Proposition 54K2248

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 26 juillet 1996 relative à la promotion de l'emploi et à la sauvegarde préventive de la compétitivité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Jan. 4, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

competitiveness pay wage cost social dialogue wage determination employment policy employment aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Stefaan Van Hecke (Groen) 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 ¶

March 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Among the rapporteurs are Mr Vercamer, Ms Fonck and Ms de Coster.

Mr. Speaker, we agreed to return to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we have been discussing this bill in the committee for a long time. Today we approve the adjustment to the Act of 1996 regarding the wage standard. The law aims to safeguard our competitive position in relation to our main trading partners. In an open economy like ours, it is important to remain competitive. We all know that wage cost disability destroys many jobs.

This government has already taken a number of measures to improve our competitive position and to make work more attractive. The labour burden was reduced, both for employers and workers. The wage-cost disability that has been built since 1996 has been removed. The impact is very large, as the National Bank has calculated that around 41 000 jobs were created in 2015. In 2016, there were 59 000. The forecasts indicate that job growth may continue to increase in the coming years, if we maintain the policy. It is important that it is not about jobs in the public sector, but especially about new private jobs.

In the context of this bill, it is important that we guarantee that we do not allow the efforts made to be destroyed by the defective operation of the law of 1996.

The main adjustment to the 1996 law in the current bill is the introduction of a correction and sanction mechanism. Any erroneous forecasts on inflation or the evolution of wage costs in our neighboring countries can now be corrected. Those who do not comply with the 1996 law can also be better sanctioned in the future. In addition, we also stipulate in this draft law that the burden reductions that we have carried out during this governing period will not be canceled. Finally, we are building up a mechanism to eliminate the historic disability of wage costs from before 1996.

This bill is an insurance policy for our labour market. It supports job creation. We can be very proud of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created since 2015. With this draft law, we will ensure that around 100,000 jobs can be created in the coming years. Therefore, the N-VA group supports this bill for one hundred percent. We call on all parties in the hemisphere to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, before talking about the project itself, I think it is important to recall a few contextual elements. First, the wage gap, because this is what we are talking about in this bill and this bill reform of the law of 1996. The wage gap, accumulated since 1996, with our neighboring countries has been removed. This was stated in the discussion in the committee. It was resorbed last year, long before the end of the legislature, and in order to do so, your government used tough measures. There was a blockage of wages for two years and there was an index jump as well. It is important to remember this because it hurt people. The purchasing power of workers has been greatly reduced by these measures. And other measures could still be added, including those relating to excise duties and VAT, but this goes out of this context. This really hurt the people.

And who has benefited from this index jump and the blocking of wages? In fact, it is the employers who benefit the most. This is the first element of context.

A second element – we don’t talk about it often, we don’t talk about it unfortunately enough – is the productivity of our workers. The Belgian worker is one of the most productive in the world. However, we do not talk about it and do not include it in the reflection, while it is an important element of competitiveness and comparison with neighboring countries.

Third element, which was also recalled in the committee: the 1996 law pursues a precise goal, namely to preserve our competitiveness by ensuring that Belgian wages do not rise faster than those of our main trading partners, namely Germany, France and the Netherlands. When this law was passed, in 1996, it was said that this should not be done at any cost. There are two important guarantees. The first is the observance of the automatic indexation of wages, which is often attacked by your right-wing government; the second is the calculation of the wage gap, which was supposed to take place only from 1996. These two elements came from the negotiation and ensured the balance of the 1996 law. Everyone agreed not to go beyond. I see that this is being questioned and we will address this point.

As I said before, the wage gap with neighboring countries has been overcome. After these years of effort, it was expected that the government would allow workers to regain some purchasing power. But you decided to impose them on a new diet. With your project, you get out of your hat what you call the historical gap and you tell us that it is a modernization of the law. I think it is enough to call things by their names. This is not a modernization, but simply a request from the employer, which you copy and paste into your bill. The FEB has been asking for this for years. You, you will do it.

I would like to remind you that the FEB estimates this historical disadvantage at 10%. This has been confirmed several times in the committee. Therefore, the resorption would be equivalent to operating the equivalent of five index jumps, or a loss of several hundred euros per year for workers. This is, for us, completely unacceptable.

With regard to this historical gap, you have never wanted to answer clearly to my questions in commission. I asked you for your estimation of the historical difference. You returned the hot potatoes to the social partners. According to you, it will be defined by the social partners within the Central Council of Economy.

Then you told us that the FEB estimates it at 10%. You also said that the representatives of the workers estimate it at 0.1%. We already see the difficulties. How will they agree if some say 10% and others say almost zero? The range is large and it is a range whose impact on wages is enormous, I just mentioned it: the equivalent of five index leaps.

It seems to me quite logical to ask you how you will do if they do not agree. Have you ever thought about a methodology? Do you have an opinion on what is the reality of this historical gap? It is a so-called historical gap, which is also assessed in a global and linear manner, all sectors confused. And we know that there is a large disparity from one sector to another, it is also a weakness of this bill.

We know that if the social partners do not agree, it will be the government that will have to decide. I have the opportunity to restore my question. If the government actually has to be brought to a decision, can you tell us what your estimate of historical disability is? Can you at least tell us a more accurate range than from zero to ten? Is it from zero to five, from three to six, from two to four? What methodology will you follow?

As the Minister of Employment and Economy, you should give us an indication of the direction the government will take because it will have a too big impact on the salary of our workers. It is therefore important that you clarify this element.

In my opinion, there will be no answer, which is not surprising at all. And anyway, if there was an answer, we don’t know how long it would last. I recall, however, that a few months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister had said that there was no longer a differential and that what existed before 1996 was no longer taken into account.

I suppose that in the meantime, he returned to the government where he was told, “Now, you are accounting for before 1996.” And Mr. Peeters came to us and said, “Ah, it’s true that I had said it was over. So it ⁇ ’t be surprising that even if he tells you that it’s 1 or 2 percent, he comes back, after a little walk around the government, to say, “My colleagues are no longer in agreement with me.”

This is exactly what we see with Mrs. De Block. She says something here; she returns to the government and then she must come to say the opposite, because there has been a political discussion.

I think, unfortunately, you should not have too much hope, Mr. Daerden.

It is the N-VA that makes the law!

Thank you for this intervention that allows me to reflect on another element that I was going to address: the indexation of wages and the baremic increases.

Again, we have a promise. This promise is: “We shall not touch it; it is provided by the law.”

The [...]

Mr. Daerden, please continue. Do not let yourself be influenced.

Thank you, Mr. President, for putting me back on the rails.

This is obviously a fundamental theme, which is provided in the law. I had the opportunity to question you on this subject in a committee, Mr. Minister, both in the first and second reading of the text, asking you if you can guarantee us that, indeed, we will not touch these two fundamental elements. You obviously said “yes”. But attention, the law provides that if the wage gap, which would have been created despite the law, is not resolved within two years, the government will be able to take measures.

This is what is planned. These measures cannot come from nowhere. It is especially on these topics that you could be brought to work and therefore to sanction, again, the workers.

You may be in good faith when you say that you will no longer touch the index. But I have the same fears as my group leader, because you are sometimes forced to give in to your government partners. At this level too, the legislative gap is therefore open for new index leaps in the future. That is why, with my colleague, Ahmed Laaouej, I launched a petition to put the automatic indexation of wages in the Constitution. I wanted to recall it here. I invite you to sign it.

Mr. Minister, I am afraid that the final outcome of this bill will not again weigh all the efforts on the workers. As it succeeds to remove the wage gap, the government changes the rules of the game and fundamentally challenges the original balance of the law by planning to remove the historical gap as well.

The bill also stipulates that reductions in employer social contributions will no longer lead to wage increases in the future. So, we will act as if these gifts to employers had never been granted. It must be said that the tax shift will not increase the purchasing power of workers and will benefit only the employers, which is totally unacceptable.

Competitiveness at all costs is not desirable and even less if it is done at the expense of the salary level of our workers. Even the European Commission and the ILO say we need to revaluate wages in our economy if we want to hope for a recovery.

Mr. Minister, there would still be a lot to say about this project which we have had the opportunity to discuss long in committee, given its importance and the impact it will have on the salary of workers.

Mr. Minister, you have understood it, we cannot support your project that hits the purchasing power, the salary that determines the living conditions, the quality of life, the housing, the type of goods, services or leisure we can offer ourselves, the security of existence of our citizens.

I am surprised by two points in your speech. During the Di Rupo government, in which we were together, why did we limit the increase in wages to 0% for two years? It is very clear: there was a wage disability with regard to foreigners, our close neighbors, here in Europe.

You talk about gifts to bosses, at the level of social contributions. It was under the Di Rupo government that we had already decided to reduce social contributions, by three tranches a year, for more than one billion euros. Would you be mistaken three years ago? Have you changed your mind? I do not understand.

Thank you for these two questions. I said it in the introduction: the gap is absorbed, the mission is fulfilled. Compared to the issue of gifts to bosses and the reduction of contributions, the problem is that your bill does not take them into account in the calculation of the margin.

Your party had demanded a jump of index to cor and cry under the previous legislature. We had refused it. We said clearly, "No!" There is a fundamental difference between an index jump and a non-wage increase. Indeed, this non-increase still allows indexation and baremic changes.

It is the same result...

This is not the same result or then you do not understand the mechanics of the index jump! An index jump is the pointing of money to the workers. They have a right to change and they do not take advantage of it. This is a wage theft. The non-increase within the framework of an interprofessional agreement, is to give the due, that is, indexation and baremic developments, but not temporarily go further within the framework of a work of comparing wages with our partner countries.

Therefore, it is fundamentally different: on one side there is a flight, on the other not.

Mr. Daerden, did you finish?

No, Mr the President.

The Minister wants to intervene.

I remind anyone who wants to hear that, in order to take the word, one must ask me to hear it. You asked for it, you have it. This is the least of things.

The index jump has already been much discussed when it was decided.

I spent a total of 40 hours in the committee together with a lot of colleagues to answer all the questions there. I understand the views of both, but I want to continue this debate now with numbers.

In 2008, the wage cost disability was 4.8%, the largest wage cost disability since 1996. It is true that the previous government worked on this: 4.4% in 2009, 4.2% in 2010, 4.2% in 2011 and 3.9% in 2012. In 2014, the wage cost disadvantage was still 3%. It has been a significant effort, from 4.8 percent to 3 percent during the previous reign.

The current government has reduced the wage cost disadvantage from 3 to 0%. At the beginning of this government, there was still a wage cost disadvantage of about 3%. That gap is now poetry.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, so that we don’t pretend: “A small effort has been made before and we are making a big effort.” And some of the other partner countries obviously liberated wages much more, which helped to reduce wage disability in particular. I am talking about Germany and the Netherlands.

I would like to conclude my speech.

As I said before this exchange, we cannot accept this project which constitutes a backbone for the workers of this country. We have again submitted amendments because we are convinced of the negative effects of this text, which can be improved. We have submitted them in first reading, in second reading, and we are presenting here some fundamental amendments, in particular aimed at removing references to the taking into account of the historical gap which we find totally unfair. Taking into account all wage subsidies is fundamental in terms of social justice.

Amendments also aim to prevent additional measures taken by the government, which could go up to new index leaps.

As I said earlier, there is so much diversity in terms of wage gap from one sector to another compared to our neighboring countries that a linear vision and mandatory application in sectors of the margin that is determined at sectoral level are not suitable and are not economically adapted. An amendment aims to allow sectors to integrate their salary specifics.

There must also be a real place for consultation. I did not develop it in my intervention but undoubtedly, with this reform, with this pseudo-modernization, it is once again a retreat for social concertation.

Finally, through amendments, we want to provide practical rules in order to extend moderation to other incomes. This is theoretically envisaged in the law. These amendments would make its relevance and character balanced with the 1996 Act.

I thank you for your attention.

Madame de Coster-Bauchau, you have the word. I ask you all to respect the speakers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Daerden, you will not be surprised that before I talk about the reform, I would like to mention some small factual details. I would like to remind you that in October 2012, the government of which you were a member had mandated the Central Council of Economy to establish the level of wage disability that our country had accumulated in relation to neighboring countries. The report that he published at the end of the same year estimated that a wage disadvantage had been observed since the entry into force of the law of 1996, which, however, was intended to safeguard the competitiveness of our companies.

Concrete, this means that the average hourly cost of a worker in Belgium was 39.6 euros in 2010, while the weighted average of the three neighboring countries was 34 euros. Therefore, the government of the time, as you recalled, took several steps. This means that you were well aware that there was a problem. Therefore, you have taken measures to avoid packaging of wages.

A small reminder of our disabilities.

The [...]

Can I continue?

Respect the speaker or ask for the word if you want it.

Thank you Mr. President.

Our wage disability in 2013 was 4.1%, according to the National Bank of Belgium and the Central Council of Economy.

For the measures taken by the Di Rupo government, I point out, in addition, that it had taken the revision of the housewife’s basket in January 2014. You don’t call this an index jump, but it’s still almost the same thing! In addition, the evolution of the wage margin was reduced to zero. Let me return to these points later.

At the end of 2014, the hourly wage was established at 39 euros in Belgium against 31.4 euros for Germany, 33.9 euros for the Netherlands and 36.2 euros for Luxembourg. The difference with our neighbors is too high. The Michel government has therefore decided to put everything on the competitiveness of our companies to re-boost our economy and thus support our jobs and then ensure the sustainability of our social security system.

We have the impression that the speaker calls us by saying, “But, finally, you had acted.” We are not irresponsible.

Madam, when you quote these numbers, you must also say that they were not admitted by everyone. This depends on whether or not salary subsidies are taken into account. In this matter, there were differences between us, which you have just settled in a way ⁇ unfavorable to employees. There is indeed the differential that you cite in the report of the Central Council of Economy. But be aware that these were disputed figures, because they were fixed according to the subsidies granted or not in salary subsidies and what the government recognizes or does not recognize as such.

These are numbers that must be manipulated with caution.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I would like to hear you, but I rely on figures that are not from a personal elucubration but which are cited by the Central Council of Economy. You mentioned this too.

I simply say that when one quotes the Central Council of Economy, it must be quoted in its entirety, especially when it evokes the difficulty of establishing a wage disability. He has established it since 1996, but you, you also refer to the period before 1996. However, the Council established it with pinsets by saying that "it depends on what one takes or does not take in wage subsidies." For the rest, one has always relied on the work of the Central Council of Economy.

I thank you, Madame. I said that the government has a real willingness to absorb the cost of employment, which it has made its battle horse. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had to make choices that have not always been easy. We had to do a single index jump. We also allowed an increase in the salary margin of about 0.8% over this period 2015-2016. You will tell me that it’s little, but it’s always better than zero! With the tax shift, we also helped to significantly reduce the burden on employment: I think of the reductions in contributions and the zero contribution measure for the first job.

No, these are not gifts to bosses! I rebel against this kind of theory.

I would like to remind you that if there were no employers, there would be no jobs. Is this simple enough?

I can’t subscribe to what you understood: that all bosses would be venacious...(Brouhaha) Let me finish! That all the bosses would just be there to put money in their pockets. No, no and no!

Mr. Speaker, to support what Ms. de Coster says, and to refute the words of the PS, which always wants to charge the employers, I would like to say that the boss is generally much closer to his staff than the elected members of the PS are from the working world.

I ask that we do not resume a general debate and that we remain focused on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that as a daughter of workers, I want to intervene following these rude statements, let me tell you! At no time do we consider the employer as a potential operator. I don’t know if other parties do, but we don’t.

We know well that we need people who invest, who take risks, who dare; like them, they need workers, and if possible, skilled workers, workers who “bullot”, workers who are respected, who are trained and who are properly paid. That is what we say. And Madame, what’s unbearable is that you say to the tribune, “I’m tired of you looking at employers like this.”

In addition, we voted for the reduction of social contributions, especially for self-employed people. We are in the opposition, but we voted for them, because we think they are good measures. You should not say anything! Simply, if we prefer, like the Plan Bureau, the Central Council of Economy, the National Bank, to always grant these reliefs of charges, we must condition them as much as possible to employment, that is to say to the increase of the employment rate – which you do as little as possible.

The impact on social security should also be considered. Indeed, we will face a big problem, as you reduce social contributions without providing alternative financing of social security. And Mrs. De Block will come back here to tell us that there are not enough recipes and that there are still shadow cuts in social security and health care. This is what we reproach!

I would like to repeat my speech.

Of course, all this has already yielded its fruits, dear colleagues. In fact, what has been observed? Our wage disability has gradually decreased. As the Minister said, it grew from 2.9% in 2014, to 1.5% in 2015 and to -0.3% in 2016. Our companies are competitive again.

From there, other findings can be made. Unemployment has never been so low in 25 years (8.6%). The creation of enterprises has not seen better performance in 10 years. The number of bankruptcies has also decreased. The employment rate is still too far from the objectives set by Belgium. But you know like me that other elements come into account.

What matters, dear colleagues, is the 105,000 jobs that were created during the period 2015-2016, as the ICN demonstrated on 16 December. So, 105,000 people who were ⁇ unemployed finally found a job. Their purchasing power has improved significantly.

Employment is the big winner of any form of support for the competitiveness of our companies.

After implementing a series of reforms, the government therefore decided to reform the labour market from three angles. And the bill that is presented to you today is one of these three pillars.

I have heard some ask the question of the need to reform if the disability is removed. Today, the disability is effectively removed, but the competitiveness backup date is more than 20 years old. Furthermore, its existence has not prevented a certain disappearance, over the years. So the Minister, together with the Government, felt it was time to reconsider it.

I also recall that this is a recommendation from the European Commission, so that our wages continue to evolve in parallel with productivity. The 1996 Law Reform, as presented to us, changes the formula used in the context of wage negotiation. It has already been used and from now on we will use other economic indicators to fulfill our forecasts than those of the OECD. A security margin or buffer is set in the order of 25%. If a competitiveness bonus is observed, half will be transferred and returned to the resorption of the historical disability and the other half will be returned to the worker as part of the assessment of the wage margin. And if, on the contrary, a wage disability is found again, new measures will be taken to resolve it.

Madam, do you commit, on this tribune, on behalf of the MR, to no longer make an index jump by the end of the legislature? Can you take this commitment formally before Parliament?

It is me that you are asking for this!

You are in the room, Madame.

You are in government. of your party.

I am not in the government.

Your party is in government.

Yes, but I am not in the government.

Since you speak the MR group on the 1996 law reform file, do you take, yes or no, the formal commitment not to make an index jump by the end of the legislature? This is a very simple question.

The question is asked; it is clear. You have the word.

Yes of course! Are you happy? I only answered one word: Yes! Ok to OK?

The answer is provided. Keep going, please. Calm, on the banks of the group MR!

This new form of calculation must effectively enable the Central Council of Economy to fix a range of wage evolution as realistic as possible and it will be that range that will be used by the actors of the social consultation to fix this wage margin by mutual agreement for the following period.

This new formula has already worked well. Social partners have been able to work on this model in recent weeks. The range was between 0.9% and 1.2%. The agreement stipulated a salary margin of 1.1 percent over the next two years.

Social partners have reached agreement on a common objective. We had not seen and known such a consensus in Belgium for more than ten years. The consultation always has its place in Belgium. We are sensitive to this and we find it important to respect it.

To conclude, the 1996 law, under its new mould, will guarantee this role of social concertation, will protect the purchasing power of workers, will ensure the prosperity and revaluation of the wages of our workers, will maintain and strengthen the competitiveness of our companies, and of course will support employment. Without challenging the principle of automatic indexation of wages, we found a balance through this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today in this half of the year we will hopefully approve the new salary norm law, the amendment of the 1996 law. The previous law was the reference for wage formation in this country for twenty years.

Also this law will apparently remain controversial, if I hear it this way, like the previous one. Meanwhile, there has already grown a consensus that a balance between wage evolution and the competitiveness of companies is essential for our economy and for employment, job creation.

The main news is that the adoption of this law in the facts, on the ground, has already taken place informally. On February 2 of this year, all employer organisations and all trade unions concluded an inter-professional agreement for this year and for next year.

That, my colleagues, goes beyond the debate we are holding here today. The social partners, and we are now talking about both the most leftist trade union and all employer organizations, in the Group of Ten, even before the actual entry into force of the law, managed to conclude an agreement with each other on the basis of these texts. This shows that this law provides a good framework for reaching agreements.

In any case, it is a positive signal that the social consultation has gained a new dynamic. It has once been different.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the trade unions and employers once again. However, it requires some courage to conclude an agreement without a legislative text, based on the agreements contained in this salary law.

In this IPA, some other important matters related directly or indirectly to people’s income have been agreed, such as the distribution of the wealth envelope for the lowest benefits. But I will not extend on this today.

The most direct effect of this amended law on wage norms will be felt primarily in the wage margin for the years 2017 and 2018. Wages could rise by 4% due to the wage margin and inflation combined. Furthermore, this will be possible without compromising the competitiveness of our companies.

The second pillar of this law is the preservation of competitiveness. This is also important, because competitive companies, whether you like to hear it or not, provide job creation. The engine is fully turned on. Colleague Jan Spooren has already referred to this with a number of figures.

I would like to refer to the Planning Bureau, which forecasts 230 000 jobs for the period 2016-2021.

Each new job also means additional purchasing power for each family. Thus, it is about strengthening the purchasing power and strengthening the competitive position of our companies.

A third element of the law is that of the cautious housefather. In order to further monitor the disability of wage costs, so that the efforts requested by the people do not go wasted, a safety margin is built. We could discuss whether it is necessary to go back more than twenty years, to before 1996, for this purpose. It can also be discussed about the size and what all should be charged. In any case, this law provides a framework for social partners to discuss this with each other and to make the right decisions in certain situations.

Not only does the law provide for that caution. If the competitiveness remains within the predicted safe margins and if it is not necessary to use the provisions for this purpose, then they flow back to the families as additional purchasing power.

The current draft law thus provides a good framework to maintain the balance between strengthening purchasing power and strengthening our companies. This stimulates job creation and strengthens people’s purchasing power. Buying power, as we all know, is also important for stimulating the economy.

Another element that I would like to emphasize on behalf of our group is that the automatic indexation of wages is absolutely not affected, which guarantees the prosperity of the workers’ income, also for the future.

I would like to point out some other measures, in addition to this law on wage norms, which together with that law form a coherent whole to strengthen both purchasing power and job creation. The tax shift reduces labour costs and, together with the Wage Norm Act, strengthens job creation. Idem dito for purchasing power, where various measures, such as the increase of the occupational salary, cause the net wages, and especially the lower wages, to rise.

I end my speech with what I started. The balance that can be built within the framework of the new wage norm law has already been found for the first time by the Group of Ten. Additional purchasing power for employees, growth is not hindered and our companies are strengthened. In fact, the social partners have already adhered to the context of that new wage law. However, loyalty, commitment and good deals cannot come from one side. The government has therefore made the only good decision to take over the commitments of the Group of Ten in its entirety and thus immediately implement its own law on wage norms. On the ground, people are really waiting with impatience to start the urgent concrete wage negotiations.

It is time for us to pass this law. In any case, you have our support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will try not to fall too much into repetition because the colleagues from the majority brought about unisono the same message. We have already had a rather animated debate on the French-speaking side.

Everyone knows the history of this law. We were in 2008 with a wage cost disability in our country of 4.8%, built up since 1996. As the Minister has just explained, under the previous government, we have taken a number of difficult measures with the parties that then made up the majority, including with the colleagues on the socialist side, to reduce this disadvantage in wage costs. That was the basic calculation of the CRB at the time, where we obliged the social partners – with any social protest resulting – to allow for two years and even a longer period no or only very limited wage increases within the framework of interprofessional agreements. The only reason for this was the same as the reason for this law here today, namely the depreciation of our wage costs compared to our main trading partners.

These measures were sometimes painful, I think of the index jump. You know that, that was indeed not obvious to defend. Unfortunately, these were necessary measures to reduce this wage cost disadvantage. We are indeed here today. The wage disability since 1996 has been effectively eliminated. We have taken care of this together. We still have a historical disability. The calculation of this is discussed between employer and employee organisations. However, the disability since 1996 has already disappeared, and that is good. That is a good result.

Now it is actually two things to accomplish. First, we must not fall into that situation again. Colleague Vercamer explained this too. In this law, the precautionary principle was incorporated to ensure that that defecation does not occur again. Secondly, we still need to make some effort to address the historical wage cost disability that already existed before.

That such a policy will bear fruit, there is no doubt about it. According to the National Bank figures, employment increased by almost one hundred thousand units. This is a fantastic result, Mr. Minister of Labour, with ⁇ 100,000 jobs. In the next three years, another 120 000 additional jobs are expected. Colleagues from the opposition, you have been fulminating about the difficult and courageous measures that have been taken, but the result is nevertheless that two hundred thousand people will have jobs that they did not have before, or that they would not have had without unchanged policy, Ms. Temmerman.

Unfortunately for you, that is the result of the policy. The numbers are the numbers.

Job growth is good. To do this, we must ensure that we remain competitive, even if not with China. I heard Mr. Gilkinet in the committee, by the way, re-explaining what should ultimately be the final result, in order to compete with China.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the matter. It is about staying within an acceptable margin against the Netherlands, Germany, France and the countries around us, which are the countries with which we directly compete. When a foreign investor has to choose whether to place his business in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or France, we prefer not to be in a situation with a disability of 5%, which makes no one come here.

The current government has succeeded. The present draft legislation also confirms this in a good way.

The draft law stipulates that in the future we will incorporate a kind of precautionary margin, which over time, after two years, can be returned to the social partners, who can then decide to continue to use half of that margin. This precautionary margin is there as a precaution to not end up with a disability again. In this prudent and coherent way, we will manage to keep our wage costs under control and provide jobs.

Colleagues, if we want social security, we must have those jobs, in order to collect income. Ms. Onkelinx, only then and not vice versa can social security be financed.

Therefore, this is a fair solution, which can be defended by our group. Mr Vercamer has already indicated that part of the debate has also been absorbed by the social partners. At the beginning of February 2017, an interprofessional agreement was concluded based on these principles.

I remember that a few months before, a number of social partners were very critical and believed that the new law would not include the possibility of wage increases, which ultimately did not appear to be the case based on the CRB’s calculations. We can expect a significant increase in the wage margin in the coming years, which is good for purchasing power, for social security and for the public finances.

Thus, despite the more cautious legal framework for future wage increases, we see wages rise in our country in the next two years.

The present bill deserves all support on behalf of our group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, that an appropriate policy should be carried out on the basis of the evaluation of wage costs in the neighbouring countries and that it is necessary to properly monitor the evolution of wage costs in order to prevent their displacement, with this we agree. If we find that the wage-cost disadvantage in the three neighboring countries has now been completely eliminated, it is also due to the fact that both the social partners and the successive governments have carried out a conscious wage-cost policy. But let us not forget, dear colleagues, that this is also partly due to the fact that in Germany one has finally awakened, that one has realized that the mini-jobs are unfair and unfair and that the minimum wage has been introduced.

However, I would like to point out that since the introduction of the Conventional Wages Act 1996 the margin agreed by the social partners in sectoral wage agreements has always been respected. For those who do not believe it, I would like to refer, as the colleagues have all cited before me, to the technical reports of the Central Council for Business. If there were already deflation, it was always due to a wrong estimate of the expected inflation or of the expected evolution in the neighboring countries. A law that allows shorter play on the ball and timely corrections could ⁇ get our support, ⁇ if that were to avoid a drastic intervention such as an index jump, as the government has implemented.

However, what is on the table today is in many ways a means to simply make serious wage increases impossible over the longer term. The main objection we have about this is that the Law on Wage Norms not only looks more at the evolution of wage costs since 1996, but that there is now also a historical wage cost disability. Additional RSZ reductions under the tax shift shall not be counted and at least 50 % of future RSZ reductions shall be neutralized. Also the direct wage-cost subsidies, as the previous colleagues have said, are not taken into account for the evolution of wage-cost, which in our view still gives a distorted picture of wage-cost disability.

Furthermore, at least half of the potential negative wage cost disadvantage in relation to neighboring countries since 1996 will also be removed immediately, in order to contribute to removing that so-called historical wage cost disadvantage.

Mr. Minister, you suddenly took creative account of a historical wage cost disability, but you did not have the courage to determine how large it would be. This is the task of the social partners. They just have to get out of it.

In the committee hearings, the employers immediately stated that the disability is at least 10%, while the technical file of the Central Council for Business of early 2016 shows that already in 2014 the difference in the level of wage costs with the three neighboring countries is null, if also taking into account the differences in production.

In addition, the wage margin will now become strictly binding, even if the social partners have reached an agreement. This will remove any bargaining space in the sector and one can only negotiate to go below the margin. However, the social partners for conventional wages in the past have always taken the margins into account.

I am also seriously concerned about the passage in the draft law that if all the corrective factors now introduced are not sufficient to remove the wage cost disadvantage since 1996 within an IPA period, the government cannot but will take additional measures.

This will open the way for a new index jump, Mr. Minister. Our country remains an absolute leader in terms of inflation. This inflation is due to the measures of the government. Inflation again creates a wage disability, for which the previous speakers have already warned.

During the committee, we have extensive quotations from the washlist of national and international reports and reports, all of which indicate that the driving force behind high inflation are the government measures, which collect the costs for the households, and that inflation only partially derives from indexation.

Instead of remedying the true cause, now open the door for a new index jump.

Mrs. de Coster-Bauchau, you have stated that for the MR a new index jump is no longer applicable with this government. You said in your election promise that you would not increase the retirement age anymore. The retirement age has been raised. Even today there was a debate about the equal period for landing tracks. One would not get there. That promise was also not worth much. So don’t blame me that the promise you make here that there will be no new index jump is insufficient for us.

The bill puts us partly openly, but also partly through secret backdoors, on the path of a sobriety policy, a sobriety policy for who should live from a salary for which one works, while the recipients of dividends are not asked to make a proportionate effort to invest part of their high profits in innovation and training. However, these factors are equally important when it comes to the competitive position of our companies compared to other countries.

Finally, in this context, there are two things to be taken from my heart. First, we all agree that wage costs should be kept under control. This must then be done first and foremost by reducing the burden of labour and not by reducing the wages themselves.

After the index jump, this is the second time the government is addressing the salaries of the workers themselves. Even now, it is the ordinary people who have to pay.

Second, today is again a typical day for the government, a day of injustice. On the same day that people’s wages are reduced, the value-added tax is again pushed on the long track.

The big assets can be reassured, while the workers who work hard for their salary are worried. Therefore, our group will vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to quote a few points from our reading of this bill.

First, to be honest, this draft of a text replaces an earlier legislation that may not have been perfect and ⁇ improved, but has achieved its purpose. The law of 1996 can be explained in five minutes at a café to someone who is interested: the wages in our country must not increase in the next two years more than we expect on average in our neighboring countries, and that is to maintain the competitive position of our companies and thus get more people to work.

As the bill looks like now, I don’t get it explained at all in a cafe or in other forums. To be honest, this is contrary to the principle of hygiene at the legislative level. A law must eventually be understood by the citizens. The present text does exactly the opposite. He replaces a clear law with a not very well understood, let alone explainable law text.

Through the application of the 1996 law, the social partners have so far been able to prevent wage displacement compared to neighbouring countries. Even the government’s predetermined goal, namely the reduction of wage disability, was achieved. According to the National Bank report, our wages have risen less rapidly than in neighboring countries. The wage disability should even be completely eliminated by the tax shift. I believe that the law has worked so far and it still works.

The compensation of historical wage costs is actually a false argument. Ms. Kitir has just pointed out that our higher productivity also justifies higher wages. The positive gap in productivity of the Belgian industry actually completely eliminates the gap in wage costs with neighboring countries. We can improve the law, but the question is why we should make it worse.

Much more important – which is the core of my argument – is that not so much the development of wages has been problematic in recent years, but rather the relationship between the development of wages and – very importantly – the integration of people into the labour market. However, that relationship is precisely the reason for this law, if I have understood it correctly. It is explained that it is intended to increase the level of effectiveness by controlling the development of wages. However, in the last twenty years – we have examined it once – there has hardly been a relationship between these two indicators, between the development of wages and more or less people on the labour market.

In graphics, this can be seen very well. You see very strange things happening there. What one can see, for example, is that the share of workers even the strongest increase in the period of the greatest wage discharge. So until now, in the last twenty years, there has not been really proven that there is a relationship between the two. In fact, the lesson should then be to focus more on integrating as many people as possible into the labour market, rather than on the mere effort to keep the wages in check. They actually do the opposite here. The wages are kept tighter in the course and there is no attention to a greater guarantee that wage cost reductions will be converted into additional hiring in companies.

Thus, with the amendment of the wage measurement law of 1996, you do not actually do what you ambition with the present draft. The legislation begins – very correctly – with the statement that it is the ambition to increase employment in our country in order to give all inhabitants the opportunity to develop. The policies outlined here will strengthen the competitiveness of the companies, but do not provide any guarantee that we will finally get more people to work again.

The main purpose of the law is to promote employment. In particular, the government has the ambition – which is a very legitimate ambition – to reach the effectiveness rate of 73.2 % by the end of the legislature. On that point, you still have a lot of work to do. We note that the proportion of working people in our country is actually still at the same level as at the time of the Michel government. If we compare with other EU countries, we were 2 percentage points behind the 28 EU countries at the start of Michel I, now we are even 4 percentage points behind in terms of effectiveness. So we have gone somewhat backwards. This is because all other European countries appear to be able to get more people to work. It is often not said, but in Belgium it does not succeed in proportional terms. In fact, no other country in Europe is doing worse. Only in the small Grand Duchy of Luxembourg decreased the level of effectiveness in the same period. In other countries there was a clear increase in the proportion of working people. Belgium even slides down to the tail of the European peloton. When the current government came into operation, we were on that level in the European ranking on the eighteenth place of the twenty-eight, while we are now on the twenty-fourth place of the twenty-eight. We cannot but conclude that other countries apparently have better recipes than this government to get more people to work, while more people at work is nevertheless the consideration, so at least I understand the ambition in the memory of explanation of this law.

A third point has already been cited by several other colleagues. The non-invoicing of wage subsidies in the calculation of the wage rate is equivalent to the artificial explosion of wage costs in Belgium. The summary has already been made. By not taking into account the reduction of social contributions from 2016 to 2020 through the tax shift, €3.2 billion is not taken into account. Add the target group discount and the total amount is 3.7 billion euros, which is not taken into account. This includes 5.2 billion euros of wage subsidies in 2015 and 360 million euros of wage subsidies for night work and team work. The wage costs are thus artificially blown up with a total of 9.2 billion euros, without taking into account the deficit that will result in the social security.

The result is the transition to a race-to-the-bottom policy on wage costs. We are now talking about an ambition to remove the historical wage cost disability, but no longer to remove the disability that has been built since 1996, while that was still the spirit of the 1996 law.

However, other choices can be made. The policy can be chosen to pick up innovative activities, which are often activities carried out by staff who usually have higher than average wage costs. Sometimes, for such a policy, you have to pay a little more than average, which means that the average wage costs will also be a little higher. In terms of future orientation and sustainability, however, this is a responsible and even good choice.

You can also make a different choice and aim for lower wage costs at whatever cost. By generating more jobs at the bottom of the labour market, where wage costs are lower, you will indeed also bring down the average wage cost. However, these jobs are not necessarily the most future-oriented.

A focus on ever lower wage costs than the neighboring countries could therefore sometimes have a perverse effect and could create an economy in which we primarily create low-wage jobs and no longer invest in innovation and sustainability. It is just what has made our country a success so far.

Suppose that in the coming years, with all the index leaps and wage cost reductions of this government, we build a wage cost bonus and thus become cheaper than the neighboring countries, then we will not invest that bonus in better and more innovative personnel, because half of that bonus must be reinvested to further moderate wages.

In other words, you have made a structural choice with this law to pay less and less than neighboring countries. In this way, it is intended to ensure that companies can attract cheaper personnel than in neighboring countries, but it is forgotten that by doing so we deny our own innovative people a wage deposit and even risk being pushed to competing companies across the border.

We may be cheaper, but also less innovative. In addition, you are cutting people’s purchasing power, continuing to shrink demand for products and the economy. In the long run, this could be a catastrophe for our competitive position.

At first, I wanted to intervene as little as possible and listen as closely as possible.

Mrs Willaert, if I hear you so busy, I hope you have a lot of understanding and care for the low-skilled. I understand innovative companies and employees who are in a higher margin in terms of wage costs, but I would like to ask you to also pay a lot of attention to the brush women and others and to keep an eye on the low wages with which those people start.

You have been advocating for innovative companies and employees for five minutes now and I have no problem with this, but I hope that Green and you have a lot of care for the low-skilled. They are important and they are the first victims when the wage costs in Belgium are too high.

I am pleased that you begin, Mr. Minister, because it gives me the opportunity to emphasize again that we ourselves, at this plenary session at the end of 2015, have submitted an amendment to ensure that the reductions of wage costs that this government has decided can be much more targeted for the lowest wages, precisely from the concern for the people with low wages. In the calculation in our proposal, we could create much more jobs with the tax money that we now eventually do not get through the tax shift than this government does now.

In terms of tax shift, we also emphasized the highest reduction of employer contributions in the low wages. We may not go as far as Greens, but there is a very important aspect of the wage costs for the low wages, because the employer contributions have dropped stronger there. Now we are moving them to the other salaries. Here too, we took very much attention to the concerns that the Greens had at the time.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, but of course you chose first to give it linearly to everyone and then to do something extra for the lower wages. We have reasoned that certain groups may need it a little less and that we could just do much more for the lower wages. That is indeed a difference.

This is not a federal matter, Mrs. You know that, right? Target group policy is a competence of the regions. Therefore, at the federal level, we must ensure that it happens linearly, otherwise we are in the watershed of the regions.

The proposal we put on the table also contained a valuable choice that with the tax money of all of us would have created much more jobs than so far.

I will recapitulate.

That is, that is our opinion, that the tax shift can serve for everything, except for an increase in wages. The tax shift may serve to increase the dividends of the shareholders or to create jobs, but that is in the most positive hypothesis, since the reduction of contributions was not accompanied by the obligation to create employment, which we push forward. The tax shift cannot serve to raise wages. With each new decision on the reduction of employer contributions, at least half will serve to close the historical wage disability. Again, not for raising wages.

I come to my fourth point.

This bill narrows competitiveness in our eyes too much to a question of wage costs. You know that this does not need. Competitiveness is not limited to wage costs. The competitiveness of the Belgian is measured by innovation, the use of raw materials, energy consumption, the cost of energy, material aging, public investments. Wages are a part of the composition of direct production costs. Competitiveness is not a matter of direct costs.

The direct costs include energy costs, production, transportation, distribution, taxes, capital costs, interest rates, aid mechanisms, land and equipment, and corporate tax. Other determinants are also specific to the company and to the products: economics of scale, motivation of HR, the quality of public service, the cultural dimension, entrepreneurship, trust.

But you choose here for a very narrow focus on wage costs.

I apologize, Mrs Willaert. You have also read Article 5, § 3. That is obvious.

It states explicitly, and I quote: “The Central Council for Business also publishes the report on the structural aspects of competitiveness and employment, in particular the sectoral structure of domestic and foreign investments, the spending on research and development, the market shares, the geographical destination of exports, the structure of the economy, the innovation processes, the financing structures for the economy, the determinants of productivity, the training and education structures, the change in the organization and development of enterprises. Where appropriate, suggestions for improvements shall be made.”

Does Article 5, § 3 not provide a perfect answer to your concern?

I can at least say that one aspect of this bill is now very well elaborated, while the rest are, as already said, possible promises.

Should I repeat it again? Is all in this, or am I forgotten to mention something in the listing that may be discussed in the report? Then you should tell me what else needs to be addressed. Expenditures on research and development, market shares, geographical destination of exports, structure of the economy, innovation processes, and so on. Have I forgotten something?

You will have the floor after Mrs Willaert, Mr Gilkinet.

I would like to comment on this issue, which we have also discussed in the committee. I recognized, Mr. Minister, that this was one of the positive elements of your text.

But we regret that in this passage, you did not prioritize the energy aspect. That is why we submitted an amendment. As I will develop it just now, energy costs weigh even more on the competitiveness of our companies than wage costs, which, in turn, have a positive effect on the domestic economy. And energy costs evolve much more negatively than wage costs. However, they are not subject to the same effort, the same attention.

Every year, we spend billions of euros to buy, from countries that have in their basement, oil, gas, coal. Prioritizing energy efficiency today and energy autonomy tomorrow is the best way to ensure the competitiveness of our ⁇ while preserving our environment. This is a shared competence with the Regions, as the State Council says. However, the government does not care much about this.

This would be a way of liberating wage policies and preserving the motivation of workers. You do not do it enough. There is an interesting first step, speaking of innovation, in the opinion of the Central Council of Economy. But I do not see an assessment of the overall energy expenditure, nor a solution to reduce them. However, this is the future.

The determinants of productivity. I have no problem in myself.

Mr. Gilkinet, we talked about this during the committee, the issue of energy is already included in the project.

The [...]

There is no need to add an amendment, it is already planned. Probably not as you wish.

Mr. Speaker, my fifth point relates to the freedom of negotiation, which is severely restricted by the bill.

Although during the period from 1996 to 2016, in which the old law was followed, no large discharges were recorded – the maximum discharge was 4 % –, the social partners are now stuck in a carcan. They have reached an agreement, but in that respect it seems to me to have been to save the social consultation in such a tight carcan.

In the end, this testifies to a lack of confidence in their capabilities, although the history of the past twenty years should just give confidence in their ability to keep wages more or less in line with what is happening in the Netherlands, Germany and France.

The result of limiting the autonomy of social consultation is unpredictable. It is likely that a smaller space for consultation will lead to greater tensions and more social dissatisfaction, which our economy does not need at all.

I still have two points.

First, I want to talk about the consequences for workers. When we do not take into account wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier, the workers lose in the financing of social security what they cannot recover in immediate wages. Reducing wage costs here does not benefit the workers.

According to a study by De Lloyd, the tax shift has brought Belgium from place two to place four in the ranking of the most expensive countries in terms of wages. For the employee, Belgium is behind in the European rankings. Net wages are lower than their European counterparts. In other words, the wage costs for Belgian workers are falling, but they do not benefit themselves.

When we take the total of the produced wealth and the distribution of that wealth between the employers and the workers, we see that the decrease in the employer contributions represents the increase of the employer part of the produced wealth and, vice versa, the decrease of the part of the workers.

Between 1985 and 2013, the share of wealth created in companies that went to shareholders increased from 7.5% to 17%. On the contrary, a decrease in the share of workers from 65% to 60,9%.

Following the blocking of wages and the index jump, the reform, in a context of rising prices, will once again have an impact on wages. I do not need to repeat this again.

Finally, there are also possible negative consequences for companies. The heightened sanctions could create additional problems for companies that are much less able to pursue their own wage policy. A full-growth company that wants to hire new people, people who will have a higher than average salary, will see the average wage cost rise and therefore see the wage standard exceed. That employer may choose not to recruit, given the risk of those tightened sanctions.

Salary measurements can also have a negative aspect for the economy. If all farmers freeze their wages, there will be a loss of purchasing power that will be reflected in demand and that will therefore also affect the orders at companies.

I would like to conclude with the choices we would make, Mr. Minister. We want, as already stated, to avoid making wage costs the only or narrow indicator of productivity and competitiveness. We want to discourage linear and non-employment-related reductions in wage costs, you know. This government says very often that it does not give any more blanco cheques. Apparently this applies to only a fraction of the Belgians, not to all. You may also need to apply this if you give a reduction in wage costs to companies and also there dare to ask for the guarantee that this goes to job creation. Green-Ecolo also wants that all support ⁇ benefit from be charged to calculate the difference in costs. We want to develop other handles to maintain competitiveness. You took them. So I can say that we are full of expectation. Research & development, innovation, education and training, renewable energy and so on.

Because we consider that we have not done enough on those parameters that we consider very important, we cannot approve this bill.

Collega Willaert, with Article 5, § 3 we have already met certain aspirations of Green. Mr Gilkinet referred to his amendment. This amendment no. 27 is, that you submitted together with your colleague. You have requested the advice of the State Council, which has said that there is an excess of powers based on Article 6, § 1, VII, paragraph 1, h, and that there has also been given a too broad authority to the King.

The State Council proposes amendment no. 27 not accepted.

This is why we have asked for the advice of the State Council. We have withdrawn this amendment, but that is not a reason not to work on reducing energy consumption.

As I said, the issue of energy spending is fundamental for Ecologists in the competitiveness debate.

One improvement comes in the amendment to Article 5 that you have proposed. Indeed, the opinion of the Central Council of Economy, prior to the discussions on wage standards and wage developments, must now take into account more qualitative criteria. But with the 26th amendment that we have submitted and which has not been the subject of any comment from the State Council, it is possible and necessary to ask the Central Council of Economy to pay much more attention to the issue of energy costs.

Furthermore, as the Council of State states in its opinion on our 27th amendment, in a modern state, it is necessary, on the one hand, to negotiate with the Regions to find an agreement that responds to the international commitments made in particular in Paris to find ways to spend less energy and to improve our trade balance with the States that hold this energy in their basements. On the other hand, we need to position ourselves as European leaders in energy efficiency and renewable energy development, which will create a lot of jobs. This dimension is completely absent from your text!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the cost of labour is a major challenge for our companies and for their competitiveness, as well as for our economy. It would be completely irresponsible to deny it.

However, labor costs are not the only factor affecting the competitiveness of companies. The formation and the cost of energy – to name only two – are equally crucial.

It is true, Mr. Minister, that it is better to have a law to prevent the appearance, tomorrow, of new disabilities rather than having to make late corrections, sometimes painful, or counterproductive public interventions afterward. On this point, I can join you.

You say that you preserve indexation and baremic increases; only the future will tell us. Especially, first, for possible intercurrent decisions on the political level. I heard a promise in the tribune, but I know what it is worth, given the fate of previous promises, in particular concerning the decline of the legal pension age. We will also see what will happen with the baremic increases. This point is not so simple. We will see, for example, during the next AIP, whether this promise will be fulfilled or whether, at the time the Central Council of Economics will calculate the next available margin, in the forecast of a new AIP, these baremic increases will be fully immune or not.

However, I have two fundamental criticisms about your bill. This is, on the one hand, the historical handicap and, on the other hand, the complexity and the aspects it affects.

The historical disability prior to 1996 cannot even be calculated. What does it mean that it still exercises an influence on the available margin? You have returned this calculation to the social partners. Only the Central Council of Economy can see clearly about the 1996 bills. If we knew what this famous historical disadvantage before 1996 was, the Central Council of Economy would have calculated it for a long time. Of course, this is not the case. And it is all the more complicated, Mr. Minister, you know it ⁇ well, that the dispersion of the growth rates of hourly wage costs, according to sector branches, is extremely important. What does it make sense to make this disability a criterion for the evolution of wages in 2017 and subsequent years? The structure of our economy has fundamentally changed in the meantime, so that this criterion is no longer necessarily relevant.

The wage disadvantage with the three immediate trade partners, France, the Netherlands and Germany, is now completely resolved. I believe that this reference to historical disability is the result of political negotiations within your government. It is likely that the inability of the social partners to agree on this notion will be the answer to this aspect of your bill. Or she will not be!

At the same time, you have defined a possibility, regardless of the calculation of this historical disability, whether it is, as some say, 0% or 10% as others suggest. You referred to an item that you drowned into the law, after possibly feeding it in case of additional bonus.

I come to the complexity of your project, which is a real gas plant. In the end, however, it will be the companies that will have to apply it. Examples are not lacking. It is true that in committee, and ⁇ in second reading, the debates allowed at least some points to be clarified. This second reading did not please the majority, nor you, Mr. Minister.

The scope was not clear, based on the information you had initially communicated. The element that has been clarified is that the project actually applies well to the entire private sector, including the non-market, contrary to what was said initially.

The second thing to mention about this complexity is the notion of wage cost. This concept could also be clarified in the second reading, although, as I repeat here, a clarification in the preparatory work remains insufficient in my opinion.

The concept of wage cost is crucial in understanding the scope of the law. The draft law defines this wage cost. In itself, this is positive, since this was not the case before. But the way you defined it raises, in my opinion, many legal questions.

At present, some benefits, according to the information communicated to companies by the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the wage standard, do not give rise to the application of sanctions if it results in the shift of the wage standard. There are many advantages and I will not mention them all. I take as examples the surcharges and advance notice allowances.

Your bill provides for a very extensive definition of wage cost, but it is not directly included in the text since it refers to a European regulation. The real problem is that due to this unclear definition, some benefits will be incorporated into the notion of “wage cost.” This is not a detail.

I am not talking about legal exaggeration. Why Why ? Because this question is primary, since, at the microeconomic scale, ⁇ need to know whether these advantages should be taken into account. For example, for the AIP 2017-2018, will they be incorporated, yes or not, in the calculation of the 1.1 % wage increase margin to be negotiated?

According to the project, intersectoral, sectoral, enterprise or individual labour agreements cannot provide for the exceeding of the margin of evolution of wage cost. Based on your definition of it, benefits such as surcharges and advance allowances will well fit into the determination of this 1.1 percent margin.

As a result of our discussions in the committee, Mr. Minister, you confirmed that the administrative practice would be ⁇ ined and that the definition of wage cost would not address the microeconomic level – the companies – but only the macroeconomic level, i.e. the comparison of the wage standard in force here with the one that prevails among our three neighbors and privileged business partners.

You know, in the past, I had contacts with several companies. I obviously discussed this aspect of the case with them, because they wanted the administrative practice to be continued. They were a little reassured. However, you know as well as I know that defining through a law and, above all, taking into account only an administrative practice that you have quoted orally and that will be found in the preparatory work, but without being explicitly stated in the law, is obviously to take a risk. Indeed, tomorrow or after tomorrow – and I’m not talking about you, Mr. Minister, but about a minister who could succeed you...

Or never ever.

Maybe never ever. Unfortunately, we are all destined for the same evolution.

Tomorrow, despite your statements, any other minister can change the administrative practice and refer to the law as it exists. The law says “A”. Administrative practice, today, says “B”. Tomorrow, another minister may decide that administrative practice must be connected with what is written in the law. Therefore, you could have emphasized this aspect in the law, not inserting the administrative practice, but referring to the fact that the definition of wage cost that refers to the European regulation does not apply to the micro level. Otherwise, companies will take into account the definition of wage cost. As a result, the 1.1 percent margin is thus reduced to a skin of sorrow and no trading space will be possible. Not having it concrete in the law will allow to take as a reference the law to change the administrative practice.

I have submitted the amendment I had submitted to the committee. I had also sent it for advice to the State Council, which was requested by the chairman of the Chamber, in urgency. Obviously, only one opinion was given on the competences and obviously, this file concerns the competence of the federal state. It is very unfortunate that we have not obtained the legal analysis of the State Council. I regret this technique which in the end aims to bypass the contribution of the State Council on this type of file.

I can’t imagine for a second that your majority will support the amendment at our plenary session; I have lost any naivety in this matter. Even in the committee, we are not even interested in how the amendments could improve and avoid, tomorrow, to open unparalleled discussions within companies, on how to interpret this law. Furthermore, this example is a beautiful demonstration of the complexity of your project, up to the definitions it introduces, and the total lack of openness of your majority, when it comes to improving texts, even on technical aspects.

But it is not just the technical aspects. I’m ready to bet that a whole series of companies, and ⁇ SMEs, will have to consult with law firms to find out whether or not these famous benefits that are taken into your definition of the wage cost that refers to the European Regulation are part, for 2017-2018, of the 1.1% possible margin to negotiate.

Your text of law is a gas factory. In addition to the complexity of the rules, it is quite regrettable to find, Mr. Minister, that the law explicitly provides that only sectoral social partners will be able to receive the opinion of the General Directorate Collective Labour Relations and therefore of the SPF Employment for matters of compliance with the salary standard of a CCT project. Practically, this means that self-employed and SMEs will once again have to use law firms to settle their case with significant fees at the key.

You told me that companies could apply for the SPF Employment, but you also said that the latter had no result obligation.

For a right-wing government that claims to be close to ⁇ and self-employed, refusing the result obligation for the said SPF, an administration that has in particular the vocation to support and answer questions, especially since the text of the law is as complex, is not only appealing, but also damaging. I take note! Indeed, in the interest of SMEs, self-employed workers, it would have been better to clearly insert this result obligation in the law, but also to respond to companies that request the analysis of the SPF Employment.

Mr. Minister, I do not want to repeat the debate here, even though our Vld colleague has made a comparison between the number of jobs created in the last three years and those created in the previous three years, which is a comparison of apples and pears. In fact, you know as well as I know that, under the previous government, we were facing a ⁇ important crisis situation. It is not for nothing that economic unemployment mechanisms have been applied. Over the past three years, we have done better than other European countries.

Today it is just the opposite. We are doing less well than the countries around us and the other European countries. This element alone allows for a fairly accurate assessment of the program and economic policy of this government, even if, I admit, every job created is a plus. But this requires above all, given our results compared to other countries, to push back our sleeves to try to be at least as good as them.

In a word like a hundred, for the various reasons mentioned, our group will not support your bill; even though, I repeat, the control of the evolution of labor cost remains a major challenge for the competitiveness of companies.

Wages are not the problem, they are the solution. They are a solution in terms of motivation of workers. They are a solution as a reward for productivity that everyone acknowledges especially strong in our country. They are a solution for supporting domestic consumption, and thus the functioning of our domestic economy, since wages are then consumed and subject to tax payments by workers. They are also a solution for the financing of our social security and therefore of solidarity between all Belgians.

This text, which you defend with the whole majority, is only another way of this government, of this majority, to reach, limit, decrease the wage income of the workers. There has already been the way you applied the law, in its previous formula, framing inter-professional agreements; this corset you imposed on social partners when discussing the two previous inter-professional agreements, by severely limiting or preventing, any wage evolution, including in high-productivity sectors, which would have wanted to reward their workers for their efforts. There was also, obviously – other colleagues have addressed it – the index jump, which strongly affected the incomes of workers and social subscribers.

Where will the government stop in terms of limiting wages, infringing on this right of the worker to be paid for his work? What example do you want to follow? Is it Germany with its wage dumping practices that have existed now for ten or twenty years? Do you want to get to a Chinese model someday? I’m a little exaggerated in saying this, but you can really ask yourself what your horizon is.

After catching up with what is considered a wage gap from the three neighboring countries, you have decided to go back in history and regain a historical wage gap that no one was aware of. By doing this, you do not get wonderful results.

Like my colleagues, I prefer 100,000 new jobs than 100,000 fewer jobs. We had this debate in the committee and it put you in a bad mood. It puts you in a bad mood. That is fucking! I am not here to make you smile, Mr. Minister Peeters. The employment indicator to be used is the employment rate, the proportion of workers in relation to the number of assets. The employment rate in Belgium is declining. We are back in the European peloton. We are moving away from European social objectives in employment.

You can answer me that unemployment is decreasing, but if unemployment is decreasing, it is not because all the unemployed find work, but because they are excluded from our unemployment system. I also questioned you on the basis of figures obtained on the occasion of my colleague Evita Willaert’s parliamentary questions. It is also necessary to question the quality of new jobs, the ability of workers who benefit from these jobs to have sufficient income.

This employment policy, which has been applied by others before you, which aims at wage moderation at any price you have accentuated, does not lead to mirroring results. Rather, it leads to results that are disappointing in terms of creating quality jobs in sufficient volume. There are other measures to be implemented.

Attention to ! We, environmentalists, do not say that we do not need a concerted, negotiated and reasonable wage policy to avoid future problems. We say that this bill, beyond its impact on workers' income and therefore on the domestic economy, does not address the core of the problem either in terms of wages or competitiveness.

There are five points that should be considered differently.

The first is the cost of wages. The wage cost consists of the wage that goes back to the worker at the end of the month and the contributions paid either by the worker or by the employer. We, environmentalists, have always said that this wage cost could and should be reduced to promote job creation, but under strict conditions that your government does not respect with your tax shift. We need a solid alternative financing guaranteed of social security. You have decided with this government of a tax shift but this is not funded because, in the "recipes" section, you have blindly trusted the announcements of your Minister of Finance. Decided reductions in social contributions are therefore not the subject of alternative revenues for social security.

Yes, we must reduce the cost of labour but by guaranteeing, through a tax on capital revenues that have increased, or on the most polluting shares, a solid structural financing of social security.

The second element that you did not do in the tax shift – I return to the debate that you started during the speech of my colleague Evita Willaert – is the focus on the lowest wages. Yes, the least qualified are the concern of environmentalists. There are the cutting-edge sectors, the new green technologies – I will return to them – that must pull our economy upwards but we must also pay attention to the less skilled. For this reason, during the negotiation of the tax shift, we proposed amendments to correct the path you had decided. We proposed to concentrate the reductions of social contributions, at the same cost of social contributions, on the lowest wages. We had consulted academic studies, including the IRES of the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve. I would like to refer to the amendments we have submitted.

The Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve states that with the same spending in the form of reduced social contributions, one can be much more efficient in creating jobs by focusing on the lowest wages. This is quite possible in our institutional framework.

For the second time, I have numbers here.

At the wage level of 1 600 euros pockets contributions from 19.2% in 2015 to 12.6% in 2019. At 5 000 euros, that is from 27.7 % to 25 %. That is, the contributions in percentage fall faster with low wages than with high wages. This is clear; there is little to add.

I immediately use the opportunity to point out the following; then I will not have to return to it later. I checked it on energy. You are served on your tips: on page 25 of the second part of the CRB report, the debate on energy is explicitly addressed.

Not so fast. Energy is my fourth point. You know I will come there.

As for the reduction of wage costs, I did not say that there was a greater reduction for low wages than for high wages. I just said it could be more important than what you propose. The models worked by academics (UCL’s IRES) and the amendment we submitted at the time of the tax shift indicate that by further accentuating the reductions of social contributions for the lowest wages and limiting them for the highest wages, we came to a much larger job creation, rather than to a slight effect that you could not escape since the curve you used is not generous enough with regard to the lowest wages.

The second element that you are not working on is the issue of wage tension within companies. This is the difference between the lowest and the highest wages. What phenomenon is seen in Belgium as in other European countries? It is that of the poor workers who get up every morning but who, at the end of the month, have not been able to make savings, have trouble finishing the month, meeting their basic needs, because they have fixed-term contracts, temporary contracts, flexi-jobs or minimum wages. Those are in great difficulties and, with the wage standard you have proposed, they have no prospect of wage evolution. On the other hand, the higher wages are able to negotiate with their employers para-salary benefits, which are a circumvention of the wage standard in the form of corporate cars or other benefits. If, at the level of an enterprise, one must consider the question of wage cost and its impact on competitiveness, one must also question – what you do not do at all – the difference between the lowest and the highest wages, the latter having the ability to bypass the wage standard. It is completely absent from your project.

The third element missing from your project and which we are deeply concerned about is the parasalary practices developed by companies. We know the Echocheques and Cheques-Men, which will be the subject of a new debate in the Social Affairs Committee and, ⁇ , in the plenary session. There are also corporate cars, which are disguised wages for those who do not need their car to work, which have a very heavy environmental and economic impact, estimated by the FEB to several billion euros on the cost of traffic jams, but which are not subject to payment of social contributions. They are also not included in your salary calculations. I see that new parasalary practices are developing especially in the banking sector, with the coffee shop plans, with the development of virtual wages beyond a certain amount of wage, the "units" that are imagined by some banks and on which neither are paid social contributions.

Mr. Minister of Employment, you remain arms crossed in relation to this phenomenon which also exercises a pressure on the competitiveness of companies. You let, as in the Far West, develop practices that are next to our social model. We were expecting a text like the one you submitted to answer this phenomenon.

To put myself in perspective, I will return to the question of the evolution of energy and raw materials costs and their impact on the competitiveness of companies. If there is one area that impacts the competitiveness of companies more than the wage issue, it is the area of energy cost, beyond its impact on the environment. Our economy has huge advances to be made in this area, with energy costs being made up of two factors: unit cost and volume cost.

Regarding the unit cost, I refer you to an excellent record of this day in the French-speaking weekly Le Vif-L'Express, which explains how the monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic situation that has historically been granted to some energy producers from nuclear power and the fact that it has been accepted that they amortise their equipment faster than necessary and pay it to the consumer, has allowed them an extraordinary rent, and that shows that the unit cost of energy in Belgium is too high.

The cost/volume is too high because there is no coordinated effort in this area. We submitted two amendments to this text which we sent back to the State Council. We, we listen to the State Council contrary, sometimes, to the government. Amendments 26 and 27, Mr. Minister. The 26th is validated by the State Council in terms of competence. The 27 poses a problem of distribution of powers and too wide delegation to the government.

As for the price of energy, it must still be said that the price of electricity may represent ⁇ a quarter of the price of the invoice. On the other hand, what plumes the bill much more are the subsidies given to green energies as well as the investments that need to be made in the network to adapt it to these energies. This is not the case for other countries that work differently in terms of their energy. Therefore, the price of the invoice should not be attributed only to electricity, the majority of the price of the invoice is not constituted by electricity.

Mr. Friart, 20 billion euros, according to the estimate this morning and what corresponds to a phenomenon that we denounce for a long time, is the amount that was stolen from the Belgians by the nuclear subsidy. Furthermore, Belgium is not the only country to have adopted the Paris Agreements and to have made the choice to withdraw from nuclear power, which is a dangerous and problematic matter. But I will not return here to the debate you have with my group leader in the Economy Committee and with Mrs. Marghem.

I would like to refer to the cost of energy for Europe and Belgium. Annual energy expenditure in the form of Belgium’s purchase of carbonated raw materials amounts to 15 billion euros. In other words, 15 billion euros of the wealth produced in our country goes out of it to buy gas from the Russians, from oil to Saudi Arabia and other states that have in their basement these carbon resources - countries that, by the way, are not always the greatest democracies. For Europe as a whole, this amounts to approximately 400 billion euros. We, environmentalists, say that instead of spending this wealth produced in Belgium to enrich others, we collectively take the path of the highest possible energy efficiency in order to ⁇ , tomorrow or after tomorrow, energy autonomy. This is the meaning of the amendments 26 and 27 that we submitted.

No. 26 aims to further improve Article 5 of the law. So I acknowledge that you have introduced – and we have long been asking for it – more qualitative criteria, for example in relation to innovation, in the preliminary report to the inter-professional negotiations conducted by the Central Council of Economy. If you agree with us, which seems to be the case, you can adopt our amendment. We are much more precise on the annual assessment of collective energy costs and the strategies deployed in Belgium to reduce them. This is the purpose of this amendment.

Amendment No. 27 proposed an energy standard, in the same way as an annual or biennial wage standard is in force. The State Council tells you that you are infringing on the competences of the Regions. This is true, and this is the result, by the way, of the Sixth State Reform, which we voted together. You give the government a little too developed power. There are only those who do nothing who are not criticized by the State Council. That is why we need to work on this issue differently. Cooperation agreements have been concluded but the objective, in our opinion, remains valid in order to modernize our economy, to act on the environmental issue, the Paris Agreements, climate change and all its induced costs, but also to create in Belgium jobs with high added value, as well as employment for the least qualified in the construction and insulation sectors. It is therefore a triple virtuous mechanism.

I don’t think that in the debates we have regularly had in the Social Affairs Committee about the bill you have defended so far, you have worked very hard on this aspect of competitiveness.

It is shared with others.

Fourth element: we want competitiveness in Belgium to be considered more from the perspective of the energy issue. This would be a way to position Belgium, in Europe and in the world, on these issues.

The fifth point on which your text disappoints us is taking into account the cost of capital for companies. The banking sector, which I regularly study through the Finance Commission, is the best example of this. We are facing banking companies that make significant profits, which sometimes amount to billions of euros and very often escape to foreign countries where the shareholders are located. BNP Paribas Fortis returns its profits to Paris. This is the case of ING, which sends its profits in billions of euros back to the Netherlands and which, nevertheless, decides to cut hundreds or even thousands of jobs. Why have we never activated, in the current law on competitiveness, articles that require some form of shareholder moderation? Why does one ever consider only wage moderation, ignoring, as I said in my introduction, that wage is a reward for the work done, but that it also contributes to the internal functioning of our economy?

For these five reasons and these five insufficiencies of your text, for this obsession that is yours to corset the income of labor and finally penalize the Belgian workers, not rewarding them for their efforts, not motivating them with a just correct salary, you will have understood that we will not vote for this text. You will also understand this from the debate we had in the Social Affairs Committee. I appreciate your listening, I have to say, but I’m really not convinced by your arguments. That is why we will not be able to vote on this text that ultimately aims to prevent workers from being properly remunerated for their efforts.

I will not repeat what I have said in the committee. I recall that we had had a rather interesting beginning of exchange on the validity of Marx’s theories and in particular on the fact that we must re-examine, in its historical perspective, the law that you present to us today, since you play a role in this struggle between capital and labour for the value of commodity-work.

As you know, since the existence of wage labour or capitalism, workers have struggled to be able to sell their commodity, a particular commodity, because it has this particularity of producing a plus-value, i.e. an additional value compared to what it actually costs, as Marx described it. And the worker actually struggles to be able to sell this labor force as expensive as possible. On the other hand, we have an employer who wants to compress as much as possible the value of this labour-product.

All this could only be historical economics. We are back in 2017 and our legislation allows the state to intervene in this relationship of force through laws. To intervene, in this case, by a law that will compress the wages of workers and no longer allow workers in the sectors to go to negotiate higher increases.

The problem is that Marx did not stop at this analysis. He had also analyzed that, ultimately, it was in the imbalance of this particular commodity that the causes of the crisis of capitalism lie. And this is where it becomes exciting because, at least since 2008, it is the crisis of capitalism in Europe. I would say more, Mr. Minister, we are in crisis since 1973. It is a crisis that, paradoxically, is a crisis of overproduction, that is, as Marx has already brilliantly described, there is a contradiction between the diminishing purchasing power of the workers and their ability to buy from the same bosses.

I think that the validity of this theory is still present, Mr. Minister, given that we are still at very very low growth rates in Europe and that, in the end, the whole planet is looking at us and wondering what we will do in Europe to get out of this crisis.

It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that the law you are proposing today will push us even further into the crisis. This is the problem because you want the opposite. I’m not going to deny that your intentions are good but I think that economically, it doesn’t stand the way.

This is not the way, Mr. Minister. You are quite happy to see that now our salaries are the same as those of our neighbors. But what makes you think that our neighbors will passively wait for Belgian wages to be more competitive in order to conquer market shares? I already read the Dutch press; political leaders are already saying that their wages are too high. I hear President Hollande say the same thing in France. And then there is the German model. You are always late, Mr. President. This model was applied with the red-green government, with Schröder, about a decade ago. In this country, there is indeed a compression of wages, but they find, in the end, that it did not get them out of the crisis. Belgium is now involved. It is hard to believe that we can get out of the economic crisis with this type of measures.

Thirdly – I agree with my colleague Gilkinet – I am surprised that you are not addressing the real problem, in Belgium. You always talk about the cost of labour; I would have liked to hear you talk about the cost of capital. This is still a problem! All those capitalists who leave these companies! We could even talk about a capital leak.

Today, like every other day, I read De Tijd, my favorite newspaper. We need to be inspired by what is told on the other side. They are not Marxists. And what do they say?

“Call 20 ruins an investor with a record dividend.” That is not possible, Mr. Minister. That is a shame. We all work hard here to reduce wages so that they can invest the profits and what do they all do? The money simply flies out the Bel 20 companies for dividends. This is not the case, Mr. Minister. You have to intervene. What is it now? How will we now be competitive with our companies if you do not intervene and all that money simply disappears from the Bel 20 companies?

Mr. Minister, I would have actually preferred to see that today a law would be proposed with a dividend stop in it. The competitiveness of our companies is on the rise, the money must remain in the companies and therefore there must be a dividend stop. But no, you do not come with a dividend stop, but with a salary stop.

The angle of attack, to get out of the economic crisis, is treated differently from our point of view.

I have presented all of our proposals in terms of social consultation, completely defiled, and cost of wages. I would like to refer to my very important speech in the committee.

I hope that the whole working world in Europe will no longer accept all the carcasses that the employers or some governments, who have the skills, impose on wages. Wages are the solution to the crisis, not the problem. It would be about increasing the purchasing power of the workers, reinvesting in our economy, reactivating sleeping fortunes. They don’t even know what to do with their wealth. A man like Albert Frère owns as much as 2.2 million Belgians. How can we activate this money, to activate our economy?

You hope to reactivate our economy by putting citizens under pressure, using the ten-year German model, based on exports. In order to export, you must import. If all European countries apply the same solutions as this government, who will still buy? Where will we export? On the planet Mars, Venus or Neptune? Global trade is a closed world. This export-based German model is doomed to failure, as is the economic policy of this government linked to this model. You will tell me that you created a job. What work ? You take 100,000 full-time jobs, you divide them into 200,000 part-time jobs, you create 100,000 jobs. Is this the model? You have to be serious!

Mr. Minister, I feel disappointed but I am obliged to tell you that the PTB will not vote your law. We say “Stop!” and we hope that in the coming months and years we will get you back and blow up this carcass, to give oxygen to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, like other stakeholders, we adhere to a goal of controlling the evolution of wages compared to the evolution seen among our main trading partners. However, it should be avoided the breaches that could threaten the competitiveness of companies. But your bill goes too far. It goes beyond the reasonable.

The fact that an agreement of the social partners on this text has not been possible is not surprising. This is once again a unbalanced project, which mainly took into account the wishes of representatives of employers. As in the recently adopted bill on feasible and maneuverable work, rather than seeking balanced compromises, you prefer the expectations of only employers.

This is a dangerous behavior because the dialogue between the social partners has always been the best dynamic for the economic activity of our country. Such negotiations between social partners have generally resulted in beneficial outcomes in terms of both social peace and job creation and fair remuneration of workers.

During the committee hearings, workers’ representatives told us the reasons why they oppose your project. I would like to mention two points, which are ⁇ important to us. First, this text contains complex mechanisms that reduce their margin of manoeuvre in terms of negotiation. Secondly, one asks why, since the disability wage is removed, whatever you say. You recognized it during the work in the committee.

Infringement of trade freedom in sectors will no longer allow to take into account their specifics. This is part of the economic dynamics of our country. We will no longer be able to bet on the attractiveness of certain sectors, which demanded high qualifications and which could, in relation to wage growth, generally, when we look at the historical, give themselves a very small margin of growth above what was sometimes negotiated at the intersectoral or interprofessional level.

I would also like to recall that the social partners have always made good use of the existing mechanism. They usually have a sense of responsibility. It is true that in the past, there have been estimate errors. But, by the way, they were not always attributable to the social partners, but rather to those who prepared the decisions, ⁇ within the Central Council of Economy. However, it must still be acknowledged that the agreements concluded have always been respected, to the satisfaction of each of the parties.

Therefore, there is no question of banalizing social partners on the grounds that they would not be able to maintain balances between wages and competitiveness. In reality, your bill is very ideological, but your concept of competitiveness is not desirable in terms of the economic future of our country. As we all know, competitiveness also depends on other factors.

Per ⁇ the first factor is the quality of the products and services that are put on the market. It is the specificity of these products and services that will allow our companies to have the leverage of their growth and competitiveness over other companies. Today, it is the added value of products and services that allows them to find their place in the commercial market. There is no reflection there, especially because your government has little ambition to support the most cutting-edge scientific research, while this is probably the very first lever to be activated today to support the competitiveness of ⁇ .

We also talked about the cost of energy. You have increased VAT on electricity. Moreover, we have become Europe’s inflation champions, at the expense of our competitiveness. The costs of services explode and weigh on the costs of production.

On the other hand, only the cost of labour captures all your attention, while, as I said, the wage disability is removed. You come with a very ideological idea. Workers have made a lot of effort since the 1996 law came into force, including in terms of index jump. But that is not enough for your government. You now want to resorb the famous, so-called historical handicap dating from before 1996.

This is the paradox! You do not leave room for the social partners to determine tomorrow a rate of wage growth that would be more consistent with the aspirations of workers, but instead, you will charge the social partners to determine what this historic disability represents. We will talk about it for months. There will be no agreement between social partners to determine this historic disability. From then on, the whole objective of your law, which is purely ideological, will collapse in the absence of agreement. No one today knows the extent of the effort to be made since, as I just said, this disability must be determined by the social partners within the Central Council of Economy.

It must be said that the introduction of this notion of historical disability has generated a complicated and opaque mechanism. Thus, when the wage disability is positive – that is, our wages increase faster than those of our neighbors – it leads to a reduction in the maximum available margin. What is more logical? But when the wage disability is negative, when our wages increase less rapidly than those in the neighboring reference states, this results in half a reduction in the historical disability and in half a greater available margin, but that is not automatic, since the social partners can still decide to allocate it to the elimination of the historical disability. In other words, you’re going to give the ban employer the key to close any trading margin if he wants to.

Moreover, you introduce a new distortion in the comparison with our neighbors. Reductions in employee contributions from the tax shift will not be taken into account and all reductions in charges that will be decided from 2017 will be allocated for at least 50% to the removal of historical disability.

You argue that we do not touch baremic increases or indexation. But the latter are likely to be zero because the margins are also likely to be, since you are inventing a system that requires social partners to be locked in a circle. Decisions regarding baremic increases are their responsibility, you say. They will be free to remove them or not. But as long as the historical disability exists, they will be taken into account to determine whether or not a disability exists and, if necessary, what its extent is. And if there is a disability at the end of the two-year period, it should be subtracted from the new available margin. This is the infernal cycle that you impose on social partners.

In short, you make the choice of compressing the purchasing power of workers. Now, it is demonstrated today by the best economists that the most powerful lever of economic revival is rather the growth of purchasing power, and therefore of wages, than the only criterion of the competitiveness of enterprises.

I have often denounced here in this tribune that you are only acting on one pedal, the accelerator, the growth pedal, but that, on the other hand, you are in such a way braking on the other, that you are annihilating the effects of growth that you are seeking from the sole criterion of the competitiveness of companies.

On the other hand, it should not be hidden: the growth of employment is not as favourable as you mean. Regardless of the question of the proportion of the number of part-time jobs created, our performance in terms of job creation is less good than those in the euro area.

Despite all efforts imposed on workers in terms of constraints on their wages and despite measures taken to ease employer burdens, the gap is growing. You no longer make comparisons. You no longer have the same will. Thus, employment is growing more in the euro area and in the European Union of Twenty-Eight than in our country: an average growth of 1.8% in the euro area and in the European Union of Twenty-Eight, only 0.4% in our country.

If I compare 2016 with 2014, I see that this gap grows both with the euro area and with the European Union of the Twenty-Eight. It is worth studying the causes. This means that your economic policy does not have the ferments of growth you expect.

In conclusion, Mr. Minister, you have submitted to us an ideological bill, which undermines trust between social partners, trust that has always been so indispensable to the economic revival in our country at the time when we experienced the most difficult crises. It is often the social partners who have been at the initiative of the most promising economic projects for our growth. Undermining this trust between social partners is ultimately undermining the confidence in our ability to revive our country’s economy.

Therefore we will not be able to follow your bill, Mr. Minister.

For me, the discussions in the committee were very important. Hearing sessions were also organized. There has been extensive discussion of the present draft, which has rightly caused a lot of discussion and about which we have been able to clarify a lot of things. I remember very well the time when the law was enacted in 1996 – I was then in the Central Council for Business – with Robert Tollet, who is still chairman of the Central Council for Business. We discussed this at the time with Jean-Luc Dehaene, but also with the then Minister of Economy, Elio Di Rupo. I know very well that this law after so many years had to be urgently modernized. I explained in the committee where improvements needed to be made.

The present draft, which hopefully will be approved later, is the closing point of the reforms in the field of competitiveness. We had the law of agile and workable work and now there is this law that resolutely brings the labour legislation into the 21st century. Our top priority is, of course, employment.

To increase the number of jobs is clearly the purpose and mission of our government.

Creating jobs is one of the main priorities this government has set itself. I will return in detail to the numerical material when it is also published by the agencies. I think then of the annual report of the RVA, which will be available soon, and of other reports, which will contain very important figures.

I am also convinced that the creation of work and the efforts to do so have been very clear. Mr. Darden, I will return to the index jump later.

Ms. de Coster-Bauchau highlighted the importance of the present situation, compared to that of 1996: the wage disability has been eliminated. At the beginning of the legislature – figures have already been mentioned – it was still 3%.

Then it was 3%. But these are actually just numbers. The real result is, and no one can deny it, that unemployment has declined every month since the start of this government compared to the year before. The unemployment rate in Belgium has declined every month. Here in Belgium we are talking about every unemployed person we can help work. I would like to calmly conduct the debate on the comparison with other countries, but the real result is that the unemployment rate today is more than 8 % lower than in January 2015. The actual result is that there have been 119,800 jobs created since 2015, of which 58,700 were created last year. The real result is therefore that jobs have been created for people who did not have them before.

I want to get into that. This has not been done without effort. These efforts were made not only by the government, but also by the social partners. I would like to emphasize here that the individual employees have also made efforts to get us back on the right path. These efforts bring us where we are today.

The 1996 Act, which is now being modernised, contains several elements, such as protecting purchasing power and not affecting important elements that have been explicitly re-included in this Act. For example, there is the automatic indexing in this country and there are the baremic increases. They were explicitly included here. You have then asked what the future of automatic indexing is. I can assure you that through the mechanism now included in this law, the automatic indexing has received additional guarantees. An index jump is, of course, a pleasant decision for no one. I know how much effort it has required. The debate on the index jump has been a very important debate. We must handle this very carefully. Why was an index jump needed? Because our wages were displaced compared to our three neighboring countries.

That is why we had to pull the emergency brake.

To prevent this, the mechanism has been refined.

I also believe that we have made the necessary efforts for employment, which is very important. This debate would have been completely different if the social partners had not concluded a new IPA on the basis of the law that – I hope – will be adopted today. They have gone out with their teens. They said they were going to reach an agreement on this bill. This shows that one is mistaken with all comments about complexity and non-applicability in reality. The evidence is there. There is an IPA closed based on these legislative texts.

A lot has been said about historical wage costs. The elimination of the historical wage-cost disability is a new thing. I said this during the discussions in the committee. I would like to clarify that several studies, including the report of the Competitiveness and Employment Expert Group from July 2013 and ordered by the previous government, have shown that, in addition to the disability compared to 1996, there is still a difference in wage costs between Belgium and our three neighbors from before 1996. The experts have demonstrated this and recommended in their report to do something to address that historic wage cost disadvantage.

I think we have made sure that this comment was taken to heart.

Mr. Daerden, you asked what was the rate of the historical gap.

It testifies to very great wisdom not to attach a percentage to the difference between what the VBO says and what the workers’ organisations say. Why not ? Because, among other things, sectoral differences and productivity differences must be taken into account, and because the Central Council for Business is highly qualified to negotiate these issues in a proper manner.

If you say that this will not succeed and that the social partners will not succeed, then you have less confidence in the social partners and the Central Council for Business than I do, because I am convinced that they can get out of that.

It is also important to emphasize that this historical disability is not removed by further moderating wages. Mrs. de Coster-Bauchau has said it. We will put aside the already decided burden reductions and at least half of the future burden reductions and half of the negative wage cost disability in order to gradually eliminate that historical disability. In other words, the meevallers are used to reduce that historical disability.

Finally, I would also like to emphasize that we have resolutely ⁇ ined the social consultation in that new, modernized law of 1996. We are convinced that the social partners and the Central Council for Business are very well placed to do so.

I want to expressly say that there is still a lot of work on the shelf. There are opportunities groups in our society that do not yet have a new job and have few opportunities. There are people who are being discriminated against in our labour market. There are still rules that can be improved to force job growth.

It’s not that we should win victory or say with a lot of applause how well we do it. The numbers are positive, thank God, but there is still a lot of work on the shelf. Keeping inflation in hand is one example. We must address this further.

I am convinced that our work has not yet been completed, but that this law, if adopted, can contribute to the purchasing power of workers, to the further development of employment and to strengthen the competitiveness of our companies. That is to say that with this law we must also continue to work on job creation and on a lot of additional employment that can also be realized by this law.

Thank you, Mr Minister. Do colleagues ask for a replica?

I do not want to repeat the debate. There has been a lot of discussion, but the topic deserves it.

We insisted that hearings be organised. You have accepted them. But the exchange with social interlocutors, in particular, was useful. This, in any case, helped to fuel our discussion.

I’m not going to tell you that you didn’t convince us, because that’s obvious.

That said, let me return to two or three points.

You mentioned the need for the index jump following the disruptions in terms of wage gap. Today, the latter is removed. In my opinion, it was possible to ⁇ this result without this index jump.

As our group leader recently said, an index jump is, in fact, a failure to adjust the wage to the evolution of prices and cost of living. Therefore, it is a direct sanction applied to workers and social benefits.

I add that the question of competitiveness is not the only reason for this index jump. There are also financial reasons that justify your choice. The companies did not ask for it.

With regard to the question of unemployment, we can only rejoice when there is job creation and when a certain number of citizens are re-employed. However, you should be cautious when analyzing the numbers. Indeed, the employment rate tends to decrease. We must not cry out victory too quickly and we must not seize victory too quickly. Indeed, it is necessary to know that a work is carried out at the regional level to contribute to the improvement of overall activity and employment in the different Regions of our country.

What must also be seen, and this falls above all within the competence of the federal, is the quality of employment and the quantitative distribution among individuals (full-time, part-time, overtime, etc.). We must keep these criteria in mind at the time of the analysis. We are moving towards greater job insecurity. This issue concerns us very much. We should all worry about this.

Finally, we are announced that this will be the last reform on competitiveness. I am pleased with this, because we have enough of such reforms. You feel that your work is done. I do not know what this can lead to as consequences. In any case, I hear that this is your last reform. The work is accomplished. So much better!

Beyond the little bitch...

You say that the work is not finished. So it is a bit contradictory: this is your last reform, but your work is not finished. I assume that this means that another coalition will be needed to go further tomorrow and undertake other interesting reforms.

I will be brief, because I will clearly express the opinion of our group.

I would like to react to three things. First of all, you lost your sputum at the tribune – my colleague Marcel Cheron, who is sometimes a little “bad language”, commented: “Weak arguments? “Cry loud” – about unemployment. I really can’t follow you on this aspect of the case. Unfortunately, statistics in terms of employment rates show that the situation in our country is deteriorating rather. If unemployment evolves, have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is through unemployment exclusion phenomena, pushed towards other forms of aid – including CPAS – rather than through job creation. We must be correct in this regard. I regret that this is the case, since, as environmentalists, we want as many people as possible to work.

In relation to the resumption of social dialogue, I do not think that triumphalism should be demonstrated in the head of government, but rather a form of sensitivity of the social partners, who have been ⁇ misguided since the beginning of the legislature and who have wondered, in the face of a historical choice, whether they were once again making the impasse on an interprofessional agreement or whether they were concluding one, even if it did not fully satisfy them to give another chance to our model of social concertation to exist. Rather, we find ourselves in the second hypothesis of a minimalist agreement that wants to leave a possibility for the future in the hope that the ardor of somewhat more ambitious agreements will return.

To conclude with a positive note, we discussed a lot about energy issues and modernization, the taking into account other elements in competitiveness. We take note with interest of the amendment to Article 5 and the content of the preliminary opinion to be submitted by the Central Council of Economy, which contains more qualitative elements for the future. This is rather a positive element. This monitoring should be specifically extended to energy issues, respecting each other’s competence. And starting from this, we really need to direct our economy and the possibility of job creation to the sectors of the future: new green technologies. We must position our economy more in terms of qualitative objectives, be a model in Europe on energy efficiency, on renewable energies, on the consumption of raw materials, on the circular economy.

There is a lot to do from a qualitative point of view. As I told you, there is a lack in the policy of this government and in your policy as Minister of Employment: it is trying to really position the Belgian economy towards these future sectors – in consultation with the Regions, since the competences are shared. Compressing wages to infinity is not the solution to the transition of our economy and will not lead to a brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, we have not sufficiently highlighted the fact that we have already been able to use, in some way, the benefits of this upcoming reform through the social concertation that has already been established and which has achieved a result. I said it recently, more than ten years ago that this kind of social concertation had not taken place.

I heard my colleague, Mr. Daerden, talk about the precariousness of employment. I would like to ask a question: Is this precariousness in employment not due to a lack of training, a lack of education in certain areas, a lack of accompaniment to the unemployed? On these aspects, we may turn to regional governments.