Proposition 53K2989

Projet de loi modifiant la section 3 du chapitre 7 du titre IV de la loi-programme (I) du 24 décembre 2002.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 26, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax system fraud reflation catering industry casual employment social-security contribution moonlighting

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Oct. 10, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The Social Affairs Committee examined Bills 2989 and 2990 at its meeting on 24 September 2013. For these two bills, complementary within the framework of the "plan horeca", the Secretary of State for Combating Social and Tax Fraud, in his explanation of the reasons, went through the major axes of the amendments in the draft.

First, from 1 January 2014, a new target group reduction is created for employers who are nationals of the parity committee of the hospitality industry who have employed on average no more than 49 workers during a reference period to be determined by a royal decree. This reduction in contributions is a flat rate and is applicable to five full-time employees, of choice and without time limitation. It can be combined with other reductions. To obtain this reduction, the employer must use a certified cash register.

Second, occasional work is made more attractive for both the employer and the worker. The employer will benefit from a simpler and more advantageous system for calculating social contributions. In addition, by analogy to the student regulation, a counter will be set up so that the employer can consult the balance of days for which he or she can still employ an occasional worker and the balance of days to which a worker still is entitled.

Third, the worker will benefit from a separate tax rate of 33% for salaries from occasional work in the sector.

During the general discussion, Mr. Vincent Sampaoli regretted that all the texts were not submitted to the Social Affairs Committee, as the problem of the introduction of the cash register is not only related to the flat-rate reductions of social contributions but also to the fight against social fraud. It is necessary to have a comprehensive view of all aspects of the reform undertaken.

Ms. Miranda Van Eetvelde questioned the reasons for justifying a threshold of 49 workers for obtaining the new flat-rate reductions in social contributions and the risk that this threshold would result in division of companies into several operating units. She also questioned the effectiveness of the introduction of a cash register, on the issue of overtime (a question shared by Mr. Mathias De Clercq) and on the separate tax rate at 33% for occasional benefits.

Ms. Zoé Genot also asked about the effectiveness of the cash register, while recalling that the reduction in VAT did not benefit customers and did not reduce the work to the black. It regretted the unlimited character in time of the flat-rate reduction and considers that the threshold of 49 workers is too high. An amendment to lower the threshold to 20 workers was submitted by the speaker.

by Mr. Stefaan Vercamer regretted that the opportunity was not taken to harmonize all social contributions on a flat-rate basis for all occasional workers. Catherine Fonck has spoken in the same direction. In addition, the speaker asked several questions about student work and how to cumulate the two advantages in the head of these.

by Mr. David Clarinval was concerned about the risks of eliminating jobs for the benefit of students.

Finally, several members asked what was the budget impact of the various measures.

In his responses, the Secretary of State for Combating Social and Fiscal Fraud indicated that a budget of 72 million euros was registered for the transposition of the horeca plan, without accounting for the effects of returns. An additional budget is provided for extra hours.

The option of a threshold of 49 workers for the granting of flat-rate reductions, 5 full-time workers, corresponds to a easily objectivable group, SMEs, for which it was decided to concentrate efforts in favour of employment.

The status of occasional workers is cumulative with that of students. A student can therefore accumulate 50 days in his own diet and 50 days of occasional work. Several clarifications were made regarding the taxation of occasional work in the horeca sector.

In the replicas, Ms. Miranda Van Eetvelde said that the absence of more structural measures to reduce wage charges would not allow her support for both bills. by Mr. Stefaan Vercamer reiterated his fear of a replacement of regular workers for students.

Both texts were adopted by 9 votes and 1 abstinence. Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Zoé Genot was rejected by 8 votes against 1 and 1 abstentions.

The Social Affairs Committee met on 10 October to examine two amendments submitted by Ms. Kitir and colleagues concerning project 2990.

Since for occasional horeca workers it was decided by a royal decree that social rights would be calculated on a higher wage than the flat rate on which they contribute, it is appropriate to introduce an exception for these workers in the royal decree of 10 June 2001 establishing the uniform concept of average daily remuneration.

Following the submission of the two amendments by Ms Kitir, Ms Genot and Van Eetvelde expressed their views. by Mr. The Secretary of State responded to the comments of our two colleagues. Both amendments were adopted by 11 votes for and 3 abstentions.

As regards the third bill (No. 2952), which was also considered in the Social Affairs Committee on 24 September 2013, I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, for all clarity: any measure to give oxygen to the hospitality industry, we will surely and firmly support. You know that. That is a positive thing anyway.

However, the present bill is only a cloth for bleeding. I have talked about it several times; it is far from sufficient. One cannot speak of a structural measure that reduces the burden on labor. The sector can only benefit from an RSZ discount for up to five permanent, full-time employees. In addition, there is another surplus: the catering companies may also employ no more than 49 employees. Then I wonder which catering company will still feel encouraged to build a company with more than 50 employees after the introduction of the proposed legislation. This is not an incentive to create more jobs.

Another question is whether catering companies wishing to benefit from the RSZ discount should hire employees on a fixed and full-time basis. This is currently stated in the bill. You know from industry research that a lot of catering companies do not need permanent, full-time employees. Will these food companies fall out of the boat? I am afraid of yes again.

The part on occasional work is also very arbitrary. For those who want to earn something in the hospitality industry, the fixed corporate premium of 33% is a good thing. That is an improvement compared to the current situation, in which one retains only 30-40% of his extra labour. There is also a missed opportunity in this area, because the extra occasional work would be perfectly suited to motivate the hundreds of thousands of unemployed in our country to make additional efforts to work in society.

As a result of the decline in unemployment, today’s proposal offers too little and we will have little or no motivation for job seekers to engage and do occasional work in the sector. But the industry really needs that. How should job seekers be motivated to do so, if the difference between what they earn by working a day or just sitting at home and receiving unemployment aid is far too small? This is another missed opportunity. We need to evolve into a system where it is worth working an hour. That difference should be clear.

I read your interview in the Horecakrant and I am worried about the motivation behind which you are hiding. For the sake of my colleagues, I will quote. One asks, “Why has one started with the catering sector and is not talking about bakers, slaughterhouses and hairdressers at this time? Should these groups be concerned about this now? Will we go there? What is the Secretary of State’s intention at that point?”You answer: “Look, that decision was not mine, to begin with.” You say you have to execute the decision. “We’ll see what this will bring,” you say today, so you’ll wait to see what the impact of the measures will be. I am really worried. You use a sector that today employs 125,000 people – ⁇ the largest employer after the government – as a test case for the government’s plan. I am worried about this and I am afraid that fear is not wrong.

On the two proposals we disagree. The initiative or intent is good, we agree on that. We all know what is needed for the catering sector. I have already handed you our horecaplan. In it you will find what all should happen.

What brings forth today is only a small beginning, a small advance, very little, some rolling in the margin.

I find that regrettable. It remains a missed opportunity.

We will not support that lean beast, but we will abstain. We are, of course, in favor of supplying the sector with more oxygen, which is why we are in favor of all measures. But what is present is really too little. It is scandalous that you want to use the sector as a test case. I almost fell from my chair when I read something.

The Federation Horeca Flanders responds very cautiously, as it says that negotiations with the state secretary still need to be negotiated. The Federation is counting on you. Take that opportunity. Do something for the industry. You still have that possibility. It is not yet May.

“If we don’t find a good solution for overtime, we don’t have a global good solution.” Remember that, take that with you, please do something about it. It is too much important. The sector currently employs 125 000 people, and then we only talk about those we know are employed in it. If we add the marginal data, everything that has to do with that sector, then it is a much larger number of jobs that are being discussed here today.

What is now presented is really insufficient and therefore we will abstain at the vote. Any new initiative from you to extend the measures and to provide more survival chances for the companies concerned after the black box introduction, we will support if it is sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, these two bills that are part of the rebound strategy initiated by the government since July 2008 have a particular importance. In fact, the horeca sector is first and foremost one of the two main economic sectors of the country and the second largest job provider, just behind the building sector. Nearly 150,000 people work there, two-thirds of which are part-time.

Horeca is also a good tool for integration as it offers training to many people with low or medium qualifications at the start. The horeca also has another asset. It brings conviviality and entertainment into the neighborhoods and into our lives.

Today, therefore, it is essential for us to support this sector that needs a serious dose of oxygen – remember, however, that it has been ⁇ affected by the crisis – and whose characteristics are a high labour intensity but also unfortunately a sensitivity to black labour that must be curbed first by preventive measures. In any case, it is especially important to go beyond the 2009 deal, which consisted of an exchange of the VAT reduction and the implementation of an electronic cash register in order to fight fraud.

As we said in the committee, these two projects provide a first response to the difficulties facing the horeca sector. However, some questions remain. Certainly, since the sector is inevitably subject to variations in the working rhythm and this, sometimes very quickly, it was important to guarantee a system of social contribution on the basis of a package more adapted to the reality.

However, our group has some reservations about the introduction of a separate tax rate for income from occasional work as this is a new exception to the principle of progressivity of our tax system. Ultimately, a net income that is more attractive for the worker and a lower cost for the exploitant are likely to make this type of work more attractive. This is really a win-win. But we must note that the idea of starting the horeca plan, or priority support for full-time contracts, is somewhat weakened. In addition, the new contribution system does not contribute in any way to the fight against black labour.

We are also quite doubtful about the extension of this advantageous system, including the annual quota of 50 days, to students who will thus be able to accumulate a double annual benefit. Students’ work was reformed in 2011 so as to best match the reality and experience of this audience, but it would not be necessary that the flexibility as positive as it may be internally, to meet the specific needs faced by companies, result in a competition of the different categories of workers on the labour market. We think here, for example, of direct job seekers or employing an interim company.

The PS Group has always pledged for stable and full-time jobs. It is worthwhile that an additional reduction in social contributions is granted for five full-time employees, and provided that the certified cash register is, of course, installed. On the other hand, choosing the workers who will benefit from this benefit is more problematic, as we are convinced that load reductions are more efficient if targeted accurately. So, for example, between a sommelier at a starred restaurant and a waiter at a pizzeria, there is a difference in qualification and remuneration.

The establishment of a threshold of a maximum of 49 employees during a reference period is undoubtedly justified in an anti-fraud perspective, as well as because large ⁇ have a sufficient budget to cope with the costs inherent in the introduction of the cash register.

However, the risk is that the legal assembly will be set up to split large companies into smaller structures. In this way, labor consultation bodies and trade union control would also be compromised, which in itself could lead to further fraud.

The ambiguity also lies in the fact that the advantage is reserved for employers who, very often, have not complied with the ONSS regulation, as it is well known that black work is mainly concentrated in small entities in the sector.

In conclusion, our group will support these two bills, but we ask the government to remain attentive to our comments. The effectiveness of the cash register and the impact of the new system on regular employment will need to be thoroughly assessed.

Mr. Speaker, I observe that the liberals are not present to defend the horeca: their deputies seem to have disappeared!

For everyone, the horeca represents an important sector. Indeed, everyone is confronted with it daily and appreciates the animation and conviviality it allows in the public space. For us who are supporters of living cities, this sector is an indispensable actor.

It is important in terms of economy and in terms of tourism: so it is not worth being neglected.

Finally, it is important because it allows an under-skilled population to enter the labour market, while many other sectors find it difficult to allow it. Hence its very special place.

An effort has already been made in the past to support this sector by lowering the VAT rate. In France, it was then about lowering prices; Belgium preferred to reduce black labour.

Let us be clear! The assessments carried out following the reduction in the VAT rate did not deliver the expected results. In fact, the controls revealed a stagnation in black work and employment volume. Of course, when the measure was taken, we were going through a crisis period and the sector was therefore not in full expansion.

Two new tools are now offered to support specifically this sector.

The first is a special regime for occasional workers. Who says particular diet always implies a certain concern: breaches are open to the risk of generalization. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, in this area, it is often the bad job that chases the good.

What is proposed to us? To grant 50 more days to occasional workers or students. Students will therefore be able to lend 50 days under the student regime, 50 more days under the occasional worker regime. Thus, we begin to replace potential jobs with occasional jobs.

Therefore, we really touch the limit of this system and it will need to be evaluated on the ground with great attention.

The second tool that we are proposing is the reduction of social security contributions. In this regard, we did not have a clear answer in the commission regarding its cost. Can you tell us more at this stage?

There have been many discussions in the committee on what I consider to be a "donor-donor" measure: we launch these famous cash registers that we have been talking about for a long time and we give a hand to the sector to enable it to create quality employment. When it comes to the cash register, despite the various texts, there is a lot of uncertainty. In the latest newspaper of the horeca sector, it can be read: "They want to impose a strict control and a sharp record of all operations carried out in companies. The hours of attendance of staff members will also be recorded, such as a scoring." When I read the stops that are already available, I do not have the impression that we are there at all. What exactly is planned for these casinos in terms of control of working hours? We are willing to make a special effort for this sector in terms of cutting contributions, but this must translate into quality employment. The deal must be kept.

When I read the available stops, I do not have the impression that this will allow a control of the people present at the workplace. There were many questions about this in the committee. Is the person who makes the dishes in the kitchen listed by this famous cash register? We did not have a clear answer to this question, which is important.

I agree with the particular boost to the sector, but it must bring results. We know what happened with the VAT reduction, we cannot play the same piece again!

We also have a small concern in relation to the size of the companies. We are told that this is a particular sector, that many of these small self-employed with a few employees need special help. However, when reading the text of the law, we are proposed to help companies up to 50 workers in the same way. Now it is no longer a small business: 50 workers, it is already a very large company in the horeca sector. There are not many cafes employing 49 workers.

We proposed to lower this threshold to really affect the establishments targeted, that is, all those small ⁇ , all those cafes, those small restaurants that, on the ground, actually experience difficulties in surviving. We do not understand why you rejected this amendment, which would have made the measure more targeted.

I hope you have had the opportunity to prepare for the plenary session in order to answer more clearly the questions that have not been answered in the committee.

I give the floor to Mr. The Secretary of State.

(Intervention outside of the micro)

You were not registered. However, there is no problem, you can come to the tribune. Here, it multiplies like small loaves!

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I will briefly intervene with regard to this bill, as we have strongly insisted during the government negotiations that something should be done for this sector.

The N-VA colleague said that it is far too little for the sector and for the people. The question is what would be enough, given the budgetary situation and given the shared opinion that we should follow the European directives on the budgetary path.

It is good that three measures will provide oxygen to the sector. Thus, one will work with an hourly and daily allowance for the occasional work. Contribution reductions will also be implemented and those will come earlier for the companies that work with the black box cash. That can only be an incentive and, in addition, the employees will retain net more. If you make the calculation sum, you quickly get 20 % more net worth for the employee and 20 % less costs for the employer. Colleague Van Esbroeck, if you find that too little, then that is your right, but I think that is a serious reduction in wage loans. And I do not consider it as a test case, but as a common measure that the sector can use well to force employment.

Mr. Secretary of State, as I said in the committee meeting, I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the cumulation between student work and occasional work is increased to 100 days. There are 220 working days in a year and we must take care that this does not lead to abuse in the sector.

There is also the fact that one will have to work with two counters. Anyone who performs student work may perform a maximum of 240 hours, otherwise you lose the child allowance. Now one must keep an eye on two counters, while then one can still make corrections on Dimona announcements and the like. We ask that this be properly followed.

Then, by allowing student work to cumulate with occasional work, I continue to warn of the displacement of regular work, ⁇ in the hospitality sector.

In any case, we are happy that these measures are taken and we will fully support them.

Mr. Speaker, I understand from what rigid thinking Mr. Vercamer fears about the flexibility to create employment opportunities in the sector.

However, I regret, Mr. Vercamer, that we have never seen you during the consultation that we engaged in with the sector. Your colleague explained other things there than what you explain here today in this speech. The Secretary of State can also testify to this.

You should know that this is a sector in need. This sector is being tackled hard. Is this unfair? No, we have always been for a fraudulent operation. Everyone is equal before the law. This is the most honest way of acting.

(...): You might mean fraudulent?

Flawless, that is what I mean. I have clarified it by saying that everyone should be equal before the law, right?

If a sector is isolated in society, it must be confronted. I thought the government would take some initiatives. Of course they are insufficient. If you had followed the consultation, which took place several times, and all the calculations properly, then you would know that the sector is in serious trouble with these small measures.

All the jobs that you like to fight for are at risk. You also have to stop at that.

I have never seen my colleague in the committee when this issue was discussed there.

Mr. Secretary of State, I give you the word.

Thank you, my lord of chair. Thank you for all the interventions: this demonstrates, as in the committee, that the interest in this debate is present and justified.

I will now answer a lot of comments. Let me start with the first speaker. It may be surprising, but I agree with a lot of comments.

As a general principle, I would also like to point out that the debate has long been about informing the sector, where the installation of the conscious cashier is indeed a decision of the past. I do not escape my responsibility in this regard, even though we were in the opposition at the time. Imagine that the measures we take...

It’s about the “writing” of the sector, but in a profitable way, something that the hospitality users also ask for and that we are looking for.

With a few comments, I totally agree. However, it is a complex sector. It is about a lot of different things. In fact, we are looking for a package or a combination of measures that sufficiently in the breadth helps very different companies.

This is also the case in the N-VA plan, which I have received well. This plan also includes a selection of a number of support measures. The plan also suggests that a number of measures should not be taken. For example, the reduction of the burden on the contracts we propose here is not part of the N-VA program.

It is about choices. Everyone is looking for the best mix.

Mr Van Esbroeck, you declare here that the reduction of the burden on the contracts is too little. In your program you choose not to give a load reduction.

Looking for the right mix.

It is important that we decided on a portion of the total package. The budget decisions also include the principle decision – which is the next decision to be discussed in Parliament – to take a measure on overtime because the impact of the different measures is so different. This has yet to be submitted to Parliament.

So far we have heard from the hospitality industry somewhat the same sounds as some comments here, in particular that the measures are good and help a little, but that they are not enough.

There are concerns. We need to evaluate the whole.

We are still working and the package of overtime is a very important discussion for the hospitality industry.

I would like to add that it is true that the horeca sector is very wide. But the situation of the latter is, so to speak, the same as that of the building and construction sector for which we have planned the installation of a system of employee registration on the major construction sites. On this occasion, the link will be made with reductions in charges.

Both sectors are highly employment-generating sectors. For the latter, a link is established between a control system and aid measures.

I would also like to answer a few very specific questions.

Mrs. Genot, whether it be in a committee or in a plenary, I am always well documented and prepared!

You say that the reduction in VAT has not resulted. I do not agree! Horeca is heavily affected as consumption declines and the sector has been experiencing this since 2009. In the figures, it can be seen that this measure really helped ⁇ to survive.

You have also proposed to reduce the charges for companies that do not have up to 49 employees but up to 20 employees. The government's initial idea also covered 20 workers. After discussion with the industry, we chose a neutral threshold, an existing SME threshold, which affects many medium-sized companies. Therefore, I do not agree to bring that limit down to 20 people.

As for the cost estimate for next year, some clarifications are needed. The estimated cost for 2014 is 5 to 6 million euros. For contracts, the estimated cost is 27.5 million, but it will depend on the number of companies that will use the funds. If all the measures are taken, the effort for the hospitality sector will amount to a total of 83 million. It is not the donor. We need to be able to discuss with the different sectors of fighting black labour and ⁇ ining a profitable framework. We need to work in good cooperation. We should ⁇ that goal.

Mr. Vercamer, I am not so concerned at this time about the displacement of regular labour. There are two questions.

First, a question from the sector. As strange as it may sound, the sector even has difficulty finding well-qualified and affordable staff. Horeca cases are very different. In some cases, the availability of students is important.

Second, the same question exists with the students themselves and is about working in the hospitality industry during the year, for example, some Sunday morning, but also during the summer season.

At present, there is more scarcity than a surplus. If there is scarcity, then the chance of displacement is small. I agree that we need to be very careful about this. If one expands the statute and creates more possibilities, one must ⁇ remain attentive to this.

I take together. These are two steps. It is part of the story. The cash will come next year.

Mr. Van Esbroeck, I want to come back to your last comment, which is the one you are most concerned about. You ask how it is possible that the hospitality industry is called a test sector. The important point here is that we have decided that this cash register will be introduced in two years. We start with a package of measures to support the sector.

The catering affairs that will start with that cashier are catering affairs that already believe that they will be better done with the measures and the cashier than without, otherwise they would not start with it. Believe me, there are catering jobs that will start in January. That gives within the sector, between the business, also the opportunity to see what the effects and difficulties are. If you are talking about a test: the introduction takes place in two years.

We now have two years of discussion, a lot of discussion, with the sector behind. You know that. I predict that we will discuss with the industry for another two years. I think that is healthy. They are, of course, worried because the consumption is not good. This is felt in the sector. The box office is coming now. Of course they are worried, but we have had two years of discussion. It has gone very mature. I anticipate another two years of discussion, which will also run adult. Therefore, it is a good thing that we have decided to spread the introduction over two years.

I asked a question in the committee, and it has not yet received a response.

Does the cash register contain data on each of the employees present at the workplace? Is the person who washes the dishes informed in the cash register as being present from such time to such time? That is my question.

I see there two questions: are all workers registered and their schedule is encoded?

The answer to the question "Will all staff be registered?" is positive. As for the answer to the question "Will this be the only system for registering personnel?" it is negative. The other systems remain.

Will this system affect everyone, in each case, from the beginning to the end? In some cases, yes, but not yet in all cases. Discussions are continuing. It is important to know that the possibility exists. A company can therefore decide to carry out the registration of all its staff – not all the administration – through the cash. Some horeca companies have their own registration system. We will not impose a switch to the box. The possibility exists, and not the obligation, to do so for everyone, for every hour, from beginning to end.

To be sure you understand...

The [...]

There was no response in the committee.

No, there was no response in the committee.

So, those who will benefit from reductions in social security contributions will register all their workers but not specifically all their working hours?

I repeat that there is no obligation. When a company has its own registration system, there is a possibility to continue to use it.

Will the entire administration be managed by the cashier? The answer is no.

There are several systems. The possibility of using the cash register is provided for certain functions such as recording the entry or the start of the service, but this does not mean that existing systems can no longer be used.

That is why I say that the possibility exists for the whole but it is not an obligation.

Mr. Secretary of State, I think you will continue the ongoing controls.

If you see on the ground that a company continues to do black work, will it be able to continue to benefit from reductions in social contributions after the check or not?

Companies that benefit from cost reductions and for which it was established during a check that an infringement has been committed are sanctioned by the fines provided for in the law. The provisions of the law do not imply a prohibition to benefit from the reductions of charges.