Proposition 50K0329

Proposition de loi modifiant l'article 32 de la loi du 16 juin 1989 portant diverses réformes institutionnelles en ce qui concerne le Service d'incendie et d'aide médicale urgente de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Annemie Van de Casteele

Submission date

Dec. 20, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

regionalisation use of languages

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Bart Laeremans (VB) abstained from voting.
• Jean-Jacques Viseur (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.

⚠️ 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 ¶

March 30, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene briefly to remind that, for historical reasons, the Luxembourg University Foundation is the only university institution in this country that currently has to contribute to the National Office of Social Security. It is also the only university institution that does not benefit, for its academic and scientific staff, of the pension system in force for the other universities. The three authors of this bill, Mr. Poncelet, Collard and Larcier propose to eliminate this double discrimination. An amendment was deposited and adopted by the Social Affairs Committee aiming to advance the effects of this law to 1 January 1998. I would like to point out that this amended law was unanimously approved in the Social Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-author of this proposal, I would like to thank, first and foremost, the Social Affairs Committee for its willingness to put our proposal on its agenda and, in particular, its President for ensuring that it is dealt with very quickly. I would also like to thank the government for supporting it. As the rapporteur said, our proposal was approved unanimously in the committee. I would also like to thank our assembly already, hoping that it will take the same attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly because I could not attend the discussion of the proposal in the Social Affairs Committee. I would like to emphasize, in my turn, the need to eliminate certain discriminations that affect the Luxembourg University Foundation and its staff. I will not return, as has already been done by the rapporteur, to the elements and nature of these discriminations as well as to the arguments developed in the committee. I would just like to remind you that it is important to insist on the originality of the Luxembourg University Foundation which was established in 1971 by the University Expansion Act in parallel with the Limburg Provincial Institution. This institution is original for several reasons. It is not organized in faculties or disciplinary departments but in interdisciplinary research and teaching units that all deal with the problem of the environment in the perspective of sustainable development, which is quite current. The teaching that is given in this Foundation concerns students who are already university graduates and who come, each year, from about thirty countries belonging to all continents. Finally, its board of directors – which is important – is pluralist. It is composed of representatives of all political trends and it is inter-university since it includes the rectors of the nine other French-speaking university institutions. It is all the more normal to align the status of the FUL, as regards its pension system, with the other universities as it must respect all the modes of functioning of the French-speaking university institutions as regards the organization of studies, the collation of academic degrees and the preparation of accounts and budgets as well as the control of the government delegate. As defended by Mr. Poncelet in commission, if you allow it, I would like, as a Luxembourgeois, to partner with our colleague Guy Larcier to support this bill that removes an entirely unjustified discrimination that greatly damaged an institution whose competence and dynamism are unfortunately more recognized throughout the world than in our country.

Sometimes I wonder what a general discussion in the plenary session is for. Everything has already happened in the committee. Why should we give our opinion here again? Today, however, it is illustrated why this makes sense. This proposal was unanimously approved in the committee. I must honestly admit that our group missed one of the two sessions, namely the session during which the vote was held. A small group cannot be everywhere. However, there is something going on here, though not with the Faculté universitaire luxembourgeoise, which may be an honorable institution. However, the problem is that the measures proposed to eliminate discrimination, of course, have a financial impact. For the very first time, the list of university institutions of the Act of 1985 and the Act of 1986 is amended by the addition of an institution. It is the first time that such a thing happens. It’s about two people, it says in the text. Only two people would now receive a pension under the new system. I would like to remind for a moment of similar futial cases, such as the creation of additional judges at the time. They didn’t mind that then, but today we sit with the baked pears, if you forgive me that expression. What is the ground of the case? It is a private institution of the third cycle alone, which was first subsidised in its entirety and then included in the university system of the French Community. This institution is coming to knock. I can imagine that it is fair to eventually add them to the list. However, this desire has financial consequences. Here a community demands that a federal measure be taken with financial consequences, in particular the reduction of the contribution, by abolishing the RSZ contribution and introducing a special contribution scheme and, on the other hand, by applying the better system of public sector pensions to these persons. Well, colleagues, I think such a thing can be added to the many aspects that are being discussed within the Costa. On the Flemish side, there is also a lot of discrimination based on a different view of that Community. I do not see why this point should be clarified again, to regulate it here in this Chamber separately through a federal law, while all Flemish demands are shifted to the Costa. I can therefore assume that some Flemish factions have been disrespectful. It must be based on an error that not only the Flemish majority factions, but also the Flemish opposition factions have simply allowed this to happen? I therefore ask all Flemish factions to think about this, but not to the bottom. Wouldn’t it be more correct, however, to bring both the wishes of the French speakers and those of the Dutch speakers to the Costa? Should we really solve everything ad hoc here that is somewhat desirable for the French speakers, while the Dutch speakers are referred to the Costa? If that is the recipe, then we promise you very pleasant days.