Proposition 54K3279

Projet de loi portant création du Conseil National de la Productivité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Sept. 20, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work productivity competitiveness supervisory body economic policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Michel de Lamotte (LE) 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. 14, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mrs Lalieux, refers to the written report.

Mr. Minister, with this bill, your government implements a non-binding recommendation of the Council of the European Union to establish a National Productivity Council responsible for giving opinions or formulating proposals in the field of productivity and competitiveness. This Board will consist of six members at the federal level (two from the Plan Bureau, two from the National Bank, two from the Central Council of Economy) and six members designated by the Regions. There are exclusions, for example for party collaborators, parliamentarians, etc.

The question that we ask ourselves and that we have asked you in committee is the following: Is the creation of this National Productivity Council an additional attack by this government on social concertation? It is certain that this bill generates real distrust in the head of all social partners, even within the Central Council of Economy. The FGTB indicated that the National Productivity Council is an instance with which the European Union "tries to sell a failing economic policy instead of creating a real dialogue with the social partners". It provides for a kind of mother-in-law who will oversee national policy.

Certainly, the wage issue has been excluded from the competence of this new Council, but indirectly, according to the social partners, reports and diagnostics will always have an influence on the social debate and social dialogue, including on wages. In this way, collective bargaining can be influenced or even undermined.

The FEB is on the same wavelength. According to her, this body is superfluous: "We will avoid the risk of doubling by having obtained from the minister to entrust the presidency of this new instance to the Central Council of Economy; but here too, we have doubts regarding its real surplus value."

Once you have the unanimity of social partners, you don’t listen to them! It is a pity!

The question is, therefore, why this government wanted to create this structure and what impact it will have on the social consultation in Belgium.

Having not received satisfactory response and having not been convinced – like the social partners – of the added value of this Productivity Council, we will abstain.

Mr. Minister, I agree with the questions that my colleague Karine Lalieux has just raised about the usefulness of an additional institution. This is questionable because there are, in Belgium, a sufficient number of places where social consultation can take place. We don’t live in a country where everything is simple and efficiently organized and the fact of establishing a more organ interpels us. Your responses in the committee did not convince us.

As in the commission, I would like to ask you about the very approach of the Productivity Council. It is about opinion, socio-economic policies, productivity but it remains extremely classic in our eyes, centered on questions about wage costs or competitiveness with neighboring countries. All this makes sense, but how is it possible today not to see a word about the sustainable and environmental dimension of economic issues? This is virtually not mentioned in the text.

Today, it seems to me impossible for councils or institutions to exist at the economic level without them also being able to decide on the environmental impacts of an investment decision, for example, on the environmental impacts of competitiveness and on the social impacts of any economic decision. I thought this was very lacking in this text.

Mr. Minister, you have pledged in the committee – and I hope you will do so in the plenary session today – that these aspects are taken into account. I would like this to be added in the text and, above all, among the missions, otherwise we will completely skip the major issues of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, let us first recall the genesis of this National Productivity Council, which itself reveals.

The idea of this Council is launched by Bruegel, a powerful liberal thought group based in Brussels, rue de la Charité – this is not invented – whose contributing members are states, including the Belgian State, but also central banks and multinational companies, such as Amazon, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Google, HSBC, Pfizer, etc. The idea was taken over by the European Union, which failed to impose it on the Member States, but recommends them to create each such institute.

In addition to this questionable genesis, the usefulness of a National Productivity Council in the Belgian social and institutional landscape raises questions.

While this is only a non-binding recommendation of the European Union, why has Belgium decided to set up an agency that is at great risk of double employment, or even of entering into competition with the Central Council of Economy?

He also made an opinion that suggested that the tasks performed are very similar. So what is the real utility of this Council? Does it not meet the hidden goal of short-circulating the social concertation practiced within the Central Council of Economy on a parity basis? The FGTB is also critical, estimating that this National Productivity Council is "a vehicle imagined by the European Union to implement its failing policy. Instead of creating a genuine dialogue with social partners, it provides an additional midwife who will oversee national policy.”

Certainly, this National Productivity Council will not participate in wage training at the national level, which remains in the hands of the social partners, but it will be able, through studies it will disseminate, to directly influence the negotiations. This is what the European Economic and Social Council observes about this body, which will therefore have a power of influence on wage negotiations.

Article 7 of the draft establishes a series of incompatibilities at the level of the members of this Council, but none concerns the business world. There is a risk of witnessing some controversial appointments, as has been the case recently with the National Bank.

The announced goal of this body is to promote productivity. The productivity of the Belgian worker is already one of the highest in the world. By creating the National Productivity Council, this is like deploring the lack of growth of an already high productivity. On this question of productivity, the options are quite simple: either we improve innovation, or we maintain a downward pressure on wages. This government has resolutely made the choice of this latter option with all the known consequences for the quality of life of workers.

Where is the limit of this race to productivity? This is seen in all current social movements in Belgium. We saw it again in the debate on the post just recently. The pressure at work becomes unstoppable. Workers are pressed like lemons. They are increasingly at the end of the wheel. The number of long-term sick workers continues to increase, year after year. This is a sad record in a sad record. At the end of 2017, Belgium had about 400,000 long-term illnesses, an increase of 100,000 in five years.

Should we not be more concerned about the alarming epidemic of work-related diseases, the alarming burn-out epidemic, the alarming epidemic of musculoskeletal disorders? It is in this sense that the PTB has therefore introduced an amendment aiming at the creation of a National Burn-out Council which will aim to systematically evaluate the impact of the evolution of productivity and competitiveness on the health and well-being of workers. I am sure, dear colleagues, that you will all vote in favour of this amendment, that is, in favour of the creation of a National Burn-out Council.

Mr. Speaker, regarding this bill, I continue to wonder what the added value of this creation is while other bodies already exist, such as the Plan Bureau, the Central Council of Economy, etc.

The National Productivity Council is established on the basis of a recommendation of the Council of the European Union. The Council’s mission is to “study long-term productivity and competitiveness as well as the impact and implementation of the recommendations of the European institutions in this regard.” Cherry on the cake: “The goal of the National Productivity Council is to promote sustained economic growth and convergence.” Just add a layer of lasagnes to the organigram of the Belgian consultation bodies.

Social partners are not holders of this prototype. Furthermore, while competences have been regionalized, federal entities do not participate in this Council. There is no agreement on cooperation. I understand that their presence is not mandatory, but a contact could have been considered, in particular at the level of the Conciliation Committee to see if it was interesting to consider an optional participation.

In the absence of added value, we will abstain.

I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the members for their interventions in the debate.

I want to repeat here that it is not about creating an entirely new structure, but rather about setting up a platform for cooperation linking existing instances.

As I have already pointed out, the budget for the functioning of the National Productivity Council is the most reduced: 94,000 euros are registered to ensure the maintenance of the secretariat.

I tried to convince all members that the value added is real. I have given very concrete elements. The National Productivity Council will allow for the centralization of the available data in different structures. It will serve as a single point of contact for the European Union in matters related to productivity. It will also be the single contact point of the federal government in the framework of the drafting of the national reform plan. It will involve regions and social partners.

The aim is not to reorganize the social debate, especially the debate about wages and wage standards. This is not at all the objective. It is up to the other instances, and of course to the social partners, to discuss this.

In summary, I am convinced, given the situation in Belgium regarding productivity, and while there is a European recommendation to create a National Productivity Council, that the added value is there. The costs are very limited. We have not created a new structure, but we have tried to cooperate with instances already active in Belgium. I thank you.