Proposition 54K2922

Projet de loi relative au renforcement de la croissance économique et de la cohésion sociale.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Stefaan Vercamer
MR David Clarinval
N-VA Jan Spooren
Open Vld Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

Jan. 31, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

competitiveness reflation social security employment policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE DéFI ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Stéphane Crusnière (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 30, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs Lanjri, Mr Raskin, Mr Deseyn, M. Piedboeuf and M. Flahaut.

We refer to our written report.

of which act.

Mr. Speaker, will Minister Peeters be present at the discussion of the bill on economic growth and social cohesion? That is why we pushed the point forward. It is important that the Minister is present.

I hear that the Minister has told me that he can and will come if you ask for it. I understood that he will be here in five minutes.

The meeting will be suspended until the Minister arrives.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, with the exception of the €6,000 measure that institutionalizes black labour, this bill replicates the measures contained in the controversial bill on economic recovery and social cohesion.

First of all, I would like to mention the contempt displayed by the majority parties for social concertation. In this case, as in many others, the government has conducted a pseudo concertation. From the beginning, employer representatives knew that the government would support their line, they did not make any effort to reach an agreement. Passing beyond the concertation has become the rule with this government and this majority. We regret this even more because the title of your proposal refers to social cohesion.

Beyond this first fundamental criticism, I will return to three themes dealt with in this bill.

First, the reduction of the notice period. We oppose the reduction of the notice period during the first six months of occupation. During this period, the government decides to reduce the protection of workers. At a time when mass dismissals are legion in our country, facilitating dismissals does not seem to be a desirable measure. In fact, you de facto reintroduce the trial period without the approval of the social partners. However, the removal was the subject of a comprehensive agreement following difficult negotiations. You sweep an important compromise from one side of the hand through a closed door and without measuring its impact on workers. This is regrettable.

Secondly, the temporary work. Your bill provides for the removal of existing sectoral prohibitions, provided in collective agreements, to use temporary workers in certain branches of activity. You continue to generalize temporary work in the labour market. More precariousness, more precariousness, this is the leitmotiv of this government!

By blocking all collective agreements that provide for a general ban on employment of temporary workers, the government once again interferes with social consultation and issues a real motion of distrust towards the social partners.

The third theme that I will address is that of the first jobs for young people. This issue is very important for our group. In this text, it is planned to reduce the salary of young people under 21 without experience. The previous government had decided to end the discrimination that existed based on the age of the young. This government has restored it. You decide to reduce youth wages below the minimum wage, making you believe that this would fight youth unemployment.

I would like to remind here that mainly thanks to the policy of the Regions, youth unemployment is declining. For example, in Brussels, it has been almost 60 consecutive months that youth unemployment is declining. Therefore, we do not need your measure that precaries and discriminates against young people.

Even if you continue to say "no panic, the decrease in the net salary will be compensated by a flat-rate supplement paid by the employer who can, himself, then recover it by a tax measure", let me be concerned.

First, by reducing the youth’s salary, you also reduce their vacation waste and this will not be compensated. With your measurement, you also decrease the social rights of young people, which are calculated on the gross wage and not on the net. You create a new form of discrimination among workers. In this regard, I refer you to the explanatory opinion of the State Council.

Secondly, how can we be sure that the flat-rate supplement you promise will actually offset the loss of wage suffered by the young man? In the explanation of the motifs, you acknowledge that there may be a difference. Indeed, you indicate that you want to make the supplement correspond as much as possible to the loss of salary, but you refuse to provide us with the draft royal decree that would allow us to ensure that the young man will not suffer a decrease in his net salary.

In addition, a second reading was requested in order to be able to dispose of this document. We did not have it. Per ⁇ we can get it today?

As long as it is written.

Does it indeed exist?

The reality is that today MPs will vote on a measure that reduces youth wages without knowing whether this reduction will be fully compensated. The majority will therefore vote this measure blindly, without knowing its real impact. It is irresponsible!

In the end, with this government, it is always the same method. He goes into force with always the same argument that does not hold the way: to do harm to do good.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I see once again, in the head of this majority, an incomprehension of the living of the workers. We will vote against this proposal. Are you surprised, Mr President?

The bill on the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion, the former relance law, contains a number of measures that honor its title.

I will remove a few points. The first is the change of the notice period and the reintroduction of a trial period light. Articles 91 and 93. This is a very good measure, which was very necessary, because after the abolition of the trial period in 2014, we were able to conclude on the basis of several studies that many employers had become more reluctant to immediately offer employees an indefinite contract.

The new measure, with a reduction of the notice periods, provides a smoothness at this point and may cause employers to give up their rejectional attitude. We hope that in any case and I even think that the measure will be a step in the right direction.

A second point, which has caused quite a bit of criticism from the opposition, concerns the start-up jobs. This is a ⁇ good measure, since the reduction of the gross wage of the start-up jobs will encourage employers to recruit low-skilled people, who in our society do not always have easy access to the labour market.

The reduced gross salary will not lead to lower incomes for the young startups, but will act as an intruder and will ensure that those young people are taken from under the mother’s sweat. After all, low-skilled young people often remain at home at the expense of their parents or fall into the system of living wages. That reduced gross wage will lead them to enter the labour market, since they will learn a certain work attitude and will grow to a serious and well-paid job.

This is very important. Recent studies show that at this point there is still work at the shop in our labour market. The measure will provide an answer to this.

Given these two measures, coupled with the measures for the construction sector, for which the government also makes a serious effort with a view to increasing employment, we can only approve this proposal. You can count on our support.

Finally, the relief plan and the strengthening of social cohesion are on the agenda of this plenary session. You will remember that the government decided on this plan in the middle of last summer and that, unfortunately, the flibust of some groups has forced us to use this technique of proposing legislation, in order to be able to result in a text ⁇ important for employment and for the economy of our country.

This text contains three parts.

Just beginning his speech, he has already said the word too much!

Mr. Clarinval, apologize for interrupting you. I heard “flibust.” I felt targeted. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Clarinval. What do you think we have committed a flibust?

Why are we here today with this bill? Sometimes it is interesting to recall it. It is because you were blocked on the file of the 6,000 euros taxed and "deparaphiscalized". I promptly warn you: in this case, as far as we are concerned, we will go to the end of what we can do!

I can assure you, Mr. Clarinval, that this is not just because we are in the opposition. We have behind us the non-market sector, the associative sector, the self-employed and employers, SMEs individually. All of them are now extremely pleased that you have not yet been able to advance on these famous 6,000 euros defiscalized and "deparaphiscalized". We will hold to the end because you are introducing incredible unfair competition with this mechanism. You are really doing intra-belt dumping with the destruction of many jobs!

Mr. Clarinval, if this is what you call the flibust, I can assure you that it will continue for a long time. I am pleased to remind you here that we have behind us large sectors of the economy, whether commercial or non-market, and that they fully support our approach.

There must be ambiguity on this point. I will recall the words of my colleague Mr. Daerden, who addressed the Minister regarding the bill. If I read correctly, the agenda contains this: Bill proposal by Mr. Clarinval, Van Quickenborne, Vercamer and Spooren. But Ms. Kitir did well to request the presence of Mr. Minister. We know that he is the main author of the text.

Mr. Peeters is the biological father of the text and Mr. Clarinval is the carrier father. In fact, there are three carrying fathers, because there is a lot to wear!

Mr. Clarinval, we will not long draw the history of this case. It’s a bit like television series, which are very fashionable. We are in Season 5. There was the summer agreement, and then the saucissonnage. There will be more seasons. The series has even changed its name. It is now "For the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion". He found a name a little more sexy and sellingable. Stop the joke, it was a kind of law-program or law-for-all, in which the majority had not always shown the greatest consistency either. It is not surprising, therefore, that the matter had to be sourced and voted at different times.

You started your speech, Mr. Clarinval, with the word "Finally!". Finally, for this part, you will succeed. We will be able to examine it and express ourselves differently about the content of this project.

I just wanted to rewrite this little historical and remove the ambiguity between the biological father and the carrier father who is on the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, the word "flibust" refers to an abuse of the Rules and other procedural techniques to bring things down. We are not far from this notion here. I have not yet addressed the substance, but only the form.

You are right, Mrs. Fonck, to say that this is not over. There will be a final episode, Mr. Delizée. It will be the arrival in parliament, in a few weeks – I hope – of the text on the 500 euros. This is no longer a bill, but a proposal. In order to be able to bypass the flibust, we had to make use of a bill, in order to be able to vote quickly – if I dare to say these words – “the rebound plan”. I never hid myself; I went to present things in this way within the three ad hoc commissions.

Thank you for reminding me of the wording, but to be shorter, I’m going to talk about the “rebound plan.” It consists of three packages of measures: an employment package, a package on purchasing power and social cohesion measures.

Regarding employment measures, Mr. Daerden was very quick when he recalled that we will, indeed, broaden the possibility of resorting to temporary work in the catering and relocation sector.

A second measure aims to extend the time within which social partners can enter into collective agreements on training. Remember, this story has poured a lot of ink. A royal ruling on the matter was broken. Today we enable social partners – you know we are very committed to social consultation – to enter into collective agreements on training. The text gives the social partners more time to conclude agreements.

The third is the right to disconnect. With technological development, it sometimes becomes very difficult for some workers to disconnect. Therefore, we will allow companies, if they wish, to set an internal framework to enable them to regulate this new phenomenon and to allow workers to blow the right moment.

The fourth measure is related to the trial period. Mr. Daerden, I’m sorry to have to contradict you, but you will remember the debate we had when the social partners reached an agreement a few years ago that canceled the trial period.

From the outset, we sounded the alarm ring saying that what might seem like a good measure would eventually have a perverse effect. Employers are no longer able to use trial periods, so they simply use temporary employment or fixed-term contracts. They no longer give indefinite contracts because they fear they will have to pay too much in advance, and because they have not been able to proceed with a trial period.

Although this is a decision of the social partners, from the outset, I don’t think the employer bank was very enthusiastic. I even believe that on the trade union bank, one admits in half a word that there have been perverse effects. They probably won’t say it publicly. Therefore, an amendment should be made.

We do not re-register trial periods. We will reduce the duration of advance notifications that are requested in working periods less than six months. We are therefore easing this measure somewhat. This seems to me to allow for more sustainable jobs in the periods of activity.

I come to the fifth measure, and I also disagree with you, Mr. Daerden. It is about starting jobs. I’m going to quote you a few numbers because I fell from my chair just listening to you! In the Walloon Region, 28% of young people are unemployed and, in Brussels, it is 38%. On average, this represents almost one in five young people in Belgium. It seems irresponsible for us not to have a specific measure for this public.

You may not like the method, but it has demonstrated its effects. See the number of job creations that have been achieved since the introduction of the tax shift and the reduction of social contributions. In this case, we continue on this path in favor of young people. Of course, Mr. Daerden, there is a reduction in gross salary, that is the truth. But, you know, the government has committed to providing a tax compensation that will make the workers concerned (the youngest workers) retain a net salary identical to what it was before. In this way, a number of young workers will be recruited. We believe that this audience really needs to be targeted; this is an important issue for years to come.

I will now address the second package, which covers fiscal and financial matters. We introduce, first of all, a system in which a citizen has the possibility to pay up to 1,200 euros per year as part of his pension savings. More than two and a half million Belgians subscribe to it. For our group, encouraging the establishment of a pension capital is essential.

Then, we provide support for growing companies. The proposed measures mobilise savings to provide venture capital in unlisted growth companies that suffer from a financing deficit.

Growing companies play a decisive role in job creation and are an important factor in economic development.

The third tax measure, which I think is important, aims to provide exemptions from pre-account on a global basis and no longer on an individual basis, as in the past. This will allow a greater number of people belonging to the sectors concerned to benefit. In addition, the measures are extended to the construction sector.

Mr Daerden, you talked about this sector just recently. You know very well that the latter is ⁇ targeted by social dumping. A whole series of measures have been put in place, for a number of years, to combat the latter.

Let me remind you of point 1 of a resolution that we voted here, three or four years ago, unanimously, if my memory is good and related to the fight against social dumping. At this point, it is clarified that we must first ensure that the costs of labour are reduced in such a way that jobs are simply more competitive.

This will help reduce disability in the construction sector. The disability will not be removed in its entirety, but we are taking a step in the right direction. This will allow, in any case, to “contrast” the social dumping that is currently present in our country.

The third package of measures presented to you today relates to the promotion of social cohesion. These are ⁇ important measures as they aim in particular to provide additional financial support to single parents, who have limited income resulting from professional activity. It is therefore an additional financial supplement that is provided through the tax-exempt income quota. This is aimed at a public whose income is the most modest. It is therefore undeniable that this is a social measure.

In my opinion, it is just fair to provide these people with a ⁇ welcome financial supplement.

Finally, the second social cohesion measure aims to extend access to the Maintenance Claims Service to legal cohabitants. This eliminates the discrimination that existed between spouses and cohabitants.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, for several years, our government has undertaken a strategy to revive our economy. The law of relance is part of the extension of this strategy. Moreover, today we sign up in a willingness to accelerate and strengthen the economic activity of our country.

For our group, it is important that the government continues on this path. We have already demonstrated the relevance of the solutions that have been brought. The figures that come out every day prove this too.

Therefore, you will not be surprised that the MR group votes with enthusiasm and conviction in favour of this last leaflet of the rebound plan series, Mr. Delizée.

Je ne ne doute pas que l'enthousiasme se manifestera encore pour voter le dernier (episode of this feuilleton) in a few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill contains a combination of measures to boost economic growth, on the one hand, and to improve social protection, on the other. I will bring three measures to your attention.

First, the more gradual build-up of the notice periods at the termination by the employer during the first six months. The Group of Ten had already bowed on this, and one was close to an agreement, but that is strangled just before the finish. The majority has built on some advance in the Group of Ten. We want to encourage the employer to give new, young employees from the start a contract of indefinite duration. The existing suspension scheme often constituted a brake to this. By reforming the cancellation scheme, we want to help eliminate the improper use of temporary contracts as a kind of trial period. Additionally, employees who are now employed for five or six months will also receive better protection than before, namely five weeks of dismissal instead of four.

The second measure I would like to point out here is to strengthen the opportunities for employment for young people. Mr. Clarinval just cited the figures on youth unemployment. There are still too many short-skilled young people who find it difficult to find a job in the labour market. With this proposal, employers will receive a discount on the gross wage if they offer this group of young people an indefinite contract. The discount for the employer does not affect the net wage of the youth; thus they continue to earn the same amount. Nevertheless, the lower wage costs combined with the first measure of gradually increasing the notice periods should encourage employers to give young people an employment opportunity with an indefinite contract rather than allowing them to start with short temporary contracts.

The third measure I would like to draw your attention to is providing additional resources to prevent burn-outs. These additional resources make it possible to implement a burn-out policy tailored to the company and sector. Nothing comes too early. A recent study, which I read yesterday, shows that 20% of workers are at increased risk of burn-out. According to all experts, the problem of burn-out should be addressed primarily at the level of the company, together with the employees and managers. With this bill we provide the possibility and the means to do this effectively at the level of the company and the sector.

In that sense, we continue on the same path not only to create jobs, but also to keep the work sustainable for the people, to whom we ask to keep it a little longer. Therefore, the present bill can of course also count on the support of our group.

I think it is important that you are present. It is not often that an agreement is negotiated in the summer and that agreement must first go through all seasons of the year before it reaches the plenary session. So I think this is a special moment for you too; therefore I find it important that you are present at the discussion of it.

The colleagues Vercamer and Clarinval explained what the proposal contains. Due to circumstances, the bill was cast into a bill. I will come back to that later. My party considers it important that you pay attention to the burn-out and the disconnection. This time it is not done from a punitive point of view, but from a negotiating point of view and at the business level. This is very important and we will support it. This is a first step in the right direction and the SPA will follow with it.

However, there are three points with which the SPA does not agree.

The first point concerns the modification of the notice deadlines. You know it was historical — Mrs. De Coninck is sitting in the hall — when an agreement was reached on the notice periods. It was a major step, where the differences between workers and servants were completely eliminated. There is still work on the shelf. No one believed that this would ever happen, but in the previous legislature we have managed to remove those differences. I deeply regret that this compromise, which was achieved very hard between employers, workers and politics, is now being unilaterally changed. You use the argument that no agreement could be found in the Group of Ten and that you therefore decide unilaterally, but that is a bit too short through the curve, ⁇ given the history of the file.

You may also be able to explain today how far you are going with further removing the differences between workers and servants. I hear little about it, although it is important that one day the differences between the two categories have been completely eliminated and that everyone is a worker. You may also be able to give some explanation.

Second, this proposal entails the abolition of the prohibition on temporary work, ⁇ in the relocation sector and in the inland shipping sector. I will return to the criticism of that. I deeply regret that this is imposed unilaterally and that it is not consulted with the social partners. I am ⁇ concerned whether this measure will create additional employment. In fact, there was a reason for the prohibition of outsourced work in the inland shipping and the relocation sector, in the sense that safety is very important in both sectors. The requirements for working there are much higher than in any other sector. You indicated during the discussions that the emergency forces there will have to meet the same security conditions as those who work there permanently. However, I doubt whether your measure will effectively generate more employment. If an employer has to make the same effort for an outsourcing force as for a fixed force, why would he choose an outsourcing force?

I regret this measure. I am also concerned about the safety of the temporary workers in this sector, where safety is very sensitive.

Third, the start-up jobs, and the previous speakers already talked about it. You argue that you especially want low-skilled people to get a job and that start-up jobs facilitate the way into the labour market. When you submitted your draft on workable work to the Chamber, you submitted an amendment on the salary of young people in start-up jobs. However, you withdrew that amendment — there was considerable commotion about it at the time — saying that the file was not yet ripe and that you would like to engage in further consultations. You have then returned and you have added this element to the bill on economic relief.

Actually, not much has changed. In your first proposal, young people for the portion that they would lose had to knock on the RVA. Now you turn it; you now put the responsibility on the employer. The employer pays a reduced gross wage, but the employee would notice little of it in the net wage. But, first, the younger will then be in a weaker position. After all, if he loses his job, his benefit is calculated on his gross wage and not on his net wage, thereby receiving a lower benefit than when he was employed in a normal situation. Secondly, we have been fighting very hard for a very long time to eliminate this discrimination. We do not want young people to be paid differently than adults. However, you are re-introducing this discrimination.

Third, this measure will cost a lot of money. An initial calculation resulted in a cost of 40 million. You are talking about a revenue of 20 million. The figures are still in question. Particularly, there are doubts as to whether the measure will create so much employment. If this measure creates approximately 800 additional jobs, then 40 million is a huge amount.

I hear several colleagues argue that the measure is intended to give low-skilled people additional opportunities. However, the measure that is now underway is implemented for all young people. Therefore, there is no distinction, it is not true that low-skilled people are given additional opportunities. The measure also applies to young people who would have found their way into the labour market from a normal situation. I am therefore opposed to this measure and I would deeply regret if it were implemented. We cannot support this measure at all.

This is the last measure, which has not yet been included in the proposal. The reason why this proposal has suffered so much delay is that another measure is coming, in particular a scheme of €6,000 untaxed surplus earnings. We held hearings on this subject and all ten guest speakers judged very destructive about the present proposal. In the meantime, you have won time. I therefore sincerely hope that you will use the time you have left, and that you have gained due to the delay that the design suffered, well to take the design to heart, so that we will not later be confronted with an identical proposal. In fact, you have changed the relance law into the law concerning the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion, but if you submit the untaxed surplus earnings, as initially submitted, again to the House for voting, you can also change the title in one move, because then it will no longer be about the strengthening but about the disturbance of economic growth. If you do not believe me, I suggest you read the testimonies of the ten speakers in the Social Affairs Committee. So I hope you take that to heart.

Unfortunately, we cannot support this proposal.

This is what remains of this package received at the end of December and which was called “Relance Law”. We then said that the government method was not the right and that it was going into the wall. This resulted in the fragmentation of the text into different parts. The corporate tax reform was voted before the end of December, to be applied from 1 January.

Part of this rebound law is being analyzed today. The third part has already been discussed; it aims to allow citizens to earn 500 euros a month, 6,000 euros a year, without insurance, without social contributions, without paying taxes. This is the element that ⁇ stuck in December, when socio-economic interlocutors, including representatives of the associative world, were invited to comment and said all the bad they thought of this bad idea. Bad jobs drive out good jobs. This is something that you must remember and which has been seen in our recent history.

There is a procedure in conflict of interest. I urge the government to review its copy, or even forget it completely. Otherwise, I still promise you a lot of resistance from the Ecolo-Groen group and other opposition groups. Because the disposition is really bad.

Mr. Clarinval, if we come so late about a text that was already on the table of Parliament in December, it is because of the majority. We are ready to work, but in good conditions. When all the socio-economic and associative interlocutors say that a text is bad, it is probably not very good.

The government has a little too much tendency to dive into the fog.

What remains of the December text in the proposal presented to us today? There are still provisions that pose problems for us, some that question us and others that we can support.

Among the problematic measures are those relating to the first young jobs. Mr. Minister of Employment, we obviously share your concern about youth employment. In fact, when they leave the studies, they are too many to not be able to participate in the working life and thus disqualify for long periods of unemployment. However, it seems to me inaccurate to consider that by paying them less than their elderly, we answer the challenge.

You can react to me that this is only a reduction in the gross wage, which will be compensated to the extent that the net wage will be equivalent to that of an older worker. Now, first of all, we are waiting to obtain proof of this, since the government has not provided us with the royal decree which it is preparing in this regard. The second is to ignore that the gross part of the wage is an integral part of the worker’s remuneration and generates rights in terms of social security and pension. When savings are made on social contributions without compensating them by the assignment of certain rights, young people are granted a sub-status and a bad signal is given to society.

I once said that the bad job chases the good. In my opinion, you should also ask yourself why too few young workers benefit from an indefinite job with a decent salary. This is mainly because you have put them in competition with student workers. The unconscious extension of student labour by this majority and by the previous majority has created a competition between workers.

Similarly, this measure on young jobs, which is limited in time, will create competition between very young workers, who graduate from education, and those who are slightly older and whose cost will be higher, so that the latter will be less easily engaged by employers.

What is needed in terms of access to employment for young people are more structural measures.

Mr. Minister, I have often talked to you about our proposal for a “Tandem Plan” that would allow workers over the age of 55 to gradually lift their feet, to be replaced for the period of work abandoned by young workers, in order to offer a smooth transition both for young people to work and for older workers to retirement. There are more innovative and dynamic formulas to be studied to promote youth employment.

Another problematic provision is the extension of access to temporary employment to sectors that were protected by collective agreements. On the one hand, you register in contradiction with agreements concluded between workers and employers within specific parity committees and, on the other hand, you participate in this logic that if there are more workers active today than yesterday – which we welcome – too many workers have uncomfortable temporary status. I think of one-day or fixed-term interim workers, who do not have employment security allowing them, for example, to conclude a mortgage loan or to have some security of existence. We cannot support this provision.

Mr. Minister, to link to a provision about which our opinion is more nuanced, when you are considering combating burn-out, offering a right to disconnect to workers, the best measure is that which participates in the quality of employment. When the burn-out is there, it is too late and insufficient to set up mechanisms to accompany those who are victims of it because, in this matter as in others, prevention must be promoted.

The concept of disconnection, which you bring for the first time in a legislative text, is interesting. It corresponds to a new technological phenomenon, this hyperconnection, which is a chance but also a pressure on workers. However, you will acknowledge that these provisions are very lightweight since it is about opening up the possibility of funding pilot experiments or encouraging consultation on the subject. We do not want to fire this initiative, but we call on you to work on employment quality issues ahead of burn-out phenomena and to do more on the subject.

On the issue of the return of a form of trial period for workers, I will have a more nuanced opinion than the colleagues who have already expressed themselves. Yes, indeed, the abolition of the trial period was the subject of a comprehensive agreement of the social partners, which must be respected because we believe in social concertation. But ⁇ that idea was not excellent, and it hindered the ability and willingness of employers to proceed with a commitment, since they did not see concretely how they could act if ever the person they had chosen was not suitable for the job they were considering.

We can admit that reforms resulting from social concertation must also be evaluated and, if necessary, corrected. What is disturbing here is that you do it against the opinion of the social partners, without allowing them to amend their reform themselves. The new system will need to be evaluated, but, objectively, the removal of the trial period has had unwanted effects, in particular this barrier to employers to hire new workers. We have a nuanced opinion on the issue.

With regard to the last positive opinion on the Social Affairs section, we welcome measures to improve the situation of low-income isolated parents. We believe that this audience of single mothers, sometimes single fathers, should be the subject of particular attention in social matters because there is, at this level, a large social pressure and a significant risk of departure.

I will come to the financial regulations, Mr. Minister of Finance. We truly believe that we need to be able to develop new mechanisms for financing the economy, including innovation. My colleague, Gilles Vanden Burre, here present, is very attentive to this dimension. Nevertheless, and I aim primarily at the new private call mechanism, it is necessary to ensure that the proposed reforms do not create a slump effect, do not reward economic actors who do not make a particular effort to develop the economy and employment, and are budgetally sustainable. I have to express my concern about this.

There will be a precise monitoring of this measure, on the one hand to see if it achieves the declared objectives of boosting corporate financing, and on the other hand to see if it is financially sustainable.

In this same text, Mr. Minister, you propose the transposition of a European directive on the fight against tax evasion. You present this measure as a measure initiated by the government in the field of tax evasion but, unfortunately, it does not resist the analysis since the government has chosen a minimum transposition of the European directive. Only another EU member country, the United Kingdom, has made this choice. You show too little ambition in the fight against tax evasion, as we have already pointed out to you several times.

On the other hand, in the "recipes" section, you announce to us the maximum revenues. Mr. Van Rompuy, I know that you are paying attention to this in the context of the budget debate. Transposing a minimum directive and announcing maximum revenue is making the big difference. It’s quite a remarkable gym performance, but I think in politics, finance and budget, it’s taking the risk of a new outbreak of which you know who your government wants to pay for. We said in the committee, as part of the first reading of this text, at the time of the project, all our skepticism on this subject. I can only repeat this here.

Finally, Mr. Minister of Finance, to conclude on a good point in terms of finance, we voted positively for the measures concerning the Food Credit Service (Secal/Davo), because they actually correspond to a request from the accompanying committee, of which my excellent colleague Mrs. Gerkens is part.

This includes the assimilation of legal cohabitants with married parents in relation to the advances that can be granted to families in which one of the parents does not assume its obligations to contribute to the education of the children. This is a step in the right direction. There was listening to the sector and there was evaluation and adaptation of legislation.

I can only encourage you to practice more systematically in this way, especially on this issue that concerns us, the question of maintenance claims, the question of single parents. We think that this is a matter of society that deserves more attention, I have already said, and also more resources for the service concerned, which is somewhat the poor parent of your administration, Mr. Minister of Finance.

So we will continue to question you on the subject and encourage improvements, which is the case in this text. We emphasize this positively. That is why we will not vote against this text, despite our criticism. Given the provisions on maintenance claims, we will abstain, even if other provisions of the text pose serious problems.

I will primarily address the Government. However, Mr. Clarinval is no longer there to answer technical questions. I will not go astray in this matter, but I will just make a reminder bit, which I have already spotted just recently. I can only encourage you to listen to civil society on the project of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized. I know that this is not the subject of today, but if we talk about this proposal today, it is first and foremost because of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized. That is why your bill, which now dates back many months, has been blocked.

It may seem sexy to have 500 euros this month, without taxes. Yes, it’s sexy, but the perverse effects are huge. All social partners, regardless of the bank to which they belong, have done exactly the same analysis. This creates an intrabelled social dumping. This creates real unfair competition. This project will be the basis for the destruction of jobs. It must be fundamentally revised.

I’m not one of those who don’t want it at all. I would rather say: why not? But I put it on the condition that the project is limited and limited to one or another small sector, such as the sport. I think he was a claimant. I may also think about culture. Designing and applying it in an extremely widespread way, all sectors confused, will create unfair competition with the independent and even more with the complementary independent. It will create real problems in the non-commercial sector. It will create concerns for small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is an absolute non. If you come back with this project of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and paraphiscalized as you have conceived it, we will fight to the bottom. Penalize it, make it evolve, narrow its sphere! We do not want it at all in its wider dimension.

I take advantage of the moment to make this reminder bit: you should not play the sorcery apprentices with this project.

For us, this is fundamental. And many other sectors as well. It is necessary to remember all that was said during the hearings. Moreover, a few days ago, I still had contacts with the middle classes, the Neutral Syndicate for Independents, with the non-market. They repeated to me that we had to fight alongside them against this project.

The bill, which is therefore part of your bill, if it proposes interesting things, it proposes others that are blurred, not to say harmful. I will let my colleague Benoît Dispa intervene on the tax aspect to devote myself to the issue of employment.

One of the interesting things about this aspect is the disconnection. When I submitted my bill, no one had moved. The government and some members of the majority even made me understand that I was proposing anything. It would be better if, in the end, it would have made a reflection to the extent that today the government takes it back. You’re going a little bit further, but it’s a step in the right direction. This is part of the text that we support.

The prevention of burn-out is in itself a positive point, especially when it comes to reintegration to work. Without wanting to diminish your involvement in a matter that is ⁇ important to you – this initiative comes from the social partners – I am disappointed that you have not adopted all of their proposals. On the “innovation in burn-out prevention” section, interesting proposals were made.

It is a pity that you did not accept to take the full package. This way of selecting certain aspects of the file is somewhat regrettable.

Furthermore, what may seem interesting is the aspect of training. However, I have a few small questions to ask you, because since you developed your bill, time has passed.

I would like to know where we are in this matter. Indeed, – I will not recall all the historical – but a royal decree was published very late since, if my information is correct, – and I think they are – the famous royal decree that executed one of the articles relating to the formation of the law of 5 March 2017 was published in December 2017. I am reminded that this article amended the entire provision that fixed the date of entry into force. The law will only be voted.

What about this royal decree on the training component that was published in December 2017? Is this sustainable in terms of timing, given the telescope of the evolution of the law and the delays you have taken in this matter? Can you illuminate us on this point? In fact, I recall that social partners had to get acquainted with the royal decree before they could file their CCT on the training effort at the sectoral level. I would like to make sure that this is truly feasible for all sectors and social partners. Here is the question – I repeat – of the part relating to the deposit of the CCTs.

I would now like to stop on two measures contained in your bill, which, in my opinion, are very vague. The first measure concerns the first young jobs. Every job that can be created is a value added. According to the estimates, 670 jobs for some, 1,000 jobs for others should be created. Recognize that 78 million public money to create between 670 and 1,000 jobs is expensive employment.

But if it allows young people to access employment, I am not necessarily negative. You have not forgotten that this measure has been repeated several times. We had obtained from you the commitment that, even if the crude was largely reduced, the net would be compensated.

You had made this promise, and I still do not see it clearly since it, in the analysis, cannot be kept since a royal decree must be taken in this matter. Where is it? Are you aware of its content? Its technicity does not have to be simple unless you have found the magic formula, as a whole table will be indispensable to fix the flat-rate supplement based on age and the minimum wage serving as the basis for the discount.

I had the opportunity to discuss with young people from the CSC who made projections. Do you have them available? Recently, these young people have projected losses or not, with numeration, secondary estimates to start-up jobs. I know they sent them to you. I do not know what analysis you deduce from this work done by these young people.

They cited the following example: "A 18-year-old worked for a year in electrical mechanical metal construction (CP 111.01). Here are the net losses they have numbered: 147 euros less net end-of-year premium; 319 euros less net vacation pack; an impact of sick days (which annoys me very much and I will return to it later) as well as on the unemployment component.

They calculated for the employer an savings of 5,000 euros per year per young worker. I would like to hear your reaction on this.

First of all, what makes me trouble are your compensation promises, those relating to compensation and the reduction of crude at the net level. Looking at these projections and the immobilism in which the royal decree lies, will there be, yes or no, a real compensation at the net level? I would like to remind you that the Prime Minister, himself, was engaged when we referred you to the first mouth.

Then everyone will say that, if someone loses a part of their vacation bag, it will not be very serious since they have a job. Yes or no, Mr. Minister, can we get the clear commitment that if young people in such particular jobs get sick or are victims of a work accident, they will not be left aside? We can still talk endlessly about holidays or end-of-year bonuses, but I think we must be uncompromising in defending protection against illness and workplace accident. This is our collective responsibility. Therefore, we cannot accept to dig a gap between professional activities. The importance of this issue is such that I would like you to commit yourself very clearly in this area.

I think I have thus turned around what we seem to consist, on the one hand, in positive measures and, on the other hand, in problematic arrangements. Of course I await your answers. If you can make firm commitments – and you’ve understood about what issues – we’ll abstain from this bill, which takes up part of your boost bill. If, on the contrary, you could not reassure us about the points I mentioned, then we should oppose it.

Nevertheless, I dare hope – since I am beginning to get used to your positions – that the aspects that I think are problematic to you also seem essential and that, consequently, you can commit to ignore them. In this case, we will abstain at the time of voting this text, but – and I could not say otherwise – by administering this reminder bit for the file of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized.

We are working to reach an alternative proposal that would be limited to sport and culture, but there is absolutely no question of extending it to all professional activities.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not return to what my colleague Frédéric Daerden said, who made a rather synthetic but essential analysis on the substance. I will also not address the question of the 500 euros since it is not the draft of the text that is submitted to us. It will probably be for seasons 6, 7 and 8.

I wanted to address one aspect of the case that has not yet been much discussed: the articles that envisage tightening the conditions for granting an income replacement allowance for persons with disabilities. According to this project, the disabled person must have had his residence in Belgium for at least ten years, of which in the month five years uninterrupted. It is quite paradoxical to see that this measure is included in a project that is entitled “in favour of strengthening economic growth and social cohesion”. I have asked this question to Mrs. De Block several times without having an answer. I would have wanted to ask the question to Mr. Clarinval, the first author of the bill, but I find that he is not there. I will not require his presence in the hearing but as the father carrying the case, he might have tried to answer this question. Per ⁇ he thinks that he is only the suitcase carrier and that he does not necessarily have to attend all the discussions?

Regarding preventing people from being able to file a case based on residence conditions, we were told it was about fighting abuse. When we said that, we said everything. There is no more argument behind it, it is really the leitmotiv. The State Secretary for Disabled People told us that the number of fraudulent files was not significant and that it was not that that was supposed to prevent the change of the system. No credible numbers or any answers have been given to our questions.

In one of the previous seasons, the 3rd or the 4th, there was a strong tension in commission between Mrs. Lanjri and Mrs. Demir on this issue of numbers. Ms. Lanjri rightly said that it is necessary to be able to judge objectively the magnitude of the phenomenon. He could only approve of his request. We only had a vague response that was to say that the current system would be too "flowing".

It is very bad to know the arrangement of access to benefits for disabled persons. The 1987 Act is a true fighter path for those who enter a file. There are conditions to be met: administrative record, medical, financial conditions. In addition, it is a system that is not without controls or sanctions. There are revisions, amounts that are recovered. We are already in hyper-control, in hyper-sanction, and we are told that we still need to fight abuse.

In fact, in the initial project, the very reason for this provision was clearly indicated: the control of the cost evolution of this income replacement allocation which has increased by 30% in ten years.

If Mr. Clarinval had been present, I would have asked him how this tightening of the conditions of granting for persons with disabilities is a measure capable of promoting social cohesion. Or even the economic recovery. To this question, I think there is obviously no answer!

Alongside the obsession of fighting fraud, for a few dozen cases, I think there are other obsessions that are more positive, such as allowing people with disabilities to live a dignified life, or ensuring that no one is below the poverty line. These are objectives that, in my opinion, are quite noble.

In the debate, Ms. Secretary of State told us that in the end it is not important if tomorrow, depending on this new arrangement, people cannot file for an income replacement allowance, they will still be able to claim their right to a social integration allowance at the CPAS. It is therefore very clearly a transfer of charges to the CPAS and local authorities.

Regarding the legal objections, the objections issued by the State Council, and all the points referred to by the latter, it is the same that had been debated during the debate on GRAPA, the January 2017 law voted, here, by the majority, which indicates these same conditions of granting for GRAPA. Unfortunately, we have also not obtained a satisfactory answer to these questions: objection to the principle of equal treatment of citizens within the European Union; objection to Article 23 of our Constitution, which recognises social rights; objection to the same condition of ten years of residence to demonstrate a lasting link with Belgium. To none of these elements, none of these questions, we have received a valid answer or argument, except that it is always necessary to fight fraud.

As a reminder, the provisions on the law concerning GRAPA have been the subject of an appeal by the League of Human Rights to the Constitutional Court. The State Council says this: Whether it is the 2017 law on the GRAPA or the present arrangement that is proposed to us, all this can result in sanctions from the Belgian Constitutional Court, but also from European courts.

These measures go straight through the policy of this government that reduces social spending. Unfortunately, this is somewhat the poor parent of this policy. For persons with disabilities, there were beautiful workplaces: the reform of the 1987 Allowance Act, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adapting our legislation to the rights of persons with disabilities, etc. I think people with disabilities have no longer made illusions for a long time, they know that they have nothing to expect positive from this majority and this government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, my speech will be quite short because the matter is so dense that I will limit myself to provisions relating to employment. This bill contains measures that we can support, but there are also elements to which we can only partially adhere, and others to which we are firmly opposed.

I will not review all provisions, but I would like to briefly express our point of view on a few aspects, and first of all the modification of the details of the notice. Although we have a custom to comply with the agreements of the social partners, we have never been convinced of the opportunity to remove the trial period. The risk of perverse effects seemed too obvious to us. Employers would recruit much more cautiously and prefer fixed-term and interim contracts. Therefore, we are not in principle hostile to this proposal, which aims to reintroduce a six-month period during which the notice period is reduced, but progressively depending on the age. We regret, however, that this new, slightly complicated arrangement has not been developed on the basis of consultation with the social partners.

In terms of burn-out prevention, on the other hand, we appreciate the confidence that these provisions give to the social partners. We regret the fact that you did not establish a real right to disconnect. The government urges workers to work longer and more flexibly. Therefore, it seems to us all the more important to grant them the right to have private beaches to take distances from their business activities, but all you offer is a right to discuss a right of disconnection.

We are opposed to the concept of the first job for young people. Sure, you create a leverage for the engagement of low-skilled young people, but this leverage has too many perverse effects. We fear that this device will put downward pressure on the salary of young people who could be paid more than the minimum. The government already has too much tendency to make young people a cheap and flexible workforce in student jobs. Some employers already consider these young people to be scalable and scalable to the point of threatening the success of their studies.

This proposal is part of the line of government actions aimed at undermining the guaranteed average minimum income or the equivalent provided by the CCT. This will have an effect on the personal contributions of these workers and on the social rights that take into account the wage received, as is the case for pension. With this type of measures, it also promotes a turnover of young people. The employer will tend to separate from them when they no longer meet the conditions. This could further precarize the employment of young people.

Furthermore, and contrary to the measures implemented in the Brussels Region in favour of young people, the aspect of training is completely neglected here. Young people will probably have a first work experience, but this will not increase their chances of moving toward sustainable and quality employment.

For these reasons, and for many others, we will not support your project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, "Proposal of Law on Economic Recovery and Strengthening Social Cohesion", everything is wrong in this title. Even the words “proposition of law” are false, since this text is a relic of a bill that contained the corporate tax reform and which became a bill proposal to bypass the House Rules.

The words “economic rise” are a formula that should, in reality, be called “donations to capital” granted at the expense of the world of labour: social gifts, tax gifts, precariation of the labour market. Obviously, politically, “economic revival” is easier to sell than “presents to our rich friends.”

Finally, to soften this gift plan, we added “strengthening social cohesion”. But, of course, we are in a purely symbolic re-balance.

I will soon pin down a few steps, starting with the temporary work. One remembers the slogan of May 1968: "It is forbidden to prohibit." It is forbidden to prohibit temporary work in certain sectors. This is what is finally reflected in this project. It is intended to promote temporary work that would be admitted in particular in the sector of relocation, inland navigation, while the trade unions have highlighted the dangers it represents, in particular in terms of risks of potentially fatal work accidents. I have acquaintances who, unfortunately, suffered a fatal accident as part of temporary work.

But we know that this government is a machine to precariate work. If you compare the latest statistics of the ONSS for the third quarter of 2017 with those for the third quarter of 2014, you see that full-time jobs increased by 1.7%, part-time jobs by 6% and temporary jobs by 26,5%. The government’s actions in terms of precariating the labour market work, unfortunately. And remember that almost 70% of temporary contracts are one-day, one-day contracts!

We already knew that the right – I include the CD&V in the right, if you allow it, Mr. Minister – was mocking us: “The lifetime employment is over.”

Now on to the youth wages. The government intends to reduce the gross wages of young people who leave school in order to better adapt them to the labour market. What a attention! Your salary is reduced, but it is for your good. It is known that, by domino effect, when the wage of a category of workers is reduced, this reduction has a downward impact on the whole of the wages of the world of work.

Sorry to say this is a government text, but I talked about it in the introduction. The government says that on the net, young people will lose nothing. They will lose nothing at first sight, but they will nevertheless feel the effect of this decrease in gross wage in their holidays, in their end-of-year premiums and in all the social rights they accumulate, and of which they benefit in case of illness, unemployment, as well as at the time of their retirement.

This measure also reduces social contributions. A lower gross salary means fewer contributions to social security. Then this government majority will tell us that there is not enough money in the social security funds for pensions. She will say, “We are forced to make people work longer.”

In short, this government introduces age-based discrimination and ultimately offers employers an unsecured gift of sustainable jobs.

Here is another measure I want to pinpoint, among this rather indigest arsenal. These are exemptions from the payment of professional pre-account. Of course, this text does not create them. But let me remind you a little bit: what are these professional prepaid payment exemptions? It is the possibility, for a boss, to steal the tax from his workers. Normally, the boss takes the professional pre-count from the salary of his workers to pay it to the tax. But for a number of years, he has the opportunity to keep a part for him, simply. They are stealing the taxes of their employees. Initially, I called this measure “the little brother of notional interests.” But the little brother has grown strong. In 2005, these exemptions from professional pre-account amounted to 200 million euros. Today they represent 3 billion euros, or fifteen times that amount. We know, because this was voted a few weeks ago, that an additional €600 million of professional prepaid payment exemptions will be added by 2020.

Here, these exemptions from professional pre-account are extended, especially again to the interim. This goes back to what I said a few moments ago: this government is a machine to create precarious jobs.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to vote for this text; we will even vote against it!

Dear colleagues, I thank you for your reactions and questions.

I will try to give you additional information because we have already discussed a lot of elements in commission.

I will try to answer a number of additional questions, although a lot has already been discussed in the committee.

It is not correct to say that we have not respected the social partners. I said in the committee that we had asked them a lot of advice but that, unfortunately, the Group of Ten had not reached agreements on certain topics.

We asked the social partners for advice as far as possible, but there was no agreement on some aspects. This was the case during the trial period. Thus, the negotiators of the Group of Ten agreed to the arrangement, but – and this can happen to anyone – the backbone has not honored the negotiated agreement.

We have gone a long way in terms of the notice periods, to draw a line in it. Some argue that this was already part of the larger agreement of the previous government. All respect for what the previous government achieved in this regard, as well as the social partners, one a little more than the other, were willing to key to the notice periods, because they in practice set a brake on the recruitment of young people.

In short, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the social partners in the Group of Ten were asked to give an opinion or reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this was not the case. In this case, it is up to the government to decide.

We have done that too.

Several members of Parliament welcomed our measures on burn-out. In fact, we give the National Labour Council and the social partners the opportunity to finance a hundred projects and draw out an amount of 1.8 million.

Mr Fonck, you pointed out that social partners are also seekers of innovation in this area. I am willing to consider the possibility of extending burn-out prevention measures to support innovative elements in the workplace. We will do so as soon as possible and provide, in a program law, the possibility of working in this innovative approach.

In short, I hope that we are addressing the problem of the burn-out well.

Mr. Gilkinet, you are right, we will not only tackle burn-out, we will also work preventively, in order to avoid it whenever possible.

I come to the temporary work. It is correct that we still had a ban on temporary work for a certain number of sectors, including the inland navigation and the relocation sector. That prohibition came because there could be a security problem. In the committee, I have said that we will continue to monitor security by the parity committees. By lifting that prohibition, the safety of workers and of anyone in the vicinity should not be compromised. This applies to both the inland shipping and the relocation sector. Here too, we include an important element that was discussed, namely the aspect of safety.

When it comes to disconnection, we do not go as far as some countries introduce a right to disconnect. We are convinced that this company should be considered by company. We want this to be put on the agenda as part of the consultation and dialogue between workers and employers. Then, through customization, the possibility of disconnecting will be agreed, so that the employees know very clearly what is expected of them in terms of email and answering messages on weekends or evenings, after the normal working hours.

There were a lot of questions about the start-up jobs. It is important to emphasize that we want to do everything we can to help young people work. Thank God, youth unemployment has also dropped dramatically in certain regions of this country. However, there are still regions where youth unemployment is quite high. As Ms. Kitir correctly notes, we submitted a proposal here a while ago and again withdrew it, because the net salary of those young people should not be lower, as the Prime Minister has emphasized here during a plenary session.

We have sought a tax solution that will enable the net wage of these young people not to be reduced.

I am convinced that many young people find it difficult to get a job because employers are constantly asking if they already have experience. Young people without experience are not immediately profitable, given the wage costs that an employer must pay for them.

That’s why we introduced these start-up jobs. We are convinced that with this approach, which guarantees the net wage, we meet all the aspirations formulated here.

Mrs. Fonck, I did not receive the documents from the CSC. You mentioned a few examples and I will learn about this, in particular about the reactions of the administration and my cabinet.

Finally, I have noted some important statements on the measure around 500 euros, which is not part of this text.

With the proposed approach, we can further encourage job creation. It is true that this is not only about quantity but also about quality. Therefore, the text also covers aspects such as burn-out and disconnection, with which we also highlight the quality. I hope that the new measures will give an additional boost to the job creation, which has been ongoing for several years.

For the rest, I think I have answered all the questions. If this is not the case, it will soon become clear.

We have inzake of starterjob inderdaad een formule uitgewerkt op fiscal in parafiscaal vlak, waarbij een effectieve daling van de brutoloonkosten, wat in principle of jobcreatie moet stimuleren, geen verlies aan nettoloon tot gevolg heeft. Thankszij die ideale combinatie creëren wij voor jongeren de mogelijkheid om ett job op te nemen, ervaring op te doen in social rechten op te bouwen.

Regarding the tax elements in this bill, there were remarks from Mr. Gilkinet regarding the private appeals and the budgetary suite that we are going to give. Obviously, we need to check where this leads us, but we are sure that this will provide additional elements in terms of initiatives and economic growth.

The same applies to tax fraud measures, for which we have tried to estimate the fiscal consequences in a correct and realistic way.

March 22, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs Lanjri, Mr Raskin, Mr Deseyn, M. Piedboeuf and M. Flahaut.

We refer to our written report.

of which act.

Mr. Speaker, will Mr. Peeters be present at the discussion of the bill on economic growth and social cohesion? That is why we pushed the point forward. It is important that the Minister is present.

I hear that the Minister has told me that he can and will come if you ask for it. I understood that he will be here in five minutes.

The meeting will be suspended until the Minister arrives.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, with the exception of the €6,000 measure that institutionalizes black labour, this bill replicates the measures contained in the controversial bill on economic recovery and social cohesion.

First of all, I would like to mention the contempt displayed by the majority parties for social concertation. In this case, as in many others, the government has conducted a pseudo concertation. From the beginning, employer representatives knew that the government would support their line, they did not make any effort to reach an agreement. Passing beyond the concertation has become the rule with this government and this majority. We regret this even more because the title of your proposal refers to social cohesion.

Beyond this first fundamental criticism, I will return to three themes dealt with in this bill.

First, the reduction of the notice period. We oppose the reduction of the notice period during the first six months of occupation. During this period, the government decides to reduce the protection of workers. At a time when mass dismissals are legion in our country, facilitating dismissals does not seem to be a desirable measure. In fact, you de facto reintroduce the trial period without the approval of the social partners. However, the removal was the subject of a comprehensive agreement following difficult negotiations. You sweep an important compromise from one side of the hand through a closed door and without measuring its impact on workers. This is regrettable.

Secondly, the temporary work. Your bill provides for the removal of existing sectoral prohibitions, provided in collective agreements, to use temporary workers in certain branches of activity. You continue to generalize temporary work in the labour market. More precariousness, more precariousness, this is the leitmotiv of this government!

By blocking all collective agreements that provide for a general ban on employment of temporary workers, the government once again interferes with social consultation and issues a real motion of distrust towards the social partners.

The third theme that I will address is that of the first jobs for young people. This issue is very important for our group. In this text, it is planned to reduce the salary of young people under 21 without experience. The previous government had decided to end the discrimination that existed based on the age of the young. This government has restored it. You decide to reduce youth wages below the minimum wage, making you believe that this would fight youth unemployment.

I would like to remind here that mainly thanks to the policy of the Regions, youth unemployment is declining. For example, in Brussels, it has been almost 60 consecutive months that youth unemployment is declining. Therefore, we do not need your measure that precaries and discriminates against young people.

Even if you continue to say "no panic, the decrease in the net salary will be compensated by a flat-rate supplement paid by the employer who can, himself, then recover it by a tax measure", let me be concerned.

First, by reducing the youth’s salary, you also reduce their vacation waste and this will not be compensated. With your measurement, you also decrease the social rights of young people, which are calculated on the gross wage and not on the net. You create a new form of discrimination among workers. In this regard, I refer you to the explanatory opinion of the State Council.

Secondly, how can we be sure that the flat-rate supplement you promise will actually offset the loss of wage suffered by the young man? In the explanation of the motifs, you acknowledge that there may be a difference. Indeed, you indicate that you want to make the supplement correspond as much as possible to the loss of salary, but you refuse to provide us with the draft royal decree that would allow us to ensure that the young man will not suffer a decrease in his net salary.

In addition, a second reading was requested in order to be able to dispose of this document. We did not have it. Per ⁇ we can get it today?

As long as it is written.

Does it actually exist?

The reality is that today MPs will vote on a measure that reduces youth wages without knowing whether this reduction will be fully compensated. The majority will therefore vote this measure blindly, without knowing its real impact. It is irresponsible!

In the end, with this government, it is always the same method. He goes into force with always the same argument that does not hold the way: to do harm to do good.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I see once again, in the head of this majority, an incomprehension of the living of the workers. We will vote against this proposal. Are you surprised, Mr President?

The bill on the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion, the former relance law, contains a number of measures that honor its title.

I will remove a few points. The first is the change of the notice period and the reintroduction of a trial period light. Articles 91 and 93. This is a very good measure, which was very necessary, because after the abolition of the trial period in 2014, we were able to conclude on the basis of several studies that many employers had become more reluctant to immediately offer employees an indefinite contract.

The new measure, with a reduction of the notice periods, provides a smoothness at this point and may cause employers to give up their rejectional attitude. We hope that in any case and I even think that the measure will be a step in the right direction.

A second point, which has caused quite a bit of criticism from the opposition, concerns the start-up jobs. This is a ⁇ good measure, since the reduction of the gross wage of the start-up jobs will encourage employers to recruit low-skilled people, who in our society do not always have easy access to the labour market.

The reduced gross salary will not lead to lower incomes for the young startups, but will act as an intruder and will ensure that those young people are taken from under the mother’s sweat. After all, low-skilled young people often remain at home at the expense of their parents or fall into the system of living wages. That reduced gross wage will lead them to enter the labour market, since they will learn a certain work attitude and will grow to a serious and well-paid job.

This is very important. Recent studies show that at this point there is still work at the shop in our labour market. The measure will provide an answer to this.

Given these two measures, coupled with the measures for the construction sector, for which the government also makes a serious effort with a view to increasing employment, we can only approve this proposal. You can count on our support.

Finally, the relief plan and the strengthening of social cohesion are on the agenda of this plenary session. You will remember that the government decided on this plan in the middle of last summer and that, unfortunately, the flibust of some groups has forced us to use this technique of proposing legislation, in order to be able to result in a text ⁇ important for employment and for the economy of our country.

This text contains three parts.

Just beginning his speech, he has already said the word too much!

Mr. Clarinval, apologize for interrupting you. I heard “flibust.” I felt targeted. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Clarinval. What do you think we have committed a flibust?

Why are we here today with this bill? Sometimes it is interesting to recall it. It is because you were blocked on the file of the 6,000 euros taxed and "deparaphiscalized". I promptly warn you: in this case, as far as we are concerned, we will go to the end of what we can do!

I can assure you, Mr. Clarinval, that this is not just because we are in the opposition. We have behind us the non-market sector, the associative sector, the self-employed and employers, SMEs individually. All of them are now extremely pleased that you have not yet been able to advance on these famous 6,000 euros defiscalized and "deparaphiscalized". We will hold to the end because you are introducing incredible unfair competition with this mechanism. You are really doing intra-belt dumping with the destruction of many jobs!

Mr. Clarinval, if this is what you call the flibust, I can assure you that it will continue for a long time. I am pleased to remind you here that we have behind us large sectors of the economy, whether commercial or non-market, and that they fully support our approach.

There must be ambiguity on this point. I will recall the words of my colleague Mr. Daerden, who addressed the Minister regarding the bill. If I read correctly, the agenda contains this: Bill proposal by Mr. Clarinval, Van Quickenborne, Vercamer and Spooren. But Ms. Kitir did well to request the presence of Mr. Minister. We know that he is the main author of the text.

Mr. Peeters is the biological father of the text and Mr. Clarinval is the carrier father. In fact, there are three carrying fathers, because there is a lot to wear!

Mr. Clarinval, we will not long draw the history of this case. It’s a bit like television series, which are very fashionable. We are in Season 5. There was the summer agreement, and then the saucissonnage. There will be more seasons. The series has even changed its name. It is now "For the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion". He found a name a little more sexy and sellingable. Stop the joke, it was a kind of law-program or law-for-all, in which the majority had not always shown the greatest consistency either. It is not surprising, therefore, that the matter had to be sourced and voted at different times.

You started your speech, Mr. Clarinval, with the word "Finally!". Finally, for this part, you will succeed. We will be able to examine it and express ourselves differently about the content of this project.

I just wanted to rewrite this little historical and remove the ambiguity between the biological father and the carrier father who is on the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, the word "flibust" refers to an abuse of the Rules and other procedural techniques to bring things down. We are not far from this notion here. I have not yet addressed the substance, but only the form.

You are right, Mrs. Fonck, to say that this is not over. There will be a final episode, Mr. Delizée. It will be the arrival in parliament, in a few weeks – I hope – of the text on the 500 euros. This is no longer a bill, but a proposal. In order to be able to bypass the flibust, we had to make use of a bill, in order to be able to vote quickly – if I dare to say these words – “the rebound plan”. I never hid myself; I went to present things in this way within the three ad hoc commissions.

Thank you for reminding the wording, but to be shorter, I will still talk about the “rebound plan”. It includes three packages of measures: a package on employment, a package on purchasing power and social cohesion measures.

With regard to employment measures, Mr. Daerden was very quick when he recalled that we will, in fact, expand the possibility of using temporary work in the battery and relocation sector.

A second measure aims to extend the period within which social partners can conclude collective agreements on training. You remember that this document has leaked a lot of ink. A royal decree on the subject was broken. Today, we allow social partners – you know we are very committed to social consultation – to conclude collective agreements on training. The text gives the social partners more time to conclude conventions.

The third measure concerns the right to disconnect. With technological developments, it sometimes becomes very difficult for some workers to disconnect. From then on, we will allow companies, if they wish, to set an internal framework to enable regulation of this new phenomenon and to allow workers to blow the moment.

The fourth measure is related to the test period. Mr. Daerden, I am sorry to have to contradict you, but you will remember the debate we had when the social partners concluded, a few years ago, an agreement that canceled the trial period.

From the beginning, we pulled the alarm bell saying that what might seem like a good measure would eventually have a perverse effect. Employers, since they can no longer use trial periods, then simply use temporary work or fixed-term contracts. They no longer give out indefinite contracts because they are afraid of having to pay too large advance notice, and because they have not been able to proceed with a trial period.

Although this is a decision of the social partners, from the beginning, the employer’s bank was, I think, not very enthusiastic. I even believe that on the trade union bank, one admits half-wordly that there have been perverse effects. They probably won’t say it publicly. Therefore, an amendment should be made.

We do not re-register trial periods. We will reduce the duration of advance notifications that are requested in working periods less than six months. We are therefore easing this measure somewhat. This seems to me to allow for more sustainable jobs in the periods of activity.

I come to the fifth measure, and I also disagree with you, Mr. Daerden. It is about starting jobs. I’m going to quote you a few numbers because I fell from my chair just listening to you! In the Walloon Region, 28% of young people are unemployed and, in Brussels, it is 38%. On average, this represents almost one in five young people in Belgium. It seems irresponsible for us not to have a specific measure for this public.

You may not like the method, but it has demonstrated its effects. See the number of job creations that have been achieved since the introduction of the tax shift and the reduction of social contributions. In this case, we continue on this path in favor of young people. Of course, Mr. Daerden, there is a reduction in gross salary, that is the truth. But, you know, the government has committed to providing a tax compensation that will make the workers concerned (the youngest workers) retain a net salary identical to what it was before. In this way, a number of young workers will be recruited. We believe that this audience really needs to be targeted; this is an important issue for years to come.

I will now address the second package, which covers fiscal and financial matters. We introduce, first of all, a system in which a citizen has the possibility to pay up to 1,200 euros per year as part of his pension savings. More than two and a half million Belgians subscribe to it. For our group, encouraging the establishment of a pension capital is essential.

Then, we provide support for growing companies. The proposed measures mobilise savings to provide venture capital in unlisted growth companies that suffer from a financing deficit.

Growing companies play a decisive role in job creation and are an important factor in economic development.

The third tax measure, which I think is important, aims to provide exemptions from pre-account on a global basis and no longer on an individual basis, as in the past. This will allow a greater number of people belonging to the sectors concerned to benefit. In addition, the measures are extended to the construction sector.

Mr Daerden, you talked about this sector just recently. You know very well that the latter is ⁇ targeted by social dumping. A whole series of measures have been put in place, for a number of years, to combat the latter.

Let me remind you of point 1 of a resolution that we voted here, three or four years ago, unanimously, if my memory is good and related to the fight against social dumping. At this point, it is clarified that we must first ensure that the costs of labour are reduced in such a way that jobs are simply more competitive.

This will help reduce disability in the construction sector. The disability will not be removed in its entirety, but we are taking a step in the right direction. This will allow, in any case, to “contrast” the social dumping that is currently present in our country.

The third package of measures presented to you today relates to the promotion of social cohesion. These are ⁇ important measures as they aim in particular to provide additional financial support to single parents, who have limited income resulting from professional activity. It is therefore an additional financial supplement that is provided through the tax-exempt income quota. This is aimed at a public whose income is the most modest. It is therefore undeniable that this is a social measure.

In my opinion, it is just fair to provide these people with a ⁇ welcome financial supplement.

Finally, the second social cohesion measure aims to extend access to the Maintenance Claims Service to legal cohabitants. This eliminates the discrimination that existed between spouses and cohabitants.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, for several years, our government has undertaken a strategy to revive our economy. The law of relance is part of the extension of this strategy. Moreover, today we sign up in a willingness to accelerate and strengthen the economic activity of our country.

For our group, it is important that the government continues on this path. We have already demonstrated the relevance of the solutions that have been brought. The figures that come out every day prove this too.

Therefore, you will not be surprised that the MR group votes with enthusiasm and conviction in favour of this last leaflet of the rebound plan series, Mr. Delizée.

Je ne ne doute pas que l'enthousiasme se manifestera encore pour voter le dernier (episode of this feuilleton) in a few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill contains a combination of measures to boost economic growth, on the one hand, and to improve social protection, on the other. I will bring three measures to your attention.

First, the more gradual build-up of the notice periods at the termination by the employer during the first six months. The Group of Ten had already bowed on this, and one was close to an agreement, but that is strangled just before the finish. The majority has built on some advance in the Group of Ten. We want to encourage the employer to give new, young employees from the start a contract of indefinite duration. The existing suspension scheme often constituted a brake to this. By reforming the cancellation scheme, we want to help eliminate the improper use of temporary contracts as a kind of trial period. Additionally, employees who are now employed for five or six months will also receive better protection than before, namely five weeks of dismissal instead of four.

The second measure I would like to point out here is to strengthen the opportunities for employment for young people. Mr. Clarinval just cited the figures on youth unemployment. There are still too many short-skilled young people who find it difficult to find a job in the labour market. With this proposal, employers will receive a discount on the gross wage if they offer this group of young people an indefinite contract. The discount for the employer does not affect the net wage of the youth; thus they continue to earn the same amount. Nevertheless, the lower wage costs combined with the first measure of gradually increasing the notice periods should encourage employers to give young people an employment opportunity with an indefinite contract rather than allowing them to start with short temporary contracts.

The third measure I would like to draw your attention to is providing additional resources to prevent burn-outs. These additional resources make it possible to implement a burn-out policy tailored to the company and sector. Nothing comes too early. A recent study, which I read yesterday, shows that 20% of workers are at increased risk of burn-out. According to all experts, the problem of burn-out should be addressed primarily at the level of the company, together with the employees and managers. With this bill we provide the possibility and the means to do this effectively at the level of the company and the sector.

In that sense, we continue on the same path not only to create jobs, but also to keep the work sustainable for the people, to whom we ask to keep it a little longer. Therefore, the present bill can of course also count on the support of our group.

I think it is important that you are present. It is not often that an agreement is negotiated in the summer and that agreement must first go through all seasons of the year before it reaches the plenary session. So I think this is a special moment for you too; therefore I find it important that you are present at the discussion of it.

The colleagues Vercamer and Clarinval explained what the proposal contains. Due to circumstances, the bill was cast into a bill. I will come back to that later. My party considers it important that you pay attention to the burn-out and the disconnection. This time it is not done from a punitive point of view, but from a negotiating point of view and at the business level. This is very important and we will support it. This is a first step in the right direction and the SPA will follow with it.

However, there are three points with which the SPA does not agree.

The first point concerns the modification of the notice deadlines. You know it was historical — Mrs. De Coninck is sitting in the hall — when an agreement was reached on the notice periods. It was a major step, where the differences between workers and servants were completely eliminated. There is still work on the shelf. No one believed that this would ever happen, but in the previous legislature we have managed to remove those differences. I deeply regret that this compromise, which was achieved very hard between employers, workers and politics, is now being unilaterally changed. You use the argument that no agreement could be found in the Group of Ten and that you therefore decide unilaterally, but that is a bit too short through the curve, ⁇ given the history of the file.

You may also be able to explain today how far you are going with further removing the differences between workers and servants. I hear little about it, although it is important that one day the differences between the two categories have been completely eliminated and that everyone is a worker. You may also be able to give some explanation.

Second, this proposal entails the abolition of the prohibition on temporary work, ⁇ in the relocation sector and in the inland shipping sector. I will return to the criticism of that. I deeply regret that this is imposed unilaterally and that it is not consulted with the social partners. I am ⁇ concerned whether this measure will create additional employment. In fact, there was a reason for the prohibition of outsourced work in the inland shipping and the relocation sector, in the sense that safety is very important in both sectors. The requirements for working there are much higher than in any other sector. You indicated during the discussions that the emergency forces there will have to meet the same security conditions as those who work there permanently. However, I doubt whether your measure will effectively generate more employment. If an employer has to make the same effort for an outsourcing force as for a fixed force, why would he choose an outsourcing force?

I regret this measure. I am also concerned about the safety of the temporary workers in this sector, where safety is very sensitive.

Third, the start-up jobs, and the previous speakers already talked about it. You argue that you especially want low-skilled people to get a job and that start-up jobs facilitate the way into the labour market. When you submitted your draft on workable work to the Chamber, you submitted an amendment on the salary of young people in start-up jobs. However, you withdrew that amendment — there was considerable commotion about it at the time — saying that the file was not yet ripe and that you would like to engage in further consultations. You have then returned and you have added this element to the bill on economic relief.

Actually, not much has changed. In your first proposal, young people for the portion that they would lose had to knock on the RVA. Now you turn it; you now put the responsibility on the employer. The employer pays a reduced gross wage, but the employee would notice little of it in the net wage. But, first, the younger will then be in a weaker position. After all, if he loses his job, his benefit is calculated on his gross wage and not on his net wage, thereby receiving a lower benefit than when he was employed in a normal situation. Secondly, we have been fighting very hard for a very long time to eliminate this discrimination. We do not want young people to be paid differently than adults. However, you are re-introducing this discrimination.

Third, this measure will cost a lot of money. An initial calculation resulted in a cost of 40 million. You are talking about a revenue of 20 million. The figures are still in question. Particularly, there are doubts as to whether the measure will create so much employment. If this measure creates approximately 800 additional jobs, then 40 million is a huge amount.

I hear several colleagues argue that the measure is intended to give low-skilled people additional opportunities. However, the measure that is now underway is implemented for all young people. Therefore, there is no distinction, it is not true that low-skilled people are given additional opportunities. The measure also applies to young people who would have found their way into the labour market from a normal situation. I am therefore opposed to this measure and I would deeply regret if it were implemented. We cannot support this measure at all.

This is the last measure, which has not yet been included in the proposal. The reason why this proposal has suffered so much delay is that another measure is coming, in particular a scheme of €6,000 untaxed surplus earnings. We held hearings on this subject and all ten guest speakers judged very destructive about the present proposal. In the meantime, you have won time. I therefore sincerely hope that you will use the time you have left, and that you have gained due to the delay that the design suffered, well to take the design to heart, so that we will not later be confronted with an identical proposal. In fact, you have changed the relance law into the law concerning the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion, but if you submit the untaxed surplus earnings, as initially submitted, again to the House for voting, you can also change the title in one move, because then it will no longer be about the strengthening but about the disturbance of economic growth. If you do not believe me, I suggest you read the testimonies of the ten speakers in the Social Affairs Committee. So I hope you take that to heart.

Unfortunately, we cannot support this proposal.

This is what remains of this package received at the end of December and which was called “Relance Law”. We then said that the government method was not the right and that it was going into the wall. This resulted in the fragmentation of the text into different parts. The corporate tax reform was voted before the end of December, to be applied from 1 January.

Part of this rebound law is being analyzed today. The third part has already been discussed; it aims to allow citizens to earn 500 euros a month, 6,000 euros a year, without insurance, without social contributions, without paying taxes. This is the element that ⁇ stuck in December, when socio-economic interlocutors, including representatives of the associative world, were invited to comment and said all the bad they thought of this bad idea. Bad jobs drive out good jobs. This is something that you must remember and which has been seen in our recent history.

There is a procedure in conflict of interest. I urge the government to review its copy, or even forget it completely. Otherwise, I still promise you a lot of resistance from the Ecolo-Groen group and other opposition groups. Because the disposition is really bad.

Mr. Clarinval, if we come so late about a text that was already on the table of Parliament in December, it is because of the majority. We are ready to work, but in good conditions. When all the socio-economic and associative interlocutors say that a text is bad, it is probably not very good.

The government has a little too much tendency to dive into the fog.

What remains of the December text in the proposal presented to us today? There are still provisions that pose problems for us, some that question us and others that we can support.

Among the problematic measures are those relating to the first young jobs. Mr. Minister of Employment, we obviously share your concern about youth employment. In fact, when they leave the studies, they are too many to not be able to participate in the working life and thus disqualify for long periods of unemployment. However, it seems to me inaccurate to consider that by paying them less than their elderly, we answer the challenge.

You can react to me that this is only a reduction in the gross wage, which will be compensated to the extent that the net wage will be equivalent to that of an older worker. Now, first of all, we are waiting to obtain proof of this, since the government has not provided us with the royal decree which it is preparing in this regard. The second is to ignore that the gross part of the wage is an integral part of the worker’s remuneration and generates rights in terms of social security and pension. When savings are made on social contributions without compensating them by the assignment of certain rights, young people are granted a sub-status and a bad signal is given to society.

I once said that the bad job chases the good. In my opinion, you should also ask yourself why too few young workers benefit from an indefinite job with a decent salary. This is mainly because you have put them in competition with student workers. The unconscious extension of student labour by this majority and by the previous majority has created a competition between workers.

Similarly, this measure on young jobs, which is limited in time, will create competition between very young workers, who graduate from education, and those who are slightly older and whose cost will be higher, so that the latter will be less easily engaged by employers.

What is needed in terms of access to employment for young people are more structural measures.

Mr. Minister, I have often talked to you about our proposal for a “Tandem Plan” that would allow workers over the age of 55 to gradually lift their feet, to be replaced for the period of work abandoned by young workers, in order to offer a smooth transition both for young people to work and for older workers to retirement. There are more innovative and dynamic formulas to be studied to promote youth employment.

Another problematic provision is the extension of access to temporary employment to sectors that were protected by collective agreements. On the one hand, you register in contradiction with agreements concluded between workers and employers within specific parity committees and, on the other hand, you participate in this logic that if there are more workers active today than yesterday – which we welcome – too many workers have uncomfortable temporary status. I think of one-day or fixed-term interim workers, who do not have employment security allowing them, for example, to conclude a mortgage loan or to have some security of existence. We cannot support this provision.

Mr. Minister, to link to a provision about which our opinion is more nuanced, when you are considering combating burn-out, offering a right to disconnect to workers, the best measure is that which participates in the quality of employment. When the burn-out is there, it is too late and insufficient to set up mechanisms to accompany those who are victims of it because, in this matter as in others, prevention must be promoted.

The concept of disconnection, which you bring for the first time in a legislative text, is interesting. It corresponds to a new technological phenomenon, this hyperconnection, which is a chance but also a pressure on workers. However, you will acknowledge that these provisions are very lightweight since it is about opening up the possibility of funding pilot experiments or encouraging consultation on the subject. We do not want to fire this initiative, but we call on you to work on employment quality issues ahead of burn-out phenomena and to do more on the subject.

On the issue of the return of a form of trial period for workers, I will have a more nuanced opinion than the colleagues who have already expressed themselves. Yes, indeed, the abolition of the trial period was the subject of a comprehensive agreement of the social partners, which must be respected because we believe in social concertation. But ⁇ that idea was not excellent, and it hindered the ability and willingness of employers to proceed with a commitment, since they did not see concretely how they could act if ever the person they had chosen was not suitable for the job they were considering.

We can admit that reforms resulting from social concertation must also be evaluated and, if necessary, corrected. What is disturbing here is that you do it against the opinion of the social partners, without allowing them to amend their reform themselves. The new system will need to be evaluated, but, objectively, the removal of the trial period has had unwanted effects, in particular this barrier to employers to hire new workers. We have a nuanced opinion on the issue.

With regard to the last positive opinion on the Social Affairs section, we welcome measures to improve the situation of low-income isolated parents. We believe that this audience of single mothers, sometimes single fathers, should be the subject of particular attention in social matters because there is, at this level, a large social pressure and a significant risk of departure.

I will come to the financial regulations, Mr. Minister of Finance. We truly believe that we need to be able to develop new mechanisms for financing the economy, including innovation. My colleague, Gilles Vanden Burre, here present, is very attentive to this dimension. Nevertheless, and I aim primarily at the new private call mechanism, it is necessary to ensure that the proposed reforms do not create a slump effect, do not reward economic actors who do not make a particular effort to develop the economy and employment, and are budgetally sustainable. I have to express my concern about this.

There will be a precise monitoring of this measure, on the one hand to see if it achieves the declared objectives of boosting corporate financing, and on the other hand to see if it is financially sustainable.

In this same text, Mr. Minister, you propose the transposition of a European directive on the fight against tax evasion. You present this measure as a measure initiated by the government in the field of tax evasion but, unfortunately, it does not resist the analysis since the government has chosen a minimum transposition of the European directive. Only another EU member country, the United Kingdom, has made this choice. You show too little ambition in the fight against tax evasion, as we have already pointed out to you several times.

On the other hand, in the "recipes" section, you announce to us the maximum revenues. Mr. Van Rompuy, I know that you are paying attention to this in the context of the budget debate. Transposing a minimum directive and announcing maximum revenue is making the big difference. It’s quite a remarkable gym performance, but I think in politics, finance and budget, it’s taking the risk of a new outbreak of which you know who your government wants to pay for. We said in the committee, as part of the first reading of this text, at the time of the project, all our skepticism on this subject. I can only repeat this here.

Finally, Mr. Minister of Finance, to conclude on a good point in terms of finance, we voted positively for the measures concerning the Food Credit Service (Secal/Davo), because they actually correspond to a request from the accompanying committee, of which my excellent colleague Mrs. Gerkens is part.

This includes the assimilation of legal cohabitants with married parents in relation to the advances that can be granted to families in which one of the parents does not assume its obligations to contribute to the education of the children. This is a step in the right direction. There was listening to the sector and there was evaluation and adaptation of legislation.

I can only encourage you to practice more systematically in this way, especially on this issue that concerns us, the question of maintenance claims, the question of single parents. We think that this is a matter of society that deserves more attention, I have already said, and also more resources for the service concerned, which is somewhat the poor parent of your administration, Mr. Minister of Finance.

So we will continue to question you on the subject and encourage improvements, which is the case in this text. We emphasize this positively. That is why we will not vote against this text, despite our criticism. Given the provisions on maintenance claims, we will abstain, even if other provisions of the text pose serious problems.

I will primarily address the Government. However, Mr. Clarinval is no longer there to answer technical questions. I will not go astray in this matter, but I will just make a reminder bit, which I have already spotted just recently. I can only encourage you to listen to civil society on the project of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized. I know that this is not the subject of today, but if we talk about this proposal today, it is first and foremost because of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized. That is why your bill, which now dates back many months, has been blocked.

It may seem sexy to have 500 euros this month, without taxes. Yes, it’s sexy, but the perverse effects are huge. All social partners, regardless of the bank to which they belong, have done exactly the same analysis. This creates an intrabelled social dumping. This creates real unfair competition. This project will be the basis for the destruction of jobs. It must be fundamentally revised.

I’m not one of those who don’t want it at all. I would rather say: why not? But I put it on the condition that the project is limited and limited to one or another small sector, such as the sport. I think he was a claimant. I may also think about culture. Designing and applying it in an extremely widespread way, all sectors confused, will create unfair competition with the independent and even more with the complementary independent. It will create real problems in the non-commercial sector. It will create concerns for small and medium-sized enterprises.

It is an absolute non. If you come back with this project of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and paraphiscalized as you have conceived it, we will fight to the bottom. Penalize it, make it evolve, narrow its sphere! We do not want it at all in its wider dimension.

I take advantage of the moment to make this reminder bit: you should not play the sorcery apprentices with this project.

For us, this is fundamental. And many other sectors as well. It is necessary to remember all that was said during the hearings. Moreover, a few days ago, I still had contacts with the middle classes, the Neutral Syndicate for Independents, with the non-market. They repeated to me that we had to fight alongside them against this project.

The bill, which is therefore part of your bill, if it proposes interesting things, it proposes others that are blurred, not to say harmful. I will let my colleague Benoît Dispa intervene on the tax aspect to devote myself to the issue of employment.

One of the interesting things about this aspect is the disconnection. When I submitted my bill, no one had moved. The government and some members of the majority even made me understand that I was proposing anything. It would be better if, in the end, it would have made a reflection to the extent that today the government takes it back. You’re going a little bit further, but it’s a step in the right direction. This is part of the text that we support.

The prevention of burn-out is in itself a positive point, especially when it comes to reintegration to work. Without wanting to diminish your involvement in a matter that is ⁇ important to you – this initiative comes from the social partners – I am disappointed that you have not adopted all of their proposals. On the “innovation in burn-out prevention” section, interesting proposals were made.

It is a pity that you did not accept to take the full package. This way of selecting certain aspects of the file is somewhat regrettable.

Furthermore, what may seem interesting is the aspect of training. However, I have a few small questions to ask you, because since you developed your bill, time has passed.

I would like to know where we are in this matter. Indeed, – I will not recall all the historical – but a royal decree was published very late since, if my information is correct, – and I think they are – the famous royal decree that executed one of the articles relating to the formation of the law of 5 March 2017 was published in December 2017. I am reminded that this article amended the entire provision that fixed the date of entry into force. The law will only be voted.

What about this royal decree on the training component that was published in December 2017? Is this sustainable in terms of timing, given the telescope of the evolution of the law and the delays you have taken in this matter? Can you illuminate us on this point? In fact, I recall that social partners had to get acquainted with the royal decree before they could file their CCT on the training effort at the sectoral level. I would like to make sure that this is truly feasible for all sectors and social partners. Here is the question – I repeat – of the part relating to the deposit of the CCTs.

I would now like to stop on two measures contained in your bill, which, in my opinion, are very vague. The first measure concerns the first young jobs. Every job that can be created is a value added. According to the estimates, 670 jobs for some, 1,000 jobs for others should be created. Recognize that 78 million public money to create between 670 and 1,000 jobs is expensive employment.

But if it allows young people to access employment, I am not necessarily negative. You have not forgotten that this measure has been repeated several times. We had obtained from you the commitment that, even if the crude was largely reduced, the net would be compensated.

You had made this promise, and I still do not see it clearly since it, in the analysis, cannot be kept since a royal decree must be taken in this matter. Where is it? Are you aware of its content? Its technicity does not have to be simple unless you have found the magic formula, as a whole table will be indispensable to fix the flat-rate supplement based on age and the minimum wage serving as the basis for the discount.

I had the opportunity to discuss with young people from the CSC who made projections. Do you have them available? Recently, these young people have projected losses or not, with numeration, secondary estimates to start-up jobs. I know they sent them to you. I do not know what analysis you deduce from this work done by these young people.

They cited the following example: "A 18-year-old worked for a year in electrical mechanical metal construction (CP 111.01). Here are the net losses they have numbered: 147 euros less net end-of-year premium; 319 euros less net vacation pack; an impact of sick days (which annoys me very much and I will return to it later) as well as on the unemployment component.

They calculated for the employer an savings of 5,000 euros per year per young worker. I would like to hear your reaction on this.

First of all, what makes me trouble are your compensation promises, those relating to compensation and the reduction of crude at the net level. Looking at these projections and the immobilism in which the royal decree lies, will there be, yes or no, a real compensation at the net level? I would like to remind you that the Prime Minister, himself, was engaged when we referred you to the first mouth.

Then everyone will say that, if someone loses a part of their vacation bag, it will not be very serious since they have a job. Yes or no, Mr. Minister, can we get the clear commitment that if young people in such particular jobs get sick or are victims of a work accident, they will not be left aside? We can still talk endlessly about holidays or end-of-year bonuses, but I think we must be uncompromising in defending protection against illness and workplace accident. This is our collective responsibility. Therefore, we cannot accept to dig a gap between professional activities. The importance of this issue is such that I would like you to commit yourself very clearly in this area.

I think I have thus turned around what we seem to consist, on the one hand, in positive measures and, on the other hand, in problematic arrangements. Of course I await your answers. If you can make firm commitments – and you’ve understood about what issues – we’ll abstain from this bill, which takes up part of your boost bill. If, on the contrary, you could not reassure us about the points I mentioned, then we should oppose it.

Nevertheless, I dare hope – since I am beginning to get used to your positions – that the aspects that I think are problematic to you also seem essential and that, consequently, you can commit to ignore them. In this case, we will abstain at the time of voting this text, but – and I could not say otherwise – by administering this reminder bit for the file of the 6,000 euros defiscalized and deparafiscalized.

We are working to reach an alternative proposal that would be limited to sport and culture, but there is absolutely no question of extending it to all professional activities.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not return to what my colleague Frédéric Daerden said, who made a rather synthetic but essential analysis on the substance. I will also not address the question of the 500 euros since it is not the draft of the text that is submitted to us. It will probably be for seasons 6, 7 and 8.

I wanted to address one aspect of the case that has not yet been much discussed: the articles that envisage tightening the conditions for granting an income replacement allowance for persons with disabilities. According to this project, the disabled person must have had his residence in Belgium for at least ten years, of which in the month five years uninterrupted. It is quite paradoxical to see that this measure is included in a project that is entitled “in favour of strengthening economic growth and social cohesion”. I have asked this question to Mrs. De Block several times without having an answer. I would have wanted to ask the question to Mr. Clarinval, the first author of the bill, but I find that he is not there. I will not require his presence in the hearing but as the father carrying the case, he might have tried to answer this question. Per ⁇ he thinks that he is only the suitcase carrier and that he does not necessarily have to attend all the discussions?

Regarding preventing people from being able to file a case based on residence conditions, we were told it was about fighting abuse. When we said that, we said everything. There is no more argument behind it, it is really the leitmotiv. The State Secretary for Disabled People told us that the number of fraudulent files was not significant and that it was not that that was supposed to prevent the change of the system. No credible numbers or any answers have been given to our questions.

In one of the previous seasons, the 3rd or the 4th, there was a strong tension in commission between Mrs. Lanjri and Mrs. Demir on this issue of numbers. Ms. Lanjri rightly said that it is necessary to be able to judge objectively the magnitude of the phenomenon. He could only approve of his request. We only had a vague response that was to say that the current system would be too "flowing".

It is very bad to know the arrangement of access to benefits for disabled persons. The 1987 Act is a true fighter path for those who enter a file. There are conditions to be met: administrative record, medical, financial conditions. In addition, it is a system that is not without controls or sanctions. There are revisions, amounts that are recovered. We are already in hyper-control, in hyper-sanction, and we are told that we still need to fight abuse.

In fact, in the initial project, the very reason for this provision was clearly indicated: the control of the cost evolution of this income replacement allocation which has increased by 30% in ten years.

If Mr. Clarinval had been present, I would have asked him how this tightening of the conditions of granting for persons with disabilities is a measure capable of promoting social cohesion. Or even the economic recovery. To this question, I think there is obviously no answer!

Alongside the obsession of fighting fraud, for a few dozen cases, I think there are other obsessions that are more positive, such as allowing people with disabilities to live a dignified life, or ensuring that no one is below the poverty line. These are objectives that, in my opinion, are quite noble.

In the debate, Ms. Secretary of State told us that in the end it is not important if tomorrow, depending on this new arrangement, people cannot file for an income replacement allowance, they will still be able to claim their right to a social integration allowance at the CPAS. It is therefore very clearly a transfer of charges to the CPAS and local authorities.

Regarding the legal objections, the objections issued by the State Council, and all the points referred to by the latter, it is the same that had been debated during the debate on GRAPA, the January 2017 law voted, here, by the majority, which indicates these same conditions of granting for GRAPA. Unfortunately, we have also not obtained a satisfactory answer to these questions: objection to the principle of equal treatment of citizens within the European Union; objection to Article 23 of our Constitution, which recognises social rights; objection to the same condition of ten years of residence to demonstrate a lasting link with Belgium. To none of these elements, none of these questions, we have received a valid answer or argument, except that it is always necessary to fight fraud.

As a reminder, the provisions on the law concerning GRAPA have been the subject of an appeal by the League of Human Rights to the Constitutional Court. The State Council says this: Whether it is the 2017 law on the GRAPA or the present arrangement that is proposed to us, all this can result in sanctions from the Belgian Constitutional Court, but also from European courts.

These measures go straight through the policy of this government that reduces social spending. Unfortunately, this is somewhat the poor parent of this policy. For persons with disabilities, there were beautiful workplaces: the reform of the 1987 Allowance Act, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adapting our legislation to the rights of persons with disabilities, etc. I think people with disabilities have no longer made illusions for a long time, they know that they have nothing to expect positive from this majority and this government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, my speech will be quite short because the matter is so dense that I will limit myself to provisions relating to employment. This bill contains measures that we can support, but there are also elements to which we can only partially adhere, and others to which we are firmly opposed.

I will not review all provisions, but I would like to briefly express our point of view on a few aspects, and first of all the modification of the details of the notice. Although we have a custom to comply with the agreements of the social partners, we have never been convinced of the opportunity to remove the trial period. The risk of perverse effects seemed too obvious to us. Employers would recruit much more cautiously and prefer fixed-term and interim contracts. Therefore, we are not in principle hostile to this proposal, which aims to reintroduce a six-month period during which the notice period is reduced, but progressively depending on the age. We regret, however, that this new, slightly complicated arrangement has not been developed on the basis of consultation with the social partners.

In terms of burn-out prevention, on the other hand, we appreciate the confidence that these provisions give to the social partners. We regret the fact that you did not establish a real right to disconnect. The government urges workers to work longer and more flexibly. Therefore, it seems to us all the more important to grant them the right to have private beaches to take distances from their business activities, but all you offer is a right to discuss a right of disconnection.

We are opposed to the concept of the first job for young people. Sure, you create a leverage for the engagement of low-skilled young people, but this leverage has too many perverse effects. We fear that this device will put downward pressure on the salary of young people who could be paid more than the minimum. The government already has too much tendency to make young people a cheap and flexible workforce in student jobs. Some employers already consider these young people to be scalable and scalable to the point of threatening the success of their studies.

This proposal is part of the line of government actions aimed at undermining the guaranteed average minimum income or the equivalent provided by the CCT. This will have an effect on the personal contributions of these workers and on the social rights that take into account the wage received, as is the case for pension. With this type of measures, it also promotes a turnover of young people. The employer will tend to separate from them when they no longer meet the conditions. This could further precarize the employment of young people.

Furthermore, and contrary to the measures implemented in the Brussels Region in favour of young people, the aspect of training is completely neglected here. Young people will probably have a first work experience, but this will not increase their chances of moving toward sustainable and quality employment.

For these reasons, and for many others, we will not support your project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, "Proposal of Law on Economic Recovery and Strengthening Social Cohesion", everything is wrong in this title. Even the words “proposition of law” are false, since this text is a relic of a bill that contained the corporate tax reform and which became a bill proposal to bypass the House Rules.

The words “economic rise” are a formula that should, in reality, be called “donations to capital” granted at the expense of the world of labour: social gifts, tax gifts, precariation of the labour market. Obviously, politically, “economic revival” is easier to sell than “presents to our rich friends.”

Finally, to soften this gift plan, we added “strengthening social cohesion”. But, of course, we are in a purely symbolic re-balance.

I will soon pin down a few steps, starting with the temporary work. One remembers the slogan of May 1968: "It is forbidden to prohibit." It is forbidden to prohibit temporary work in certain sectors. This is what is finally reflected in this project. It is intended to promote temporary work that would be admitted in particular in the sector of relocation, inland navigation, while the trade unions have highlighted the dangers it represents, in particular in terms of risks of potentially fatal work accidents. I have acquaintances who, unfortunately, suffered a fatal accident as part of temporary work.

But we know that this government is a machine to precariate work. If you compare the latest statistics of the ONSS for the third quarter of 2017 with those for the third quarter of 2014, you see that full-time jobs increased by 1.7%, part-time jobs by 6% and temporary jobs by 26,5%. The government’s actions in terms of precariating the labour market work, unfortunately. And remember that almost 70% of temporary contracts are one-day, one-day contracts!

We already knew that the right – I include the CD&V in the right, if you allow it, Mr. Minister – was mocking us: “The lifetime employment is over.”

Now on to the youth wages. The government intends to reduce the gross wages of young people who leave school in order to better adapt them to the labour market. What a attention! Your salary is reduced, but it is for your good. It is known that, by domino effect, when the wage of a category of workers is reduced, this reduction has a downward impact on the whole of the wages of the world of work.

Sorry to say this is a government text, but I talked about it in the introduction. The government says that on the net, young people will lose nothing. They will lose nothing at first sight, but they will nevertheless feel the effect of this decrease in gross wage in their holidays, in their end-of-year premiums and in all the social rights they accumulate, and of which they benefit in case of illness, unemployment, as well as at the time of their retirement.

This measure also reduces social contributions. A lower gross salary means fewer contributions to social security. Then this government majority will tell us that there is not enough money in the social security funds for pensions. She will say, “We are forced to make people work longer.”

In short, this government introduces age-based discrimination and ultimately offers employers an unsecured gift of sustainable jobs.

Here is another measure I want to pinpoint, among this rather indigest arsenal. These are exemptions from the payment of professional pre-account. Of course, this text does not create them. But let me remind you a little bit: what are these professional prepaid payment exemptions? It is the possibility, for a boss, to steal the tax from his workers. Normally, the boss takes the professional pre-count from the salary of his workers to pay it to the tax. But for a number of years, he has the opportunity to keep a part for him, simply. They are stealing the taxes of their employees. Initially, I called this measure “the little brother of notional interests.” But the little brother has grown strong. In 2005, these exemptions from professional pre-account amounted to 200 million euros. Today they represent 3 billion euros, or fifteen times that amount. We know, because this was voted a few weeks ago, that an additional €600 million of professional prepaid payment exemptions will be added by 2020.

Here, these exemptions from professional pre-accounts are extended, in particular, once again, to interim workers. This goes back to what I said a few moments ago: this government is a machine to create precarious jobs.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to vote in favour of this text; we will even vote against it.

Dear colleagues, I thank you for your reactions and questions.

I will try to give you additional information because we have already discussed a lot of elements in commission.

I will try to answer a number of additional questions, although a lot has already been discussed in the committee.

It is not correct to say that we have not respected the social partners. I said in the committee that we had asked them a lot of advice but that, unfortunately, the Group of Ten had not reached agreements on certain topics.

We asked the social partners for advice as far as possible, but there was no agreement on some aspects. This was the case during the trial period. Thus, the negotiators of the Group of Ten agreed to the arrangement, but – and this can happen to anyone – the backbone has not honored the negotiated agreement.

We have gone a long way in terms of the notice periods, to draw a line in it. Some argue that this was already part of the larger agreement of the previous government. All respect for what the previous government achieved in this regard, as well as the social partners, one a little more than the other, were willing to key to the notice periods, because they in practice set a brake on the recruitment of young people.

In short, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the social partners in the Group of Ten were asked to give an opinion or reach a consensus. Unfortunately, this was not the case. In this case, it is up to the government to decide.

We have done that too.

Several members of Parliament welcomed our measures on burn-out. In fact, we give the National Labour Council and the social partners the opportunity to finance a hundred projects and draw out an amount of 1.8 million.

Mr Fonck, you pointed out that social partners are also seekers of innovation in this area. I am willing to consider the possibility of extending burn-out prevention measures to support innovative elements in the workplace. We will do so as soon as possible and provide, in a program law, the possibility of working in this innovative approach.

In short, I hope we are addressing the problem of the burn-out well.

Mr. Gilkinet, you are right, we will not only tackle burn-out, we will also work preventively, in order to avoid it whenever possible.

I come to the temporary work. It is correct that we still had a ban on temporary work for a certain number of sectors, including the inland navigation and the relocation sector. That prohibition came because there could be a security problem. In the committee, I have said that we will continue to monitor security by the parity committees. By lifting that prohibition, the safety of workers and of anyone in the vicinity should not be compromised. This applies to both the inland shipping and the relocation sector. Here too, we include an important element that was discussed, namely the aspect of safety.

When it comes to disconnection, we do not go as far as some countries introduce a right to disconnect. We are convinced that this company should be considered by company. We want this to be put on the agenda as part of the consultation and dialogue between workers and employers. Then, through customization, the possibility of disconnecting will be agreed, so that the employees know very clearly what is expected of them in terms of email and answering messages on weekends or evenings, after the normal working hours.

There were a lot of questions about the start-up jobs. It is important to emphasize that we want to do everything we can to help young people work. Thank God, youth unemployment has also dropped dramatically in certain regions of this country. However, there are still regions where youth unemployment is quite high. As Ms. Kitir correctly notes, we submitted a proposal here a while ago and again withdrew it, because the net salary of those young people should not be lower, as the Prime Minister has emphasized here during a plenary session.

We have sought a tax solution that will enable the net wage of these young people not to be reduced.

I am convinced that many young people find it difficult to get a job because employers are constantly asking if they already have experience. Young people without experience are not immediately profitable, given the wage costs that an employer must pay for them.

That’s why we introduced these start-up jobs. We are convinced that with this approach, which guarantees the net wage, we meet all the aspirations formulated here.

Ms. Fonck, I did not receive the documents from the CSC. You mentioned a few examples, and I will inquire about this, in particular about the reactions of the administration and my cabinet.

Finally, I have noted some important statements on the measure around 500 euros, which is not part of this text.

With the proposed approach, we can further encourage job creation. It is true that this is not only about quantity but also about quality. Therefore, the text also covers aspects such as burn-out and disconnection, with which we also highlight the quality. I hope that the new measures will give an additional boost to the job creation, which has been ongoing for several years.

For the rest, I think I have answered all the questions. If this is not the case, it will soon become clear.

We have inzake of starterjob inderdaad een formule uitgewerkt op fiscal in parafiscaal vlak, waarbij een effectieve daling van de brutoloonkosten, wat in principle of jobcreatie moet stimuleren, geen verlies aan nettoloon tot gevolg heeft. Thankszij die ideale combinatie creëren wij voor jongeren de mogelijkheid om ett job op te nemen, ervaring op te doen in social rechten op te bouwen.

Regarding the tax elements in this bill, there were remarks from Mr. Gilkinet regarding the private appeals and the budgetary suite that we are going to give. Obviously, we need to check where this leads us, but we are sure that this will provide additional elements in terms of initiatives and economic growth.

The same applies to tax fraud measures, for which we have tried to estimate the fiscal consequences in a correct and realistic way.