Proposition 53K2466

Projet de loi prévoyant des sanctions et des mesures à l'encontre des employeurs de ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour illégal.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 24, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive work foreign national illegal migration pay work permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

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. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I refer to the written report. I suppose everyone knows what it is about. It is about transposing a European Directive. Finally, I would say, because due to the length of the government formation, that conversion has been delayed.

I think it is clear to everyone that this law is a major step forward in the fight against social fraud. There is in our country, and everyone knows that, a small group of malafide employers who distort competition by employing illegal workers, and a large group of bonafide employers who adhere to the law. That large group is being competed by the malafide employers from the market.

We all know the examples from the construction sector, the cleaning sector, the transport sector and so on. The small group of misleading employers not only competes the well-meaning companies away, but these employers often allow their illegal employees to also work in humiliating conditions. Sometimes, unfortunately, we can even talk about modern slavery.

The transposition of the European Directive is, in any case, a good thing, and for us, it was better done yesterday than today. The only thing we regret a little bit is that one does not dare to be even stricter. After all, our French neighbors, and other neighboring countries, by the way, condemn the employer who is taunted for employing illegal workers to pay six months’ wages. We do not pay more than three months. France, though the guided country for much of this assembly, is therefore stricter. We regret our slightly milder approach, because I fear that we will continue to attract illegals.

We will soon start with the law that raises three-month salary. I propose, Mrs. Minister, that this law be evaluated in time and stands, and strengthened if necessary. This would be very pleasing to us.

We fully support the transposition of this European Directive. We also know that this should have happened before, but by the government in ongoing affairs it could not.

This Directive aims to penalize employers who employ illegal third-country nationals and also make them responsible for paying fair wages to these workers, even if they are illegally employed.

The employment of illegal workers is not only prohibited, but also distorts the market in certain sectors. Illegal workers are also in a very vulnerable position. They often accept low wages and work in precarious conditions. This is not good for them, but it also disrupts the market. Think not only of the case of Carestel, but also of the situation that came to light during checks in Anderlecht, a few weeks ago. Employees who are illegally employed are often the victim in such a situation.

Thanks to this law, employers, and not primarily employed third-country nationals, will be punished in the employment of illegally staying nationals. Thus, the employers are attacked.

It is positive that the approach to the problem of illegal employment is accompanied by a limited chain liability. This ensures that misleading employers can no longer hide behind their subcontractors, which often happens. For us, that could go even further. We would like to extend chain responsibility, but we are already pleased that these first steps are being taken.

Mrs. Minister, in the committee we asked many questions about the concrete application of this law and the control of it. After all, the results will depend heavily on good cooperation between different services. For example, we think of the exchange of information between the inspection services and the Social Intelligence and Investigation Service or the DVZ and the regional service responsible for the issuance of the work cards.

We hope that in the long run we can evolve towards a single permit, so that we also avoid certain abuses. It is not even always a deliberate abuse, because sometimes there are people employed with a valid work permit, but without a valid residence permit. This creates problems, in the first instance also for the employer who acts in good faith and thinks that he employs someone from whom all documents are in order.

All possibilities to circumvent the principal liability must also be closely monitored. You know that the creativity in this area is ⁇ high. There can be all kinds of backdoors, but we must ensure that it remains operable and controllable and that the administrative burden for employers does not increase too much. Otherwise, there will be no more transparency and no more effective procedures. We must ensure that control remains possible. Therefore, in these cases we aim primarily at increasing the frequency of the inspections by the inspection services. You promised this in the committee.

We hope that this law, which puts a strong emphasis on controls and sanctions, will discourage contractors and subcontractors from doing what is not allowed, namely employing and exploiting people who stay here illegally. This, in fact, creates false competition and, moreover, is not correct with respect to bonafide contractors.

We will approve this first step. We will continue to follow the matter closely and we hope that this step will have the necessary effects on the ground.

We support this transposition of the Directive on illegal immigration. However, I will insist on two points. On the one hand, the objective must be to ⁇ the most complete efficiency without imposing an excessive administrative burden on companies. On the other hand, in the event of proven fraud, would it not be possible to introduce sanctions such as recovery of aid or subsidies, or even the exclusion of public procurement procedures. If there has been fraud and a very clear support from public authorities, such withdrawal of public authority aid should be able to be examined.

I would also like to transpose Directive 2011/36 on trafficking in human beings in a timely manner, that is, before 6 April 2013.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your questions.

Mr. Maertens, you ask me why we predict three-month salary as a sanction. This is a point where we have reached consensus. I have said this in the committee. I think it is better than nothing.

When evaluating the application, we will see whether it is sufficient, too little or too much and to what extent it is inherent. If we are confronted with foreign subcontractors, catching them and drawing up files, we still have to be able to collect, although some things have been arranged in that area as well.

Mrs Lanjri, it is indeed an exercise of balance between effectiveness — Ms Fonck also asked for it —, the creativity we can expect from the sector and which we want to address, and the burden on employers. I think we can solve this only by using electronic systems. This is how we can create situations that are more positive for all partners.

Madame Fonck, you know, I am very in favour of your proposal. When fraud is detected, it is impossible to claim the money received as part of competitiveness, such as subsidies, etc. We have rights, but we also have duties. This applies to everyone; not only to the poor, but also to employers.