Proposition 54K2091

Projet de loi portant diverses dispositions concernant le détachement de travailleurs.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Oct. 17, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive work labour law labour mobility social legislation social security expatriate worker free movement of workers freedom to provide services

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB 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 ¶

Nov. 24, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Egbert Lachaert, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Directive on the Deployment of Workers is 20 years old. It was born in 1996 in the context of a Europe of fifteen, at a time when wage differences ranged from one to three between countries with neighboring social standards. Today we are twenty-seven or twenty-eight – I don’t know what to say – while the pay gap varies from one to ten. Therefore, the donation has clearly changed.

We are seeing awareness at the European level. I mean as proof the Public Procurement Directive, which is a real step forward to get out of the lowest-price dictatorship, as well as the enforcement directive that we are transposing today, with a little delay, however. Certainly this is imperfect, because we would have desired a pure and simple revision of the original directive. However, it provides tools to combat dumping. These two directives give us weapons to strengthen control and ensure solidary chain accountability for faulty companies.

Nevertheless, these two weapons, you, Mr. Minister and your government, have decided to load them white. First, the transposition of the Public Procurement Directive still leaves the choice of the lowest price. We talked about it a few weeks ago: what a missed opportunity! Secondly, your transposition project today is presented in the same direction; you are not going far enough. Why Why ? Because you anticipate, first of all, a solidary responsibility, which, however, risks to be just an empty shell, limited to the construction sector and bypassable. I explained the reasons in the committee. Then, nothing is planned for deployments through temporary agencies, while we know that they serve as a gateway to social dumping. Finally, you do not allow a trade union to be brought to justice without the consent of the dispatched workers, even if their rights are not respected.

The situation in Belgium is serious. The construction, cleaning and transport sectors are crying out for help.

We can no longer say that it is simply the fault of Europe. Efforts have been made and the Commission has decided to maintain its draft revision of the 1996 Directive despite the yellow card from many Eastern countries. The European Parliament is also preparing a report with two co-rapporteurs representing the two largest political groups. This shows that the problem transcends the parties and that it is about the survival of the European project.

It is not only Europe that is moving. Wallonia has developed an anti-dumping guide. Local authorities have taken initiatives to effectively combat social dumping. In Herstal, for example, where the slogan “Equal Work, Equal Wage” was born, we were the first to launch an anti-dumping charge in public procurement with the establishment of a platform to measure its effects. Our initiative has spread to several cities and municipalities. I will also highlight the initiative of the city of Ostende, which imposes respect for the minimum wage in force in Belgium for its tenders.

There remains only the federal who does not seem to take the measure of the plague. Mr. Minister, you had the opportunity to respond to concrete field situations of dumping with this bill. Amendments were submitted. You did not follow. You are not up to the challenge for our country, which has more than 200,000 dispatched workers.

Your government has already missed a beautiful opportunity with the law of transposition of the directive "Public Markets". You recommencez here. The federal government must be more volunteer. Stop the low-cost workers. Stop the entrepreneurs bandits. Stop social dumping.

The transposition of the EU directive will lead to better controls and communication between Member States, more transparent information for workers and clearer procedures. We can only welcome that and therefore we will, of course, also support the conversion.

I, by the way, incorporated its content a few months ago in a resolution, in which we call on the government to engage in the fight against social dumping. I am therefore pleased that the text contains measures that can counter social dumping.

We naturally support the principle of free movement within the European Union: it must remain possible to work in another European country. We have a lot of abuses. Because the social contributions must be paid in the country of origin and there are no or less social contributions imposed there, there is of course a serious competitive disadvantage, for example for our Belgian construction companies. Another phenomenon is that our salary and working conditions are not respected, because there is work with postbus companies that send workers to Belgium. In this way, we circumvent the obligation to pay social contributions in our country.

With the transposition of the Directive, the control of it should be improved, and we can only be pleased with that. Social dumping in which workers and employers are subject to exploitation or unfair competition must, of course, be banned. Flemish SMEs in the construction sector are losing contracts on the current band, especially because for example foreign and Belgian construction companies engage foreign subcontractors and do not respect all the rules of the game. Improved liability, as also provided for in the Directive, will further limit abuses. This is also a good thing.

Commissioner Thyssen is working on a new package of measures that is part of the so-called mobility package. This will allow us to take further steps. Today we are already taking a very important step towards a solution to a number of social problems, with which we also counter social dumping. We hope that once the mobility package is adopted after the discussion at European level, we can take further steps.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we will support the conversion.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague Frédéric Daerden’s speech by saying that once again, we have missed an opportunity to take clear and inevitable measures against social dumping. This was the case at the time of transposition of the Public Procurement Directive. I also think that I will never be able to accept that you kept the lowest price as a single criterion by trying to make us believe that you wanted to fight social dumping. You had to put the obligation to incorporate social and environmental criteria!

We have here a directive that allowed states to transpose it with varying degrees of severity and accuracy. Mr. Minister, here too, you have decided to adopt the minimum version of what was contained in this directive. In the bill you submit to us, however, there are provisions that can only be supported, for example allowing the control of working conditions through the inspection services, having requirements for proof of the existence of a contract, a number of hours provided, payment of wages, having a contact person designated by the dispatching employer. These measures are necessary and, in the same way, there is an obligation to respect the remuneration of workers, so that a domestic worker and a dispatched worker receive the same remuneration. But at the same time, it is also provided that if the subcontractor undertakes to pay the worker, there will be no sanction since this written commitment is sufficient to limit the sanctions, yet indispensable in this type of contract between companies in Belgium, outside companies and displaced workers, who are obviously poor in the face of those companies who engage them.

The bill also wants to remove the so-called "mail boxes" companies and to do this, it is specified that the dispatch will have to be temporary and the company characterized by substantial activities. The time limit for these temporary activities is not defined in the bill. There were also amendments, committee discussions, an opinion of the National Labour Council, which suggested that this period be six months renewable. It is a shame that this is not more precise in the law text and that you are content with the adjective "temporary".

There must be substantial activity. Criteria define the latter, which is a good thing. But you consider that interim agencies are companies that have substantial activities and that, therefore, they fall within the scope of remuneration rules, obligations of documents to provide, etc. Except that, when we get to the chapter "Solidarity", this solidarity liability concerns only the enterprises in the construction sector, only future debts and direct subcontractors and not the entire chain of subcontractors.

I attended the first committee meeting, but unfortunately not the one concerning articles, given the simultaneous holding of the Health Committee. At that time I thought I understood that interim agencies were actually involved, since they temporarily dispatch workers and have a substantial activity. But this substantial activity is not part of the construction sector. Employees of these agencies may, however, be hired by companies in the construction sector. Provisions relating to the construction sector may therefore not apply, in particular in the relations between the sending employer and the hiring employer, given this difference between sectors of activity.

Mr. Minister, could you specify to what extent and how an interim agency is affected when it collaborates with companies in the construction sector?

As a Liegeois, I have been repeatedly impressed by the ability of the Liegeois Chamber of Construction to mobilize in this struggle against social dumping and in favour of the protection of construction companies. His members have questioned you several times. They have come. They have proposed adaptations of the provisions, both at the time of the discussions concerning public procurement and both concerning these provisions, so that you remove this period of 14 days after the notification of the inspections, when the solidary liability takes effect.

They also contacted you and made suggestions expressing their concerns: what is a remuneration? What is the minimum wage? What is an income that allows a worker to live in dignity here in our country, and not in dignity in their country of origin? Despite these claims and their spontaneous collaboration, aimed at protecting employment in the construction sector, it must be noted that they have not been followed. The disappointment is great in their boss.

When you announce that you want to protect a sector, and you accuse this sector of being the perpetrator of malversations and non-compliance with the social legislation in the head of some of its members, do not take into account the remarks and concrete proposals that they make and which go in the direction of the directive, it is a lack of responsibility on the part of a Minister of Employment and on the part of a government that wants to fight social dumping.

Mr. Minister, this is annoying. In fact, it is a directive and legislative amendment that enables progress. They are limited to a sector and present the limits that I just mentioned. They are faced with a transport sector that also cries to help for similar arrangements to be made, and which will only be taken into account eventually within a year, at the time of the evaluation of this law. We are facing a project that shows progress, a project that could have been so good, but which is only minimal. Therefore, we cannot fully support this bill. Unfortunately, we must abstain, while we would have really liked to support a truly ambitious project to combat social dumping.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to largely agree with the plea of Mr. Lanjri. We support any measure that makes the free European labour market a fairer labour market. This is also the message we sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in the committee.

We are in favor of paying dispatched workers on salary and working conditions as is the case with local workers. As far as we are concerned, there may be a debate here about the deployment period. How long should that term last? What about the social security principle?

Only when progress is made in both areas or change is realized, will we reach a level playing field in the true sense of the word. Detachment is not for us to create the opportunity to do social dumping, but is a means of placing workers who have a specific knowledge and expertise, without many obstacles, temporarily here.

This transposition of an EU directive into Belgian law is a small step towards better control in a fair labour market. We will therefore support this bill with conviction.

I would like to make another small concern that I have already formulated to the Deputy Prime Minister in the committee. It is the principal liability contained in the text.

We reaffirm the position we have taken in the past. We have no problem with the general liability if good faith is taken into account and that is effectively the case here. There is therefore no problem in itself, only one cannot avoid that that form of general liability is new, and can make something and something possibly complex. We have informed the Deputy Prime Minister that it would make sense to provide for follow-up and evaluation on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, you know, the fight against social dumping is a priority for my group and I am therefore looking forward to this project coming on our table.

The philosophy that emerges from the text can be summarized in four axes. The first is intended in the first place to protect as best as possible the interests of a worker from a European Union country to Belgium. If a worker is in dispute with his former employer for breaches of the regulation on the dispatch, he may no longer suffer any damage from his new employer in the future.

The second axis also aims to better control the working conditions for the dispatched worker. Thus, the text takes a series of provisions that will allow to fight more effectively against counterfeit independent or even mailbox companies. Specifically, inspectors will have the possibility, during any field inspection, to require a series of documents from the linking person that will allow to determine whether the dispatch is carried out under conditions of fair competition or not.

The third axis also imposes a specific regime of solidary liability of the co-contractor in the construction sector.

Finally, the fourth axis implements the system of administrative penalties and fines applied at European level. It must be acknowledged, so far, the application of sanctions was difficult to establish. From now on, Belgium will be able to recover the amount of the sanctions and fines imposed. This is a good thing.

It is important to recall here that social partners have once again been consulted. In fact, the government has taken into account the opinions of the partners in the text, the various comments made and later we will come up with a specific text for transport.

As you know, dear colleagues, my political formation is very attached to the values of freedom, in particular of the movement of persons and services. We are in favor of deployment, but we are against deployment fraud. It is therefore crucial for us to do so in a fair competition framework. For me, this project represents a step in the right direction. This is a small step forward in the fight against social dumping, as it will guarantee better working conditions for dispatched workers and further combat human exploitation.

Nevertheless, as I have already formulated in the committee, the text could have gone further, in particular in the problem of Dutch temporary companies, which account for ⁇ 30% of the fraud in the deployment. In this regard, I have no doubt that we will be able to return to the subject later.

In addition, Mr. Minister, we should highlight three really positive aspects. First, you have committed to conducting an evaluation within one year. I am confident that during this evaluation we will be able to make the necessary adjustments.

Secondly, as I have already had the opportunity to tell you, the government has committed to carry out a specific tax shift for construction. These are several hundred million that are planned for this sector that has not benefited from the tax shift like other sectors. I do not doubt that this tax shift construction can actually be realized in the coming years.

Last but not least, we all know that Commissioner Thyssen has a draft Mobility Package Directive in her cartons. I dare hope that it will be able to obtain, at the European level, support from a whole series of countries that, unfortunately, see there negative sources. I have no doubt that Ms. Thyssen will succeed in this project which we support, of course.

For these reasons, the MR group will support the text that is proposed today. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. My intervention will therefore be quite concise.

Our group has submitted amendments in the committee, in my opinion very good amendments, which, unfortunately, have been rejected. Mr. Minister, I have read the explanation of Mr. De Coninck and your answer. However, I was not completely convinced by your answer. We are therefore submitting the amendments again.

Colleagues, other speakers have already said that the fight against tax and social fraud is extremely important. This issue is discussed in various committees. I really think that in many sectors it has become very difficult to survive as a bonafide entrepreneur. The water is often on these people’s lips. This is bad for our entire economic system. If a bonafide employer goes under, it has an impact on employment for the people who work there but also on our social security system as contributions to finance the system are lost. In fact, the whole society is losing. Therefore, the Sp.a is 100% opposed to these forms of fraud. Moreover, we see that malicious entrepreneurs exploit their employees in the most scandalous way. This is unusual and we see it in many sectors.

It is therefore good if the legislator tries to combat this through legislation. Of course, there must also be sufficient control to implement the legislation. This week we also had a discussion on the reform of the control services. We will not conduct that debate here; for us it is important that the reform eventually leads to results on the ground. Here we can adopt as many legislation as we want, on the ground it must also be applied and its application must be monitored.

Mr. Minister, returning to the current bill transposing the directive, my fundamental concern is that it is too minimalist. The European Directive gave Member States more opportunities to counter social dumping. We regret that this is not the case in this minimalist transformation. Paradoxically, you make maximum use of the minimum obligations set out in the Directive. I think, for example, of the notion of “precautionary measures.” By inserting those precautionary measures in contracts as a pure formality, I fear that one can too easily escape the general liability.

We have again submitted amendments, including on chain liability. You explained: one on one. We think it is better to look at the whole chain. For example, we consider that if the work performance cannot be proven as part-time performance, there must be a refutable presumption of full-time performance so that stakeholders can be compensated.

Finally, colleagues, we have submitted a series of amendments to complete the presence registration with a time registration.

Here is my comment on our amendments.

We had discussions in the committee. We will obviously not do everything again here but what I will keep in mind is that your transposition text clearly lacks three essential ingredients: ambition, clarity and efficiency. However, these three ingredients are all the more indispensable in a file like this.

I see you raise your eyebrows and I can’t help reminding you that a few seconds ago, a member of the majority did not say much differently at the tribune. My colleague Clarinval, with whom I agree except ⁇ with one word of his sentence, said that “you could have gone further.” I just say that you should have gone further.

First of all on the form – and this is important because, of course, it concerns the sector – it should be remembered that the implementing directive was to be transposed by 18 June. Five months of delay is not a banal thing. This is even more problematic as it is a matter where job losses are daily and significant and that this additional time has not been exploited to accomplish a complete and ambitious work. My belief, you would have come with ambition and something strong in the matter, the five months were forgiven! With such a minimalist version and with so much delay, I admit that it is quite incomprehensible.

For an employer who dispatches workers in Belgium, the legislation applicable to dispatched workers is already extremely complex today. Far from solving this problem, the present project aggravates it by adding a series of highly technical additional rules to the already nebulous cluster of existing regulation. It is a real lasagna. Layers and layers are added, such as, if only one should be cited, the cumulative legislation on solidarity liability. It is very difficult to find it!

It is not so much for foreign employers that I am concerned, Mr. Minister. Rather, I am aware – and I hope that you are also aware – of the Arblade judgment since the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that, I quote, “A Member State may only require an undertaking established in another Member State and temporarily performing work in the first State to pay its detained workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the collective agreement applicable in the first Member State, provided that the provisions in question are sufficiently precise and accessible to make it practically impossible or excessively difficult for such an employer to determine the obligations which it should comply with.”

If these conditions are not met, the foreign employer may invoke the lack of clarity. This will avoid compliance with the rules. This is what we should have avoided.

Since last week, we have new information. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Combating Social Fraud explained to us yesterday in a committee that the first fault in the SWOT analysis carried out as part of the reform of the social inspections concerned by dumping is the lack of a clear legal framework. He has, in some way, taught the policies that we are by pointing out the problematic complexity of legislation in this area. But, in the meantime, the government was trying to further complicate legislation through multiple and broken texts, rather than finally developing a law gathering the most of the provisions imposed on detained workers, which is a big deal.

I have drafted several amendments which aim to clarify the legislation and, in particular, the concept of minimum wage, to guarantee in a certain way the obligation to respect the Belgian working conditions, in particular, the sectoral schemes or even to go further in the fight against social dumping, after being inspired by the proposal to revise Mrs Thyssen’s “detailing” directive on certain points.

These amendments were rejected in bloc. I regret it and therefore resume it today. Your project has many shortcomings and missed opportunities. I will take four examples.

First, why has the opportunity not been taken to clarify the notion of “remuneration of the dispatched worker”? This shows, of course, a lack of clarity.

Secondly, why has it not been taken advantage of the opportunity to limit the duration of deployments? This reflects a clear lack of ambition.

Thirdly, why has the opportunity not been taken to immediately extend the system of solidary liability to other sectors? In fact, the text only covers the construction sector. This is a sign of lack of ambition.

Fourth, also with regard to solidary liability, what are the reasons that led to the provision that it covers only the benefits made from the expiry of a period of fourteen days following the notification by the Social Inspection? This makes it easy to bypass the rule. In addition, it removes the fear of the gendarme, if I can express myself that way. On the contrary, the directive enabled the immediate play of solidarity. You did not make that choice. You retreated by allowing this deadline which is likely to benefit also bad-faith entrepreneurs who would use it to put themselves in order in the interval. This is clearly a lack of efficiency.

As I announced, I submitted amendments to clarify the concept of “minimum wage for the dispatched worker”, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the proposal of Marianne Thyssen of 8 March.

Another amendment aims to remove this fourteen-day period that I just mentioned. The following provides trade unions with the possibility of appearing in court. In the current text, it is subject to the prior approval of workers. They have no interest or fear of retaliation. Therefore, I propose to amend the provision so that their absence of reaction can be equated to an agreement. I have checked since then: other countries have done the same: France, to take just one example.

All of these amendments were rejected in blocks due to lack of ambition or ⁇ simply by stubbornness. This is the small majority against opposition. But yes, Mr Minister. I tell you very clearly about this matter. Do you remember what Mr. Clarinval just said? No, maybe not. It was a small majority game against the opposition. There was a text, and so it was not necessary to think, not to ask questions, but to move forward and vote. And then, members of the majority come to say, at the tribune, that whatever it takes into account, it would have been frankly better to be much more ambitious.

This is obviously the tough law between the government and parliament. This reminds me of my colleague, Mr. Eric Van Rompuy, who, rightly speaking, recently spoke about how the government progressed on the budget and which it takes into account the parliament. I thought he was right. He was also quickly returned to his place by his party chairman in exchange for tweets.

Obviously, the same thing happened to this text. It is just the majority! And so we no longer ask ourselves questions: we vote, and the sooner it is done, the better it is! And even worse if within the texts, we have lacked efficiency, clarity, ambition – it will be for later!

It is always time to correct these flaws. I have submitted my amendments. It is not for the pleasure to point out flaws. But if you do not correct them, the employers who dispatch, especially those who are malintentioned, will never stop swallowing at the expense of our companies – because it is ⁇ unfair competition – and also at the expense of our workers, since jobs will be lost.

Without these corrections, we will not be able to agree on this text and we will abstain.

Finally, I would like to recall the recent remarks of the Union of the middle classes. More than 20,000 jobs have been lost in Belgium alone in the construction and transport sector due to social dumping.

The Union of the middle classes called on the Belgian state, you, Mr. Minister, to go much further and be much more efficient in this matter but it also reminded how too lax rules are responsible for the situation in which we are today.

You understand it well, we will abstain from this text, unless, suddenly, the majority has decided to ask a few questions. This text should have been much more ambitious and much more effective.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will begin by reminding what, for me, is obvious. This may not be the case for all colleagues. This obvious is the fact that the competition of workers is the very essence of the European market. It is therefore not surprising that this phenomenon of social dumping, which, unfortunately, increasingly affects the world of work, is growing. This is why it is important to have a good transposition of the European Directive in Belgium. But I regret that there is a lack of ambition – several colleagues have used these words – first of all at the level of European discussions on the directive. And then, we have been a step further in the lack of ambition at the time of transposing the directive in Belgium. It completely misses what, in my opinion, should be the goal, namely an equal salary for equal work.

The trade unions expressed their concern in particular with regard to the limitation of the solidarity liability mechanism: sectoral limitation as it is in the construction sector that the principle is applied and also limitation as regards the chain, the number of subcontracting levels. In fact, we limit ourselves to one or two levels without going beyond, while in practice we find that there are much larger subcontracting chains. This is the subject of two of our amendments.

A third amendment we are submitting aims to prevent abuses and bypasses. The competent authorities shall be aware of the relevant information on the dispatch, such as the number of persons concerned, the identity of the service providers, the expected start and end dates of the dispatch, before the dispatch and not at the time when it begins.

A fourth amendment concerns the system of solidary liability, which should be extended to all sectors, not just to the construction sector. In fact, abuses and bypasses also occur in other sectors such as meat and tourism.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we will also support this bill. It is the transposition of a directive at European level, it is the enforcement of Directive 96/71, which regulates the dispatches at European level, to which our legislation has already been adapted. The European framework is what it is.

We have seen in the past that some sectors have suffered from unfair competition, I think of the transport sector, for example. Today, the construction sector is also a sector that attracts the alarm bell very hard, to have criteria and rules to counter the misuse of European constructions and to stop that social dumping. We adopted a resolution on this subject last year, on 23 July 2015, in the House, to strengthen the fight against social dumping.

We really think that this bill, within the framework of what is European possible, provides a good balance in order to eventually organize these dispatches in a correct way. In the construction sector there is a chain responsibility for non-payment of wages.

Dear colleagues, the opposition is constantly saying that we could go even further. However, I think this is a wrong debate. For me, the success of that enforcement directive will largely depend on what a number of other EU Member States are doing.

However, my colleagues, let us be honest, the problems with the dispatches lie in the lack of cooperation with the inspection services of a number of Member States, which have been in the Union for a long time or for 10 to 15 years. Some services simply do not or do not communicate properly with our inspection services, making it almost impossible or difficult for our inspection services to properly check whether wages and social contributions have been paid.

That is actually the essence of the problem. I hope that there is a real solution to this in the European context. I also hope that the directive, which provides for sanctions and fines if one does not cooperate, will effectively become a reality, because that is really the big problem. If an inspection service here has to check the salary and he does not get the documents from the country of origin, then this is all paper and we are powerless. If nothing is done at the European level, I fear that it will undermine the support for the European construction.

So, together with the members of the opposition, I hope that progress will be made at the European level and that we can ensure that entrepreneurs and workers in our country who work in good faith are no longer disadvantaged by such structures.

However, within this Belgian framework, one must also be careful. If one goes too far in chain responsibility – with the construction sector there is now a first shot in the bow – one should pay attention to the fact that those who are in good faith and at the bottom of the chain have the opportunity to verify that something went wrong and that the rules were not properly observed.

In the present draft legislation, however, a balance is sought. If it turns out that we can go further and in the long run there would be a system that can properly verify whether wages are paid correctly anywhere in the chain and that a certificate can be provided, then that is another matter. Today, this does not exist, and there is a risk that, if it goes further – which some members advocate – also employers, subcontractors and main contractors who are in good faith will be punished. We do not want that. We want a fair balance.

There was also a whole discussion on the sanctions mechanism. Mrs. Fonck, I will not resume this debate. We have spent enough time on this. I will not do this for the benefit of the other members. However, I can confidently tell you – the minister has also well interpreted this in the committee by means of a legal note – that the non-payment of wages, for all clarity, remains a crime to which criminal sanctions are linked.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to express my appreciation for all the speeches, including those at the committee meeting, as we want to further address social dumping beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition. In this we are very ambitious. Every proposal, including from the opposition, is being examined. We have answered the amendments of Mr. Geerts and other colleagues very carefully, because we have valued every amendment and every speech.

I would like to emphasize that we must, of course, also address social dumping at European level. In this sense, I agree with what colleague Lachaert said. We must agree on directives and applications at European level between the different Member States and then we must also be able to rely on their correct application in the different Member States.

I would like to inform my colleagues that we fully support the adjustments proposed by Commissioner Marianne Thyssen on the Deployment Directive.

Mr. Daerden, you correctly recalled the very important principle: for equal work, equal pay. This is a primary principle.

The EPSCO Council will be held on 8 December and will be discussed again. We hope that we will be able to make progress as soon as possible on the proposals to adapt the Deployment Directive. In addition, I believe that the European Member States must correctly implement what has already been agreed at European level.

Some arguments here are a repeat of what has already been discussed in the committee.

I understood that Ms. Gerkens asked for explanations on the delay. I have already given them. Following a consultation of the social partners in the construction sector on the draft law, the National Labour Council was invited, in December 2015, to issue an opinion. This opinion was issued only on 4 May 2016. This explains the delay.

We have given the social partners all the time to respond to them.

Secondly, I would like to reiterate that the bill opts for the limitation of a new system of joint liability to the construction sector, as permitted by the Directive. This also provides the opportunity to conduct an evaluation. In the opinion of the National Labour Council, it was expressly stipulated that this scheme should be applied to the construction sector in order to extend its scope after an evaluation after one year. However, we must take care to ensure that existing liability schemes in other sectors are not thrown overboard too quickly. That is why we provide for a step-by-step introduction, starting with the construction sector.

There were also extensive discussions in the committee on the issue of temporary employment. Several members have referred to the problem of the Dutch Employment Offices. I would like to reiterate that those Dutch employment agencies fall within the scope of the rules relating to dispatch. They may dispatch workers to Belgium, provided that they carry out substantial activities in the Netherlands. Since the deployment activities of Dutch employment agencies are extensive, the inspection services will closely monitor that they do not commit deployment fraud. For the rest, it is of course important that the Netherlands also applies the legislation correctly. If this happens, we cannot take action at European level at the moment.

This is a repeat of the extensive discussion in the committee. I expect that with this completion of the Directive, we will absolutely do everything we can to take further steps as soon as possible, including at European level with regard to the Deployment Directive. After the review after a year, we will extend this scheme to other sectors. Efficiency on the ground and addressing social dumping on the ground should be the final result of all the legislative work we do here.

Therefore, I ask that this bill be approved so that we can realize it on the ground too.

Are there short replicas and bringing added value?

I just say, Mr. Speaker, that it would sometimes be necessary to deliver the same message to the government because the added value is not provided in the Regulation, even if it is interesting!