Proposition 50K0186

Projet de loi relevant de caducité certains projets de loi réglant une matière visée à l'article 78 de la Constitution.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 21, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

dissolution of parliament legislative procedure government bill

Voting ¶

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Joos Wauters (Groen) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 10, 1999 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The present bill was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Internal Affairs on 26 October 1999. They were dealt with as cases without a report. Since four amendments were subsequently submitted, the House decided on 28 October 1999 to send both draft laws back to the committee. During its meeting on 9 November 1999, the committee devoted a discussion to this. Mr Cortois submitted two amendments, amendment no. 1 of Bill No. 0186/001 and amendment no. 1 of Bill No. 0187 and 001. The applicant points out in his reply that the bill on the establishment of an institute for business lawyers, piece Chamber no. 2215/1, was incorrectly included in the bill no. 0187/001 which includes mandatory bicameral bills. The bill was originally submitted to the Senate as a mandatory bicameral bill, but was re-qualified as an optional bicameral proposal during Senate discussions. This bill should therefore be taken from the draft law no. 0187/001, which includes the mandatory bicameral bills, and was to be incorporated into the bill no. 0186/001, which includes the optional bicameral bills. The amendments submitted by Mr. Cortois aim to adapt the draft laws in that sense. The Amendment No. 2 of Mr Ansoms on Bill No. 186/001 aims to supplement the list contained in Article 2 with the draft law for the promotion of the organization of the residential-working movement, with business transport plans. Mr Ansoms points out that the aforementioned bill received a large majority in the final vote in the House after a very thorough consideration in a specially established subcommittee of the Social Affairs Committee. The fact that this bill was favorably welcomed is understandable, given the possibilities that the bill, provided that a good implementation will offer in a relatively short term to reduce the traffic of residential-working traffic by 15 to 20%. A new treatment from the beginning in the Chamber would cause a huge loss of time. In the context of the growing accessibility crisis, this would be irresponsible. The public opinion would not understand this, according to the applicant. The applicant also refers to the Federal Government Declaration of 14 July 1999 announcing that the Government will address the mobility issue intensively. The aforementioned draft law on the abolition of decay offers precisely the possibility to work on this in very short time. The speaker does not understand why the government does not take advantage of this opportunity. It is also deeply regrettable that the Agalev-Ecolo group and the socialist groups comply with the wishes of their liberal government partners not to include this bill in the list of bills that remain pending to the House. Prime Minister Verhofstadt denies that the government intends to shift the approach to the mobility issue to the long run. The government, on the contrary, will submit a new bill on this matter very soon. Mr Ansoms emphasizes that the file problem is becoming increasingly serious and that urgent intervention is needed. He fears that submitting a new bill will lead to a waste of time. It is perfectly possible to use the draft law adopted by the Chamber on 22 April 1999 for the promotion of residential-working traffic with business transport plans as the basis of the discussion and to submit amendments to it. The chairman, Mr. Paul Tant, understands that the new government wants to put other emphasis. However, it would be a great appreciation for parliament if one wanted to conduct the debate on the basis of the aforementioned bill. He agrees with Mr Ansoms’s observation that this method would also be very time-saving. Prime Minister Verhofstadt reiterates that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Mobility and Transport will soon submit a preliminary bill. This can then be submitted quite quickly as a bill. The fear that this will delay the approach to the mobility issue is, in its view, completely unjustified. Amendment No. 3 of the Government on the Bill No. 0186/003 relates to the draft law amending Article 217 and incorporating Article 217bis into the Code of Criminal Procedure and supplementing Article 5 of the Act of 15 February 1993 establishing a Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Combating Racism on the list included in Article 2. Prime Minister Verhofstadt recalls that the Committee for Justice at its meeting of 26 October 1999 decided not to further discuss the draft law in question and therefore proposed that it be clarified from the draft law no. 0186 and 001. The Chairman then points out that it is not advisable that two bills of the same nature and the same date have the same title. For the sake of clarity, he proposes the following titles: what the draft law no. 0186/001 concerns the repeal of the expiration of some bills that regulate a matter as referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution and what the bill no. 0187/001 concerns, draft law concerning the repeal of the expiration of some draft laws regulating a matter as referred to in Article 77 of the Constitution. The Committee agrees with this proposal to amend the headings. The Amendment No. 1 of Mr. Cortois was adopted with 9 votes for and 3 abstentions. The Amendment No. 2 of Mr Ansoms was rejected. The Amendment No. 3 of the Government was adopted. Article 2, thus amended, was adopted by nine votes against two and one abstinence. For Articles 1 and 3, the committee shall confirm the votes cast at the previous meeting, namely unanimously adopted. The entire bill was adopted with 9 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence. The Bill No. 0187/001, amendment no. Paragraph 1 of Mr Cortois and Article 2 as amended were adopted by 9 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence. For Articles 1 and 3, the committee shall confirm the votes cast at the previous meeting: unanimously adopted. The entire draft law is adopted by 9 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence.

Mr Jos Ansoms has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank Mr. Smets for the detailed report he presented. I will limit myself to defending my amendment in the hope that my call will take effect. When we looked at the draft revoking the nullity of some bills a few weeks ago, we were surprised that in that long list of bills the draft law promoting the organization of residential-working traffic with business transport plans was not included. I thought it was a forgetfulness and was supported by Mr. Wauters, co-author of the bill, and Tavernier, who gave me the impression that it was indeed a forgetfulness. This could be corrected by a simple amendment. Therefore, I submitted an amendment. My surprise was great when yesterday we went to the discussion of this amendment in the committee for internal affairs and saw that it was not a forgetfulness, but a conscious choice of the government. This bill, which was approved in this House by a large majority – beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition – was not allowed to appear on this list! The Minister has made it clear that this bill should not become a law in the short term. This is incomprehensible for two reasons. The first reason is situated on the substantive, because the file problems are mainly due to the housing work traffic. This is experienced by each of you. Congestion problems around Brussels, Antwerp and Gent are taking dramatic dimensions. Anyone engaged in mobility and potential solutions to this problem knows that business transport plans can make a significant contribution, that autosolism can be reduced by 15 to 20% without spending billions of government funds. Then the files will decrease. In addition, in the party programmes of the past few months, corporate transport plans were included as one of the most obvious tools to address the file problems. If the bill is approved, the majority can communicate to the voter that an important party program item has been realized. However, the government cannot prevent this bill from being included on this list. This is politically incomprehensible. How did this bill come into being? Initially, it was a bill of our hands. In the previous legislature, however, a subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Mr Van Aperen, was established. Mr. Van Aperen, as chairman, invited representatives of all political groups and together with colleagues from especially SP, PS, Ecolo and Agalev, we then drafted this bill. It was submitted here for approval on 22 April 1999 and it received a large majority, of course also from both socialist parties. The gentlemen Bonte and Moock had worked very intensively to create this design. It was also approved by Agalev and Ecolo, as Joos Wauters was also one of the great promoters. Of course, the Christian Democrats also approved it with full conviction. The VLD did not vote against, but abstained, together with the VU. Only the PRL and the Flemish Bloc, I think, voted against. In the Netherlands, one would say that this bill was carried by the parliament. That’s what they say there. There were also people who were lightly euphoric at that time. I have read the Acts on it and quote from it a statement of a colleague: Mr. President, with this bill and the many work of Mr. Ansoms, we actually realize a green idea for which we have been fighting for a long time. We would have wanted to go further, but given the possibilities that arise here, we will support this design with conviction. Dixit Joost Wauters, in this Chamber on 22 April 1999. In fact, there is no longer any substantial discussion about this project. It can count on a large majority across party boundaries, but from this government it should not be included in this list. And that of a government whose mouth is full of trend breaking, sustainable development, new political culture, the right of parties to profile and score in the government, the right of trend and so on! You know that. You just have to check the newspapers every day. Every day, new beautiful images are created and sent to the world. This government thus rejects this project which, according to Joos Wauters, is the realization of a green idea and which was achieved mainly thanks to the cooperation of the two socialist parties. If one attaches importance to political credibility, I can still assume that both PS, SP, Agalev and Ecolo will soon support our amendment. After all, this does not mean that this text is to be taken or let go, but that this text is again discussed and that anyone, including government parties, can amend and improve the text. It is possible to put new accents in this text. It is nothing more than that. But as I said, it was not allowed. Per ⁇ the Prime Minister personally opposed that this draft was included in this long list. If this amendment is not approved later, I think we can ask that one stop talking about a new approach, trend break, new political culture, trend law or the right to score. Please be silent about this. It should also be noted that the previous government was almost the image, the exponent of old political culture, and worked suffocating, undemocratic, and transcendent. This amendment will not be approved later. If this amendment is not approved, I invite the governing parties to quickly again sit around the table and supplement the government agreement with a small sentence. You may note it, I read it to you: The majority parties have agreed that they will adhere to the classical rule for the other subjects to deal with them on the basis of consensus in the government and between the majority factions in parliament. This is a well-known phrase that is best included in this government agreement. It could still be improved by not talking about other substances, but about all substances. At least it is fair to the voters.

Mr Ansoms, in your presentation, you immediately defended your amendment. Mr Joos Wauters has the word.

Mr. Ansoms, I would like to confirm that I will continue to defend the position I took in the plenary session. I have worked with conviction on the bill that we have almost reached a good ending. In extremis, the Chairman, Mr Van Aperen, put forward a number of procedural rules. In the past period, I also advocated that this bill would be included in the list. I repeat that I support this bill and that I continue to support Mr Ansoms. It was a good bill and a first step towards a solution to this problem.

Mr Hans Bonte has the word.

I would like to clarify two things. We also remain firmly behind the bill as we have drafted it at the time. However, I understand that the government is choosing to quickly translate this into legislation through a bill. We will, of course, look very closely at the content of that draft law and we will not leave us untold in case of deviation from what was agreed at the time. For this purpose, we will also take a legislative initiative, hoping that this will accelerate the discussion and the legislation.

Mr Paul Tant has the word.

Mr the President. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues on the socialist banks to the fact that the present text is already a draft law. It is astonishing that the government, which continually speaks about innovation, about a new relationship with parliament and about the right of tendency of parliamentarians, does just the opposite when it comes to valuing the work of this parliament and showing openness of mind. As a parliamentary with some ancientity, I point out that in this House it was an old rule to automatically consider texts adopted in one of the two Chambers as exempt from caducity. This government is now making a political matter of it. If that is the outstretched hand that the Prime Minister spoke to us a few weeks ago, I thank him solemnly for that. It has been made very simple to ensure that a bill that has received the approval of very many factions in this House can no longer be discussed, because it encounters resistance from a liberal angle. The Prime Minister closes the door, puts the key in his pocket and announces a new initiative. I am convinced that those who believe this are mistaken. No initiative will be noticed. This is my inner conviction. The draft text could count on a very broad majority under the previous government. I do not understand why it cannot be used as a basis now. It is not about the core of the matter, Mr. Speaker. We ask only to accept this text as the basis for the discussion. If he is valuable, he can become law in the shortest time.

Mr Jef Tavernier has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small clarification. I just spoke about this issue with the Minister of Mobility and Transport and she has confirmed to me once again that she is indeed submitting a draft law on this subject in early 2000. I give this to you for information.