Proposition 53K2445

Projet de loi relatif à la rémunération des membres du personnel et des mandataires des organismes d'intérêt public, des entreprises publiques autonomes et des personnes morales sur lesquelles l'Etat exerce directement ou indirectement une influence dominante, en tant que personne physique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 12, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

institution of public utility pay public sector staff

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA

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 ¶

Nov. 29, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on 13 November, the Infrastructure Committee has taken up the bill on the remuneration of employees and mandatory officers working for public companies, better known as management companies, following the introduction by Minister Magnette.

The Minister expresses the desire to no longer work with the companies for public companies and other institutions of public benefit, in accordance with the government agreement. In fact, he was of the opinion that this means that contributions to social security and corporate advance fees are missed. The law will enter into force on the first of the seventh month following its publication in the Belgian Staatsblad.

Subsequently, colleague Vandeput asks whether there is a need for a legislative text, or whether one cannot reach an agreement with their delegated directors in the state-owned companies. He submits an amendment to exclude Belgacom and bpost from the application of the law. Mr Van den Bergh contradicts the Minister’s statement that management companies are used to circumvent contributions and considers that they can indeed have a legitimate structure. He urges to include in the memorandum of explanation a thorough justification.

Collega Balcaen asks for timing, as there is also a draft law on the salary of CEOs. Collega Veys agrees, complains that the government has already announced the initiative in Parliament more than a year ago and asks why it has lasted so long. He also does not understand why Belgacom and bpost are made an exception.

Finally, as the last speaker, I look forward to the fact that a legislation on this subject has been adopted, as agreed in the Government. When we learn from social fraud, we must also dare to prevent government companies from using resources to avoid burdens.

The proposed amendment was discussed. It was rejected by 11 votes against 4. Subsequently, the entire bill was adopted with 11 votes in favour and 4 abstentions.

So far, my report, Mr. Speaker, but if you allow me, I would like to say the following.

Go ahead, Mr Geerts.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

Mr. Minister, I recently delivered a very exhaustive report of the work. Our group will also approve the draft in the plenary session. It is the implementation of the government agreement. Furthermore, it is important that public authorities exercise an exemplary role in the remuneration of employees of autonomous public enterprises, as well as in the remuneration of members of the boards of directors, government commissioners, and others. Therefore, as in the committee, we will approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I think it is good that we do what we should do here in Parliament from time to time. We need to check, make laws, and pass laws. Occasionally, we also need to think about what we actually do, why we do it and whether that is the best solution we can offer for a particular problem. It always begins with the definition of the problem to be solved, if there was already a problem.

What is the problem here actually? The problem is that we have a hole in our budget, as big as you can imagine. This government has chosen not to fill that gap through well-selected savings but mainly by raising taxes. The role played by Secretary of State Crombez in that story is incredibly large, you all know. He therefore cited here in this half-course during the discussion of the budget that the hunt for management companies was opened. That is actually the core of our problem.

If someone who is a little more sleepy than someone else asks him how many management companies we actually have in our own ranks, then one comes to the conclusion that one is actually going to ban others what one does himself. What is a management company? A management company is a company that is founded to choose the least taxed path for its pay. We all agree that the labor burden in this country is too high. So that is actually the problem.

How will we resolve this now? First, by announcing a lot. Collega Geerts, by the way, cited it in his report and was asked by others in the committee. Why did all this take so long? We know the problem in the meantime. We ourselves are the example here. The question is how we can solve this. It could be solved very easily by the Minister responsible for Public Companies and also by this government. These state-owned companies are run by boards of directors and at the management level we find no one there who has not passed the right card to the right cash box to get there. So it could be very easy for the guardianship minister or the guardianship government, the federal government, to say that one expects good governance there and that one expects that one gives the good example so that one cannot point us with the finger on that matter.

It should be very easy for the Minister of Public Enterprises to impose on the boards of directors that they should draw up and present a moral code for the board, management and also the employees of the company within a certain period of time. That would ⁇ include an element about how they are paid.

But no, that is not the country we live in. We believe that with such a problem we should enter the market. We consider that, instead of following the logical solution to this problem, we should go to Parliament, with heavy thumb, that we should announce big laws, which in essence do not matter.

That is actually the first and most important point of our criticism in this story, because again this is a solution that is provided because the government parties do not trust the people they have placed themselves in the boards of governance, because they can not ask those people themselves to take their responsibilities and to say that there must be effective good governance. In fact, one protects himself here, and then especially the socialist family, against his own people, by saying that the Parliament so wants it, and therefore it is not they who impose it. These are the main reasons why we will abstain.

Colleagues, I cannot remember that in the committee we have also made substantial comments and asked questions about those public companies in which there are not only people designated by the government, but also people designated by private partners. I think, for example, of Belgacom and bpost, where private investors have entered the public company and in turn delegate their directors.

Mr. Minister, you will undoubtedly have checked it, and in the other case, the jurisprudence will show it in the future, but I wonder how much you can require your private shareholders in those companies to place their people there as natural persons rather than as representatives of another company.

Colleagues, I would like to make it very clear that we agree with the principle that people who are delegated by the government, by the policy to conduct a policy to the head of public companies, should give the example and sit there as a natural person, not because they have a particular party card but because they have proper knowledge and skills and provide the best for the public company.

However, we are not convinced, on the contrary, that the best solution is chosen by approving a law here in Parliament. Furthermore, the question arises whether this can be enforced against private partners in public companies.

We will remember.

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 obviously support this bill that aims to prohibit staff members and representatives of public interest bodies and autonomous public enterprises – in which the federal state has a dominant influence – from receiving remuneration through a so-called “management” company.

However, let’s be careful: this practice is not widespread among all our representatives. Far from there! It is not necessary to blame all people. However, by this law, we want everyone to be exemplary before the state and before the tax. By this law, dear colleagues, we also want that all, whether designated by the public or by the private, are equal before the state and before the tax.

Instead of later regretting that people created management companies to collect their remuneration, there will now be no more temptation possible because the law prohibits it. It is actually better that a law prohibits it rather than regret by after some have done it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I think one thing is good in the number of commitments you have taken, that is that you also implement them. I know that you are in time and that other responsibilities await you in the south of this country.

The reason why this bill is being discussed here today is somewhat regrettable. In the media and in politics there was the necessary dissatisfaction because the man who headed Bio, a government agency, worked with his own company. He was paid by his own company, while in terms of management, Bio had a very bad reputation.

The question we can ask ourselves then is what can we learn from the past? Who works with management companies? These are people who are at the top of various government companies and have not so much come there by passing an exam, but mostly because that has been the so-called and disgusted political appointments. One knew perfectly what flesh one had in the cage and could have perfectly held in hand in what way those persons would come to the head of the various government companies. They could also have made the necessary arrangements so that there would never have been work with management companies. This has always been tolerated. This was a practice that used to be scratching and punching until one noticed this.

The question can also be asked why there is so much work with management companies. This, of course, has to do with the tax benefits associated with it. Today, one does not take away the nutritional ground for working with management companies, but only the possibilities for this. Per ⁇ we would work better on a system in which the social burden is less drastic so that people and managers who hold top positions are no longer obliged to look for taxally interesting constructions and they in the future, according to their standards, receive salary for work.

Another aspect is, of course, if we would say that this should be possible, there are many people who do not opt for such a system or simply cannot work with it and are heavily charged. The state loses some income if people work with such management companies.

Another point is that the various state-owned companies themselves – we asked the minister for an overview, but this could apparently not be given – could have determined that one could not work with management companies without the intervention of the government.

The public undertakings concerned could have determined, without the need for Parliament to intervene, that they could not work with a management company. They did not do it. I think the responsibility lies equally with them.

I read in the draft law that not only has one year been waited since the intention in the government agreement, but also that, after the law will be approved and appear in the Belgian Staatsblad, interested parties will have another four months to put themselves in order. I am sorry, Mr. Minister, but the government agreement dates from 1 December 2011. Participants have had enough time to put themselves in order. What prevented them from doing it before? Your intention was to get involved.

I partially understand why the N-VA in the committee insisted on making an exception for Belgacom and bpost, but if I look at the current construction of those two organizations, I find that, given the public share, we must cross the line. They should also fall under this rule.

Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur. In the Infrastructure Committee, there are always more candidates for the report than eligible members. However, when it is time to present the report in the plenary session, they often send their cat. In this context, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his sound report.

Mr. Speaker, the report of Mr. Geerts was very clear and exhaustive.

I would like to emphasize two points.

First, yes, we are stricter for public companies than for other companies. We believe that public companies should be a good example.

Secondly, some say that one could simply rely on the virtue of the administrators. As La Rochefoucauld put it, “Hypocrites, jealous of the qualities of virtuous people, pretend to admire them.” I am not hypocritical and prefer the certainty of the law to the appearance of virtue.

Do you want to comment on the last quotation?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank you for your agreement on what I just said. I therefore assert, together with the Minister and also with Mrs Lalieux, that they cannot trust the people they themselves delegate to the boards of directors.

Mr. Magnette, there is a temptation. There is temptation. Through a law passed here in Parliament, you must prevent your own placed people from giving in to the temptation.

I would like to note the above and would like to see it included in the report.