Proposition 50K0540

Projet de loi fixant les critères visés à l'article 39, § 2, de la loi spéciale du 16 janvier 1989 relative au financement des Communautés et des Régions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Jan. 6, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

regionalisation teaching regional finances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will just make a brief report aimed at marking the blow. The Senate gave us this bill on community financing, a bill concerning sensitive issues – those of communities – but also important skills: teaching, early childhood, culture and others. The ten-year transition period ended, the former government had not decided, it was urgent to present a project quickly, without sinking into the melodrama. This is what was done. The bill therefore provides for a community funding system based on the number of students, allowing equal treatment for each student. The control of the final data is entrusted to an independent body, the Court of Auditors. Several points were therefore addressed. The problem of counting and choosing the criterion students rather than children has fuelled much of the discussion. Didn’t the counting of children be more precise, but didn’t the criterion of students respond more to the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution? Some regretted the lack of consideration of students aged 18 and older, present in secondary education. The problem of definition and competitive collection was also discussed. The bill only establishes a general framework for the control of the Court of Auditors, in order to respect its autonomous interpretation power. Some question the Court of Auditors’ competence with regard to the political aspect of these matters: how will it decide whether a deviation is significant? For the Minister, it will decide on the basis of an administrative jurisprudence that it will establish. The deadline, set for May 15 for this year, seems to be difficult to meet. Some regretted that this bill did not apply to 1999 as well; others regretted that the previous government had not been more entrepreneurial in this matter. Following these discussions, the debate and the vote on the various amendments, the committee adopted the text of the draft submitted by the Senate, a text that we support and hope to see quickly come into force.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the second bill aims to implement the Special Act of 16 January 1989 concerning the financing of communities. The Special Act establishes the credits granted to communities for the provision of university education to foreign students. Since 1989 this has not been adjusted. However, the current Article 62 stipulates that from the fiscal year 1990 this could happen. This draft also imposes the obligation to have prior consultation with the participating governments on this subject. Practice shows that the number of foreign students has increased and that European regulations require us to give foreign students an equal treatment as Belgian students. With this draft, the amounts are increased, so that 1.11 billion francs will be spent on Flemish education and 2.26 billion francs on Wallish education, according to legal criteria which, according to the government, are preceded by an obligatory prior consultation. The committee examined, among other things, the critical opinion of the State Council. According to the State Council, this draft did not implement the Special Act, but instead amended it, requiring a special majority. According to some members, this special law can only be established by ordinary law because there is currently no special majority in the House. Political motives direct the legal reasoning. According to the opposition, the European regulation would not have been changed. In his response, the Minister referred, among other things, to the convictions of the Belgian State by the European Court of Justice. All the amendments submitted were rejected. The text, identical to the Senate text, was approved by 9 votes against 4. Thank you in advance for allowing me to speak on behalf of my group.

Mr. Verherstraeten, as the rapporteur, you have issued a report on the second draft law, no. 541, 1 and 2. We also cover the design 540, 1 and 2. I know that there is a connection between the two. Your presentation for your group covers if I understand both designs correctly.

Both bills constitute, of course, a political deal, without which the purple coalition would not have been established. Prime Minister Verhofstadt has managed to do what his predecessor has never done, namely to let Flanders dock for the problems of the French-speaking education. This does not need to surprise us. Historians say history is repeated. This is also the case here. In 1991, Mr. Verhofstadt had already promised Wallonia to provide advances on the general revision of the Finance Act. He performed this piece in 1999 with more success. Evil tongues claim that da joeng has not changed. Flanders are hitting the same stone for the second time, but now with financial consequences. When this agreement was reached, it was not immediately made public. Today there is public silence. Internal talks were held. If I can believe the reports in the newspapers, this agreement would have been reached at a birthday party for Minister Vande Lanotte. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, in fact, we should go play detective and ask you when you are aged. Thus, we can find out when the secret education agreement of this government was initially made. Subsequently, legislative work was carried out in the cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister. In any case, the arrangements that were initially made within the majority — and of which the People’s Union was not or insufficiently aware — were not clear. This is reflected in several statements by the Prime Minister himself. He said that he consulted with the Court of Auditors. If we review the Senate report on this, we find that the Court of Auditors clearly states that there has been no formal consultation with the government. The prime minister said in his statement in September that it was quite obvious that school-private youth was taken as the basis. He answered this to a question from Mrs. Van de Casteele. If we examine the draft presented here, we must clearly state that the objective criteria used here are completely contrary to the statement made by the Prime Minister in September. The Prime Minister also said these drafts were temporary. However, it must be noted that the Wallish government has noted the opposite in the Consultation Committee. The Prime Minister also stated that in community affairs the waffle iron policy had to be stopped. These drafts are a typical example of consumption deregulation in which a law is adopted for the benefit of a single Community. Once the agreement was reached, everything had to be done quickly and, if possible, efficiently. However, it has gone a little less efficiently. We are talking about the St. Eloise Agreement. Saint-Elooi is the patron saint of the forges. In the night of Sint-Elooi is in any case something right was curvature forged. Within a few hours, a large cost table was drawn up for the Flemish Community. The triumphalism of the Prime Minister of Flanders, that it is not about 1.8 billion francs but only about 1.55 billion francs, is therefore completely misplaced. There are obviously also legal comments to these designs. The criticism of the State Council on these drafts was blatant. This government does not take this into account, even though it claims the opposite. The State Council says these drafts are unconstitutional and the government denies that, wrongly. The Deputy Prime Minister said in the committee that these drafts are in accordance with Article 180 of the Constitution. This is based on extensive interpretation. He argued that there had already been extensions of the legislation on the Court of Auditors, the legislation of 1995 and 1998, the latter with limited efficiency control. In any case, those laws did not affect the basic powers of Article 180 of the Constitution. These designs do. The Court of Auditors can now, among other things, control free education, control local governments that organize education, which is a violation of municipal autonomy, control private education, control non-subsidised education, which does not have public funds. This is contrary to the provisions of Article 180 of the Constitution. Article 180 granted the Court of Auditors powers for legality checks and for a limited opportunity checks. The Court of Auditors is now being transformed from a policy control instrument of the legislative power to a policy preparation instrument of the executive power. The Court of Auditors thus becomes a playball of random majorities with the risk of losing its independence and the reputation it has built over the years. This law should be a special law. It has been made an ordinary law since this majority cannot obtain a special majority in parliament. Political motives form the basis of legal reasoning. This law is inapplicable and uncontrollable. This will be shown in practice. The Court of Auditors must review the electronic files every six weeks and determine their criteria. If the electronic files are incorrect, the Court of Auditors shall check the number of pupils between 15 January and 1 February within 6 weeks. In the Senate discussions, it was revealed that the shamefulness of competitive retrievals can only be held on the basis of declarations of honour, which cannot be controlled. There are, between hooks, pickups of less than 9 students. They do not fall under this. The Court of Auditors will also have a policy margin. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, we briefly held the discussions in the Chamber. We did not repeat the exercise of the Senate. You have actually confirmed that the Court of Auditors will be given autonomous interpretation authority for this law, which means you have not answered specific questions in the Senate. It is not up to the Court of Auditors to interpret laws in this field, but to the legislator to fulfill objective criteria. There is an important element that has not been cited in the Senate discussions. The national register number shall, where appropriate, be included in the information that communities must provide to the Court of Auditors. The Reichsregister is an important element because in this way an objective control can take place and double counting can be checked. The national register number should not be published, unlike all other elements such as name and address. The national register number is listed in the law as appropriate, i.e. if it exists. In fact, it is known that neither the Flemish Community nor the Wallish Community is fully in order with data regarding the national register number. On the ground, it must be determined that Flanders is virtually not in order. Flemish education grants subsidies based on the national registration number of pupils. This is the only objective control. In Walsal education, one is far from that. This majority is satisfied with the promise of the two communities that they will do their best. They have neither a timing nor a result commitment attached to it. It is a mere moral promise, an effort commitment that is in no way punished if it is not fulfilled in the short or medium term. You provide the only instrument of the Court of Auditors to verify double counting in a serious and objective manner, out of hand. For these reasons, we will again submit an amendment to make this law more comprehensive in this regard. This is a political agreement that should surprise us and not surprise us. During the previous legislative elections of 13 June, the leader of the VLD group in the Flemish Parliament, Mr Denys, said that no revision of Article 39 of the Finance Act could take place without a global revision of the state reform. They had to be connected. This article should be the lever. We must determine that the lever is given out of hand. During discussions in the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution here in the House, it was noticed that one French-speaking colleague, Mr. Maingain, intervened. He welcomed that there was a disconnection between the revision of this Article 39 and the further amendment of the state reform. In the same line as the statements of group chairman Denys, then party chairman Verhofstadt said that he called for a Flemish front to prepare the talks jointly. He forgot those words, at least he swallowed them. The party chairman of the People’s Union said that the VLD should again change its name to the original PVV, the Pest For Flanders. The name should not be changed. The VLD can retain its name: Flanders Let Dokken. It is of course a virtue to us that our friends of the People’s Union will also reject these two designs. Their role in the crucial period during the end of the year was very bizarre. Ms. Van de Casteele interpelled the Prime Minister on this, including during the September declaration. The prime minister then made a mistake and argued that the population figures should be obviously used. The VU also interpreted this noble position, but they had to swallow it. They then said that the change of the funding law on the COSTA should be discussed. Those words were not yet cold or they argued that it should not be discussed at the COSTA, but that the railway practices should be cleaned up. We see that they are being cleansed. Ronsel practices can still be held on private initiative and especially if it involves less than 9 students. The VU also understood that and they declared this law temporarily, for a maximum of one year. Even if that could not be hardened in this law, they promised that if nothing had happened within two years, they would submit a bill on the matter. This is painful in that crucial period, especially since you, together with your representatives in the Flemish government, had the lever to stop these two laws. As an opposition, we could not do that. You could do this from the Flemish majority. Unfortunately, some members of the VU have attached their two ministers to the government banks for a period of two years, thus enabling the revision of the Finance Act. Thus, a significant amount of Flemish money – it does not matter that it is only 1.55 billion – can be closed to Wallonia without objective control of Flanders. This is a bad agreement. Flanders pay 64% of taxes in this country and will have to pay more. We are not opposed to equal treatment of a student in education. In fact, this is also stipulated in the Finance Act and agreed in part with the Law of 1989. A Walesian student can indeed be equal to a Flemish student. However, we do not guarantee the modification of these designs. There is no objective control. These designs are not only bad for Flanders, they are also bad for education. The competitiveness for pupils, and more ⁇ the competitiveness in Brussels, will continue and this cannot be at the expense of the quality of education. For us it is incomprehensible that an objective and policy-neutral arrangement according to the population figures has not served as the basis for the amendment of the Finance Act. These are not only our words or the words of Mrs. Van de Casteele, but they were also the words of the then Minister of Education Van den Bossche when he still had Flemish powers. He is also now silent. We regret that. We will again submit amendments on this subject and vote against the present draft.

Mr. Poncelet, you said you would talk about the two projects. Is it accurate?

First, I would like to explain why I am speaking now. I am indeed indebted to the Chamber of an explanation since I could not do so, a few days ago, in commission, due to a double reason and the convergence of two phenomena. First, I was late, but it can happen to anyone. Secondly, the special speed, speed and vivacity of the President, which we know, made him close the work before I even had the opportunity to intervene.

This is not a single fact.

Please allow me to continue. This explains why I would like to intervene now and why I submitted two amendments when I was unable to do so in a committee. I know that this is contrary to the parliamentary tradition.

There is no problem.

I thank you. I would like to gather my words on the two texts, although formally our agenda speaks first of article 39, since they are both known under the term agreement of the Saint-Eloi and that, as everyone knows, Saint-Eloi is the patron of orphans and forgers. One might think that all this is premonitorious, but in fact, the agreements of the Saint-Eloi constitute undoubtedly a very beautiful tribute to the patron of the orphans. But they also constitute an insult and an insult to the boss of the forgers who, themselves, produce durable works. The Agreements of Saint-Eloi represent the best in the field of political orphanage that some, at the time, called plumbing. I pretend that they demonstrate illegality, duplicity and, even if the term is abusive for some, lies - I will explain myself on this subject - combined with a brilliance worthy of the great orphans, among which there is also Saint-Eloi who lived in Tournai in the fifth century, to remain in the historical references. These agreements of the Saint-Eloi constitute an insult to the patron of the forgers in so far as they are of a slight fragility. They shall not resist the examination of an appeal brought before the Court of Arbitration, nor the slightest rise of Community fever which would be the occasion to challenge them under the pretext of illegality. I want more, of course, to the French-speaking members of the government who, in my opinion – and I will try to prove it – have been rolled, once again, by their Flemish partners. In fact, this attitude has led the Franco-speaking partners to have to invoke tomorrow, to remain in the same logic, no longer Saint-Eloi, but Sainte-Rita, patron saint of desperate causes that will probably be evoked to get out of the bad step in which we are today. I would like to return to these three characteristics: illegality, duplicity, and lies. First, the illegality of agreements. This is not stated by us, nor by me, but by the Council of State in its opinion delivered in chambers assembled. He notes that the two projects executing the Saint-Eloi agreements are plagued with serious illegalities. I cannot help reminding, before mentioning it, that the Council of State is an institution that the government has no interest in neglecting. Without wanting to insist too heavily on the issue, I presume, however, that the appointment of Ms Reynders must have refreshed the memory of some members of the government regarding the interest and role of the State Council, as well as the cancellation, by the Arbitration Court, of a decree taken at the initiative of Ms Onkelinx, concerning the automatic suspension of professors accused of pedophilia, on which the State Council has given an extremely critical opinion and for which the Arbitration Court has just ruled illegal. The State Council and the Arbitration Court are therefore two institutions that should not be taken lightly. In this case, the State Council formulates five fundamental criticisms against the first draft discussed today, namely Article 39, and one fundamental criticism against the draft law implementing Article 62 of that same law. As regards the draft law, the State Council first points out that it violates Article 39, §2, paragraph 2 of the Special Financing Act which it is supposed to execute in so far as it does not provide for any means for the year 1999, while that provision required that objective criteria be established, including for that year 1999. It further notes that the bill is contrary to Article 180 of the Constitution, which is not subject to revision in so far as it assigns new control, verification and arbitration powers to the Court of Auditors, while it follows from the case-law of the State Council that only the constituent can assign powers to the Court of Auditors. It still asks itself whether the complexity of the procedure established does not risk making the regime inoperative. He considers that the provisions aimed at excluding from the figures students who have been subject to a competitive pick-up in another community is also contrary to Article 39, §2, paragraph 2 of the Special Funding Act, in so far as the distinction between competitive and non-competitive pick-up is not based on a criterion as required by the Funding Act. It further adds in this regard that it is necessary to question the compatibility of that provision with the fundamental rights of freedom of education and the free movement of persons. Finally, it finds a contradiction between the statement of reasons which indicates that, in order to be considered as an objective within the meaning of Article 39, §2, paragraph 2 of the Special Financing Act, a criterion must be politically neutral, that is, it must not be subject to divergent interpretation or manipulation by each of the communities. However, the State Council observes that the reference contained in the bill to the notion of a student regularly enrolled in an organized or subsidized educational institution is not a neutral criterion since the regularity of the enrollments, the organization of the teaching and its subsidization depend on the competence of the communities. To increase these numbers, each community could decide to grant, for example, a grant franc to all establishments that are not currently subsidized. We therefore consider that the government project, through Article 39, §2 of the Special Financing Act, disguised the notion of student by excluding from the school population taken into account for the calculation of the amounts fixed by the first draft law, students aged over 17 years, which covers, for example, bisers, trisseurs, contrary to what had been done in 1989, when the genesis of this provision. This exclusion challenges the principle of solidarity to which the PSC is deeply attached. It makes difficult the solidarity that the most socio-economically favoured community must demonstrate with the least favoured community, within which it is inevitable that there will be more redoublements. I hope that this renunciation of solidarity between communities does not increase further serious renunciations in terms of social security or, ⁇ soon, taxation. With regard to the second draft, the State Council in its opinion formulates a fundamental criticism of the draft law: it in fact considers that it violates Article 62 of the Special Financing Act which it is precisely intended to execute. Article 62 of the Special Financing Act does not allow the ordinary legislator to modify the base amounts of the credits granted by the federal authority to communities, for the purpose of financing foreign students for more than one year. He emphasizes that the amount must, under Article 62, either be fixed each year in the budget, as has been done since 1990, or be included in Article 62 itself, but then through a modification of the latter through a special law, which is not the case in this case. He therefore concludes that if the legislator intends to change the amounts defined under Article 62 for more than one year, it is his responsibility to amend the Special Financing Act by special majority. Neither the exposition of the reasons for these two bills, nor the interventions of the minister in committee, nor even the discussions in committee have allowed to lift the serious objections of illegality formulated by the State Council against the two projects. I note in particular the both scandalous and insufficient response to the State Council objection concerning the subjective nature of the criterion relating to the competitive collection of pupils. In order to meet the State Council objection, it is in fact aimed at all school gatherings since it is aimed not only at gatherings organized by communities and regions, but also at gatherings carried out by an entity recognized or subsidized by them, which is equivalent to targeting all gatherings, as long as a vehicle with more than eight seats is used. The rupture of solidarity between the French Community and the inhabitants of facilities communes is therefore total and there are, unfortunately, practically no French speakers present in the parliament to be aware of it. French-speaking children in facilitated communes will either no longer be able to benefit from the school collection or will no longer be taken into account in the calculation of the means of the French Community. The formula adopted for school collection will ultimately impose on the French community to end collection in facilities communes. Indeed, if she ⁇ ins the gathering, she will be penalized twice, on the one hand because of the cost of the gathering and on the other, because of the lack of consideration of these students in the distribution of resources. This is serious; I’m looking forward to seeing if the FDF parliamentarians who have always presented themselves as the great defenders of the periphery will join the government on this point. The answer is also insufficient. There is, in fact, no response to the objections of the State Council as to the compatibility of this measure with the fundamental rights of freedom of education and the free movement of persons. I am still waiting for answers in this regard. I further note that all amendments aimed at transforming the two bills into special bills were rejected without any substantial argument being invoked. Finally, I note that no satisfactory explanation is provided for the misrepresentation of the concept of student in the government project and for the fact that no means is planned for the year 1999. Let us not come to tell us that it was too late in December 1999 to anticipate such means! During the discussion of each adjustment to the 1999 budget, we submitted amendments in this regard. They were all rejected, with the support of the French-speaking majority. Concretely, for us, the consequences of this capitulation will result in a recurring loss of financial means of 1.8 billion in the future, due to the exclusion of students over the age of 17, and by the loss, for the year 1999 alone, of a sum of 3.6 billion francs. This is a lot when you know the financial situation of the teaching on the French-speaking side. The teachers will be grateful to the French-speaking majority. This is why the government’s project is illegal. I would then like to mention its duplicity, at least in three respects. The first is the content of the Agreements of Saint-Eloi. It seems that these agreements include a series of secret clauses that appear gradually over time. While at first we had the feeling that only the two bills we are currently discussing were the subject of these agreements, we found that the Minister of Finance had, as a result of these agreements, radically changed his attitude with regard to the degree of tax autonomy permitted by the Finance Act. It was in response to one of my inquiries that he gave his first point of view. We learned the reactivation of the language inspection of teaching by the appointment of new language inspectors. Then we learned that the regionalization before Easter of agriculture and foreign trade had also been the subject of this sordid trade. We therefore expect, in the coming weeks and months, to see new clauses appear, so far kept hidden by the negotiators. We fear – and we are almost certain – that they can only be unfavorable to French speakers. Second example of duplicity: the French-speaking government claims that the credit increase provided for in Article 62, §1 of the Special Financing Act, is acquired, dare I say, for eternity! While the Flemish, supported in this by the State Council – which is nothing – claim that this agreement is only valid for the year 2000. French speakers play the autruches. They will claim tomorrow that their good faith has been abused, while both the State Council and the opposition have warned them. It will have to be remembered. Last element of duplicity: in a Senate committee, the Minister of Economy justified the increase of the credit provided for by Article 62, §1er, intended to finance foreign university students, by an increase in the number of students by 80%. To be precise, he said: the number of foreign European students has increased significantly. This represents an increase of 80 percent. At the examination and despite the minister’s repeated refusal to provide precise figures, it seems that the increase would be 80% if students of non-university higher education are taken into account. If this is the case, then it is necessary to be consistent: if non-university students are taken into account, it is necessary to amend Article 62, §1 to allow their inclusion in the calculations. It is also necessary that the key for the distribution of this credit among the communities is also adapted to the reality of the figures concerning not only the university students but also those of the non-university superior who are enrolled in each of the two communities. By playing on the words and on the numbers, the government is still showing duplicity. To clarify the situation, we submitted two amendments aiming to include non-academic senior students both in the calculation of the credit and in its distribution among communities. According to the figures that we have, in the absence of those that the minister refused to give us, this correction represents a recurring amount of 360 million francs per year. I come to the third part of my speech. With illegality and duplicity, government orphans have managed to combine the lie. Since I am referring to metaphors inspired by the lives of the saints, I allow myself to refer to a religious distinction between lies by action and lies by omission. The government’s attitude belongs to this second category. Thro ⁇ the discussion, he continued to hide from us the figures on which he founded the distribution of funds, drawn from Article 62, § 1 of the Special Finance Act, as well as the fact that he had commissioned the Court of Auditors, in violation of the Constitution, to perform the tasks which must be conferred on him by the first draft law without waiting for its vote. This is a first! This is, in fact, the first time that the government imposes, without the contribution of the legislative power, a mission to the Court of Auditors, which is an institution within the legislative power and which is responsible for controlling the executive. This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. It also testifies to the few cases that the government does of respect for our institutions and the government persists, since with regard to an audit of the SNCB which we will talk about tomorrow afternoon, the same procedure has been used by the Minister of Transport, who, by the detour of a parliamentary initiative, whose government is at the source, asks the Court of Audit to intervene on behalf of the government. In conclusion, I wish solemnly to warn the French speakers of this assembly — there remains one — against the dramatic consequences that the adoption of the two bills will have for the French Community. I hope, Mr. Deputy, you will communicate this to your friends of the FDF. The first approved a Franco-speaking surrender, despite the opinion of the State Council that had completely disapproved the French-speaking government, whose excessive concessions were judged contrary to the special law of financing. This capitulation represents for 1999, 3.6 billion francs and for the following years, 1.8 billion, or 25 billion over ten years. The second draft law, on the other hand, looks strangely like a mirror with alouettes, since it grants French speakers additional resources, undoubtedly 795 million francs, but which are far from compensating for the amount that French speakers renounced within the framework of the first draft and through an inadequate legal instrument, which exposes them to a decision of the Court of Arbitration that will reduce to nothing this weak acquisition. In addition, it distributes the amounts paid by the federal government in a way that leaves the French-speaking of 360 million francs per year, i.e. 4 billion over ten years. To these French-speaking renunciations, it is still worth adding the following on the regionalization of agriculture and foreign trade, intervened subsequently, on the reactivation contrary to human rights of the linguistic inspection and on tax autonomy, which fortunately has not yet been executed. I am afraid that the reversal of the attitude of the Minister of Finance in relation to the low-income targeted subtractionals, which the Flemish government is proposing to grant, will not open the door to an interpretation of the law on the financing of communities and regions that will make possible an exacerbated fiscal competition between regions, desired by the Flemish – they have never hidden from it – but to which the living standards of the Wallons would not survive. In this regard, I draw your attention to a white paper published in the newspaper Le Soir, signed by some of our greatest economists, who sound, all trends confused, the toss in relation to the risk of fiscal autonomy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we consider that the first bill is non-drinkable, while the second constitute a deception, if it is not adopted, as the State Council suggests, by the special majority and if the amounts themselves are not adjusted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the political context in which this agreement came to be known. The Saint-Eloois designs are a big farce: pure window dressing. The French speakers had to get their extra billions for their emergency-led education. This was promised to them by formator Verhofstadt in secret. The Kaduke construction was set up to give the whole a look of legality. The secret agreement was plotted in the formation of this government, a government that was formed in the logs of Wallonia and which was then, according to traditional recipe, imposed on Belgium and Flanders. Since this coalition did not have a majority in Flanders, the VU was also included. Since 1977, this party has been the schotelvod of Flanders, the party of giving and giving. Bert Anciaux demonstrated in a shameless manner his governance; it was then clear to everyone in the Wetstraat that the VU wanted to belong to it anyway. As a result, its negotiating position approached zero. Almost nothing was pulled out of the fire by then-VU Chairman Patrick Vankrunkelsven who at the VU election congress had yet to say under loud applause that his party would never join a government that would not implement the five resolutions of the Flemish Parliament on the further state reform. As a shame, they were then offered the co-chair of the so-called Costa, the intergovernmental and interparliamentary conference for the state reform, a forgetting pot to which all Flemish demands are referred, while the French speakers always get butter with the fish. And Vankrunkelsven grew, because he was allowed to play a figurant role again, while Bert Anciaux and Johan Sauwens let their limousines drive ahead and fill their cabinets with 150 employees: the real and only reason why the VU gave its support to this coalition. Mr. Speaker, I will no longer go into detail on the technical details of both draft laws. This was already sufficiently discussed in the Senate and in the House Constitutional Revision Committee. CVP colleague Servais Verherstraeten demonstrated the shortcomings of the proposed designs in a brilliant way. If the CVP submits its amendments again, we will support them, as in the committee. It has no longer so much importance. After all, everyone knows that the government will allow these designs, no matter how old and cracking, to be approved unchanged. It remains surprising, however, with what ease this government puts a number of legal and constitutional provisions aside. The draft law, which intends to base the funding on the correct number of pupils, which, by the way, will not be the case, does not implement the special funding law, but changes it. Therefore, a special majority is required, but the government ignores this. Furthermore, the powers of the Court of Auditors, which should exercise control over the number of pupils, are laid down in the Constitution. Therefore, a constitutional revision is also required, but this is also ignored by the government. The government shamelessly makes the Court of Auditors an instrument for its policies, while this institution serves parliament primarily. The Court of Auditors has indicated that it does not have the necessary people and resources to exercise control over the number of pupils. How could it be? No need though. However, it is only a farce, because if the Court fails to carry out the checks, it was decided that it is ultimately up to the government to record the number of pupils in each Community. The government may then consult its crystal ball. The only true criterion for determining educational grants is to assume the number of compulsory pupils between 6 and 17 years of age in each Community. This is too transparent and too fair. The French speakers want more federal money for their education; that is the core of the matter. That money is for the vast majority of Flemish tax money. By the way, they are already insisting – I refer to their May 1st speeches on fresh money, in addition to the 2.4 billion extra they have already collected in exchange for the tax cuts that the liberals are so eager to implement. Has anyone ever wondered why French speakers need so much money for their education? This education is the most expensive per student in Europe. It will not lie to the high quality, because the French-speaking education delivers almost the largest domes in Europe, who are not even able to speak a word Dutch. The French language education also counts a large number of bishops and trissers, much more than in the Flemish education, which is however much cheaper. The SERV calculated that Flemish education already receives less than 5 billion francs annually. French-speaking education is so expensive because French-speaking politicians view their education as an accommodation capacity for unemployed. The French-speaking schools are filled with packages of unnecessary teachers through political appointments. Wallonia has the lowest number of students per class in Europe and ⁇ in the world. They have overworked servants and unnecessary maintenance personnel. Now that Ecolo has joined the government, this party that recruits many voters in education is demanding its share of the appointment cookie. Therefore, they are now demanding more education money. The VLD is watching. She lets all this happen, because the only thing that interests Verhofstadt and his comrades is the preservation of power after the almost 12-year journey through the political desert. That the power giant SP and Agalev would like to play that game we had expected. They keep, in their tradition, this French-speaking-dominated, anti-Flemish government in the seat. That the once Flemish-National People’s Union borrows itself for this is explained by nothing other than by the governance greed of its leaders. Mr. Bourgeois, who was elected president earlier this year, will not be able to change that. Many people from the People’s Union had placed their hopes on the bourgeois. In an open letter to the Flemish nationalists in the People’s Union, I predicted that the Bourgeois would become a powerless president, held hostage by the two Flemish People’s Union ministers and their courtiers. This prediction has come true. Not as a human being, but as VU chairman, Geert Bourgeois is a soul foot. On the Barricade Square, he is surrounded by Anciaux and Vankrunkelsven spirits. The expert but powerless Marc Platel is an exception. The VU ministers do not recognize his authority. Mr. Bourgeois rightly stated that the agreement in connection with the federalization of agriculture and foreign trade was far too small. He called it insufficient, an euphemism for empty box or dead mouse. Nevertheless, he had to swallow his words a little later and approve the agreement for Flanders. Agriculture becomes the ultimate competence of the Waal Louis Michel. Foreign Trade is reinforced as a federal institution, even under Louis Michel, who continues to cause bold damage to Flemish exports to Austria because there is a democratically elected party in the government that does not like him. The only thing we’ve heard from Mr. Bourgeois was his dismissive proposal to ban the Flemish Bloc, the Flemish national party representing more than 600,000 voters. The People's Union, the party of black bags, which in its early years was threatened by the Belgian establishment in its existence, proposes such a thing. This science should open the eyes of the last Flemish nationalists in the People’s Union. Because of the attitude of the People’s Union, there is a feeling in the Flemish Movement that we are being betrayed. Since the arrival of this purple-green government, supported by the People’s Union, we have been looking backward. In the past, we have often had a lot of criticism on the CVP. If we have to determine how anti-Flemish this government is working, we will soon get back to the time of the CVP. This means that the current situation must be very serious! This government is completely directed and dominated by the French speakers. I refer to a statement by Hugo De Ridder, one of the most prominent Wetstraatwatchers. He said, I quote: When I come to Wetstraat now, I feel almost corporeously the supremacy and arrogance of the French speakers. Without being complete - that would take us too much time, I would like to give an overview of the many anti-Flemish actions of this government. It began with the appointment of the total Dutch scientist Busquin as a member of the European Commission. At that time, Verhofstadt was still a trainer. Subsequently, the French-speaking government partners, some of whom are Dutch experts, went to occupy all the important departments in the government. Immediately it was agreed to carry out the most anti-Flemish policy since the repression period. I repeat that this could happen with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. This anti-Flemish policy was reflected in the draft regulations and naturalizations. In addition to the struggle against the Flemish Bloc, these designs were intended to wipe the Flemish in Brussels completely off the map by creating tens of thousands of new Belgians, voters that will strengthen the Franco-speaking lists. The Flemish demands that the Flemish Parliament had drafted were skillfully fulfilled. Reform of Social Security! Your own taxation! Day of revocation of the provincial and municipal law! The guarantees for the Brussels Flames were shipped to a Brussels mini-Costa where only the regional level is spoken and not the municipal level and where again a heavy price will have to be paid. In Brussels, language laws continue to be rough. From the so-called language fairness agreement nothing remains. Not long ago, a bill was rejected in this Chamber aimed at obliging the bilinguality of the Brussels fire department. In the long past, such a proposal was co-signed by the VLD and SP. Now they voted against, together with the French speakers. All this happens with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. Marc Verwilghen’s security plan was neutralized under French-speaking pressure. The highway was completely disguised. The police reform is entirely based on French-speaking reading and will continue to sustain the enormous advantage of Wallonia, which has proportionally more national guards. The civil servants reform will in no way resemble the efficient reform carried out at the Flemish level. The economic measures are tailored to Wallonia and are contrary to the Flemish interests. Let us only refer to the original Rosetta Plan of Minister Onkelinx and her proposal for the introduction of the 35-hour working week. These measures are completely inapplicable in Flanders because wage costs will only rise and certain sectors are already facing labor shortages. All this happens with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. In Brussels, where the language laws with Flemish sweat have been enforced with the bilinguality of the Brussels court as a pair, these hard-fought laws are struck with the feet and single French-speaking judges are largely appointed. The division of the judicial district BrusselHalle-Vilvoorde is no longer the case, let alone the electoral district. At the MIVB, the NMBS and De Post, French speakers are also constantly benefited. In the canton of Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, the peace judge must now suddenly be bilingual. The Flemish police officers working in the municipalities that will form a police zone with Wemmel will have to speak French in Wemmel. All this happens with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. The Flemish backwardness continues to this day. This week it became known that the nuclear cabinet has suspended the construction of four new coastal mining vessels, threatening to destroy the only remaining Flemish shipbuilder, SKB. The loss of this order of 12 billion Belgian francs, which was approved in 1994 as a Flemish compensation for the modernization of the F16s that benefited mainly Wallonia and Brussels, is the most recent injury to Flanders. All this happens with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. Last but most importantly, the huge cash flows from Flanders to Wallonia and Brussels continue to exist. Moreover, they are even increasing, among other things, because of this nefarious Saint-Elois Accord. In 1996, cash flows were estimated at 186.5 billion Belgian francs. That amount must now be more than 200 billion Belgian francs. If we also add the historically caused interest burden of more than 200 billion Belgian francs, we will come up with an annual amount of more than 400 billion Belgian francs. I quote Professor Robert Senelle here: The situation is unsustainable. The Flamings pay themselves blue to the Whales and Brussels. Solidarity between regions is necessary and exists in all federal states, but in Belgium we are no longer dealing with solidarity but with a hold-up. Mr. Coveliers, all this is indeed done with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. Meanwhile, the Flemish government has become a willy appendix of the federal government. Patrick Dewael is there only to curb the Flemish demands and to soften every urge for more independence in the germ. Even the beautiful project Flanders Europe 2002 must believe it. And the People’s Union does not give a kick, for all this happens with the guilty complicity of the People’s Union. Although the People’s Union will vote against the Saint-Elois Agreement, it would still be missing. However, this attitude is completely unreliable. VU colleagues, in the committee our otherwise respected colleague Danny Pieters stated that it was incomprehensible that the Flemish government partners support a bill that does not contain the slightest guarantee for ⁇ ining a reliable pupil count. To Mr. Pieters – he is not there – and to the other colleagues of the People’s Union, I would like to say: be no longer hypocritical. In the Flemish government, the People’s Union has given its fiat to this for Flanders humiliating and harmful Saint-Elois Agreement. Do not believe that the tax system would be reformed in favour of Flanders by the end of 2001. Don’t believe it because it won’t happen. Ladies and gentlemen, be finally consistent. Now finally take your responsibility for Flanders and no longer let yourself be guided by the power-gospel and the pure monetary gain of some unprincipled ones. Say that it is enough, say that Flanders and the Flanders are not progressing, but that they are declining. Stand up for the self-development and self-determination of our Flemish people. Make sure that the Flemish Bloc no longer has to demonstrate on the Barricades Square with the slogan All for Wallonia, for Flanders nothing. VU colleagues, go out of that miserable COSTA, but especially go out of that lam and slave Flemish government so that it falls. In this way, also send home the most anti-Flemish Belgian government since the repression period. Only then will you have regained your self-esteem. Only then will you have done your duty for Flanders and the Flanders.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I hear someone saying that speaking for Flemish nationalism takes the word domoren in the mouth when it comes to French-speaking children. As a convinced Flemish nationalist, I tell you that one can indeed criticize the functioning of the teaching French Community, but questioning the intellectual capacities of a certain category of people is very far-reaching, and Flemish nationalism is unworthy. With some sense of oratory elements, colleague Tastenhoye has complemented almost every sentence of his speech with the words that it was with guilty complicity of the People’s Union. Mr. Tastenhoye, we will not approve this text and I will tell you as soon as possible why. I would like to make it clear to the colleagues of the Flemish Bloc that there is also such a thing as guilty failure. Even the most limited agreements – I think, for example, the overthrow of Foreign Trade and Agriculture – mean more than the Flemish Block has achieved in its 25 years of existence and with its calls on the tribune. You can, of course, apply that no one wants to do business with you. This, of course, also depends on your own attitude. It is time for you to begin to realize that in its negotiations with the French speakers the real price that Flanders must pay is the fact that the votes for the Flemish Bloc are votes thrown away for achieving more Flemish autonomy.

Mr. Borginon, you thus deny that the People’s Union would ever have played a role before it had participated in a Belgian government or a community agreement. This is of course not true. The main force and main power of a Flemish national party is the force and power it exercises by pressuring on all other parties, whether or not obliged to conclude agreements. It is above all the force that proceeds from the adoption and the intention of never concluding an agreement without it being honest. I have not yet experienced any community agreement in which the People’s Union has participated that was honorable to Flanders, which the voters of the People’s Union have demonstrated and confirmed telkenmale by transferring their vote to the Flemish Bloc. I do not see where you get the courage and courage to judge in such a way about one of the fastest growing and currently one of the most important Flemish-national factors in Belgian politics, in particular the Flemish Bloc.

Mr. Annemans, it is clear that we will forever divide opinions on this matter. I think history will also make a different judgment than the story you tell here. Everything that has been achieved in Flemish autonomy has been achieved thanks to the fundamental willingness of the Flemish nationalists to enter into dialogue and try to conclude agreements. We have already achieved a lot and we hope to ⁇ a lot. Not only the social position in which you have set up make conversations with anyone very difficult. The strategic option of not participating in any agreement is actually a ⁇ comfortable posture for you that allows you to occupy a number of seats in parliament without any effort and splash your thoughts here. However, this does not put any sorts on the dick at all. I will return to my text. In fact, this is not my text because Mr. Pieters would normally speak for us. Since he is going to spread democracy in Armenia, I will keep my speech based on his text. Around this time he would have to land on Zaventem and maybe he will arrive here before the end of the debate. Today we are talking about the translation of the so-called Saint-Elois Accords. These agreements consisted of three parts, namely a first major part of education financing, a second part on the recognition of drawing rights for the regions and a third part to allow the Flemish Region so-called to switch to linear discounts. Today it is essentially about the educational dossier. Nevertheless, it should be my heart that the other two parts, which would contain some of the so-called benefits for Flanders, could also turn out on a Pandora box or an empty box. As regards the drawing rights, it could be a Pandora box, since it cannot be ruled out that this additional money will in no way benefit employment and that it may eventually go to the French language education. As for the discounts, of course, this is partly an empty box. In our view, in fact, we were already competent to do so, unless determining whether a discount would affect the monetary and economic union or whether it is compatible with the stability requirements of the European Union would be purely political decisions. A little seriousness would be in place here. Today, however, we are talking about the legal development of the educational agreements. Also in this part there would be some will for each one, but it turned out that there was some more will for one Community than for the other. The French Community received the money it was hungry for. What many in Flanders, not only in the opposition, repeatedly called one of the main leverages for a further state reform, was thrown away here. All sorts of arrangements between the Flamingos alone can no longer remedy this fundamental negotiation issue. These agreements are the result of the secret agreement the Prime Minister first denied its existence but eventually had to admit. The fact that the Prime Minister in this file has given up a significant part of his credibility and his Flemish flank is nefast. After all, it is very difficult to rebuild this trust. We hope that the Agreement on Agriculture and Foreign Trade is a first step to rebuild a little bit of confidence. In our assessment of the reliability of the Prime Minister, however, this agreement can in no way outweigh the abandonment of the lever. We will follow the file further in the hope that eventually it will show that at the end of the ride a lot has been realized. However, it would have been better to start this in a different way. I would like to remind you of some elements of the agreement itself. The agreement and the current bill are not based on the most objectively determinable figure, namely the number of children in the compulsory age between six and eighteen years, but on a much less determinable data, namely the number of regularly enrolled pupils from six to seventeen years. Many corrective coefficients are used, making the problem of control very real. These figures will be shown in the period from 15 January to 1 February, starting in the year 2000. The communities provide the Court of Auditors with electronic files per student and school, after which the Court of Auditors will verify the data with bilingual teams. The number of pupils will be subject to a double check if adequate electronic files are not submitted by 15 May, within a few days. On the one hand, there will be a counting or control in schools. On the other hand, the count will be tested on the most objective data, namely the population figures of the children of that age. It is clear that this procedure fundamentally cannot work. The major questions raised by the staff of the Court of Auditors in the Senate regarding the feasibility of its additional tasks were blown into the wind. In fact, the Court of Auditors should be exclusively at the service of Parliament. Building up the timing may be logical counting in January and February with a check at the end of the school year – but it is a purely political logic. How will the counting happen in most years? The Court of Auditors has few own criteria for controlling the stocks. At some point one will find that these stocks are not correct and that the communities and the Court of Auditors are not. No need, however, if the communities and the Court of Audit fail to do so, comes as a deus ex machina the federal government which in all its wisdom will cut through the node. The timing of this can be predicted. This will happen in the early summer months, in the week between 21 and 28 July. This week, the ministers, unlike the House members and the senators, have not yet departed to the warm South. By October, a lot of water will run through the sea. A diabolical timing has been introduced. These ambiguities can be found in the bill. One speaks of a temporary law, but it is not written in the text of the law itself. It can only be said in Dutch. So I hope that the gentlemen Picqué and Poncelet will not listen for a moment. It is stated in the text of the agreement between the Flemish majority parties, so actually a kind of bisaccord. It says there must be a solution by 2001. If no agreement is reached on the amendments to the Special Financing Act, the Flemish majority parties undertake to submit, in the Federal Parliament, a proposal for the revision of the Special Financing Act and a proposal for the repeal of the currently approved law. We still believe in the goodwill that is reflected in the agreements, otherwise we would speak of farm fraud. The obligation to submit a bill, whose chances are high that it will not get a majority in the French language group, can in our eyes only mean that the Flemish majority parties give up their trust in the federal government in this regard. The federal government must ensure a decent political compromise that realizes this second bisexual agreement between the Flemish majority parties. I only hope that the Prime Minister will radiate a little more confidence and will not pretend that his nose bleeds by saying that this agreement was concluded by Karel or Patrick and that he was not aware. We will not let ourselves be deceived. The text of the bill contains many ambiguous concepts. An alternative time procedure is used if the stocks delivered by the communities are deemed to be inadequate. The government does not answer questions on this subject. What is that? On questions about this, the government does not respond. The Government also allows us to guess what should then be understood by meaningful and unexplicable, numerically expressed deviation between the data provided by a Community and the control data. How large should such deviation be? It remains in the vague. Whenever critical concepts emerge at critical moments in the procedure, this must be determined by the Court of Auditors. How can this be addressed by the Court of Auditors? The Court of Auditors can not do this because it does not have credit criteria. The Court of Auditors would then have to establish the criteria itself and thus go beyond its role: instead of an organ serving the Chambers, it would then itself become a political organ. That is a very poisonous gift to this respectable institution. Thus, it is also stipulated that, where appropriate, peace would also be made with the absence of the national register numbers. Naively one could assume that these are cases where one does not have a national register number, but no: if one fails to provide it, it is apparently enough. This is also obviously a problem that is difficult for the French Community. Some elements of the St. Eloise Agreement would, on the other hand, have to stain the Flamings. For example, work would be made of the selective pick-up of students in the other language area, which would then be fixed in a cooperation agreement between... Between whom? This is not yet quite clear. On the Flemish side it is clear, but on the French-speaking side it is not yet agreed with whom a cooperation agreement should be concluded. So, a cooperation agreement. In fact, it should be done in five days. I cannot look into the minds and hearts of the ministers of the various governments, but I see that in five days it does not work. One is pushing the collection agreement on the long track and if it comes anyway, French-speaking friends, then no need, one of you is definitely running to the court to protest against what you will undoubtedly consider once again as an attack on your liberté du père de famille. When will I hear Mr Maingain or Mr Eerdekens contradict me in this? In fact, you support the opposition to the language inspection that already exists legally for the schools in the outskirts. Flemish colleagues from the majority, do you not see this? Another given would also be the Flamingen for the sake, namely the regulation contained in a bill for foreign students. Everyone gets better: more money for both communities and a more advantageous key for Flanders. No more two-thirds for the French Community and one-third for the Flemish Community as in the past, no, here again a dubious attribute to Flanders: the distribution key is improved. However, the State Council had made it clear that this matter should be settled by a special double two-thirds majority. The narrow argument to get down there would then be that the special law allows the amounts to be adjusted if international law decisions would incur additional costs for the communities. Nothing has changed since the special law was passed. The fact that children of foreign workers should be treated equally in Belgium has actually been established since 1968, if it has not been since 1958. The distribution key itself is understood nowhere else. What will happen if, later in the French Community, someone arises who feels discriminated because foreigners in that Community are paid less than foreigners in that other Community? This is a reality that we must also face. It could be a poisonous gift. Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, from all the above can sufficiently show that there can be no reason for the VU&ID group as democratic Flemish nationalists in this Chamber to approve this agreement. The educational financing agreement of Sint-Elooi is a strategic mistake, dangerous for the institutions, ambiguous and bad for Flanders. The arrangement of the financing of education belongs to the negotiations between communities on further steps in the state reform and not to a secret agreement in the formation of the government which then is blessed by Sint-Elooi.

Mr. Borginon, I apologize for not being present at the whole presentation. I have only heard a little, but when I hear your conclusion then I wonder how you rime that with the fact that this agreement in close consultation with the community governments - thus also with the Flemish whose VU is part of - has been made. I wonder how you can disguise what your party colleagues in the Flemish government have worshipped. Colleague Verherstraeten pointed out this.

I can reassure you, I absolutely do not suffer from any form of schizophrenia. I have no ambition to ever suffer. The Saint-Elois Agreement is an agreement that we have not signed and do not support. The only thing about which we have an agreement with the partners in the Flemish majority is to change what has been agreed no later than by December 2001. Our attitude is not schizophrenic. I talked about a little strategic example. We can only hope that the actual circumstances in which the French community is situated and the pressure from the education sector, on the one hand, and the non-profit sector, on the other, could make the pressure for more money in the French community still strong enough to be able to conclude a substantial agreement. We can hope that. I would rather have facts. The proposed bills are full of ambiguities. The Court of Auditors, an important pillar of our parliamentary democracy, is facing a task to which it has not been prepared. The government gets the authority to distribute education money between communities, but who actually wins with this agreement? Not Flanders – who would dare to think that – not democracy – ⁇ it is important to talk about democracy elsewhere than to realize it here day after day – and not even the education in French-speaking Belgium. In the end, for both communities of our country, good education will only be achieved when one can give education in the way and with the means that one wishes, in total free self-determination with his own tax income. In this way, we can guarantee in Flanders and French-speaking Belgium a high-quality education adapted to our particularities, to which our children, who all leave with the same basic intellectual capacities, are entitled.

Colleague Borginon, of course, I do not accuse you of political schizophrenia, but your party has a ⁇ big problem. This agreement, the legal downside of which is discussed here, was fully negotiated with your party counterpart Bert Anciaux. That is a truth that we can derive from all the media and political statements made at that time. This is what I meant with the word schizophrenia. I didn’t mean it offensive. The political attitude of the People’s Union is completely incomprehensible. I remember that Bert Anciaux said a few days ago in a newspaper article that some people do not understand that in the Federal Chamber there is opposition and at the Flemish level there is a majority. Here it is clear that it is a political agreement that binds the People's Union and was negotiated with your boyfriend Bert Anciaux in the Flemish government. For example, a silent silence of the People’s Union in this debate seems to me to be a more correct political attitude.

Mr. Borginon, please reply briefly, because your time has already expired.

Mr. Van Peel, you are mistaken in the chronology. The commitment to provide resources for French-speaking education was made by Guy Verhofstadt, on the occasion of the federal government negotiations. The only thing left to happen was efforts on our part to ensure that, after what the Prime Minister had wasted, there were still enough opportunities to conduct the large community-to-community debate, including the financing and autonomy of taxation. In this sense, I do not think that there can be schizophrenia at the head of my party.

I would like to point out that I am the only member of the majority to speak here. The majority of us do not abuse this to waste time. The financing of education is a topic that has already given rise to strange discussions in this Chamber. I have even found that this discussion is approached differently by the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Christian Democratic opposition. Mr. Tastenhoye should have known the beautiful proverb of Goethe In der Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister. I find that he manages to talk about police reform and to say banal and wrong things about it following the discussion of an educational agreement. It did not matter much if he also talked about the Seefhoek in Antwerp. This debate and the serenity about it are obscured by a double tension that has yet to be resolved. It is a tension linked, on the one hand, to government investment efforts and, on the other, to friction between the government initiative and the free initiative. In addition, there is the embodiment, in accordance with article 24, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, which clearly - and correctly - states that everyone has the right to education, with respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and that access to education is free until the end of compulsory education. This right implies, first and foremost, the ability for everyone to establish and provide education, in its form and content, without prior consent, at their discretion. Secondly, this right implies the freedom of the parents or students to choose their own school, which necessarily implies the requirement that they should be able, under reasonable conditions which must be translated into objective criteria, to resort to a school of their choice. There is no need to argue that the concrete fulfillment and implementation of this right, to which, by the way, the principle of equality is attached, constitutes for the communities a not insignificant financial obligation, due to the free nature of the access to education and to the finding that the appropriations failed by the federal government are responsible for the need for education, but that their financing is not fully reserved and that the problems are aggravated. It is not surprising, whatever it may be said, that simulations based on the current special funding law have shown that both the Flemish and French communities will in the near future be in financial need in the field of education. It would be good if everyone realized that this is a problem for both communities. Moreover, the question of the size and size of this funding has already been raised. The two bills are intended to bring a provisional solution, pending a fundamental solution. This means that in the first place, concrete problems that require an urgent solution must be addressed.

Mr Coveliers, what you said about the financing needs, both of the Flemish and French-speaking education, does not seem to me to be entirely in accordance with the statements of Mr De Gucht. Mr. De Gucht said that it is correct that Flemish education could also need additional funding – although it was selective, but he called his party mate, Flemish Minister of Education Marleen Vanderpoorten, to the order at the moment she made public her expectations on this, saying that in this way she distorted the community debate. It surprises me thus, Mr. Coveliers, that you defend the statement of the Flemish Minister of Education, since there is a risk that Mr. De Gucht will flow back to you tomorrow.

Mr. Van Peel, you are wrong. It is obvious that this is a determination. A number of speakers came and announced some political propaganda which, by the way, was completely beyond the issue. In this regard, I do not think of Mr. Verherstraeten and members of the PSC. However, this is about the conclusion that both Communities could be in financial distress with regard to their education if one wishes to pursue the same policy based on the above ideas and statements. I’m talking about the freedom of education, the full funding by the government – even if the education is not arranged by the government – and the possibility for everyone to resort to all those educational opportunities. This is not in contradiction with the words of the VLD president. After all, he stated that it is indeed a problem that will have to be resolved within the Flemish government in the light of the possibilities it has. This explains the other requirements that the VLD sets in this regard. I would like to talk now about the notorious Article 39, § 2 of the Special Financing Act. We have already heard a lot about it. There are apparently people who have never read it before, but still want to associate it with all the possible and the culprit of another party. Article 39, § 2 provides for the fiscal years 1989, when you were still a journalist, Mr. Tastenhoye, until 1998... Mr. Annemans, unlike many of your friends, I have no problem with my past. Article 39, § 2 provides for the fiscal years 1989 to 1998 the distribution of the construction of the value added tax in light of the current number of pupils; 57,55% for the Flemish Community and 42,55% for the French Community. It is clearly determined – and it was known in 1989 – that from the 1999 fiscal year the distribution key must be adjusted to the distribution of the number of pupils. This must be done on the basis of objective criteria established by law. It is a neutral conclusion that the previous governments, in the absence of consensus and a certain inertia, have never been able to provide an adequate response to this special legal requirement. Who now dares to challenge that it is a merit of the current government to record a number of acceptable parameters? Let me give you these parameters. First, there is compliance with the special law that explicitly stipulates the number of students. This is stated in the law. You cannot moffle it away. Second, there is the neutrality of the policy. This means that a community cannot orient its policies towards a resource allocation that favors it. Third, there is an undisputed, transparent and objective audit by an independent, competent body, namely the Court of Auditors. Mr. Tastenhoye, you are incredibly mistaken. I will return to that immediately. A lack of financial oxygen will force the community to reduce the quality and quantity of its education. Mr. Tastenhoye, I regret your judgment on the quality of the French language education. I know people, trained in French language education, who are ⁇ intelligent.

Mr Coveliers is right on one point. In the previous legislature, no agreement was reached on the financing criteria. I was party chairman during the previous legislature and I can assure you that I am one of the people who have resisted an agreement, because it seemed to me excluded to conclude an agreement, knowing that would happen what has now happened: a unilateral surrender to the French speakers and the giving out of hand of every negotiating lever in relation to the Flemish demands. The absence of an agreement during the previous legislature is a major negligence. I can tell you that from the Flemish majority – at least from the CVP – it was a conscious strategy not to give out negotiating weapons. This has now happened. We made this choice very consciously. I will continue to defend this choice.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Van Peel’s position was correct, I would like to point out that in 1989 no law should have been adopted which stipulates that it should be revised in 1998. This has to do with trust in the law. The government must be the first to comply with the laws. How else can one expect that the subjects will obey the laws? Mr. Speaker, you ask me to conclude my speech. Therefore, I will not go deeper into the content of the designs. Nevertheless, I would like to keep standing at the concept of appropriate. This concept must be interpreted in the formal sense of the word. One must answer the question of the extent to which the stocks of the two communities correspond to the directives of the Court of Auditors. Over the years, the mandate of the Court of Audit has evolved. If one is ⁇ conservative and does not want to see the evolution in society and thinks that the community will always remain as it was in the Middle Ages, one cannot understand such evolution. I remind you that at some point the Court of Auditors was asked to judge on accountants. This is also not stated in the original text of the Constitution and does not belong to the original tasks of the Court. It is an evolution that the Court of Auditors is going through. It seems to me obvious that the government with a law approved by parliament gives this assignment to the Court of Auditors. As regards the withdrawal, I would like to emphasize that this is not a restriction of the freedom of parents to send their children to a particular school, but a restriction of the freedom of the public authorities to carry out activities outside their field of work in a dishonest manner. By picking up is meant a regular and consciously organized picking up of children. This concept is supplemented on the basis of Regulation 684/92 of the Council of the European Communities, which clearly specifies the concept of collection. Pick-up means the transport of pupils by means of vehicles with 9 or more seats, including the driver. It is correct that problems can arise if the scheme is not properly observed. The legislation contains clear rules in this regard and gives the Court of Auditors important powers. We are convinced that the Court of Auditors can handle this task in practice and that the tasks of the Court of Auditors should not be limited to the overall and classical tasks of this audit body as originally included in the Constitution. In the coming weeks and months, the Government will entrust the Court of Auditors with other tasks that also extend beyond the tasks that the Court received at the time. It is, in my opinion, also a task of Parliament to evolve with society. Mr. Speaker, the second draft aims to adapt the financing of university education for foreign students established since 1989. Recent judgments of the European Court of Justice remind our country of the obligation to consider foreign students of the European Union as eligible for funding on the same basis as Belgian students. Mr Borginon’s fear of discrimination is unjustified. Article 62, paragraph 3 of the Special Financing Act is in no way opposed to a more structural and criterion-based regulation allowing to increase the amounts in force in these terms with the intention of taking into account the possible financial consequences for the communities of the decisions taken by the federal government in the exercise of its own competence. I think it is very good in a democracy that these two drafts have received criticism from the opposition. The opposite would not only surprise me, but also scare me. I would be ⁇ suspicious of a text of the majority that is not criticized by the opposition. When we look at all the serious arguments, we can make it clear that the government has succeeded in achieving its goal, namely the realization of a neutral operation based on objective criteria. This is an arrangement that one has failed in the past and where one now becomes one for all... (Protest of Mr. Guido Tastenhoye) Mr. Tastenhoye, I have read a lot of clear nonsense from you. One of my colleagues was once the victim of this. I do not accept that you say such things. Contrary to what has happened in the past, we have finally managed to formulate these criteria.

Mr Tastenhoye, please let Mr Coveliers speak. Your decision, Mr Coveliers.

Mr. Speaker, this text is the outline of what was decided in 1989 and we will approve it with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a question to Mr. Coveliers. Yesterday, the outstanding forecasts of the Plan Bureau were announced. Immediately, Ecolo and the PS stated that this would give them room for refinancing of education. In light of what you just said about the fact that there are also needs for Dutch-speaking education, do you think that the additional financing needs for education from federal funds should go to both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking education? That seems to me the logic of what you just said, Mr. Coveliers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer briefly, but you can ask questions to which you need to answer almost an entire Bible.

It has already been written, Mr. Coveliers.

What Mr. Van Peel says is not correct with regard to the way this case is handled. Based on what was decided in 1989, negotiations have been conducted. We know what negotiation means, namely that none of the parties – and this doesn’t have to argue – can 100% convey its vision. That’s the essence of negotiating and otherwise you’ll have to wage war—which some apparently opt for. We are negotiating about that. Based on what was decided in 1989, this is an agreement that is correct, fair and workable and that provides opportunities for both communities for their education. I’m not going to say who deserves it, but fortunately the economy is such that there are opportunities. This should be negotiated in view of many other plans, including those of the Flemish and Wallonian governments regarding fiscal autonomy. Mr. Van Peel, in all honesty, but at this moment I cannot answer your question. The essence of democracy that we see in majority politics is to discuss it. I do not always agree with what is said within the majority, but we discuss it. We have reached an agreement that I want to defend. That is the way we work. I hope this will continue like this.