Proposition 53K1952

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 13, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT excise duty civil servant budget tax on investment income tax relief tax evasion fringe benefit direct tax medicinal product tax on income tax collection airport natural disaster public safety civil service public accounting quasi-fiscal charge pension scheme retirement conditions national budget tobacco indemnification early retirement public health unemployment health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 22, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Ms. Valérie De Bue, Mr. Jenne De Potter and Mr. by Jef van den Bergh. They all three return to their written report.

I would like to point out that at the moment there are 48 registered. We determined an order for the discussion of the different chapters of the project.

Chapter 2 – Budget

Title 2 – Budget

Three speakers are currently registered for this chapter.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I am experiencing a déjà vu here. About a year ago we had the same discussion here in the discussion of the various provisions and I held about the same argument.

I will not repeat the work in the committee; I would like to refer to Articles 2 to 9 on the budget. We have three points of fundamental criticism on those articles. That is why I say that we did not support that part in the committee.

The Court of Auditors examined the case. I quote from the book proposed last week regarding the third review of the entry into force of the Fedcom project in some departments of general administration. The Court of Auditors notes that the Minister of Budget and his administration have made significant efforts to meet the observations and recommendations formulated by the Court of Auditors since its 164th book, but that there is still no adequate solution to a number of problems.

What are we actually talking about? We are talking about the Fedcom system, introduced by law in 2003, which should ensure that our administrations can work more smoothly, uniformly, clearly and efficiently. This is what it is about: a more efficient operation of administrations.

The law of 2003 provided for a final entry into service, not later than 1 January 2012. That gave the services and ministries 9 years to deploy Fedcom and adapt the systems to the new accounting system.

What are the articles on various provisions today? We note that accession to the Fedcom system for a number of administrations and government agencies is being postponed again, this time until 2014. That is incomprehensible.

You will take tax measures here later, which will require notaries, among others, to declare compliance within two weeks. You will here approve measures, which will allow entrepreneurs who are today owners of their own business to be taxed if they do not make the necessary adjustments quickly by the end of the year.

That is what you require from the private.

The government takes nine years for itself, after those nine years it determines that it does not succeed and adds another two years. Given what is ahead today and considering the discussions held on this subject in the committee, we must conclude that there is no guarantee and that this law will be effectively implemented on 1 January 2014.

We have asked concrete questions about the Management of Buildings, which still lags a few years behind in accounting. We also asked questions about the pension service. We have asked questions about Defence and apparently one would be able to adjust a handle there.

Mr. Minister, if you do not come up with a concrete plan with concrete deadlines, the Court of Auditors will next year make the same conclusion that we do here today and that we did last year, in particular that there is no serious work being done on the introduction of Fedcom and on making our government more efficient.

A second point of criticism relates to the provisions relating to the prior visa required for bodies that have not yet joined Fedcom. It is clear that government agencies, which are not in Fedcom, normally have to request a visa in advance from the Court of Auditors in order to be able to make expenses. It is normal that a sleeve is suitable for this. One cannot ask the Court of Auditors for every bullet pen that must be purchased whether that purchase is okay. An exception is made in this regard by means of fund advances and credit opening. This, of course, is a good thing in itself, but we note in this bill that the exception will again become the rule. So one will again conform to an exception system for those who have not done their homework in advance and therefore actually shot too short. This is connected with the fact that even for the requirements concerning internal control and division of functions in the past the necessary steps have never been taken by the competent minister.

I have questioned your predecessor about this several times over the past year. I have always received the answer that one was in a period of ongoing affairs that prevented these decisions from being made. You now have full authority. I hope you will work on this very quickly.

Together with Fedcom, it is also determined that the State assets and its services will finally be incorporated into the system. Also there, the agencies will have five years to determine what their treasury is, and what their stocks and assets are.

Mr. Minister, suggest that the auditors of your colleague, who visit a private company, will be told that the inventories will be considered and that in five years a response will be given. This is the comparison that needs to be made. What we demand from the private sector, we must also demand from ourselves. Mr. Minister, I think you have not demonstrated enough ambition in this regard. It should be possible to cut off a bit of that deadline.

I come to our final point of criticism, the control of the commitments and the settlements.

The auditors should, in principle, monitor the correct assignment of the appropriations and the liquidation of those appropriations. They are accountable to the Court of Auditors. The solution offered in this design holding various provisions is more or less the same as in the past. It is again about a bric-à-brac, about rubbish in the margin. We note that different FODs and PODs apply the commitments and settlements differently, and that the checks that take place are often rather formal, and ⁇ not of the kind to guarantee that the items are properly allocated.

We also see that exceeding budgets today is not a problem. I refer to my discussion last week on the third adjustment of the budget. The FOD Foreign Affairs has apparently managed, despite the limitations of the system, to go below zero at certain posts, which the system should not allow. You answered me that the checks are continuing unabated. I ask you to take the necessary concrete measures in this regard to carry out the controls as they should be carried out.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am not alone with this criticism. I would like to quote again from the book of the Court of Auditors, which was proposed this week: “The Court of Auditors has examined the processing of debt claims from their receipt to the establishment of the right and its recording in the general accounting and in the budget accounting. The Court of Auditors concludes that the regulatory, administrative and accounting framework is incomplete and that the procedures developed are insufficient.

Colleagues, Mr. Minister, we cannot admit that you come up with such a proposal and that no more work has been done, at a time when the government can invoke its full powers. We challenge you to come up with concrete solutions in the very short term in order to make it clear that the government also wants to deal seriously with its accounting, and especially that those who work for or provide services to the government, are paid on time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I imagine that you do not expect from me an intervention on the badges in the airports, on the organization of the Court of Auditors or on the National Catastrophe Fund! However, this is the original object of the law containing various provisions. On December 13, when we received this document, we said to ourselves: business as usual! And then, you decided to insert on the airport badges a fundamental reform of our social security system and, in particular, of our pension system.

Besides the fact that this method is at least heterodox from the point of view of parliamentary work – frankly, it doesn’t matter! – it is especially unfair in relation to a debate that is necessary within the Belgian society.

Yes, of course, reforms and modernizations of our social security system are needed because the status quo means its failure. Yes, it must be clear! It must be structural and that it respects the budgetary rigour to reach what we have committed to, namely a budgetary balance of the “House Belgique” for 2015. But, by doing so, in some way, you feel that citizens are unable to assume a debate and decisions on these fundamental points.

Of course, the current government is not the only one responsible for this situation as there has been absolute immobilism in terms of pensions and decisions in recent years. However, we believe that Belgian society is perfectly capable of understanding that change is needed to guarantee interpersonal solidarity. She is perfectly capable of understanding it!

By inserting all these reforms into a document containing various provisions whose content was perfectly indigent, you do not serve the reform you want to undertake. Again, we believe that this reform is legitimate because it is necessary. Due to the modalities but also the substance of this reform and the fact that certain particular situations have not been taken into account, an opportunity has become a problem. It is this method and the incandescent statements of at least one of you that have caused strikes, demonstrations, etc. today. This is a perfect right in a democracy.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fault on the part of the government. This is a regression of our collective maturity, although it could have been a progress.

Again, agree for budgetary rigour and reforms! The agreements we have reached from an institutional point of view are clear and transparent in the fundamental change they will bring and are accepted. Although they touch symbolic points, they did not give rise to strikes or revolts, except on the side of those who, among us, are living it ... And it is a surprise for us. However, the present reform, whose legitimacy no one disputes – we know the situation in Greece, Portugal and Italy – has led to protests completely understandable due to its brutal and simplistic character and the improvisation that presides over it, as if you had something shameful to hide.

As for how we will act in the opposition, we will not propose reforms that are neither sustainable from a budgetary point of view nor absurd from a social point of view. Let me tell you that another method would have been possible, of course. We will not practice the flibust by entering a thousand amendments, as it could have been done before in parliament. It was mr. Daems, I remember it. A lot of trees were cut down. So we will show you that another solution would have been possible. Of course, the measures take different vehicles: there are legislative amendments, royal decrees and budgetary measures that will be discussed in January. But outside of this House, it will have relatively little impact.

Let me emphasize a few measures that could have been decided differently and which, therefore, would have been better accepted.

I will begin with the most iconic, namely the abolition of tax aid for energy savings.

What were your motivations? To annoy the people? This is the only intelligible motivation, but it is completely absurd. Ultimately, the sufferer is not really interested in what minister, what level of power, is responsible for the fact that he can no longer renovate his home from an energy point of view. For him, it has no interest.

So what is your motivation for removing this measure? It will cost 5 or 6,000 jobs in SMEs, in local jobs, etc. The institutional budget table represents a figure of approximately 333 million. We know that this figure is probably underestimated, as it must probably be the double: 600 million spending that you refuse for the wrong reasons.

Therefore, the question is where the environmentalists could get those 600 million.

I will not return to the exposition of my colleague Calvo regarding the nuclear rent, but by choosing not to follow the official regulator, the only federal regulator granted to us by law, you have deprived yourself of 650 million euros, the difference between the nuclear taxation proposed by the regulator and the one you have retained, the difference between 1.2 billion and 550 million euros. You deprived yourself of the amount that would have been necessary to maintain 6,000 SME jobs in Belgium, 6,000 local jobs and a reduction in the energy bill for those thousands of people who could have renovated their homes.

All this for what? To disturb Nollet? Would that be the sublime motivation of your political strategy? You will explain it to those who lose their jobs in the construction sector.

A second example. We have seen with interest the budget cleansings that appeared in the press in mid-November and those that were finally held in your agreement. Some measures strike us: they could have been modified and prevented you, while respecting budgetary rigour, from putting pressure on those who are absolutely not responsible for the difficult situation in which we live.

We do not believe that young people looking for a job are collectively responsible for our budgetary and economic problems. There is no social sense in imposing on them measures such as reducing waiting allowances to three years for cohabitants, and we know that they are cohabitants in two-thirds of cases.

Another measure concerns the waiting stage; this is extended from 9 to 12 months. In Belgium, 20 percent of young people are unemployed. Do you think there are 20% of people who do not want to find a job? Do you think things will be resolved by putting pressure on them? Do you not think, on the contrary, that by depriving yourself of the possibility of creating thousands of jobs, for example in the construction industry, you are giving an extremely cruel double message by removing jobs on the one hand and putting pressure on those seeking them to leave their studies.

This is an error. It is not in this way that you will give hope to a society. What will it bring to you, this waiting stage affair? This will bring you 131 million in 2012. Can I draw your attention to the fact that, in terms of notional interests, the gross cost is 4 billion, the net cost is 2 billion, and that you have there a deposit of money that would allow you to stop putting pressure on young people?

By modulating these arrangements according to SMEs, according to the investments that companies make in R&D, you could not only raise funds to reduce the pressure on young people and women who, I think, are not responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. You could also promote employment by articulating provisions in relation to employment. You are voting for it and you want to vote for it. We will not vote for that. (The applause)

In the case of real estate pre-accounting, we also submitted an amendment. I do not think you will vote for it, and yet you would be interested in doing so. What does this amendment say? Instead of imposing a 4% tax on moving income beyond €20,000 per year, why not go further to the top of the pyramid? This is good for the middle class, bookstores and company. And this makes it possible to generate an additional 200 million, because if you put this tax from 4% to 19%, and if you target it not to 20 000 euros of income, but to 30 000 euros of income, which corresponds to approximately a capital of 1 250 000 euros, you manage to generate an additional 200 million euros per year.

What can you do with that sum? Stop putting pressure on credit-time and interruption of career. Why do you tell people that since their life expectancy is higher, the system of pensions and advance pensions needs to be reformed – and you are right – and that you abolish time credit and career interruption? Therefore, it is the freedom that people have from some control over their lives and their time use, if they have children or if they decide to interrupt their activity, that makes it harder to ⁇ .

Why Why ? Because you don’t want to put taxation a little higher in the pyramid, while in recent years, the share of capital income in national wealth tends to increase in percentage.

You say that it is necessary to save the workers, those who work, those who get up early, that it is necessary to allow them to have a better life. But you do the opposite, since you favor those who get up late and you put pressure on time credit and career breakdown. This is a mistake on your part. This is an error!

If you vote on these two amendments, you will always respect the European prescription and you will always respect what we have committed to at the federal level, at the level of the Regions, at the level of the Communities, namely to ⁇ budgetary balance in 2015 in the "House Belgium". But you might do so by respecting the human beings behind the numbers better, because adopting a linear measure is to act as if we are all equal. We are not all equal!

Let me take another example: the taxes on stock exchanges. You have lowered the ceiling to a very low level. You will see that we have submitted an amendment that raises the ceiling limiting these taxes on stock exchanges. By raising this ceiling, you earn 100 million euros. The goal is not to win 100 million euros, it is to know what you are going to do with this margin of manoeuvre. This corresponds to the measures you take regarding the degressivity of unemployment benefits, availability and suitable jobs.

Again, I would like to take the following example: you change the appropriate job, because you increase the number of miles to travel to accept a job. So, will a Brussels citizen have no problem accepting a job, since the jobs are all around his city, which is served by public transport. But if I live in the countryside, where I am poorly served by public transport and where my salary possibly does not allow me to easily move, how will I proceed if you make this notion of appropriate employment more difficult and if you pass from 25 kilometers to 60 kilometers? Why not make these measures a little more subtle? Why don’t you take into account the fact that behind the numbers, there are people?

So, if you raise the stock exchange tax, i.e. the speculators tax, you will put less pressure on people looking for work, because the impression you give is that if they don’t have a job, it’s their fault!

Again, we fully agree to fight against social fraud, whether individual or collective. We fully agree that our social security system must be continuously reformed and modernized, because it is under this condition that interpersonal solidarity will continue.

But you do this in a completely indiscriminate way, which is in fact the result of your precipitation. After the years of immobilism, instead of taking advantage of this necessity to organize a societal debate on the necessary reforms, you and make an épouvantail. This is the reason why we will not vote for this text. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Budget, I see that you are quite nervous this afternoon, but I will reassure you. We are in the general discussion, so you should not expect questions directly from me about the three articles in the various provisions because the various provisions have become something entirely different. At the beginning of this marathon session on the bill containing various provisions, we should dare to call a cat a cat.

What we have all received over the last few days as a result of the draft law containing various provisions is harming every imagination. What happened to the Parliament? First, the new government calls for the high urgency of its draft provisions, which eliminate all possible deadlines for discussions, reporting and reporting. Parliamentarians were subdued under amendments last Thursday and last Friday until Monday evening at an advanced hour. To this end, the majority has applied the listige trick to have amendments submitted by members of the majority parties, raising the question of the appearance that the amendments did not come from the government.

Subsequently, we were barely given the time – or in many cases not even the time – to study the amendments thoroughly, though it was only to understand what the battery’s capacity and impact on amendments suggest. There has been a time here, colleagues, in which there was an agreement in the Committee on Finance that for major amendments at least 48 hours of study time was agreed. This was the so-called Bogaert doctrine. I note that since Mr. Bogaert became Secretary of State, that doctrine also immediately came to disappear.

There is, by the way, a description to hunt many legal provisions through Parliament in a quick and sluggish way. In Dutch it is called pushing through the throat. This is what has happened in the various committees in the last days and what will happen today in this plenary session, whether the existing legal provisions are in legal order or not, whether the legislative provisions have been requested an opinion of the State Council or not, whether the legislative provisions have passed the examination of the State Council or not, whether the opinion of the privacy commission has been requested for a number of specific tax provisions or not, whether the National Bank agrees to grant a new competence which makes it a branch of the FOD Finance or not. It turns out that for this new government without a Flemish majority all is the most normal thing in the world. In fact, I am convinced that this does not prevent the members of the majority from putting their minds to zero and later approving the entire bill without criticism, with the eyes.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on 21 December, we received a number of opinions from the State Council.

You will understand that we have hardly had time to study them thoroughly. Nevertheless, some of the criticisms of the State Council are quite right. They confirm us in what was raised by the various members during the committee discussions.

I give a few examples. Regarding the tax on the conversion of the securities on toonder into the securities on name, the Council of State determines that the tax is a violation of the principle of trust, since there is a violation of the equal treatment of legal subordinates. The conversion had to take place before 31 December 2013. Consequently, there is a discrimination against those who have already converted the shares. In the present draft law, there is no reasonable accountability for this discrimination.

The Council of State also criticized the exceptional measure for state bonds which could be registered between 24 November 2011 and 2 December 2011.

There are undoubtedly also other, justified criticisms and legal imperfections formulated by the State Council. I only need to refer to the criticism launched by the State Council on the entire pension reform, which is also hunted here with the karwats by the Parliament. I have understood that this afternoon, or ⁇ still, the Social Affairs Committee has set up and set up a nice tree on the whole issue. Members of the committee are still in full debate about a number of additions.

We are therefore extremely curious about how the current government without a Flemish majority will deal with the aforementioned criticisms. We have already had a meeting of the Finance Committee. The Minister of Finance has promised us that he will give additional explanations on the fiscal part in the current plenary session. It is of course, however, that we also look forward to the other departments, in order to know to what extent they will adjust their texts to or respond to the criticism of the State Council. The above is a fundamental element that we must consider in order to evaluate the so-called draft law containing various provisions.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us call us man and horse. In fact, this is not a draft law containing various provisions. Given the massive number of amendments by members of the majority parties – to mask that the amendments of the government are coming – it is about a pure program law. I would dare to say even more. It has become a pure law of authority.

It is a mandate law with matters that each in itself requires a thorough discussion and are worthy of their own draft law. However, it is not so close to the current, new government without a Flemish majority. But she continues.

Colleagues, many amendments also have a significant budgetary impact, not so much on the spending side as on the income side. I have added the list of the Minister of Finance, which he distributed in the committee, for a moment. Without taking into account the bank tax and the estimates for the fight against tax and social fraud, the fiscal measures for 2012 amount to €3.4 billion. For 2013, colleagues, they are set at 4 billion euros and for 2014 at 4.6 billion euros.

All this comes on the cap of the working man and woman. This is not bad for a financial minister. It surpasses even the wildest dreams of its predecessor.

Especially the tax increases are apparently primary for this new government. The amendments primarily radiate the quick money and the quick profit. That we need to save in a budgetally difficult time, I would like to assume with confidence. The need to revise a number of measures in a budgetary difficult time also seems to me to be reasonable. By abolishing abruptly a number of measures just before 25 December 2012 and bringing the abolition into effect on 1 January 2012, without providing for a transitional period or a deployment arrangement and without drawing up transitional provisions, difficulties and misery are created.

This will undoubtedly be accompanied by negative transitional effects, especially after it first took 535 days to reach an agreement, then to take the oath on 6 December, and then to expect from the Parliament, and consequently from the opposition, that many measures with significant budgetary impacts will be followed blindly and with the karwats. I’ve experienced a lot in this Parliament since 1999, but such a method of doing it can wreak any imagination.

The colleagues of the Flemish Interest Group will later intervene on various topics, but in the general discussion I would like to discuss this a moment, in order to set the tone of the further debate.

Several issues were discussed in the committee on Monday.

Why has the entry into force for public administrations, administrative services and public enterprises been postponed until 1 January 2014?

It was originally provided for the progressive entry into force of the Act of 22 May 2003 on the organization of the budget and of the accounting of the federal state, accompanied by the introduction of FEDCOM, which should support the new accounting of the state. The entry into force of the law on 1 January 2012 for the last FODs and PODs was therefore planned.

However, the operational conditions for the reform of the budget and of the accounting contained in the law have not yet been met, in order for it to enter into force for all services referred to in Article 2, §§ 2 to 4. Therefore, the entry into force of the law for those services was postponed until 1 January 2013.

If Article 10 of the Act of 22 May 2003 amending the Act of 29 October 1846 on the organization of the Court of Auditors comes into force no later than 1 January 2013, the previous visa of the Court of Auditors will be eliminated. With the decision of the legislature to abolish the visa, the Court of Auditors will be guaranteed permanent and real-time access to budget accounts. Article 61, paragraph 3, of the Act of 22 May 2003 on the organisation of the budget and of the accounting of the federal state provides that guarantee. The same article also guarantees the Minister of Budget and, where applicable, the Chamber of Representatives that they will be informed without delay by the Court whenever it finds a credit overload or credit transfer.

The article also aims to maintain the control of the commitments as it is now. In doing so, it takes into account the FODs and PODs that are now also part of the FEDCOM perimeter.

In the 1990s, the question arose whether it was necessary to provide an external control and whether it was not better to replace it with an internal control. In 2008, Parliament decided to maintain this control.

At the moment, the FOD Budget is conducting a study on the future of the control of commitments in order to determine how the efficiency of the commitments can be improved.

As regards the principle of separation of functions, referred to in Article 29 of the Act of 22 May 2003, I can say the following. There is a draft royal decree in the making concerning the players involved.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we will soon be able to start the pension chapter as the Minister of Pensions has just arrived.

He is there, but not here. He is on the public tribune.

Article 29 of the Law of 22 May 2003 on the Organization of the Budget and Accounting of the Federal State. It has already been discussed with the staff director of Budget and Management Control.

On 14 June and 4 August 2011, the Financial Inspectorate issued an opinion on this subject following an informal discussion of the draft decision. This procedure results from the concern to submit to the Council of Ministers draft royal decrees that have received a favorable opinion from the Inspectorate of Finance.

The second opinion of the Financial Inspectorate states that the text can be considered an acceptable starting point for the preparation of a final text.

In the light of that opinion, the development of the design is now being continued. After that, the inspection will again receive it for advice, after which it will be submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your comprehensive response.

I received a number of additional answers to the questions asked in the committee. However, I continue to note that today there are still insufficient guarantees that the provisions will be effectively implemented.

Mr. Minister, I have challenged you. You have announced that royal decrees will be published. I will continue to follow you, as this is my job in Parliament.

Does anyone ask for a word for a response? (Not to)

Chapter 3 – Social Affairs

Title 3 - Social Zaken

We move on to Title 3. I take advantage of this to say that I will follow the order as defined and handed over to the different heads of groups. Title 3 deals with Social Affairs and deals with Articles 10 to 14.

Registered members are: MM. Beuselinck, Bacquelaine, Gilkinet and Mrs Fonck.

2,3 billion euros will be saved in healthcare in 2012. At least that’s what the government says on paper. That $2.3 billion is not really saved. Anyone who monitors the budget of Public Health in recent years knows that there has been under-use of the budget and that part of this budget has been transferred to other sections of social security. Unchanged policies would already save EUR 1.9 billion from the budget target with a growth rate of 4.5 %. Spending whatever you would spend with unchanged policies, I would not directly label as a savings.

The growth rate has finally been adjusted. That 4.5 button was turned back for at least a moment. The Christian Mutualities also state that the bulk of the savings in reality are actually fictitious and that not 2.3 billion euros are saved, but 425 million euros.

Our general criticism of the budget of Public Health as a whole is also reflected in this bill containing various provisions. Destroyed paths are rearranged. Finding money goes through the classic way. They are looking for something from the doctors, from the pharmaceutical industry and from the other healthcare providers. Together, they account for 85% of the actual savings. All of this shows very little vision for the future.

These various provisions concern primarily the pharmaceutical industry. One of the measures is to impose an additional tax of 1.95 % on the turnover of repaid specialties.

... (without a microphone)

I suggest that you let the speakers speak. You can answer globally.

I didn’t want to let him get caught up in a mistake.

In any case, prices have fallen by 1.95%. That or a tax, that is the same for me.

You leave the companies the choice between a linear or a modular drop. With a linear decline, all products of the same company will decline by 1.95%. In the case of a modular decline, companies are given the option to reduce some products by less percentage than others, with a maximum drop of 20%.

Generic medicines are no longer required to follow the price of the original medicines.

We consider that this modular price reduction, possibly up to 20 %, and the resulting disconnection of generic medicines from the price of the reference specialties, may lead to a weakening position of generic manufacturers. After all, the danger exists that companies will mostly lower the prices of medicines that are already off patent and therefore already in a reference refund. Thus, they have already fallen in price by 35 %, 40 % to 45 %. If those prices drop by another 20% you will understand that it will be difficult for the generic firms and that their margins will become very small. The risk is that certain generic products or even generic firms will have to quit. In fact, they do not have the margin that the classical pharmaceutical industry has with the prices of non-refunded medicines that have not yet dropped by 35 to 40 %.

I look forward to your response in this regard.

Your proposed solution to avoid this, the disconnection of the prices of generic products with the reference specialties, will in practice also, which you have, by the way, yourself admitted, as well as your budget, prove to be fictitious.

After all, the reason for a generic product is the cheaper price. If a doctor does not already know whether a generic product is cheaper than a reference specialty, how can the doctors be encouraged to prescribe generics?

In practice, this disconnection will not happen. It follows from that reasoning that certain generics will disappear from the market with all the long-term consequences thereof.

Finally, the proposed disconnecting system only makes the current complex system even more complex and really puts the transparency for all stakeholders at the test.

We are in favor of making prices vary and bringing them to the average of the countries around us and of most European countries, in order to allow the market to play.

Therefore, we submitted two amendments, to eliminate the disconnection and the modulation, on the one hand. We are convinced that there are other ways to ⁇ the intended effect and the intended objective of the budget. I will give you a small example. It might be better to increase the share of generic drugs on the Belgian market. This would also have a significant impact on the budget and on the spending, and at the same time it gives the signal to the generic firms that there is a future in Belgium.

My bill on cheap prescription by doctors seems to me more efficient. Rewarding doctors who prescribe a significantly higher percentage than the average low-cost products will automatically have a positive impact and consequently will be more cheaply prescribed, which ultimately benefits the budget. On the other hand, doctors who, in comparison with their counterparts, prescribe too few cheap products — that happens too — are punished. I think this is a better reasoning and a better incentive than a linear price drop.

I am disappointed with this design. Only here and there is a number of percentages. In addition, for one of the partners and for public health, things are made difficult and there is no responsibility. Actually no one gets better.

In terms of health care, I find two important provisions.

First of all, the budget objective. From now on, every player in the healthcare sector knows what to keep up with. The conventions will be able to activate and work, from January, on the basis of a known budget objective, which is important.

I would like to remove some misunderstandings here. In fact, I sometimes hear that healthcare spending would be reduced. Of course, it is not about that. Rather, it is a re-alignment of the budget objective, taking into account actual expenditure, through a whole series of mechanisms and adjustments. This is how the budget target was set at 25.6 billion with, of course, savings. And wanting to reduce to nothing 420 million euros of savings, one part of which is borne by doctors – 130 million euros, this is not negligible –, another borne by the pharmaceutical sector – 170 million euros, it is a lot since this represents 40% of the savings – it seems to me at least questionable. Therefore, it cannot be considered that there is no willingness of effort from each of the health insurance partners. I also point out that it was this will that allowed us to reach a medical-mutualist agreement, an agreement that was not won in advance. This has actually been effective since yesterday. It was important to save the system of coordination between all health care actors.

I draw attention here to the fact that the Belgian healthcare system owes its good reputation in particular to the medical-mutualist consultation system that has always allowed to find solutions without breaking. It also enabled to guarantee certain safety for the patient in terms of quality of care and rates. It is therefore the characteristics of our health care system that are preserved on the occasion of the Government Agreement and the Medico-Mutualist Agreement. I think it should be emphasized. Therefore, savings will be made at the level of fees and the pharmaceutical sector.

At this stage, I find it necessary to clarify again a number of elements by making a comparison with other sectors.

The re-alignment of the budgetary objective of achieving 420 million savings implies that all actors accept the notion of responsibility and rigour in relation to their positioning and specific action in the sector. I was quite surprised to read in the Court of Auditors’ bulletin some criticism about the bonus-malus system of insurance agencies. Mutualities should not remain on the balcony. This may be subject to caution, but I often say that there is about the same number of mutual employees as general physicians. No, forgive me, it is the same budget for the administrative costs of mutual associations as for general medicine – but there are far fewer mutual association employees than general doctors.

I do not want to draw hasty conclusions, but it seems to me that the bonus-malus system that is in place to encourage insurers to strictly manage the health insurance budget does not work as it should. This is, at least, what the Court of Auditors’ follow-up audit explains to us. In this regard, I ask for an emphasis.

When it comes to the hospital sector, we will not escape a reform. There has been a lot of discussion about supplementary fees. The entire mechanism of reimbursement or retention on medical fees in hospitals must be reviewed, taking into account the legal relations between hospital managers and hospital doctors and not forgetting the need to reduce the number of hospital beds – because we are still above the European average. Similarly, it is essential to ensure effective and relevant inter-hospital collaborations.

I will conclude by coming back to the most important. I always say that doctors and all those who take care of this sector should care about the people who suffer the most. I continue to think that some of the most seriously affected patients are not necessarily those to whom health insurance focuses as a priority. This seems to me quite curious. I will take just one example, which we discussed recently in the Health Committee.

For people with hepatitis C, a new drug has just been released; these are protease inhibitors, recognized by the European Agency. They are repaid in France, but not at home: this is not normal. Since they have demonstrated some effectiveness, they should benefit from the refund.

The patient should not be suspended at the good will of the pharmaceutical industry.

Do you know the system? At one point, public authorities are asked to participate in the price of the medicine through the refund. Without requests, this is a problem. In this case, we do not have a file. Otherwise, I do not know how to do it.

This is part of the negotiations we have with the pharmaceutical industry. In Europe, when a medicine is available and recognised by the European Medicines Agency, every European patient should benefit from this medicine.

Therefore, it will need to be considered to increase the standard of growth of healthcare spending.

Not necessarily . I would find it normal that in the case of a cold or flu, the refund is not calculated in the same way as in the case of a serious illness. All this is a matter of priority.

In our system, the moderator ticket for any bulldozer is as valid as for a serious illness. This is a matter of priority. It will be necessary to determine where the real priorities are in our system.

I maintain that the maximum amount to be charged for chronic illness should depend on the severity of the pathology and not on the financial situation of the patient. For the financial situation of the patient, there are specific aid, such as the Omnio system, which works, and so much better. The severity of the pathology seems to me to be a criterion to be considered, as is the case in many countries where pathologies are listed to be treated in a particular way. We should evolve towards this system; we will return to this priority.

I will take another example: the complementary examinations that patients are subjected to in our large hospital centers. They are denied to some patients while they know they exist, that they are very little invasive and that they do not cause people to suffer; but they are denied because they are not sick enough, that the stage of their disease is not yet sufficiently advanced.

On the other hand, people who are in a very advanced stage and who will have great difficulties in surviving, those, they are allowed to this type of supplementary examinations, whereas it would have been better to allow them to do so much earlier. I think of FibroScan, for example, for liver examinations; it is required to have a very damaged liver to accept that the patient benefits from a supplementary examination that will not cause him to suffer.

I find this quite special. If this was done earlier, the patient could probably benefit from more effective treatments earlier. It is necessary to question the priority given to those who suffer the most and those who have the most serious diseases. Our system is not always sufficiently specific in this regard.

The word is for mr. by Gilkinet.

Is this part of Healthcare?

This is the Social Affairs section, Articles 10 to 14. You have registered.

I will talk about employment.

and OK . This is a good news! There is no problem, you are registered on everything!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, there is one element that I want to highlight because it is related to an up-to-date fact, that is the overall budget objective of health insurance. It would be better if a medical-mut agreement was reached yesterday! This is extremely important first and foremost for patients; this avoids massive disconvention and a postponement to the patient’s pocket at the level of medical expenses. We must welcome the responsibility of the health actors who have, in the end, concluded this medical-mut agreement.

I would like to take advantage of this to project into the future within this global budget framework. It seems to me important not to think about the budget for the simple pleasure of thinking about it, but so that these savings make sense in terms of qualitative advances for patients and this, in connection with health actors.

I will not be longer, Mr. President.

I will refer all the actors who must participate in the economies, the pharmacies, the pharmaceutical firms, the doctors and especially the doctors specialists, to the N-VA to explain what an economy is.

I would also like to tell Mr. Bacquelaine and Ms. Fonck that everything does not stop, of course, with these few provisions. With the general policy notes and especially during the big speech, I will have the opportunity to explain the vision that together we can develop to maintain a fundable but always high quality health care system.

If you are talking about savings...

It is about generics.

The same questions were asked about generics in commission and I gave all the detailed answers. You will find them in the report. It is ⁇ not your fault. You were probably present in other committees.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I thought I could defend my amendments, but maybe you don’t like it, I don’t know. That’s why I came to the speaker’s office.

You are talking about savings. My criticism is that those savings are always only a few percentages here and a few percentages there.

For example, I could ask – Mr. Bacquelaine speaks about priorities – why we don’t even look at the effectiveness of everything that happens in Public Health. Are all the actions and treatments really effective? Are they efficient, and at what price are they efficient? I think we should look at this in the future.

Our public health is very accessible and that is very good. However, let’s look at where we come from. In 1970, healthcare spending amounted to 2%. These expenditures now amount to more than 7%. At some point there will be a limit. I would not like this to be at the expense of accessibility.

Therefore, I suggest that we think about how we can make healthcare more efficient and efficient. If the budget discussions take place and if the policy note prevails, I am willing to discuss this with you further.

Applause to all banks!

Mr. Bacquelaine, do you want to react? (No to)

Madame Fonck, do you want to react well? (Not to)

Chapter 7 – Employment

Chapter 7 - Work

Mrs. De Coninck was absent for a few minutes. Madame Demir, do you want to wait for the Minister’s presence or do you already want to start your speech?

Mr. Speaker, since you say that Mr. De Coninck is only a few minutes away, I propose to wait a moment.

Yes, it’s only for two minutes, I think for an interview on TV.

Then I wait a moment.

We take the discussion of Title 7, “Work”. Articles 78 to 85. The competent minister is Ms. De Coninck. Five members are registered: Mrs Demir, Mrs Kitir, Mr Gilkinet, Mrs Fonck and Mrs Gerkens.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of employment, if there are not many measures, whether in the number of articles or in the level of effects, some are nevertheless not banal, that is the least that can be said.

The challenges are big in employment and I wanted to insist with the Minister, as I did in the committee, on social consultation and the various meetings with the social partners. It has committed itself to this, and we will return to it during the discussion of the general policy note which, I hope, will contain measures that have been the subject of consultation with the social partners.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly what it is about so that it is clear to everyone. This is about three chapters.

A first chapter will ensure that from now on, 60 % of the new service cheques will remain reserved for unemployed, livelihoods and unemployed with an employment allowance. This can be derogated if an unemployment agency permits a derogation based on the unemployment rate and the area of employment. This measure is a positive measure, as it ultimately makes it easier for the most vulnerable group to get to work.

A second chapter creates a financial responsibility for employers if there is overuse and temporary unemployment. The King will take the necessary measures to develop this responsibility, of course, together with the social partners. Currently, there is already an equivalent measure in the construction sector. In this way, we avoid excessive use of economic unemployment.

The third chapter is about unemployment with employment allowance. We purchase the half-time bridge pension from 1 January 2012. This measure is abolished because it is actually not used very much. Today there are about 700 people in this system. All people who are in this system remain in this system and continue to retain their rights.

The second reason why this is abolished is because it is an administrative burden to get into this system. Gradually, other alternatives have emerged that replace the half-time bridge pension, for example, the landing tracks.

The last part is about the fact that from now on we no longer use the name bridge pension but unemployment with an employment allowance. This is closer to the reality and will ensure that the confusion between early retirement and bridge pension will be eliminated from now on.

Madame Demir, would you like to start your speech?

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense for me to intervene if the Minister of Labour is not here.

We are waiting for the Minister of Employment.

I suspended the session for five minutes.

It is resumed at 19.39.

It will be resumed at 19.39.

The floor is given to Mrs. Demir.

I sit here a little longer than Mrs. De Coninck. Mrs. Minister, it may be the custom in Antwerp to give interviews during the municipal councils or during the ship college. In principle, however, this is not the habit here. That is why I have been waiting for your return. My message is intended for you.

Mr De Coninck, you came to the committee last week with a number of amendments. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised. We are also aware of the illness of our labour market. I actually expected you to come to the committee with a number of important measures.

Our labour market – you don’t have to be the smartest in the class to know this – is, after all, sick. You just see it.

The first problem is those who do not find a job in the labour market. These are the low-skilled, the older workers and the immigrants. The second problem is the high wage costs. A third problem is the lack of mobility in our labour market.

How will we heal the labour market? In this regard, there are two possibilities. Either you apply homeopathy, or you give the labour market an intensive oxygen therapy.

I would opt for the latter. After all, there are major issues that need to be resolved, such as the unity statute, which has been on the agenda of the social partners for years. Unfortunately, the social partners are unable to find a solution. In 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled that a solution should be reached by 2013. However, I read in the government agreement that the current government plans to again seek advice from the social partners.

What are the various provisions contained in the draft law? I will focus on two points.

The first item is the abolition of the half-time bridge pension. Approximately 650 employees are in this system. You want to eliminate the system, which is not bad. However, you want to solve a problem, which is not a problem. No one uses the system.

A second article in the text is about the name change of the bridge pension.

Before the bridge pension, the Canada Dry Regulation was, but it was no longer allowed. Now we can no longer call it a bridge pension. From now on, we call unemployment with an employment allowance.

The Generation Pact was introduced in 2005 by Guy Verhofstadt and his liberals. The aim was to make workers work longer. The law on the Generation Pact also provides very explicitly for an evaluation of the Generation Pact. It is a pity that your predecessor, Minister Milquet, is not here. She has always promised in the Social Affairs Committee that a review of the Generation Pact would be made by 1 October 2011. I have not seen an evaluation.

The trade unions should do that!

Mrs Rutten, if the social partners do not come to an evaluation, then I think that the Minister of Labour, Mrs De Coninck, should take her responsibility. They must first make an evaluation. The numbers are there and they are clear. There are more bridge retirees after the Generation Pact than before. It is necessary to evaluate the figures and then take action.

Mrs. Demir, I can no longer tie a rope to it. You want an evaluation of the Generation Pact. There are many trade unions that are asking for this today. I take note of the fact that the N-VA supports the standpoint of the trade unions.

You say that measures need to be taken. Let this now be exactly what is being anticipated; let this now be exactly what the minister is doing, what the government is doing: it is taking measures.

You make two things one. Either you go out on the streets, stand at the gates and take action because you want a review of the Generation Pact, or you admit that the government is taking action and that you want to talk about its content.

Mrs. Rutten, who wanted an evaluation of the Generation Pact? Who has registered the evaluation of the Generation Pact in the 2005 Act? I am not. The then Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and his team did so.

They invented the Generation Pact and anticipated that there would be an evaluation. There is no evaluation now. I have proposed that Parliament should eventually carry out that evaluation. There needs to be an evaluation. If Parliament is not allowed to carry out that evaluation, the Minister must first carry out an evaluation and then take action.

I assume that in the margin the age for the individual bridge pension will be raised a little. The same goes for career conditions: a little bit in 2013 and then only in 2016. We already have a different government.

The system of bridge pension will be slightly adjusted, but the system will remain, and that is the essence, Mrs. Rutten. Right or not?

You are very aware of this name change. I do not hear you formulate any alternative.

That name change indicates what we essentially want to start with those people. You are apparently struggling with the fact that the government goes faster than the evaluation and submits new measures. However, when we look at the measures, we see that they essentially consist of bringing something back to what it should be, namely keeping job seekers available for the labour market.

You make it ridiculously like a name change. For me, that is essential the philosophy of what the text means and maybe we should agree on that.

Mrs Rutten, the availability of the older employees applies only from 2016 for the age of fifty-five years, while you know that the Flemish Minister of Labour already does. Older workers up to fifty-eight years of age must indeed register with the VDAB and the federal government is not even able to do what has been done at the Flemish level.

Mrs. Rutten, you just can’t approve of it. What should you have done? You shouldn’t have raised your age. For restructuring, for example, it is still possible at the age of fifty-two, just like for collective dismissal.

What should you have done? You should have put the system out. I went to the Carrefour last year, where a man of fifty-eight years said he didn’t want a bridge pension, but that he should, because the system exists.

What should be done? We need to think about a new career model. Measures should be taken to activate older workers.

I will interrupt you immediately. If you intervene without asking for the word, no one understands what you are saying and it is useless. If you want to intervene, give me a sign and I will give you the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, for me it is clear that the system will continue to exist. As I mentioned earlier, the age in the period 2013-2016 will be raised slightly. There will also be a name change. My question, however, is what fundamentally changes.

The bridge pension is already a unemployment with an employment allowance. After all, those who meet the age and the career conditions and are dismissed by their employer, through that dismissal, come into unemployment, with the RVA. On top of that, you get a supplement from the company. So I don’t understand what will fundamentally change. The system still exists.

What we need to do is look at the product. The product is the bridge pension. Is it a good product, yes or no? If we look at the figures collected by the Supreme Council following the evaluation that was to come, then it is clear to me that this product is not the right...

Madame Demir, this is about people! This is not about a product that you can put in your shopping cart. It is about people.

Mrs Demir, what is your alternative? On the one hand, you say that the trade unions are right because there has been no evaluation of the Generation Pact. On the other hand, you say that with me everything would have been much worse, and you redirect people to a product. Two things one, please.

Ms. Rutten, I consider the bridge pension system to be an unassociated product. I think it is the task of the government to activate those older workers and to help them find work. (Applause of Applause)

However, this cannot be done simply. What is the biggest problem when an elderly employee offers himself? The high wage costs. An employer thinks twice. He is facing huge costs if he has to dismiss that employee. You know our right of resignation, which is very rigid.

These issues need to be structurally reformed. The problem must be solved. The problem, that is the unity statute, that is the right to resign, that is the wage costs.

Mrs Rutten, you give me words in the mouth about the trade unions, but I was talking about the social partners who have not come to an evaluation. I have always suggested that that evaluation should continue here in Parliament, but apparently I was the only one who asked for it. I don’t know why, but nobody wanted an evaluation of the Generation Pact.

So what are they doing? Instead of determining whether the system of bridge pension is good or not – I can no longer call it a product – one will simply give it a new label. That’s why, Ms. Rutten, the system of bridge pension continues to exist. I will tell you one thing: we are one of the few countries in all of Europe where this exists. Spain has abolished the bridge pension system this week. Belgium is one of the few countries in Europe that has this. If you read the recommendations of the OECD or the European Commission, the biggest problem that always comes back in those reports is the problem of older workers. Mrs. Rutten, Mrs. Minister, you also know that you do not solve the problem by ⁇ ining the bridge pension. You need to do something structural about the mobility in the labour market, the inflow that is limited, the wage costs, the right to resign that is too rigid. It should have happened, but unfortunately it did not happen.

You have said that everyone who has ears and legs must work. This is a statement by Minister De Coninck. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that you will do something structural for our older workers who really do not deserve to remain in unemployment to get those people out of unemployment and get them to work.

Finally, we had a discussion in the Social Affairs Committee on longer working, something I can only welcome. We must also: Europe says that too. But a very large exception here is the bridge pension.

You can stay from me for a moment. For speaking power you may get a 10, but for action power a thick 0. Measures must be taken. I do not hear from you any alternative. Agree that structural things must happen: yes, those things happen here. In this government, step by step, we are addressing this and putting people back to work.

You say that measures must be taken to prevent older workers being dismissed. I agree, but this government does. The age pyramid will have to be respected when moving to dismissal. This is one of the elements contained in the government agreement. It is very concrete. However, I do not hear you make any concrete proposal to address it differently. For speech power you may get a 10, but for action power a thick 0.

Mrs. Rutten, I am afraid that you are not listening properly. I just said what the solutions are.

The [...]

They will come. The unity statute, your right to resign, your giant wage costs...

As for the age pyramid, to which you refer, I believe it becomes an empty box. I will tell you why. The purpose of the age pyramid is that in a restructuring the employer must divide the workers into categories, in which case he may not dismiss all older workers. However, the sanction that is now provided is far too light.

You see what is going to happen, right? I would do that as an employer. I would make the sum and I would see that it is cheaper to pay the additional social contribution you are asking for as a penalty. With all the consequences of that. The age pyramid is only windowdressing, you do not address the problem structurally, Mrs. Rutten.

The career model, the unity status, the right to resign, these are the solutions to the problem!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, before re-enacting the debate in a somewhat more extensive way within the framework of the general policy notes in this Parliament, I wanted to point out with you a few employment issues that are connected with this bill containing various provisions and, above all, with the amendments that the majority brought us in a somewhat surprising way. This is somewhat the same technique that was used in the pension sector, but in a smaller proportion. It must be admitted.

Before reviewing four specific points, I would really like to encourage you not to follow the method used in pensions by the government and Minister Van Quickenborne. It seems to me that a reform in this country can only work if it relies on a quality and respectful social dialogue, which does not mean that ultimately it is not the policy that decides. However, if partners don’t feel respected, we get mood movements like those we experience today.

In terms of employment, the misunderstandings are less than those that exist in terms of pensions but I think I perceive, in your way of considering the files, a certain willingness to move forward, ⁇ forgetting this dimension of consultation. This was evident in the amendments submitted to the Social Affairs Committee and in relation to which you had no other answers than to tell me that this is included in the government agreement. This is not enough!

This government agreement, this whole parliament has not signed it, and we must not believe that the whole society and social actors are linked to it. They must explain the meaning and, possibly, be able to amend the provisions that are taken.

If I can afford to give you some suggestions, I invite you to be attentive to the decisions that are being made in this government. There can be no employment policy without fiscal and investment policies that support employment.

I will take two random examples, but they are very important to us.

The first, I will return to the financial provisions, concerns the abrupt abolition of tax aid to the isolation of houses. All this is costly in terms of employment. It was a measure that supported activity in high-end sectors that could not be relocated, sectors that were beginning to organize to meet the expectations of citizens. I hope that they will continue to develop. They will do so with less public support. Indeed, if regional aid continues to exist, or even increases, federal aid will disappear.

Another example is the importance of conditioning any public aid, especially in tax matters – I think of notional interests – to effective job creation by establishing a clear contract with the business world, arguing that Belgium is a country where it is good to invest, where there is quality workforce, where there reigns – I hope not to have to use the imperfect – a certain social peace, where companies can benefit from aid. But there is a counterpart to these aid: taking clear employment commitments.

More than five billion euros were granted to companies in tax aid, through notional interests, without any employment conditions. As a result, a company like ArcelorMittal, ⁇ in Liège but in other regions, has made significant profits through this measure of notional interests and allows itself to leave, promises not kept and leaving a social desert behind it.

As I did in the Social Affairs Committee, I wish you the best work possible. Nevertheless, I have two recommendations for you: be vigilant with regard to social consultation, even if it is you who will decide with the government, and watch better what your colleagues are doing in taxation. This is what has been missing in recent years.

I come to the heart of the text that is presented to us today. The first amendment examined in a committee, through a text deposited by our colleagues of the majority who, as well as those regulating the pension reform, had not been submitted to the State Council, consists of an authorization granted to the Council of Ministers "to fix conditions and modalities in relation to the obligation of commitment of full unemployed compensated, beneficiaries of the insertion allowance and beneficiaries of the integration income under the scheme of securities-services."

It’s a fairly broad capability and I don’t know exactly what you’re going to do with it.

Indeed, I think that one must be attentive, on the labour market, to those most distant from employment and help them find them, for example in the framework of the system of service titles, which must not be forgotten that it is very expensive in terms of budget. I think this should be done in a perspective of quality employment, which does not exist everywhere today in the framework of the service title scheme. This is clearly indicated by the various studies that are conducted regularly to evaluate the device of the title-services, whether those of Idea Consult or of the SPF Employment.

The quality of employment is very variable from one company to another. Not always, even when possible, full-time contracts are offered to workers, who are most often female workers. There is a large rotation of workers in some companies, because through the aid types SINE and Activa, engagement is more interesting at the beginning of the career and even generates a, sometimes significant, profit for the company. On the other hand, those who want to work in length and offer an indefinite contract, with bars linked to quality parity commissions, are penalized. They find themselves now in a situation of inability to cover the wages and social contributions of workers, because the system has not been thought out at this stage in the length.

I invite you, beyond the provisions and authorizations that the majority will give you, to reflect and act for the quality of employment in the sector of service titles for sufficient rates, for sufficient and improved financing for companies that play the game correctly, that offer training to their workers, that award decent wages to these workers. They are mainly found in the public sector, CPAS, ALE, and in the non-market sector, ⁇ in social inclusion. On the other hand, it is identified quite clearly, this is evident in all studies, that, in the private sector, some abuse the system to generate undue profits that are not used for job creation.

You have a challenge in terms of service titles: to improve the quality of employment. I expect other provisions than those contained in your text. We have submitted a draft resolution on this subject.

I come to the second point on which I would like to react. This is the logic of putting the responsibility for non-employment on the workers themselves.

In order to work, you have to want to. But wanting is not enough. This is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. Why Why ? Because, today, there are not enough jobs in terms of the number of people on the labour market.

Certainly, some niches of jobs do not find employers. It is a pity! Answers must be found at the level of training and encouragement, but salary issues can sometimes also explain this phenomenon of labor shortage.

But when it comes to the employment of young and elderly people, it is not enough to force them to seek employment, it is also necessary to ensure that employment is available. The responsibility for non-employment must be borne more by the companies themselves than by the workers, even if they must be accompanied and trained.

In this regard, we have submitted two amendments that I have already defended in the Social Affairs Committee. The first concerns the principle of the introduction of a accountability contribution for employers who dismiss workers over the age of 52. Indeed, it is beautiful to force workers, on the occasion of the pension reform, to work longer; but if they are fired or if no one wants to hire them, how to get them to work?

Therefore, it is necessary that companies that consider dismissing an elderly worker think twice, and if they still decide to do so, it is necessary to ask them to pay a accountability contribution to the benefits of the social security funds, in order to assume with those who contribute the burden of dismissal and non-employment of the elderly workers.

You have introduced a financial accountability contribution. It would, in our opinion, be more appropriate to look at the actual conditions of economic unemployment. We believe that companies can access it too easily, in particular because the reference year remains the year 2008 which is a particular year from an economic point of view. This was the first year of the financial crisis. Therefore, it seems to us that there could be more precise criteria in this regard. Such criteria are reflected in a bill we have submitted. They are now the subject of an amendment that we have submitted.

I invite you, Mrs. Minister, to consider this dimension of employer accountability. Nowadays, it is too easy to be fired. We must find “disincitants” to dismissal, beyond all the positive measures – I don’t speak of coercion – taken in particular in terms of accompanying workers.

The third element I would like to highlight during the discussion of this law containing various provisions, is your amendment that aims to remove the possibility of mid-term prepension, which adds to measures on credit-time. It makes it more difficult, less advantageous, access to time credit.

I invite you to think about a better combination between working time and private time. You must pay attention, as part of these formulas, to the painfulness of certain functions which fully justifies the fact that some workers raise their foot at the end of their careers. I think of teachers in front of maternity classes, I think of manual workers who have to work outside. I see that this government is removing these flexible possibilities to step up gradually but also, for example, as part of the Tandem plan that exists in the youth aid sector, to play a positive tutoring role towards young workers. This government forgets that when a worker decides to give up a part of his working time, he is replaced by another worker. It is the sharing of voluntary working time, which lowers the unemployment rate and which activates – one of the notions to which you are ⁇ attached – some relatively young workers who are forced to take a replacement of a fifth time, then a half time, then two half times or several fifth times.

These are smart formulas that allow you to share the work available among more workers. I think it is a short-term calculation to penalize those who use such formulas unilaterally, without taking into account the actual difficulty of careers or the possibility of creating jobs in place of periods not provided.

By seeking savings, this government creates additional problems and costs. These are two obvious examples. I have cited tax aid for isolation, which has a positive effect on the economy, employment and the environment, and here I cite these ways of sharing working time. It seems to me that you are taking a false track, that you are making false savings by cutting in these budgets unilaterally.

Finally, since the majority allows itself to demonstrate creativity in disregard of the House Rules, I submitted to the committee an amendment aimed at reversing a bad decision of the previous government. Colleague Hans Bonte, whom I regret not to see in the session, but also other MPs have complained about it. This is the principle of unilateral collection of the reserve of the local Employment Agencies. I think this measure is inappropriate.

Certainly, if an EEA has enormous reserves and does nothing about it, or if it invests in real estate instead of creating jobs, your inspection services should play their role and identify the problems, put pressure and – if necessary – surgically re-entry those reserves to allocate them to other employment policies. But, if the current funding of service titles is advantageous at the beginning of a career, it becomes insufficient when the worker retains that job. Therefore, reserves are needed to be able to assume this salary increase that is linked to old age. These are social reserves that deserve to be preserved. You also target those ALE who have put the money aside for this purpose. It seems to me to be a fault.

Here is another example of justified reservations. These are those that are necessary to stimulate economic activities favourable to employment. I think of ALEs that invest in the repairing sector within the framework of service securities. The reserves fund a building and equipment and thus allow access to employment.

In this case, indifferentiatedly, regardless of the project linked to this reserve, Minister Milquet decided, for budgetary reasons, to take it, but with the possibility for the companies concerned to contest, but a posteriori; they must first pay the money to the SPF Employment before eventually contest.

All this before December 31st. Still, some have engaged in very heavy investment work and are linked to loans that they will not be able to repay because they will have to pay you money that they will try to recover through a trade. This is a real reversal of the burden of proof.

As far as pensions are concerned, we will be able to mobilize a majority in this parliament to support decisions to be made effective on 31 December 2011, without sometimes having measured all the consequences on workers, so I do not understand that here, given the number of times that your colleague Hans Bonte has climbed to this tribune tapping a fist on the table, why one of the first measures taken is not to review this unilateral unfair decision.

Mr. Minister of Employment, this is a first intervention, but I have no doubt that we will discuss in more detail as part of your general policy note.

I give you the time and the ability to discover this function and this speaker. Nevertheless, through this intervention, I have tried constructively to provide you with some useful and necessary work paths.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the gender dimension – man-woman reading – of the provisions that are proposed to us through the bill containing various provisions. I will do the same kind of intervention, with a few different elements, when we address the theme of pensions, because everything is connected.

How workers and workers will be allowed to organize their careers and therefore the years that will allow them to be entitled to a full pension or not, will have an influence on pension income. So I cannot accept that we say that we will take measures in one of the dimensions without automatically trying to imagine the consequences on what will be the pension of these women. And I find it ⁇ shocking that, in the measures proposed through the various provisions, there are those that target specifically workers.

When one touches the possibilities of interrupting her career, it is known that it is women who resort to it, whether it is a break or a time credit. Why do they do it? They do this not only because they want to train or acquire new skills; they do it because there are children to care for and the collective facilities are insufficient; they do it because the division of tasks between men and women is not yet, unfortunately, equal in our society; they do it because there are old parents who must also take care of the children and grandchildren.

So we act on one stage of life and one of the aspects of these women’s lives without checking whether, around their working time, there are all the devices that allow them to have a job that gives them access to full rights.

In our society, part-time is growing more and more. It was in the 1980s that this concept was developed and encouraged workers to accept part-time. In 1983, 20% of women and 2% of men were working part-time. Today, 43% of women work part-time compared to 8% for men.

Of this million part-time workers, only 52,606 have a full-time assimilation for their pensions. Therefore, if this dimension is not taken into account, career-related employment measures will again have a negative impact on the pension of these workers and, above all, of these workers.

I wanted to draw your attention, Mrs. Minister, on the need to really have a reading of all the employment policies practiced, which was not done for this bill containing various provisions. I hope that, in the coming months, the concern will be real in this matter, in the face of creating poverty, poverty of workers and future pensioners who, however, agreed in 1997 to raise their retirement age to 65 years rather than 60 years. Through this, they accepted that tens of billions were saved on their back without compensation for any consideration as a worker.

I wanted to mean it to you now. It will be important to establish the same relationship with the Minister of Pensions.

I would like to give you the floor, since there will also be discussions on the general policy note within the committees.

I will try to answer briefly.

We can, of course, start a discussion here about our labour market policy in its entirety. A number of questions have been asked about this. I am convinced that in the future we must follow two pistes. First, there is a government agreement and what is stipulated therein must also be implemented. It has been negotiated for long enough. Second, we need to look at that labour market and the measures we may take to ⁇ our goal of getting more people to work and making them work longer. I have already discussed this with the social partners.

You should not expect me to explain here all kinds of tools for achieving that goal, while at the same time I am asked to consult with the social partners and to put on the table well-defined proposals. However, I can assure you that we will do this. I can also tell you that I want to talk to everyone and that I want to be creative. I really want to organize a more transparent, more efficient labour market, but if the social partners – I mean everyone for all clarity – do not want to participate creatively, then we as a government and I as a minister will have to take our responsibilities.

The amendments that were proposed and defended primarily refer to the elements contained in the government agreement. I can assure you that, although one can do denigratory about this, these are actually quite punitive initiatives if one looks at the context.

There has been quite a bit of discussion and there have been quite a few questions asked about bridge pension and the reason why this now becomes unemployment with business allowance. It is actually a unemployment allowance with employment allowance. Bridge pension evokes very much the idea that one is retired and that it forms a bridge to the actual pension, while we actually want to emphasize more on the fact that it is a unemployment benefit to which an allowance is attached, but where it is however absolutely not forbidden to be reactivated and return to the labour market.

If we call it this way, we must put much more emphasis on organizing training and activation paths in the face of people and employers. We must ensure that there are jobs and jobs for those over 50 and we must try to recall these people. I know that the communication in the last few days has not always been optimal due to the speed and we are putting hands on our own. However, landing tracks have not been abolished. They could start at 50 years old and now they can start at 55 years old. They pretend that everything can no longer be done. No, we have shifted a number of things, especially in terms of people who are getting older and living longer – fortunately, but.

You draw words from interviews, that everyone should work on their body with ears and legs. I know that this is a West Flemish expression. As you know, West-Flamings do a lot of work. It is a boutade to say that we must ensure that all people use their competencies and that we should continue to work on those competencies. In this sense, I strongly believe that we must give people opportunities. We must reward people who take these opportunities, but we must, of course, also create those opportunities in the form of jobs and training.

Mr. Gilkinet, of course, I believe in the consultation with the social partners. However, you must understand that, as institutional reforms continue, the Regions become full partners in the story. I would like to emphasize that these are not subordinate governments. We will have to learn to be a federal state, including with regions. Customization can be delivered and we can develop a haute couture policy, depending on the context in which we need to function.

I would also like to say that in terms of taxation, control and inspection, I will work very closely with John Crombez to ensure that black labour and all forms of evasion are detected and addressed. I mean, among other things, the deployment and employment of foreigners who are not legal here.

Of course, for this we will need to develop an investment policy, but also a number of innovative projects, whether or not in consultation with the regions.

I agree with you when it comes to quality workforce. We know this and we will have to invest in it further. It is also the responsibility of employers to take initiatives in this regard.

With regard to the service checks, we have made it clear that they are intended primarily to get certain jobs out of the black work, but also to give a number of precarious groups a chance to get a job, an inlumption job, a sustainable employment.

We have very explicitly stipulated that it should be 60 % long-term unemployed and even people living on a living wage, but also there we must take into account the context and the regional characteristics to see whether this can or can not be realized.

Are the unemployed responsible for their own unemployment? This is a discussion that cannot be carried out in two minutes. For all clarity, I think this is a double responsibility.

Opportunities must be given, but people must take advantage of those opportunities. Of course, we must look at the competencies, the growth opportunities, how to help people emancipate, but it is my absolute conviction that one does not let people grow by just being unemployed. We must therefore give people opportunities and guide, but of course also provide jobs.

As regards the accountability for temporary unemployment, I am based on the figures of 2011. Approximately 610 million euros would be spent. The government intends to save 14 million euros by stricter surveillance of those companies that frequently resort to this measure.

To be honest, that 14 million euros in proportion is not really a big amount. We will not hunt for it.

When it comes to the bridge pension and the gender problem, as a woman, I am of course sensitive to this. The bridge pension still exists, for heavy professions. The time credit associated with it is not deleted for those who have submitted an application before 28 November and include the time credit before April of the following year. If you read the proposals properly, you will also notice that in addition to taking care of disabled people, we have for the first time included the notion of “sick children”. If all the measures are summarized, it is possible to include five years of time credit in specific, justified cases. I know that mostly women do this, for family. This system has been extended rather than restricted.

As for the PWA scheme, the previous government has taken a number of measures. These are included in this year’s budget. This is not so easy to change. There are also a number of judicial proceedings on this subject. I intend to wait for the judgments and, depending on them, to take the appropriate measures. I am convinced that we can negotiate and that we must ⁇ negotiate a number of measures concerning — I mean very broad — socio-economic projects. We can innovate and create jobs in order to employ the most precarious groups.

Finally, you should not forget that the retirement age of 65 years is not affected. I encourage you to look at neighboring countries. We have struggled hard for this, as well as for the index system. Now we must fulfill our agreements.

Mrs. Minister, your answer is apparently different from what you just said to the Green Group. I heard you say that the bridge pension will continue to exist. I don’t know what the Open Vld faction thinks about it, but I heard that the bridge pension continues to exist.

U zei also “als de institutionelle hervormingen doorgaan”. I think that it was a certainty, but u zei very clearly “as”. (The Rumor)

Mr. Landuyt, a little silence please! If you have any explanations to give, do it in the hallway!

Thank you for your listening and your willingness to answer the questions of parliamentarians. This seems to me to be a good augury, even though I obviously do not agree with everything you move forward. However, I feel a capacity to evolve, which is very positive.

I will briefly discuss five elements. It is clear that, as part of the state reform, the social dialogue is likely to be more organized on a regional basis but, in anticipation of the state reform, you must continue to assume your responsibilities in this matter, in the same way that the federal state should have ⁇ ined its tax aid in isolation. It is not because we will reform the state tomorrow that you no longer have to assume your responsibilities.

In terms of service titles, I hear your willingness to ensure that 60% of the more precarious audience is engaged. This is another reason to pay special attention to the training efforts of each company and the quality of the management. Differentiated financing systems must be established for securities-service companies that play the game properly and ensure that workers, and primarily workers, are offered long-term quality jobs with correct schemes. In the financial system, there is definitely something to do. It is not enough to say that 60% of the public is precarious. We must find the means to succeed in this challenge.

In terms of time credit, the bottle is half empty or half full depending on whether you look at it from the side of the N-VA or from the side of Ecolo! I persist in saying that it is a mistake on the part of this new government to remove all those possibilities that are given to give up, voluntarily or compelledly, part of its working time according to the painfulness of its job, family or personal choices, because it is a way to redistribute the working time and put more people into employment. You cannot deny that one of the major actions of the government deal is to cut in all of these possibilities. These are the savings of candlesticks! This does not correspond to a modern vision of conciliation between work and private life.

I am pleased that Mr. Bonte has returned to the session to tell him that I have submitted a very good amendment concerning the reservations of the ALE, of the PWA's, on which he regularly intervened. I see that your strategy is to wait for justice to decide. It can be hoped that it actually gives the right to those who attack the federal state, but it’s a bit paradoxical to hear a minister say that she hopes to lose in court so that she can correct what the person before her did wrong. If this is the only way to do so, let us hope that justice will decide quickly and that it will condemn the federal state to re-order what it has done wrong!

We need more elderly people at work. For this, we need more jobs. And more jobs for the elderly, that is what is a problem today.

Personal Fact