a certain Mr L. of Belgium, popularly referred to as Prince Laurent, as a result of the commotion that arose following his other frats and the impossibility in which the person concerned has been struck. That amendment aims to reduce the grant of Prince Laurent in the provisional twelve from 77 000 euros to zero euros.

I look forward to the voting behavior of CD&V and especially to that of Steven Vanackere who made a bold decision on that this week, on the statute of the prince concerned. I am, of course, very curious whether the members of the N-VA Group will support our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it here. We will not approve and vote against the provisional twelve.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, this second disc of provisional twelve is of course necessary to allow the various administrations to continue working in the coming months of April, May and June, or until the actual budget 2011 is approved here.

Nevertheless, I have a lot of comments on this bill and this both substantially and formally. Provisional appropriations are regulated in Articles 55 to 59 of the Act of 22 May 2003 on the organization of the budget and accounting of the federal state. To summarize this briefly, the provisional appropriations are calculated on the basis of the last approved budget. The period for which the credits are granted shall not exceed four months, subject to legal or contractual obligations. Furthermore, the provisional appropriations should not be used for new expenditure, which is, therefore, expenditure not included in the last budget.

Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, I note that you do not comply with this legislation and in particular with the last rule regarding the non-use of provisional appropriations for new expenditure. I will give four examples. First, there is the ombudsman service for train passengers. The appropriations for the Ombudsman’s service for train passengers have been recovered. They were originally included in the 2010 budget, but were no longer included in the last approved 2010 budget. According to the law, they are considered new.

We are very pleased that the rail transport ombudsman’s service could be effectively launched within the FOD Mobility. However, we note that this Ombudsman’s service is suddenly divided into a Ombudsman’s service and a enforcement service, and this without a single accountability. In my opinion, there is no legal basis for this – neither in the law of various provisions of 28 April 2010, nor in the KB of 23 February 2011. Does the government know what it wants? This deserves a broader debate and belongs to a real budget discussion and should not be included so quickly in a budget of provisional twelve.

Another example of non-compliance with the rule is the establishment of an electronic register of road transport undertakings. Nevertheless, a budget of 2 million euros is registered, with the explicit announcement that there will be budgetary implications for the period 2012-2015. What the implications are, we have to guess. In response to my question during the committee meeting, reference was made to the European regulations which will be directly applicable in Belgian law from 4 December 2011. That regulation dates from 2009. There was, therefore, sufficient time to record that in the 2010 budget, in the 2010 budget control, or in the third adjustment of the 2010 budget, or even in the first section of the provisional twelve. So, there was enough chance. By the way, next week, if everything goes well, the government will submit a budget for 2011. This also does not belong in a second disc of preliminary twelve. This also deserves at least a discussion in the context of a budget discussion.

A third example is the personnel loans of the FOD Internal Affairs. The staff appropriations of the management bodies within the SPF Internal Affairs will receive an additional EUR 259 000. This amount is not included in the budget.

Mr. Secretary of State, in the committee you indicated that this only applies to the Foreign Affairs Service and that it was additional staff that was hired to cope with the increased workload in the field of asylum and migration. However, those 259 000 euros in the budget are separate from the Foreign Affairs Service. Does this mean that part of the additional resources, allocated to Asylum and Migration, will now be used for the FOD Internal Affairs to recruit additional personnel, or do you have a different statement for that? Again, we find nothing back in accountability.

A fourth example on this. Mr. Minister of Budget again found it not necessary to justify the exceptions provided for his cabinet appropriations. Mr. Minister, we think you could be a good example as Minister of Budget. During the discussion of the fiscal law in December, you indicated that this money would be used for the termination fees of the staff members of the policy cell of the government commissioner, responsible for the internal audit. My question on this subject is: are these cancellation fees still not settled?

Next, I would like to return to my question regarding the indexation of personnel loans and the savings of cabinet loans. Mr Bogaert has already cited the question I raised in the committee, in particular, in the first part of the provisional twelve, the personal loans were provided with a credit of three twelve of the 2010 credit, with the exception of the personal loans of the FOD which do not yet apply the FedCom system. In addition, staff appropriations were indexed by 2 % in the first quarter and also took into account the 0.7 % savings decided during the 2010 budget control.

In the present second split of provisional twelve, a staff loan for four twelve is provided, taking into account the payment of the holiday fee. However, now there is no trace of indexation and reduction of 0.7%. Also the savings of 5 million euros, as decided by the Council of Ministers of 16 October 2009, will no longer be accounted for in the appropriations of the policy cells. Why at the first disc and not at the second disc?

Mr. Secretary of State, in the committee you have repeatedly pointed out that the appropriations indeed took into account the indexation of 2% and the savings, as well as the savings of 5 million euros on cabinet appropriations. In the committee, you simply couldn’t tell me exactly how that would be included in those tables. I would like to thank you for the supplementary response, both from the Minister and the Secretary of State. I received a reply on March 17, 2010. In it, the Minister of Budget states that the indexation is processed in the figures because the holiday fee does not represent the full monthly amount and therefore in the appropriations still a full monthly amount is provided for this, so that in principle a separate indexation was not necessary.

This answer cannot convince me. If one stretches the line, then in principle it would not have been necessary to provide for such indexing in the first disk. For example, the end-year premium is already included in that annual loan, while it is not necessary in the first 3 months and therefore in principle the three twelve would have been enough anyway.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, in addition, your answer does not save the savings of 5 million euros on cabinet credits. The aforementioned savings apply both to personnel and operational credits. The question remains, therefore, why the government wants to continue the savings in question in the first disc and not in the second disc of the provisional twelve. This behavior is really a way of working inconsistently. We cannot really agree with such a method.

Mr. Minister, above that, I have a comment on the layout of the table.

In each programme – 50/4, 50/5 and 70/4 – for the Ministry of Land Defense is simply stated: “unnecessary credits for a loan of -2 616 000 euro, -3 000 000 euro, -849 000 euro”.

Also in the budget of the federal police and of the FOD Finance such cases occur. In the FOD Finance, some things are even registered under the organization section 80 and therefore even as ordinary varieties.

Why is it not divided over the different basic allocations and over the different budget items, as is done in other departments?

Mr. Secretary of State, also in the committee you pointed out that the division by program is legally mandatory.

Can you tell me what legal obligation is in question? Why would that obligation impose that no division per basic allocation is necessary? Are you referring to budgetary legislation? Is it the same budgetary legislation that prohibits ministers from increasing their cabinet appropriations with appropriations dedicated to the FOD, but on which the Secretary of State willingly wishes to make an exception for the Minister of Labour, in particular his CDH chairman?

I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will not go with the budget in the same direction as with his asylum and migration policy.

Therefore, Mr. Minister of Budget, it seems to me necessary that you increase the control somewhat.

By not dividing the aforementioned amounts, you prevent the Court of Auditors from performing its work. In accordance with Article 180 of the Constitution, the Court of Auditors is charged with the examination and settlement of the accounts of general administration. The Court of Auditors shall carry out its control at the level of the basic allocation. If you do not divide them, the Court of Auditors, of course, cannot do its job.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, this seemed to you a routine cluster, it has become a ruthless rush cluster. I hope that when you submit the 2011 budget, you will take it with much more precision and much more seriousness.

I would like to answer the technical questions.

To the question about the mediators at the NMBS we have answered in the committee.

With the introduction of the electronic register, we implement a European regulation. It is true that the date is already over. However, it is not a bad idea to make those conversions still, even though we are late. There is no point in waiting for the conversion.

In connection with Home Affairs, I can assure you that the credits at the Foreign Affairs service will remain. This was also the clear notification of the Council of Ministers.

As I said in the committee, the indexation and the 0.7% reduction of appropriations are general policies that are applied throughout the entire budget. The difference in numbers is due to the holiday fee. This was also stated in the letter we wrote to the committee to clarify how the different credits should be identified.

There is also a different distribution of the basic allocation with implementation of the Fedcom system.

For the policy cell, we also follow the same rule of 0.7% reduction and indexation. Also in the 2011 budget, which will be submitted to Parliament in a few days, the policy cells of the members of the resigning government will once again make an additional effort, as in 2010. Even when we have executed the 2011 budget, that is, at the end of 2011, it will show that the government policy cells have made efforts.

Therefore, one cannot argue that the policy cells do not make efforts. The opposite is true and that will still be proven in the budget, which will be submitted in the coming days.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we should still take a moment to address the importance of the provisional appropriations, as they are now presented and requested to Parliament here for the second time.

The fact that we submit the provisional appropriations for the second time to the Chamber’s approval has all to do with the fact that the continuity of the administration must be ensured and with the fact that the government fits the House in ongoing affairs and ensures that the federal services can continue to do their work.

Following the first series approved and the implementation given to it, the second series also demonstrates well that the government remains perfectly within its role of the ongoing affairs. I repeat the call I also made when the first series was submitted to Parliament. All people of good will who feel good about our country and its institutions are kindly invited to approve the series of provisional loans, because without its approval the operation in our country will stand still.

That said, I hear again now, just like during the marathon meeting, when we discussed the initial 2010 budget here – it was a meeting where we sat in the banks for about 26 hours – all sorts of unhealthy rumors and pessimistic noises about what the future could give.

I invite the colleagues to read again what was said at the time, during the discussion of the 2010 budget. If you re-read that for a moment and that balances with the most recent figures, which were announced today by the Institute of National Accounts – the prime minister just referred to them – you can only see that the exiting government can present a very good budget report.

In terms of the balance to be financed, we had planned to close 2010 with a deficit of 4.8 %. This was also what we had announced at the European Commission. We had planned to close 2011 with a deficit of 4.1%. Well, colleagues, it should be a pleasure for all of us that on the basis of the figures of the Institute of National Accounts published today, the year 2010 will be closed with a deficit of 4.1 %. That is to say, on the basis of the Stability Pathway as we have presented it to Europe, we have taken a full year ahead of the objective to be achieved.

However, this should also indicate that in the formulation of our budgets, both on the income and on the expenditure side, the greatest constraint and the greatest seriousness are displayed.

I just want to add that we need the provisional appropriations, because it still takes some time before the 2011 budget, which we have already drawn up without developing new initiatives, either on the revenue or on the expenditure side, is implemented. In this case, we strictly adhere to the concept of the ongoing affairs.

By the way, we must be well aware that for the last part of the operations to be carried out in order to get a balance and a surplus – the intention must be to realize a surplus in the long run so that we can bear the costs of aging in our country – we will not be able to work in the preparation of the budget for 2012 as we have done so far. The government will need to intervene structurally and to intervene more deeply structurally than it has done so far. This requires a government with full powers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with the question that all those who can ensure that a government with full powers comes up as soon as possible would do their best to do so. This is, in fact, even more important than all the technical points relating to the formulation of the provisional appropriations, which can be highlighted here.

I would like to add something about the policy cells. I confirm that the efforts for the 2010 policy cells will continue in 2011. You will see that the 2011 budget is making an additional effort. We, of course, asked for a similar effort for the grant, for example for the grant in Parliament, and this was not done. Of course, the policy cells are making efforts, even before 2011, but unfortunately this was not done for the allocations for Parliament.

That can still change. This may still change, even within the vote on the 2011 budget.

I would like to support what State Secretary Wathelet and Minister Vanhengel have said and I look at the colleagues of N-VA. They want to be continuously involved in fiscal policy. When we first dealt with the provisional twelve in the committee, we told N-VA that there was no problem and they could put their proposals on the table and show how exactly they want to amend those provisional twelve, where we need to cut in costs and possibly the revenue can be expanded.

Now the preliminary twelve are on the table for the second time. I am disappointed in the replica of the N-VA. She says that the preliminary twelve have been misrepresented and wants to abstain at the vote. I think this is quite short through the curve. Many officials are looking forward to this vote. The observation that the budget documents are poorly drawn up, I consider to be a shortage for an abstinence. I expect the N-VA to say that the preliminary twelve are wrong, that they have something else, that they have suggestions for a cost-saving plan.

If the only argument is sluggishness, vote with and make sure it can go on, even if it is not in ideal conditions. Take your responsibility.

Regarding global fiscal policy, which I have always been very critical of, I can only conclude that the face-to-face result is spectacularly good.

The [...]

I have not always been constructive, but especially critical. I just have to establish objectively that the facial result is spectacularly good. I had expected some more objective feedback from the N-VA.