Proposition 54K2839

Projet de loi relatif à la relance économique et au renforcement de la cohésion sociale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

labour law fiscal policy tax evasion competitiveness economic policy financial policy financial legislation tax law reflation social economy social security employment policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

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

Abstained from voting

PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 5, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Thiébaut, you are also registered to speak on behalf of your group.

I would like to say a few words about this bill. I will go to the essential. Therefore, I will not go back to the many technical changes that go through it, and with which we have no problem. The most important thing, for my group, is summarized here in three points.

First, Article 4 permits home search in case of serious and imminent danger. This is not the first time that this government is interested in the possibility of entering people’s homes for reasons of administrative police, at any time of day and night. This is what is planned to be done here. This is done, of course, under a better pretext than when attacking the persons hosting migrants, but it is done nevertheless with, in our sense, and also ultimately in the sense of the institutions that have given an opinion, a too limited framework.

This is done by leaving all responsibility to the agent facing the situation, without even providing for the formal possibility of obtaining the consent of the occupier. And this is done by leaving the possibility of a judicial review of the situation only a posteriori. That is, when the evil is done, and still on the condition that the victim of an error of appreciation goes to court.

That is why we had submitted amendments in the committee, which aimed to best circumscribe the possibilities opened by this provision. We are going to re-depose them today, hoping that with the time of reflection, the majority measures how important this is, while the minister announces that there will be no circular to frame the provision.

Secondly, these are Articles 15 and 16 concerning incompatibilities for police officers. The text of the current law is clear. The principle position is that of an incompatibility regime which is established by law. Reassuring remarks were made to us in the committee regarding the fact that it will remain impossible for a police officer to run for a candidate in the election. But for the rest, however, we slide into a situation of uncertainty as to whether the cumulative of permitted functions or not.

In the context that we deal with, agents need legal certainty. The system you propose leaves the door open to the arbitrary in the head of the hierarchy. This is not desirable for anyone.

Third, the question of the intervention of foreign special units on our territory. As has already been said, we can quite understand that in exceptional circumstances, the recourse to the support of foreign services may be justified, even indispensable.

This possibility should not serve as an excuse to limit the means necessary for the proper functioning of our own DSU everywhere on the national territory and as soon as possible.

We deeply regret that control bodies such as the Committee P do not have any latitude regarding the controls of operations possibly carried out by foreign agents on Belgian territory. In this regard, the answers referring to courts and courts do not satisfy us.

For these reasons, my group will not support the bill submitted to our vote today.

July 5, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are mevrouw Lijnen, Ms Fonck, Mr Van der Donckt, Mr Daerden, Mr Van Biesen, Mr Crusnière and Mr Flahaux. They refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I will therefore be brief, but on behalf of our group I would like to communicate that this bill for certain sectors in our society is ⁇ welcome. I think, for example, of the sports sector, which for years has been asking for an intermediate status between voluntary work, on the one hand, and the employment contract, on the other hand, to reward the many efforts of the coaches and sports coaches with a fair financial compensation. We are therefore pleased that a flexible statute is provided through the association work for those sectors in need.

We consider it very important that the new possibilities of tax-free additional earnings cannot, will or should lead to unfair competition or to the disappearance of regular jobs. It is therefore a good thing that a number of restrictions were imposed on the untaxed surplus earnings. I will name just a few of them, because there are many. The system is only accessible to those who at least four-fifths work, are self-employed in the main profession or are retired. An employer may not terminate an employment contract to subsequently have that job completed by an associate worker. There’s also an introduction, which I would like to take as an example. The person who provides occasional services may not perform those tasks with a fixed regularity, may not advertise for them and, if necessary, of course, may not compete with his employer.

On the other hand, we have, of course, a great deal of understanding for the many concerns and questions of both employer and employee organisations about the design. We hope that the imposed restrictions included in the bill will prevent unwanted effects, but it is of course not obvious to predict such a thing in advance with certainty. Therefore, I would like to note that our N-VA group in the Committee on Social Affairs has called for an amendment providing for an evaluation at the first reading. That evaluation should be discussed after one year in the Council of Ministers and in the Chamber.

In this regard, I refer to the report of the first reading, item no. 2839 and 12. It should also be remembered that if in certain sectors the use of associative work or occasional services between citizens leads to unfair competition, the competent minister would surely act.

Furthermore, the explanatory memo explicitly states: "A rapid intermediate evaluation of the system shall be provided. This should reduce the fears of the social partners and allow appropriate corrective measures to be taken if necessary. In this context, the speaker shall announce the submission of an amendment to specify that the evaluation must take place no later than one year after the date of entry into force of the measure. The speaker was me. An amendment in this sense was finally approved in the second reading.

The evaluation after 1 year, in addition to the continuous monitoring, to which you referred in the committee meetings, Mrs. Minister, was and is still for us the conditio sine qua non to support the draft. We would therefore expressly ask you to follow the content of this amendment as far as possible.

The draft is in line with the further flexibility of labour law and it adorns our government and the majority coalition that they dare to make some ambitious reforms in this area. It is of course of crucial importance that we retain sufficient space to make smart, urgent adjustments, in order to ensure that flexibilisation does not destroy regular jobs or punish hard-working self-employed.

I will decide, Mrs. Minister. Despite the fact that all the actors in the field do not provide you with sufficient support for this legislative initiative, the assessment of the civil society hic et nunc seems to us to be too strict.

It is the mandate of the whole coalition to carry out the law on the ground in a correct and continuous monitoring and evaluation after 1 year, with the constant care in mind that no dishonest competition and job destruction should occur, so that the current understandable concerns of the civil society will prove to be unfounded.

But be careful, if it turns out that the coalition fails to carry out its mission, our group will immediately urge a reasonable and fundamental revision of the arrangement.

We will, with our group, considering my argument, support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, we remember the glorious communication of the government at the conclusion of the summer 2017 agreement. He announced the content: ISOC reform, taxation of securities accounts and, finally, the 6,000 euros defiscalized. Everyone seemed to be satisfied. As the song says, “It’s a beautiful novel, it’s a beautiful story.” However, this was not a long, quiet river: late texts, lack of anticipation, amateurism, lack of negotiations, attempts to pass into force and coriacity of the opposition. Thus, the gift package, the package, had to be scattered, broken, squeezed by simple political realism.

So here we are in the summer of 2018 for the landing of season 3 of a long chaotic journey. On the form, this crazy race of obstacles seems to me to illustrate the functioning of your majority. It is somewhat her factory brand: she decides, she announces – according to the revised formula: “Happy who communicates” – and, only then, she realizes that it would have been necessary to consult and negotiate.

Fortunately, at the request of the Socialist Group, a second reading was held in the Social Affairs Committee. Of course, the majority, unfortunately, did not take advantage of it to improve the original text and make it less harmful to the economic and associative sectors. However, you have noticed that some amendments were still needed. Thanks to this second reading – all of which were not voted in December – you were able to file.

I have another small satisfaction. Under pressure from the opposition, which had to fight firmly, hearings related to this bill could be organized. The consequences of this text will affect the economic world and the associative sector equally.

It is true that your majority is accustomed to trying to move in force. However, one realizes that such a method often implies that discussions with the opposition turn out to be necessary.

What is also a little regrettable is a certain disregard that has been demonstrated by some towards the guests we heard, even if those guests did not come to say what you wanted to hear. Indeed, all, without exception, have expressed themselves against this bill by demonstrating the dangers it contains especially for our social security model.

Briefly, I would like to remind you that the CSC believed that sabbering in social security seemed to be the red thread of your bill. I am talking about the original project. The representative of the CSC stresses that there is a real danger of seeing regular jobs supplanted, a danger accentuated by the underfinancing of associative work. He also said he is concerned about redundancies of ordinary workers.

The CGSLB, the liberal trade union, also believes that this project clearly constitutes unfair competition for both self-employed and self-employed workers and employers, as they will be put in competition with people who must not meet any standards. The liberal trade union also considers the pressure that may be exercised on wages. A person might very well find himself forced to accept a low salary, a salary of 4 to 5 euros for example.

On the part of the FGTB, it is also considered to be a factor of unfair competition. I would also say that the unfair competition factor was the common denominator of all social partners. According to the FGTB, this project may lead to a de-professionalization compared to regular employment.

It is not only the workers who are opposed to this project. The employers, the FEB, whose majority is, however, very close, - this is quite notorious - also told us that there were not enough shelters and that all this involved a very high risk of unfair competition compared to companies that, themselves, respect the rules of the game and pay taxes and social security contributions.

UNIZO also believes that there is an effect of unfair competition that will come from this project. I quote it: "People who will pay less taxes and social contributions will be able to apply lower rates, which is obviously a form of unfair competition against self-employed and companies."

The UCM also fears de-professionalization, a lack of benefits for social security, unfair competition and legal insecurity.

The SNI told us that its messaging was flooded with messages from independent people who were worried. The SNI believes that “it is simply unlikely that some will have to pay taxes and social contributions for a specific activity while others are exempt from it.”

For him, "the project deprives the small independent workers of their income and considers the independent as second-zone citizens."

I cite here, on the employer’s bank, the SNI, the UCM, the UNIZO and the FEB who join the workers’ representatives in this regard.

The social and associative sector also expressed opposition to this project. Thus, the Union of Social Profit Enterprises, UNISOC, believes that there is clearly a question of unfair competition with volunteers, who are relegated in a corner. Emmeline Orban of the French-speaking platform of volunteerism, believes for her part that the project denaturates volunteerism. This is also our point of view. “We will witness,” she says, “the merchandising of an act that was, at the beginning, an act of solidarity, by nature, free.” As for the Upper Volunteer Council, he also says that the image of volunteering has been blurred in many structures and that people who work under contract will find themselves in competition with others. His message is summarized: “Not in my name!”

Many have then expressed themselves by mail, in the press, by email, interpelling you, interpelling us in favor of a change in the project and urging you to take time for reflection.

In the absence of prior consultation with the federated entities, Cocof has introduced a conflict of interest procedure to try to open a dialogue and demonstrate how dangerous your project is. Unfortunately, the real constructive dialogue aimed at a balanced consensus was replaced by a confrontation of monologues.

The majority members should be aware of this. I will address in particular my colleague, Mr. Clarinval, in reference to the SNI’s remarks and the concerns of the small independent workers that it relays. They feel abandoned.

This project also damages the building on which our social security is built. The SPF Finance estimated that some 140 million euros would be deprived of it and public services. The National Labour Council also considered that this project undermines what the social partners have built in terms of social protection. You have chosen a frontal attack on the right to work and solidarity.

With this bill, you are finally organising a new form of social intrabelge dumping. You put workers in competition with each other.

Tomorrow, the plumber, the electrician, the horticulture who pay their contributions and their taxes risk being stolen from their work by an occasional worker who is cheaper because he does not contribute. In this way, you create a subset. This occasional worker will not have any social rights. There will be no pension rights. He will not benefit from the protection of his employment, he will not have a notice in case of dismissal, no protection of his salary. It can be paid in any way. With this ideological project, you are damaging our social model, which is recognized worldwide. You will precariate the employment of our fellow citizens who have already suffered badly from other provisions, other measures.

This reduces the quality of the services offered. Indeed, the legislator, the public authorities impose on professionals a series of conditions: qualifications, quality and safety standards to protect consumers. Tomorrow, occasional workers risk escaping these requirements, which will reduce the quality and security of the services rendered.

This bill will cause serious harm to workers, ⁇ , self-employed and associations. This is a major social issue. This project is obviously unacceptable. We will continue to fight him, even after his likely vote.

Madame and gentlemen ministers, this text is not even yet voted that you are already announcing us a reparative law that no one, at least in the opposition, has seen and of which no one knows what it contains. The loop is not yet closed! A season 4 is already announced to correct mistakes, forgetting, approximations. I believe that the minimum respect to have for our Parliament, our democracy, our fellow citizens is to be able to decide on a definitive text. I therefore ask you, Madam Minister, that you may put to our disposal the content of this reparatory law, so that we may pronounce immediately with knowledge of cause. We must respect our democratic procedures.

I hope in any case that the Constitutional Court will not be fooled and will cancel your text as it is. You understood it, and we said it and repeated it in the committee: for the Socialist group, it is not. We will vote against this horrible bill.

Madam and gentlemen ministers, Le Manuel du petit flibustier, this is the title of the next book that we will be able to write when we analyze how the opposition has dealt with the matter in question. These are not caricatures. I only mention facts. From second reading, amendments submitted to the State Council and conflicts of interest – the fourth in six months, which allowed us to recall how much COCOF was instrumentalized here, in a federal debate. All this flibust was put in place but a year after the announcement of the decision, the project ends up on the table of Parliament.

Mr. Delizée said: We are announcing a repair law. Indeed, we could have had a more constructive debate and possibly modified the text, but what would have happened? We would have had a new conflict of interest and new acts of flibust, and we would have been left for a tour. It was not reasonable to start a debate of this order with an opposition that was not in a constructive state of mind.

As far as we are concerned, we have well understood that you were fiercely opposed to this text and we take note of this. However, we, in the majority, have the willingness to move forward and establish this new system that grants additional freedom to our fellow citizens. In fact, we want to establish a system that allows a person to receive an untaxed income of 500 euros per month for work performed during their free time in the non-commercial sector. These 500 euros are the maximum. The annual ceiling is set at a maximum of 6 000 euros.

Why do this? To offer a response to the different needs observed within the society, affecting several specific sectors. We also want to follow the will of the Superior Council of Volunteers, which was based on the constatation of the existence of a grey zone between work and volunteering, in which many people were situated and which put this system under tension. This grey area unfortunately gave rise to abuse and fraud, with defrauds that were not, and hand-to-hand payments that were neither legal nor acceptable.

Furthermore, it would also provide greater protection for workers and pensioners. From now on, the activities will be declared and this without tax retention or social contributions. Therefore, it simply introduces more transparency in the mechanism.

Mr. Clarinval, in the past, we have solved this problem of black work by another means, namely the service titles.

In some sectors, yes.

At the time, I launched this system, which has been continuously improved, and that’s a good thing. At least workers are protected.

Here you organize a system of competition without the protection of workers and without the protection of those and those who will benefit from the services of the mini-jobs you create. Why have we not sought a system that would offer both the fight against black labour and the protection of workers, rather than, as usual, creating a system that reduces the quality of employment?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to two elements, at this stage of Mr. Clarinval’s speech. Already in committee, he considered that fraud practices were widespread in the associative sector. I can only be misguided with regard to this so easy disregard, from the tribune, of a sector that too often carries out, with threads, public utility missions of reception and animation of early childhood, of permanent education, of cultural activities. It is so easy, when one deprives the state, and all its components, of means to properly subsidize these sectors, to come then to the tribune to accuse it of fraud.

There are fraudsters, especially in financial matters. This is billions of euros every year. Join your energy with mine to prevent those from hurting, rather than denouncing somewhat easily those who have to cope.

The second word that makes me react, like Ms. Onkelinx, is the word "protection". You announce here that you will provide protection to those who implement volunteering. I wonder where is your protection, since you propose a system where the money that will be earned will not be subject, on the one hand, to any tax payment, but on the other hand, to any payment of social contributions. Whoever says social contributions says rights derived from the payment of these social contributions.

What about workers’ rights? What insurance will they get if they get sick? A workplace accident that could occur. The protection of the beneficiaries of their activities.

You are, on the contrary, creating a system that is totally deregulated and that, in addition, will enter into the competition of people who, they, pay their social contributions correctly. UNIZO, UCM and the Higher Council of Independents and SMEs say the same: they denounce this situation of unfair competition.

Personally, I don’t see, on the one hand, where is fraud in the associative sector – maybe you’re well-informed about the matter – and, on the other hand, where is worker protection in your system.

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that after a year of discussion we still hear such nonsense. We’ve been talking for a year and we’re still getting out of mini-jobs. Mrs. Onkelinx, take the service checks first and foremost. We introduced them together. That’s a good system, that’s right, but it costs the taxpayer more than a billion euros in subsidies. You should be careful with what you say.

Secondly . You say we are organizing mini-jobs here. That is totally wrong, where do you get that? Do you know the rules and conditions under which this type of work can be performed? You must have at least a job of four-fifths or be self-employed in the main profession, or be retired. In other words, one must already have a full-fledged social status before it can be started. You say you pay nothing, but you also get nothing. This does not build social rights, because one already enjoys them within its existing statute. Either you do not understand it, which would surprise me after all your experiences as a minister, or you are lying. I fear it is the second. You are trying to scare people. Honestly, that will not catch up.

Colleagues, this is about a system not to earn, but to contribute. Is there demand for it? This will be revealed later in my speech.

Are employers lying? Are the little independent people who have expressed themselves lying? Does the FEB lie? Are trade unions lying? Do volunteer organizations lie? Is there a coalition of liars against you? What is all this?

Moreover, you say – it’s a bit of anything – that the service titles cost and that at least here it won’t cost. But of course yes! Why will this cost the community? There are no social contributions. What are the latter used for? To mutualize means to provide health care to everyone, pensions to everyone, to have a system of work accidents. Since we will not have the means through these small unprotected jobs, it is obviously the taxpayer who, one day or another, will pay. It is therefore a cost-effective system, which will weigh on social security, which offers no protection to workers, nor to the beneficiaries of work. Furthermore, questions remained unanswered. What will you do when these workers are, for example, victims of a workplace accident? You will say that it is a pity, that it is so bad. What you offer us is anything.

I emphasize once again that all civil society, all social interlocutors have considered your system to be stupid and dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I am as surprised as Mr. Van Quickenborne of the non-evolution of spirits for a year. But I am also surprised by the non-evolution of his spirit to him and that of the minister here present.

You may not agree with the opposition. This happens every day. But we are not the only ones who speak on the subject.

I would like to give two elements of precise answer following the intervention of Mr. Van Quickenborne. According to the latter, the workers concerned are already covered in terms of social security since they must also have a contract covering at least 4/5 times.

Do you ignore, Mr. Van Quickenborne, that certain social benefits are proportional to income? If one falls sick, the compensation received is calculated, in part, based on the income received.

You have been Minister of Pensions, you know that our pension system generates for workers a pension that is partially proportional to their contributions throughout their career.

Making people work, in part, without payment of social contributions, does not generate additional social rights especially in terms of pensions, where pensions are still dramatically low in our country.

Second element, on the issue of job destruction and mini-jobs: again, you try to induce everyone into error. The problem lies in the fact that people who will work after hours to perform services in competition with companies and self-employed, will benefit from a situation of unfair competition with the latter, these gardeners, these computer scientists. It is their situation that will be weakened by your system.

This is exactly what UNIZO explained to us. I thought you were sensitive about it, but ⁇ it is the Greens, Ecolo and Green, who are the closest to this sector of activity and this socio-professional category. Per ⁇ it is the Supreme Council of Independents and SMEs. And you do not want to hear it. You will introduce a principle of unfair competition. It is incomprehensible. Where, some have difficulties to close the month and get a sufficiently filled order booklet, you will put them in addition in competition with people who, they, will pay neither tax nor social contribution. It is just incomprehensible!

I would like to come back briefly on two points so that you will have all the considerations.

Mr. Clarinval, I will return to your first expression but also to the procedure as well as the method. You talked about flibust and harshness. We tried to make you understand that receiving a 725-page document to be dealt with in a few hours or days was not a good way to work and that in the background, the topics ⁇ deserved reflection, concertation and dialogue. You tell us that the opposition did not have a constructive approach. It is sidérant! This is the opposite of reality!

I want to tell you that the majority wanted to vote very, very quickly without getting tired of hearing or debating. Eventually, we reached consensus to conduct hearings. But, with regard to these texts, we hoped that these hearings would open the eyes and give rise to reflections to improve the text and thus make it more balanced.

That was not the case, but I don’t think we can say that the opposition was not constructive. We tried to push the reflection further, while the majority remained silent on its package and wanted to move forward, while knowing that a conflict of interest would arise and procedures would be launched. This text was so bad that we used all the democratic leverage we hold as members of the opposition.

Then you approach the grey area explaining that this problem needs to be solved. It may be true, but not in this way. As I just pointed out at the tribune, read the report of the Senior Volunteer Council: it did not show itself in favour of your project as it is presented to us and even specified: “Not in my name.” It goes well beyond the grey zone. You talk about collaborative, associative work, between neighbors. In short, you have broadened the subject. You could have worked out a project that could solve the grey area problem, which has been pending for years, but you have expanded its scope. This was stated by all the members who came to the committee.

Therefore, stop pretending that this project serves to solve the problem of the grey area. It’s too big, and that’s what we blame it for.

I will try to answer in an exhaustive way.

First of all, Mrs. Onkelinx, you’re wrong when you talk about “workers.” This is not the case here: they are workers who already have a at least 4/5-hour employment contract and who, in addition, do volunteer work. They do so on a voluntary basis, by definition. So they are not forced. If they do, it is under these conditions. In other words, they already benefit from social security, through their official employment contract.

In short, when you talk about “workers,” you’re mistaken. They are volunteers who complete their hours with an activity carried out in the associative world.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I’ve been listening to you for half an hour now. I just want to answer you and talk about a few issues. We have installed four shields, which I will detail shortly. We have planned, because – and Mr. Gilkinet is right on this point – we are also attentive to unfair competition. We do not want this system to encourage it. Therefore, the mechanism has set out four safeguards that will need to be evaluated subsequently. If necessary, we will replace them.

Mr. Gilkinet, I didn’t say fraud was widespread in the associative world. This is not true; I only said that she was there. As a commission, remember, I cited the case of a swimming pool where swimmers were paid by the volunteer system, while in reality we know very well that they were paid for giving swimming classes. I will not go into detail, but I will illustrate theoretically what exists.

Close your eyes and say that there is no black in the associative world is false. You know it very well. But I didn’t say it was generalized.

Mr. Delizée, you acknowledged that you had nevertheless used all possible and imaginable mechanisms to slow down the process. Therefore, you have practiced a form of flibust.

Why did I say you were not constructive? Take the example of COCOF. During the consultation meetings, when COCOF was asked what amendments it was proposing and which sectors it wanted to remove from the list, she left the room. She never offered anything. You will tell me that the COCOF is not the opposition but its government is made up of the same parties as those that make up the federal opposition.

The minister has clearly said, and she will repeat it soon, that she is demanding amendments coming from the opposition. There was an amendment aimed at removing the entire text! This is very constructive! We have never received technical amendments to remove certain sectors.

It is so easy to amalgamate and caricate. For the associative sector, the Ecolo-Groen group recognizes a specificity to the sports sector and the art sector, which require an adequate response. We have suggested that you apply this system as an exploration for a single sector and then evaluate it before setting up, as you are considering, a very broad system, which you will evaluate before correcting it. It will be too late because the consequences for economic sectors that struggle to survive today will be very heavy.

As for the amendments, the last act we put forward through the plenary session is actually to send a series of amendments to the State Council that, unfortunately, you obviously did not read. Preventive work, which is not limited to the Ecolo-Groen group, has been done to try to reduce the negative impact we feel and which is announced by a series of interlocutors.

Furthermore, the State Council validates very broadly the proposals we have made, even if it had to react in the urgency. And, where he made comments, we corrected our amendments and we put them back. It is actually about answering specific questions, including the needs of the sports sector or certain cultural operators (theatre troops, choirs, etc.) while avoiding competition with computer scientists, gardeners or others that you will hurt, simply because you do not dare to say no to your partner, the Vld.

Mr. Clarinval, I have listened carefully to your explanation and I will continue my speech later, but I would like to respond now.

You tell Ms. Onkelinx that it is about mini-jobs. I do not want to use the term mini-jobs.

Your explanation is not correct either. You say that it’s about people who work four-fifths and who, therefore, already have all insurance and related affairs, and do a job with it. Let me give an example of an employee who works four-fifths at Colruyt. If that employee goes out of work after her hours and gets an accident at the time she is in work, then Colruyt’s insurance for that accident does not meet? The employee is not insured for this accident. The assertion that everything is covered because the affected persons perform a four-fifth job is therefore not correct. This question remains open. At the moment, it is still unclear how employees are insured at the time of additional work.

Second, you said that the opposition has filibustered. Mr. Clarinval, were you present when we invited the ten organizations? You, like me, have been a member of Parliament for a very long time. Well, in my opinion, it was really unseen that the ten invited bodies formulated criticism.

This does not mean that we are against the idea as a whole. We are opposed to the very extensive introduction, as it now presents. You are right in your example of the sports world, but the current bill goes much wider. The draft, for example, affects a lot of small self-employed persons, who often have to have the problem of attachment; they are also adjusted by this bill. There is no answer to this problem. This criticism has been drawing for more than a year, but the majority has been deaf for it for more than a year. Classical arguments are cited, as if the opposition would philibustic. Institutions such as volunteer organizations, workers’ and employers’ organizations have been ringing the bell, but even for that, you remain deaf. It is too easy to say that we are an opponent, simply because we are in the opposition. That is not true, Mr. Clarinval, we are not by definition against. We hear about the problems in the sports world, but that is not a reason for the adoption of a law so comprehensive that it disrupts the labour market. We cannot agree with this.

I will try to answer, then I will try to finish my speech. Rapidly, Mr. Gilkinet, yes, indeed, ⁇ there were proposals in your recent amendments, but in the meantime, these were submitted late and were not proposed in the framework of the committee negotiation. It was during the discussions with COCOF that proposals had to come up with! The minister stretched out his hand and it was not done. It is true that you are not sitting at the COCOF. It is also true that the composition is not quite the same at the level of the opposition.

Mrs. Kitir, I hear the comments but I remind you that the same comments and fears were present when we talked about flexi-jobs. Today, flexi-jobs are actually practical. We no longer hear criticisms or comments and we see that flexi-jobs work.

Finally, I’m going to introduce you to the four guardians, because I feel like you’re trembling with impatience. As previously stated, the first precaution is the prohibition for a person who has a contract of less than 80% to be able to perform this kind of voluntary work. This means that she has a social status and an employment contract elsewhere.

The second barrier consists in the prohibition of converting a labor contract into associative work. It is not allowed.

The third precaution is the prohibition for the associate worker to simultaneously perform an activity for the same organization within the framework of his employment contract. Therefore, it cannot be exercised in the context of its profession.

The last precaution is the prohibition for former workers of an organization to work as volunteers in the organization for which they worked, up to one year in advance.

It is clear that the Group of Ten and many people have criticized this text, including employer organisations. I said it. We are sensitive to these criticisms and have submitted an amendment in committee to the Minister. It was accepted. With this amendment, we demanded that an evaluation be made very quickly, a permanent monitoring of the system. The Minister has accepted and will immediately set up a monitoring that will allow, if necessary, to correct the shot. I trust the government. This is what differentiates us. I trust both the minister and the government to correct the shot.

Recognize, Mr. Cheron, you who are an eminent jurist, that the situation would have been better if the opinion of the State Council had not been taken into account! Remember to! In the original text, the list of functions was not present in the bill and a royal decree was needed for implementation. A royal order is a more flexible tool for changing the list of sectors. Unfortunately, the State Council has demanded that this list be included in the text. Therefore, in order to respect the Council of State, the text had to be corrected. Let’s recognize that this will be an additional weight! A royal order would have been more flexible.

Mr Clarinval, Mr Gilkinet asks for the floor.

Mr. Clarinval, excuse me, but among your bad arguments, this one is even worse than the others. The State Council effectively says that the government cannot be authorized, by royal decree, to fix or expand the list. It does not say that the list should be three pages. If your list identifies the sports and cultural sectors, it responds to the State Council’s comment. To infer that it must be broad, because the State Council asks you to be precise, is a sophism that does not hold the way. It doesn’t even seem logical.

It is not only necessary to read the opinion of the State Council. It still needs to be understood!

Anyway, I have the impression that the criticisms heard here are exactly the same as those addressed to the text on flexi-jobs. We had the same oppositions, the same comments, the same fears, the text passed and today the flexi-jobs work. They are effective and highly expected in the industry, to the satisfaction of all. I therefore do not doubt for a moment that a similar welcome will be reserved in the months and years that come to this system. If changes are necessary through continuous monitoring, the list of sectors may be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the draft presented today will soon ensure that a lot of association activities and work between citizens can be properly arranged and remunerated.

There has been a lot of talk here about the black and gray circuit, but I think that one often doesn’t want to know how things should be arranged, despite the fact that both those who want to do something and the association for which it is done always want to arrange in good faith and in the best possible way, but that one often fails in it and must do it in a way that may be something gray instead of white. We will arrange that well with this design so that those things are made white. That can only be a good thing.

A lot has already been said here. Ms. Kitir, you just said that people are not insured. Association workers are insured and anyone who wants to join must insure themselves. That is the logic of things.

Mr. Vercamer, can you tell me how to insure himself? What kind of insurance should a person take when he is going to get in touch with someone? What kind of insurance should he take so that he is covered when he falls short and gets an accident? What is the insurance he needs to take?

This is the same as with any insurance that one wants to make today when one wants to do something. Many people already have such insurance. It depends on what you want to insure for, what guarantees you want and how much premium you want to pay. This is how it works today in the insurance world and so will it work tomorrow in the insurance world. This is the normal course of affairs.

Such insurance does not exist. I will get into this later.

We have always advocated that this new arrangement would continue as soon as possible for the sports and cultural sectors as they were best prepared for it.

When the draft was submitted last year, our group asked to take some more time for the other sectors because we wanted to monitor the quality. We also said that a number of conditions should be registered.

I think we all agree that sport and culture had a need for such arrangements for a long time. Just think of conductors, youth coaches, sports coaches, and so on, where you didn’t always know exactly how to manage it. This can now be properly arranged. It is a good thing that this can now be arranged easily and correctly.

For the other sectors, we have urged from the beginning of the discussion to make some adjustments to monitor the quality.

Our first concern was that for the use of this system in the healthcare sector the quality requirements had to be guaranteed and remain. We wanted the quality in the healthcare sector to remain at the current level.

Bram Devolder, a researcher at the Centre for Legal Methodology of the KU Leuven, had worked on this and written a very solidly substantiated opinion, in particular that the quality requirements are best inscribed in the three pillars: in the association work, in the occasional services to the citizens and in the sharing platforms. This has also happened. We are very pleased that this advice was followed.

It also stipulated that the day and night care of people in need and the care of children must comply with the conditions and quality criteria of the Communities. This is for us the guarantee that the quality in the healthcare sector remains guaranteed.

Regarding the provision of support in residential care centers and facilities for persons with disabilities and persons in need of care, I have another question that you may later be able to clarify.

It is stated that the regulations concerning the quality requirements for the professional exercise of those activities must be complied with. With this statute, the operator of the activities has no status as an employee or self-employed and the stricto sensu therefore does not refer to a professional activity. Is it true that the purpose of this provision is to distinguish between the status as such and the activity carried out, and that, consequently, the activities remain subject to the application of Community and regional legislation on quality and qualification requirements? It seems to me important to distinguish between the statute and the activities and that the activities are also covered by the regional and community regulations on the quality and qualification requirements.

Our second concern was that there would be better consultation with the workplace. We are grateful that the Minister has also engaged in this so that the necessary time could be taken to engage in dialogue, not only with the field of work but also with the Communities and Regions so that they can adapt to the new reality.

In this way we have also been able to make some improvements to this legislation. Among other things, adjustments were made to the list of activities, improved formulations regarding permitted activities, better definitions were formulated and so on.

At the same time, consultations with the sectors were also held. They also had a lot of concerns, which were also taken into account. Thus, it was clear from the consultation that the youth movements, the youth sector and the playground activity were not in favour of being included on the list of associative work. We have entered into this. As already stated, the sector is mainly working with volunteers and it is intended that this will continue to be the case in the future in the field of youth work.

The sports sector indicated that for them the monthly ceiling of 500 euros was insufficient. This has also been explained to us. After all, this sector has to deal with peak moments in the school holidays, when there are many sports camps and the like. They demanded a monthly ceiling of EUR 1 000, but of course with a permanent annual ceiling of EUR 6 000. We can also enter into this.

Then there was another contradiction between upper companies, because in the socio-cultural sector there are contracts of limited duration, of 25 days, with which, with limited social security contributions and less tax burdens, one can still employ people to support, among other things, the functioning in the cultural sector. However, this resulted in the fact that these people could not be allowed to get stuck because they already have a employment contract. In order to avoid this, we have taken action and have made sure that this is possible. Also for this purpose, we have provided an exception to the rule that states that the association worker and the organization cannot be bound by an employment contract 12 months prior to the contract.

Finally, from the socio-cultural sector there were some proposals to adjust the description and the list of activities. We also entered into this so that things were clearer and sharper.

This delay has led to a very successful consultation with the sectors. Through a repair law, which is coming, we will be able to fill those concerns even better. It is also intended that this law and the Repair Act enter into force together so that we have a good regulation.

In addition to the association work, the services from citizen to citizen are also regulated in this draft. In addition to the traditional tasks, this design also offers opportunities and possibilities to properly organize and reimburse, for example, family support activities. This is in response to the concerns of colleague Griet Smaers who has submitted a bill on family support. This will allow small family support activities to be organized correctly and easily.

Mr Clarinval has already mentioned that one year after the entry into force we will have to make an evaluation that will then be submitted to the Chamber. This was also registered. It will enable us to monitor the application of this legislation in practice and its consequences. I think here, for example, of the consequences for regular employment, a legitimate concern. We will have to see if this has an effect on it. This also applies to the potential competition for the self-employed. We think we have arranged this well with the design but we will see after a year if the fears that some have about that competition for the self-employed, whether or not in subsidiary occupation, are justified. There are also concerns about social protection. After a year, it will also be clear whether there will be any additions.

Mrs. Minister, I would like to emphasize that, as far as we are concerned, the development of the subplatform economy must be closely monitored. This should be monitored closely because there are far fewer restrictions imposed. There was only a tax adjustment. There is no requirement for four-fifth employment. The subplatforms must be recognized by the government but there is no need for separate recognition per activity. There is also no limiting list of activities that makes the risk of displacement of regular employment and unfair competition more real. We assume that this will not be the case, but we will have to ensure that this is closely monitored. It should remain limited to accompanying tasks and everything must be done correctly.

As far as the platforms are concerned, we still have some work to do, not only because we could lose a lot of income for social security but especially because the most vulnerable people could be pushed into a precarious job without protection and without building up social rights. We assume that this will not happen and our group will continue to watch over this so that we can make the necessary adjustments in time. For the rest, we will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is my pleasure to be here today at the speaker’s table before you at the conclusion of the discussion of the present bill.

When I compare the bill with all the other drafts and proposals we have discussed, I can conclude that it is probably a record bill. After all, the design probably has the longest track record of all the designs and texts we discussed here.

Mrs. Minister, your child was born with the summer agreement in the summer of 2017. We are now almost a year later. Hopefully soon it will be viable.

It was a long birth. Some people ask themselves how this happens. I must honestly admit that the opposition played the game well. The opposition has taken all the resources out of the closet to slow down the design, with the desire to kill it.

It is the intense hope of many members here that it would perish.

We are not exhausted.

Mr. Calvo, you are not really exhausted. I hope it will succeed today.

Are you planning other things, ⁇ ? Will you do something else? Just say it.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, you have only thirty seconds to speak and you are already taking a walk with reality. The opposition has not exhausted all possibilities. She has sought a lot of opportunities to enter the substantive debate.

Your presentation, however, sounds almost like an invitation – I now look at the other members – to take advantage of the existing additional possibilities. It sounds almost like that.

Our opposition, however, has been a substantial opposition.

It’s not just about the opposition here in Parliament. Mrs Kitir has just referred to this. I also read the committee reports. There was also strong opposition from society, employers, workers and federations were also concerned.

So it is a pity. It is a busy discussion baby from the Open Vld. However, do not complete the discussions of the draft as gefilibuster and as procedural issues. It was a serious substantive debate, which was conducted not only by the opposition but also by others.

Therefore, Mr. Calvo, are the arguments that are being developed today all completely new arguments? No, those arguments were repeated, repeated and repeated until the mourning. I will unfortunately have to disappoint you today, because I will probably have to repeat all the points already discussed in the committee.

You talk about the techniques. What has resulted in the conflict of interest? What was the second reading? These are all techniques that have been used and have led to nothing.

Mr Calvo, let me speak for a moment. I will replicate. The debate goes in two directions.

The second reading was the wish of the Greens during the state reform. As chairman of this committee, I have seen many second readings. What has this already brought, a second reading? In the long run, that second reading will be worse than the Senate. I thought we were delivered from the Senate, but we import the misery of the Senate to us.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you, as chairman of this Chamber, will take initiatives to reconsider this procedure. Anyone who knows anything about this knows that this absolutely does not work as it should.

Ms. Temmerman is speaking, followed by Mr. Calvo. Ladies first, Mr Calvo.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Mr. Van Quickenborne, we have already had second lectures in the discussion of bills and bills, in which some points were improved and corrected. Mr Vercamer has just referred to it, even in this case following a second reading. I want to remind you: this is just democracy. You have a bit of trouble with that, I understand, but this is just democracy.

Why did this second reading come about? Because in the past one had to go to the Senate with this, where one took the time to rethink some things and, possibly, improve them. This is the purpose of the second reading. Again, Mr. Van Quickenborne, that has led to a real improvement in various bills and bills, also from suggestions that came from you.

In fact, I should give the word to colleague Van Hecke, because he is the expert of the second reading. After all, he is the colleague who, like others, regularly, thanks to the second reading, knows how to correct the stupidities of this majority. If you say that the second reading has no meaning, it means that you are walking too little around here. After all, it happens regularly, possibly not in the Social Affairs Committee with the Van Quickenborne storm, but in other committees, that in the second reading legislative work is improved. The second reading of course has its limitations, like any procedure, but it also has its merits.

Mr Van Quickenborne, you are asking what the conflict of interest has brought about, what the hearings have brought about, what the second reading has brought about. It is true that this has delivered too little, but that is not the problem of the procedures, that is not the problem of the conflict of interests, that is not the problem of the hearings, that is not the problem of the second reading, that is the problem of the Open Vld who but does not want to listen. If ten people pass through the committee to say that this is not good, that this is a stunt by Gwendolyn Rutten and Vincent Van Quickenborne, then you say: we continue. If the Communities provide feedback and advice, the Open Vld says: we do not take into account this. If there is a second reading in which legal arguments from the State Council come forward, the Vld says: we continue, just do. That is the problem, not the procedures, but the ideological sothering of the Open Vld for which the small self-employed pays the price. That is the problem in this debate.

There was already Mr. Clarinval, but as you add a layer, Mr. Van Quickenborne, I find that it begins to become too much!

What are you doing? You are accusing us of flibust! That you accuse politicians goes on, but when you talk about flibust, who do you accuse? You accuse all those who have manifested during all these months, with you, with us, whether they are employers, unions, self-employed or actors of the non-merchant. Everyone asked us, everyone asked you to move the lines. They highlighted unfair competition with the creation of genuine intra-border dumping.

The locks you announced are façade locks. If the government had the audacity, if it had the courage, you would have fundamentally revisited your project! Denigrating the opposition is one thing; accusing it of flibust is another. On the other hand, to accuse the field actors who hoped, through these different stages, to be able to make you hear the right and be able to make this project evolve, I find this totally unacceptable. And that is what you do!

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I would not normally interrupt you in the debate, but you use it a little to attack the second reading. I understand that it has taken too long for you, but that’s not the second reading. The second reading leads to no more than two, three weeks of extra work and in case of urgency the deadlines are even shorter.

In the Committee on Justice, we have the custom of holding a second reading for almost all texts. Eighty to ninety per cent of the texts in the Committee for Justice will receive a second reading, with an opinion from the Legal and Technical Service. I would like to reiterate that this service does a great job. I can assure you that at every second reading numerous amendments are still being submitted by the majority to make technical corrections and improvements, thanks to that work, which was previously done by the Senate. This will take two to three weeks.

So Mr. Van Quickenborne, before you focus your arrows on the second reading, agree with your colleagues in the Justice Committee. The majority even looks at the length of the debate with the opposition asking whether we will ask for a second reading, because it will be necessary. The majority also realizes that the second reading is useful, that it is not a delaying manoeuvre and that it advances the quality of our work. If you do not believe me, we can always ask the services how many amendments are approved on average in second reading to correct the texts. I can assure you that there are many. This is not much used in other committees. Sometimes I have doubts about the legal quality of the texts, if they pass through in the first reading. I have serious questions about that. Even after a second reading in the Justice Committee, the texts will undoubtedly still contain a lot of errors, even though we can already correct a lot of them.

You are free to criticize the majority, but you are wrong in attacking the second reading, as it is really a useful tool for Parliament.

Colleagues, nonetheless... (Protest by Mr. Calvo)

This has nothing to do with ideology, Mr. Calvo. I speak from my four-year experience as Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee. I was able to conclude that no second reading in our committee has resulted in anything. That is the reality.

I kindly urge the Chairman of the Chamber to take initiatives to review, refine and improve the second reading, because together with many colleagues I have no good experiences with it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take initiatives in this regard.

I take records of that. (The Romanian)

What comparison are you making now?

We have been able to listen to some of our colleagues. I predict that the opposition will soon come here to give a washlist of the problems, dangers, traps and threats. It is as if with this bill the world collapses. If we listen to certain colleagues, we have not yet seen the end.

I will, of course, discuss in detail the negative elements that are seen in the design. Now, in the debate, I would like to focus first on the opportunities that the draft law brings. Outside the Parliament, the economy is going through disruptions. Nothing is yet certain. Business models are put on their heads. Everyone, any self-employed or large company, must innovate in order to survive.

As politicians, we are often accused that we are back-thinking. As soon as we succeed in adapting our legislation to reality, it is now obsolete. This is the criticism that we often receive. If I listen to the criticism of the bill, then I understand why there is so much criticism, Mr. Calvo. Those who formulate criticism stick to what we have, to the statutes and to the systems of decades ago. They stick to it so strongly that they do not even dare to think innovatively.

It sounds hard, but a disruptive society requires disruptive legislation. That is what we need. We must dare to think out of the box. Now is the time, not for legislation that is so eagerly put up here on the left to restrict the freedom of people – say what is not allowed to do, restrict people, impose rules – but for legislation that cherishes freedom and gives people freedom, Mrs. Minister.

Already in 1830, from the Constitution of our country, Mr. Van der Donckt, it appeared that freedom is an essential condition. Of course, there are rand conditions. With this bill, Mr. Calvo, we do not engage in ideological fetishism. If you come among the people, you would know that with a lot of people at home, at sports clubs, with parents and pensioners, in a lot of associations and organizations, there is a question of how to organize and legally earn something, which is precisely regulated here.

Many people would like to earn something in order to move net forward, Mr. Calvo. The best proof of this is the flexi jobs, which you have fought so hard against but which today employ more than 30 000 people and which the catering industry is now so satisfied with. That is the reality. What you resisted has now become a reality.

Mr. de Quickenborne, when you talk about conservative factions, I feel absolutely not addressed. The problem with legislation is not that it is disruptive. The problem is that it is destructive. In fact, it undermines a lot of things that people think are important.

You claim that Ecolo-Groen do not want to build, but then you have not listened properly to colleague Gilkinet. He pointed out that we are open to this possibility in a limited number of sectors. But the present story, in which too much becomes possible, yes, we oppose it.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I am increasingly aware that Open Vld is undergoing some sort of repair operation. Your party has been part of the government for more than 20 years. You have been almost everything in our country. But still, the burden on labor is ridiculously high. The difference between gross and net is ridiculously large in this country for people who are just working. To compensate for that poor palmares, you are now starting to come up with all kinds of new things, such as flexi jobs and untaxed surplus earnings.

Well, I also come very often to people. What people ask for is not a second job, whose income is tax-free, but a first job that is taxed in a fair way. They want less labor burden for the first job, for a job that includes social protection, for a job that combines a family. They don’t want a second job, with a fake status.

I understand that after 20 years you feel the urge to compensate somewhat and reduce the taxes on labor somewhat, but please do so through regular statutes, with regular work with a decent social protection. You are a real reformer. Then, as a liberal, you have the right to talk about fair taxes and not when you launch fake statutes, which de facto make people’s lives more difficult rather than easier.

Mr Calvo, you think the text goes too far. Certain activities cannot be done for you. Let me mention the activities on the list that you think should not be regulated in the draft law.

Colleague Gilkinet has just mentioned, for example, the sport.

Call them me.

This was also our position in the Flemish Parliament. If you had started with the feedback from the Communities, the design could have looked much better.

Let me mention activities that you think should not be regulated by this bill. Call them one.

These are tasks that colleague Kitir recently mentioned, such as small maintenance tasks.

Call them.

What we are experiencing here is, in fact, full punishment. We’ve been debating about it for a year and apparently you were so stubborn to see the draft approved that you haven’t listened to all the suggestions and amendments from the opposition over the past few months.

In certain sectors, such as the recreational and sports sectors, it can be profitable for us, but when you compete with the small self-employed, we say it cannot.

More and more I consider your question as an invitation to make the debate even longer and even develop new procedures, because apparently you have not listened to all the examples that colleagues Gilkinet, Kitir and Onkelinx have brought into the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Mr. Vercamer is well placed to teach us lessons. I recently read the committee’s report and wondered if it was part of the opposition or the majority. I like it very much and it hurts me somewhat to have to emphasize it, but unfortunately, he changed his mind while the text had not been modified. Per ⁇ other items have been negotiated in the meantime. You blame us, Mr. Vercamer, for not formulating a counterproposal. Fifty amendments from Ecolo-Groen will be put to the vote soon. This is a bad reproach.

We clearly propose to limit, as an experiment, the implementation of this new arrangement to the sports and cultural sectors, and then evaluate it. This is what Mr. Clarinval proposes. We will then see if it can be applied to other sectors. If you really want to apply it to the classical economy, beyond the associative sector, avoid at least any sector in which the device would create unfair competition. Instead, target pockets of economic activity that are not the subject of the benefits of self-employed, SMEs, and that meet needs that have not been satisfied so far.

In the non-market sector, the humanitarian aid sector could suddenly see a series of people without a diploma, operating without ethical support. You could condition the implementation of this system to agreements made, either within the parity committees or at the level of companies, to determine the functions that could, at worst, be exercised. These could be reception functions but not care functions, such as assistant-care functions in this sector.

We have made many proposals submitted here in the form of amendments. I know the Matamoresque methods of Mr. Van Quickenborne who thinks that he can be right alone against the whole world, that is, not only against the opposition, but also against a series of socio-economic interlocutors who I think are quite respectable. In your chief, Mr. Vercamer, it is quite unwelcome, given your own criticism of this text that you have had, like others, to swallow since the beginning of the legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I found Mr. Vercamer’s question very relevant and I have determined that Mr. Calvo had to call a helpline after a year, in order to get the answer.

The [...]

Yes, we know that!

Mr. Calvo, I am glad that you are interested in the 500 euro, which makes the debate a little more interesting.

So I just said that when the flexi jobs were introduced, there was also resistance on the left side. The opposition opposed it and called it a bad system. Nowadays, more than 30,000 people use it. In the sectors of the hospitality industry and the retail trade, one is satisfied. It is a working system, to shame and shame of some. Many went to the Constitutional Court but did not get the right. The system works.

Mr Calvo, are you now convinced that the system of flexi-jobs works? Are you now for or against?

The [...]

So you are against. It is good that we know that.

I am energy efficient, so I want to outsource a lot of things, but I will not outsource a program to you, I will do it myself.

Are you for or against?

Our position has not changed. We still say, even after the so-called success of the flexi jobs, that it would be much more interesting to further reduce the labor burden for those wage categories in the normal status than to come up with a new fake status. In this regard, I have no hesitation to express my point of view. We are not for and therefore against the flexi-jobs system. We have other alternatives, which offer greater social protection and that give people real perspective.

And we will not apologize for that. On the contrary, we will continue to try to convince the conservative liberals. We want to deal with the high taxes in the first job, in the normal working environment. But we are not the big fans of the fake statutes and the second job and third job, of which you are apparently wild.

You’ll need a lot of time to answer, but you’re opposed to what I predicted. We can now let the hospitality industry and retail in Flanders know that with Green a system such as the flexi-jobs will disappear. That is clear again. Thanks for the clarity.

Let me say the following. This government and the liberals in particular take into account the realities on the ground, with what is happening on the ground.

We look at the theoretical economic models you declare yourself in a different way. I notice that you are not listening, so I will continue with my argument.

The flexi-jobs system is a solution but it is limited to a number of sectors such as the hospitality industry and retail. We want to give people the opportunity to work in other ways, for example by working a few hours a week for a local association. For example, I think of a sports coach in a football club, giving music lessons to schoolchildren during the lunch break, repairing jobs for the neighbors, in exchange for a small fee.

The desire to make a contribution is not new; it has not existed until 2017, Mrs. Minister. That people want to earn more is not your merit. We must be honest in that. Only our current system has never provided a place for such activities, due to our strict follow-up of existing statutes of employee and self-employed. Those who say that it is necessary to do so as a self-employed in a subsidiary profession underestimate the administrative burden and cost of occasional, non-professional activities.

The [...]

No, Mr Calvo If you followed the debate — this is all new to you; hence it will take a little longer today — you would know that for a year the Minister explained that an independent employee in subsidiary occupation is not an occasional activity but a professional activity. This is an occasional activity. I will later give you the definition again so that you know it before going to bed.

For me, it is actually a little more recent than for my colleagues in the Social Affairs Committee. I actually discover new elements. What I especially discover, Mr. Van Quickenborne, is that we must vote on this because you have failed, in the meantime for twenty years, to address the real problems.

Since the Open Vld fails to reduce the administrative burden for self-employed in subsidiary employment, a new problem with this system must now be created, rather than addressing the actual problems. So we must approve a new problem because the Open Vld fails to address the existing problems. That is sad. This reads like a large letter of powerlessness from the Flemish liberal democrats. Then it comes down. I find this as a newcomer in this debate. You are left behind to address what really needs to be addressed in this country.

Mr. Calvo, you are new and therefore a vegetable in the debate. That is good.

The problem is that such activities with the self-employed status in subsidiary proceedings cannot be solved. This is not possible, because self-employed in subsidiary occupation that is about a professional activity, while this is about an occasional activity. A sports teacher in a club can not be proposed to become a self-employed in a secondary profession. That is stupidity. This also indicates that you do not know much about the file.

The [...]

Yet yes. Mr Calvo proposes to solve the problem with the self-employed status in secondary appeal. That is what he says here. In other words, that would mean that every sports teacher could become self-employed in secondary professions. I wish you a lot of success! After the hospitality industry, we will tell the sports clubs what Green wants for the sports teachers. This is also clear again.

So, my colleagues, it’s about earnings. So it’s about people who already have a main activity or, Ms. Onkelinx, about pensioners who have already worked. This is about people who are already working. You know what work is. That is clear. Thus, it concerns people who have a social status, who are insured and pay social contributions. They can earn in the system without having to give up more than half—which a normal human must do. That is the reality.

Let’s take the case of a small retired who, licked by your new system, comes to paint and falls from the square. What are you doing? There is no insurance against work accidents. What are you doing? You pick it up. In what state?

If he does, he replaces a regular worker who, he, was protected and who, he, participated in social security and payment, including your health care. We will have less resources. What are you answering? We are still waiting for the answer to this.

All social partners, whether representatives of employers or workers, have told you this. You are completely deaf, just because you want your little hook! “We, Open Vld, we exist. We wanted it, we got it!” It is anything! You never answer the questions you are asked.

It is fantastic, colleagues, to see how in Ms. Onkelinx the passionaria comes up again. Therefore, it is painful that this bill... (Luidkeels protest)

We can learn a lot from the style of Mrs. Onkelinx, the passionaria. Give me a chance to do the same.

First, it seems to hurt that this bill will get it. well well . The insurance . Very simply, when it comes to association work, the association is of course obliged to conclude an insurance. When it comes from citizen to citizen or about the system of the platforms, one should do like any self-employed, in particular to take insurance. For an activity such as creating websites, one must, of course, contract a different insurance than when standing on a high worker. That is the reality today. If, of course, you don’t know a lot about self-employed people, then you don’t know how it comes together. This is the system as it should be.

This bill is obviously a shock for the opposition. I think I also know why. Mrs. Minister, this is the first time in this country that we will allow people to earn something extra without paying a euro of taxes or a euro of social contributions. That is revolutionary! The opposition is against, but why? Are you so addicted to that tax pressure, to those taxes and social contributions? You should be satisfied that what people get gross is also net. Is it progress for people if they progress with a net surplus earnings? That’s strengthening people’s purchasing power, that’s giving people more. Isn’t that what we all want, that people progress on net? Why is the opposition so addicted to taxes and social contributions? I do not understand. Please explain to me, Mrs. Onkelinx.

It is crazy! You are not answering. If you were to say to the population, “You don’t pay social contributions, but that’s not serious. We will go and look for a capital tax on what to organize health care, pensions, etc. "But that's not what you say to them! You say to them, "You do not pay contributions, but if there are no means, whatever you want, you will pay more to get you treated; we will not be able to ensure you a pension worthy of that name, etc." Say to them, "You do not pay social contributions and, in any case, your well-being will be crowned." That is the truth!

The truth is that all the people who have this kind of side benefits are already insured and they already pay social contributions. Mrs. Onkelinx, when will you understand this now? The people who have this kind of side benefits are already insured, they pay social contributions. What we do here is exempt the by-profit from taxes and social burdens. In other words, that is a good thing.

The question is whether such benefits already exist today. Mr. Calvo, does that exist, a sports teacher who helps in a sports club, someone who helps an elderly person, someone who will take the children from school on Wednesday afternoon while the parents are at work? Does this type of activity exist or not? I think this already exists even in Mechelen. If you come to friends and acquaintances, to two earners, you will hear that from time to time. The question is, of course, what is happening with that today. The reality is that all this happens under the radar, to say it on his Flemish "in the black". That is the reality.

Do you want to solve that or do you say that you prefer to keep your eyes closed, that you want to continue on his Belgian and so want to pretend that it does not exist? That was the problem in the hostel. Therefore, we set up a new system of flexi-jobs, overtime and a white cash box that would leave the black and need to improve the system. This is happening now in the hospitality industry and here we do so for many other sectors. In other words, we ensure that there is a clear system with margin conditions. This gives people legal certainty and is therefore a step forward.

There is, by the way, a group to which we have paid very little attention in the discussion, the pensioners. I don’t know if you get an email from a retired person from time to time. I get a lot, every day. I get daily emails from retirees who, thanks to this government, can earn unlimited income after a career of 45 years or from age 65. Those people then email me that they must spend all that they have earned in the tax settlement integral to social burdens and taxes.

Often there is then no corporate premium and the surprise for those people is complete.

Then I find that those pensioners have contributed all their lives, retire, now pay social contributions, but actually cannot enjoy. Why not ? Their pensions are not increased and they cannot benefit from unemployment benefits.

You may tell me that they still get health care. Well, a pensioner who does not follow up enjoys health care as much as the one who does.

In fact, one should even ask why a retired person who earns a contribution would still have to pay social contributions and taxes. He has done that all his life.

Well, today, thanks to this system, we can give pensioners the opportunity to increase their pensions monthly by 500 euros net, pure purchasing power, without taxes and without social contributions.

I call that social progress, also for those people.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I have two concerns.

First, I don’t necessarily dream of a society where pensioners have to make money at all costs. What’s wrong with grandparents who take care of their grandchildren or with a sports teacher who just does it out of love for the sport? There has not been much on this today.

I make a second consideration to what you just said. I discover a lot. Your social project becomes even clearer, your perspective for the retirees becomes even clearer.

The story of Open Vld for pensioners in the next 20, 30 years is that we will not increase their statutory pension, that we will keep it low, so that they have a good incentive to continue to earn after their career.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, we choose a different model. We want people to have a full-fledged retirement, so that they don’t have to go down and down, so that they don’t have to wonder what they will do after the age of 67, whether they will repair a garden or adapt to children they don’t know or still become a tennis teacher while they can’t play tennis.

In our society, pensioners should not worry about these concerns, because then we ensure a full-fledged pension and security after their career, without having to clutter.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I have listened carefully to your speech. You say that people who are retired have contributed all their lives and that it is not more than normal that they then, when they are retired, can earn 500 euros without tax. What then do you do for the people who have also contributed their whole life, against a low salary, and who are physically no longer able to work and receive a low pension? What answer do you give to those people? Do you think it’s okay to introduce a system in which only the healthy people who are lucky enough to be able to make a surcharge are entitled to earn that 500 euro untaxed surcharge, while other people who are unable to do so for health reasons, but also contributed their whole life, cannot earn 500 euro untaxed surcharge?

And that gives you less retirement due to all the measures taken there.

I will answer first Mr. Calvo and then Mrs. Kitir.

Mr. Calvo, you are talking about a social model. I have already asked you two questions and twice you have said you are against. This is your model: you are against, against the change against flexi-jobs and apparently now also against the system in which pensioners can earn unlimited additional income after 65 years. We have been fighting for this for 20 years and with the current government we have finally succeeded. Step by step, we were hit. The PS has acknowledged something, and then we worked even further and now we have hit it. So we don’t tell people that they should do it, we give them freedom.

Do you know the concept of freedom? Freedom means that one can choose: one must not, one can. That is something different than prohibiting: that is your social model, with rules, prohibiting, against being. Our model is to give freedom, to let people choose, to trust people to make choices, not to overwhelm them, to let people make choices. That is freedom. That is a different social model, hence that Green is indeed not the Open Vld. I am also happy that we are in two different parties. Sometimes you feel like a liberal: you are a bit of an entrepreneurial-friendly person. This is how you behave in Parliament, but when it comes to it, freedom must be applied consistently, and you do not.

Mrs. Kitir, you ask me what we do with people who can’t and who have a low pension. You know that the government has made serious efforts to raise the minimum pensions. For the minimum pension of the self-employed, up to 150 euros per month net added and for the employees up to 100 euros per month net added. If it depends on us, it will go up.

Regarding the reality of pensions, I refer to the interview that Mr Vandenbroucke gave this week in Knack.

This is an eyeopener. If you haven’t read it, check the tweets a little, you’ll see it. He advocates working until 67. This is apparently your program. If you want to retire more, you have to work longer than 67. If you stop for 67, you get less pensions. This is literally stated in the interview. He also says he is willing to promise a pension of 1,500 euros if one works until 67. This is exactly what this government has said. We can raise the pensions, but then we need to work longer. The sp.a has lost the way since the party Vandenbroucke was lost. Vandenbroucke had it at the right end. Sometimes I feel like Frank Vandenbroucke, when I read that article, because the man points it right, absolutely.

The show must go on, Mr. Van Quickenborne.

I have told you hundreds of times that you should read Mr Vandenbroucke’s report in its entirety. You should now also read the full interview in Knack. It is very clear that people should be able to work longer. How can one do that? For example, by promoting landing tracks. That’s not stated in the interview, that’s true, but he has said it hundreds of times. What has this government done and what is it still doing? Landing tracks are becoming increasingly difficult.

What is Mr Vandenbroucke still defending? The pension bonus. If you work longer, you must maintain the pension bonus. One of the first measures of this government was the abolition of the pension bonus. There is still a whole series of things. You have ⁇ also forgotten to read, Mr. Van Quickenborne, that in the interview in Knack states that one should think about other financing, besides work. Pensions are paid entirely by labour. It should also be considered to allow pensions and social security to be paid by assets. This is also stated in the Knack interview, Mr. Van Quickenborne. So you also read, like the report, the Knack interview very selectively.

I suggest that we leave the debate on pensions for a moment.

Mrs. Temmerman, I would like to repeat the debate. I have no problem with that. You know that. For me, that is no problem. However, I suggest that we return to the essence, in particular to the draft law.

Mr. Speaker, will I do it?

Well, in the entire interview there is a passage about property tax. Mr Vandenbroucke argues that we need a property tax in order to be able to finance the system. First and foremost, I would like to point out that we already fund a lot for social security through the real estate tax, which I have already noted during a previous debate.

Second, I’ll tell you something you’ll find incredible. I dare to say this today. If you, the sp.a and the PS, are willing to take over all the other elements of Mr Vandenbroucke, I would even like to talk about asset taxation. However, you must be prepared for this. Read all the elements carefully, but I think you will never be willing to take them over. After all, your president promises a pension of 1,500 euros for 42 years of work. Even Mr. Vandenbroucke finds that crazy. They are members of the same party. That is unthinkable!

However, I suggest that we conduct a different debate on this. I am calmly prepared for that.

The [...]

These are your words.

Colleagues, during one of my speeches I had promised to say something about the alleged threats. There have been a number of warnings from organizations, which I would like to refute point by point. There is, among other things, the question of alleged unfair competition. I must, like Mr Van der Donckt, honestly admit that the concern of unfair competition is also our concern. This is precisely why we have incorporated many safeguards in the draft law, in order to avoid unfair competition.

The first guarantee is the ceiling of the amount, i.e. a maximum of 500 euros per month and thus a maximum of 6 000 euros per year. The latter amount applies cumulatively for the three layers: for the association work, for citizen to citizen and for the sharing economy. Moreover — and this is very daring and I have already advocated ten years ago; Mr. Calvo was not in politics at the time — one is obliged in the sharing economy to pay for everything digitally. Everything must be paid electronically.

I challenge you to tell me which sectors in our country are willing to step away from cash and move on to electronic payments. Which sectors dare to advocate this? This is the best way to get rid of the black work. Join the system of sharing economy. That is what we need.

The second condition is that one must work at least four-fifths, be self-employed in the main profession or be retired. Someone who meets those conditions, in other words, cannot work hours and days, because it is a bird activity.

Third, there are different anti-abuse provisions. Mr. Van der Donckt has listed them and I will not repeat them.

I find Knack again interesting to read today, unlike two years ago, Mr. Van Rompuy. So today I read in Knack an interview with Mr. Vandenbroucke and an interview with Mrs. Kitir. The socialists are talking about it, and we think it is positive. Ms. Kitir asks herself in the interview what one is going to do if a painter, who works for an employer, during his hours of surplus earnings goes to compete with his boss.

Ms. Kitir, in the Labour Act it is very clear — Mr. Lachaert, the expert in this assembly will confirm this — that one who works with an employer must never deloyally compete with his employer. If that person becomes self-employed in subsidiary occupation, which he can today, he should never deloyally compete with his employer. If he does, he will be fired for urgent reasons. That is the reality. It was so before, it is so today, and it will be so tomorrow. There is no loyal competition. The law is clear in that. This is also stated in the Minister’s bill.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I am glad that you cited that example and that you paid the necessary attention to the interview. We also had this debate in the committee. I asked the Minister about this and I received three different answers. The answer was that if a student needs further training, it is obvious that a teacher does that after the hours.

If an electrician does that, then we need to look at it again. For example, an electrician may replace an exploded seat, but not the entire electrical installation of the kitchen.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, how will you check that? This is something different from what you argue. How do you define occasional services?

I see that you want to answer. I am very curious.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, attention, Mrs. Kitir’s question is very relevant. Those who have not followed the debate, I can report that it is now becoming very interesting. What are occasional activities? It seems so vague, it looks like sand slipping through the fingers.

Well, the answer to that question can be given by UNIZO. The website of UNIZO literally states what we mean by occasional activity. So I can answer with thanks to UNIZO. I quote: “There must be a distinction between a profitable activity of a professional character and an occasional or accidental operation without a professional character. It is primarily the tax authority and the RSVZ who assess this based on a number of criteria. It shall take into account, inter alia, the frequency of the transactions when they extend over several years, the number of transactions undertaken, the interconnection, the nature and the rapid succession of the transactions undertaken, the importance of the transactions and the organization that they imply, the circumstance that has been transitioned using borrowed funds, a cooperation between two or more persons and the fact that a side activity is closely related to the main activity of the taxable person concerned or in the extension of his professional activity. The more of these elements are present, the greater the probability of the existence of a professional activity in the fiscal sense. In practice, the criteria regularity, frequency and number of transactions are especially important.”

In addition, Article 9.90.1 of the Income Tax Code defines various income from occasional activities. It is "profit or gain, whatever the name may be given, which, even occasionally or accidentally, outside the exercise of a professional activity, arises from any performance, transaction or speculation or from services rendered to third parties, excluding ordinary operations of management of a private asset consisting of real estate, portfolio values and movable objects."

In other words, we do not need to further define that definition because it already exists in our legal system. Both social and tax legislation clearly stipulates what occasional means. How can this be solved now? You’ll say this sounds very theoretical and that’s right. Legislation is often theoretical.

We have therefore asked the Minister to give people the possibility to ask the RSZ via a tool in advance whether or not the exercise of a particular activity can be considered occasional. We want to give people legal certainty and make them clear whether something can or can’t. So not only is the legislation clear, we will also let people be clearly informed before they start the activity. I realize that the tool is now ready. You also had a year to make it, thanks to the opposition.

For the students, that works well, for Student@work. Per ⁇ Green is also against that system because it is also flexible. We know that in the meantime. Mr. Calvo, you are probably also against student work? The expansion now? A little progressive though, well.

Finally, I would like to point out a few contrary arguments. After all, I’m just allowed to speak to Mrs. Kitir here and I don’t want to interrupt her all the time because that’s pretty nasty. Let me go to her interview in Knack. You say there that unions, employers’ organisations, associations and volunteers are all against it. I have to admit that unions and employers are critical, if not very critical, of this new measure. However, I do not think that much innovation should be expected from columns, interest organisations and corporatists. They want to defend the existing structures. That is the reality. If one wants to innovate in politics, then one must dare away from it.

We saw that yesterday with that flexibility deal that we made, including that one-tenth and that flexibility.

If we had left it dependent on the social partners, we would not have been affected. Employers were against. We said we would do it anyway and we did it. In that debate there is exactly the same problem, namely that these organizations are so attached to each other that there can never really be anything new. That is the opportunity we get with this bill, because we have indeed dared to think out of the box.

I want to correct. I am sure and happy that we have reached an agreement, but it is not the case that the social partners were against that 11-day scheme. On the contrary, they pushed that forward in a cao in December 2016. We have been working on it for a long time. They have confirmed that. They found that a good proposal. Social partners were also strongly supported, so that social dialogue remains important.

Mrs. Lanjri, like you, I have read the comments of the VBO in connection with Mr. Spooren’s proposals. This was very critical. Mr. Traffic, don’t take that too much. These are bold proposals. We must renew, we must continue. Our party does not let its fate depend on those organizations. Sometimes they say useful things and sometimes not. It is not because VOKA says so, that Open Vld says so. Open Vld is a party that consistently stands for what it stands for, namely freedom and the defense of freedom.

The reality is that there will never be much support from such organizations in relation to such legislation. That does not fit in their womb. That whole structure is based on those old statutes. Take for example the unity statute. Why did it take so long? That all has to do with that corporatism, which still occupies our country too much. But slowly we are moving away from it and this is an important step.

Mrs Kitir, the second objection is that this bill would put pressure on the volunteers. You said that this will increase the pressure on associations, they will now have to pay for the work. The volunteer will now ask for cents. These are two completely different worlds. There is real volunteer work, and we cherish that. We have also improved this statute, thanks to Minister De Block. These are people who do it without wanting to be paid.

In addition, there are occasional activities, for example as a football coach, for which one wants to get something. That is not a shame, but it cannot be solved by volunteering, because that statute does not make it possible. That is why we make it possible here and now with the proposed system.

By the way, with the listed whole list of organizations in the resistance, one has forgotten one. The High Council for Volunteers was literally the requesting party for the system. It is a pity that they do not agree with this.

The third objection is that the system again serves the working people, while the low-skilled job seekers do not get along with it. That is right. It confirms the statement that one can only earn extra money if one has a job. Per ⁇ one should explain this to Mrs. Onkelinx.

For low-skilled job seekers, we, by the way, take other measures, such as the burden reduction, which Mr. Calvo voted against with Greens, because his motto is against. The burden reduction was the greatest for the lowest qualified, for whom the bottom of the working ladder stands. We have done that.

Moreover, those who really want to do something for the low-skilled should dare to do what Professor Ive Marx always advocates: more flexibility, ⁇ at the bottom of the labour market. For now, this is totally taboo in this country, especially in sp.a. However, this is the only way to get the low-skilled also to the backs.

The fourth objection concerns the lack of quality conditions. I quote Ms. Kitir literally from Knack: “People do not have to meet any condition in order to perform any work.”With all respect, but that is clear nonsense. We may differ in opinions, but what she says is completely wrong. The bill does not change any quality or safety standards. By the way, we would not like the N-VA yet, because it is a regional matter and we must stay away from it.

Whether it’s electricians, plumbers or day or night passengers, all possible standards and rules remain unshorted. Everyone now seems to suddenly be able to behave like an electrician or nurse. Those who say this, either have not taken proper attention, or they are spreading incorrect information. I will limit myself to this so as not to further elevate the emotions.

I am going around, colleagues. Many of us get nervous if one wants to give people freedom, if one wants to liberate people from the tight string of statutes that prevents them from helping each other, to work, in short, to put their hands out of their sleeves and to earn something extra. Throw away that fear. Believe in freedom, cultivate freedom, trust the people. When one gives freedom, the impossible becomes possible.

Colleagues, can I for good order announce that I will have to do a system reset? I plan it between 19.30 and 20.00 hours. This depends on the length of the speech time of each speaker. (Protest by Mr Calvo)

Mr. Calvo, that must reset. We will suspend for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I really thought that after Mr. Van Quickenborne’s presentation I could remove half of my pages from my presentation, because I would be convinced by his critical remarks. Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of shows, but heard few substantial counterarguments. I will keep my text.

Tomorrowland starts in two weeks. It has been almost a year since the government celebrated its summer agreement. The proposal we discussed today was part of that. After a year, we can therefore confidently say that this law already has a long, and especially hobbly, path behind. What is the draft law about? If the measure is approved later, pensioners and people who work four-fifths of the time will now be able to earn tax-free additional income for 500 euros per month, 6 000 euros annually.

The activities that may be carried out are divided into three categories: the association work, the service between citizens and the sharing platforms. Colleagues, on those three precise permitted services I will return a little later, but I can already say that the list that will be approved is extensive, much too extensive. This is also the main reason why the text in November last year received a lot of criticism. There was a unanimous negative opinion from the social partners. They try to remove it here as nonsense. The State Council gave a negative opinion. A whole series of civil society organisations and professors wrote an open letter, but the government has picked up its shoulders and submitted the law to Parliament without amendments at the beginning of December.

In mid-December, we then held extensive hearings in the Social Affairs Committee with ten civil society organisations ACV, ACLVB, ABVV, FeBIO, Unizo, USM, NSZ, Plateforme francophone, the High Council for Volunteers and Unisoc. Colleagues, they were very diverse organizations, both trade unions and employers, organizations representing both small and large companies, employers from both the profit and non-profit sectors, both volunteers and professionals. However, they were all opposed to the bill.

They expressed their criticism and often received sharp criticism. They also made many suggestions for improvement. However, the majority has also now picked up the shoulders and the law has yet to be adopted unchanged in the committee.

Subsequently, a conflict of interests was created and the federal government was forced to consult the law with the state states, as many powers were affected: elderly care, child care and youth work. During that consultation, criticism of the law was also expressed and proposals for amendments were made.

Minister De Block noted that she understands the comments made and announced a recovery law. Today, however, we notice that the Recovery Act has not yet been approved and the law, as we have received it, is unchanged for voting. Thus, the opposition was also now obliged to submit as an amendment the proposals for the improvement of the law, which have been raised from many angles, and to request an opinion of the State Council on it.

The government has raised its shoulders again. She ignored the opposition’s amendments and the State Council’s opinion. Again, the law is submitted to vote unchanged.

History says a lot about this law. No one wants the law. Everyone is warning of its impact on the labour market, on volunteering, on the healthcare sector and on small self-employed. Even within the majority, as I know, there is little animo for the law. Only because the Open Vld also wants a trophy, however, the law must necessarily be approved.

The eyes are closed today or, as Mr. Lachaert recently reacted to the announcement of Unizo – which, by the way, today again announces that it will step into the Constitutional Court –: We really need to pass the law now, because if we amend the law again, we have left again for months. It is also the conviction of the majority that there is no unfair competition. If that happens, she will subsequently update the law.

I make very few illusions. The majority will today approve the bill, despite the opposition of many, without any adjustments.

Nevertheless, I have not given up hope and will explain our key comments to the bill and explain our twenty pragmatic amendments. These are amendments in which we do not throw the idea off the table, but in which we want to clear the sharpest sides of the text and close the open door to competition distortion and to the deprofessionalization of the care of children and the elderly.

Before I begin, I would like to express my disappointment about the Minister of Labour, Kris Peeters. Indeed, he did not use the long period of discussion of this draft law to consult with the parity committees, to examine with each of those committees for which activities the proposed measures were realistic and feasible, and to examine for which activities there was no risk of displacement or deprofessionalization. However, the social partners had specifically requested such consultations. They acknowledge that in some sectors, such as in sport – a frequently cited example – there was a need for a more flexible system for the existing voluntary remuneration. However, when they received the draft texts, they called them “too vague, too broadly defined and insufficiently framed, thus posing the risk that through this channel, however, professional activities would be developed which, because they take place in the private sphere” – that they take place in the private sphere is precisely the problem – “can hardly be controlled and the quality standards cannot be guaranteed.”

That is still our fundamental criticism today. A single general arrangement for sectors and activities with such large differences threatens to have serious consequences. Quality standards, safety rules, protection of workers, consumers and the environment are on the slope. This is precisely why the social partners requested a consultation and a thorough impact analysis, sector by sector, activity by activity and public service by public service. The desire of the social partners was clear, but the current government has, as is more often said, only with words respect for the social partners, but not in deeds. They did not receive the requested consultation.

Let me go a little deeper into the three categories. In this way, I will at the same time explain my amendments.

First and foremost, I want to talk about association work. For the association work, the draft sets out a washlist of as many as 17 activities that will be allowed under the system of untaxed surplus earnings: from animators in the youth movement or playground work to sports trainers, from coordinators in youth homes to guides in culture or nature, making newsletters on association websites but also, for example, guidance in childcare and support in rest homes and facilities for persons with disabilities.

A first important note comes from the High Council for Volunteers, whose colleague Van Quickenborne feared that I would forget him, but also from the Flemish Support Point Volunteer Work. I quote them: " (...) that the minister has been excessively jealous with the listing of the activities covered by the new statute. There are many activities that are now carried out by volunteers with heart and soul and with passion."These associations are therefore afraid that volunteer work will be under pressure. If from now on one can get 500 euros tax-free per month for those tasks, who will want to do those tasks as volunteers and how should associations find people who want to do so unpaid? How should associations reach resources to meet the expectations created by this law?

The Red Cross expressed it as follows: “There is simply no demand for compensation from our volunteers, but on the contrary. Our volunteers receive no pay for the work they do today, and that makes them just volunteers. These volunteers now get by this law the feeling that their effort is not appreciated, while it is unrewardable. These volunteers will now be pressured by this law to do the same effort for a fee. That the minister then still manages to say during the discussion in the Senate that there has been no negative comment from organizations that work mainly with volunteers, such as the Red Cross, is nevertheless incredible.”

A second criticism on the list of permitted activities in the association work comes from organizations such as Society Building, Network Against Poverty, Caritas and Welfare. They are concerned about the effects on the most vulnerable people in society. Almost half of the low-skilled population is currently working.

And what does the government do? What is interesting to these people is now reserved for other people for the third time. First, there was the expansion of student work. Then there was the expansion of the flexi jobs. Today, the untaxed additional earnings are added with 500 euros per month. These are tasks that are often performed by low-skilled people. It is always about tasks that the government now reserves for students, retirees or people who already have a job. The associations described it as follows: “Unloaded and easily accessible leisure work is thus in direct competition with the duties of the district worker or short-skilled person who wishes to take steps towards the labour market”.

If one wants to call on an unemployed or a living wager today to take care of the garden or to take care of children or the elderly, then one must process a real mountain of paper. With this legislation, these tasks can be easily, possibly via an app, addressed to pensioners and people who already have a job. Thus, opportunities are again deprived of unemployed or livelihoods who want to take steps into the labour market. The government has a mouth full of jobs, jobs, jobs, but it takes away opportunities from those looking for a job and gives additional opportunities to people who already have a job today.

A third and final criticism of the association work came from the Flemish Jeugdraad. He wrote on his website: "From the youth work comes already from the beginning fierce criticism on this innovation. The Flemish Jeugdraad has long advocated to remove volunteers from youth movements, youth homes and playgrounds from the list of permitted functions from the association work. The youth work firmly believes in the power of unpaid volunteer policies and is supported by them, not by the few.”

They have indeed received support. They also received support from Flemish Minister Gatz and even from our Minister, Mrs. De Block. She announced in the Senate that there will be a repair law, but despite that announcement, there is no change today.

Then I come to the second category in the legislation: the occasional services between citizens. Also for this category, the draft lists a long list of permitted activities: childcare, care for people in need of care, supplementary lessons in music, art or sport, small maintenance works on the home, help with computer problems, small household tasks and even the maintenance of tombs.

For the care tasks there is in the first place the fear of the social partners that there will no longer be any guarantee of quality, quality for which the past years have been hard struggled and which now comes to stand on the slope with a legislative text.

For the maintenance works at the home there is then again the great and justified fear of the self-employed organizations for unfair competition. Small self-employed persons risk competition from pensioners or even from their own employees.

It is painful, but the minister manages to create no clarity or to provide certainty even in this case. On my simple question whether someone who works as an electrician in a SME and after his hours installs electrical installations can also do small repairs and repairs within the framework of the present draft, I received three different answers in the committee. First, she replied that in the context of occasional services between citizens, there should be no competition between the main employer. An electrician of a company may not perform electrical works from citizen to citizen. Then she said that the electrician at his neighbors can replace a jumped secure, because that can be considered an occasional service. However, if his neighbors ask him to completely replace the electrical installation of their home, he must not address that question. Finally, after some discussion on this, the Minister said that Article 17 of the Labour Contract Act already prohibits the employee from engaging in unfair competition or cooperating in it during or after the termination of the employment contract. She also noted that the electrician or ICT service provider would undoubtedly enter into unfair competition with his employer, for example, if he would provide occasional services for the benefit of a customer of his employer. This employer would usually be able to end unfair competition by reporting the employee to the social inspection, according to the minister.

The Minister thus creates a lot of uncertainty and uncertainty in who wants to earn with services to citizens. How should they now know what the minister means with occasional tasks?

According to the Minister, these are activities that are not carried out by the company or the self-employed. In the example of this, the minister called the replacement of a jumped security an occasional job, but is it an activity that is not done by a company or self-employed? I don’t think it, but that’s also the activities that entrepreneurs and self-employed people do today. According to the Minister, the accompanying employee may also not do activities with a client of his employer, but do we really expect employees to know all the clients of their employer? I do not think. According to the Minister, the addressee may also not make advertising, but is the indication of willingness to do such activities a form of advertising? I do not know.

In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty and uncertainty for those who want to get along, but there is also a lack of protection. For example, the worker is obliged to contract civil liability insurance, but he does not enjoy any coverage in case of an occupational accident or occupational disease. Furthermore, there is no provision on welfare at work. For example, if the worker in someone is going to cut the hail and in doing so cuts his finger, then he must solve it himself. The workplace is not protected in the attachment. This will also have consequences for the main profession where one employs four-fifths; there too one will not be remunerated.

For customers, the uncertainty is also important. Nor do they know what an occasional job is, what falls under this law and what is not an occasional job and for which they must engage a company or an independent employee. And then I’m not talking about the lack of quality guarantee. How can the customer know if someone will work at the insurance caste in side-benefit, has the necessary knowledge to do so?

Finally, there is the third category, which is services through organizations recognized as subplatforms. The most famous examples here are Deliveroo and Uber. They must meet even fewer conditions than the other categories. The previous remarks are therefore more applicable here. Above all, the examples of Deliveroo and Uber prove that this is really problematic. In recent months there has been a debate over the status of Deliveroo couriers. Are they employees or self-employed? What status do they have and what protection do they enjoy?

The Minister involved the Inspectorate and the Court is also working on the case. Just like in Spain, where a judge recently ruled that couriers are employees, this case is still going on here. With this bill, the whole discussion is thrown into the garbage basket. Because they are recognised as subsidiary platforms, they are subject to the law on untaxed surplus gains and therefore they have no status. Alzo simply organizes unfair competition.

Colleagues, our group has submitted a series of amendments to provide a solution to all these problems and dangers. Amendments to remove youth work from the law; amendments to remove personal and care-related activities from the law, because otherwise the quality of care is on the hill; amendments to create clarity about the kind of activities that a worker may carry out in addition to his professional activities; amendments to protect the worker from the serious consequences, dismissal for urgent reasons, financial damages claims that are over his head for matters he does in good faith, but which subsequently prove to be unfair competition with his employer; amendments also to avoid possible displacement of regular work, by limiting the number of performances by the same user and its compensation — why should it be 500 euros per month, while also 300 euros?

Our group understands that people want to earn extra income in addition to their regular professional activity. Our group also understands that in some sectors, such as sports, there is a need for more than the existing volunteer remuneration and for a smoother arrangement.

Without the amendments of our group and colleagues, however, this bill goes too far. Real jobs and real volunteer work are threatened. Quality loss and degradation of social rights and employment statutes are threatening in several sectors. Therefore, I would like to once again call on the colleagues of the majority to take the amendments seriously. A simple, identical solution for all sectors is unthinkable in this regard and, above all, ineffective. There is a need for an activity-oriented approach, which not only lists the types of activities, but also what can be actively carried out by sector. Consultations must be made through a parity committee and with the Communities and the Regions in order to know the real needs and needs to be satisfied to which this bill aims to respond.

That was the request of the social partners, but the government did not. The result is a law that poses a serious threat to volunteer work, the healthcare sector, the self-employed and the labour market. Therefore, my group will vote against the bill if the amendments are not approved.

This text, whose vote will allow the gain without contribution or taxation of 500 euros per month for different categories of workers will have a good place in the gallery of horrors of this legislature. Bravo to Mr. Van Quickenborne! Congratulations to the Minister!

You are parvenus to do the unanimity, once is not a custom, but it was against you. Take the chance! On can citer a certain number of interlocutors tout à fait respectable. There are not only the mauvais syndicats, the mauvais syndicats francophone. It is also the Council national du Travail who, on 29 November 2017, remarque that there is no pas d'analyse d'impact sector par secteur et se demande ce que vous allez faire. There is the Council Supérieur des Indépendants et des PME who, on 30 November 2017, made known their concern regarding the impact of the measures, the Union of the Middle Classes, the SNI, the UNISOC, the parity commissions 332, 318.01, 319.02, 329, 330, the Conseil d'État que vous n'aimez pas, the Conseil supérieur des volontaires, the ensemble de ceux et celles que nous avons auditionnés and commission des Affaires sociales au mois de décembre. You have done unanimously against you. You also cite the last to be expressed. Ainsi, cet après-midi, à 18 h, l'UNIZO faisait un communiqué de presse: "Voting on the annexation law later in the Chamber. UNIZO Council: We move to the Constitutional Court.”

If the text is voted, UNIZO will go before the Constitutional Court, in particular to challenge the unfair competition that you are going to introduce with this text.

Mr Van Quickenborne, congratulations!

You can be very proud!

I continue to quote this statement from UNIZO.

"Everything indicates that the House of People's Representatives will approve the law on the non-taxable attachments this afternoon without any adjustment, after earlier postponement."

“Incomprehensible and irresponsible,” repeats Danny Van Assche, delegated director of UNIZO. “We are putting everything in preparation to, as announced, effectively go to the Constitutional Court if the law is later adopted.”

I save you the next.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, I do not think that one can suspect UNIZO to be rude, conservative, not being attentive to the development of economic activity. I do not think that the Union of the Middle Class, any trade union or the National Labour Council can be more so called.

This text gathers together all the characteristics of the action of this brutal government, not respecting the social concertation or the concertation of other entities, this with great pride. Mr. Van Quickenborne, the more you are explained by advancing arguments that you are mistaken, the more you think you are right. Congratulations to!

We are talking about poorly written texts. The State Council says this, mainly because they have not been the subject of consultation with the Regions that will be affected. Among other things, I think of the associative aspect. These are adventurous texts. That is fucking! The next one will be the one who will pay the fee. This must please some groups of this majority, ⁇ less to others, but they do not have the strength to express themselves and stop the train running. These are destructive texts, destructive texts of employment, of associative life, destructive texts of our social security system, with some form of disunion within the majority, even if, in the end, we know who is right and who is lying down, in this case the CD&V and the MR. Mr. Clarinval is no longer there to hear me, but I don’t think he is objectively and in the depth of himself very proud of this text.

I would like to repeat that there is, undoubtedly, something to be done to regularise the situation in the sports sector and in the art sector. These are specific sectors with a rather heavy form of volunteering that requires the presence, several times a week, of qualified personnel (sports coaches, people with artistic talent, choir leaders, stage directors). Currently, labour law and subsidies granted to these sectors do not allow these people to be properly remunerated.

As Mr. Clarinval said, there is a specifically identified grey area, including by the representative federations of these sectors, and an explicit request on this subject that could have been met. But appetite came by eating and, as we have told you, dear members of the majority, it was a bad idea to have extended to so many sectors and to pure economic activity this possibility of earning each month a salary not subject to payment of social contributions or payment of taxes.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, reforms are like debt, there are good and bad. A reform is not good because it is a reform. Everything should be analyzed. Progress is going forward, not bringing us back to the nineteenth century where there was no social security system and where everyone was free to do what he wanted, but in case of accident, free to find themselves without resources. There were those who possessed and could get out of it and the others, who could crumble in the pit. This is, it seems, the model you want to recreate, a model before Bismarck, before Beveridge. This is your corporate model, Mr. Van Quickenborne. Sorry, this is not ours.

Excuse us for defending a strong social security system, a wage system, where a salary is paid to workers during their careers, where there are social contributions. These can be reduced tomorrow and we can have an alternative financing of social security to create jobs more easily, but indeed, we organize solidarity between the healthy active and the pensioners, those who have a health accident, a work accident.

You have not answered the fundamental question. What about people who are going to work in addition to their jobs or who are retired and who are victims of an accident in that context?

You are bringing to different sectors and workers things that they have not asked you. Some sectors have told us, “We don’t want this. We do not want deregulation.”

Three sectors have been widely cited, among others the sector of the collaborative economy which, as environmentalists, we find interesting. I repeat this in the absence of my excellent colleague, Gilles Vanden Burre, we need to help the collaborative economy grow. This, of course, should not be done on any condition but with forms of regulation, of contributions. Any company that makes profits pays contributions on its profits. This is corporate tax. If there is an exchange of goods and a realisation of added value, there is VAT payment. Maybe it needs to be in forms suitable for the collaborative economy.

A fiscal and regulatory system was established. It is partially swept away by this new legislation and it does not seem to us to be wise or relevant.

As for the associative sector, he told us very clearly: “Ok for sport and culture. There are needs but let us continue to develop our volunteer activities without this system! You will question a fragile balance.” You have heard it for a specific sector: the youth movements at the Flemish level. Bravo for your listening but why, when other sectors tell you that they don’t want this system, you don’t incorporate the same exceptional principles in your text?

Then there is that famous neighbor service – and this is the reason for the anger of UNIZO in very harsh terms as well as the Union of the Middle Class – which de facto creates a situation of unfair competition between comparable economic actors: some paying contributions, others having the possibility of receiving a monthly income of 500 euros without contributions.

And it is not the few tags that you have planned that will prevent a gardener, a computer scientist or any other independent or representative of SMEs from being faced with the same market, the same tender, in a situation of unfair competition against someone who, he, will not have to comply with the same rules.

What is the budgetary impact of your measure in terms of payment of social contributions, taxes, in terms of social rights? How many jobs will be degraded or lost because of this unfair competition, knowing that bad employment chases the good? What protection will the workers in question receive?

Mr. Van Quickenborne, Mr. Clarinval, I have heard your explanation that the persons concerned already have social rights. I repeat to you that when you work and pay contributions, you enjoy additional social rights, which intervene both in the calculation of the pension and in case of illness.

Faced with so many defects that have been developed over the long months and during this long afternoon, you should not be surprised by multiple reactions and procedures. There is, of course, what happened at this parliamentary level. I remember, around December 20, having highlighted that it was not reasonable to want to vote before December 31 on the so-called "economic relance" project, in which this document was included.

We have effectively used the possibilities given us by the House Rules to have a substantial debate, requested hearings. Faced with the constatation that these brought a lot of questions, called to dissociate the texts, you nevertheless wanted to continue to move forward. There was a conflict of interest. I think this reaction is legitimate and at the height of the emotions of the various actors.

And contrary to what you are trying to make you believe, Mr. Van Quickenborne, I think that the conflict of interest procedure, even if it was the fourth, led to an interesting debate between the representatives of the COCOF Parliament, who had come up with arguments and amendments, and the representatives of the Social Affairs Committee, and could have resulted in an improvement of the text, on a fundamental questioning of the text, if simply, there had been a little listening. But the dialogue between the federal state and the federal entities does not interest some members of the majority, we know.

You had blindly decided to continue, whatever the cost, even the cost of a mess with UNIZO, because you had your trophy. What you had won at Tomorrowland on the wire, at the end of the trade, you obviously didn’t want to let go, even if you realized it was a mistake. It’s a blunder of bad alloy.

Until the end, we’ll try to convince you to change direction. We have actually submitted about 20 amendments, very good, Mr. Cheron, and I have no doubt that the other colleagues in the opposition...

The [...]

You speak as a lawyer, a legal historian.

I have no doubt that the amendments submitted by the other colleagues in the opposition are equally good.

We submitted them to the State Council, which largely validated them from a legal point of view, subject to the short time that the President had granted them. Politics is our job, they do the legal. The State Council has done its job. Where he made comments, we tried to meet them by amending our amendments.

I will soon present to you some of the amendments we have submitted and which we want to defend. As I said, we believe that this device should be limited to sports and cultural activities. The State Council asks us to know the reasons for the limitation to these two sectors. They have specific features that are not found in other associative sectors.

This is the semi-professional character of the speakers, whether they are sports coaches or cultural operators. It is a form of permanence during the basketball, football or handball season, and the necessary presence, including on weekends, during matches, of these speakers. The amount of hours provided justifies a slightly more substantial depreciation.

The confederations concerned, such as the confederation of employers of the sociocultural and sports sector in the French Community, which brings together all the sociocultural and sports operators, say that this is justified for the sports sector, but not for others. This is an opinion that I think is permissible. This confederation is a recognized employer organization within the framework of the sociocultural parity commission 329. Beyond the substance, it is therefore fully justified, in law, to reserve this system to these actors.

If you really want to authorize a form of service between neighbors – I told you our skepticism and our criticism regarding the deregulation of employment and the risk of unfair competition – reserve it to particular sectors in which there is no form of competition, for example sports classes, private classes, the care of animals, but not gardening, not a function of electrician or computer scientist. These latter sectors are organized and self-employed and SMEs work there.

The third amendment that I am presenting for the example is the one concerning aid to persons. There is a real concern in the socio-health sector for a form of competition, which, besides being unfair, is problematic as to the quality of intervention in the service of the vulnerable persons concerned. There is a deontology to respect, there is a basic training to have. One does not improvise as a caregiver, intervening in a rest home or a rest and care home. A form of social dialogue must then be respected in the respective parity committee or in the non-market enterprise concerned.

We made the effort to try to improve this bad project. It could have been said that it is irreversible, it is indeed not far from it. Mr. Clarinval, it would have been wise to test it on two sectors and eventually expand it. You do the opposite here. You have agreed, as part of an internal majority negotiation, to a very broad approach and you plan to evaluate within a year. In a year, there will be elections and I fear that when we see huge damage, it will be too late.

Making black labour legal, organizing unfair competition between workers against self-employed and SMEs, defining the state, defining social security, diminishing the social rights of workers and their protection, flexibilising at all levels, is everything but our political project. That is why, since December, we have been challenging and fighting this project with the last of the energies. And we will continue to do so.

As announced, the meeting will be suspended. We pick up again at 20:00.