Proposition 50K0585

Projet de loi déterminant les conditions auxquelles les autorités locales peuvent bénéficier d'une aide financière de l'Etat dans le cadre de la politique urbaine.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 18, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

municipality State aid welfare

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

May 31, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, the Public Health Committee examined this bill during its meetings of 9 and 16 May 2000. In his introductory speech, Mr. The Minister recalled that since the beginning of the legislature, the government has wanted to pay special attention to the specific problems encountered in the big cities. In fact, it is in the big cities that the phenomena of unemployment, social exclusion and deterioration of the living environment that our society suffers most sharply. Cities constitute the privileged area where economic development, innovation and services activities are concentrated. This bill is in line with the objectives of the city’s policy, as defined in the guidance note approved by the government on 1 October 1999. It is about improving the environment and living conditions, safety and reviving the economic function. Within the framework of this project, it is proposed to empower the government to contract with municipalities and public centers of social assistance to finance, in districts in crisis, measures within the competence of the federal state. The agreements thus concluded could finance specific efforts in the field of social integration and security, promote certain employment policies at the local level and encourage the action of the Building Administration in the most precarious neighborhoods. The Government attaches particular importance to the complementarity of its action with existing initiatives at local, regional, community or even European levels. It is not a matter of intervening in place of other levels of power, but rather, in good concertation, of providing additional resources in matters of federal competence. The willingness to resort to contractual practice is part of the straight line of recent fruitful experiments, such as security contracts in several cities in the country or the Social Impulse Fund in Flanders. Initially, the government will focus on concluding agreements with the five major cities of the kingdom: Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent, Liège and Charleroi. A sum of 1.5 billion is provided for this purpose in the general budget of expenditure for the year 2000. In the Brussels-Capital Region, seven central municipalities are selected. These are the municipalities hosting on their territory the intervention area of the project Objective 2 of the European Union, namely Brussels, Molenbeek, Schaerbeek, Anderlecht, SaintGilles, Saint-Josse-ten-Noode and Forest. The distribution of resources between the cities will be made on the basis of objective distribution keys, prioritizing the number of inhabitants. In the general discussion that followed, the various speakers raised the following questions: - the need for an evaluation of the law within two years. An amendment in this direction was submitted by Ms. Gilkinet and Descheemaeker and was adopted unanimously; - the question of parliamentary control over the granting of credits from the federal authority; - the distribution of competences in the conclusion of conventions; - the continuation and intensification of the coordination between the different levels of power; - the extension of the actions planned to smaller cities such as Malines, La Louvière or Ostende; - the alignment of the project on the socio-economic and demographic criteria applied by the So-ciaal impulsfonds rather than on the number of inhabitants; - the problem of real estate taxation in large cities; - the precisions to be made regarding the nature of the aid granted, as well as the conditions under which this octroidal is. The Minister, in his response, provided the following elements of response. In matters of conflict of competence, it is desirable that a concertation be established between the different levels of power. Contacts have already been established to determine the modalities of this collaboration. When it comes to emergency, the problems of big cities have become so crying that it was urgent to take on the challenges. In terms of tax reform, the minister has declared himself supportive of a tax reform for the big cities. In addition, there are discussions on real estate tax with the Minister of Finance. Regarding the linguistic balance in Brussels, the Minister clarified that it was decided that municipalities and CPAS that have concluded agreements with the federal state will be free to seek partners respecting linguistic laws on objective bases. As regards the amounts of aid granted, an envelope of 1.5 billion is planned for the five major agglomerations, distributed as follows: - Antwerp: 392 million; - Ghent: 196 million; - Liege: 164 million; - Charleroi: 177 million; - for Brussels, it has been chosen for seven municipalities that correspond to the delimitation of Objective 2. The Minister also confirmed that no co-financing of the Regions and Communities was planned, but above all it is necessary to develop a comprehensive approach and coordinate the projects developed by the various instances. In addition, it will be up to the Interministerial Conference to take charge of coordination and consultation. Finally, the Minister declared himself aware of the shift of urban problems to the periphery. This phenomenon demonstrates how important it is that these peripheral municipalities are solidary with the large urban entities, the real economic bone of the regions. Regarding the aid to other cities, the Minister referred to a study, the results of which will be known at the end of June 2000 and whose objective was to examine 17 urban entities of more than 80,000 inhabitants, characterized by the presence of districts of concern or vulnerable areas. Regarding the discussion of articles, adopted amendments and voting on articles, I allow myself to refer to my written report. All provisions of the bill were adopted by 9 votes against 3 and one abstention. If you also allow me, Mr. Speaker, in order not to aggravate the debate, I will conclude, leaving my role of rapporteur, with the considerations inspired by this bill to my political group. We will, of course, support this bill. First, because it is in the big cities that the phenomena of social exclusion, unemployment and precariousness are the most acute. The government has very well understood this issue, as it has seen it as one of its priorities. A priority to which our group willingly joins later, given the willingness already shown in its programme to want to promote partnership with the associative world or even intensify the actions of urban revitalization in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods by stimulating and coordinating the contributions of all public or private actors responsible for the degradation of living places and the social fabric of neighborhoods. These objectives are fully met here. Introduction to Mr. The Minister is clear in this regard. It will be, in terms of living framework, to promote the creation or renovation of social spaces, the mixed habitat, the embellishment or recomposition of spaces or the rehabilitation of degraded neighborhoods. To improve living conditions, we will support the integration of foreign-origin populations, health prevention and the quality of public services. Prevention, a nearby police, the fight against incivilities are all proposals made by this project in the field of security. We make them ours. Finally, last and not least, the relief of the economic function through professional reintegration, training, social economy or even the increase of the attractiveness of certain areas. Certainly, it is now necessary to agree on the priorities and the modalities for the implementation of the measures to be implemented. However, it cannot be denied the importance granted by the Minister, and which has been repeated many times, to include his action in a complementarity with the initiatives existing at the local, regional or community level, in respect of the institutional competences assigned to each level of power. In addition, we support the amendment voted in the committee, which requires an evaluation of this project within two years. It is, in fact, of the utmost importance that parliamentary control can be fully exercised after the implementation of the selected projects and that the granting of credits from the federal authority is subject to a critical evaluation after this period of time. Finally and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we insist on the urgency to contribute to this project: the problems of the big cities have become so crying that we can no longer distort. That is why we are now waiting with special attention for the results of the study, which consists of examining 17 urban entities with more than 80,000 inhabitants, characterized by the presence of district districts or vulnerable areas. We promise that the results of this study will be of great use for us to focus or amplify further certain actions or to correct certain options taken.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, it is not intended to discuss in the plenary session the whole discussion we have already conducted in the committee, but I would like to make clear to my colleagues what our attitude to this bill is. In general, we have a number of objections to this bill. First, the high level of authority. A number of the parties present here have opposed in the previous legislature the powers that were then granted to the government. Now they are silently silent about the powers granted in this to the current minister. For us, this goes too far, especially since the draft remains very vague and the State Council rightly made a number of comments. Second, the issue of competence. We talked extensively about the problem of interfering with federal means in what should belong to municipal autonomy for us. This is about the interference between the higher level and the lower level. There are pro and contra. They are trying to hold the hands of the municipalities. Generally speaking, I am in favour of strengthening autonomy. Where we have talked about the metropolitan problem, which in most cases is a structural problem for problem areas in a number of large municipalities, but also sometimes in intermunicipalities, we find that it needs to be structurally mediated instead of creating a channel again and again, whether the security contracts, whether the agreements as provided in this bill. Third, the problem of interference between the federal competence and the competences of communities and regions, which in this region are obviously also competent to remedy that metropolitan and urban problem, and also to release resources for it. It goes without saying that, in order to make the best use of these resources, all efforts are best coordinated. This means initially that the Minister would best conclude a cooperation agreement with the other levels before the allocation of the resources of the federal level. Therefore, the VU group wishes to support the amendment concerning colleagues Paque and Leterme. It implies that a cooperation agreement must be concluded in advance so that the resources, in consultation with the other levels, can be used optimally. You also know that a number of other amendments have been submitted in additional order. If this meeting does not agree to a cooperation agreement that would be concluded beforehand, one can at least request the agreement before one concludes a contract or an agreement with the municipalities. If even that is not possible, then one can ask for the advice of the communities and regions. Ultimately, there is an amendment that says that there must be at least one notification at the other levels before a deal is concluded. Thus, colleagues, you have sufficient opportunities and resources on the issue that was correctly cited, both by the State Council and by various groups in the discussion in the committee, but also and especially in the Flemish Parliament. The Flemish Government has turned to this point and has determined that at this time in the legal text there can hardly be a conflict of competence, nor of a conflict of interests. It will be especially important to be able to monitor, in the implementation, in the conclusion of the agreements, whether the federal government respects its powers and whether it does not harm the interests of communities and regions. Therefore, the Prime Minister-President has said that, I cite, he would inform the plenary session in the Chamber that the amendments submitted by Mr Leterme and Mrs Van de Casteele on this subject require an agreement and that they would create an added value for the draft in question. I hope, therefore, that the colleagues of the Flemish parties have heard these words in the Flemish Parliament and this message has penetrated into this federal hemisphere. I hope that at least one of the amendments can be accepted so that funds can be quickly released for the metropolitan issue.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Our party can only encourage the government to take positive action in favor of the big cities. In fact, it is necessary to rebuild within our cities living spaces that are nothing more than housing broken side by side, in which some barricade themselves to watch television and feel safe. It is urgent to reconsider neighborhoods as places of living. In the neighborhoods, common spaces are needed, safe and clean; spaces where children can play safely; spaces that reintroduce beauty and nature into the city. That is why we can only agree on the principles of the bill that is being submitted to our vote today. However, these good ideas cannot be put into practice in any way. This bill contains major shortcomings, which amendments I have submitted or co-signed with some of my colleagues should correct, in part in any case. First of all, I would like to remind you of what I said during the debate in the committee. While it is important to help the big cities, we should not forget that part of the problem of the city centers is unfortunately moving more and more to the peripheral areas. I therefore recommend, on the one hand, to evaluate and control these transfer phenomena and, on the other hand, to take positive measures in favour of those suburbs which also become sensitive areas. I insist on the necessary collaboration with regions and communities that have competence in areas such as territorial planning, prevention, urban planning or environment. It is inconceivable to want to conduct a city policy without at least negotiating with the relevant regions and communities. The budget of 1.5 billion that the minister announced to us is important, but divided into 12 municipalities, it becomes little to carry out a specific policy. It really pleads not to repeat what has already been done and to formalize this coordination with communities and regions. The President:

Jean-Pol Henry, First Vice-President During the work in the committee, you answered me, Mr. Minister, that this consultation was in your intention. I think it is indispensable that this also be formally inscribed in the law. I am also concerned about the selection criteria of the municipalities that will be selected to participate in these conventions. I think it is indispensable to include in the law objective criteria, defined in collaboration with communities and regions, which will serve as the basis for the choice of municipalities. In conclusion, I would like to recall our interest in the principles defended by this project. It is not just about security. The Peers report, which we recently discussed in the House, showed how degradation of social ties, ⁇ in cities, isolation and lack of a healthy environment could be factors of poor health and thus increase the health care budget. By acting on living conditions, the health and well-being of the population is improved. And, of course, health is only one of the aspects that I give as an example. All the guarantees must be given that the money invested in such projects is effective. In the current state of the submitted text, we do not, unfortunately, have these guarantees. We have submitted several amendments in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, also our group is in favor of an active and adjusted preferential policy with respect to urban areas in general and the larger urban agglomerations in our country in particular. We acknowledge that the federal government also has a responsibility in this case. I think in particular of the justice and security policy, the provision of services of public companies and aspects of taxation. However, the present bill cannot take away our full approval. We will abstain from voting, for various reasons, which I will not repeat here. We do not need to overlook the debate that was held in the committee. I will briefly explain a number of elements in support of our abstinence at the vote. A first argument is that the bill you submit to us, Mr. Minister, is contrary to the constitutionally established division of tasks between the legislative and executive powers. The State Council has, by the way, demonstrated this in its opinion in your draft law in a comprehensive and undeniable way. This bill leads to an unlimited distance of power from parliament to government. This is a support scheme. Not only according to the Constitution but also according to the laws on the Reich Accountability, it is unacceptable that the substantial basic conditions for the aid scheme are not fixed by parliament but a mandate is requested for the King, through a decision consulted in the Council of Ministers, to do so. By the way, the bill you are submitting, whose headline it has about the conditions under which cities can enjoy a support scheme, is not what it announces to be. This bill does not contain any substantive conditions. The substantial scope of urban policy is not at all to be debated following this bill. We regret that because we believe that the urban problem should be the subject of a parliamentary debate, also in the House. We regret this even more because we noted that already at the Council of Ministers of 31 March two royal decrees were adopted, both with regard to the intervention areas to which this bill refers – the five major cities and, specifically with regard to Brussels, the seven municipalities eligible for Objective II – as well as with regard to the positive discrimination areas, 32 cities including the eleven already falling under the intervention areas, of which the OCMWs per subsistence minimum deductor will receive 25% additional subsidies above the 100% state subsidies within the framework of Article 60, paragraph 7. Well, in both draft royal decrees, during the Council of Ministers of 31 March, it was already included in the manner in which this urban policy in implementation of this law will be given a substantial form. It is a pity that the Minister refused to present and discuss the contents of these drafts during the committee meeting. In that regard, I recall, by the way, that a member of the majority, in particular Mrs. Burgeon, urged him to refuse this. This is not a serious parliamentary work. Our main objection, Mr. Minister, is the unlimited power given to the government, which leads to a lack of substantive discussions on urban policy. The second objection to which we will refrain from voting on this matter is that the delimitation of the territories during the first leak of your preferential policy in relation to the major cities – which will receive a global one-and-a-half million francs – is arbitrary and is insufficiently in relation to the real problems. After all, instead of working on objective criteria such as poverty, poverty, as happened in Flanders following the entry into force of the Social Impulse Fund, it was limited – though in a first phase – to opt for the so-called five large cities, merely defined by their number of inhabitants. Well, taking into account the figures you communicated in the committee, Mr. Minister, this distribution across the five cities selected a ratio of the number of inhabitants, leads to a next distribution across the regions of the amount of one and a half billion: - 39% for Flanders; - 23% for the seven Brussels municipalities; - 38% for Wallonia. Such a choice, Mr. Minister, was, in our opinion, undoubtedly influenced by the underlying idea that 300 million for Brussels and 600 million for Liège and Charleroi, is well taken, and that in this way one can borrow the needy finances of the French community. As in the committee, we advocate that the allocation of resources should take place as soon as possible based on objective criteria. Why can Article 60, paragraph 7, of the OCMW Act, in connection with the positive discrimination areas, give a description of the 32 Belgian municipalities and can the cities and municipalities be separated, while this now does not prove possible in the distribution of one and a half billion resources across the intervention areas? In this regard, Mr. Minister, you refer to a study that should normally be completed by the end of June. Why could the study, which has already been completed, not be used in this regard, which, by the way, was used to delimit the increased contributions of the federal government in relation to the benefits under the subsistence minimum? We believe that the government is doing the opposite. After all, first, in the composition of the government, the provisions of the government agreement were negotiated, then it was decided to spend one and a half billion in urban policy, and only then it was questioned who would decide on the distribution of those resources. At the very end of the line, one wants to decide what those cents will be spent on. Parliament should not discuss this. The reverse approach seems much more logical. In any case, the description of the beneficiaries of the local governments that will be benefited by this fund does not appear to us to be objectively motivated. We urge you to make a more objective description very quickly. Our third objection follows the comments of the previous speakers. This is one of the reasons why we will abstain from voting. This draft, in its current form, provides insufficient guarantees for the integration of federal, urban policy into the whole of the policy efforts that must be delivered by the various levels of governance - local, communities and regions. The crash point concerns the lack of respect for the powers of communities and regions, which have far more than the federal government the first policy levers for urban policy. Consider only a number of subjects listed in the Special Act of 8 August 1980. I think of housing, urban core renewal, employment, waste policy, economic expansion, reception and integration of settlements, youth protection, social welfare, and so on. The very important article 6, § 1, 3°, of the Special Act of 8 August 1980 is added. It describes the exceptional circumstances under which direct aid may be granted by the federal government to the municipalities. The State Council has made a very important comment on this. This has been addressed in part by the rewrite of Article 3 of your draft, by adding that it remains within the federal powers. This is insufficient for us to guarantee that concrete actions on the ground, which will be developed under this design, will respect the community and county powers. Even less does this show the willingness to incorporate their own initiatives into the policies of the first responsible, in particular the local authorities, the communities and the regions. This was, however, the promise you made as a government commissioner on 26 September in your guidance note to the Council of Ministers. You talked about a partnership with communities and regions and an integration of your policies into the initiatives of cities, agglomerations, regions and communities. You stated that the government would rather participate complementarily in the efforts made at the various policy levels. This design does not translate this intention. That is why we submitted amendments. In the committee, the Minister refused to intervene. If it really matters, the minister is apparently opposed to consultation and advisory provision. We continue to insist on correct decision-making. Therefore, together with colleagues Paque and Van de Casteele, we submit four amendments. These are gradual amendments, if I can say so. Mr. Minister, you have the choice: either you write in your bill that the different levels of policy will be consulted and that their approval will be requested, or you decide to conclude a cooperation agreement with the communities and the regions. With regard to the latter, I can assure you that, for example, in the field of social economy, your competent colleague already in March took the initiative to consult and conclude a cooperation agreement with the communities and regions. It is a pity that you do not do this for this matter. We would prefer that you follow the example of the Minister concerned. That this is not an unjustified claim of the opposition, is evident from the statements made by Flemish Prime Minister Dewael on 24 May 2000 in the Flemish Parliament during the discussion of the conflict of interest raised by Mr. De Smedt and Mr. Caluwé. The Flemish Prime Minister supports the text of the amendment and urges that the plenary session of this Chamber approve it. He states, I quote: I have in this regard had telephone contact with the Minister concerned and suggested to him that the adoption of this amendment could mean an added value for the text of the draft in question. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we urge to consider these amendments quietly and to anchor one of the four proposed options in the draft law to ensure that the cents are well spent and the policy efforts are not limited to the distribution à la tête du client of 1.5 billion francs but that they will fit into the policy initially directed by the local authorities and the regions and communities. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I summarize the position of the CVP. First, the CVP disagrees with the present bill because the minister asks for a too wide mandate from the parliament, which, in our opinion, should have a co-winning power over the content of its urban policy. Secondly, the determination of the beneficiaries of the local governments that will be beneficiaries does not take place on the basis of objective criteria. Finally, we refer to the problem of competence. The CVP wants the bill to include guarantees that the federal urban policy fits into the efforts of communities and counties.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, unlike the previous speakers, the VLD is in favor of this draft because the federal government gives a clear sign that it wants to develop a urban policy within its powers. This was in the government agreement. For the VLD it is evident that this policy must be done in consultation – I emphasize this – with the local governments and with the communities and regions. We are looking forward to what you will communicate about this in your response. To put it in a term from health policy: the VLD is in favor of an integrated care concept. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that one can vote against this draft because everyone knows the needs and needs that threaten the viability of cities and that put heavy pressure on them, such as the city flight, the child-friendly, the leathering, the insecurity and the deprivation of the big cities. Mr. Minister, the VLD is ⁇ satisfied with the openness you showed in the committee when explaining the objective criteria for the allocation of resources. This transparency should, in my opinion, be able to remove the uncertainty and the unrest that exists among the colleagues. It is correct that communities and regions have already taken a number of meaningful initiatives in recent years. It is obvious that the federal government is also willing to contribute. The federal government must do this within its competence. However, this means that cities can receive support in different domains. For example, the federal government wants to make efforts in the areas of social inclusion, employment and security. These are clearly federal powers. These initiatives can be well integrated with the actions undertaken by the regions and communities. Mr. Minister, colleagues, therefore it is very important for the future to extend the evaluation as you announced it to medium-sized cities and peripheral municipalities. Our group hopes that you will work together with the Minister of Finance on a specific fee scheme for the major cities. It is important that the measures taken within the framework of the present draft law also receive a fiscal incentive. If not, these measures may have little effect. We would like to emphasize once again that you should take the consultation with the regions and communities very carefully and not only out of fear of a possible conflict of interests. Mrs Van de Casteele has joined the report of the Flemish Parliament. I would like to remove any doubt about this by quoting colleague Van Vaerenberg who has said that everyone agrees that there is no conflict of competence. The bill does not cross the Flemish urban policy and therefore it is not a conflict of interest. There is no question here, and this is also cited by Mrs. Van de Casteele.

Mr. President, Mrs. Avontroodt, you challenge me a little. I thought I hadn’t said anything else in the speech. In fact, it has been determined that it is neither a conflict of jurisdiction nor a conflict of interest. During the implementation, there may be a conflict of interest. This should be prevented by providing guarantees, possibly through a cooperation agreement or through an agreement or advice.

Mrs. Van de Casteele, I didn’t want to challenge you at all. I just said I have my homework too. I had also brought the report to put the points on the i’s, because some colleagues believed it was a conflict of competence. As you said, I had the design. Finally, colleagues, Mr. Minister, an optimal spending in consultation with the regions and communities for us is the essence of the matter. It is important that the initiatives of the different policy levels complement and strengthen each other. Therefore, this final sentence: consultation is very important.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik heb de bezwaren van mevrouw Van de Casteele in de heer Leterme zeer aandachtig beluisterd. I have also the beknopt report from debatten in het Vlaams Parliament gelezen. What am I holding? I stel natuurlijk wantrouwen vast ten aanzien van dit project. Mevrouw Van de Casteele in de heer Leterme uitten hun onrust in verband met een eventueel belangenconflict met de gewesten in de gemeenschappen. This disturbance may be justified. Inderdaad, het kan gebeuren dat over de doelstellingen van het stedelijk beleid de standpunten van de federale regering, de gewesten in de gemeenschappen uiteenlopen. Ik kan me niet inbeelden dat de federale regering dit stedelijk beleid hoofdzakelijk zou voeren zonder overleg in samenspraak met de gewesten in de gemeenschappen. I have geprobeerd u ervan te overtuigen dat de federale bedoelingen over dit punt klaar in clear be. Het zou zinloos in ondoeltreffend zijn een stedelijk beleid op nationaal vlak uit te stippelen in een visie op het stedelijk beleid uit te denken zonder rekening te houden met de specifieke doeleinden van de gewesten in de gemeenschappen. Vooraleer subsidies aan gemeenten in OCMW's toe te kennen is one overleg met of different gezagsniveaus dan ook onontbeerlijk. The agreement is on the gang. Met de gewesten in de gemeenschappen wordt de inhoud van de overeenkomsten met de gemeenten in of OCMW's bekeken. I look for a complementary effect between the federal initiative and the federal initiative. De belangen van de gewesten in de gemeenschappen zijn niet geschaad. Integendeel, of federal middelen zullen de gewestelijke in gemeenschapsinitiatieven ten gunste van de grootsteden ondersteunen. That is philosophy of my action. I am not only addressing the Dutch-speaking and the Flemish Community because the same remarks have been made by the Walloon Region, in order to avoid a series of additional constraints to be borne by the municipalities in order to be able to margin the fund. We have repeated sufficiently, both on the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking side, that we should try to find complementarities in our actions. Growth is another problem. Mijnheer Leterme, ik betwist de cijfers die u aangehaald hebt in verband met de verdeling tussen de drie gewesten. I give you even real figures: 40% voor Vlaanderen, 32% voor Brussel in 24% voor Wallonia. These are correct numbers. We care for balance in billijkheid in de manier waarop of middelen zullen worden verdeeld. In the intention of Mr. Paque, I will answer that the transfer is, of course, always possible - this is what is called external effects - of certain phenomena, which one manages to jugulate in the cities, to their periphery. Therefore, we need to have a broad concept of urban management. We must, in fact, at some point measure the effects of this policy on neighboring municipalities. We must remain vigilant ten overstaan van eventuele verschuivingen van de stadskernen naar de randgemeenten. That is why I have no opinion to give to regions and communities. I remain cautious. Imagining a management based on urban communities, on large sets larger than the urban center and the municipalities of the urban center, seems to me all indicated. Mr. Paque, you will allow someone who is well acquainted with urban problems to tell you that it does not seem that the slides have been operated in a truly significant way, because the problems that we still have to solve in the cities are still huge and also worrying, but I will be attentive to the question you have raised. Are we scattered through the twelve municipalities you talked about? I think we have also reached a balance. It is important a critical mass from the middle to overstijgen, gemeente per gemeente. It would, for example, be bespottelijk being om 50 million frank aan Antwerpen te besteden. We must use our resources in a balanced way, while ensuring a significant amount to cities and municipalities. As for the criteria, I found remarkable the cartographic work carried out by the Flemish Region. De kaart van de achtergestelde wijken in Vlaanderen is one interesting work of good quality that me, of course, helped. This map, like others that exist in Wallonia, clearly shows a number of cities affected by various phenomena. We have tried to do the best possible for the distribution of resources. In conclusion, I have a real desire for concertation. Although I do not believe that we should accept the amendments, I already inform you that a communication will be made to the regions regarding the follow-up of the drafting of the conventions. I would like to say very clearly that I remain in favour of the fact that within our committee we can regularly review the state of progress of the project. I also agreed that you will be happy to acknowledge – that an evaluation can be made. This provision was included in the bill. Let’s not talk about conflict of interest at the moment. There may be a risk of competence conflict. There is, of course, a difference between a belangenconflict in a bevoegdheidsconflict. It is in the exercise of loyalty between the national level and the communities and regions that we will demonstrate the usefulness and, I hope, the effectiveness of the government initiative in favor of the big cities, which will bring even more effectiveness to the policies already carried out by the cities and by the regions and communities.

Mr. Minister, you said later that Flanders will get 42%. On page 13 of the report, however, we read – that are your words – that Antwerp received 392 million and Gent 196 million. That is 588 million of one and a half billion. That is 39%, Mr. Minister, this only to clarify because you questioned my figure. 42% would be just over 620 million.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the Minister and note that in the Flemish Parliament a show has been allowed again. If it comes to it, one here on the Flemish side does not get the chance to support and approve an amendment, although the Flemish prime minister-president himself has suggested such a text amendment. Mr. Minister, you are willing to take this into account, but ultimately you are a minister during this legislature and you know that this draft has no end date. This means that the system proposed in it will continue, just like the security contracts for example. So you also never know who will sit on your chair next, just as little as we know who will be the next competent Flemish minister in this matter. Indeed, we are reassured on the Flemish side that there are currently negotiations. In order to guarantee that in the future, can this be provided in the legislation? Mr. Minister, you say yourself that you have nothing to do with pre-consulting. Let us then, for the sake of God, inscribe it in the legislative text, so that concertation is ensured in the future. So I do not understand why there is resistance against this.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that an amendment to the law be considered only after the review that is expected over a year.