Proposition 54K1287

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 mars 1991 portant réforme de certaines entreprises publiques économiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 24, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

business management competition public sector public service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 3, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the present bill is very necessary for us. I will demonstrate this with two examples.

I had first prepared my presentation using an example two years ago, which showed that political interference is not good for our state-owned companies. Unfortunately, I can add another example from last week.

The Flemish People's Movement has been printing adapted stamps for ten years to send its own mail. She did so this year too. On 23 November, the draft of the new stamp was approved by bpost and paid by the VVB. Two days later, bpost told the Flemish People’s Movement that they could no longer print that stamp. For ten years it was possible, now it is no longer. My colleague Peter Dedecker, who follows the file, but cannot be present here today due to illness, will surely still ask questions about this to the competent minister. With the revision, such things can be made impossible.

I give a second example. You will undoubtedly remember on November 7, 2013, when Didier Bellens, PS’s enfant terrible and then CEO of Belgacom, made a statement about himself. I quote him: “Di Rupo is like a small child who comes to ask for his sinter glass on December 6.”

I was not a member of the Chamber at the time, but I remember that all the newspapers were sufficient and that almost all the parties in the speech panel complained. It was scandalous, it was scandalous. My colleague Peter Dedecker was already here at the time, and although it is difficult to associate our party with Mr. Bellens, Peter Dedecker said that Mr. Bellens was right in that regard.

After all, what was going on? Belgacom had to borrow to be able to pay a higher dividend to the government-Di Rupo. That dividend of 534 million euros was needed to fill the budget gap. Belgacom was neither more nor less than the government’s milk cow.

The result of that short-term vision of policy on the company we see today in Flanders. By focusing on the dividend, Belgacom could not invest sufficiently and had to patiently monitor how in Flanders the young Telenet with large investments in the network systematically won market share from the old monopolist Belgacom.

Telenet today has a market share of 80 % in Flanders on the residential broadband market, for which I would like to congratulate the company, while Proximus must face it with a market share of less than 20 %.

After these two examples, I wonder if there are still people who believe that politicians are the best managers of companies. That is why our group stands firmly behind the bill, a bill announced in the government agreement in which we as a party have embodied our vision. Proximus and bpost must be able to develop for us in a highly competitive market, in the same way that other companies do in the same market, an equal playing field and that is now finally there.

The depolitization of companies in a liberalized market is not only logical for us, it is also necessary. We can see this from the example of Flanders and Telenet. The draft no longer holds to the fetish of a majority share for the government. That offers possibilities. The government can use any proceeds from sales to reduce the government debt, which is the only way for our party to use those proceeds, and synergies with other companies from home and abroad can also be sought in order to grow into even more successful companies. Who can oppose this now? I look forward to the speeches and voting behavior of the opposition.

Finally, colleagues, during the discussion in the committee, railway companies were also discussed. However, the present bill does not apply to this. There is apparently in some parties a sacred horror that the NMBS would also fall below. It seems to be their biggest nightmare, if the NMBS followed the same trajectory as Belgacom and bpost, where the pressure of competition and the entry of private capital turned the overwhelming PTT and RTT into performing companies, which we may be proud of. It is apparently the nightmare of the opposition, that citizens and travellers, i.e. taxpayers, have an alternative in strikes, where a small group crashes the entire track. This is not our nightmare, nor is it the nightmare of others. It is a dream for us, and ⁇ for everyone. A better service at sharper prices, we are all for.

I would like to state very clearly what has just been said. Contrary to the statements repeated by the government that no decision had yet been made regarding the sale and privatization of bpost and Proximus, I just heard our colleague from the N-VA speak very clearly. In fact, it said the decision had been taken and that it would reduce the weight of the debt. The masks finally fell. We welcome his honesty.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the text that was presented to us in the committee during the month of October concerns, for 90% of its content, the modernization of two public enterprises, bpost and Proximus.

The government wants to strengthen these two public companies so that they can play equal with their competitors in a hypercompetitive market, a reality that no one can ignore today. It shows pragmatism and common sense. As such, the bill that is presented to us at the moment places bpost and Proximus in a true level playing field by allowing them to create subsidiaries, take shares, subcontract, recruit contractual workers. Similarly, the rules of good governance advocated by the OECD will thus be consolidated. Finally, we will end with the negative politicization of management bodies.

Both are currently governed by a 1991 law. To deny that, since then, the society and the markets in which these companies operate have changed is to cover their faces. We now know the internet, e-mail, GSM, smartphones, connected objects and e-commerce. These are undeniable realities. That is why it is important to move to action, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, and I thank you for presenting this text today.

The aim is not only to modernize the companies concerned, but also to improve their management. They need to be adapted in order to preserve this high-quality public service and promote the jobs of tomorrow.

A business that doesn’t invest or invests badly is a business that dies. A company that does not adapt to the world in which it evolves is a condemned company. A company that does not adjust its management to its competitors is a business without a future.

This is, of course, the opposite of the direction the government wants to go. While liberalization is well done, it is essential to give bpost and Proximus the weapons to face the reality in which they evolve and remain the strong players they are today in their respective markets.

Let us now come to the remaining 10% of this bill that is proposed to us and which in fact considers the possibility, Mrs. Fonck, of ...

The [...]

Yes, my colleague said what she said, I say what I say. This is a possibility in this bill. You can do semantics. This is the direction we will vote today.

Mr. Foret, if you allow me to speak, I pass the floor to Mrs. Fonck.

On the one hand, I read the content of the bill and the statements of some members of the government, including the Prime Minister. But at the tribune here, just before you, the main government party, which makes rain and good weather, clearly announced that the will was to sell and that was not semantics.

On the other hand, and there I’m waiting for you, that’s what we’ve repeated for a while and we haven’t seen anything: where is the somewhat serious analysis of all the issues related to these files? When I hear from some say that selling out the shares of the state of bpost and Proximus is magical for debt, I don’t understand. Of course, it is a one shot. This is not taking into account the reality and the return of the annual dividends that are being made today. Selling today is clearly doing a negative operation. You’ve never been able to prove anything about this, yet financially important issue.

I spoke on the financial aspect because your colleague of the majority, therefore of the N-VA, addressed it just before. We will return to the other issues later in the discussion.

You’re talking about 10% of the text, but it’s ⁇ the most fundamental point on “this possibility of selling.” This is the core of the debate that we have already had in the committee and that we will still have today. You tell us, “We’ll see,” “We don’t know very well.” This varies depending on the language, French or Dutch, depending on the party. As for you, you say that everything is possible and that everything is on the table. This is the core of the debate, the problem of this bill. We do not know where we are going. I would like to have your opinion, the view of the majority and the government regarding what should be done. We are told here: “Let us do,” “We’ll see.” Recognize that it is extremely complicated to position yourself when the debate is put in these terms.

Mr. Foret, do you understand what you are saying? I quote you: "This public service must be safeguarded."These words are unworthy of a liberal! Remember, you are a member of Mr. You cannot say such things: “This public service must be safeguarded!” Take the example of the colleague, Ms. De Coninck, who, at least, makes it clear that we should take the example of Telenet, which has 80% of the market in Flanders. The Voka is satisfied and, if the Voka is satisfied, the N-VA is also satisfied. You must accept your words.

This paradox must be addressed. On the one hand, you tell us this phrase that I repeat for the last time, “This public service must be safeguarded.” On the other hand, you tell us that there is also the option that it is no longer a public service. Do you not think this statement is a bit paradoxical?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it a little less sharply than my predecessor, but I think it is important to know and I will later also ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the position of the Government is.

I assume you are speaking on behalf of your party. What are the criteria for your group, for the MR, yet the Prime Minister’s group, to say that that majority participation can be reduced from 50+1 to 25+1?

Mr. Speaker, I can’t agree with my colleague Ecolo who says the problem is that we don’t know where we’re going. Ms. Inez De Coninck, our colleague of the N-VA, has just announced it! This situation is also regrettable for the Deputy Prime Minister who has shown himself cautious and round in commission, letting the story unfold.

Mr. Foret, you declare today: “This is what I can say!”

As you know, our country is governed by the N-VA, which makes rain and good weather and even prevents progress on climate.

Today, things were said by Ms. Inez De Coninck. Thank you for the clarity and transparency of your words!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to respond.

First, you have apparently heard something different from what I have outlined. You have apparently heard that I would have suggested to sell. However, that is not even my competence. I am a member of Parliament. It is up to the government to decide on a sale.

I have pointed out that the current bill allows for the sale of some of those companies. For you, those companies are apparently a fetish, which should not be touched.

Second, I added that if there would be a possible sale – the decision to do so is not mine but the government – the decision will be made after all sorts of economic analyses. If there is a sale of a part of the shares of those companies, it is important for our party that the proceeds from that sale are used for the reduction of the state debt.

When we speak of eventuality, it is not necessarily about selling, but about falling below the 50 percent participation of the state.

The vice prime minister recalled it in the commission, the fact is that bpost or Proximus could at some point be held by the state at less than 50 percent because they take shares in another company where a capital increase occurs.

It is therefore important to make this distinction properly. It’s not about selling at any price, it’s about making sure that bpost and Proximus can be in the right conditions to face a hyper-competitive market. I have not done anything else, neither here nor in the committee.

We have had a lot of intention trials in this committee. Here, we are in a debate that is pragmatic and that shows common sense, so that those companies we love are dynamic, efficient and can face a hyper-competitive market. There are no contradictions where there are no contradictions. We are used to this little game at your house but, thankfully, let’s go ahead!

Mr. Foret, this reflects well the discussions in the committee. We are in pure ideology and, above all, caricature. We are told that this law is important because we must have common sense, because we must be pragmatic and modern. We are talking about the internet, smartphones. This has nothing to do with the participation and role of the State in flowerhouses such as bpost and Proximus. For me, this is the fundamental question, and I will return to it soon.

If we announce tomorrow to the 40,000 workers of bpost and Proximus that the company was sold overnight to any private partner or that there was a drastic change in capital, will you tell them that this is a matter of common sense and pragmatism? This is not sufficient as a justification.

If we are in ideology and caricature, do not participate in it!

Mr. Speaker, without falling into a caricature, I would like to repeat my question. What is the limit for your group, what are the criteria to be met in order to reduce the public interest? Can you give me an answer to that?

I would like to give you the badges, the guarantees in which we must evolve and we will not sell, from day to day, following the good intuition of a minister. This is a deliberate decision adopted by the Council of Ministers. This decision will be taken collegially at the government level and will be taken. The discussions are about the timing of the time to sell or not, because it may not show up and we may not be more MPs when it is sold, if it is sold one day! Here is !

I think that a government and a parliament should be proactive and provide this framework for the day of possible implementation. The balls are well reintegrated. The Belgian anchorage is important and inserted in the texts, as is this notion of employment, growth, strategy in the evolution. Yes, new technologies are important, because these two societies evolve in worlds that are constantly changing. In 1991, we didn’t have the internet, we didn’t have the social networks, and we didn’t have e-commerce. The world is changing, boundaries are no longer physical, they are virtual.

You know, I did not do in ideology. I came to the committee with pragmatic arguments. Let us go ahead! by Mr. The Deputy Prime Minister will come again to explain the different elements, but for my group, these tags are very important, because we don’t want to do anything with these two Belgian flowers.

For the rest, we must continue in this direction. I thank you for your good listening, your questions that always allow us to raise the debate, Mr. Devin. It is always a pleasure to discuss with you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, this bill is the image of this government, inspired by an ideology of the 1980s trend in the market. It despise the fate of workers, public service and democratic control.

Before addressing the substance of the project, I would like to rest on our incomprehension of the conditions under which the majority imposed on us the study of this text. While absolutely nothing justified it, the majority not only refused to question experts on this project, but also refused to ask for their simple written opinion.

This contempt for transparency and democratic debate is regrettable but it is not an unprecedented fact. The 35,000 workers at bpost and Proximus would, in our opinion, have deserved more respect. However, one will recognize a cynical honesty of the project towards them. No line in the project claims that the proposed changes will significantly, or even slightly, improve their fate. It is even the opposite.

By allowing the use of subcontracting and self-employed without any limit, the government organizes the deregulation of work within the enterprise and the competition of workers, with the consequence of a regression of stable and quality jobs, and therefore a leveling down the social status. Should we really remember that self-employed workers, unlike workers, are not protected in case of dismissal, do not have the right to a notice, do not enjoy the same protection in case of illness or unemployment?

To these regressions some add uncertainty. It has already been discussed. of the privatization. If the project does not formally privatize public enterprises, it authorizes the government to do so on the basis of criteria too blurred to be objective. In other words, tomorrow, the government will be free to sell the majority shares of the state at any time. This insecurity suspended above the workers’ heads can only harm the social serenity of bpost and Proximus. You can imagine the bitterness of bpost workers who have already made so much effort to accompany the strategic reorganization of their company.

But this project does not only concern workers of these two public companies. The SNCB is not formally excluded from the scope of the project. And it is not a fault to have tried to clarify the text in this regard in the committee. In spite of the statements made by the Minister and Mr. Deputy Prime Minister De Croo, the text, with its article 5, allows the SNCB to train in these reforms inspired by an outdated liberalism.

Three successive amendments submitted by the opposition could have reassured members of the SNCB staff. It was nothing. Today we re-depose our own so that the government’s speeches finally coincide with its actions.

This project is the product of a purely liberal ideology, and not only because it puts workers in competition with each other. More generally, even outside of any privatization, the bill inscribes these companies in a vision based on the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest, more distant than ever from notions of general interest.

From now on, only the law of the market will have to guide the action of public enterprises since they will no longer have to account to citizens and their representatives.

Finished the annual reports to Parliament or the control by the Court of Auditors. End of the Minister of Budget. The right to look at the State in the actions of two institutions belonging, however, to the collective.

Let me give you a very recent example. While the geopolitical context forces us to strengthen our ties with France, Proximus, for purely economic reasons and without regard to political consequences, had already decided to remove from its catalogue the channel France 24. Tomorrow, with your project, this decision will become unappellable.

We are therefore witnessing a total disengagement of the government from its own responsibilities. It is unacceptable that the fate of these large companies, owned by all Belgians, is put in the hands of managers deprived of any democratic legitimacy. These control mechanisms, destroyed by this project, ensured the legitimacy of the decisions made by managers. A control even more necessary on bpost as 80% of its turnover comes from activities within the public sector.

And what about Proximus, whose telecommunications infrastructure extends across the entire territory and which has become a strategic issue of national security, to such an extent that in 2013, Belgacom was the victim of international hacking. Now, today, more than ever, by removing the formal and informal communication bridges with Proximus, the government deprives itself of a major player in appreciating the security challenges of the 21st century Belgians.

Already outside of any privatization, this irrational disresponsibility of the state to satisfy a doctrinal liberal ambition is severely critical. But the long-term goal of privatizing bpost and Proximus is not only in conflict with principles of good governance, it is also an aberration in terms of facts and figures. It has been said, repeated, demonstrated, explained: selling these successful public enterprises today means a loss of about 300 million euros per year for the state.

And beyond these figures, the sale of these companies is a fundamental economic mistake for the competitiveness of our country. Currently, Proximus invests approximately €1 billion a year in our economy. However, such investments, as the executives of Proximus reminded us, require a stable majority shareholder and ready to accompany the company in cycles of several years.

As for bpost, it needs a stable majority shareholder as the postal sector is also in full change and faces one of its biggest challenges with the decline in paper mail and the phenomenal growth of postal packages.

These investments are all the more fundamental for the competitiveness of our economy as they accompany innovative technology sectors. So, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you will tell us that the decision to privatize Proximus and bpost has not yet been made. We have the obligation to raise the question, here and today, and a fortiori with the statements of our colleague Mrs. De Coninck. Indeed, if this bill is adopted, dear colleagues, today’s vote will be the last opportunity that the representatives of the Nation will have to decide on the fate of these public enterprises. It is therefore especially for all these reasons that the Socialist Group and myself will oppose the adoption of this text.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, to conclude, I would simply like to read three passages of the government’s agreement that tonight will become promises destroyed by this bill. "The correlation between, on the one hand, long-term corporate services and the performance of the public service mission, and on the other hand, the variable remuneration of executives will be strengthened. The CEO of each autonomous public enterprise will expose each year, in a parliamentary committee, the operational and day-to-day policy that has been followed, as well as its effects on society. The appointment and dismissal of the delegated administrator shall be carried out by the Government after consultation with the Board of Directors and by Royal Decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers. Here are three other government commitments that are now buried. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step for Proximus and bpost. In implementation of the government agreement, the government will now act as a normal majority shareholder of a listed company and no longer as a mother-in-law who can work too hard and inappropriately with the internal business.

In addition, it is essential, as we also stressed in the committee, to create an equal playing field for both companies, as they must fight against competitors who do not have to operate within the same strict sequence. In other words, the present draft is a necessary prerequisite for bpost and Proximus to continue to play an important role in the future, both in the postal and telecommunications markets, and under the same conditions as their competitors.

Proximus and bpost are modern and performing companies within a competitive environment. Thus, with this design, we provide them with the weapons to enter the battle. All the colleagues who believe in a brilliant future for these two companies can only approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Dear colleagues, the bill that is presented to us has three objectives: the removal of organizational constraints, the alignment of the functioning of the management bodies of public enterprises with that of private enterprises and, finally, the possibility for the State to become a shareholder like another through the repurchase of shares in certain public enterprises.

The first two objectives are legitimate. Unfortunately, we have understood that they are there only to allow the achievement of the third: privatization. By the way, Mr. Minister, you did not contradict this finding, since you have considered other hypotheses of structural change. More than an eventuality, privatization therefore seems to be an unconfessed desire of this government, at least of its liberal wing.

For the CDH, adapting this bill without a serious and in-depth analysis ⁇ shows a lightness and a lack of seriousness. It seems to us that you put the chariot before the oxes. Technical studies praised by you during the debates have never been made public. In addition, the requests for hearing expressed by the opposition parties, such as Mr. Devin recalled it, they were rejected. It was about hearing the main actors, including Ms. Leroy, and ensuring that their statements were properly understood and accurate. Finally, the analysis of the financial impact and consequences on employment as well as on citizens and different sectors – including the written press – is cruelly lacking.

In my opinion, you want to draw the way towards the privatization of certain public companies, but you do it blindly or at least vice versa, without measuring the consequences and by bypassing the democratic debate. Indeed, once the project is adopted, it will no longer be possible to intervene since these companies will be able to change their shares through simple royal decrees.

Since it will be impossible for us to express ourselves on this subject, I would like to remind myself that nothing seems to justify privatization, both financially and politically, social and economic.

In this regard, I will repeat the elements raised by an analyst working at Fortis. “Financially, the annual dividend yield is 5%, which is higher than the interest rates on the Belgian debt.

Politically, the transfer of a large Belgian company to a foreign shareholder would not be very popular. Economically and even socially, the control of Proximus by the State enables employment to be secured.”

Regarding the social aspect, I doubt that privatization raises the employment rate and allows the creation of what has already been heard “jobs, jobs, jobs”. Privatization would obviously result in job losses internally but also among subcontractors. As an indication, Proximus employs more than 14,000 employees and at bpost, only for the distribution of newspapers, 3,000 jobs would be threatened. Furthermore, privatization would constitute an open door for major relocation.

As for the written press sector that already suffers from new communication technologies, it now stands thanks to subscribers. In the absence of this quality principle, there is a high risk that it will be severely damaged.

So I don’t see a real winner in this case that looks more like a poker stroke. The Belgian state loses its annual dividends, 490 million euros in 2014, to the benefit of a one shot of 8 to 9 billion euros. The citizen risks paying more for services of lower quality and the staff finds themselves in an uncertain occupational situation. We are not in a rescue operation. Everything is OK. This is also pragmatism. Public enterprises already demonstrate good governance. Why not continue this way while possibly improving what would affect their effectiveness? As they have stated, these companies need a stable shareholder, for example, the state.

Recently, the government has mandated three business banks and a consulting firm to assess the interest of a potential de-investment in a number of companies, including Proximus and bpost. Is this really a coincidence? Experts, of course, recommended that the government retain its participation.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you will tell me that this project does not sell Proximus and bpost but it still facilitates a possible sale. The debate is there. Rather than putting these public companies in the best position to fulfill their missions, this government seems well determined to play the risk card without consideration for services and for people. I fear that your ideological choices, which probably obey short-term budgetary visions, will harm the companies concerned and the public service missions.

In these circumstances, my group does not subscribe to the adventure in which you want to take these companies. That is why we submitted an amendment aimed at removing the article that makes privatization possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this is an ideological bill, ⁇ the third part. In my speech, of course, I will also focus on this.

Mr. Minister, you will not be surprised, of course, that this bill does not comply with my vision. I think its underlying vision is a purely neoliberal vision. As I have already said in the committee, I have no problem in myself with the fact that the Open Vld, the N-VA and the MR fully support it. I have been able to discuss with you in the committee. I also said there that these are not my ideas, and you have tried to present your vision in a good debate.

It is a pity that colleague Dedecker is not here, but I will not extend this further. I found that the arguments of the N-VA group during that debate, and also now, came too much from revanchism. Everything has to be on the pitch. Certainly everything that smells of government does not like the N-VA. I will not return here to the argument of colleague Dedecker, because he cannot defend himself, but even after the short interventions here, I think that for this important topic we should look at what the added value is for society, for the companies and the like.

In short, I understand your views, even though I absolutely do not share them. You know that. It is good that we know from each other that we will never have the same view on this.

What I absolutely do not understand, and now I look at the colleagues of CD&V, is that CD&V can agree with this draft after hearing the discussion in the committee and after hearing the report. I do not understand. Probably it has been said that a trophy should be given to Minister De Croo; that can be. Trophy boxes must be filled. In itself, this is a legitimate reason. The question is whether this should be done through such a fundamental design. This is the question I ask CD&V. Sorry for the phrase, but if you give this, you prove that you are in this file for speck and beans.

I’ll go back to what we think about it, because that’s important. The sp.a absolutely believes in strong, transparent public enterprises, which inherently means that one must permanently modernize. Those in this panel or in the committee who say that we are foolish because we defend the RTT system, I challenge to show where and when I have defended it. The past shows that a government with socialists in the bpost file has attracted a private partner to invest in that company. This happened in the hope that this business could grow, despite a very difficult social climate. Compared to other countries, Belgium has managed to turn the postal business into a successful business.

This is not a merit of politics, but of the management and its vision. This is also an advantage for the trade unions. Those who want to deny this, of course, can do so. At some point, however, the trade unions sat around a table with the management. The future of the company was so important to them that they thought everyone would have to add water to the wine. It then looked at how business economic security could be created in the longer term. Eventually, the employees took part in the story. Sometimes this has led to social conflicts, but among other things the Georoutes system ensures that bpost can survive today.

The underlying idea is of a certain political importance, because all this could have happened in a stable shareholding. The majority shareholder provided the resources and time to ⁇ the transition in the hope that the company would then survive. In other countries, Sweden and Britain for the best, this has not happened and the impact on the labor market and for the company itself is noticeable.

That’s what annoys me with this bill. Foret said that the proposed bill would mean a possible reduction of the public interest. Collega Van den Bergh also said in the committee that one should not overweight this possibility. The Minister also referred to the Explanatory Memorandum in which 25 % + 1 is expected. In my view, it is extremely damaging to create some form of uncertainty in a company that is already struggling with a huge, and ⁇ steady, decrease in the volume of mail and the transition to a package. So that disturbs me.

The N-VA is much clearer in that and says that one should do so. At least it is fair to dare to say that.

The second point that concerns me as a member of the European Parliament is the following. Mr Foret said that those criteria would then have to be reviewed by the government. But at today’s vote – we will not approve the bill in any case – this majority gives a blank cheque to the government. It is clear in the text that a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers may determine when the reduction of the public interest of 50 % + 1 can be reduced, whether or not with a minimum limit of 25 % + 1. My colleagues, where did this large delegation come from?

The next question is why you do that. This is a legitimate question, because if one supports such a bill, then there must be an agenda or a goal behind it – the agenda is not in this case pejorative. Indeed, one must have a goal in mind before coming up with such a design for the day. If I look at the social added value that state-owned companies can have, then it is legitimate for me that those state-owned companies exist. In this regard, I think of Bpost. This week, the minister in the committee gave another explanation to the management contract, which also looks at the added value of mail bids. At the same time, the municipality is considering how we can support it. I also think of Proximus, where a lot of investments are being made. Also thanks to the fact that there is a strong player like Telenet in Flanders, huge investments are being made to create a healthy competition between the two. There are also involved projects such as PEP-NET, investments in and support for Child Focus and the like.

If I look at the financial reason, and it’s now the third or fourth time that I say that on this floor, then I don’t see the value of it. A few months ago I asked for the results of the survey, the audit of the FPIM. Meanwhile, I was able to read in the newspaper about that study of the value of all government contributions. The report clearly states that there is no financial incentive to sell government shares because the dividend revenues are higher than the saved interest charges.

From a budgetary point of view, this means that, where appropriate, the budget gap is increased, which means that the families must pay for it. I can explain that calculation, which I made for Proximus and bpost, again. In my calculation, the value of the shares and the public interest of 53 % was calculated on the value of the share at a rate of 31 euros. Then I checked the revenue after the sale. Then I examined the increase in the public debt and calculated the interest charges or the income from the dividends. For Proximus, this resulted in a negative balance for the budget of approximately EUR 92 million. I made exactly the same calculation for bpost, starting from the value of the shares, being 51,04 euros. That calculation resulted in a negative saldo on sales of 70 to 75 million euros for the Treasury. These are, in my opinion, important arguments for not carrying out a sale at the moment.

I now look at the companies themselves, which is also important. We were given the opportunity in the committee to hear the leaders of both companies. I can only conclude — and you may also, if you were present at the hearings or read the report — that the companies were absolutely not the requesting party. The CEO and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Proximus here clearly stated that they want a stable shareholder and are not asking party for a reduction in the majority interest of the government. They mentioned names. The CEO warned of a scenario like in France, where SFR was acquired by Altice and where CEO Drahi actually applied the strategy of hit and run. By the way, the CFO has now moved to Proximus because he did not agree with the way that transition went. For bpost Mr Van Gerven was indeed more cautious during the hearing. However, he also emphasized the importance of a stable majority shareholder, given the reduction of mail and the transition to packages.

I have the following question. Why does the current government want to continue with this sale?

Then comes the level playing field. Of course, I agree with some provisions, as I have already said in the committee. In the context of modernization, one must always look at the arsenal that one can use to operate in that market. What I still do not understand is the language restriction for advertising. For example, bpost should not even communicate in English. I have asked questions about this several times. I think this is a bit outdated today.

Finally, the social level playing field. I hear here that a social level playing field will be a downsizing, downsizing. Mr. the Deputy Prime Minister, in the committee you have correctly cited that Telenet also has a social consultation that runs like all other companies. I am not talking about that, absolutely not. I only looked over the wall for a moment, for example, to the opinions of the Inspectorate of Social Laws in the Netherlands. With the reform of the postal sector, ten years ago, one has actually started working there with a single salary and that is actually going to look at as a second or third job. In that case, the income from the distribution of the post according to that report reaches an average of 40 % of the minimum wage. We must be careful that with the provisions that the government will take no full participation in the labour market goes downsize to a social level playing field, down. Regarding the salary reduction for CEOs, we also regret that this is no longer possible.

I would like to reply briefly to the arguments of the other colleagues. Mrs De Coninck, you talked about Telenet’s market share. I think it is really important that there is definitely a good competition in Flanders. Only I think you are going a little too short through the curve if you say this is due to the fact that Proximus could not invest enough in the past. The main explanation for this is, in my opinion, the historical infrastructure, the cable; there was a backdrop there, but through strong investments, two full-fledged companies could, fortunately, emerge. This is good for the economy in the short term but also in the long term, where, of course, the internet and those carriers are becoming much more important in the context of economic development.

My question now remains to what extent the different views of those parties are reconcilable. Mr. Foret of the MR said that they would look at it. Mr Van den Bergh said in the committee that this will be considered when it is necessary. The Deputy Prime Minister said the deadline for this delegation power is 2018 and made it clear that this would be considered within that deadline. We are actually on the eve of 2016.

I just heard the argument of colleague De Coninck of the N-VA, which I, like some other colleagues, interpret as: we want that and force does happen. The question here is – and I will immediately ask the Deputy Prime Minister – what the government’s position is. What is the timing? Why should we continue with this today and force? What is the project? Who in the government is right?

I would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr Geert. I have said the same thing as Mr. Foret and Mrs. Lijnen. I did not say that we should have a quick sale, but that the proposed bill, after its approval, provides a possibility for a sale. I’m not saying that the sale should happen as soon as possible. When I just broke up from my bank, I said that any sale would have to be weighed up based on economic criteria.

Two weeks ago, a study appeared in the paper. You also mentioned that. You took up an economic analysis, according to which one should not sell with loss. That seems to me to be the evidence. My question to your party is why you did not do that same analysis when you asked Belgacom to pay a higher dividend than it was worth it.

Ms De Coninck, it is indeed true that at some point a higher dividend was requested. We should not be embarrassed about this. This was during a budget discussion.

But I have another question. Just then I had it in my brief explanation about the budget gap you cause by reducing interest in Proximus and bpost. This will cost more than 200 million euros. So I wonder why you want to do that. Why do you want to put that extra burden on the taxpayer? Can you answer that?

Mr. Geerts, I would like to refer to my question about this. Again, we do not advocate for quick sales. It seems to me obvious that we do not sell at any price, and ⁇ not with loss. The balance between income from dividends and income from total sales will have to be made by people who also consider all economic criteria.

I will conclude.

Mrs De Coninck, with what you’re saying now, you’re actually scratching back a little. You wanted to carry out the power of change and get the people to pay 200 million euros more.

The MR and Open Vld say they will examine whether it is necessary. CD&V has also said that in the committee and I assume that colleague Van den Bergh will repeat that. So my question remains why, apart from the first two loops with which I have no problem, you will approve the third loose. We are on the eve of 2016. The FPIM advises the government not to do it because it would be unwise. I hear everyone say that it should not be for them. So why would you approve it?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I will give you a confidence: this is the first time I have the pleasure to speak at the tribune on behalf of my group, Ecolo-Groen, in order to defend our position on a government bill. As for the first time, I was full of enthusiasm given the importance of the issues: the future of two Belgian industrial flowerhouses, bpost and Proximus, in which the State still plays a leading role as a majority shareholder, with as a corollary, equally crucial, the future of the 39,870 people who work for these two groups, the quality of their employment and the durability of their tool as well as their working conditions.

As for the first time, I was therefore anxious but also determined to be 100% involved in debates that were expected to be lively, given our respective starting postulates, but exciting since it was about determining a future vision regarding the place of the state among major Belgian economic actors.

Like every first time, the result is always mixed, with a few positive points and many improvements to bring for the future. Mr. Minister, in this case, I must confess that the balance sheet is ⁇ negative and that you have somehow wasted this first time.

Everything started very badly in the committee, with a categorical refusal of the majority to conduct hearings or to resort to written opinions, even within the framework of a tight timing. The only justification of the majority colleagues was that we had already received – and therefore heard enough – the trade unions on the subject. Beyond a manifest lack of consideration for workers’ representatives – I recall here that we are talking about ⁇ 40,000 employees – this meant that it was impossible for us to hear specialists in the telecommunications sector, specialists in the postal sector, teachers able to enlighten us about the considerable impacts that privatization would have on the market and on prices, or even associations representing the interests of consumers. Not to mention the management of bpost or Proximus, whose five-year strategic vision of their company could have been helpful to us, ⁇ given the statements of the CEO of Proximus, advocating a strong, stable shareholding, implicit reference to the current situation.

No, absolutely no external stakeholder found thanks in the eyes of the majority parties. This is regrettable because it inevitably deteriorates the quality of the democratic debate by damaging the image of this parliament that votes texts to the hussard, without consulting field experts. It’s like we’re locked in a glass tower, away from the realities of our fellow citizens.

In the context of the general discussion, the disappointment was also at the meeting with the turn taken by the speakers and their successive interventions. An unpacking, verbal and ideological joutes and therefore, for the most part, sterile, with the duo N-VA/MR in the head of the peloton invoking modernity, pragmatism, new technologies, international competition, common sense, the rejection of structures of enterprises of the past granting "social jobs", to justify a disengagement of the state in bpost and Proximus.

All those who did not dare to share this vision immediately found themselves taxed as pastists, nostalgic of a past time and idealizing outdated economic models. In short, it was me who had the impression of returning to the last century with these exchanges worthy of a duel between Ronald Reagan and Che Guevara, going completely alongside the issues in the presence.

For us ecologists, the State must assume an important role in the economic sphere, a stabilizing role, an investor role, an innovator role, in short, an entrepreneur role, as a talented economist who I would have liked to invite to our committee hearings and who I had the opportunity to listen to last week, Mariana Mazzucato, author of the book The Entrepreneur State.

In short, Ms. Mazzucato arises from the postulate that the market alone never makes choices and that it will therefore never support any particular sector, given that its primary interest is the profit generated in the short term. The choices made by states to invest and support entire chains, in partnership with the private sector, are therefore crucial for the sustainable development of our economy.

Finally, Ms Mazzucato also demonstrates that none of the recent major technological advances (internet, smartphones, renewable energy, biotechnology, nanotechnology) have been made without massive state investment.

Dear colleagues of the majority, without the state and its large-scale intervention, you would not have an iPhone in your pocket today, no computer in front of you, no tablet! Be sure of this and thank the state for it!

Moreover, investments and the importance of the state do not mean domination and politicization of corporate management bodies. For this reason, the Ecolo-Groen group supported the bill’s articles related to governance reform and depolitization.

Let me now address the bill on these different parts a little more in detail and part by part.

As for the first part of what is called the level playing field, in other words the ability to evolve on equal arms with private competitors at the international level, there are certain aspects that we find logical to adapt, such as the creation of subsidiaries, participation in other companies.

At the level of lifting the restrictions on the employment of subcontractors, we have, on the other hand, made serious reservations regarding the authorization to generalize contractual recruitment. Although this corresponds in part to the practice in the field, the lack of labels in the proposed text makes us worry about consequences with regard to the quality of employment in bpost and Proximus. The warnings against the precariation of wage labour in these still public enterprises are indeed totally insufficient in our view.

The text also specifies that the measures related to the level playing field apply for the moment only to bpost and Proximus, but, I quote the text: "This new chapter will apply in the future to other autonomous public enterprises that, for at least two consecutive years, make 75% of the annual turnover in activities open to competition." From that moment on, a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers shall fix the date on which the undertaking concerned shall fall under this Chapter. In other words, Mr. Minister, you are clearly targeting the SNCB since Belgocontrol, and there you said it in commission, does not take into account. By simple royal decree, if the condition of 75% of the turnover is reached, the Council of Ministers will be able to decide that the lifting of the restrictions regarding the employment of subcontractors and self-employed will be completely lifted, also to the SNCB.

This represents for us, environmentalists, a green line not to be crossed because we do not consider the SNCB to be a company like the others, which we can simply evaluate by talking about ratios, return on engaged capital, profitability on equity or otherwise. In our view, the SNCB represents first and foremost the provider of a basic public service, for the benefit of all our fellow citizens. Such a function requires anchoring a long-term vision well beyond market levels playing fields and international competition.

We have therefore, together with my colleague Stefaan Van Hecke, submitted an amendment to remove from the text these provisions relating to the SNCB, an amendment rejected by the majority, which confirms that the SNCB is therefore well in your sight.

The second part of your project concerns governance reform and depolitization.

The text proposes in particular that it is the company’s general assembly and not directly the government that appoints the directors and that the board of directors appoints its own chairman and the company’s CEO instead of the government, as is the case today.

We believe that these goals of better governance, greater transparency, and above all depolitization, are going in the right direction. My Ecolo-Groen group has, therefore, supported this component, Article 11, in commission. We were the only opposition party to do so.

We would have even wanted to go further by proposing that it be explicitly on the proposal of the Board of Directors that the General Assembly appoints the directors, in order to avoid that some minority shareholders actually exercise almost total control over the General Assembly.

Mr. Minister, always about this aspect, in the committee, I was also surprised that you have made a last highly politized appointment to the board of Directors of Proximus last September, that of Mr. Proximus. Karel De Gucht, which, you will apologize to me, seems to me to be just a partial reassessment in good and due form, especially since you did not give any details about the recruitment or selection procedure that led to this decision.

The last part of the project, by far the most indigest, allows to lower the State participation in Proximus and bpost below the 50% threshold by simple royal decree and without lower limit. In other words, this text allows the government to potentially sell the entire state shares in these two companies, from day to day, without going before the parliament and without having to debate the convenience of such an operation. This is the worst thing in our eyes.

This bill avoids any debate about whether or not to sell the state shares. Up to what threshold? More fundamentally, what is the government’s vision for these public companies? In reality, Mr. Minister, you are just asking us for a blank cheque that translates into a real hold-up of the democratic debate.

Indeed, we have not had any debate on the considerable impact that a potential privatization of bpost or Proximus could have on a whole range of fields: the future of the 40,000 workers, the public service tasks that these companies carry out, the revenue of the State, since the ratio of dividends is now far higher than the cost of debt, the side effects on the Belgian telecom and bpost sector or even the repercussions for consumers.

Many times I have asked you what your vision was, your plan for these major public actors in our economy, or the type of partnership you potentially want to engage in. What kind of shareholders are you considering? Should the state keep a blocking minority at 25%? Do you want to increase capital? It was also an option that you yourself highlighted during committee discussions to proceed with potential acquisitions.

All these legitimate questions have thus remained dead letter. You simply answered that all the options were possible and that no scenario was preferred at this stage because, I quote you, “I don’t have a crystal ball.” But neither do we, Mr. Minister, and that is precisely why we will oppose this bill.

Making decisions without visibility, without a precise plan of action is simply not serious and is a mistake, whether for the business world or for the political world.

Mr. Minister, you are asking us to follow your blind eyes, on an unknown path, with your crystal ball in your hands. I’m sorry, but my group isn’t ready to play with you on the back of the 40,000 bpost and Proximus workers. We will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, first of all, I would like to congratulate Ms. Inez De Coninck for her frankness with regard to the objectives of the government, even though she subsequently sought to correct her remarks. We could feel the will to privatize the public companies concerned, but also the SNCB, as it stated that once privatized, the SNCB would work much better.

I would also like to point out the reason for the SNCB. At one time, the railway was private and trains did not run, ⁇ went bankrupt. It is therefore the bankruptcy of the private management that is at the origin of the creation of the SNCB.

We could also take the example of banks. I remember a few words from Mr. Reynders on the Fortis case and that the state did not intend to remain indefinitely in the bank’s capital.

We can see what happened to Fortis, which was, ultimately, the result of the privatization of the GERC, which has functioned publicly for 130 years without ever encountering the slightest problem. It was enough to privatize this bank to, after ten years of private management, find itself facing a crisis that is still being paid today. There is no need to remind you of the sad episodes of Fortis’s quasi-failure, which explains the damage to public finances, even today.

What I would like to tell you is that privatization is not only, even if it is planned, privatizing the entire capital of the company, it is also imposing a private management of these companies. This is what we see, this is what has already been accomplished. Finally, Mr. Minister, what you are doing is deepening a process that has already been ongoing for several years. You know that is the logic.

We will not say who is responsible, but it is true that it is not necessarily only the liberals. Let’s admit that you want to add another layer!

You are talking about “modernization.” I will translate this term, because sometimes it is useful to translate things. There are language translations, but political translations are also sometimes useful. “Modernizing,” I see three things. It is first to break the working conditions by allowing the employment of contractors, self-employed, subcontractors. Second, it is also preparing a pure and simple privatization. Third, it allows these companies to operate as private enterprises, including in terms of remuneration of executives.

To see the process you are going to go deeper into, it is useful to see what has already been done, with what consequences. Let me take the example of bpost. In bpost, we see that ultimately, the public service, the service to the public has deteriorated. The working conditions have deteriorated considerably. Employment has deteriorated considerably. In contrast, profits, profitability, have been revised to the rise.

In terms of employment, bpost staff increased from 46,000 workers in 1989 to 27,000 in 2014. Reduction of 20,000 jobs. “Jobs, jobs, jobs” 20,000 jobs less. 40% of the staff. Productivity, on the other hand, rose from 53,000 euros per full-time equivalent to 100,000 euros, but with a very sharp deterioration of working conditions. In terms of public service, the number of post offices has been reduced by half. It has grown from 1,342 to 676 offices. The price of the stamp is among the highest in Europe. However, as I said, profitability has exploded. The Danish Post and CVC have largely benefited.

There are several studies on working conditions that have deteriorated. A study by the VUB showed that, in particular with Georoute, the workload was much heavier for workers.

There is also the multiplication of the statutes. Since 2000, contrary to the provisions of the law, bpost only engages contractual factors.

At this level, Mr. Minister, you have demonstrated inventiveness in terms of vocabulary since you have stated that bpost is committed to a dynamic interpretation of the law. As far as I am concerned, I would say that bpost had illegal practices. We are together, we can say. A trial on this subject is currently underway.

After that, there were still other sub-states such as the auxiliary factor. But that was not enough, we had to go further. This is how the door is now open to independent workers and subcontractors.

We have figures relating to the hourly cost of these different statutes. Thus, the hourly cost of the statutory classical postman is 28 euros, that of the contractual bpost is 25 euros, that of the auxiliary distributor bpost is 19 euros and that of the self-employed 12 euros.

Mr. Van Hees, I have just heard you say that we should not open the door to subcontractors. Let me give you an example of life as it is.

Our municipality has long cared for its post delivery by bpost. Each year a new assignment is issued for this purpose. This year the offers of the Flemish Post were cheaper, and for that reason we have decided to work with the Flemish Post from now on. Now it turns out that the Flemish Post works with a subcontractor and that subcontractor is bpost. So I now pay less, but our municipal folders are actually distributed by the same company. If I work directly with bpost, I will have to pay more than when I effectively let the market play. I don’t know if that was your intention when you said that orders should not be outsourced to subcontractors. This can lead to surprising outcomes for both government and other companies.

I came up with quite clear figures, which show that subcontractors and self-employed are less well paid. In addition, you claim that this allows you to benefit from lower tariffs. However, I told you that the price of stamps in Belgium is one of the highest. The result is that working conditions are deteriorated and the service to the public is reduced by increasing the cost for users.

Paradoxically enough, Mr. Minister, you want to drastically reduce the salaries of a large part of the staff while another category may receive higher salaries, namely managers and CEOs. You have, by the way, already defended this position in the past. As for Johnny Thijs, you said he had done a very good job as Chief Executive Officer of La Poste and added: “If you want to attract the best managers, you have to reward them.” There was a manager so good that he was paid four million euros to manage this bank. When asked what justified his salary, he replied: "It's a little like Justine Henin, when you have exceptional qualities, you're entitled to an exceptional salary." In 2008, its management was so good that Fortis was on the brink of the abyss, so much that the state had to intervene to save it. These CEOs are heavily paid to bring greater profits to shareholders, at the expense of staff and users. It is precisely because this leader reduces the wage mass that he is generously remunerated.

In conclusion, I will not surprise you by stating that we will unfortunately not be able to vote in favour of this bill. I read the disappointment on the face. I will finally quote a trade unionist who recently told me the following phrase, which I find essential: “Quality and well-funded public services are the wealth of those who are born without fortune. This is a modern public service, capable of fulfilling this role of service to the community.”

There are very few questions asked to the government. It was primarily a debate between Members of Parliament, which is always fun to watch, but which for me is little motivating since I do not have to answer on certain matters.

I have a little bit of the impression that some are conducting a debate of the 1990s here. In the meantime it is the 21st century, and it is clear that the private sector has its role, that the government has its role, and that there is a place for the private sector in a number of sectors across Europe.

I have heard a lot about the interests of workers and trade unions here. All this is very important. I have hardly heard anything about the customer’s interests. Almost no one has spoken about what is good for the customer. It seems that a private company can never feel good about its customers. I find that weird.

You may need to ask this question to Telenet and the other companies that operate in these sectors. You may need to ask their customers if they have the impression that they are being badly treated.

What this debate is about is about a difference of view. The opposition does not believe in possibilities. The opposition believes in limitations.

You want laws that limit as much as possible what public companies can do, while we believe that in today’s economy we must ensure that those public companies get oxygen so that they can arm themselves, and that in this way we give them the best chances to survive in a sector that evolves rapidly.

Mr. Geerts, you asked me what the government’s position is about one particular element of the law. There are three major elements in this law. First, there is the management of these companies. Second, there are the rules of corporate governance, and those are very important, but no one has spoken about it. On the third element we are very clear, it is an eventuality. It is a possibility. Until now, one possibility has always been discussed, namely that the government would decide to sell a part. That is a possibility. There are also other possibilities.

Today, it often happens that companies make acquisitions based on their shares. Today, none of the two companies can do so because they are completely blocked in that regard.

You say this is ideological. It is absolutely not ideological. I am pleased to note that some members of the opposition also consider that this is not ideological. I just want to quote one quote from La Libre Belgique of 12 January 2013: “You don’t have the ideological blockage à ce sujet. You ne me braque pas sur le maintien des 51 %.”This comes from an interview with Paul Magnette in 2013, then chairman of the PS. I am pleased to see that there are some people who are now in the 21st century and no longer in the 90s.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your comprehensive response. In your response, you have not stopped at the interest of the customer.

If we compare today’s customer satisfaction figures at Proximus and bpost with figures from the last ten years, it shows that customer satisfaction has been at a fairly high level in the last five years. Compared to other operators abroad, there are few complaints and the satisfaction is very high. There is no problem in this area. So don’t come up with the argument that we should do so to increase customer satisfaction. The reports of the Ombudsman services of the BIPT, among others, do not show any problems, so that cannot be an argument.

I asked what the arguments were. I said that the FPIM study showed that the financial cannot be an argument. I didn’t talk about customer satisfaction because I didn’t see a problem there.

I continue to wonder what the need for this movement is. You say that the opposition does not believe in possibilities, but only in limitations.

From the statements, also from members of your majority, today and in the committee, it shows that it is not necessary for them.

Finally, I would like to briefly respond to the example of colleague De Wei regarding the distribution of the post. The reality is that bpost, in the context of a public procurement, is legally obliged to bus letters, in these for the Flemish Post, in the non-concentrated, more rural areas of municipalities.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your responses and comments. We are not going to repeat here the set of arguments but it is still a bit caricatural to say that the opposition lives in the 80s and is in favor of a state-owned business model as it was in the past where everything was fixed and sclerosed. It is not because one defends an investor state and supports enterprises and industrial flowerhouses that one is in favor of a vision of the early 20th century. At this level, we must also be innovative in relation to the role of the state.

The fundamental problem for us is the fact that, tomorrow, there will be no more debate about the future of public participation in bpost and Proximus. You have not given a clear answer on this issue. Why not allow a parliamentary debate in a month, a year, ten years? You said it yourself, you do not know more about the timing. Today, we cannot discuss this. Without going back on all the elements, it is fundamentally problematic.

Mr. Prime Minister, we had a long discussion. For this reason, we are not going to extend the debate by resting the questions again, knowing well that in fact, we do not share the same point of view on the matter at all.

You said we didn’t talk about customers. In fact, we haven’t talked about citizens. We are talking about the general interest. You say that there will be no more rules or boundaries. It is well understood that we go to services with variable geometry and with a different price depending on the places where we live. This equal treatment is undermined.

You are talking about two companies, bpost and Proximus. These are companies whose customers, citizens, have the best possible appreciation. You have seen the satisfaction charts for bpost. We can only rejoice. As for Proximus, who can today say that Proximus does not produce consistent profits? Who can say that bpost and Proximus do not represent tens of thousands of jobs?

I’m ready to date with you in two years, in four years – I don’t know how long we’ll still stay here. But frankly, we can make a date. Then we will see what it really is.

I tightened your pen. I asked you the question once, twice, three times. Why didn’t you bother to get the SNCB out of that? So that there is no such worry that will sweep tens of thousands of workers from tomorrow to the SNCB.

Finally, there is a fundamental difference between you, me and a few in this hemisphere. You have a certain idea of state companies, state, public services. It is yours. I must be able to recognize that idea. But frankly, when one sees the profession we exercise, having such a bad image of the man, of the political woman to be able to say that "without politics, everything goes much better", it is offending us all, I think.

Mr. Minister, I have heard of negative impacts on workers, but not on customers. First, I deduce from what you say that in fact, for workers, it will not be beautiful, that the social damage will be significant. Obviously, employees do not enter your perimeter of concern.

You say we haven’t talked about customers. In any case, I told you about it. I told you that at bpost, there is an extraordinary deterioration of working conditions. The process you want to deepen has already made conditions impossible for workers. It also dismantled the public service and reduced the possibility for customers to have a public service. I prefer to talk about users rather than customers. In any case, the price of the stamp is among the highest in Europe. Many post offices have been removed, etc.

There is a dismantling of the public service. This makes sense, because when private shareholders want to make profit, as is the case with private shareholders of bpost, they must try to find that profit wherever it is possible to find it. It is found both by reducing service to users and by deteriorating working conditions or wages for workers. Everything is good to increase this profit, including the deterioration of public service, service to the public.

Should it be inferred that, in the private, everything is perfect for customers? Can we say that those of private banks, such as Fortis, are satisfied? Can we say that those in Volkswagen, who bought cars equipped with spyware, are happy? Can one say that those of Electrabel, whose nuclear power plants fail every six months, are happy? No, I do not think so. The reason for this is that this pursuit of profit hurts both users and staff.