Proposition 50K0393

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 345 de la nouvelle loi communale et l'article 86 de la loi électorale communale.

General information ¶

Authors

Groen Fauzaya Talhaoui
Open Vld Alfons Borginon, Hugo Coveliers
Vooruit Marcel Bartholomeeussen, Marc Van Peel

Submission date

Jan. 19, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

municipality disciplinary proceedings

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

VB

Voted to reject

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN

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 23, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This proposal comes from Mr. Borginon concerns the disciplinary status of district councils officers that can be created in municipalities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. The municipal law has assigned disciplinary jurisdiction concerning these agents to the municipal authority, but this authority must first obtain the opinion of the office of the district council, which is a political instance. by Mr. Borginon considered, in particular, for questions of feasibility, that this was not a good solution. His bill aims to entrust not to the district office, but to the district secretary – who is therefore a civil servant – the care of giving a prior opinion to the municipal authority. The Minister of the Interior signed his agreement on this proposal, which was unanimously voted by the Interior Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to speak briefly on another issue related to this. This is actually repair legislation of the legislation on the district councils. Together with a number of colleagues, I submitted an amendment to also provide a solution to another problem, namely the right to vote for EU citizens. What is the case? When we were debating about this at the time, everyone agreed that exactly the same voters who were allowed to vote for the municipal councils would also be allowed to vote for the district councils. Moreover, this was also specified in the text of the law. In fact, we do not refer to the conditions for being a municipal councillor, but to the concept of the municipal councillor itself. We thought the problem was solved, but that was out of value. After all, when the EU voting right was introduced, we all forgot to make a small legislative change even before the district council elections. Not only the voter who is entitled to vote according to Article 1 of the Municipal Elections Act, but also the one who is entitled to vote according to Article 1bis, we should have given his rights. Article 1a refers to the extension to EU citizens. That was accepted by everyone at the time, but it became a forgetfulness of the legislator. To solve this problem, an amendment was submitted. This should also prevent the elections to district councils, such as those organized under the current system, from being subject to any procedures relating to their validity. You know that the European Directive imposes the obligation to give EU citizens the right to vote. Unlike the province or OCMW, the district is only an additional body of the municipality. If the right to vote for this category of elections is not applied in the same way as for the other bodies of the municipality, then there is a legal problem. I know that the Minister of Internal Affairs is aware of the problem in the meantime, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to this issue. I explicitly ask the Minister to what extent he can agree with the proposals of the proposers of the amendment. In short, I would like to address another similar issue. This is a certain ambiguity whose origin is not entirely clear. There is a debate about the double candidacy. It is said that Home Affairs would prohibit people from running for the municipal council and for the district council at the same time. This too must be corrected. The text of the law itself clearly states that double candidacy is possible. It may not be quite appropriate, but I read it a little before so that everyone knows. If a law states that there is an incompatibility between the mandate of a municipal council member and a member of the district council, and adds to it: The candidate elected as a municipal council member cannot take up the mandate of a district council member, then it follows, of course, automatically that one can be a candidate, because otherwise one cannot be elected for the two mandates. It would be good for the Minister to clarify this issue sooner or later.

Mr Borginon, I have received another amendment on which I will say a word later, in order to enable EU citizens to participate in the district council elections.

Mr. Borginon recently defended the amendment you are talking about, and I would like to contribute to it. First, as the signatories of this amendment show, all democratic parties in Antwerp are asking to ensure that EU citizens in any case also have the right to vote in the district councils. We urge to correct this forgetfulness. Secondly, as Mr Borginon did, he also wants to insist on clarity. I think there was clarity. There has been uncertainty because of the decision of people of the Cabinet of Internal Affairs, according to the press. It can be clearly stated that one can be a candidate for both the municipal council and the district council list. The law provides very clearly that one cannot sit in both, but we believe the candidate can.

I refer it to the committee because I do not want to improvise.

I would like to respond to the comments I have just received. The provisions of the Municipal Electoral Law governing the direct election of district councils do not allow to determine with certainty whether non-Belgian citizens of the European Union may or may not participate in this election. I looked in the preparatory work and the only elements of response I could give to Parliament are based on a statement by Prime Minister Dehaene, which I must acknowledge is ambiguous. The same observation is also necessary with regard to the participation of Union citizens in the direct election of the social assistance council in the six peripheral municipalities, as well as in Comines-Warneton and Fourons. As for me, I consider it desirable that EU citizens can participate in these two types of elections. I have already been repeatedly questioned in this Parliament on this subject, insisting on promoting these measures in the upcoming municipal elections. I believe that the law must be broadly open. That is why I decided to submit the issue to the Council of Ministers next Friday. A draft law will be examined there, which amends Article 86 of the Municipal Electoral Law and Article 17bis of the Law of 8 July 1976 on the Organic Public Centers of Social Assistance, in order to formally recognize the right to participate in these two elections to the citizens of the Union residing on our territory. I supported the original proposal. by Borgin. I totally agree with his concern for the election in the district councils. by Mr. Borginon being ⁇ like St. Thomas, he ⁇ prefers to check what I say. Therefore, I think it would be desirable to postpone the discussion of articles to fifteen. As for the second note, which concerns the presentation for the election to the district council, my administration is troubled. I would tend to share your opinion, but give me time to clarify things and I will give you a clear and definitive answer.

Mr. Minister, amendments were submitted to change the title and to add the words and 1bis between the words article 1 and of this law in article 86 of the Municipal Election Act. This amendment has the same signatories as the bill. It will be sent back to the committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Minister, together with some colleagues, recognizes the problem and wants to solve it. The return to the committee, however, means that the examination in the committee can not take place next week, but only the week after, so that we are aware of the decision of the Council of Ministers.

Colleagues, since Parliament will be in recession after 6 April, this bill may be voted on the first Thursday of April.

I am surprised by what is happening here. In the past, the Minister has been repeatedly questioned in the committee on the scope of the Eurostem law. Then he made it clear that it did not cover the OCMW councils, nor the district councils. Now we seem to be confronted with this and the two things are linked together. I am ⁇ disappointed because the situation in Antwerp will apparently be purchased with Eurostem right for foreigners in the facility municipalities. This is due to the initiative of the People’s Union. This party makes the situation for the Flamings in the edge even worse.

Mr Laeremans did not listen properly and did not see the text. Initially, it was agreed that the same people who were eligible to vote for the municipal council would also be eligible for the district council. According to all those involved in the discussions, this was already inscribed in the law. In fact, it is even in it, only there is a part of the two parts that had to be regularly forgotten. The amendment submitted by colleagues Marc Van Peel, Marcel Bartholomeeussen, Fauzaya Talhaoui and Hugo Coveliers aims only to address that problem. The Minister’s proposal to discuss it in a majority is his initiative. Depending on the decision, we will know whether or not our amendment has an object.

Mr. President, Mr. Borginon, in any case, one is linked to the other. On the basis of the answers he has given so far in the Committee on Internal Affairs, the Minister would not have affected the facility municipalities and the Eurostem right. Just because of your initiative to be able to fight the Flemish Bloc in Antwerp, he says that as a compensation, foreigners will again be given more opportunities to strengthen the French speakers in the outskirts. If the Flamings lose even more OCMW seats, it is thanks to the People’s Union.

Collega's, i will say wetsvoorstel back to commission verzenden. My lord of minister, I have it well understood. I had decided that the Cabinet Board would make a decision on this subject on 31 March. But I would like to try to put all this on the agenda on April 6th, if everything is ready. Myheer Tant, I stuur dit wetsvoorstel, samen met de amendementen, terug naar uw committee, zodat u het zo spoedig mogelijk terug kunt agenderen, met het standpunt van de regering. You can give out the report yesterday. Possibly can we erover votes on 6 April. I would like to ask Mr. We need to advance the Commission’s agenda. So you prepare for this and take your responsibilities. And on April 6 we will try to resolve the amended issue in the sense of what the majority will decide.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister to provide clarification regarding the double candidacy at the latest by the aforementioned date? Mr. Borginon’s reasoning closes like a bus, and it would be good if the minister, within a period of fourteen days, might not make the same explanation, but then yet bring clarity on the subject.

I note the date of 31 March for the Council of Ministers. The matter will be discussed in the committee during the first week of April and, if possible, an additional report will be submitted at the public meeting on 6 April.

May 10, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This legislative proposal is presented for the second time in the plenary session of our Assembly. The initial proposal of Mr. Borginon aimed at the disciplinary procedure to be applied to officials of district councils. The disciplinary procedure arises from the municipal council, but the text of the law stipulated that the municipal council must first obtain the opinion of the district council office. For practical reasons, this solution did not appear to be happy and Mr. Borginon had already proposed that the prior opinion should not be given by the district council office, but by the district secretary who is a civil servant. This view was unanimously adopted in the committee and the proposal came to the plenary session on 23 March. During this session, Mr. Borginon raised another important issue related to district councils, but which had no connection with the original proposal. It is the right to vote for EU citizens in the elections of district councils. Indeed, it appeared that while this right of vote had always been implicitly considered as acquired, in the end, the legal texts were not clear enough. This was the point of view of Mr. Borginon that the Minister of the Interior has confirmed, so that in order to resolve this problem, the assembly had decided to return the proposal to the committee. by Mr. Borginon then submitted two amendments aiming in particular to amend Article 86 of the Municipal Electoral Law. According to the terms of these amendments, there was no longer any possible ambiguity, in the sense that EU citizens who voted in municipal elections also had the right to vote for district councils. The government signed its agreement and, following a habit that all governments have and which is not always so happy, introduced amendments itself exactly identical to those of the parliamentary. These were taken as the basis for discussion. During the debates, we also talked about the incompatibility between a mandate of municipal counsel and a mandate of district counsel established by Article 331 of the municipal law. This incompatibility was confirmed, but it was also admitted that it was possible to candidate in both elections and that in case of election in both assemblies, the elected person had to make a choice. Finally, the committee joined the amendments of the government and voted the amended proposal with 11 votes against 2. This proposal therefore results – I repeat it because it is an essential element – in granting EU citizens the right to vote in the elections of district councils as well as in the European elections.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the colleagues who have submitted this draft together with me and who have also contributed to its examination. Together, we solved a number of practical problems associated with the entry into force of the district councils. It is a good way of parliamentary functioning. Second, there may be another minor problem – this problem can be solved and is not of a legislative nature – when not registering in time as an EU foreigner. In that case, the Minister will not be able otherwise than if necessary by circular clear that all those who have registered for the municipal council elections can also participate in the district council elections. This issue needs to be discussed with the Minister. I mention it here so that some trace of this discussion could already be visible.

Mr. Speaker, if the use of the circular presents a possibility, I can agree with it.

It means, in the ratio of these preparatory works, that with a circular, an eventually late submitted recognition can still be obtained.

Mr. Speaker, my party sees no problems with the technical part of this bill. Mr. Borginon’s amendment to give European foreigners the right to vote in the district councils is, in our opinion, another attempt to try to keep the Flemish Bloc in the district councils of power at the upcoming elections in Antwerp. The entire campaign, which is now set up by Father Leman, has now again been extended on radio and television. He gave a press conference. He has announced a large-scale campaign to ensure that as many foreigners as possible naturalize before the summer, so that they can still flock on 8 October. It is one streamlined campaign to try to keep the Flemish Bloc in Antwerp from power. It is a shame that the People’s Union is borrowing for this, a party that in its past itself was attacked enough by the establishment. If the socialists or Agalev had submitted this amendment, I could still have understood it, but that it was submitted by the Flemish nationalists of the People’s Union is a sad thing.

I assume that Mr Borginon spoke on behalf of all the applicants. Minister Reynders’s statement that this problem can be resolved by circular is an important fact. This means that there is a consensus between the applicants and the government. There should be no problems in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, if this could result in us being rescued from the Flemish Bloc in Antwerp, that is all the better. Under these circumstances, I fully support this text.

Mr. Speaker, I must disappoint both Mr. Tastenhoye and Mr. Erdman. In reality, the second part of this bill offers even a potential protection for the Flemish Bloc. If we did not do this and the Flemish Bloc would - God forbid it - gain a majority in a district, then it would be enough to find one EU citizen who has not been able to vote to have the elections declared invalid. It works in at least two directions. This is a technical change. Just before the votes on that voting right, all EU citizens had the opportunity to participate in determining the political policy in all municipal matters. Because of this, they could not do it, and now they can do it again. So simple is it.