Proposition 50K0665

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 1er ter de la loi du 6 août 1931 établissant des incompatibilités et interdictions concernant les ministres, anciens ministres et ministres d'Etat, ainsi que les membres et anciens membres des Chambres législatives.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Hugo Coveliers

Submission date

May 22, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Member of Parliament multiple office holding national parliament incompatibility

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Voted to reject

N-VA

Abstained from voting

Groen CD&V LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Simonne Leen (Groen) voted to adopt.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Jef Valkeniers (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.

⚠️ 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 ¶

June 28, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will be brief. It follows that a community senator, which is a person appointed by the communities to seat in the Senate, cannot be entrusted with a municipal mandate because at that time, in the constitutional revision, it was assumed that this would involve too much work for the person concerned. After approximately five years of practice, it turned out that this actually constitutes a discrimination against the senators and that the activity of a municipal council member does not actually affect the fact that one exercises a mandate as a senator, also and above all in this way can lead to a discrimination against the senators. After all, some would be allowed to exercise the office of mayor, while others should not even be a member of the municipal council. Hence my proposal – which was accepted by the committee – to amend that part of the law.

Mr. Coveliers’ proposal and his reasoning are very interesting. This affects a sensitive area, in particular the cumulation of all kinds of political mandates. There is still a discrimination between, on the one hand, senators and chamber members who are not allowed to cumulate any political mandate, not even to be a municipal council member or OCMW council member, and, on the other hand, senators and chamber members who are undoubtedly allowed to cumulate and even observe the increasingly important post of mayor. Given the new view on this matter and the serene debate on the cumulation of political mandates, Mr. Coveliers’ proposal seems to be situated between the two extreme positions taken on this subject, where either everything or nothing is permitted. Per ⁇ everyone sees a good intermediate solution in that proposal. We are willing to support this proposal, but then one must also be consistent and stretch the line. Per ⁇ it was a coincidence, but during the same committee meeting the proposal of Mrs. Van Weert was addressed, also concerning the cumulation of political mandates, in which the same reasoning is actually followed, but then passed on to the other members of parliament. Now, with surprise and disappointment, I found that those who supported Mr. Coveliers’ proposal did not take the same attitude towards Mrs. Van Weert’s proposal, although they logically should have done so. Since one bill was approved, but the other not, we are considering our voting behavior tomorrow. Basically, we agree with Mr. Coveliers’ proposal, but we believe that Mrs. Van Weert’s bill should also be approved in order to eliminate all discrimination in this regard.