Proposition 54K1111

Proposition de résolution concernant les travailleurs détachés.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri, Stefaan Vercamer
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Olivier Chastel, David Clarinval, Denis Ducarme, Stéphanie Thoron, Sybille de Coster-Bauchau
N-VA Wouter Raskin
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert

Submission date

May 27, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive resolution of parliament social security free movement of workers

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PP

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 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The various political groups have submitted priority legislative proposals or resolutions in the Social Affairs Committee. The MR Group has submitted a resolution on dispatched workers. This resolution was signed by David Clarinval, Sybille de Coster-Bauchau, Stéphanie Thoron, Denis Ducarme, Nahima Lanjri and Stefaan Vercamer.

Mr Clarinval reiterates that his group is strongly attached to the free movement, ⁇ of workers. These are basic rules of European law which are reflected in the Draft Directive. Mr. Clarinval points out that, unfortunately, deployment is increasingly associated with fraud.

Mr Clarinval stated that, according to the ACV, the construction sector lost about 15,000 employees due to social dumping in the period 2012-2014. Strangely enough, the resonance is virtually non-existent, despite its size. However, there are about 1,700 companies that have dismissed a small number of employees each time.

Mr Clarinval reports that four countries are jumping into the eye with regard to the number of Limosa declarations in 2012, namely the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. He argues that the contradictions no longer concern left and right, or employers and workers, but that it is mainly about East and West.

The proposal of the PS Group, signed by Mr Frédéric Daerden, was linked to this draft resolution. Mr. Daerden is in favor of the free movement of workers, but not at the expense of those workers. Solving the problems with a downward spiral, for example by demolishing social security or reducing wages, is not a good solution.

Mr Daerden is now ⁇ concerned with the reconciliation of the principle of free movement, the conditions of competition and the protection of social security in Europe. At the European level, for example, a European minimum wage should be introduced, as well as a continuously growing social security system. In Belgium, all workers employed here, regardless of the origin of the dispatch, would then be covered by that protection.

Mr Daerden believes that the fight against social dumping must be carried out both nationally and nationally. According to him, it is necessary to respond quickly to the aspirations of the Confederation Building.

Col. Gilkinet of Ecolo-Groen also had a proposal for a resolution on addressing social dumping, which was also linked to the proposal of the MR. Mr Gilkinet notes that the problem in the construction sector is so acute that all social actors agree on it. The destruction of jobs is a threat to the country and is a result of European legislation. The Greens in the European Parliament pointed out early on that the problem in this matter was that equal wages are not paid for equal work and equal social contributions are not paid. Deregulation and dismantling of social laws in the most advanced countries, including Belgium, lead to social decline. The Greens are European, but not in that way.

Mr Gilkinet said that there is a consensus across the House on the Deployment Directive, but he noted that the Liberal Party came to the initiative with a proposal for a resolution. He also blames the Socialist group for failure; he believes that they sometimes come too late with new initiatives to capture the consequences of the measures.

Mr Gilkinet incorporated the recommendations of the Special Advisory Committee for the Construction Enterprise, established within the Central Business Council, in his resolution.

He reviewed all of the measures in his proposal and added that a directive is not an immutable text. Just as you can change laws, you also need to change European law. The Belgian minister must dare to take a strong stand when he meets with colleagues from other countries to oppose the destruction of jobs.

Furthermore, Mr Gilkinet is concerned that posting in the broadcasting sector is becoming increasingly commonplace and that its control is becoming more difficult.

A majority resolution was submitted. The Minister of Labour, Mr. Peeters, also said that technical improvements are desirable. He and his administration are available to cooperate in this regard. The Minister is not opposed to a resolution.

Mr Tommelein, State Secretary for Combating Social Fraud, has already noted that trade unions, employers and government are aware that time is urgent. For the government, social dumping is a priority and therefore an action plan has been drawn up. If everyone agrees, the Secretary of State will not object to the consideration of a draft resolution. He said that neighbouring countries should be involved as well. Where controls are carried out, sufficient resources should also be provided.

First, he wanted to wait for a common position from the construction sector.

I myself felt that the Liberals and Christian Democrats have taken a praised stance in their proposal for a resolution. The Socialist group could partially support that text, only that its content is no longer entirely current. In terms of anti-abuse provisions, the proposal was also somewhat outdated. The proposals of the European social partners are good and could have been better incorporated into the proposal for a resolution by the Liberals and Christian Democrats.

Mr Vercamer acknowledged that the draft resolution, which he supports, could be updated. He stated that he was willing to further exchange views on the text, but he believed it was more important that the committee and the Chamber, who have been aware of the problem for years, step by step, give a strong signal and take concrete measures to support the sector to the maximum.

According to Mr Vercamer, mutual liability remains an important weapon. He also argued that the distinction between employers in good faith and employers in bad faith is very essential. The agreements between the social partners regarding the control and sanctions policy must continue to be respected.

Mr. Jan Spooren of the N-VA is in principle in favor of the resolution proposed by the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. His group advocates a higher employment rate, which is linked to job creation and filling those jobs with workers who are or should be present here on the labour market. Assigning those jobs to dispatched workers, whether or not using dismissal opportunities improperly or fraudulently, is, in his view, not a solution.

According to the Minister, the control should be strengthened. It may also be interesting to consider whether the existing services cannot be further integrated in the field of inspection. Mr. Spooren also found that the European regulation shows a number of systemic errors, which lead to abuses. Thus, a person can remain subject to the social security of the country of origin for two years, but the law of the country where he or she is employed applies to the wage and working conditions. The resolution should also be a call to the government to seek partners at the European level. In the Benelux alliance, the willingness to jointly engage the struggle was already found.

After the discussions, the majority submitted a joint resolution. The resolution was signed by the groups of the MR, Open Vld, CD&V, CDH and N-VA. The new resolution, No. In 1111, Mr. Egbert Lachaert stated that it was supported by the various parties of the majority, but he expected much wider support.

Detachment creates unfair competition, resulting in the loss of jobs in Belgium. Fraudulent structures should be addressed, possibly by strengthening the inspection services. Additional institutions are not needed.

Mr. Gilkinet believes that the problem needs to be addressed urgently by the government. He had already pointed out this during the previous parliamentary term, just as the Greens had raised objections when issuing the posting directive, which is deficient in a number of areas. The free movement of workers is defended, but within a certain framework. Action must also be taken at the Belgian level and the proposed resolution is a good step, but it remains inadequate and the responses come but difficult to resolve.

Mr Daerden would also have preferred that the resolution would have been created within a working group. The follow-up of the matter concerning social dumping could even be continuously followed in such a working group. He says that his group largely agrees with the content of the draft resolution. He believes that the burdens, which he wants to reduce, should not be at the expense of the rights and interests of workers. This is contrary to the principles of social security and its financing.

Ms. Fonck agrees with the majority’s view, as the problem transcends party boundaries and even requires a European approach. She has four comments. First, it requires an extension of the main liability. They want the existing legislation to be complied with. He called for an extension of the inspection. Fourth, Belgium can ⁇ take the lead in the fight against social dumping.

Ms Demir notes that there is consensus in addressing social dumping across party borders. The free movement of persons is not challenged, but that fundamental right must be implemented according to concrete rules. She refers to a study by the Dutch government on shifts in the labour market. This shows that large construction companies employ even fewer personnel. This development could continue in Belgium as well.

Mr Vercamer supports this resolution and considers it important to tackle social dumping in consultation with the EU.

Then we went to the discussion of the resolution. The resolution contains two types of recommendations. First, the approach at the national level and, secondly, the approach at the European level. Nine proposals were formulated and several amendments were added to the proposal. Several amendments were adopted and several did not. The resolution was eventually adopted, with technical and linguistic improvements, with 10 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

Mr. President, Mrs. Kitir, I would like to thank you for your detailed explanation.

The Secretary of State has said a lot. I promise, like my predecessors, to keep it brief. I will really stick to it.

In recent weeks, the crisis in Greece has led to a growing sense that the European house is not over. A lot of renovations are needed in different areas.

One of those areas is the principle of free movement of goods, services and workers. This is one of the main pillars of our European Union. We do not question that principle. That is very clear. We do not question it today, which does not mean that we should close our eyes to the gaps and imperfections of European legislation.

Abuses within that framework are classified under the term “social dumping” for convenience. Sometimes those abuses are obvious. Think of the post-bus companies and the false self-employment, where hourly wages are sometimes paid below 5 euros. In this regard, efforts must be made. Efforts must also be boosted. Abuses must be identified and addressed.

However, a lot of misuse has also occurred. For example, structures are being set up that allow workers from abroad, often from the south and east of Europe, to be employed here for several years at a labor cost price that is significantly lower than the labor cost price we know here.

Such a construction is perfectly legal because it is possible to pay social security contributions in the home country or country of origin and therefore not here in the country of work or the country where they are employed.

Several of our economic sectors – think especially of the construction sector – are under a lot of pressure from that unfair competition and are almost obliged to join in the establishment of sometimes perverse constructions, in order not to fall short in that unfair competition.

I am therefore pleased that there is also a wide range of support here to support this resolution, which outlines a number of concrete actions in the context of deployment fraud. The fight against cross-border social and, in our view, tax fraud, is essential, so we do not want the measures that the current governments take today to reorganize the labour market and increase the rate of activity or the rate of employment, to be completely exhausted by even more social dumping.

In doing so, we must not only look at the large Europe, but we must be prepared to wipe out at our own door. For example, it is already possible for inspection services to collaborate in the context of the various investigations, but the efficiency would be many times higher if we took a step towards the integration of the different inspection services. At the same time, together with a number of Western European countries facing the same problem, let us strive at European level for an adaptation of the Deployment Directive and call for the extension to social security of the workplace principle already used today in terms of wages and working conditions.

I congratulate Mr Raskin with his maidenspeech. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, despite my colleague’s excellent report, I will develop the topic in a comprehensive way based on Mr. Speaker’s resolution. by Clarinval. I am surprised that he is not there, but I see Mr. Miller represents the entire group.

I will speak on my own behalf and on behalf of Mrs. Kitir for our two groups. This is a topic that we work a lot on together.

The fight against social dumping is an absolute priority for our groups. Given the increasingly devastating consequences of this unfair competition, we need to react more than ever. The European Union cannot be an unsustainable dumping area affecting workers and states and especially those who, like us, have high social standards.

Today, in the absence of security guards and common European social standards, free movement has been replaced by unfair competition between European workers and Member States. This competition sometimes leads to unworthy situations of human exploitation. Therefore there is urgency. Every day we see that the situation is deteriorating considerably. Because of some scrupulous people and the European legislative laxity, this fact threatens our jobs and damages our social security system. This situation is unacceptable. We must engage in action and reaction. However, there are those, like the majority, who speak and those who want to act to end this situation.

Today, we must take strong measures to reconcile the principle of free movement with our social model, measures to protect our jobs and their quality, measures in the continuity of those announced by the previous government at the Benelux Social Summit.

In this context, I look forward to the fact that for the first time in this legislature, in the hemisphere, we can finally seriously address the problem of social dumping.

This is unfortunately in the form of a resolution and not an ambitious government bill or initiative within the European Council.

With my group, as a constructive force, we want to work with all those who share this essential goal of fighting social dumping in order to preserve our social achievements. Indeed, the preservation of our social system and the fight against social dumping deserve a broad consensus.

Therefore, even though what is proposed today is at this stage only a catalogue of good intentions, even though I regret the absence of a working group, of a comprehensive think-tank that would have led to a common proposal and a working group that could throughout our work track what is happening and the development in this matter, even though I regret that the majority has systematically rejected the many constructive amendments that had been submitted to improve the text, I retain this desire to collaborate positively to end the scandalous practices of social dumping and especially their effects.

However, dear colleagues, if I share a large number of points formulated in the proposal for a resolution, as a Socialist, I cannot accept that it calls first and foremost on the government "to fight against the wage disparities that make social dumping profitable by sharply reducing the burden on work."

Understand well, dear colleagues, the fight against social dumping is not a goal in itself but aims to preserve our social model, our jobs and above all to ensure, at European level, high social standards. The problem is not so much our Belgian standards. The problem is that our standards are undermined by the lack of upward uniformization of them at European level.

By reducing our workers’ wages to reduce wage disparities and by reducing social security contributions, because that’s what it’s all about, you are harming our social system heavily.

You are talking about discouraging employers from resorting to cheap foreign labor by reducing the cost of labor in Belgium. In your view, it is simply necessary to reduce wage disparities by greatly reducing what you call charges, but which, in reality, constitutes the wage of workers.

For us, that’s very clear, we don’t want this crazy race, at least not that downward harmonization. We do not want to have in Belgium salaries and social protection comparable to those in Poland or Romania. Mini jobs or other precarious status that prevail in several European countries cannot become the norm.

The European Commission cannot, at the height of the 2008 crisis, have welcomed our social stabilizers who have allowed us not to experience a recession unlike others and, today, at the beginning of an economic recovery, say that it is these same stabilizers who are guilty of all evils.

What we want is to continue to be able to ensure decent pensions, quality health care, good living conditions and a high level of well-being in Belgium, but also in Europe. Because we are not mistaken! The future is Europe, but a social Europe, not a austere Europe.

What we want in this regard is the opposite of what is proposed, in particular in the first point of the resolution under consideration. What we want is upward harmonisation, a convergence with higher wages, a high level of social protection so that every European is free to work in another country if he wishes, but not to be compelled to do so because he can’t live decently in his country. We want a social Europe away from the fiascos we know, ⁇ in the Greek case. I invite you, dear colleagues, to review this point of your proposal by providing, at least, for a social security compensation, otherwise we will not be able to support it.

Beyond words, there are actions. This government will soon have to do so as part of the transposition of the European Directive on public procurement. I know you are working in working groups. Thanks to the contributions of the European Parliament and, in particular, of my former colleague Marc Tarabella, we have here a progressive text that offers opportunities to act effectively against social dumping at the federal level, but also within the Regions.

The Prime Minister and the Government should not opt for a minimalist and unbinding transposition. Use all the weapons that this text offers to take full account of the fight against social dumping. The ball is in your field.

Moreover, it is not because we cannot, for the reasons mentioned, support the text proposed today that we are not active, productive, constructive in this regard. Indeed, once the resolution proposal has been adopted, because I have no doubt that it will be, it will be necessary to transform this catalogue of good intentions into concrete measures without waiting. That is why PS and sp.a submitted a bill – which has already been considered – aimed precisely at combating social dumping. I will not develop it. But, in a few words, it includes adapting the responsibility of the orderer to make it truly effective, not allowing the recourse to economic unemployment for companies that use subcontractors, better combating the phenomenon of fake self-employed and imposing truly dissuasive sanctions to end the abuses found.

I dare to believe and I hope that the majority will be consistent with itself and that at the time of passing to the act it will support this bill as well as the others already introduced or coming to the entrance. This will allow us, dear colleagues, to move forward in this important struggle against social dumping. I also invite the majority to insist on the Government that, in its current fiscal year, it foresees a considerable increase in the number of social inspectors in order to finally enforce the laws in force and those in the future, including those filed by our groups. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I am sorry, Mr. Daerden, to replace the standing foot Mr. Daerden. by Clarinval. I hope I will do this correctly.

First of all, I would like to recall how much my group is first attached to the free movement in general and to the free movement of workers in particular. These are fundamental rules for the proper functioning of the labour market within the European Union. But unfortunately, today, it is hard to find that the abuse of rules, the abuse of directives and the fraud in the deployment are elements that serve and undermine our economy and that especially harm the creation of jobs in Belgium.

If we analyze the situation in the construction sector, for example, we find that despite a 2% increase in the volume of activity in this sector, it is not less than 15,000 jobs that were destroyed between 2012 and 2014, according to the CSC. Unfortunately, despite this scale, there has been little talk about it. In total, 1,700 companies have lost and dismissed workers. So frankly, this is an extremely worrying situation for the construction sector. An alarm scream was also issued by the delegated administrator of the Construction Federation.

Simultaneously, the number of Limosa statements has continued to increase, reaching several hundred thousand in recent years. Then you will ask me where they come from. Curiously, they come from the Netherlands for 93,000 through interim agencies that bring Romanians through the Netherlands, from Poland for 69,000, from Romania for 29,000, from Bulgaria for 5,843, and I could continue. We can see that this is evolving quite exponentially, but these Limosa statements are only the apparent side of the iceberg. In addition to these official statements, many are those that are illegally extended, or even those that concern workers who do not have any authorization and who in any case do not have official status.

In order to tackle this worrying phenomenon, the authors of this resolution have decided to develop a bunch of solutions, which involve several levels of action, both at the national and European level. Along with this parliamentary work, we want to emphasize government action, as Secretary of State Bart Tommelein and Minister Willy Borsus submitted 40 measures aimed at combating social dumping.

Among these measures, there will be tighter controls with regard to the dispatch. It will no longer be possible to extend it beyond two years and if we want to make this request, it will be subject to the evaluation of several administrations, in order to ensure that the companies concerned are well in order from a fiscal and social point of view. But Belgium’s wish is to limit the validity of the dispatch form to six months, renewable under conditions. Obviously, this measure requires an agreement from Europe. This work must be done in concert with Europe. Thus, in case of dispute with the State issuing the A1 form, our government hopes to obtain that the burden of proof lies with the latter.

Yes, it can be said that today Belgium has taken the lead in the fight against social dumping and, among the advanced claims, our Prime Minister, at a previous summit, requested that social contributions be paid in the country where the work is performed, before being returned to the cash of the country of origin if the deployment meets the rules set by Europe.

In the first place, Belgium will try to ⁇ some progress in the framework of bilateral treaties. For example, within the Benelux, we would like to address the Dutch interim companies that play a major role in the illegal detachments listed in Belgium. In addition, the controls should be facilitated by an exchange of data, to which the Government of the Netherlands has committed.

It is within this struggle, both at the national and European level, that we want to incorporate this new proposal for fair competition in this sector.

We do not want to question the free movement of workers, which is the foundation of the European Union and which is a real added value. However, it is now clear that Directive 96/71 on the posting of workers, adopted in 1996, must be amended.

It is important to ensure that the basis of our working conditions, such as the minimum wage and working hours, is respected. However, we want to strengthen our requirements to avoid all the abuses and perverse effects that we are experiencing today and that are increasing exponentially, precipitating the construction sector into a vertiginous fall. More than 10,000 jobs could be lost.

I would like to emphasize the need to assess, with a view to possible adaptation, the joint and solidary responsibility of all subcontractors in all sectors of activity and more specifically with regard to the payment of sectoral minimum wages.

We would like to introduce non-compliance with the Directive as a nullity clause for obtaining a tender by public authorities; to provide human resources to social inspectors, allowing them to carry out checks on weekends and holidays and, in case of fraudulent intent, to immediately impose fines on companies that would violate the obligations imposed by the Directive.

In order to strengthen the quality of the controls of the Labour Inspectorate, we wish to implement the requirements of the Court of Auditors relating to social security.

Contrary to what Mr. Daerden, we have to act on the labor cost that is one of the highest in the world. In this context, the reduction of charges is a fundamental element. By reducing gross wages, fraud will be less attractive to employers.

All these measures will therefore have to be accompanied by a reduction in labor costs in order to make this famous social dumping less profitable. In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues in the majority, but also my colleagues in the CDH for their constructive support for our resolution.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, last week I was a week too early with my argument, I was a little impatient, but today I am just in time.

This is an important resolution related to the posting of foreign workers. We know that this does not always go smoothly and that there are many problems at many levels.

At the Belgian federal level, we are pleased to conclude that we have reached a broad consensus with majority and opposition in connection with the resolution submitted by colleague Clarinval of the MR, aimed at addressing the problems associated with dispatch. Through this resolution, which is very broad, we call on the government to address these problems.

We emphasize that, of course, we support the free movement of workers and that little is done if the rules are applied correctly, but we see that there can still be a lot of problems if the rules are not applied correctly. For example, the European Draft Directive stipulates that employers in the European Union must comply with the working and wage conditions of the country in which the worker works, unless the conditions in the country of origin are more favourable. Unfortunately, this principle is not always observed.

Social security contributions must be paid in the country of origin, which in turn provides a significant benefit for countries with low social security contributions. This leads to a lot of abuse, as social security contributions are often not paid even in the country of origin. There is abuse primarily in the sectors of construction, transportation and cleaning, but also in others. Companies offer prices that are 20 to 30 % lower than the offers offered by companies that fully comply with the rules. Sometimes companies even set up postbus companies abroad to send workers to Belgium by that route, thus escaping the higher social security contributions in Belgium.

In addition, it is often about workers who do not even come from abroad. It is about people who live here. This is a clear form of abuse.

This, of course, creates unfair competition. Belgian SMEs in the construction sector lose a lot of contracts, especially to foreign companies and Belgian construction companies that engage foreign entrepreneurs who do not respect the rules of the game. Sometimes people from Germany come to us in the slaughterhouse sector working for hourly wages that fall behind. The hourly wages range from 3 to 8 euros per hour. Everyone knows there is something going on.

Let us not forget the human suffering. These conditions very often lead to humiliating situations. After all, it isn’t just about very low wages. Often it is also about exploitation, in the sense that working hours are not respected, overtime is not paid, or work accidents are not ⁇ ; sometimes people are even literally scratched after a work accident. This is actually a modern form of slavery.

These abuses also cost jobs. The government is taking everything out of the closet to stimulate job creation, but we note — as shown by the ACV study — that only between 2012 and 2014 15,000 jobs in the construction sector have been lost.

by [...]

My colleague has already ⁇ it, these are also figures from the ACV. The figures vary a little, but it’s ⁇ about 15,000 jobs. Some say it would even be a slightly higher number, Mrs. Demir.

To be clear, these jobs have been lost, while the activity in the construction sector has ⁇ not decreased, quite the opposite. Many of these jobs are shifted to so-called dispatched workers. In this way problems arise.

In particular, our group would like to highlight some of the highlights of this resolution. In this resolution, we call for stricter legislation in various areas. Companies that do not comply with the minimum wage rules should be excluded from public procurement.

Recently, when this resolution was discussed in the committee responsible, I was sitting at the OSCE summit in Helsinki.

There I have also introduced some of the proposals in this resolution as amendments to OSCE texts. I can bring you the good news that they have also been accepted. With regard to social dumping, three amendments were adopted, inspired by this resolution. Mr. Tommelein, not only will you be asked today from Parliament to implement the proposals contained in this resolution, but you will also be asked, along with the 56 OSCE Member States, to tackle social dumping. I think there has been an extra push in the back. If this can be addressed internationally, we must do so.

At the international level, we have also ensured that companies are excluded from public procurement if they do not comply with minimum wage and working conditions.

Governments should also check whether companies that supply goods or services below the market price also comply with the minimum wage. In addition, we would also like to see an extension of the liability of contractors to the subcontractors with whom they work. In the construction sector, it seems reasonable for us to extend the mandatory presence registration to all buildings, so that they do not apply only to buildings above EUR 800 000 currently covered by the scheme.

I know, Mr. Secretary of State, that you are very pleased with the proposal that I have already put forward several times in the committee. That gives us great pleasure. We will closely monitor that you work with the government to ensure this.

We also aim to ensure that the social partners are provided with the necessary tools to file complaints in the event of breaches of the Directive. This is also an excellent way for the social partners to draw on the same sail. They do that too.

As can be seen from the round table, one is actually drawing on the same sea. Neither goodwill employers nor workers in the affected sectors, such as agriculture and meat, have an interest in sustaining the existing fraud and misery.

However, an important key lies in the hands of the European level. It also needs to be linked to European policy. The federal level can not only address these problems, but needs the support of the European level.

That is why in our resolution we call for work on European minimum wages. I know that this is not easy. If we improve the conditions in the countries of origin, it will ensure that people in their home countries can ⁇ a good standard of living and do not have to lend themselves to the abuse and exploitation of workers in their home country or abroad, so with us.

In the resolution, we also advocate the establishment of a list of unfair undertakings and service providers, following the example of the civil aviation sector, where a blacklist is being worked. That works very well. In this way, we can prevent them from competing in public procurement and the European Union. This proposal was also put on the table at the level of the OSCE and was also accepted.

It is also important that the different countries work together to detect fraud more effectively. In addition, it is useful to examine whether the social security contributions cannot be collected from us first. In this way, we are at least sure that they are paid and avoid being paid nowhere and that in this way people can be employed at low prices. We collect the contributions here and transfer them to the countries of origin because we are obliged to do so.

Last but not least, we also call for attention to the budgetary framework within which the inspection services operate. Training, checks, more efficient cooperation and rapid detection of a problem are only possible if we give sufficient priority to the inspection services when allocating the resources. We urge to take care of this. This is also included in the resolution. No one will doubt that a greater investment in the inspection services will result in a better outcome on the ground.

With this resolution, we set the way for a number of possible solutions to the current problems we are experiencing with regard to the posting of foreign workers.

I hope that all relevant levels, and in particular our federal government, will now quickly implement this resolution. You can be assured, Mr. Secretary of State, that we will follow that execution, both with you and with the other colleagues involved, such as the Minister of Labour. At the European level, there have already been many contacts with Mrs Thyssen, who is very affectionate about the case.

The motto “together strong” is also valid here. We must work together to ensure that people’s exploitation and social dumping are countered. We need to ensure clear measures that have an impact on the ground. We will also be closely monitoring this in Parliament.

I would like to thank my colleagues, first and foremost David Clarinval, for the initiative. Mr. Clarinval brought us around the table. I thank everyone from the majority, but also from the opposition, for their support. I also want to thank those who have not submitted the resolution but are willing to support it.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, I will speak on behalf of all the environmentalists of the North and South of the country. As you know, and to go to the essence, the Greens have been critical from the start of the “Detailing Workers” Directive. Agreement for the mobility of workers in Europe, but then, at social and wage conditions identical or close to those of the host country. In this case, this is not at all the case, with the multiple consequences that we have long denounced: exploitation of workers, destruction of entire economic sectors, general social degradation and pressure on social security. The only winners are those who exploit detained workers until the system turns against them.

The reaction of many traditional parties, including European political groups, is very late. Unfortunately, it does not attach itself to the principle, which should guide the construction of a social Europe, of tending to the logic of "equal work, equal pay". That is why we cannot fully follow the logic of the majority in this resolution. We want to combat this phenomenon of social dumping, which is why we had already submitted a resolution on the same topic in the previous legislature. But we think that it is a social and social impasse to want to align ourselves with the logic of the so-called wage, as the resolution of the majority initially advocates.

For the rest, we may agree with a large number of aligned principles, but we regret the lack of ambition of the majority, in particular with regard to the level of constraints to be developed with regard to companies that use workers’ dispatch: the fact that they cannot use economic unemployment if they otherwise use dispatch; or on the European ambition of a revision of the directive.What does Marianne Thyssen do?

That is why we maintain the amendments submitted in the committee, without the adoption of which we will not be able to support a much too warm resolution in the face of the challenge of the destruction of tens of thousands of jobs in us and in other European countries victims of social dumping.

For the rest, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the excellent report that has just been submitted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, everyone has said that social dumping obviously has serious consequences for the health of our companies and, in the long run, it could also have serious consequences for our social security system. In addition to employment, this is an issue that I think is equally important.

Beyond the major impact on our companies, the challenge of unfair competition, there are the challenges with regard to the working conditions of many dispatched workers that are disastrous, whether in terms of salary, in terms of social protection, in terms of the dangerousness of positions. It is probably not repeated enough.

Some figures have been cited on wage losses, on the challenge of saving thousands of jobs in labour-intensive sectors such as construction and transport. I would like the Minister of Employment, who cannot be present today, to be vigilant. The Plan Bureau has drawn up a picture of the potential creation of 200,000 jobs by 2020. In order for Belgium to meet its EU commitments for 2025, it needs to create 400,000 jobs. I would like to remind you that the Plan Bureau did not take the loss of jobs into account in its calculations. When the Plan Bureau announces an employment increase of 14,000 units by the end of the legislature for the construction sector, it does not take into account the 20,000 jobs that could disappear in the same sector by the end of the legislature due to the problem of social dumping.

On the macroeconomic level, this obviously highlights the challenge that already awaited us yesterday and that awaits us even more today.

If I joined this work of the majority, it is because I think, like the social partners, that it is our collective responsibility to transcend the majority-opposition, employers-syndicates divisions, to advance what I think is, more than ever, a common cause.

There are several especially important points that I would like to emphasize, namely:

- the extension of solidarity liability,

the full and strict application of the legislation in force in our country,

- the importance of strengthening the social inspection and the effectiveness of this social inspection, whether at the level of human resources or financial resources

And finally, to be at the forefront at the European level.

On this latter point, Marianne Thyssen can ⁇ play her full and full role, provided that Belgium invests behind her, through a joint inspection, i.e. a European inspection service, through the struggle for a harmonisation of social standards, through also – and we have been able to positively evolve the resolution in this sense – the social security contributions that must be paid in the country where the benefits are exercised, with a subsequent refund to the country where the company is established. This is a point that was not included in the resolution at first and which, for us, was really fundamental.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, I take advantage of this because this week the Libramont Agricultural Fair is held. When we talk about social dumping, we first think of certain sectors. However, I believe that this is really underestimating the extent of the problem because unfortunately, no sector escapes it or will be able to escape it in the long run. When we talk about social dumping, we often talk about it only in one sense, that is, that foreign workers come to Belgium. But another mechanism is again taking much too much scale and undermining the reality of the agricultural sector. This is why I obviously make the link with the Agricultural Fair of Libramont.

We talked about it a few years ago with Germany and it went to the trap. However, our slaughterhouses face major difficulties and I would like to pay attention to them, Mr. Minister. This is not a dumping that brings Romanian workers to work in Belgium. This is a form of reverse social dumping, where animals are sent to slaughterhouses in Romania and carcasses return to Belgium. This is another form of social dumping that risks damaging this sector.

This is obviously revealing the problem of labor cost and I would like to address my socialist and ecologist colleagues to say that this resolution does not intend at all to align wages with the lowest wages in Europe.

On the other hand, I would like to emphasize that labour cost is an extremely important factor in dumping. And we cannot deal with social dumping without advocating for a reduction in labor costs by reducing employer contributions or, more broadly, for an ambitious tax reform not only by reducing labor costs for companies but also by increasing the tax-exempt quota. I know the government is working on this and I hope it will not disappoint us. Other formulas are possible but this one seems to me the easiest and most realistic so that the worker receives a higher net salary. These measures are as fundamental as the effectiveness and strict enforcement of existing laws in order to fight dumping more effectively.

Per ⁇ in the coming days, decisions on tax reform will be made, but I take the opportunity to once again strongly advocate for an ambitious and not accessory tax reform.

Of course, it is not possible for me to sit here an entire afternoon without saying anything. I am glad that I have been able to spend another whole afternoon in this parliamentary assembly, which is a nostalgia for me.

First and foremost, I have been receiving a lot of support for addressing social dumping in all areas, since the day I am in this government. I think this is important and I also think it is important that Parliament takes this into account and supports the government in doing so. In the meantime, we have not stopped and have already been able to discuss a number of issues of the resolution with the social partners at the round table on construction. For the sake of clarity, Mrs. Lanjri, we have now completed the round table on construction with forty measures. We are now moving forward with the roundtable on transport. A number of other fraud-sensitive sectors are also being addressed. This will be taken over in autumn.

It is important that there is broad support, both from employers and employees as well as from the administration and the inspection, where one is the requesting party. A number of matters must be settled at the European level with the European Commissioner for Labour, Mrs Thyssen. The contacts are good and we try to get moving in there. A number of things must also be done at the Benelux level, because a lot of people come in through Dutch employment agencies. Often these are fraudulent constructions. We can also do something in this area.

Importantly, we have agreed on 26 measures for the construction sector, which we can implement in our own country. Of course, we have to do some things at the European and international level, but we also have to act here. I am therefore grateful to all those who have expressed their support for this resolution, as well as those who are not yet fully convinced. I am sure that everyone in his heart wants the same thing, namely to intensify the struggle against social dumping.