Proposition 50K0777

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 73 de la nouvelle loi communale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Oct. 22, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

municipality incompatibility

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

July 13, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this bill tends to amend Article 73 of the new municipal law which deals with incompatibilities of the head of parenthood or alliance between elected members of the municipal council. This provision provides that the members of the council may not be relatives or allies up to the third degree inclusive, nor be united by the bonds of marriage. The draft, submitted by the Senate, ⁇ ins incompatibility for persons united by marriage bonds, but tends to limit it to relatives or allies up to the second degree inclusive, rather than up to the third degree as provided by law in its current state. Following an amendment filed during the discussion of the proposal in the interior committee of the Senate, the draft law, however, provides for incompatibility up to the third degree inclusive for members of the college of mayors and chefs. They cannot, therefore, under the terms of the project, be relatives or allies up to third degree inclusive. The Interior Minister pointed out that this bill is a consensus text. In the House as well as in the Senate, several bills were submitted in order to amend the aforementioned article. The committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have agreed on a minimum minimum minimum for the next October 8 election. It was agreed that the problem of these incompatibilities would be reviewed in its entirety after 8 October. The majority of the speakers in the general discussion advocated for legislative amendments on this subject. Indeed, if we must not lose sight of the philosophy of the prohibition envisaged at the time by the legislator, our society has undergone a profound mutation; it has democratized itself and family ties have spread. Therefore, it makes sense to limit the prohibition to parents and allies up to the second degree of kinship. by MM. Van Poucke and De Crem submitted an amendment to extend the incompatibility of sitting between the spouse and the person with whom the counselor or counselor makes a declaration of legal cohabitation. The Minister of the Interior recalled that the CVP has always stated that legal cohabitation is not a form of marriage. However, the aforementioned amendment assimilates legal cohabitation to marriage as regards the exercise of a municipal mandate. Furthermore, the Minister noted that the present bill aims to limit incompatibilities and that the CVP amendments aim to introduce additional incompatibility. However, the Interior Minister said that this amendment deserves an in-depth discussion. The draft law under consideration has a limited object. It will be possible to resume this discussion later. This bill was adopted by 12 votes against 2 at the meeting of the Interior Committee on July 5 last. Therefore, the Joint Bill proposal of MM. Jan Eeman and Stef Goris going in the same direction becomes objectless.

Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, support this bill, but I would nevertheless like to emphasize its extremely modest character, since one merely reduces from the third to the second degree the incompatibility that exists between members of the same family to sit in a municipal council. Maybe we could have taken the opportunity to go a little further. Personally, I consider that these incompatibilities not only no longer have reason to be, but are contrary to current democratic principles. Indeed, I do not see very well why, ultimately, spouses cannot sit together in a municipal council while cohabitants, whether they have made a declaration of cohabitation or not, can do so. There is a discrimination. Moreover, it is obvious that the motivation of these provisions, which date back to the nineteenth century, are outdated. Today, one can no longer imagine a family taking control of a municipality or a city through municipal elections. I repeat that I will vote for this project even though its scope is extremely minimal. We will have to quickly resume the debate and put an end to all these incompatibilities that, in my opinion, no longer have a reason to be.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this draft, which was transmitted to us by the Senate, aims to reduce the incompatibility of family members up to the third degree to sit together in one municipal council, to the second degree. At the same time, an article referring only to municipalities with less than 1200 inhabitants is deleted, as such municipalities no longer exist. Colleagues, the incompatibility was introduced to prevent one family from taking over the administration of a municipality. At this moment, however, the municipalities have become so large that such a thing is no longer possible, partly due to the fact that the electorate is much better informed. Furthermore, that scheme prevents improper use, by placing members of the same family on another list, in order to prevent one particular person from sitting. If this reasoning is correct, I think that, within the framework of a new political culture, it is better to put an end to all incompatibilities in this matter. In smaller municipalities, however, the concern of the legislature to prevent politics from becoming a family affair is justified. The present proposal is therefore an acceptable compromise for the VLD, especially since the VLD has submitted a similar proposal in the House with the help of colleagues Goris and Eeman. That proposal, in addition to reducing the incompatibility of the third to the second degree, also included a provision stating that when a person cannot sit because of bloodline, he or she is considered to be prevented until the dismissal or death of the family member concerned. Colleagues, although no compromise has yet been reached on this latter issue, the VLD group chooses to approve the proposal submitted by the Senate unchanged, so that it can still apply in the upcoming municipal and provincial council elections. This does not affect the fact that the VLD continues to insist on a settlement if one of the two parties resigns or dies. In such a case, the elected person who cannot sit because of this incompatibility should still be able to take up his mandate. The incompatibility has become non-existent at that time. As long as this does not happen, there will continue to be irresponsible discrimination. The VLD will take an initiative on this subject at a later date to revive the debate on this subject. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in order not to hinder the rapid implementation of this easing, our group will approve the draft unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, the colleagues Vanpoucke and De Crem will still be given the opportunity to express their views on this subject. I would like to draw attention to one element of the report, in particular the misbehavior and discrimination between the spouses who are not allowed to sit together in the same municipal council, on the one hand, and the cohabitants who have made a statement in this regard, who are allowed to do so. Mr Desmedt also alluded to this. I join him when he says that in this changing society there is an indefensible discrimination. It is said that married people are different from living together. During the debate held over this matter in recent months, the minds have evolved so much that equal legal treatment is sought. Both the government and parliament have taken many legislative initiatives. It seems to me to be indefensible to continue to treat married persons in a completely different way than cohabitants who even made a statement about this.

Mr. Speaker, we must, however, show some caution, although I understand a number of arguments, which say that this incompatibility for blood and relatives up to the second degree must be abolished. This refers to the changed social composition and to the fact that the danger that the policy of a municipality would come into the hands of one family has become non-existent. When we look at the rich Flemish people’s life, we find that the danger that municipal policy turns into family policy still exists. I therefore believe that the text approved by the Senate and in the Chamber Committee is a temporary acceptable solution.

I will answer very briefly. It is true that the project that takes back in the House a proposal approved by a very large majority has an extremely limited ambition. But the existing consensus is already a progress; a broad consensus on electoral matters is something important, especially shortly before an election. That being said, we have already had an in-depth discussion in the House committee on the general problem of incompatibilities. I found that a large number of parliamentarians were in favour of the complete removal of all incompatibilities. I have already long explained myself on this subject; I reassure you, I will not begin again tonight. In fact, I believe that the reasons that justified these incompatibilities have now disappeared. The first of them is precisely the merger of the communes to constitute entities of greater importance. The risk of seeing a family in the municipal council influence decisively on the decisions to be made has disappeared. I add that besides the exact problem of legal cohabitation, there are probably other grounds for suspicion as long as there are suspicions. Apart from legal cohabitation, there are all other forms of cohabitation, consecrated or not, of affection or of proximity. Things would therefore be healthier if we were on the path of complete elimination of incompatibilities. The system would be less hypocritical. It should never be forgotten that in the last analysis, it is the voter who makes his choice. In conclusion, I will say that, rather than wanting to resolve the problem of legal cohabitants by adding an additional incompatibility, the problem would be resolved if we removed them all.