Proposition 50K0654

Proposition de loi assurant la protection sociale des gardiennes encadrées.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Simonne Creyf, Greta D'hondt, Luc Goutry, Trees Pieters, Jo Vandeurzen
LE Jean-Jacques Viseur
Vooruit Joke Schauvliege

Submission date

May 16, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work child care

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

March 7, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written reports.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, it is regrettable that this plenary session coincides with a meeting of the Committee on Internal Affairs which focuses on the completion of the police reform. For some colleagues, this will be a reassurance because this is an additional reason to keep it as short as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in his introduction to these bills, the Minister in the committee, I quote, said: "The reform thus proposed fits in the effort to strengthen and perfect the civil democracy. More than ever before, the citizen will be in power to decide who will represent him in the respective assemblies. This new weighting of the list vote will also contribute to a better representation of women in the political forum as voting for a woman will also be more important.”

The real effects of this reform are much more modest. Those who thoroughly analyze preferred behavior in elections know that the more preferred votes are issued by the voters as the distance between the voter and the elected is physically smaller. A lot more preferential votes are cast in municipal council elections than in parliamentary elections. In municipal council elections, the majority of candidates are elected outside the list order because the preferred vote percentage is high and the number of transferable votes is therefore low.

Research by the Department of Political Science of the Catholic University of Leuven on the 1994 municipal council elections found that 84.4% of Flemish voters gave a preferred vote and that two-thirds of municipal council members were elected in the Flemish municipalities without this being connected with a list vote.

In the discussion of the previous bills, the CVP pointed out that the effect of halving the list vote in the municipal council elections would be small for these reasons. The results of the last municipal elections also give us the right. Research by the Department of Political Science of the Catholic University of Leuven in the municipalities of the province of Vlaams-Brabant on that effect at the municipal council elections of 8 October last year has shown that 27 seats of the total of 1,467 seats to be allocated by the halving have obtained another owner.

In percentage, this effect is 1.84%. In 40 of 65 municipalities, by the halving, nothing changed at all. The seats in these municipalities would have gone to exactly the same persons, even without the halving of the list vote. Although the research has been limited to Flemish-Brabant, the researchers argue that the research results can be generalized to the whole of Flanders. It appears that the effect of halving the weight of the list vote for parliamentary assemblies will be at least equally minor. From simulations based on the 1999 election results, as they were published in the journal Res Publica, one can formulate the following. First, there are no changes before the election of the European Parliament. Second, as regards the election of the Chamber, four of the 150 people’s representatives elected on 13 June 1999 would have to surrender their seat to a party partner. It is interesting to explain this in a concrete way. For example, this would have resulted in Ms. Anke Vandermeersch, who was still a candidate for the VLD, being elected. Before the election of the Senate, four of the directly elected senators would have had to give up their seats and, for example, Johan Demol would have been elected and seated in the Senate. An incredible progress, isn’t it? If you look at the concrete results, I have to say that there is great, innovative work delivered. But not in the desired direction. Before the election of the Flemish Parliament, 9 seats of owner would change. Among them Fatima Bali and not Jo Vermeulen would then have set for Agalev in the Flemish Parliament. Ludwig Meeuws and not Frans Decock would have represented the VLD. Before the election of the Wall Street, 3 out of 75 seats would get a different titular. In total, 20 out of 408 parliamentarians, excluding the Brussels Capital Council.

To this extent, an assessment of what the concrete effect of this halving is, taking into account the very ambitious expectation that had been set forth. The government also motivates the halving of the weight of the list vote with the argument that this would also result in more ladies being elected. In total, assuming that the election results are the same, in the four assemblies there would be 7 ladies more seats. This would bring their total number to 87 or 21.3%. This represents an increase of 1.7%. A fantastic result. Coincidence has not played a role in this, which is still possible. Thus, the halving of the weight of the list vote has only a very limited influence. The halving, therefore, ⁇ does not mean that the voter, more than now, would be able to determine who will represent him in parliament. This, however, is the argument with which one comes to the oatmeal for the day. The voter would have a greater impact on the election outcome by the halving, the voter could have his vote more heavy. I would like to relativize this later. If the vote of the voter must be heavy, we must not limit this to the mere designation of the political staff. I thought holding elections was also the opportunity where the voter was given the opportunity to make a judgment about the policy he or she wanted.

Puting everything in the sign of the mandates does not seem to us to be the most important or most responsible starting point.

By the way, the simulations show that the very limited effect of halving the weight of the list vote applies only to the large parties. This is another additional nuance. In most districts, smaller parties have a maximum of one seat, so the impact is null.

On the occasion of the discussion in the committee, I have already emphasised this in brief terms: in fact, the draft should be the occasion for a debate about our electoral system, about the role of political parties in our political system, about the personalization and medialization of politics and about its consequences and finally about what kind of politicians we want. In fact, the debate on whether or not to neutralize or weaken the list vote should at least also have been held in the Committee for Political Renewal. This could have been done in the context of the debate on representative democracy in that committee. However, the drafts related to halving the weight of the list vote needed, according to the Prime Minister, to be approved quickly and efficiently, because it concerned one of the symbol files, not for the government as a whole, but for the Prime Minister. However, the flag in this does not cover the cargo at all. I hope those with the same ambitions as the Prime Minister will have the courage to read the report. In fact, I find that they are also completely absent in this debate.

I have understood that this is one of the hot items in the whole run-up to the last elections, say the — lucky — seizure of power. When it comes to making real work of those program points, they shine in their absence, just like in the Committee on Political Renewal.

This does not apply to you, Mr. Speaker. Your role as president is always so impartial and unbiased that I cannot blame you in this. You will not deny that.

Not for once.

If you did, we should have changed places.

Returning to the proposals for halving the weight of the list vote, which should have been adopted quickly and efficiently, I refer to an incident that occurred at the time. Anyone with some memory will remember that after the installation of the Committee on Political Innovation the Prime Minister suddenly announced that very quickly work would be done of, among other things, the submission of the draft on halving, even neutralizing the list vote, if possible.

According to the rules, you have five minutes left, but I will give you a little more time.

There is no limitation of speech time in this matter. We are dealing with draft laws here and, since you and your party consider these draft laws so important, I think we should also take the necessary time for them.

In the Committee on Political Renewal it turned out to be a problem to keep Mr Van der Maelen within the agreements and actually let his work be done. Then the Prime Minister let himself be tempted to underline the importance of that committee through illustration. I can’t wait to add that here.

The Prime Minister compares the importance of the Committee for Political Renewal with the introduction of the universal single voting right and the voting right for women. The Prime Minister said that the installation meeting of the Committee for Political Renewal took place at a historical moment: 80 and 50 years, respectively, after the key moments of democratisation, that is, after the introduction of the general single voting right and the granting of voting rights to women.

The integral relay of the concrete course of things afterwards I will save you.

On the design of the neutralization of the list vote we have to wait about a year. We are still waiting for all the other so-called very important drafts on political renewal. I don’t know if there will ever be anything in the house. I am concerned about this, although I do not have to. However, I note that the partners in this government no longer agree on the ideas that should be concretized in that committee.

In the Committee for Political Renewal, we want to engage in the debate about, among other things, the role of parties and the optimal functioning of an electoral system. It may be somewhat old-fashioned to say this, but the CVP has taken the view that political parties should continue to play an important role in the recruitment of political personnel. Political parties gather people on the basis of a vision of the desired structure of society. If political parties can no longer fulfill that role, then other social elites will take over that role, such as the media or capital-powered individuals. Without political parties, the citizen stands alone against the state. We do not desire that.

Since political parties should continue to play an important role for us in the recruitment of political personnel, we oppose the complete neutralization or the abolition of the list vote. For us, elections should be more than a popularity pool. Elections, by the way, serve not only to appoint the representatives of the people, but also to form majorities that should lead to some stability in the administration, including the daily administration.

These two perspectives, on the one hand the participation of the voters and on the other hand the formation of stable administrative majorities, are equally important for us in the debate about the electoral system. One goal is not subordinate to the other. We do not share the views of the liberals. Mr. Speaker, since there are no liberals present now, you will have to let them know. The liberals want to reduce the influence of the parties to a minimum, said Mr. Cortois. I have found in the committee that the liberals are actually isolated with this view. The Socialists and the Greens are more on our line than on those of the Liberals. It is not so good in the market to fully express its opinion on this point. However, this is the place where it should happen.

Mr. Speaker, I can only state that the real debate is not being held, despite all the baseball about new political culture. There is no incentive here. On the contrary, colleagues, one must have some courage to conduct in this house still substantial debates on draft and proposals of law. However, if it doesn’t happen here, it won’t happen anywhere. If one has an opinion, one must also formulate it.

Second, I assert that the text must be voted in order to maintain the clean appearance of the so-called civil democracy. The above-mentioned texts are, after all, the few remains of Verhofstadt’s civil manifests. The halving of the weight of the list vote is here the shame of civil democracy. I thought I had shown enough. Behind this measure, the party that initiates this may still try to hide.

In his first interviews after taking office, the Prime Minister, with the big speech that is his own, has proposed this as one of the major reforms. In fact, it is nothing more than a symbol file and the relevant legislation is symbol legislation. These designs, by the way, have come only because the liberals need them to prove their existence in this government, in a field not even essential. It is hoped to provide the voter with the proof that the promises made are also fulfilled. There is no other motivation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I can only repeat myself with my decision after discussing the drafts that were discussed here last time for the same reason. The adagium much ado about nothing. A whole reform machine is set in motion for a result that is barely visible.

Finally, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to a risk not to be underestimated in the actual application of the new legislation, as they will have to be applied after voting at elections, also in our regional parliaments.

One aspect that I have already pointed out in the committee meetings, I think, really requires an amendment. I am not alone with this opinion.

Mr. Minister, if you allow this text to be applied without delay, you will, especially in a few smaller electoral districts where only two or three seats can be distributed, more than you love, face the need for interim elections. If there are only two seats to be distributed and one of the elected is called to become a minister, then the question is whether the second non-elected at that time will want or can sit in the assembly in question. If not, you should immediately organize new elections with the question of who the seats will then go to.

I am not alone with this view. I note that the same fear is present in the Council of State. I apologize for the upcoming, somewhat lengthy quotation, but it is useful to stop at it for a moment.

Mr. Minister, I am not inflamed by the same health condition, but by your proposal to exhaust us both a little to give this matter the attention it deserves.

The Council of State states, I quote: "In contrast to what was stipulated in the preliminary draft law, the preliminary draft which removes the distinction between candidate-titulars and candidate-successors does not consistently provide for the possibility of placing more candidates on the lists than the number of candidates to be elected. Such a scheme increases the likelihood of holding interim elections, ⁇ in the small electoral circles where only 2, 3 or 4 seats are allocated. In the current system, for each list on which at least one candidate is elected, at least three candidates are designated as successors. For example, when two seats need to be allocated, the current design will result in the list that gets a seat having only one successor. As soon as the elected candidate is appointed for a ministerial office and his successor for some reason cannot exercise his office, a new election shall be held. If the list concerned does not obtain the majority of the votes, it shall lose its seat.” Colleagues, this means that it is perfectly possible that in the event of a re-election the seat to be moved to another list. The State Council continues, I quote again: "By not providing enough successors, the draft law can therefore unwittingly significantly change the balance of the current arrangement."

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. She states, I quote, “The Government has not considered it appropriate to take into account the comment formulated by the Council of State.”

Mr. Minister, it is, in my opinion, very disturbing that you, as a minister under whose competence the State Council falls, try to get rid of the State Council’s opinion with such a laconic reaction. This is not the first time that the government has dismissed an opinion from the State Council. However, the fact that she does not even make the effort to respond to the advice in a substantial way is very questionable.

The problem addressed by the CVP and the Council of State is even more sharp in the election of the district assemblies than in the election of the federal chambers. There are a number of smaller electoral circles before the election of the Wall Street than there are for the Chamber. I will give a few examples: in the electoral district Neufchateau-Virton only 2 candidates can be elected, in Thuin, Aarlen, Marche-enFamenne, and Bastogne only 3 candidates can be elected, in Soignies only 4 candidates can be elected.

Colleagues, seeking no solution to this problem is equivalent to improper administration.The CVP noted with satisfaction that the SP in the voting in the committee supported our amendment on this subject.

I call on all of you — you who have a mouth full about the revaluation of parliamentary work — not to miss this opportunity and to offer a solution to a problem that cannot be ignored. The CVP offers the solution. Our amendment aims to add a few candidates in case of a limited number of candidates. The solution is very simple. In the worst case, the Chamber may approve the draft next week. After more than a year of waiting for this text, a week of delay can not make the matter.

Anyone who feels a little more responsible for the quality of the legislative work performed here, and anyone who believes that Parliament indeed still has a role to play in the drafting of the legislation, and especially in the monitoring of the quality of that legislation, I call on you to reflect again critically and to support the amendment together with us. Then next week we may be able to accept the integral text with a slightly more calm mindset.

Thank you for giving me enough time to express my concern. I think it is my role, although I realize that I do it with a little more words than others. Recognize that we are not so different from each other on this point.

I would like to thank Mr. President. So much for the briefness announced, and justified in addition, of his intervention.

It is for reasons of legislative technique that I am present today for the third time in the plenary session of the Chamber, after having already intervened in a committee and, for some other projects, in a committee of the Senate and in a plenary session of the Senate.

It is very difficult, Mr. Tant, to renew yourself with regard to the underlying arguments, but you practice the well-known principle of repetition in pedagogy. Reassure yourself, I will not do the same thing since I have already answered many of your observations. I would, however, like to return to some of them, especially in so far as you cite a report, of course very well done but which is always a synthesis of the interventions of one and the other and which does not take all the nuances expressed by their author.

There is at least one thing I agree with. It is not a project like this that is of nature in itself and alone to renew the functioning of our democracy. By the way, all the reforms that we vote here in parliament, which are often technical reforms, that is, the supports of democracy, the instruments used, are obviously important but are not the essential. I remember my convictions when I was 20 years old, namely that democracy is something living, that it can progress through training, education of the citizen, by the information effort he makes, by the way he exercises his critical spirit, by the debate that is developed before him to present him — for in an increasingly complex world things are never simple — the different facets of a problem and the options that are open. This is the essential and, especially for politicians, it is every day, in their daily practice and in the example they give that they can strengthen the functioning of democracy.

However, the tools are not unnecessary. Beyond this project of removing half of the devolving effect of the headbox, many other initiatives can be taken. I myself, having been in the opposition for a long time, developed a number of proposals which unfortunately did not meet great success, neither from the government of the time nor even here in parliament. However, we must not despair, Mr. Tant. I invite you to show imagination and submit proposals to promote the debate.

This morning we had a small discussion in the Interior Committee on proposals submitted by two of your colleagues whose subject matter is modest. And you will have found that, despite the contrary opinion of my administration, I, for my part, supported these proposals because I thought they constituted a contribution.

Since I didn’t think you would repeat yourself today, I didn’t take back all my file.

I will start by answering you with regard to the numbers. Of course, the effect is modest but it is above all a matter of principle. Even if there should only be a change in the allocation of a seat, it would make sense because, for voters, the one who is called to represent them in a constituency is ⁇ an extremely important man. by

I remember, based on a study by the CRISP, that in the House, if the system had been applied in the previous elections, there would have been a change of a dozen seats. You mentioned the number four.

I add that this analysis, carried out a posteriori, does not really make sense. Indeed, it is only from the moment that voters know that the individual choice they make may have more weight in the decision, that they will implement this enhanced choice.

I find it legitimate, politically, in a democratic regime, to strengthen the choice of the voter and that, regardless of the risks that this may involve. I will not return to all that has been said in the committee. We have not neglected the effect of the role that parties can usefully play. We all know a number of great parliamentarians who, probably, would not have been elected by direct suffrage only because they were not of extraordinary popularity and who, nevertheless, honored our two chambers.

For this reason, some wanted to reduce the devolving effect of the headbox by half. by

I also never claimed that this was the way to have a very significant reinforcement of the female representation.

But with this technique, if the voter wishes to do so, he will have the opportunity to do so. In my opinion, this is not what is decisive. What is decisive is that he chooses, male or female, the representative he wants.

When it comes to women’s representation, I recognize that we could do better. Soon, I will have the opportunity, together with Ms. Vice Prime Minister Onkelinx, to submit a proposal to amend the Constitution but also a bill that should, by its implementation, enable the strengthening of the female presence within our assemblies.

I believe that the debate on the functioning of democracy should be animated a little more and the commission for the renewal of democracy – the commission for the renewal of democracy – should be activated.

Finally, you are talking about a technical problem. It is the third time that the problem arises. On the occasion of the examination of previous projects, the amendments that had been submitted to address the problems and possible risks resulting from a lack of candidates in some constituencies – and I know well the situation in Neufchâteau-Virton – could not have gathered a majority. The government has left parliament the care to assess the technique to be used to, eventually, cope with this situation.

I have always recognized the existence of a risk, greater at the level of regional elections, because the constituencies are smaller, than, for example, for the election of the Senate or the European Parliament.

I wish that, if a change is made, it will be done not only for this project but for all projects, including those that have already been voted, with respect to all the elections. There is no urgency. This concerns the election of the Flemish Council, the Walloon Regional Council, the Council of the Brussels Region. Elections are held not on indefinite dates but at specific periods.

I was ready to provide all the technical support of my cabinet to support a parliamentary initiative to address, in the most timely and appropriate manner, this problem that could indeed be real.

Mr. President, you have responded to the amendments of Mr. President. Article 2 and Article 9. Have I understood that the will of the government is either to have a homogeneity in all texts including this one, or a revision of certain texts including this one?

Mr. Speaker, the option I recommended, in addition supported by a large number of parliamentarians, is to attend a parliamentary initiative I hope that Mr. So much will be associated with it - for all the elections and not only the elections of the regional councils, as here, by choosing the most appropriate formula: indeed, there are several on which differences in appreciation have appeared.

You know that we have only once experienced a partial election.

This happened at a very special moment, just before the Second World War in a successive dismissal of the suppliers and this in the electoral district of Brussels. I am talking about the interim election of Zeeland to the detriment of Degrelle. I will tell you that for a moment. I give the floor to Mr. Leterme.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight what the Minister said, knowing that the discussion on what some have called political renewal urgently urges resuscitation. I strongly called for this at the beginning of this week. Several colleagues from the VLD group have addressed me about this, in a way of speaking, just then. In French it is said: you persiste et signe.

This was indeed one of the high ambitions of the purple-green majority. However, I note, Mr. Speaker, that, with the exception of your politically assexual personality, the other protagonists of the VLD family in the political renewal are once again struggling to be mentally and physically present in the plenary session, even though there is something concrete — though a little half-sick and poor — on the table. I regret that and I note that the call from the beginning of this week has not put sots on the dive.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that I will be associated with a legislative initiative that would be taken on this subject.

Well, Mr. Minister, my sense of law may encourage me to do so, but that does not mean that I agree to this way of working. This text has not yet been voted, it is only for discussion and voting. However, you tell us that we must approve this text, after which the imperfections will be corrected through a bill. This is not how they work! I strongly protest against it!

Mr. Speaker, if this amendment had only been submitted as a kind of manoeuvre in the plenary session, I would have been able to live with it, but it was also submitted in the committee. I explained it in all clarity. It has even been able to convince some socialist colleagues, and I have also seen members of Agalev and Ecolo agreeing to knock, though it has, however, limited itself to this; that becomes a second nature for them.

Mr. Minister, I agree with you that in this institution, as well as in general, reforms are usually carried out in small steps. Evolution is as little as possible a revolution. The condition, however, is that evolution continues, which implies that you must always be willing to update wherever possible. And I have no objection to this. I am opposed to a lack of political correctness. First swinging with the flag of the great political renewal and announcing great reforms, but then being satisfied with a reform that hardly exists, is far from a consistent political attitude. One confronts society and the voter suddenly with new rules of the game, while the old rules were usually unknown to them. By constantly carrying out small adjustments in technical subjects, it will become less and less clear to the voter in what game he actually plays. Their

Being satisfied with small upgrades after announcing major reforms is not the right attitude for those who are still concerned about transparency, understandability and legal certainty. I regret that, Mr. Minister, especially since I, together with the leader of the group, conclude that the opportunity that is now offered to reflect once thoroughly on our electoral system, only a few members of this assembly, especially members of your political family, can be condemned. But what is called on the street, it can be.

Mr. Speaker, I will be ⁇ brief. The Minister proposes to look at this issue in a broader context. I would like to give you a little history regarding the electoral descriptions. In the context of the new political culture and the involvement of voters in the election events, the Prime Minister announced that the provinces of West Flanders, East Flanders and Antwerp would become one electoral district in the north of the country. This analogy is not spread south of the country. The provinces of Henegouwen and Luik would remain three separate electoral districts.

We cannot disconnect the electoral description for a particular assembly from the electoral description for other assemblies. I turn back to the meeting of the Committee on Political Renewal, described by the Prime Minister as a rendezvous with history. We had proposed as a first point to discuss the problem of electoral descriptions. The Chairman of the Political Innovation Committee has rejected this as uninvited. I wonder what the importance of the words of the Prime Minister is. He proclaims great theories here, but apparently cannot sustain them within the government majority. I wanted to communicate that.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your response. I would like to draw your attention to the amendments: you understand me.

First of all, I would like to say to Mr. Letters that I persist and sign. Whether you are in the majority or in the opposition, I think it is useful to have a permanent debate on political renewal. Indeed, political renewal is not the property of a group or a government; it is a constant effort to be accomplished by one and another. When I was in the opposition, I held a speech that I did not deviate from. by

I participated in the work of what was called “the foundations of democracy” whose results were, some will say, modest. They have been useful, however, because everything that can make progress in the functioning of our institutions is useful. by

by Mr. It is so ironic about the modesty of some reforms. After hearing him three times, repeating the same arguments, for an attempt which he ⁇ acknowledges that it is not unnecessary but that it does not solve all problems, when I see the energy he deploys opposing this limited reform, I do not dare to imagine what it could represent if one came here with larger and more consistent files. But we should never despair.

Then, as regards the method of work, there too, I persist and sign. by

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that on the occasion of examinations of previous identical projects, there was no parliamentary majority to agree on a system to deal with the risks that have been highlighted. I have said it every time: now that the conditions seem to me to be met, I believe it would be useful that a proposal be submitted for all the elections, with a system that approves everyone and that can gather the broadest membership.

Finally, in the address of Mr. From Crem, I will say that it is true that within the government, we are busy reflecting on the problem of the possible enlargement of electoral districts. I submitted to a working group and to the Prime Minister a comprehensive dossier on this subject. The discussion is not finished, but the conclusions should be able to intervene continuously.

Mr. Speaker, I take note of the fact that the Minister refers to the efforts of the Longendries Working Group. As he himself has insinuated, these have led to more results than those of “les groupes fans”, who so far have made mainly great statements about political renewal but which in fact produce nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I try to be politically honest - and to remain so! No matter what place I occupy in this parliament. When I was participating in the work of the assises of democracy, I was on one of the banks of the opposition. Today, I am in charge of the government bank. I have not changed my mind!

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily want to have the last word, but I cannot fail to emphasize this point again. Mr. Minister, I agree that evolution often takes shape through small steps. However, it is not politically correct at all to announce major reforms in front of the voter and, in practice, to make any concrete judgment. You can’t get around there and the VLD even less.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.