Proposition 54K1108

Proposition de résolution relative à l'introduction de contrôles ciblés en matière de discrimination sur le marché du travail.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri
MR David Clarinval
N-VA Zuhal Demir
Open Vld Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

May 22, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative check labour market anti-discriminatory measure migrant worker resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

LE DéFI

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (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 ¶

July 1, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that some speakers are currently in commission. In doing so, I ask you to organize the debate accordingly.

In such a difficult economic and budgetary context, the fight against discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunities are, unfortunately, sometimes viewed as background topics. Nevertheless, this struggle remains fundamental in all spheres of society and in the labour market in particular.

I will not return to the figures, studies and analyses, but, unfortunately, it is hard to find that Belgium remains a bad pupil in terms of the integration into the employment market of foreign or foreign origin persons, despite our important legislative arsenal in the field of combating discrimination. Yet, even recently, the BECI indicated that diversity could increase the overall performance of companies and thus their profitability.

For the PS Group, this issue is far from secondary. This issue needs to keep our attention constantly. We want to continue to support the promotion of equal opportunities. We even want to expand it. It is precisely for this reason that we will not support the resolution proposal.

Mr. Speaker, we want to step up the promotion of equal opportunities, but it is precisely for this reason that we will not support the resolution today.

You are guilty of lack of ambition. You have to go faster, farther and farther.

Your resolution is a scam, a facade that, although its title lets you believe, will not allow you to get sufficient results on the job market. Discrimination, however, creates marginalization, which can lead to a slow deterioration of our society and its cohesion.

From the very beginning of our work on this subject, we felt a frilosity from several groups in our committee; we perceived that weak ambition. There has never been a question of presenting a text on measures to address a structural problem, as you said a few weeks ago in this assembly.

In this regard, the episode of Mystery Calls makes a lot of sense. The reversal of Minister Peeters in this matter is the same. After explaining to be in favour of the use by social inspectors of Mystery calls, a measure widely supported during our hearings, disagreements quickly emerged among the majority components. These disagreements seem to have clearly been right with the proposal since no majority text has yet come to the table. Nevertheless, the hearings clearly highlighted the importance of these Mystery Calls. This also applies to social inspectors.

We had a lot of interesting and rich in suggestions. There was nothing concrete in these discussions, and I regret it.

I also regret that you did not want to involve the opposition parties in drafting this resolution, which would have been much more consistent, stronger and more effective than this catalogue of weak measures that is presented to us today. Awareness, self-regulation, self-control are your structural solutions to end discrimination in the job market. Is that naivety? I do not believe.

Of course, prevention and self-regulation have an essential role to play in the fight against discrimination. This already exists in some sectors. But should I remind you that nothing currently prohibits companies from self-regulating and self-controling in this matter? Was there really a need for a resolution to enable this? I do not believe it.

We have to go, as I said earlier, further, faster, stronger. The extent of discrimination and the urgency of the situation on the ground require this. Discrimination persists in a worrying way. Today, therefore, a new ambitious and effective policy was needed in this area, as my colleague, Ms. Meryame Kitir, proposed, whose proposal regarding the situation tests, which you decided to ignore, could have settled or in any case improved, the situation of discrimination. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues of Parliament, colleagues of the majority, let me first express a word of gratitude to the various majority parties that have come across party boundaries to a proposal for a resolution on a very difficult issue. Mr. Daerden has here given a whole explanation of how serious and unacceptable discrimination is. Of course, this discrimination must also be addressed, Mr. Daerden. The past shows that this theme was apparently not so important, since it was not on the agenda, as far as I know. In the previous legislature I heard a lot about anonymous applying, practical tests and more, but concrete nothing happened.

So let’s talk today about what this center-right majority proposes very concretely to tackle discrimination. We have been discussing the labour market for a long time. Several specialists who know the problem have come to the hearings. Of course, there is the problem of the insiders and the outsiders. This problem is known for a long time. We know who is on the labour market and who is not.

Three categories are outside the labour market. Persons with a migration background and older job seekers, as well as persons with disabilities, have difficulty entering the labour market. This has various causes. This was also discussed during the hearings. They referred to education. There is a problem of language lag. In students with language problems, school failure is often the result. You know that the Flemish government is doing something about this. The Flemish government will organize language baths so that students get the language well under control and later also become strong on the labour market.

Another problem is that the labour market is rigid. Different arrangements make it difficult for people who still do not have a job to enter the labour market effectively.

Furthermore, the workload is high. You also know that this government has taken measures against the high labor burdens. The wage gap is falling.

Regarding the rigid labour market, Minister Kris Peeters is currently working on removing the barriers.

There are several theories about the causes of lower employment in certain groups. The OECD has conducted research. If we look at the employment of new Flemings or people of foreign descent, it turns out that the employment rate is very low. In Borgerhout, for example, 62% of people of foreign descent are unemployed. Everyone here in this plenary session should feel that this is not possible. At the Belgian level, the employment rate is very low. Mr. Daerden, the OECD has pointed to this problem several times, including in recent legislatures.

One can do a number of things, such as work on education, what we do at the Flemish level, or work on integration and citizenship policy, which is very important to make our newcomers as strong as possible. When applying, the first thing you are asked is whether you know the language, because you need to be able to communicate with each other. We have had a mandatory integration policy for 10 years. This is a good thing, first and foremost for newcomers, for people who come here to live with the aim of pursuing an integration path and finding a place in society.

It begins, of course, with the language and Flanders is already implementing that policy, but there is, of course, also a good migration policy, a migration policy that means a strengthening for the community. Let’s be honest about this: in recent years there was no vision about it. The first generation of host workers, including my father, came here in the 1970s to mine work. They came here to work effectively and thus also strengthen the community. This is very important to create a support in our society. Then, of course, there were several migratory waves that, unfortunately, did not lead to what was effectively intended. Also in these areas, one should look at what can be done.

This resolution addresses specifically discrimination. Some parties do not believe that there is discrimination. Discrimination is and remains unacceptable. There is discrimination in the rental market, there is discrimination in the labour market, but there is also discrimination, for example, when dating.

Mrs. Pas, I remember that my brother was not admitted to a café fifteen years ago. Not only was he not admitted, his friends with a colored tint were also not admitted. I was there with a few friends too. I must say that this is being silenced. If someone is not allowed to enter a cafe based on their skin color, then one can say that it is about discrimination.

Some parties argue that there is no discrimination. We say that discrimination exists and that it must also be addressed.

Of course, not everything is discrimination. When you look at the numbers of employment of immigrants, some, especially on the left side, immediately pick up only the word “discrimination”. However, it is not just about discrimination.

If there is discrimination, it must be addressed. Hence this resolution, which is, however, very extensive. This resolution is also waterproof and effectively addresses the problem of discrimination in the labour market, without reaching the principles of our rule of law. It is important that we ensure the principles of the rule of law.

We also listened to Federgon in the committee. At Federgon there was a big problem with discrimination. This problem was addressed several years ago with self-regulation, awareness and self-control. It has also succeeded in dramatically reducing discrimination.

Lord of the Communist Party, you shake no.

Federgon’s annual report of this year shows that 14% of the staff are of foreign origin. I think that is a big contrast with the 1% port workers of immigrant origin. You know that a port worker is selected by the trade union. It is the trade union that decides who becomes a port worker and who does not. If we look at those figures, it is actually very sad to find that only 1% of those port workers are of immigrant origin.

Mrs Demir, I will not make a battle of numbers, but the data I have indicate that in the interim sector, after this self-control of the sector, the number of discriminatory companies has increased from 28% to 29%; this is not a decrease but a slight increase. For me, self-regulation is not a success in the interim sector, it is a small failure.

Mr Van Hees, I do not know exactly if you were present – the hearings lasted several days – when the representative of Federgon came to explain the figures. It showed that the federation effectively acts against discrimination and that the phenomenon has been reduced. Read the annual report. The case is as complete as a little bit if you place the percentage of 14 % outsourced workers of foreign origin versus 1 % port workers.

I am based purely on actual figures. The question is: How many people of immigrant origin are employed? A comparison of the figures teaches us that something is happening in the broadcasting sector.

Therefore, we also make very concrete, targeted recommendations in the draft resolution. For example, I think of the review of anti-discrimination legislation. We have a lot of anti-discrimination laws in this country, but unfortunately the results are zero. and zero.

Mrs Monica De Coninck, you can suck. This is of course the policy of your party. Per ⁇ you can tell me what the three anti-discrimination laws have led to. That would be very interesting to know. Where are the results?

Mrs. Demir, I really have no lessons to learn from you in this area. I thought that your party is the leader in Antwerp; so just do something about discrimination there, if you want to name examples.

As Chairman of the OCMW, I have ensured that over a five-year period 18% of the staff in the OCMW and hospitals have a migration background. You take a few examples here and make free claims to prove things you want to prove. You say the result is 0%. Prove that once.

This is stated in the report. I do not know, Mrs. De Coninck, if you are reading annual reports. This is very time-intensive, but it learns a lot, including about the employment of port workers. You do not have to be angry. I know it, it is the trade unions that decide who is an effective port worker and who is not. The numbers are what they are.

You don’t have to get angry, because Antwerp is on the right path. The figures on the employment of immigrants among the city staff are on the rise. At this point we are working well at the moment.

Ongderoêt, der koeme vaêf fette varekes. What does that mean, Mrs. Demir? This is doctors language.

The [...]

Of course, that is what it is about.

I do not understand. Can you repeat it in Dutch?

Why is only 1% of the number of people employed in the port of Antwerp foreign nationals? They do not understand our language. Unfortunately, they are dirty varicose flies.

Now I have understood you. Allow me to briefly replicate. It has not only to do with...

I was born and raised in Antwerp, but I don’t know what you mean. By the way, half of those present here probably won’t understand that. Would we all be discriminated, even if we were born and raised here?

[...] You would understand that.

Is discrimination in these cases acceptable?

As I said at the beginning, language is very important. In addition, I must note that people who speak our language also have some difficulties in being accepted. Sometimes the second or third generation of port workers did not get through the applications, even though they spoke the language. It is not just the language, but language is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I was evaluating the anti-discrimination legislation and at that point Mrs. De Coninck suddenly became angry, citing the OCMW of Antwerp.

Mrs. De Coninck, however, I think it’s not a bad thing to review the three anti-discrimination laws, where we can see which measures are appropriate to facilitate the enforcement of the laws.

Both in the government – we must always look at ourselves first – and in the private sector, we will work with targeted checks. I think the social partners also have a very important role to play, because they know the sector better than anyone else. The social partners will therefore develop a code of conduct on discrimination and will also be held accountable for the systems of self-regulation and self-control. If that self-control or self-regulation does not help – that was the concern of Mr. Daerden of the PS – or if we see that there are still indications of discrimination, then the results of the self-regulation are intended to be automatically delivered to the General Directorate Supervision of Social Laws.

Then there is the closure, the reason why I compare the approach to a three-stage rocket. The closing point is then that the service charged with the supervision of the social laws on the basis of Article 21, 4° of the Social Criminal Code takes the necessary measures by, among other things, pointing out to the employer the complaints concerning discrimination, for which it must take measures.

So far my presentation. It is also a proposal for a resolution, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues. It is intended that the Government and Minister Peeters will work with our text. I think all four parties have stretched their neck very far. If we look back at the past, we have never gone so far.

Also on my own behalf, I am very pleased to have been able to cooperate on behalf of the N-VA Group on the draft resolution. We hope that there will finally be work done on an effective approach to discrimination, because discrimination simply cannot.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to Vlaams Belang’s colleague that if I start talking in Patois, I don’t think he will understand what I say. There are a lot of patois in the Ardennes.

It is important to note that the participation of immigrants in the labour market is still too low in Belgium. Despite the fact that our country has an important legislative arsenal in the field of combating discrimination in employment, it is especially in its implementation, control and sanctions that problems remain. This is why we present today a proposal for a resolution to introduce targeted controls on discrimination in the labour market.

In line with the logic of the government agreement that provided for zero tolerance for discrimination in employment, the resolution formulates twelve specific action points. I will not enter here in a detailed explanation of these points but I will insist on four elements that I find important.

First, as I said in the committee, despite a large legislative arsenal, difficulties remain in the implementation and control of the fight against discrimination in employment. I therefore find it important to carry out an evaluation of existing legislation and to adapt it if necessary in order to ensure that appropriate measures are taken.

Secondly, in order to effectively tackle discrimination, it is important that the federal authority as the country’s first employer first itself gives the right example. Those targeted controls should therefore be organized within the public service. This is what is clearly inscribed in our resolution: the exemplary of the federal state as an employer.

Third, we ask the federal government to develop an inter-federal action plan against discrimination and to convene an inter-ministerial conference in this context. We also request that the consultation be organised with the social partners so that they conclude collective agreements in the various sectors. These collective agreements will be concluded with a view to the establishment of a code of conduct in matters of discrimination and the establishment of self-regulation and self-control systems. In this regard, partners from different sectors will be able to take inspiration from Federgon’s constructive and fruitful approach in terms of self-regulation and control.

Finally, and as we have clearly stated in the resolution, it is important to provide for a system in which control data is automatically transmitted to the Directorate-General Control of Social Laws when the social partners have clear indications that despite self-regulation discriminations persist in a company.

The employer will then have a time to take clear measures, which we have called "smart", in order to eliminate this discrimination. If the employer fails to prove that he has taken such "smart" measures, then targeted checks may be carried out as part of an instruction to gather evidence for the purpose of drawing up a record.

This is where our point of view differs from that of Mr. Van Hees: We trust sectors and employers. We are humanists, we first give employers a chance and let them first self-regulate. Controls and sanctions will come in a later phase with respect to recalcitrants which, despite the possibility of self-regulation and despite the fact that their incorrectness has been pointed out, would persist in their tricks. In the face of these recalcitrants, we will be untreatable. But we first leave a chance to all those who wish to be able to self-regulate.

As liberals, I can say that we are ⁇ opposed to any form of discrimination and that we are working hard to promote equal opportunities. I think we will have to make sure that the system that will be set up is used efficiently but also flexibly. The authorities must be the example and the constraints must not be too heavy for companies. The private sector must continue to enjoy the confidence of the legislator and must develop its own self-regulatory framework. If employers are still guilty of discrimination, the authorities will then be able to take action against them.

This is the position of our party. We therefore welcome the successful outcome of this text. I also thank the colleagues of the various groups for working constructively on this text. I thank you for your attention.

We are pleased that today we are here to propose a new step in the fight against discrimination in the labour market. The concrete reason for this resolution was the Minorities Forum’s investigation of three hundred service cheque companies. It found that as many as two out of three service cheque companies are guilty of discrimination purely and solely on the basis of origin.

For all clarity, it’s not about the refusal of certain people, for example, because they ⁇ ’t brush properly, because they ⁇ ’t speak the language or because they ⁇ ’t be competent. No, we could still understand that. Of course, every employer has the right to refuse employees if he or she thinks they do not have the appropriate profile. He has the right not to reject candidates who have the appropriate profile, but not the right colour or origin. Often, they are Belgians, people who have become Belgians or are born as Belgians.

The study reminded us in a strange way of Volt’s report in 2010. It already showed that six out of eight employment agencies rejected immigrant candidates and selected candidates at the client’s request. The BBB code was introduced, bleu, blanc et belge. Based on that code name, it was transmitted that they wanted employees who were not only born here and had the Belgian nationality, but who also had a white color of skin and blue eyes.

The problem is neither new nor unknown. It is all the more frightening to find that in practice there is so much discrimination among service cheque companies, a sector heavily subsidised by the government, and which at the same time employs a large number of people, including immigrants. Often it is because they still want to do that. We have to be careful. We should not focus on sectors that already employ a lot of people.

Which sectors discriminate the most? Are these sectors where, however, many people of immigrant descent are employed or none at all are employed? Sometimes there are far fewer workers of immigrant descent in certain sectors. If that has to do with the fact that they don’t have the right profile, that’s understandable. But if a company rejects such employees purely for discrimination, we, of course, cannot agree with that. The fact that candidates are rejected can be due to several factors. It may have to do with the fact that the candidate does not have the right profile, does not speak the language, has an inadequate level of training or has an inadequate education. Rejecting someone is logical. That would be done with someone else as well. If it is purely and only about origin or skin color, then one can really say that it is about discrimination. We cannot tolerate that. As politicians, we have to do something about that.

We must take our responsibility and not just give a signal. The problem is deeply rooted in our society.

I am pleased that we took the lead with the majority to reach an agreement. With this resolution, we are moving in a new direction. The hearings showed that the current criminal law does not work optimally. This is due to the too heavy burden of proof. We must do something about it.

I was talking about the discrimination that came to light in a Voltreportage a few years ago. The same interim sector has taken its responsibility and has adopted good practices. Federgon can serve as a model when it comes to sensitization, guidance, self-regulation and a certain degree of punishment. This model must be adopted by all sectors. They must first try it themselves.

An important aspect is that the government also has a role in this. If the private sector finds that some companies still discriminate, it should transmit that information to the inspection body, which can impose measures in the form of a plan to clearly address discrimination. After that, the offenders can still fulfill their obligations. If they do that and follow the plan, then there is no problem. If they do not, the government may carry out targeted anonymous checks for the purpose of a judicial procedure.

The resolution proposal provides for the same measures for sectors that are not starting at all. In a sector that lacks or lacks a system of self-regulation, we want to take responsibility from the government. Initially, we ask them to take those measures, otherwise they will also be subject to anonymous, targeted checks. We want to have with our text, in other words, a stick behind the door. We use it as little as possible, hoping that the stick behind the door works sufficiently preventively to make things move, to encourage people to be vigilant and not to discriminate. We ⁇ cannot say that all employees discriminate, but some do. This is evidenced by the various studies. They must take their responsibility. If necessary, there is a stick behind the door.

We also provided for an evaluation of the measures after two years. If necessary, they are adjusted to work even more efficiently.

Our proposal also provides a framework for the responsible ministers. In the first instance, as Ms Demir has said, Deputy Prime Minister Peeters, as well as Minister Vandeput, in charge of Public Affairs, and Secretary of State Sleurs, to take the necessary measures and legislative initiatives within the framework of the resolution, each within their responsibility. Sometimes it is enough to give directives or instructions to the administration to set up.

We believe that discrimination cannot be tolerated. This is also stated in the government agreement: zero tolerance for discrimination. We believe that it is not possible that Jan will be given priority over Nasser or that Nasser will not be given chances because he has a different name or descent and then his degrees or skills are not looked at.

It is also important that we apply the principle practice what you preach. That is, we in Parliament must formulate the rules and apply them first to our own administration.

Particularly when it is known that the government, with 80,000 officials, is the country’s largest employer, we believe that self-regulation and self-control should be carried out and that, if necessary, the possibility of targeted, anonymous checks should be provided.

We can be stronger with the private sector. We ask the private sector to do so, but we will of course not fail to do so ourselves.

Again, these are targeted, anonymous checks that we will carry out from the government, both in the public and in the private sector, but only after the phase of self-regulation and thus for a certain group of companies.

Unfortunately, we must recognize that discrimination is a global phenomenon. It occurs not only in the labour market, but also in the rental market, in the leisure sector and in education. We’ve already seen reports of people being rejected in fitness clubs or discos.

Therefore, it is good that the draft resolution, in addition to a complete system, also calls for a proper review of our laws and anti-discrimination laws. We look forward to the analysis of this and the agreements that we will make with the states.

Hopefully, the text, which we will adopt tomorrow, will also inspire the other parliaments to do the same and take the necessary initiatives in the areas in which they are competent – housing, education and leisure.

The proposal for a resolution is a step in the right direction, but the elimination of discrimination cannot be transformed into a comprehensive governmental measure. We can only work on it as a society, from the bottom, and through self-regulation in the labour market. A stick behind the door may also be needed. Taking chances is a must, but everyone should be able to get started with the same weapons.

Again, it’s really high time that something happens, especially if you look at our employment figures. The employment rate in our country is 46% for non-EU nationals and 64% for indigenous people. That is a big difference. Of course, there are some explainable differences. It has to do with language or education, but much of that difference cannot be explained by objective factors and clearly has to do only with pure discrimination. We must address that.

We are among the worst students in the class. We absolutely need to do something about it, not only because we prefer to be among the best, but simply because it is a right that people have equal opportunities. Moreover, it creates added value for our society, because we need the potential we have.

If I look at the figures, also in Antwerp, I find that two-thirds of the under-five-year-olds are of immigrant origin. This is ⁇ the third or even the fourth generation. We can only say that everyone should have equal opportunities. Unfortunately, we cannot say that today. We need to work on it so that it becomes reality. It’s about people who are here and who stay here. They are part of our society. They are entitled to equal treatment, no preferential treatment and no secondary treatment.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not my habit to intervene in resolutions because, frankly, I don’t often have illusions about what is in such a resolution. The reason I do it today is because I am sincerely convinced that what we are discussing now is a phenomenon that we have undertaken far too little in the last few decades. I tell you that not only as a member of Parliament, but also as mayor of a downtown city that in recent years has become a multicultural city with important, large communities of foreign origin, with which we strive to bridge.

As a mayor, I am often hit by stories of discrimination. There are, for example, people who find it difficult to find a home, who experience difficulties in the labour market, or are unable to access a catering facility because of their background, because of their origin. Those stories touch me because one must ensure that people who want to seize opportunities can also get those opportunities, one wants to strengthen the fabric in society.

It is possible to take action in cities, such as Ghent, but it is always possible to struggle with national legislation that does not allow effective action. That is why we have taken action in this Parliament.

I reviewed the figures and concluded that the OECD, a major economic think tank, identified three major shortcomings for our country in its spring report, namely taxes, the housing market and the low employment rate of foreigners.

I think we live in a fairly modern country, but, believe it or not, our country is doing terribly bad on a European level when it comes to employing people of foreign descent. Only Spain, Greece and Turkey are worse. I find this frankly embarrassing, because Belgium, as one of the founders of the European Union, has always taken the lead in terms of integration, but has clearly failed to do so.

The second figure that I have noticed is that the position of women of foreign descent with non-EU backgrounds on the labour market is very low. The employment rate is just over 30%, while women in our society now have a employment rate of 60%. This also means that there is a huge backwardness.

The figures speak for themselves. The question is, of course, what is being done about it.

We must ensure that there is no more waste of work and talent. This week we talked about the retirement age, the fact that we will have to work longer. We agree on that in one way or the other. The question is how to get people to participate more in society and ensure that our social security is and remains affordable. We need to ensure that everyone who can work will do so. As Ms. De Coninck once said, everyone who has eyes, ears and legs must work. I could say that, there was not much comment on it. If anyone else had said that, it might have been too small. I found it a striking expression to say that all available talents should be able to participate. The reality is that this is not achieved today.

There are, as mentioned, various causes, such as formation, attitude, integration and language skills. However, discrimination is and remains an important factor. I agree with the previous speakers, who have, however, hesitated at the speed with which this topic was addressed. In February, the Minorities Forum came out with a survey showing shocking figures regarding discrimination in the service sector. That was not surprising, because, as Ms. Lanjri said, there was already a study in 2010. Several companies have even been convicted of discrimination. They didn’t want to leave it blue and catch the cow by the horns. Within two weeks of that survey, hearings were organised that everyone agreed were interesting and educational. Just a few months later, this resolution is now being discussed here.

What distinguishes the opposition from the majority is that it considers that this is not far enough. I am convinced that our proposals are balanced and feasible, under three conditions, but I will talk about that later.

They are balanced because, first and foremost, the sectors are given the opportunity to put themselves in order. Ms Dedry referred to the system of self-control in the committee. Self-control works in different sectors of our society. For instance, the whole problem of food safety is sought to be solved primarily through self-control and only then can the government intervene. That is also the philosophy of this resolution: first asking the sectors to put themselves in order and then, if not, in full transparency providing us with figures so that the government can act effectively in the context of judicial investigations.

So our proposals are balanced and workable, I am convinced of that. Workable work, this is a workable resolution. After all, we take on Federgon’s methodology, which was referred to. The results are not what they should be. Mr. Van Hees just mentioned the percentages. I honestly admit that I still find it too high. These figures need to improve, and we know that.

However, it is feasible because it is consistent with what the social inspector said during the hearings. He said the Social Inspectorate is not equipped to control all sectors. Therefore, we have chosen a system that in the past, although with certain shortcomings, has already achieved some results.

There are three conditions for the resolution to succeed. After all, the resolution is only the beginning of a possible change, ⁇ not the end.

The first condition is that the resolution leads to the adaptation of the legislation. I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not present because I know that he attaches great importance to this topic. His representative is already in the courtroom and the Minister is also present. I know he attaches great importance to this. It would therefore be a huge disappointment for us — I think I can speak on behalf of the colleagues of the majority — if it remained on the resolution alone. It is intended that the legislation will be amended and protocols will be concluded so that legislative texts are expected to be submitted to Parliament by the end of the year, which can be put into operation in the course of next year. I also very explicitly ask for the government’s commitment to do that effectively.

The second condition is that there is an absolute willingness among employers to cooperate. In that respect, I am a little worried. I honestly admit that. I think of the responses of certain employers’ organisations and federations. There was also a lot of lobbying by the employers’ federations not to let the resolution come to an end. Employers are concerned that the introduction of these controls would cause a lot of administrative burden and other problems. However, Federgon’s system has just proven that employers can handle it and that the system is able to change something.

However, it is clear — I mean to all those involved in the discussion — that all sectors will have to adhere to the resolution and the legislative texts that follow from it, first of all, of course, the large companies that will have to set the good example. After a while of talking, there is also a time to do. All sectors will have to stand up. As Ms. Lanjri said, sectors that manifestly refuse to participate in the self-control system will be addressed in a different way. Employers and entrepreneurs, in whom I have great confidence, so align with the agreements and make sure that there is less discrimination.

The third requirement is coherence.

We have noticed that initiatives have also been taken in the Flemish Parliament. Hearing has been held and it is now waiting for initiatives from the Flemish government. It is important that the different levels of policy, including the colleagues from the other regions and Communities, put themselves on the same line, that we use the same philosophy in combating discrimination. Discrimination is not typical Flemish or typical Belgian, it is a phenomenon that sits between the ears of people, in the sense that what is strange, discourages, which sometimes leads to strange reactions. We must work together to combat discrimination. Hand in hand, governments must work together to establish a system that works effectively.

Colleagues, I have already said that I am a cool lover of resolutions. I have not written or signed much in my life. However, I am convinced of the strength of the members who supported the present resolution. In addition to colleague Clarinval, I would like to thank in particular colleagues Demir and Lanjri, because both ladies have proven that those who get opportunities can seize opportunities. Fortunately, several members have already proved this in our Parliament. I think this is a very good thing for our society. People need icons, although that may be a big word, but still examples to realize that they can get there too. Those who want to seize opportunities must also get those opportunities. Discrimination is an unacceptable threshold in people’s quest to do better.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, I sincerely hope that you and the Government will take this matter seriously and that you will present initiatives before the end of the year to amend the legislation in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is good to note that no one denies that there is discrimination. It is also good to note that everyone says that discrimination should be addressed and that there should be zero tolerance when it comes to discrimination.

I also want to repeat here that if people with a strange background do not get opportunities, that does not always have to do with discrimination. We often get that accusation, but we have not said it. If someone is incapable because he does not have the talents or does not meet the set conditions, then that is a valid reason to refuse someone. If he is rejected on the basis of his origin, then that is not okay. We are talking about this. The word discrimination is often used as an excuse. I do not think we are leaving from that principle.

Dear colleagues of the majority, however, if you were of that opinion — Mr. Van Quickenborne has already said it — you would not have submitted a resolution but a bill in this Parliament today; then you would have made a law of it.

As an opposition, we have worked constructively in the committees. We consider this to be an important topic. We believe that there can be no discrimination. We will also always continue to cooperate constructively when it comes to taking measures to tackle discrimination. But, and I’m sorry, when I read this resolution, I don’t have the impression that something is being done today for those who are being discriminated. What is proposed here is a very cumbersome procedure to eventually, if there is no cooperation, yet come to a system of self-regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mrs. Kitir a question. You say that it is not our intention to address the problem. We believe the opposite. We believe that this resolution goes very far. Can I ask you what you and your party have done very concretely on this topic over the last few years?

Mrs. Demir, I would like to come back to it anyway, because you mentioned it in your presentation. So I would still like to answer you. However, since you are quite impatient, I will answer you now.

We have also proposed in the previous legislature all the system of anonymous applying mentioned by you. The difference is that we did not have a majority to approve our proposal. Our Minister then even asked the advice of the NAR on that bill. If there is no majority, there is no majority. Therefore, do not deny the sp.a. that we have not made any concrete proposals and that we do not consider this topic important enough.

Mr. Clarinval and Mr. Van Quickenborne talked about employers. Mr. Van Quickenborne, it adorns you that you are honest and that you admit that there has been a lot of lobbying work from employers. These employers, however, look at the resolution that will be voted today with a little fear and they are not really happy with it. In fact, they have already partially indicated that they are not willing to work with this.

It was said here that one has confidence in the employers and that one wants to give them opportunities. How many opportunities should there be? There have been so many examples of severe cases of discrimination. How many opportunities must there be before legislative initiatives are taken to effectively tackle discrimination?

Not every employer discriminates. However, the attitude they take is not correct. It would decorate them if they said that they also find this an important topic. It would adorn them if they say they want to actively contribute to eliminating discrimination. Their lobby and the statements employer organizations made about this in the newspapers give me the feeling that they are not willing to do anything about it themselves.

Other colleagues often cited the self-regulation system in interim work, of Federgon. That would be a good example, a good system. However, the hearings have shown that Federgon is doing this for the third time in a row and that even now there is still 30% discrimination in Federgon. Federgon did not come with it himself. Federgon himself developed the system, but it came only after it was repeatedly demonstrated that there is discrimination in the interim sector and that this is not correct. Then the interim sector decided to do something about it.

Mrs. Kitir, I absolutely understand your concern; it is also mine. We have taken this into account in the proposal for a resolution. It is true that it is not enough. You are right that it is not enough to say that the industry has to do it all by itself. It has been shown in the past that Federgon could do a lot with a very robust system, but not everything. There is a risk category.

In the proposal for a resolution, we stipulate that Federgon with that 30 % — hopefully less, but in a given sector as much as more or less — can go to the government so that it can take the appropriate action, namely initiate a SMART procedure first. The government will conduct targeted anonymous checks for that group, but not for everyone. Admit, Mrs. Kitir, also the inspection has said that it is impossible to check everything and everyone; she asked for cooperation from the sector. We provide for that.

Then you wonder if one will participate at all, considering the responses. This has also been taken into account in the resolution. We have made it very clear that we are giving the sectors the opportunity to participate. If they do not do so, the same mechanisms will come into effect as for those companies that prove to be discriminating at the end of the ride. And there is no need to wait two years for that. Even for those sectors that do not or lack self-regulation, the government will take its responsibility. Your concerns are definitely ours too.

You asked how long it would last. Mr. Van Quickenborne just said that we urge the government to act urgently on the matter. For my part, it may be before the recession, but let’s say that everything must be round before the end of the year so that it can start on January 1. We are behind here. We will encourage the government to work on this and we will watch for it to happen. We do not have to wait years. Too much precious time has been wasted. You are right, and we also think so. We must seize that time now.

Mrs Lanjri, I agree with your analysis, not with the funds you allocate today. You submit a resolution, not a bill or draft law. Today we discuss the issue of discrimination. The majority parties tell us and the people that they will address the problem. However, I see nothing concrete. If you really thought it, you would have turned it into a bill.

You say that you will come with it very soon, even before the summer. Well, I do not believe you. I have heard you say about other subjects that you would deal with them here before the summer, but I have not seen them appear.

Mrs. Kitir, I said, if it depends on me, the faster the better. Also Mr Van Quickenborne has already indicated that we intend to complete it by the end of this year at the latest.

You wonder why no bills have yet been submitted by the majority. You should know that there was no agreement in the beginning. There were differences between the parties and that is not illogical. I think it is already a huge step forward that we have reached a consensus with the four different parties. We needed a framework and that’s there now. We now ask the government to implement it. If necessary, we will do it ourselves, but we give the government the opportunity to prepare the necessary bills itself.

I would like to assist my colleague, Ms. Lanjri. We are not working for a year yet. In that very short time, we will come out with the four majority parties with a common position on tackling discrimination. Mrs. Kitir, the agreement between the four parties is much more than what you have achieved over twenty years as a government party. You refer to the anonymous application. You and your party have failed in the last twenty years in the federal government, in which the socialists telkenmal delivered the Minister of Labour, to come only to the beginning of an agreement. We have at least an agreement around a very extensive, very concrete three-stage missile.

It is not about self-regulation and self-control. We continue with this. There is also a closing part. You must also want to read it. If companies are still discriminated after self-regulation and self-control, the data are delivered to the Social Inspectorate and it is up to it, as it is appropriate for a rule of law, to start working with that data.

What is now revealed is really much more than what you and your party have ever realised on that topic.

Mrs. Demir, you must stop announcing what all will happen, there will be and there will be, because at the moment there will be nothing. You need to understand the difference between a resolution and a law. What is presented is a resolution. You have an agreement on that, indeed. In the past, we also had an agreement, but not for a resolution, but for a concrete outcome, for the actions.

Do you think that in those twenty years nothing has been done by the Socialists?

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, you gave me the word.

Mrs. Demir, it is not by shouting that one is right. Do you think there has been no discrimination in 20 years?

I will even tell you more.

by [...]

Ms. Demir, in places where we had the majority, such as in Ghent, concrete measures have been taken, though with the appropriate powers. A city cannot make laws, but in the areas of the city’s competence, very concrete steps have been taken on discrimination. This was done by the Socialists. If you want, I can give you a list of all the things that have been realized in this regard thanks to the socialists. I would like to discuss with you, but not in that way.

Mr Van Quickenborne has also just acknowledged that there is now a resolution ahead, but that legislation still needs to be passed. Mr. Van Quickenborne has even said he is a cool lover of resolutions. I am not a member of Parliament for so long, but I have already adopted or seen a large number of resolutions here that have really changed nothing, precisely because they are not laws. A resolution is a sweet holder. With a resolution, we sometimes take a small step. Why is there a resolution, but not a law? Because there is no consensus. Mrs Demir, you must acknowledge that there is no real agreement yet, because if there had been a real agreement, then there would now be no resolution, but a law.

Ms. Demir said that during the previous legislature little or nothing was done about discrimination. During the previous legislature, we were in the majority. There are different types of discrimination. One form of discrimination is that women who do the same job as men earn less for exactly the same job.

I was then, together with Mrs. Becq, the driving force behind a decision. We were able to make a decision after a few weeks. We did not submit a recommendation or a resolution; after all, that is not a change, it is just calling the government that one wants something, but in principle that changes nothing. In this Parliament we approved the bill on the wage gap. You say that you will address discrimination here, but I deeply regretted you at the time that you, when it was possible, did not vote. Rather, you stood at Villa Politica calling out that it wasn’t all necessary, while it was very important to address that discrimination.

I don’t think you are attacking my colleague in this way. I think it is not done.

I would like to briefly comment on the wage gap. I still do not support it because it does not address the cause of the problem. As far as I know, I have not made any statements on this in Villa Politica.

Mrs Temmerman, this is a resolution. However, you also know that the federal government agreement contains a whole chapter on zero tolerance and that we will effectively tackle discrimination. This resolution is a result of that chapter in the Federal Government Agreement.

There is a willingness to address the problem of discrimination in the labour market.

Mrs Temmerman, I don’t mind that you say I owe it to the Socialists... That made me very angry. If I owe anything to somebody, it is to my parents and ⁇ not to the Socialists.

I did not say that at all. You may have misunderstood me, or I may have misrepresented myself, but I have not said that you personally owe anything to the socialists. I have said that a lot of things in this society have changed thanks to the socialists, including around discrimination. I said that. I never talk about people, as you often do.

Thank you, Mr President.

To come back to my argument, I continue to regret that a resolution will be adopted here and not a bill. We had a proposal for ourselves. We are often accused of not having any proposals, but we have a concrete proposal in which we carry out the practical tests. Very often it is said that entering practical tests means provokation or espionage. I want to contradict that here.

Practical testing is a technique to determine whether discrimination exists or is absent. We are not talking about provokation or espionage. We also do not say that anyone can perform a practical test. Especially educated people should do this. We also consider it important that the privacy of the person being tested is properly respected.

Again, I regret that this is a resolution. Everyone agrees about philosophy, especially that discrimination cannot. Only we believe that it is high time to take steps and not to move to a cumbersome procedure that ultimately leads to nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to improvise because the majority announces us the submission of an amendment close to the one we submitted during the committee debates. In the face of the alarming findings, our text aimed to impose a willingness to act against effective discrimination in employment, with a clear commitment from the government to submit, within six months, a text organizing concrete measures to control companies on compliance with the principle of non-discrimination. These would be blind tests, as was experimentally organized by the universities, with the collaboration of two workers, one classical, of Belgian origin and the other of foreign origin, in order to verify whether the latter is subject to discrimination in employment. Without measures of this kind, without blind tests, all the good words expressed here will remain devout vows, and the sting is likely to fade out very quickly.

We closely followed the debates, we heard the masculine words of the Minister of Employment, represented by one of his collaborators. As usual, we have found the brake of the N-VA that does not want these tests. We were then proposed a negotiated text in the absence of the opposition parties who, however, actively contributed to the organization of the hearings. The resolution of the majority is far from commitments and issues.

So we are waiting for this amendment, which we may support after we have studied it, but ours still exists, you can take it back as it is. The majority must conform to their actions. Too often, we have heard good intentions that could be supported, but which were not then found in the decisions made. I think in particular of the resolution on child poverty, which has long been debated in the Health Committee and in this session.

Beyond the beautiful principles, a series of government decisions, ⁇ on social security, linear economies will lead to more child poverty. This is very disturbing hypocrisy or lack of clarity. I think of the limitation of supplementary benefits for workers, and more often for women, part-time, which is still to be applied. If we fail to prevent its implementation, despite all the energy deployed to ⁇ it, this measure risks to have disastrous effects on the incomes of these workers and their children. I also think of the famous tax shift that we’ve talked a lot about. We will soon be told that the tax on diamonds is a tax shift while it is above all an extraordinary gift.

There is now a question of discrimination in the job market with a text that does not even provide for the principle of a control through independent investigations of actual practices of companies. As such, the draft resolution is full of good intentions. We do not criticize its content. We did not reject it, we simply abstained. However, it should be noted that at this point it does not do much. It is especially critical because it does not count on the leverage that is not activated. There is excessive caution with regard to the essential principle of being able to eventually handle the stick, threatening employers who do not abide by the rules of the game, the rules of living together, who do not accept to be controlled and punished. The hearings in the Social Affairs Committee, including that of the representative of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight Against Racism, clearly showed the limits of the self-regulation you advocate. This is not enough to combat phenomena of such complexity and gravity.

The representative of the Minister told the committee that the bill was ready. Members of the majority today declare that they agree to mention in the text of the draft resolution that the government must submit such a text within six months. I am delighted! In the end, instead of submitting a proposal for a resolution, we should have gone directly into the heart of the matter. Better late than never. Go it frankly! Per ⁇ we will then be able to co-sign this amendment and, if it is explicit, vote on this motion tomorrow.

What exactly are we talking about? This was highlighted during the hearings: despite the existing anti-discrimination legal arsenal, the phenomenon is obvious. It has been pointed out dramatically in the service securities sector in Flanders through an independent survey. I don’t think Flanders has the monopoly. Both employers and users of the title-services system were sometimes reluctant to employ immigrants. This is unbearable for us. The phenomenon is known. Just look at the unemployment rate of these people, the difficulties they encounter in getting a job despite their qualifications. With equal skills, they are less easily engaged. The statistics are clear, each of us knows people who are competent, careful to do well and who, due to prejudices about their name or color of skin, do not have access to employment. It is a global societal problem that leads to inequalities, unhappiness, a living together that doesn’t work.

There are laws, but they are not or are not implemented properly. A single record of this type of discrimination has been drawn up in recent years, so the burden of proof is difficult to establish. Some sectors have introduced self-regulatory mechanisms. Let us be positive! It’s better to close your eyes on this type of behavior than close your eyes to it. But let us be careful. The goal is to avoid being pointed with the finger and to be able to say that there is indeed a fight against the phenomenon. Is it real, is it effective? We can doubt that. This is the meaning of the amendments we advocated in the Social Affairs Committee, aiming to move to a higher speed, not only in words but also in deeds.

Several universities, including Namur which I know well, have developed an analysis of this phenomenon and tools to combat discrimination. They have imagined blind tests that have a scientific interest in objectivizing the phenomenon and coming out of fantasies and countertops. This also puts pressure on employers. Fortunately, the vast majority of them follow the rules. Who ⁇ ’t play the game?

Without this amendment that would require the government to present this legislation to us within six months and to organize the inspection services effectively, your resolution would be warm water. As environmentalists do not especially appreciate warm water, we could not support this resolution. With this amendment, we could vote in favour of this text.

I encourage the government to come out of the logic of two weights, two measures, to cease to be ⁇ harsh towards the most fragile and ⁇ compassionate towards the most powerful. In a work relationship, the strongest is the one who engages and the most fragile is the one who seeks work. Let us get out of the hypocrisy, let us put in place means consistent with the ambitions declared hand-on-heart by some of the colleagues in the Social Affairs Committee. I will not manipulate cynicism and irony, since I feel a bit of agitation in the assembly, but such a resolution without commitment on acts would be pure hypocrisy!

Today’s debate may lead to more pragmatic intentions. If necessary, I will be delighted with my group and we will take this into account according to the development of the work this afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us be very clear. Like all previous speakers, I am opposed to all forms of discrimination. People are hired or employed on the basis of qualifications or competences. Considerations based on skin color or origin have no place in our view. So let there be no doubt that the Flemish Belang regrets it as a well-meaning, skilled immigrant should not work somewhere because of its origin or skin color. I don’t think it’s smart to reject a capable workforce on that basis, I think it’s even pretty stupid.

And yes, the Flemish Belang also notes, together with you, that immigrants are relatively much less active on the labour market than Flemings or Whales, and that the level of effectiveness in that group is much lower than in the indigenous population. That is a fact. The explanatory observations to this resolution correctly point out the dramatic situation with the participation of immigrants in our labour market. In the resolution, this is politically correctly referred to as “people with a migration background.”

That being said, my colleagues, you will surely allow me to put some nuance into this debate. The fact that there are significantly fewer immigrants active on the labour market is now a reason for politically correct circles to talk about discrimination against immigrants on the labour market. That conclusion, however, is the result of an ideological obsession that, for some, even causes the labour market and the government to be forced to employ more immigrants, and even to act punitively if some of their demands are not met.

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard Mr. Demir say that there are parties who argue that there is no discrimination. I have heard almost all the parties. I don’t feel concerned, and I don’t know which party she’s talking about, because discrimination really exists. She cited the painful example of her brother who was denied access. This is not only painful, it is unacceptable. Discrimination exists, discrimination must be tackled vigorously.

There are many forms of discrimination. I also think of discrimination based on political beliefs. The fact that one is removed from the trade union because of a political belief is also discrimination. The fact that one is boycotted by certain media because of a political belief, too, is discrimination. But this discrimination is clearly a little less at your heart.

Should we act vigorously in cases of discrimination? and yes. My question in the light of the resolution presented today is as follows. Is there a structural problem of discrimination in the workplace? Allow me to record an interview with one of the applicants of this draft resolution in order to answer that question. I must say that this interview dates from just before the election. In the light of the “force of change”, therefore, the possibility is real that the opinion has also changed in the meantime.

A good year ago, on May 12, 2014 – you may still remember, Mrs. Demir – I gave you an extensive interview with Doorbraak. It was mainly about the importance of language knowledge in order to be able to settle properly as an immigrant. That is something in which I can not only find myself fully, but also something our party has hammered for years.

The interviewer says the following. I quote: “Finding a job with a surname like Demir or Abou Jahjah, easy is different.” To which Ms. Demir answers: “I do not believe that there is structural discrimination in the workplace. A wise employer doesn’t look at a candidate’s name, which looks at talents and competences.” Ms. Demir pointed out at some point the alarming figures of immigrants in education and in the field of unemployment. To which the interviewer insists again with the question: “So there is a structural problem?” To which Ms. Demir immediately answers: “But that is not due to discrimination. Whoever claims that, must say concrete what it is from.”

Colleagues, I give the Zuhal Demir of a year ago completely right. There is no evidence of structural discrimination in the labour market. Companies are generally very pragmatic, very rational in their actions. They are there, in this capitalist society in which we live, to do to make their business run as optimally as possible, in order to be as profitable as possible, of course. To this end, they naturally attract to the labour market those labour forces – whether white, yellow, brown or black – which they consider to be most suitable to meet those needs of the employers.

Mrs. Pas, I would like to reply a moment because you refer to an interview in Breakthrough. Actually, I still stand behind it. I have always said that there is no structural discrimination and I will continue to say that. But if there is discrimination, then I think that it should be addressed, because discrimination cannot and we live in a rule of law. Of course, the best talent must be recruited. The right man or the right woman in the right place, that’s the starting point. However, we cannot deny that there may be discrimination in our society. If we cannot address and punish this discrimination, as demonstrated in the hearings, then I think we should provide the tools to do so, because discrimination remains a crime. In a rule of law like ours, I believe that discrimination must be addressed. This does not mean that there is structural discrimination. That’s what I said in that interview, and today I say it again. When discrimination occurs, I say with my group very consistently that it must be addressed and that seems to me no more than normal.

Mrs Demir, discrimination must indeed be addressed, but if you yourself say that there is no structural problem, then I wonder why you are dealing with proposals for resolutions imposing administrative burdens on all employers. If they do not comply with this, then a true witch hunt with detections and the implementation of targeted controls follows. With so many liberals in the government, I did not expect to come here to defend the employers.

The present resolution proposal takes the matter completely wrong. I was setting up my reasoning in this regard and I want to continue that now.

After all, ⁇ assume the healthy principle that the customer is king. This is a basic principle to make a business thrive optimally. From the logic of the business world to keep the company running well, there is no discrimination in the labour market. However, there are a number of realities that need to be taken into account if one wants to lead a business and make it perform optimally.

When immigrants fail to meet their attributes on the labour market, it has many other causes than the alleged discrimination on the labour market. Some of these causes are briefly cited in the resolution, but they are the essence. It is a lack of a solid migration, integration and citizenship policy.

Thierry Willemarck, chairman of the Brussels entrepreneurial organization BECI, said in a response to the terrifyingly high unemployment rates among immigrant young people in Brussels that they should just look in the mirror and that the government should tackle spanking harder. He literally says that the second generation of young people must get a fist under the ass to get their hands out of their sleeves. I would never dare to ask such a cruel question, but I wonder who the employers will dispute if they complain about a poor work attitude, problems with accuracy, communication, compliance with agreements, commitment and sense of responsibility.

One of the major causes, which has already been addressed, is language lag and the resulting poor school results. With a good diploma, you are better placed on the job market. It is a fact that immigrant workers often do not have the necessary qualifications demanded by the labour market. They are often insufficiently educated. In some cases, they do not know the language well. They are not sufficiently assimilated in our society to function properly. In other words, the labour market generally does not want immigrants because they are often not the best forces present on the labour market.

It is therefore completely wrong to blame the business world in this regard, let alone to oblige companies or sectors under sanction to recruit certain workforce, if there is more suitable staff available. This is contrary to the freedom of enterprise, to the freedom to recruit those workers whom the employer considers to be best suited to carry out the work that is useful and necessary in the enterprise and to make that enterprise run optimally. This is dirigent and repressive policy, which not only undermines the competitiveness and health of our companies, but also undermines some of the basic principles of our society, namely freedom and freedom of enterprise.

I read in the report of the committee that one of the applicants clarifies that targeted government controls should be carried out if the employer fails to prove that he has taken measures to prevent alleged discrimination in the labour market. It specifies that a series of practical tests, mystery calls and the like are covered and that anonymous checks are accepted.

The Flemish Interest believes that companies should be completely free to employ employees who they think best meet the needs and are the most skilled. That principle is by definition incompatible with the imposition of quotas, self-regulation, self-controls and ⁇ not with targeted controls, practical tests, mystery calls and any big-brother measures to counter this so-called discrimination on the labour market. They are no different than Stasi espionage practices that belong to totalitarian states and not to free, democratic legal states.

Furthermore, the State Council is also very critical of such practical tests. We could read that when Flemish Minister Muyters made statements in the Flemish Parliament following the debate on the alleged discrimination in the service cheque sector. The Council of State is dealing with such a difficult issue, in which constitutional principles may come to a slope. They must not be left to the King, but must, at least as regards their essential principles, be regulated by the legislator himself. It should seek a fair balance between promoting equality and non-discrimination and respect for other fundamental rights and freedoms. It should ensure that the practice test cannot be introduced if it is accompanied by incitement or deloyal acts.

In other words, with such practical tests, according to the Council of State, one goes on very smooth ice. A number of fundamental freedoms and achievements of this democratic rule of law are thus put at risk. N-VA Minister Muyters rightly stated in this discussion that he was not a supporter of it, just like his party. I assume that this in this hemisphere is slightly different. Vlaams Belang has submitted amendments to remove the targeted controls from the resolution.

Finally, a few words about the role of the government. Some argue that there is also alleged discrimination in the labour market with regard to public services. Even that claim is merely the fruit of an obsessive ideological obsession with the anti-discrimination mindset and the completely misplaced equality mindset.

As a rule, recruitment to public services is carried out through selection procedures. Should it be expected that they will be carried out on an objective basis and that they also aim to recruit, as in the industry, the most suitable workforce, for the administration in this case? Then I read in the last paragraph of the explanatory note to this draft resolution: “In the end, the government must be the strictest to itself. Since it imposes rules, in this case anti-discrimination laws, it must scrupulously apply them on its own. Therefore, targeted controls must be carried out immediately.”

Colleagues, in the last few months I have written questions to the ministers and secretaries of state about the composition of their cabinets, their secretariat, their policy cells, their cells general policy, the full cabinet. I must note that the politically correct politicians who now blow so high from the tower themselves do not excel at all in employing immigrants in their cabinets. The answers I received to my written questions show that a total of 2.5% of the staff working in the cabinets are persons with a migration background. That is 16 people out of the 645 people employed in the ministerial cabinets. That finding, in any case, leads me to conclude that those parties are not really well placed to give lessons to other sectors of employment with regard to alleged discrimination in the labour market, that they are morally ⁇ not entitled to obligate the business world and the civil servants, under the penalty of sanction, to recruit immigrant personnel when there are other and better workforce available on the labour market.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to my conclusion. I expected a so-called center-right government – N-VA, CD&V, MR and Open Vld – to show more respect for individual freedoms. I had expected that it would finally be done with the bullshit, that it would finally be done to slide the failure of that multicultural society into the shoes of the indigenous Flaming. We have experienced this in the past few decades with the Socialists in the government.

Unfortunately, I have to state that that immigrant victim culture prevails stronger than ever. While immigrants get all sorts of opportunities here, the Flemish are depicted as a vulgar gang of racists.

My colleagues have already walked. It is apparently very painful.

Instead of promoting that immigrant victim culture, the majority parties in this government would rather emphasize the many opportunities our society offers. They would rather point out their own responsibility to seize those opportunities. That would be much more useful than a proposal for a resolution, as presented today.

I think my argument makes it very clear that you should not expect the support of the Flemish Interest Group for such a resolution.

I am not going to resume the debate.

The problem of discrimination is not only in employment, it is also everyday in the workplace.

As part of this majority resolution, I call for existing legislation to be applied first and foremost. The lack of effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws and full enforcement of these laws is the cause of the reality that was exposed to us during the hearings. When you hear that the social inspections receive complaints but don’t draw up a record, it’s questioning. When one hears that discrimination is all but negligible in the public sector, which, however, should be an example, this is another ⁇ appealing element.

A number of clues have been laid on the table, whether it be on the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws, whether it be on the provision of sufficient resources, including human resources, at the level of the Social Inspectorate, whether it be on the identification of problematic and high-risk sectors, whether it be on a responsibility and an obligation of public employers to set an example in this regard.

I will end with a more political comment. There is a lot of light vocabulary in this resolution. We prepare, we do things if necessary, we get inspired... I will not take the various examples present in the resolution.

I don’t know if this is caution or if it is simply the reflection and expression of the disagreement between the different components of this majority. It should be recalled here some epic debates that took place, in particular in the Social Affairs Committee, between our colleague Mrs Demir, here present, and the Minister of Employment Kris Peeters. It was obviously revealing, it was mainly targeted at mysterious calls where positions affirmed themselves in a very square, even caricatural way, within the majority. My political impression is that this resolution leaves me on my hunger...

There is a bit of trouble in the room, Mr. President. I understand it. This is because we have the honor to welcome among us the President of the N-VA.

This is a historic moment, said one of our colleagues.

Let me go back to our sheep. I said that this seemed to me mostly to be the expression of this disagreement between the majority parties on the mysterious calls. During the discussions on this resolution, one party in the government was able to hear that the bill was ready. But in this case, dear colleagues, present it to Parliament! Others have not commented on the existence or not of this bill, and especially on the future of it.

The technique of mystery calls must be tagged and used in the last instance, if the other methods fail. It would be totally inappropriate and inappropriate to use this process continuously and for any reason. I expect the majority to be more clear on this issue. And I expect above all, dear colleagues, that you require from the various instances that hold the controls to have sufficient resources for the social inspection and that, in addition, the existing laws be applied and controlled. If that were the case, we would have already taken a big step.

For all these reasons, we will abstain from voting on this text. And of course we are waiting for the next.

Dear colleagues of the majority, here is once again one of your alibi resolutions! These are resolutions that can be called wet petards, but you wet yourself. I remember your resolution on the Palestinian State, on the fight against poverty... This is part of this line of resolutions, where a good intention is announced. But when we read the text, we realize that we are very far from counting. Unfortunately this is also the case here.

I would like to start by quoting an anecdote, which concerns my colleague Youssef Handichi, a Brussels MP since 2014. At the very beginning of his parliamentary life, he arrives in the Brussels Parliament and a police officer blocks the entrance of the Parliament by tightening it and telling it to get out. He had to prove his status as a member of parliament in order to enter. The police officer told him that it was not written on his head. In fact, he meant the opposite, namely that it did not correspond to the standards of the typical parliamentary, as it is generally considered. This shows the reality of discrimination in our country.

You have been quite clear, dear colleagues of the majority. You clearly enter into the logic of self-regulation. Employers must regulate themselves. Self-regulation is a way to protect discriminatory companies. I am not the only one to say this. All associations say so, both the Inter-Federal Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Minderhedenforum, Hand in Hand and Kif Kif. They asked the authorities to organize practical tests and to sanction companies that practice discrimination.

They say that the self-regulation that has been practiced for years is a failure. The interim case is quite significant. We have talked about this recently, ⁇ with Ms Demir. As a reminder, in the interim sector, there was this famous White Blue Belgian list, by which employers asked Adecco to provide Belgian labor. By an abbreviation, it was indicated that we ⁇ did not want foreigners as interimers. At the time, it was the PTB that had unveiled the list of companies that had used this "BBB label" a few years ago.

The interim sector then said it would take self-regulatory measures. Since then, self-regulation has failed, as the percentage of discriminating enterprises in the interim sector has fallen from 28% to 29%. This percentage has not only not decreased, but has even increased slightly. These are the figures of Federgon himself. Those who are interested can consult. Madame Demir seemed to be falling naked. The quality label in the interim sector therefore did not have the expected deterrent effect.

The majority of the parties praise Federgon. They believe this is the pattern to follow and that it’s too early to generalize the mysterious calls. If we look at it objectively, we see that it is a failure. Mysterious calls would only be possible in public services and not in the private sector. We can only conclude one thing. That is because the parties of the majority have remained deaf to the field associations and that in their opinion they prefer the opinion of the employers organizations (VOKA, UNIZO, FEB, etc.) which, they have been very clear. There are also cases of pressure. For them, it is not up to the public authorities to take into account anti-discrimination legislation.

It would also be expected that a company taken in flagrant offence of discrimination would be severely punished. The text also gives a last chance. The Social Inspectorate will first have to try to negotiate. Obviously, the majority wants to preserve discriminating companies and in any case favors self-regulation.

I will take an actual example, namely the checks of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA) in restaurants. Who organizes these controls? It is neither the owners of the restaurants themselves, nor the potential victims of food problems, consumers who complain about a dioxin or damaged chicken. No, it is a federal agency that is responsible for these controls.

For us, in the PTB, discrimination is a bit the same thing. This is not a simple problem between individuals, but a problem of society. A similar approach is needed. That is why we think it would be interesting to consider creating a federal agency for equality, which would have two missions. On the one hand, systematically and proactively test companies for discrimination. We know the techniques that can be used: mystery calls, mystery shopping, comparative testing. When you look at the number of checks carried out by the AFSCA in matters of food safety, such an agency, with little staff, could already carry out many checks.

Another aspect of the agency’s tasks would be to sanction discriminatory companies. It is clear – the case of the interim sector proves it – that the absence of penalization makes discrimination perpetuate, or even increase slightly. According to EU directives, sanctions must be heavy enough to be dissuasive. The removal of a quality label, as in the interim, is not sufficient in this regard. I would quote for example the case of Amsterdam, where a dancer can lose his license if demonstrated discrimination.

If there were a will of the majority to really fight against discrimination, this resolution would be very different. But does the possibility of sanctioning an employer enter the philosophical horizon of the colleagues of the majority? I ask myself the question.

Mr. Van Quickenborne has just said something very important. I would like to nuanced his words.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, you are a cool lover of resolutions. I would like to nuanced that. Resolutions often lead to something, for example when it comes to a bio-ethical topic or when one wants a file to be on the political agenda for the first time.

Actually, you have to say that you have used a resolution for which it does not serve. In this case, a resolution for what you want to ⁇ is indeed not suitable. It is clear that the enforcement of discrimination legislation should not be outsourced to the social partners or to the sector itself. It has been cited by many speakers that self-regulation does not work.

So we are disappointed, but I hear, see and read now that an amendment is being submitted that meets the conditions and framework that you had set, that it should not remain with a resolution and that legislative initiatives need to come. You also fear that employers don’t always work together as quickly.

I join with my colleagues Gilkinet and Kitir and will therefore not repeat their words. I agree with the comments they have made.

However, it is very unfortunate that the mystery calls amendment has not been included. I have given the example of the banking sector in the committee, where the mystery calls for wrong investments work well. Thus, it is a tool that has already proven its positive effects.

Binding targets with related sanctions is what we ask for.

For the rest, I will not fall into repetition by outlining what has already been explained by other members.