Proposition 50K0353

Projet de loi attribuant une dotation annuelle à Son Altesse Royale le Prince Philippe et une dotation annuelle à Son Altesse Royale la princesse Astrid.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 28, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

head of State

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to adopt.
• Els Van Weert (Vooruit) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

March 2, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today we are expected to discuss the bill concerning the award of the annual dotation to Prince Philip and Princess Astrid. With this bill, the government demands unanimous approval and consequently lifetime continuation of the tax-free dotations to Prince Philip and Princess Astrid. As Flemish nationalists, we are in principle not very affectionate to the royal house. The Flemish Bloc believes that it is not our mission to defend a family, even if it is Van SaksenCoburg. It is our duty to represent our people. After the population has already contributed 39 million to the fairy tale wedding of 4 December 1999, this government wants to significantly increase the donations to Prince Philip and Princess Astrid. In this regard, we do not see any historical trend breaking in this government. On the contrary, this government makes the royal house a subsidized folk theatre, a monarchist dream factory. The British magazine Europe Business recently made a comparative study of the fortunes of the European royal houses. King Albert II’s private fortune is approximately $25 billion. Prince Philip’s personal fortune is estimated at $4 billion. Prince Laurent owns $1 billion and Princess Astrid has $700 million. I call this a royal house with the K of cash. In addition, they can freely dispose of castles, domains, and a number of real estate properties, including a total of 280 national guards, who are responsible for their personal protection and that of their domains. The full heating bill and the costs of the external maintenance of the royal residences are paid from the federal budget posts, with tax money. It is curious that in all this context with no word about the family income from investments, real estate and shares, is ripped. Dear colleagues, however, this government feels the irresistible urge to re-increase the dotations. Through three amendments, the Flemish Bloc proposes to reduce the annual gift of the taxpayer to the royal house to amounts socially acceptable. First, we want to limit the donation to Prince Philip to 15 million francs. That is a symbolic amount, since the modal resident of Belgium has an average consumption amount of 1 million; a budget that is 15 times smaller. Second, we want to remove the gift of Princess Astrid because she is married to a not insignificant person from the banking world and out of solidarity with Prince Laurent, who can count on no penny. Third, we want to remove the allocation for the one-time installation costs due to the considerable family capital I just explained. I would like to conclude with one final consideration. As a member of Parliament, I have always been surprised that in the heart of parliamentary democracy a significant concentration of power is exempt from any parliamentary and democratic control, this in contrast to other authorities such as ministers who are accountable to a whole range of institutions. The Flemish Bloc will not approve these subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, before going deeper into the draft law on grants, I would like to apologize for not being able to hold my speech in the competent committee because my presence was required in the Committee on Election Expenditures. I cannot be in two places at the same time. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to conduct the fundamental debate about the royal house. However, this debate will need to be held someday. During the discussion of the Civil List of 1993, Mr. Tavernier shared this view. As an argument for his abstinence at the vote, Mr Tavernier argued that a debate on the future of the monarchy in this country was urgently needed. I find that this debate has been sufficiently conducted for the Green MEPs and their ministers. Apparently, a prince marriage and the rumors about its possible consequences for the Greens are enough to have led the debate about the future of the monarchy. This bill concerns the dotations to members of the royal house. It does not refer to the remuneration granted to the Head of State for the performance of his legal and constitutional duties. This is not the purpose of the subsidies, this is the purpose of the Civil List. Nor does it concern the remuneration of the princes for duties entrusted to them by law or constitution. If they had such duties, quod non, they would be remunerated for it through the Civil List. It is also not about remuneration for certain duties performed by the princes in the general interest, but at specific institutions. If it was intended to grant Princess Astrid a remuneration for her work at the Red Cross, it is obvious that this remuneration will be registered in the Red Cross budget. This is also the case for the poor Prince Laurent who does not receive a grant but has an income through one of his presidencies. Colleagues, it is a subsidy, a kind of subsistence granted to Princess Astrid and Prince Philip. The ratio legis is very unclear. There have already been figures mentioned about the real estate of the royal family. The least one can say about the ability of Prince Philip is that it is sufficiently large to maintain a household, eventually supplemented by a few little princes and princesses, in humane conditions. It is not the urgent need for subsistence that justifies the increase in Prince Philip’s budget. Moreover, it would be an unlikely discrimination to give nothing to the ever-underestimated Prince Laurent. Although we do not have data on Princess Astrid’s assets, we can confidently say that it is sufficient. It is also fascinating to find that it is not at all fixing who belongs to the royal family, in the sense of those who receive a dotation. Princess Lilian has long belonged to the royal family. Apparently now Prince Philip and Princess Astrid belong to the royal family and Prince Laurent and the children of Prince Philip do not belong as a separate entity. It would be a good governance if the criteria were defined to determine who belonged to the royal family and who did not. I can find another certain argument in the fact that Princess Astrid would receive a kind of compensation as second in line for the throne succession and Prince Laurent not as seventh in line. What will then be done when the order in the throne succession changes? Are there consequences for the subsidies? Basically, this criticism is directed at ourselves as parliament. The uncriticalness with which we accept these grant expansions contradicts our task as the controller of the public finances to not accept everything blatantly. All those who, in the context of this debate, assert that these are the correct amounts, will with the same certainty assert that if the bill had other amounts included, these were also the correct amounts to be granted to the princes. I therefore come to the conclusion that this is not an objective responsible contribution, but a more fundamental background. It is enough in this country that something has the sign of royal to become sacrosanct. The purpose of my speech is therefore nothing but to all those who need to make it clear, Mr. Minister, that there must be nothing taboo because it touches prince prerogatives, on the financial level, nor on the level of the organization of this State. Finally, Mr. Minister, I have a small question about something in which I hope to be wrong and that you may be able to correct because it is not really elegant. Article 5 of the draft law stipulates that the amounts of the prince subsidies are linked to the index of consumer prices. In itself, this is quite innocent. However, you must clarify to me whether you are talking about the table of the health index to which the amount of wages and bets is linked or about the wider amount of the index figure of consumer prices. I would appreciate if you would provide some clarity on this. If there is a difference between the indexation for wage and bettors and the indexation of the grants, then I would at least not find this really elegant. My group will vote absolutely against the draft because of the opacity of these grants in terms of size, criteria for granting and rational basis.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the arguments presented to us to lead us to allocate an annual grant to Prince Philip and Princess Astrid did not convince me. Several questions, indeed, must be asked. While Prince Philip and Princess Astrid are working, Prince Laurent does not remain inactive and he receives nothing. If Prince Philip performs part of his father’s work, the grant provided for the King should be sufficient. Regarding the ten million allocated for the installation of the new prince couple, Philippe and Mathilde, I find, however, that it costs taxpayers less to install a princess in a castle than a minister Ecolo in its offices. I conclude without prejudice of my personal opinion about the monarchic regime: I consider this request exaggerated and will vote against this draft.

It is not a tradition to discuss such a topic. That is why I was allowed to return to my written report. Therefore, I will not comment on the remarks of the previous speakers, words that, personally, I consider unworthy. I will limit myself to reaffirm, as I did in the committee, that the proposed adjustment of the allocations seems to me necessary and very moderate, ⁇ in comparison with the allocations of other ruling families. So I look forward to an adaptation and appreciate the moderation that our royal family has always shown in this area.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Weddingen considered that we have shown little dignity. He is also very satisfied with the amounts allocated to the royal family. Mr. van Weddingen, what do you think of the fact that the brave Prince Laurent still does not get a franc? Is that not discrimination? If that were the case, you might be able to abstain, even if it was only out of sympathy and solidarity with this member of the royal family that is being discriminated against.