Proposition 50K1077

Projet de loi contenant le cinquième ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2000.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 2, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

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.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Greta D'hondt (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• François Dufour (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Jan Eeman (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Jo Vandeurzen (CD&V) 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 ¶

March 14, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on your announcement that the Minister of Budget and Social Integration, Mr. Vande Lanotte, cannot be among us, and that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders, represents the government in this file.

Mr. Speaker, you know that the presence of Minister Reynders always pleases us. However, I would like to get some more explanation on why Minister Vande Lanotte is absent. In fact, he is doubly involved in this dossier, on the one hand because it is a budget decision, and on the other hand because the subject of the discussion, the supplement of which will be the case, belongs to his competence as Minister of Social Integration.

Mr. Leterme, you are gradually specializing in asking why ministers are absent, but this is your good right.

What is the reason for the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister?

I know the reason for my presence, but I can ask myself the exact reason for my colleague’s absence. I run from one committee to another and from one session to another, responding to the request for replacement...

Mr. Minister, we would like to hear in the coming minutes why Minister Vande Lanotte is absent. We understand, of course, that government members cannot be present everywhere at the same time.

I will immediately contact you by telephone. Normally, the staff of colleague Vande Lanotte is now accessible.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your cooperation. Thus, I can inform Mr. Leterme in the course of this debate about the reason for the absence of the Minister.

Four colleagues have joined the debate on the first point: Leterme, Poncelet, Tastenhoye and Pinxten. I suggest that they be discussed in this order.

Mr. President, Mr. Pinxten will subsequently go deeper into the national accounting and how the procedure for the acquisition of the centres, which led to the request for authorisation from Parliament, a posteriori to make a spending of 2.4 billion, is carried out. I would like to express my position very clearly in this case.

Mr. Minister of Finance, I address you to say to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Integration the following.

After the discouragement of the integration policy in general and the asylum policy in particular in the year 2000, we have seen how at the end of December the Minister of Social Integration acted in the place of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who apparently had no control over the situation. Under his impulse, two major decisions have been made, one good and one bad.

The right decision was to replace the financial support, the granting of the subsistence minimum to asylum seekers in procedure, with material support. From the beginning, we have welcomed this measure. As anyone can figure out from the figures and from the facts on the ground, this decision has not lost its effect. We see a reduction in the influx of asylum seekers.

The other decision is and remains a bad decision for our group. We cannot get rid of the impression that this decision was made in a panic reaction due to the uncontrollable situation and the huge influx of candidate-political refugees. One then went into panic to some sort of seizure of certain buildings in holiday centers. Some of these have taken such an important place in the collective memory of the population that we believe that the choice of the buildings was also a wrong and very bad choice.

We remain strong defenders of the full right to political asylum, as defined internationally. However, this does not prevent us from continuing to fight and criticize the second and bad decision with equal vigor. For us it is a historical mistake that the acquisition of Hengelhoef and Sun and Sea has not taken into account the social support of the acquisition of these centers. I would like to conclude with a statement and a question to the Government. We find, in fact, that due to the smaller influx due to the good decision, the need to make these places available to asylum seekers is no longer justified.

I know that it is a confirmation of a budget consultation in the Council of Ministers as the procedure requires. In our opinion, this House has today in the debate and tomorrow in the vote the last chance to help the government correct this bad decision. After all, now it turns out that it is no longer necessary due to the good decision made at the end of the year. The decision should be adjusted in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of a proper and correct implementation of the asylum policy. We continue to say that the right to asylum must be defended. However, the way this end was practically organized last year was completely wrong.

I have just received information from the secretariat that both ministers are competent and that Mr Vande Lanotte is not in Brussels. I am very careful when I say this because I cannot control it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to show bad will, but this is about the budget for Social Integration. The Minister defended the file in the Committee on Finance and Budget. He has therefore been the subject of — in my opinion justified — criticism, which so soon will be ventilated by a number of chamber members. I don’t think it makes sense that the Minister is not there. Except for reasons as serious as the expected presence of the Minister, I find it ⁇ regrettable that the Minister is not there, in this case when it comes to his file. The presence of Minister Reynders pleases me, but it is not enough for me.

You are the replacement of Mr. Vande Lanotte, Mr Reynders

I am not a representative of Mr Vande Lanotte. The bill was signed by two ministers: the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance. I am here as Finance Minister. If you wish, I am here as a representative of Mr Vande Lanotte. I am here primarily as Finance Minister.

Minister Vande Lanotte is currently in Leuven.

The Minister is developing the files concerning the installation of analytical accounting within the State, as part of the Copernic reform. We had to attend meetings together on this topic, as it takes over the competence as part of this analytical accounting. He is in a meeting on this part of the reform. The draft has been submitted by both ministers and one of the two signatories is present. If the House were to require the presence of all signing ministers for each project, we would no longer be able to organize the work properly.

We must do our utmost to get those responsible. One of them is present now, it is perfect.

Mr. Speaker, as our colleague Leterme said, it is a real pleasure to have the Minister of Finance. I’m just as happy as he is, not to try to share the skills that are big on both sides and I’d keep myself from making a balance. Competence also requires responsibility. For a whole series of questions we have asked in the committee, we have not received satisfactory answers. by Mr. Vande Lanotte closed them by saying that he took full responsibility for the case. As a consequence, I am obliged to ask you the question of responsibility.

In the last sentence that Mr. As I mentioned before, I fully agree with my colleague’s analysis of the Budget.

As Mr. Reynders said it in other circumstances: “We do not repeat plenary debates in committees. It is therefore unnecessary to return to a number of questions. However, we need to go beyond the singularity of the procedure. Budget deliberation is a technique that allows the government to move forward and it justifies itself. It obviously puts Parliament in a difficult position since, a posteriori, we must back up decisions that have been taken, in this case budget commitments in real estate proceedings. It seems to me that the least thing is to answer the questions that the Parliament asks, which was not the case in the committee, at the instigation of your colleague.

I question a particular procedure that was used for the acquisition of an immovable property for the benefit of the state in the reception of refugees at Hotton. I started my inquiries on February 15 with your colleague, the Minister of the Régie des Bâtiments, Mr. Daems, who indeed gave me some elements of answer, concluding on February 20 that my comment deserved an investigation. He announced to me that he would draw up a list of all purchased goods in a clear and transparent manner so that we, as parliamentarians, could look critically at all the procedures that had taken place.

I imagine, Mr. Minister, that within a month, in an institution as well organized as the Régie des bâtiments, one would have had the ability to provide a list of the immovable property acquired by the Régie des bâtiments. Since you are always responsible for this, I address you to say that I am still waiting for this list which seems to me to be one of the important elements of appreciation for parliamentary work. It is clear that we are aiming at asylum policy. This does not have to represent thousands of acquisitions! I wish to have, as soon as possible, this list promised by your colleague.

The second act was the question that I asked you as Minister of Finance in commission on February 20 and without blasphemy, you at least provided answers. You recalled dates: 1 er /12, 4/12, 11/12, 21/12 ... To summarize, a real estate promoter made a considerable value added in six weeks, between the time when, inspired by I don’t know who, he acquired an abandoned real estate for 7 years and in the 6 weeks that followed, by the miracle in question, he made a value added of 60 million on a budget of 80. I recognize that real estate promoters are talented. They have good information or, in any case, they are very skilled! You answered me very clearly in factual terms except — and your colleague did not answer — on the process of expropriation. The question was why there was no expropriation of the property. On February 20, you told me that the acquisition committee had made an estimate of 96 million francs, to which you tell me that, in the event of expropriation, the reuse costs — 16% or 111 million — must be added, and, without expropriation, the non-expropriation property is acquired for 140 million francs.

You did not answer me about the possibility of expropriation. Your colleague did so and he clarified that the expropriation procedure was both inappropriate and inappropriate. His conclusions were much more general on the very principle of expropriation by giving us as a final point of view that this procedure was more expensive than the acquisition of buildings amicably.

Why is there a possibility of expropriation in our legal procedure? Why have the legislator and the government given themselves such a possibility if, as soon as there is so-called urgency, one is unilaterally renounced by paying a singular surplus value on the good? Especially since your colleague’s conclusion was to say that he considered, in fact, that the promoter had done a good operation and he continued to regret that Mr. Poncelet had made, in this regard, public statements that mistakenly discredit this operation. I think it’s still a bit swollen — forgive me for the expression. The first duty of the parliamentary as I am is to ask questions and report the questions he asks. If, in a procedure that I consider contestable, the fact of denouncing it or asking questions constitutes an inappropriate public statement, I think there is a substantial problem with the role of parliament and government.

In short, I challenge the procedure that was used and I would like to know why the expropriation procedure was not used. The arguments of your colleague, in this case, were not correct. In any case, they did not convince us that the process of expropriation was inappropriate. It is an exchange of arguments without much value.

I would like to get this list that your other colleague had announced to us. I think this would allow us to carry out the correct and objective analysis that we want.

Mr. Speaker, this should actually be a fairly technical debate about a deliberation of the Council of Ministers regarding the granting of a budget allocation of 2.4 billion francs that was not provided in the budget. However, I believe that a number of other issues should be added to this debate.

What has happened? On 15 December, a point was added to the agenda of the Council of Ministers. This happened during the meeting. Of course, it can always happen and it happens more often. However, here it was a point that involved the purchase of seven asylum centers. This point had a budgetary impact of 2.4 billion francs. The note to the Council of Ministers, which I have here with me, is extremely summary. It covers only two sheets of paper, one and a half pages. The curious thing is that in the note to the Council of Ministers which is rounded up the meeting, although it is the purchase by the government of a number of asylum centers but that there is no mention of any amount. This is very strange because on 15 December, the date of the meeting, there were already two estimate reports. The estimate report for the purchase of the property in Hengelhoef carries as the date 11 December, so four days before. The estimate report of the domain in Hotton, which I would like to discuss in more detail later, was already in on December 11. However, in the note to the Council of Ministers there is no number. Normally, such a decision is then automatically removed from the Council of Ministers. There was also no advice from the Finance Inspectorate. Apparently, this advice was not requested.

With regard to the decision of the Council of Ministers of 15 December, we can thus decide that it is a blanco cheque of a total of 2.4 billion francs for the Minister of Budget and Social Integration, assisted by the Ministers of Telecommunications and Finance, to acquire a number of asylum centres. If we look at the purchases that followed in the following days, we find that for all cases there are estimate reports from the Purchase Committee of Finance. Those people had to do their work quickly and the reports were also ready on time. To our great surprise, we find that the prices in the estimates of Finance account for a difference of 275 million francs for the seven centers together compared to the prices effectively paid by the government. The meaning of an estimate report by the purchase committee is that a maximum price is given. One could then think that the government negotiated very well if it paid 275 million francs less than the maximum price provided in the estimate reports.

However, the problem is that the opposite is true. If we look at the prices, we find that the government paid 275 million francs more for the seven asylum centers than the purchasing committees of Finance and thus also the purchasing committees of the official government treasurers as the value for those properties.

Westend: purchase price: 555 million francs, estimated price: 360 million francs; Houthalen: purchase price: 777 million francs, estimated price: 777 million francs; Eeklo: purchase price: 45 million francs, estimated price: 45 million francs. A picky detail. The purchase committee notes here that the building in Eeklo is zone-strange and decides, I quote, "This brings with it a great uncertainty for the future. The amount of 45 million francs does not take into account this uncertainty." Bearing: purchase price: 40 million francs, estimated price: 40 million francs; Manderfeld: purchase price: 180 million francs, estimated price: 160 million francs; Manhay: purchase price: 38 million francs, estimated price: 22 million francs; Hotton: purchase price: 140 million francs, estimated price: 96 million francs. If we put this together, the government has negotiated very poorly because it pays 275 million francs more than the maximum price it would be allowed to pay under its own administration. I will leave the comment about Eeklo aside.

One argument could have been that the purchase price was raised somewhat because of the urgency – it had to happen quickly – of the urgency. Quod not. The logic in this is far-reaching because for the seven asylum centers in four cases more paid and in three cases strictly adhered to the estimate price. There is no logic in the surplus price that is paid. For Westende this is a surplus price of 54%, for Manderfeld a surplus price of 12.5%, for Manhay a surplus price of 72% and for Hotton a surplus price of 45% in relation to the estimated value by the Purchase Committee of Finance. There is also no line to be drawn.

I would like to draw attention to a number of exchanges of views that took place in the plenary session and in the committee on this matter. At one point, the Minister of Budget and Social Integration said very clearly in the Committee for Finance when discussing the draft preparing this session that expropriation was not possible because the purchase was so urgent that it needed to be negotiated. In other words, expropriation by urgency would take too much time. We examined how much time an emergency expropriation procedure takes and whether this takes considerably more time than the current procedure.

The law of 1962 is applied by all municipalities and all public administrations. It is essential that it is a purchase of a public good; there is little discussion about it. According to the law of 1962, there must also be high urgency, which also has little discussion. That means that the government, instead of negotiating and buying the property in the mine, which undoubtedly paid too much, through a procedure before the peace judge after 23 days — the law is very clear about this — could have realised the transfer of property through a so-called provisional judgment. A maximum of 15 days later, the government could have taken possession of the good. Through this procedure, the owners could already, by the judgment of the peace judge, receive an initial, provisional compensation, which according to the law must be at least 90% of the estimated value. That fee may also be 100% or 105% but it would in any case benefit the owners of the asylum centers.

The procedure also provides for a review in first instance and an appeal procedure before the courts of appeal. If the usual procedure, which today is actually the common law procedure, had been applied, the government could have taken possession of the seven asylum centres within the same time period — with a difference of up to two weeks. In the event of the exhaustion of the possibilities of appeal, the final price would have been determined either by the judge of the Court of Appeal. However, a negotiation in memory was chosen due to the high urgency. However, the same could have been achieved by a legal procedure, which is known to all public administrations, in a period of up to two more weeks.

When he was pointed to the fairly high purchase prices, the Minister of Budget replied that in the event of an expropriation — in this case in the case of high urgency — the owners might also have been able to contract favorable prices. The minister, of course, knew that the government had paid 225 million francs more, although he did not admit it. He stated that it would have been much more in the event of an expropriation. I quote what he said in the Finance Committee: “In an expropriation, the amounts are always higher than the value estimated by the purchase committee.” He even mentioned percentages ranging from 20% to 30%. He added that in some cases the final price, which is determined by the judge, is even two to three times higher.

We looked at this for a moment and wondered whether the government has made the right decision by negotiating. Is this procedure more advantageous than the expropriation in case of high urgency? The strange thing is that all the information shows just the opposite. Indeed, in the case of expropriation in the case of extreme urgency, the final price paid by the expropriating government is de facto lower than the estimated value and is therefore ⁇ not 20 to 30% or even two to three times higher, as the minister himself claimed.

This, by the way, explains why in expropriations the appeal procedure is followed only in 2 to 3% of cases. This suggests that the people, who are expropriated for the public benefit, know perfectly that they are at great risk - if they follow the appeal procedure to the Court of Appeal - to eventually get even less than what is initially offered to them. One of the evidence to demonstrate that expropriation is cheaper than this type of out-of-hand purchase lies in the fact that the average citizen does not resort to the appeal procedure. If he knew that he could get a higher compensation, he would ⁇ do it. Moreover, the compensation is paid with the usual interest rates.

Second, we approved the bill of our colleague Verherstraeten in April of last year. This bill stipulated that if someone is expropriated and the appeal procedure is exhausted, he receives less and on top of that must pay interest to the government. The adjustment covered the interest rate that was reduced from 7 to 3%. This bill was approved with the agreement of the Minister of Finance. In that bill is exactly the opposite to what the Minister of Budget said last week in the committee, I quote: "Not rarely, the expropriator, after the end of the procedure and after the final determination of the fee, must repay considerable amounts to the expropriating authority." This means that, where appropriate, the seven asylum centres may have cost less than the estimated amounts through the expropriation procedure in case of high urgency. This is in sharp contrast to the 275 million Belgian francs paid in addition to the estimated prices.

Thirdly, in order to demonstrate once again the lightness of this argument, we have raised our light at a number of public bodies, procurement committees. We asked them if the minister’s statement is correct when he claims that expropriation costs 20 to 30% and in some cases even 2 to 3 times more than a negotiation in the mind. The answers confirm the exact opposite and prove once again that by means of an expropriation procedure in cases of extreme urgency the government might have saved the sum of 275 million francs and ⁇ even a little more.

I will come to a specific case. I will keep my argument business and I will keep the facts. In addition to the words of colleague Poncelet, I would like to stop for a moment with the Hotton dossier.

As an introduction and to refresh the memory of some, let me first pause on what the Minister of Telecommunications, Public Companies -and Participation declared on this subject during the plenary session of 15 February last month. The Minister then said that the purchase committee estimated the value of the domain at 96 million francs, plus the right to reuse. The Minister probably meant the re-investment compensation. The purchasing committee offered the seller a $110 million offer. This offer was rejected, after which the committee received permission to purchase the domain for 140 million francs.

The re-investment fee is a fee that is normally granted in the event of expropriation in order to compensate for the additional costs of re-investing the expropriation amount. For amounts exceeding 12.5 million, the re-investment fee is 16% of the estimated value. In the case of Hotton, this means any 16% in addition to the estimated value of 96 million francs. For the sake of clarity, I would like to add that the current case-law states that this re-investment fee is actually due only in the case of a judicial expropriation following a judgment of the judge. Furthermore, it may also be that, when it is not a judicial expropriation, but a purchase in the mind, a certain reinvestment compensation is also negotiated. Of course, the maximum percentage is also used here, in this case the 16%.

I will then proceed with the statement of the Minister of Telecommunications of 15 February 2001. He stated that, according to received information, the Regie der Gebäude had explicitly requested the Minister of Budget to submit a written order before moving to the purchase at 140 million francs. The Minister of Budget decided to respond in a sibiline manner by stating that he considered an investigation appropriate. Per ⁇ the Minister may later give us the results of that investigation. This would of course be of great interest to us.

Collega Poncelet has already outlined the story of the domain Hotton. To summarize it briefly, I can say the following. It is a domain that has been neglected for 6, 7 years. On 23 October 2000, the domain was purchased by a real estate agent for the amount of 80 million francs. Shortly thereafter, the domain is estimated by the purchase committee at 96 million francs and less than two months after the purchase by the real estate agent it is purchased by the government for the amount of 140 million francs. This is a strange evolution. Please allow me to submit to you some conclusions regarding this and other files. The first conclusion is clear. For the seven asylum centers, 257 million francs were paid more than the maximum prices of the Purchase Committee of Finance. Based on the principle of good governance, all public administrations – municipalities, OCMWs, provinces – are obliged to treat the estimated prices of the procurement committees as maximum prices. Therefore, an offer from the public administrations must never exceed these maximum prices.

Here the government has done exactly the opposite: the rules that apply to the lower government and which are strictly followed, apparently do not apply to this government. One can ask whether this is not a policy of two sizes and two weights. Another conclusion is that choosing the normal usual procedure of expropriation in cases of high urgency for the purchase of the seven asylum centres would in no way have resulted in any significant delay. I have another conclusion. I have already given the arguments, but also from all the information we received from the Committee on Procurement and Finance and from local governments — there are, by the way, judgments of the courts of appeal — it shows that it is in no way that one would pay more, let alone 20% to 30%, when following the expropriation procedure than when one negotiated. On the contrary, the 18th appears to be the opposite. Therefore, one may wonder whether there is no mismanagement in the Hotton case — ⁇ also in other cases, but ⁇ here. If we look at the entire dossier of the acquisition of asylum centres, including specifically this one dossier, we must check whether, because the government pays 275 million francs more than the estimates of its services, there is indeed no question of improper administration. Has the government in the case of the purchase of asylum centres not at all sinned against the principle of economy and efficiency?

To conclude this. Given the importance of this dossier and the strange way in which everything has gone, we ask the Parliament to use its right of injunction and to request that this dossier be examined by the Court of Auditors. Therefore, we would like to ask the Court of Auditors whether there is no mismanagement in this file and whether the government in this file has not transgressed the principle of economy and efficiency in the use of the taxpayer’s funds. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, after the catastrophic developments of 1999 and 2000 with more than 35,000 and more than 42,000 asylum applications, corresponding to more than 100,000 people who have entered the country mostly illegally in the last two years, the government has really decided at the end of the council to throw the wheel a little. The decision to stop the OCMWs from giving money to the asylum seekers was a good decision, but unfortunately came much too late.

However, the decision not to send asylum seekers to the OCMWs, but to accommodate them in federal asylum centres — which I also welcome — was also taken too late.

In itself, the decision to accommodate new asylum seekers in federal asylum centres is a good decision, provided they are closed centers located in border areas. But this is not the case here, as it is about open centers, usually near residential nuclei, which reinforce the feeling of insecurity and real increase crime. There is, by the way, sufficient evidence of this and, in this context, I refer, among other things, to the statements of the High Commissioner for Antwerp, Luc Lamine.

The population resisted such conditions and everywhere neighborhood committees took spontaneous action.

What also strikes the chest is the complete lack of participation due to the citizens. The municipal authorities nor the surrounding residents or the merchants are informed in advance; everyone is placed for accomplished facts. Everything is done in accordance with the statement of the competent minister in the Gazet of Antwerp, namely "I do not tolerate participation".

The culmination of arrogance and abuse of power was the sudden and brutal purchase of the social holiday centers Sun and Zee in Westende and Hengelhoef in Houthalen-Helchteren, again without the slightest involvement of anyone. Even the trade union representatives of the staff knew nothing. Here Minister Vande Lanotte went a bridge too far and he underestimated the influence of the media on public opinion heavily.

It is shocking and contrary to the sense of justice of the population that hundreds of families, thousands of children, their so desired, affordable – because social – vacation will no longer be able to spend in Sun and Sea or Hengelhoef, but must clean up space for asylum seekers whose majority – almost 100% – are not asylum seekers, but asylum abusers; fraudsters thus. One cannot even blame the people involved, if the Belgian government makes every effort to put them in vacation centers extra in the watts.

The public opinion, however, no longer accepts this and this issue will continue to be pursued by the minister and the entire government team.

Much worse is the fact that the legislation on spatial planning is taking a break and that there are no need to change the destination, so that domains that were clearly intended for recreation are now used for other purposes.

The worst of all is that there may be deep doubts about the proper use of our tax money for the purchase of those domains in order to set up asylum centers there.

I will not go deeper into concrete files such as Sun and Sea, Hengelhoef and the other asylum centers, since this has already been done extensively from the canvas by the previous speakers, Mr. Poncelet and Mr. Pinxten.

The biggest cynic of the Law Street has disappeared. He is now the emperor's castle in Leuven, but as you all know, Johan Vande Lanotte is one of his pupils. I noticed that when I saw the figures paid for those asylum centers. Here was the master-cynic Vande Lanotte again speaking, who for Hengelhoef ostentatively paid 777 million francs. Three beautiful seven seats in a row. For the centre Sun and Sea in Westende he paid 555 million; three times a five. Here one immediately sees the hand of a master-cynic. This is experienced as the culmination of the arrogance of power and the incarnate cynicism.

Colleagues, as you all know, Parliament must watch over the proper use of our public money. As a representative of the people, I must, together with you, watch over the proper use of our public money. I heard Mr Pinxten declaring at the tribune that Parliament should use its right of injunction to request the Court of Auditors to initiate an investigation. I can inform Mr Pinxten and you all that I have already written a letter to the first chairman of the Court of Auditors yesterday. In this context, I ask that the Court of Auditors initiate an investigation because at least there is a suspicion that public money is misused here. The Court of Auditors should remove these files to the bottom.

I have written another second letter, addressed to the Director-General of the Administration of VAT, Registration and Domains, who, as you know, is competent for the purchase committees charged with the purchase of the asylum centres. I have asked the Finance Inspectorate to review these files further with the magnification glass. If these investigations, both by Finance and by the Court of Auditors, are carried out thoroughly, many things could come to light.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I submitted an amendment. As you know, the Flemish Bloc believes that one should step down from the system of open centers and that we should evolve into closed centers, preferably established in the border areas, far from existing residential centers. Asylum seekers who enter the country can stay there for a very short period — the period during which their asylum file is processed — after which the vast majority, ⁇ 95%, should be repatriated immediately. I also think of the persecuted, who are still residing in our country, and of the illegal, who we believe should be actively tracked. That’s one of your stick horses, Mr. Coveliers. Unfortunately, you do not succeed in pushing that through the government.

Illegal and prosecuted persons should be housed in closed asylum centres with a view to rapid repatriation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am amending the headline of the basic allocation with the number 5526 6105 to cancel the 2.4 billion francs of additional appropriations requested by Minister Vande Lanotte to purchase domains to make them open asylum centres and to spend the money exclusively on the construction of closed centres in the border areas for asylum seekers, outgoing persons and illegal persons.

In my amendment, I invite VLD group leader Coveliers, who not so long ago held a plea for closed centers, to support this amendment together with the Flemish Bloc. Mr Coveliers, my amendment perfectly fulfils your wishes. Your notorious interview in the Gazet of Antwerp of 18 December 2000 is titled "We go to only closed centers". In this interview you say, I quote, “The shelters for asylum seekers will evolve into closed centers... If necessary in a vacation center with a wall errond.” I invite the Greens to listen carefully to the position of the coalition partner. About the closed centers says Mr. Coveliers, I quote again: “You can’t let those people taste our society. Some social organizations want to do that absolutely, and I think they are wrong. Just because you are sure that you need to return 90% of the asylum seekers, you should take them in a closed center - in obviously optimal conditions - where within a month there is clarity about their situation. This will have a disruptive effect.”

Mr. Coveliers, you perfectly express the program of the Flemish Bloc. I have included your position in my amendment. I therefore invite you to support the amendment. The Vlaams Blok looks forward to the voting behavior of the VLD.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the speech of Mr. Leterme has prompted me to speak here. I think Mr. Leterme is mistaken in the history of this dossier. He said it was a good decision not to give more money to candidate applicants. The decision to provide in a number of reception centers, he found a bad decision.

Collega Leterme, the most nefaste decision in the entire asylum policy dates back to the period when Mrs. Smet wanted to push her spread policy at all costs. This dissemination policy was, in the first place, nefast because it caused the asylum problem to reach everyone, which also ensured a wider spread of Flemish Bloc propaganda. Secondly, as a result of the dissemination policy, there was no more overview of the asylum problem. It was then thought that there was no problem anymore because the asylum seekers lived hidden in a number of cities. For example, 521 municipalities dropped foreigners in Antwerp. The problems still existed, but they were no longer seen. It is the merit of the current government that the problems become visible again.

I know that sometimes it takes a long time to correct a wrong decision. The first step to do so was to announce that no more financial support would be given. However, when we no longer provide financial support to candidate-political refugees, the reverse side of the medal is that we must provide dignified accommodation. Therefore, at this stage of evolution, there is precisely a need for reception centers.

The figures show that slightly less than 10% of the total number of asylum seekers are eventually recognized as political refugees. Every right-wing Democrat should therefore keep the possibility of political asylum open. However, those who attempt to misuse this possibility must be removed from the procedure. This is important. Thanks to the measure to stop providing financial support to candidate political refugees, the number has already dropped in February 2001 to 1,750. Let us hope that this number will decline even further so that we reach the normal European average.

The government is currently removing a number of exiled persons, although it must be admitted that there are still some problems. However, once the asylum procedure is under control, and once it can be guaranteed that the candidate-political refugees can be fully assessed within one month, it is better that the system be strictly applied. That’s what I said in the interview with the Gazet of Antwerp, namely that one should keep candidate-political refugees in a reception center rather than let them disappear in the wild or in the cities. After a month, they are either recognised as political refugees and are allowed to stay anywhere in Europe, or they are not recognised as political refugees. In the latter case, they have actually abused the system and then these people must be rejected. I remain there.

There are already a number of reception centers. I think we should also consider making the order of expulsion enforceable. We all declare that it is pointless to give exiled persons a paper ordering them to leave the country within five days.

We will have to ensure that we accompany these people in implementing this measure. Now there are people who simply collect these papers. This also leads to normalization. Therefore, in the last two months, historical measures have been taken to correct the mistakes of the past.

Thus it has been decided, first, to stop giving money and, secondly, to create opportunities by acquiring centers—that cannot be otherwise—so that these people no longer disappear in the cities. The next step is to my feel that staying in these centers at night is mandatory. After all, it is not about being registered in an asylum center and being away every night without a statement. In order to make life in these centers more pleasant for everyone, we must ensure clear order. For years it has been cut; only in the last half of the year has one begun to draw some right. The policymakers do that in my opinion very well and ultimately you will have control of the entire procedure. Then one will be able to move on to what is correctly quoted in the conscious newspaper. This newspaper, by the way, always quotes me correctly and, in addition, I have the advantage that I can still remain in the party after the interview, which does not apply to everyone.

Mr. Minister, you have also heard Mr. Pinxten’s figure dance and you will undoubtedly respond to it. This is all the more important because some of these centres are acquired from social organizations. As a result, the public has created the impression that these real estate properties have been purchased with the money of the people. Through all sorts of subsidies and grants, a giant real estate patrimony has been created in the social security. It seems like a divorce, where one has to pay for his own home for the second time because the other partner is entitled to half of it. There must be clarity on this. I also hope that this acquisition is temporary and that in the foreseeable time we will have control of the entire procedure, thereby reducing the need for such centers.

Mr. Speaker, I remember vividly the plenary session of the last Thursday of December 2000, when the wrath of God fell upon your servant, because he had told the Minister of Budget and Social Integration that it was a shame that he had purchased vacation centres in Westende and Houthalen to accommodate asylum seekers. We also saw the selective reactions from the politically correct part of this country. In fact, they also agreed that this could not actually be done. I wonder what they would have done if it had been a CVP minister who had made this decision.

In many of these matters, a lot of things went wrong. First, there have been mistakes against the duty of care. I think that a government should comply with the duty of care. She did not do that. Together with Mr. Verherstraeten, I carefully keep the file up. We started at Arendonk.

You know how it went in Arendonk. After the opening hours, the woman received a phone call at the Arendonk police station with the notification that there was a reception center for asylum seekers. In Eeklo the mayor himself is not notified, but the co-worker of the mayor is notified. There is a big problem there with zoning, but that had just been overlooked. Suddenly, because of a failed policy, there was an urgent need. They could no longer channel the flow. Suddenly, asylum seekers had to be placed in a number of vacation centers. Westend and Houthalen were the proposals that came most into the eye. This is a real shame and a sign of a wrong policy. It is a totally wrong signal to accommodate asylum seekers in holiday centers. That is what we continue to do, and that is what the majority of the population continues to do. At that time, the government signed the bankruptcy of its asylum policy. Such a thing cannot.

NIMBO’s motto is “Not In My Backyard in Oostende.” That was the case. Minister Vande Lanotte had received in the days prior to the decision in the Council of Ministers the proposal from the French-speaking Socialist Hospital Funds to be able to deploy a centre that was fully compliant on the territory of Oostende to ensure a temporary reception of asylum seekers. He did not deliberately want to deal with this matter. All opinions, even from the Finance Inspectorate, were positive. We find this very peculiar.

This is a document that should be included in the Belgian Blunderbook. If the government has some self-respect, it will cancel those measures. I think, Mr Pinxten, that we should not wait for the entire procedure and the visa from the Court of Auditors. I think the government should take a step towards those who have wanted to alienate these centers. Love comes from two sides. It is very clear that these centers are offered. The government was looking for centers. On another occasion, we will look for the logic behind it.

In any case, it’s a matter that can’t go through the beugle. Colleague Pinxten cited it. This is scandalous for the finances of this country. More is paid than is stated in an estimate report. This cannot therefore.

Now Westend and Hengelhoef are empty. Nothing happens there. There was an incredible need to populate these centers. What do people see in Westende and Houthalen? Nothing happens. What is the opportunity of this decision? He is not there. These decisions are and remain a real shame. It is the best proof of a failing government policy.

I saw that colleague Coveliers has left the room. He will come back. The number of asylum seekers has decreased. In comparison to the total population, we still have the highest number of asylum seekers in the Schengen countries. This policy remains a failure. It is a major form of eye blindness.

Finally, this is part of a failing government policy. The Interior Minister has just said that the regularization will be arranged on 1 July. All other messages from members of the regularization committees that suggested that this will not be the case are not correct. We understand everything wrong. We have bad intentions and want nothing but to twist things. All members of the regulation committees say it is not possible. The minister says it will be ready on July 1. The leader of the VLD group has said that in two months one can not repair what has grown wrong over the past years. I have been waiting patiently for a new asylum procedure for almost two years. I still don’t see them coming. She appears to be attached to the State Council because of huge objections. Where is the new asylum procedure? This is a matter that you cannot keep pushing forth.

The word “irresponsible” is often used in the case. I think the government has taken very clearly irresponsible measures in connection with Westende and Hengelhoef. At least we have not yet seen the end of it. We will follow the file. The gentlemen Pinxten and Leterme have already indicated the way. We will develop it from the first contacts and the way they have been established to the mutual agreements on the purchase of vacation centers for asylum seekers. All those who say it is an irresponsible step of an irresponsible politician have reason to be condemned. I think there will be a lot of irresponsible actions in the file. Those who thought that they could put me or our party in a bad daylight with this, I give rendez-vous at the final settlement of the case.

As a member of the European Parliament, I have a number of issues to address. I am specifically addressing my colleagues from the CVP group to express first and foremost my affection over the parade of CVP MPs we saw here this afternoon on this topic. Mr. Leterme was allowed to speak on behalf of the ACW, Mr. Pinxten on behalf of the Boerenbond and Mr. De Crem must probably stop the appearance that at the CVP even center-right can say something from time to time. However, I would like to urge the colleagues of the CVP to be modest. It would be intellectually fairer if they acknowledged that a part of the Christian pillar, especially the ACW, was yet willing to sell two holiday centers, namely Sun and Sea and Hengelhoef. In that sense, it was very interesting to hear the very theoretical explanation of Mr. Pinxten. Apparently he has thoroughly spied out the case-Hotton. However, he is silent about the files Sun and Sea and Hengelhoef.

I ask for the word for a personal fact. Letting my disappointments aside, I ask our colleague to inform themselves a little better. I can reassure him that I do not belong to any column. He did not listen well or did not want to listen well. I started my discussion by outlining the global problem. I first provided an overview of the purchasing committee’s estimates and the prices effectively paid. Therefore, it is not that I have overlooked one or another asylum centre for any reason whatsoever. Mr. Bultinck, I invite you to examine your dossier carefully and stick to the objective data. We would be happy to listen to your interesting information.

That is not a problem, Mr. Pinxten. We will, of course, take this into account, but the fact that you respond to this topic proves that the pillar discussion in the CVP remains fiercely current and sensitive.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to continue on this topic. After all, the ACW regularly receives bad letters from people who can no longer spend their social holidays in Westende or Hengelhoef. Yesterday I crossed with Mr. Leterme already those on this topic. For the history, I would like to quote what Mr. Theo Rombouts of the ACW writes to the people who are not happy with the decision of the ACW. “We hope that you will understand this decision, which we continue to defend, because we are convinced that it was the only possible right now and because the destiny corresponds to our vocation of a Christian and social movement. This infrastructure can now serve as a shelter for foreign families seeking a more humane life. They have it very difficult. Sometimes they are the victims of human traffickers, often they are fighting for survival.”

Dear colleagues of the CVP, I would like to urge you to be modest. One cannot want both: to lead opposition — which, by the way, testifies to a good evolution — and to have such statements circulated by Mr. Rombouts. This shows ambiguity.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. The theme of social tourism, which allows less goods to go on holiday, is very essential for us. In this file we have a problem with the fact that this was made much more difficult by the ACW. That is a permanent reason for us not to approve this project.

I speak on behalf of the whole government. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to return to four points.

First, it is a draft law for the adjustment of the 2000 budget. On 15 December 2000, the government made a decision for an amount of 2.45 billion francs. 2.4 billion francs will go to shelters for asylum seekers. In view of the amendment of Article 57ter of the Organic OCMW Act, new shelters for asylum seekers should be provided. Therefore, there is no discussion about our goals or the high urgency of the decision. It is necessary to talk about the procedure and the cost.

I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, to the second place, precisely on these two elements. I have already had the opportunity, like my colleagues, to discuss them in the committees that have dealt with this topic.

This is essentially an opportunity discussion. Information must be provided. I, for my part, provided, it was recently recalled, all the information coming from the acquisition committees and I will remind you that it is obviously quite logical that the information coming from the Régie des bâtiments be also communicated in response to the request of Mr. and Poncelet. It is obvious that the list of property must be provided by the Régie des bâtiments and by the minister who ensures the custody of that Régie. With regard to the procedure itself, one can question indefinitely about its slowness compared to what could have occurred in an expropriation in extreme urgency, about the costs that could be associated with it. I repeat, this is an opportunity choice. Members of the government, responsible for accurate acquisition decisions, eventually found that the choice was more efficient and would likely result in a more acceptable cost. Why a more acceptable cost? Probably because other criteria need to be taken into account than those based merely on the assessments of acquisition committees. The procurement committees themselves specify that due to the urgency, a margin of error of the order of 20% may intervene in their assessments. It can be said that next to this evaluation is the urgency, of course, but there is also the need to distribute on the territory a certain number of centers and the need to take into account the situation of local administrations, municipal authorities, which also have to give an assessment in this matter.

I believe it is up to the minister in charge of the files, and then to the government, to appreciate the timeliness of the decisions that have been made. It will be up to Parliament to appreciate this opportunity as well, but we can discuss it at loss of sight. What was the fastest procedure? What was the most appropriate cost? It is quite difficult to make a judgment by having a comparison element that is the price ultimately paid.

As regards the Court of Auditors, it will of course report on this activity as well as on everything else, in the conventional procedures that concern it. I do not think that for every case submitted to Parliament, an exceptional procedure should be imagined. The Court must make its assessment in the conventional proceedings.

I would like to return, then, to two elements that were also mentioned, and ⁇ in response, already mention an amendment because I believe that we are directly in the debate.

I would like to comment on the amendment by Mr. Tastenhoye. This amendment is, of course, unacceptable and is in no way in accordance with the government’s policy in this regard, as approved by the Government on 17 October 2000 and announced by the Prime Minister to the Parliament on the occasion of the opening of the new parliamentary year. This, of course, does not exclude that closed centers will also be provided. The budgetary resources for these closed centres will be included in the budget following the 2001 budget control.

Mr. Tastenhoye seems to forget that the cost of the new policy will be less expensive in the short term than continuing an unchanged policy by providing financial support.

Finally, I would like to make a comment. At the beginning of the case, if we ask questions of opportunity in terms of procedure or cost, we have a bit derived but I find this quite logical with regard to the general asylum policy.

I have heard a number of comments on the reality of efficiency and on the possible evolution of the situation.

I well understood the various occasional questions asked by several members, but I did not always understand the direct link between the comments made and the precise cost and procedure record. I would like to add a piece of information.

I would also like to answer Mr. De Crem. This may be an example of bad policy. It may not be an example of our new policy. There were 5,000 asylum applications during the month of October 2000. There were 1,700 asylum applications in the month of February 2001.

I believe that one can judge the effects of a new policy of granting material aid rather than a cash aid through a number of handle effects, week after week, at the tribune. This is a possibility. These effects can also be judged on the basis of figures. I repeat: 5,000 asylum applications in October 2000, 1,700 asylum applications in February 2001 with a cost that decreases.

On the basis of the Court’s report, it will be necessary to verify whether the one-time cost of acquiring the centres is actually higher than what could have been done under another procedure. It can always be discussed. But it must be noted that this cost, in a single time, allows, in the urgency and through the change of policy initiated by the government and approved by the Parliament, to see a significant decrease in the number of asylum applications and probably the concentration of applications on real cases of political asylum.

This is an element of information that is useful to pay to the file: a one-time cost at the time of the acquisition of the centres, the evolution of the number of applications between October of last year and February of this year. by

But, of course, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the Court of Auditors report and its possible observations, we will be able to return in detail to the assessments that have been carried out.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the consequences of replacing financial support with material support. These can be determined not only from this tribune but also from the figures. I repeat what I have already said in my presentation. This, however, brings us to the question that concerns the inhabitants of those municipalities where the asylum centers would be located. I refer to the decision of the Minister of Budget and Social Integration in the committee meeting. Due to the reduction of the influx, there were already 2,000 vacant places in the existing facilities a few weeks ago. Is there a need for additional facilities through the acquisition of vacation centres, among other things? I would like to emphasize the importance of the decision that will be taken by the House members tomorrow. Tomorrow we have the last chance in the Chamber to reverse this nefaste decision. As an inspiration for our decision, I ask the following question to Mr. Minister: within what time will these additional provisions, acquired through those centers, become necessary?

I am surprised to hear the replicas before the Minister has finished!

by Mr. Leterme wanted to interrupt the Minister. Obviously, he will not respond afterwards. It would not be very serious.

I am at the disposal of the Parliament, in the plenary session, in the committee, or you want!

There would be no more than that!

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has called my amendment unacceptable. I do not understand that well. My amendment aims at using the additional credit for the construction or installation of closed centres. Mr. Minister, you call this unacceptable and you are opposed to it. A little later you will say yourself — this is important, because new — that you will provide financial resources for closed centers in the budget control for 2001. You are opposing yourself. First, you call an amendment that advocates closed centers unacceptable, then later say that you will now set up closed centers yourself. This is totally incomprehensible! In any case, I congratulate you on your decision to set up closed centers in the future: finally the Flemish Bloc is followed in this!

Mr Tastenhoye, there is a difference between your amendment and the new decision to be taken in the context of budgetary control 2001. You see that. There is now a decision on the 2000 budget and we will have to make a new decision in the context of the 2001 budget. There is, therefore, a small difference: your amendment relates to the Budget 2000 and my response to the Budget 2001. The difference is minimal, but you understand that.

Per ⁇ the policy — I now turn to Mr. Leterme — is too fast and too efficient? He added that asylum applications are declining. Maybe the measures sort out effect too quickly and are too efficient. In any case, we are implementing a new policy with regard to asylum seekers.

For the 2001 budget, as regards the number of seats, if the new policy implemented actually limits asylum applications to cases of real problems of political persecution in a country of origin, we will probably be able to reconsider the resources devoted to the establishment of the center. The Minister for Social Inclusion is quite open to conducting this review in collaboration with Parliament. by

But we have just made a decision in the framework of the 2000 budget. We will have a debate during the 2001 budget control. If the new policy leads to effective effects faster than we initially anticipated, the resources devoted to this approach will need to be limited. This is true in all areas. I do not dare to claim, unlike you, that the government is conducting a policy so effective that it must limit the budgets that are devoted to it. We are more cautious. We have made a budget decision, and we will return to it if you are right. Indeed, if my colleague’s policy of social inclusion is more effective than we had planned, we will correct the shot.

We move on to the replicas.

I would like to thank Mr. President. The Minister for the commitment he took on behalf of his colleague to transmit us the little information he had promised. Very skilled Mr. The Minister reminds us that the discussion must be centered on the opportunity. I never talked about questioning the refugee reception procedure that the government had launched. I have not questioned the need for accommodation. I talked about the procedure.

I talked about the procedure. by

I have come back, Mr. Minister, to the issue of expropriation. As our colleague very well illustrated, the law gives you a tool that allows you to go fast. The speed was the argument advanced by your fellow Budget. You wanted to go quickly by passing by a voluntary will. Now, the law, as you have been reminded, gave you the tools that allow you to go at least as fast. The State has, through you, an assessment tool whose competence has been specified by law and you have not used it. by

We recalled that there were precedents where this expropriation procedure, which has the advantage of being quick and advantageous for the community, had been used. This is the core of the problem, Mr. President. The question is whether the end justifies the means. For my part, I think not. by

I would also like to add that the emergency procedure was appealed and that the OTC was retained in the case I mentioned, to "go fast," it was said. We are today on March 14th, three months almost day by day after the transaction and we still do not know how much will cost the rehabilitation work of the Hotton site that we have acquired for 60 million more than its value. We still do not know when this work will begin and we have not yet seen the first refugee candidate on the site. I repeat my question. Does the end justify the means? In any case, invoking the urgency was not a good argument.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, not only for his response in this plenary session, but also for the correct information he provided in the Finance Committee in the last few weeks, which, by the way, was appreciated by everyone.

Even after your answer, Mr. Minister, there is still a problem with the estimate of the purchase committee. You noticed well that those estimates contain a margin of 20%. At that time, I made the effort to quickly review the estimate reports. Well, no estimate report reports a play a ratio of any percentage, so neither of 20%. In addition, it is a golden rule and an absolute obligation for all public administrations in this country to not exceed, when purchasing goods, the estimated price of the purchase committee or, where applicable, of the recipient of the registration. All colleagues, active in regional politics, know that the estimated prices of the purchase committees and of the recipients of the registration for all public administrations are absolute maximum prices.

Also the argument of the re-investment fee a ratio of 16% in the case of Hotton and all other files, does not cut wood. After all, this is only mandatory in case of expropriation. At present, however, there is not an expropriation procedure in progress, but rather a negotiation procedure in der minne in which – even according to constant case-law – the rule applies that no additional re-investment fee is paid.

Supposing that there would still be some margin applied to the prices of the procurement committees, as the minister has just suggested — quod non —, I still come to the conclusion that for the case Hotton the surplus price is 46%, for the case of Westende plus 54% and for the case of Manhay plus 72%. Nothing makes the payment of such a surplus price accountable, nor is it clear why the government paid more than 275 million extra in a piece of panic football for the purchase of the seven asylum centers.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the urgent request of our group to appeal to the Court of Injunction and to request the Court of Auditors to conduct an additional investigation into the purchase of these seven asylum centres. It is also necessary to ask the Court of Auditors the concrete question whether this practice can indeed be characterized as an act of improper administration, in other words, whether funds of the taxpayers have been wasted and whether there are indeed problems with regard to the efficient use of public resources and therefore of tax money.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, and given the deliberately detailed information I have provided you, I cannot imagine that you and the Chamber, with the agreement of the Government, would not agree to address a request to the Court of Auditors with a view to initiating a further investigation.

In my whole speech and in my replica I have been very nuanced. In this case there is inappropriate management. This is very clear. The government has paid at least 275 million francs, and ⁇ a lot more, for the purchase of those seven asylum centres. I do not want to suggest more than that and I wish to stick to the facts and figures, but our group cannot accept that this assembly, under pressure from the government, would refuse to appeal to the Injunction Court to request additional examination from the Court of Auditors. If that were the case, we would have other thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is intriguing with the figure of 1,700 registered asylum seekers during the month of February. There may be more at the end of March, but we are not going to discuss it now. This figure is taken down as a great world wonder. I would like to point out that we still have the highest percentage of asylum seekers per capita in the Schengen countries, despite this decline to 1,700 asylum seekers.

If the number of asylum seekers actually decreases and you actually understand between the lines that they no longer really need the centers, what will you do with these centers? Are you considering re-negotiating — through a very peculiar procedure — with those from whom you bought the centers in a questionable way, or will you bring these centers back on the market? In the meantime, you have good colleagues; you have a number of target prices, and so on. In any case, you can ask a lot of questions, because you should not take into account the opinions made by the purchase committees. That is what the people are doing, Mr. Minister.

You are bringing the message today that the number of asylum seekers is decreasing, so actually we no longer need the holiday centers. You know that it is wrong to accommodate asylum seekers in holiday centers and actually you want to get rid of it now. This is the message that you should bring to the debate today.

Are you going to alienate these centers again? Are you telling the people of Westende and Houthalen today that you are going to alienate the centers again and that they will get back to their original destination? I want to know that from you.

Mr. President, Mr. Pinxten may not have listened to me when I was speaking. He probably went to a committee.

The Court of Auditors, Mr. Pinxten, has already been caught by a letter from me, in which I ask for an investigation. The question to the Chairman is whether the whole Chamber should further request an examination to the Court of Auditors if an individual member has already asked such a question.

De beperkte algemene bespreking is closed. The limited general discussion is closed.