Proposition 50K1276

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 161, 1°, du Code des droits d'enregistrement, d'hypothèque et de greffe et l'article 149 du Code des droits de succession.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Raymond Langendries, Jean-Pol Poncelet, Jean-Jacques Viseur

Submission date

May 30, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT indirect tax teaching capital transfer tax registration tax

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Els Van Weert (Vooruit) 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 ¶

Oct. 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, before I take the floor as a reporter, I have the following question and therefore I would have appreciated that the Minister of Finance had been present here, but that must be elsewhere. First, I had asked in the committee whether the approval of the European Commission was needed. That authorisation is no longer necessary, since it is no longer a VAT measure. Secondly, I had asked about the budgetary impact of the proposal. Under Parliament’s regulatory provisions, in addition, a proposal submitted must include a report on the budgetary impact. Well, I would like to hear from the government what the cost of the proposal to reduce some rights is.

Mr. Leterme, I read that you asked that question at the committee meeting. From the government, only Ms. Aelvoet is present. Do you, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, have an answer to Mr. Leterme’s question? I realize that the subject is not easy.

This point has not been brought to my attention. I have been told that the bill has long been discussed and negotiated in a much wider circle than the classical majority. As a political main point, an arrangement was to come out of the bus that would take into account the different situations in Flanders and Wallonia. An agreement was reached on this. My only task here is to confirm that there is consensus on this and that the text gives a correct fulfillment to the problem. The accord reflects a very precise balance and must therefore be preserved as such. I have not been informed of the budget impact.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight that point before presenting the report, so that the Minister has time to gather information. At the end of June or early July we had the first and now we are in the second reading of the proposal. I have always asked about the estimated budgetary impact. I think the government should be able to give an answer. If I can’t get that answer later, I would like to hear it tomorrow when dealing with that point. It is not impossible to name a number.

I think Mr. Leterme is right. I understand that you are not responsible. I therefore dare to urge the Minister of Finance to communicate his estimate tomorrow before the vote.

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, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Poncelet has withdrawn; I leave in the middle whether his choice was timely or not. Furthermore, the title of the proposal no longer corresponds to the content of the legal provision that is likely to be adopted tomorrow.

The bill is part of the so-called Lambermont Agreement. Its first version aimed to reduce the VAT rate for renovation and renovation works on school buildings from 21% to 6%. This requires the approval of the European Commission. The Minister of Finance had announced at the meeting of 6 July 2001 that he would address a question in this regard to the European Commission.

On 5 July 2001, the proposal was returned to the competent committee in the plenary session of the Chamber. It re-discussed it at its meetings of 17, 18 and 19 July 2001.

During the meeting of 17 July 2001, Ms. Moerman and consortia submitted two amendments, namely amendments 10 and 11. Those amendments replaced the measure reducing the VAT rate by a measure relating to, on the one hand, the Code of Registration, Mortgage and Registration Rights and, on the other hand, the Code of Succession Rights. As a result, the question of the agreement of the European Commission became subjectless. The way in which the bill was returned to the committee on 5 July by the plenary session of the Chamber – at the last moment, at the request of Mr Tavernier – clearly demonstrated, according to your rapporteur, that the question of adequate response to the aspirations of the French-speaking parties is not without importance. The reason for the return appeared to lie in the fact that the measure, as it was originally outlined in the proposal of law by colleague Poncelet, was unilateral and concerned only the situation on the French-speaking side of the language border, while it should be intended to favour the networks on the opposite sides of the language border in a similar way with this measure.

As mentioned, for that reason two new amendments were submitted, which were signed by a lot of colleagues of majority and opposition. During the discussion that took place after the return to the committee, a number of important questions were addressed, including the meaning of the definition: "buildings exclusively for educational purposes", as included in amendments 10 and 11. After all, school buildings often include sections that are not used for education itself, but, for example, as a concierge residence. Schools are sometimes housed in monasteries. Therefore, several colleagues asked the Minister how the tax administration would interpret the amendments presented by Ms. Moerman cs, if they were adopted. Their

Mr Desimpel regretted that the present bill does not apply to the new construction of schools, which Mr Desimpel considers to be a mistake, as this would have been a very welcome incentive for the construction sector. Ms. Moerman emphasized that, as former educational vessels of the city of Gent, she was committed to the needs of all schools, whatever the educational network they belong to, and that she personally supports the reduction of the VAT rate, but that this proved impossible and unattainable in the European context.

Mr Viseur, co-contributor of the proposal, indicated during the discussions that Mr Poncelet’s bill was from the outset intended for the educational buildings of all educational networks throughout the country. However, because in Belgium the education is not organized solely by the government, there arose a problem with VAT. In other countries, Mr. Viseur noted, it is the same government that organizes education and pays VAT on the school buildings and at the same time receives VAT. Collega Viseur welcomed the fact that through the amendments presented by Ms. Moerman cs, the proposal would better meet the needs of education in all parts of the country.

Mr van Weddingen intervened to make a number of corrections in the text of amendment 10 and later also in the text of amendment 11. The committee voted in this regard. To the questions related to the interpretation of the concept of "education" in the text of amendments 10 and 11, the Minister replied that the concept of education would be interpreted broadly in order to avoid any discrimination against taxpayers. As regards the concept of "exclusively educational purposes", according to the Minister, the tax advantage would be granted only for the parts of an immovable property that are exclusively intended for education. According to the Minister, it is obvious in this regard that a concierge house located in an educational institution does contribute to the educational contract in the broad sense of the word and therefore falls within the scope of the preferential measure.

When asked by Commission Chairman Olivier Maingain whether the tax advantage in the subsidised confessional education also applies to that part of a building that is intended for education and is used for worship, the Minister replied that the proposed limitation refers to the direct connection with the educational activity. This direct link must be present. He gave the example of a swimming pool built in a school that is primarily intended for school activities but is also accessible to the public.

Your rapporteur noted with satisfaction that the Minister gives a very broad interpretation of the concepts "education" and "exclusive purpose" and therefore your rapporteur abstained from a sub-amendment which could have aimed at replacing in amendments 10 and 11 the words "which have an exclusive purpose" with the words "which have a predominant purpose". In this regard, however, it was noted that a chapel integrated into a school institution used in the week for Eucharistic celebrations with the pupils shows a very clear link with the educational activity. That band is even much more direct than in the case of a concierge home.

Finally, the Minister stated that the benefit of the measure does not apply to real estate intended for a type of education other than community education and subsidised education. Amendments 10 and 11 by Ms. Moerman cs. The amendments were adopted by 12 votes against one abstinence and eventually the amended text was unanimously adopted in second reading. The title of the bill has also been amended. Until then, the reading of the report was approved by nine votes with one abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two comments. First, the note is correct that there should be a direct link between "a part of the building" and the educational function. The Minister has been very clear about this.

Second, I must forward the question of knowing the impact on the budget to the competent minister. Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the fact that registration rights are transferred from 1 January 2002 so that this is no longer a federal concern. Of course you have the right to request information on this and I will therefore send you the entire question.

July 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Brouns’s bill aims to amend Article 7, § 1 of the Act of 13 July 1986 on the removal and transplantation of organs. The current legislation stipulates that organ removal from minors is subject to two conditions: the removal must not have serious consequences for the donors and must relate to regenerable organs. Originally in the law "or" must refer to regenerable organs, so that the two conditions were not cumulative. The proposed legislation aims to ensure that both conditions are met, so that minors will only be allowed to hand over regenerable organs and tissues such as bone marrow to a brother or sister if the removal does not have serious consequences for the donors.

The main discussion point on this bill raised with regard to the rights of the sick child and the minor potential donor to still be able to decide on their own to give up a non-regenerable organ. This was especially true for young people who approached the age of 18. Can young people between the ages of 15 and 18 decide whether or not to give up a non-regenerable organ? These comments were made by Mr Denis, Mrs Descheemaeker, Mrs Avontroodt and myself. On the basis of the discussion, a number of opinions were requested, namely the Commissioners for Children’s Rights, the Bioethics Advisory Committee and the Belgian Transplantation Council. After the arrival of those opinions, the discussion was held again. Most or all of the opinions were in favour of Mr. Brouns’ bill. Their

The Commissioners for the Rights of the Child had a number of additional comments, after which Mr Brouns submitted an amendment to his proposal. This adds a new article that reduces the age from when the minor donor must give his consent himself to 12 years. This reflects the opinion of the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child, which states that young people over 15 years of age currently have no veto right, which is contrary to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989. On the basis of this amendment, Ms. Descheemaeker once again pointed out that a contradiction was introduced, since a child from 12 years of age has the right to be heard, while a child of 17.5 years of age cannot independently decide to give up one of his organs.

The Minister’s position was clear. She pointed out, on the one hand, the positive opinions and, on the other hand, the situation abroad, where similar arrangements apply everywhere. After the discussion, Articles 1 and 2 of the bill were unanimously adopted. Mr Brouns’ amendment was adopted by 6 votes in favour and 3 abstentions. The entire bill was adopted with 10 votes in favor and 1 abstinence.

I abstained from the final vote in the committee. I would like to clarify the reason for this.

Mr Brouns’s bill aims to better protect the position of minors. Of course, I have no objections to this. I approved the article myself. I would like to make it clear that I am also in favor of the protection of minors. However, the amendment also implies that the minor up to the age of 18 can not give up a non-regenerable organ — in fact, it can only be a kidney — until the age of 18. However, the limit conditions for transplantation are clearly defined in the current law: only in a life-threatening situation, only for a brother or a sister and only if there is no full-fledged alternative. In my opinion, Mr Brouns’ proposal contains a clear contradiction with regard to the rights of minors. The protection of minor candidate donors is extended, but the rights of the minor brother or sister who is in danger of life are reduced. There is another contradiction. At the same time, the bill considers a person under the age of 18 incapable of independently judging and deciding on such a situation.

Almost as a crying in the desert, I have referred to the current legislation. I noticed that that legislation dates back to the period when the age of majority was reached at 21 years. The option existed for the minor at that time from 18 years old, i.e. three years earlier. So I found it quite logical that the same three years would be reflected in the new proposal.

Mr. Brouns, you followed that reasoning when in an article it was about transplantation of regenerable organs. There you have lowered the age from which the child had to give his consent, from 15 years to 12 years. My idea was to reduce the age of transplantation of non-regenerable organs from 18 years to 15 years, too. The majority age is now reached at 18 years. One can assume that a 15-year-old is in most cases capable of deciding for himself whether to give his kidney to a deadly sick brother or sister. This was my problem in the final vote in the committee. I remained with my abstinence. I felt that there was too much contradiction.

Mr. Brouns, you answered me that there are few cases in which an organ of a brother or a sister is necessary, and where there is no alternative. It may be so, but why do you want to change the law? In any case, I decided to abstain in the final vote.

I will not return to the discussion that we have had in the committee. Ms Descheemaeker defended her abstention with the arguments she also cited in the committee. The only defense I want to stand against is reality. The reality tells us that indeed little appeal is made to minor siblings for the transplantation of a non-renewable organ. People wait until they are mature before being asked if they want to give up a kidney.

The two opinions obtained in that regard do not speak in the sense you state. The proposal aims to enhance the protection of living minors donors. The first amendment — the original purpose of the bill — was in fact to correct an error in the text in the Act of 1986. It is clear from the memo of explanations and the comments concerning this law that it was not intended at all to incorporate so textually what was stated in the law. After all, when already it was pointed out the substantially extending consequences of the fact that the word "or" was used instead of the word "and". In principle, the law of 1986 allowed organ harvesting from a person under the age of 18 to a brother or sister, provided that it did not result in serious consequences for the donor or that it is a regenerable organ. The bone marrow is an example of this as the tissue recovers itself.

Living donors can also give up a kidney or part of the liver, but these organs do not recover.

The current text of the law allows minors to also hand over a kidney or part of the liver to a brother or sister, although this was never intended by the legislator in 1986. Therefore, the word "or" in the text had to be replaced by the word "and".

Following discussions and consultations with the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child and the Transplant Council, their proposal reduced the age from 15 to 12 years. The law also stipulated that children under 12 years of age should in any case be allowed to express their views.

This fully achieved the goal set in 1986, namely the protection of living minors donors. Immediately greater involvement of the children was achieved.

I thank both the rapporteur and the Commissioners for their positive cooperation with regard to this bill, despite Mr Descheemaeker’s understandable abstinence.

July 4, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Committee on Finance and Budget discussed this bill at four meetings, on 6, 21, 25 and 27 June 2001.

In his introductory presentation, Mr JeanJacques Viseur, in connection with this proposal by Mr Poncelet, pointed out that it is important that the education of children can take place in the best possible conditions. Due to the federal state structure, Belgium has a disability in terms of VAT compared to other countries that manage education at the national level. For those countries, the impact of VAT is non-existent because the State pays VAT as the end user, but then recovers it in the budget. Mr Poncelet’s bill aims to reduce the VAT rate to 6% for the renovation, renovation, improvement, repair or maintenance works of an educational building or of a part thereof. However, such a measure requires the consent of the European institutions. On 6 June 2001, the Ministers of Finance agreed to request that agreement from the European Commission.

During the meeting of 21 June 2001, Mr Poncelet submitted two amendments which were explained by his colleague Jean-Jacques Viseur. At the same time, Mr Viseur pointed out that Mr Poncelet’s amendments to the bill give a different direction. For Mr Viseur, that other direction is not incompatible with the fact that the Minister of Finance has asked the European Commission about the original purpose of the bill.

Amendment 1 of Mr. Poncelet aims to ensure the free of charge of registration when real rights on goods intended for education or intended for education are transferred to asset-law VZWs, regardless of whether they are borrowed by loans.

Amendment 2 of Mr. Poncelet aims to exempt those same transfers from the fee for reimbursement of succession rights prescribed by Articles 147 and following of the Code of Succession Rights, insofar as those transfers are claimed by the communities in order to obtain the financing of operations relating to such goods.

Your rapporteur stressed that the bill, as well as the amendments submitted by Mr. Poncelet, are part of a number of concessions to the PSC group in order to obtain the support of that group for the two draft state reforms still pending and submitted to Parliament.

The speaker also emphasized that in the formulation of the amendments these measures will only benefit the free education of the French Community, because the management of the buildings intended for the free education of the Flemish Community is organized completely differently. Mr Jef Tavernier disputed that interpretation. According to colleague Tavernier, the amended bill would also be beneficial for the subsidized free education that is followed in Flanders by a majority of pupils. The management of the buildings intended for free education is also in the hands of subsidized VZWs. According to Mr. Tavernier, there were no measures at all that would benefit one community more than the other. Collega Fientje Moerman fully agrees with the statement of the previous speaker, Mr. Tavernier.

In Flanders, DIGO grants grants for the work carried out in the school buildings of the free, subsidized education. Whether, as colleague Moerman argues, the tax-free transfer of the real rights on the buildings used or intended for education to property-right VZWs as envisaged by Mr. Poncelet’s amendments 1 and 2 is, however, a very different matter. Free-subsidised education in Flanders is also organized in the form of VZWs. They will also be able to take advantage of the proposed measures.

At the meeting of 21 June 2001, the original bill and the amendments were voted. Article 1 was adopted by 10 votes and 1 abstinence. Amendment 1 by Mr Poncelet replacing Article 2 was adopted with the same vote ratio. Amendment 2 by Mr. Poncelet introducing a new article 3 into the original bill was also adopted by 10 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

Amendment 3 by Mr Poncelet, replacing the title of the bill, is adopted by the same vote. Your rapporteur requested a second reading of the amended text. This second reading continued on 25 June 2001. During this meeting, your rapporteur submitted Amendment No. 4, which aims to replace the description "Non-Profit Property Associations, whose purpose is to make available real estate that the one who acquires them uses for educational purposes without profit" by the words "Non-Profit Association". The applicant concluded that, if the provisions of the bill as adopted in first reading were finally adopted, the contribution made to a non-profit property association of buildings used or intended for education alone would be subject to a general fixed duty of 1,000 francs. According to your rapporteur, the measure in question would ⁇ benefit free French-speaking education since the organising bodies in Flanders usually already operate under a VZW structure including the management of the school buildings.

According to the rapporteur, the Flemish VZWs have a broader social purpose than just the management of assets. Your rapporteur therefore proposes to extend the scope to all VZWs in order not to deny them the benefit of the proposed measure. According to him, Article 2 of the bill as amended clearly contradicts the principle of equality referred to in Article 10 of the Constitution. By amendment number 5, your rapporteur aims to replace the proposed and adopted in first reading Article 3 with the following provision: "Fourth, non-profit educational associations".

During the subsequent discussion Mr Poncelet noted that the proposed provisions in his bill and in the amendments as adopted do not contain any form of exclusion. They concern, according to Mr Poncelet, VZWs whose purpose is, inter alia, to make available real estate which is used for education by the person who engages in them without a profit. Thus, they can also relate to the Flemish VZWs whose purpose is wider.

Your rapporteur argued that from a legislative point of view, a derogation from the general rule should always be defined in a clear and exhaustive manner. In this case, therefore, it is really a matter of VZWs whose purpose is to make available real estate which is used by the person who engages them for education and not for other types of activities. The President of the Commission, Mr. Maingain, noted that the assets concerned by the asset management must actually be used for education. However, nothing prevents, according to Mr Maingain, that the VZW concerned would have another purpose that is naturally related to education, such as, for example, acting as an educational organising body. Ms. Moerman agreed that a derogatory measure should always be interpreted restrictively. However, the speaker wondered whether the extension of the scope of the proposed exemption measures to VZWs with other purposes than education could not give rise to abuse. Ms. Moerman also said she was not yet impressed by the arguments developed by Mr. Leterme, your rapporteur, regarding the likelihood of abuse. She therefore stated that she did not support the proposed amendments, but suggested to return to this issue later. On behalf of its group, it would also like to clarify that this bill would only be submitted to the plenary session of the House after the vote on the draft special law transferring various powers to regions and communities.

Your rapporteur pointed out that its second amendment aims to replace the new Article 3, as adopted in first reading, with the provision, "fourth: the non-profit association concerning education". It should clearly show that there can be no other social purpose than education. The rapporteur repeated his question on the precise meaning of the concept of asset law VZW. What criteria determine whether a VZW is or is not asset law? What about a VZW that not only manages a hospital, but also organizes the provision of care? Can such a VZW be considered as a property-right VZW and thus claim the proposed tax advantage?

The Minister specified a property-legal business as a business that manages a movable or immovable asset. The provisions discussed emphasize, in particular, the destination of the buildings that form part of that asset. If necessary, according to the Minister, an administrative circulation letter will further describe the composition of that asset. The rapporteur emphasized the importance of precisely indicating the scope of the measures in the law itself, and not in the administrative circular letter.

Mr Maingain proposed a number of text improvements with which the committee could agree.

In the light of the clarifications made by the various speakers, colleague Mrs. Brepoels asked why it is absolutely necessary to determine in more detail that it is a property-legal business. According to her, it is of course that, regardless of the type of business, the management of real estate may have a purpose. The rapporteur, Mr Dirk Pieters, therefore proposed, by amendment No. 6, to remove the concept of "asset rights" in Article 2 and to replace the new word "asset associations" in Article 3 with the word "associations", so that the tax exemptions could be applied to all CSOs.

Finally, a number of text improvements and technical improvements were made to the text of the proposal.

The amendments 4, 5 and 6 of Mr Pieters were rejected by 11 votes against 4. Article 2 and the new Article 3 were adopted in second reading with 11 votes against 4. The entire bill as amended, including the legislative technical improvements, was adopted on 27 June 2001 by 11 votes against 4. The title of the bill is adjusted accordingly. The report was unanimously adopted.

The list of speakers is as follows: first Mrs. Moerman, then Mr. André Smets and finally Mr. Leterme. Are there other candidate speakers? (No to)

I close the list.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, first of all, I thank the reporter for his very detailed and thorough report. I thought it was necessary, because educational matters are already a complex matter in themselves. They are almost never mentioned here. When one also engages in community affairs, one gets a very complicated mix. I try to explain why two amendments are now on the table in the plenary session, signed by Mr Leterme, Mrs Brepoels and myself. These two amendments modify the original text, as approved in the committee. I will also try to explain why we amend the text.

Mr. Poncelet’s bill has gone a long way. Initially, it was intended to reduce the VAT on the construction of school buildings to 6%. Finally, there was an exemption from registration and succession rights. It may have been understood that the possibility of reducing the VAT rate was small, as this must be done under European supervision. Initially, therefore, a solution was chosen in which an exemption was provided for the so-called patrimonial units. This is a kind of intermediate between the establishing powers and the government. These patrimonium-vzws would make the buildings available to the establishing powers and themselves exempt from registration and succession rights.

Here we can see how in the not too long term the legislation in the Flemish and French community has grown apart, in particular on education. On the Flemish side, school buildings are financed by DIGO, the Service Infrastructure for Subsidized Education. This applies to both free and officially subsidized education. One of the requirements of the DIGO is that the establishing powers own the buildings that are eligible for subsidy. If one goes to work with the intermediate step of a patrimoniumVZW, then, of course, one no longer responds to that requirement of the DIGO. As the proposal was originally formulated, it would be very difficult to apply it on the Flemish side. Hence the amendments of Mr. Leterme, Mrs. Brepoels and myself, which are now on the table. They are actually quite simple, in the sense that they equalize the lat – an expression that is used more in Flemish than in the federal Parliament – for official and free education. This means that free education, which in the future seeks to reorganize its patrimony, will be exempt from paying registration fees and also from paying succession fees – which is less frequent – when they include something in their patrimony. By also involving that, the account originally proposed by Mr. Poncelet is useful in the two parts of our country, which is a good thing.

Also in Brussels.

Also in Brussels, of course. In any case, there is either French-speaking or Dutch-speaking education, since these are community matters. Their

As an indirect outcome of the state reform, this is a good thing for free education. Mr. Leterme, we will all have to admit that this is a good thing for free education, both on the Flemish and Wallish side. My past as educational vessels and vice president of a university allows me to say that the rearrangements in the educational landscape that are now taking place at a rapid pace, ⁇ in the higher education landscape, were hindered by the provisions still in force regarding the payment of registration fees. I therefore recommend the colleagues to approve these two amendments to the Poncelet proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for Mrs. Moerman. Mrs. Moerman, I note that the bill gets a strange turn by creating those pratimonium VZWs. Do you have any idea of how many additional VZWs need to be created to organize this? After all, one solves a political problem here by again shifting a kind of VZW structure between them. I assume that for Flanders it is not three VZWs.

Mr Leterme, Mrs Moerman, I have a problem with your amendments. With your amendments to Article 2 and Article 3, you replace the aforementioned Articles.

The Amendment No. 8 of Mr. Leterme and the Ladies Moerman and Brepoels wish to replace Article 2. Mr Leterme, your amendment no. However, Article 6 amends the previous Article 2. You have to do something about it.

I will do something about this later.

The same applies to amendment no. 9 of 9. This amendment replaces Article 3, but you amend the previous Article 3.

I share this so that you can think about it before I discuss the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we must accept that the roads of the subjects which belong to the competence of the communities are growing more and more apart, and that in the different parts of the country there are equally creative but different solutions to a problem. Registration and succession rights are still a federal jurisdiction. In federal law, the solutions of the communities must be respected. This is inevitable in a federal state. This is why these amendments. We want to push the solution along the Flemish side, nor the solution along the French-speaking side forward as the right one. We simply take note that these are the chosen solutions. Federal legislation must be constructed in such a way that both can exist.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, I am replacing Mr. President. Poncelet is prevented. Personally, without addressing the problem in a technical way, I would like to support this tribune’s first proposal concerning the reduction of the VAT rate from 21% to 6%.

I have heard that the Minister has pledged to question the European Community to see under what conditions we could work. As a former school director, I see how everywhere, even in Brussels and Flanders, as in Wallonia, there are huge problems related to the maintenance and arrangement of school buildings. by

I will only take a concrete case: safety standards. It is obvious that one cannot accept a school rivalry at this level, that there is a school war in matters of buildings, since a child is a child, whether in Wallonia, in Brussels or in Flanders. It is important for the safety of children, regardless of the network, that the buildings are in a quality state.

The measure proposed by Mr. Poncelet deserves to exist; it has the advantage of significantly reducing the burden given those safety standards that it is about to meet, but also simply to standards of quality of life in each school. How happy would we be if a solution came out by getting a 21% to 6% discount! Meanwhile, since it seems that in the first place it is necessary to pass through amendments to try to obtain an exemption from registration and succession rights, I can testify that these charges are very heavy and that, not only does this situation discourage all those who, often voluntarily, devote time to the very heart of the schools, but in addition these charges prevent more to turn towards pedagogical achievements. by

In this context, the debate must be open. Technicians need to find solutions. I, I hear well, and I rejoice, that you are looking for a solution, if I have understood well, for the benefit of all, whether it be children of the communal, of the Community, of the Region or of the free education: a child is a child, but also solutions that concern the whole country by adopting legislation if necessary adapted from region to region. I think we need to be clear: whether we regret it or not, we are moving towards a confederate system. Let us have the courage to say it. Education is a community-oriented subject. Nevertheless, it is scary to see the money that has been spent on school buildings, even if only to meet basic safety standards. I add that the very heart of cities often encounters even more complex problems as the construction costs are even higher, given the mobility problems we encounter.

I am not here to lay down technical standards. I am currently unable to do that. Recognizing your difficulties also means growing. I simply say that the problem is posed and that I am pleased with it. I have heard that a step will be taken within the framework of a consultation with Europe. In the meantime, dealing with a case that concerns children is crucial. I insist on safety standards.

If you allow me, maybe I’ll tell you about a dream in this tribune. At the present time when so often the need to make school realities and business realities meet more, I will address a question to Mr. This is a question I have been asking for 10 years. I do not question you.

Is it not possible to obtain, in the context of education, tax deductibility opportunities for ASBLs linked to schools or for the schools themselves? I find it astounding that this possibility does not exist when there are so many companies or individuals who benefit from tax deductibility for donations to social works, for example. A social gesture by excellence would be to take care of the school of its municipality and its region, whether primary, secondary or even university. At this level, the question deserves to be asked and I am pleased, Mr. Minister, to be able to do so and I would like to have a positive answer, one day or another.

Mr. Smets, I can’t give you absolute guarantee because I want to stay long enough in this department but maybe someday someone else will come to take my place once the tax reform is fully implemented.

That being said, do you want a deductible funded by the communities or the federal? In the debate on the tax competence of the regions, we obviously envisaged the possibility for them to develop tax arrangements at the advantage of their competence but with recovery from the regional budget.

Do you propose that a deductibility be granted that would be compensated, for example, on the allocations of communities?

Mr. Minister, you just introduced an element of complexity and this requires reflection. I simply say that the question is asked. I will consider supplementing information in order to submit a proposal at some point.

In one case, it is a refinancing of communities by the federal, through tax deductibilities. In the other case, it is a choice of education policy by the authority that would be responsible in the matter. This is not the case, as tax autonomy does not go so far in regards to communities. If you submit a proposal, it will be considered carefully.

Mr. Smets, it also seems to me important that at some point as a federal parliamentary member we also formulate a definition of what this exactly means and what interests we must defend. In my opinion, the definition of a federal parliamentary member differs from that of a regional parliamentary member. The finances and the care of certain balances are, of course, painful points. Last week, with your support, we approved the relevant draft laws to enable the refinancing of the Communities at the expense of the federal level. Of course, if new transfers from the federal level to the Communities are continually approved, certain balances will be compromised. Also at the federal level, this could jeopardize the reduction of state debt. I think we need to be well aware of what level we are at and what our responsibility is.

If I follow you in your reasoning, we may at some point provide for a favourable VAT regime or favourable tax deduction systems at the level of the Communities at the expense of, for example, eliminating the tax discrimination of married persons at the federal level. As part of the agreements, we have reached an agreement on the distribution of resources between the federal level and the Communities and Regions. In my opinion, we must first test the system before other transfers can be made that could compromise the very delicate balances.

Mr. Tavernier, I share your concern about balance.

Mr. Speaker, as the proverbs say: "Have a slow rush, a hundred times on the profession put your work back, polish it continuously, add a few times and often delete." Beyond the divisions, the important thing is that people talk to each other and look for solutions for the benefit of all.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be concise though I still have a few things to say about this strange bill. This is a very strange way of legislative work.

On June 6, we were able to see that there was suddenly a wide wave of majority seeking to solve a problem related to free education. It was initially a bill proposed by colleague Poncelet to reduce the VAT rate for the renovation works of school buildings. Then we saw a pirouette of amendments on registration and succession rights. This, of course, illustrates the method-Verhofstadt as we have seen working in the last few months. It is repeatedly claimed that a global agreement has been reached and in extremis one must still buy a number of votes with, among other things, appointments but above all also with bills that appear from scratch and of which no one actually knows exactly what they contain. Last week, a special bill was rejected without the majority knowing what was going on. We have found that Verhofstadt has failed to fulfill its commitment in this regard to, among other things, colleague Van Hoorebeke on the basis of an oral question. That is the reality.

Mr Leterme, Mr Van Hoorebeke voted against.

The Minister takes the words out of my mouth. If I am not mistaken, four members of the People’s Union Faction voted against the deliberate proposal for a special law. The problem was not in the majority because they voted for the proposal.

Mrs. Moerman, we have determined that the request from the People’s Union to obtain an extension of the powers of guardianship and administrative supervision of the police was not met.

I don’t know why the party voted divided. Probably what was on the table was not enough, as was the case for us. The promise to the People's Union was not fulfilled.

Mr. Leterme, was it not a proposal from the CVP?

This was not our proposal. We did not approve the design because we are not satisfied with a crumb or a candy. Others apparently are. I repeat, what Mr. Verhofstadt had promised to those people of the People’s Union was not realized. And what was on the table was apparently insufficient.

I know other examples. For example, there was the bill proposing to reduce the VAT rate from 21% to 6%. In the meantime, Mr. Minister, what exactly does this mean? I hear that Mrs. Moerman declares that it will not happen again. In the Committee on Finance, you said that you would seek the opinion of the European Commission. Just then, Ms. Moerman said that in the meantime it is understood that the reduction cannot come immediately, and that it may never come. Then you spoke against it again.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really feel damaged, but I would like to clarify this. I have probably said that in the meantime it has been realized that it is not so easy to lower the VAT rate, because the VAT matter is indeed subject to European supervision and approval. The reduction is not for today or tomorrow. Mr. Leterme, if you had been in the Committee on Finance yesterday – however you cannot be in all places at the same time – you would have heard the Minister explain at what time the VAT reduction is possible. Apparently this is not today or tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, that reduction is not for tomorrow or aftermorrow, but the discussion is for Tuesday. Then in the Ecofin Council will be held the first debate on all reductions in VAT rates, at the request of Belgium. This was agreed with the European Commission during the general meeting of the committee. It is not just about matters related to education or training, but also about mobility, development cooperation, and a number of other matters.

In short, next Tuesday, the Ecofin Council will take the first step for the reduction of VAT rates.

I look forward to the answer to that first question, but I continue. The events surrounding this bill illustrate the merchant methodology of Verhofstadt who, in order to reach the two-thirds majority, had to distribute all sorts of candies and have to buy out votes without actually knowing exactly where one begins and even less where one will land. As evidence, I refer to the billPoncelet, where the title referred to a reduction in the VAT rate. Well, at a second committee meeting, both the content and the title have been completely replaced by a bill with the same beneficiary, but with a different content. In this context, one can even ask whether there is currently a bill on the table from the PSC to reduce the VAT rate from 21% to 6%.

Mr. Minister, is there currently a bill you are consulting the European Commission on? Yes or No? (No) Well, this illustrates the merchant art again.

We had a draft law and there is a discussion at the European level. It is perfectly possible for the government to come to Parliament with a bill. After a discussion at the European level, with the agreement of the European Commission, it is perfectly possible to come here with a draft law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, thank you for this additional answer, but the events around the bill-Poncelet illustrate working from hour to hour, without knowing where one lands. Suddenly the gun is changed from shoulder to shoulder and comes with a bill on the props that is completely different in content. Communication in the constitutional majority is so deficient that many members, even members of the majority in the committee, have no clarity about the content of the amendments to be considered. I will not extend too technically because the report and Ms. Moerman’s explanation on this subject are sufficiently comprehensive. To prove that one acts at the head of the client without knowing exactly what is on the table, I refer to the established fact that, at the time that Mr. Poncelet submitted amendments, the reality we now know was misestimated by members of the majority — Mrs. Moerman and Mr. Tavernier. Is this true or not? I can take the report.

When I warned in the committee that the above-mentioned text was tailored to the French language education and would involve a discrimination against the Flemish free-subsidised education, you said that you were not convinced by my arguments. Both Mr. Tavernier and Mrs. Moerman, though somewhat nuanced, said that there was no reason to accept my amendments. Where or not?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, Mr. Leterme confuses two things here. First, there was the original amended proposal-Poncelet, which was indeed impossible to use in Flanders. This did not come from the federal legislation, but rather from the Flemish legislation on the DIGO which requires that the Establishing Power be the owner of the school buildings.

Mr. Leterme, I will immediately admit to you that your knowledge of free education and the subtleties of the DIGO subsidy is probably greater than mine. The second point concerned your amendment to those texts. You suggested taking that out and applying it to all VZWs engaged in education. Then I said that one should be careful — you put this amendment to the table in the committee — because you formulated it too broadly. I have pointed out that it is best to transfer at a given moment, adding that the building is transferred solely for educational purposes. Five years later one can then affect it to another purpose without anyone ever knowing anything about it.

As it is now formulated, by the way in mutual agreement, it is technically correct and also excludes any possible abuse or negligence in this regard. This explanation I wanted to give.

Mr. Leterme, I think you should still take some consideration with your arguments. You mention it in favor of the French language education and at the disadvantage of the Flemish education.

I called it “discriminatory.”

The new scheme or approach on registration and succession rights has an advantage over the original proposal for VAT. If there was a VAT reduction, it was at the expense of the federal state treasury. When it comes to registration and succession rights, this is ultimately the region’s responsibility. Therefore, I have no problem with a technically well-formulated amendment, if the Northern Governments concerned agree to it more or less. If they are behind the otherwise formulated proposal, that is not a problem. They are the ones who must bear the consequences. This is an important supplement.

Mr Tavernier, as regards the last point, the Western Governments should not give binding advice. In that regard, I was wrong. The Minister has pointed to this. When I drew the attention of the Flemish colleagues in the committee that the Poncelet amendments aimed at replacing the bill in its entirety unilaterally favoured the French language education, you said that this was not correct. Mrs. Moerman, you said that too, though it is a bit more nuanced. To avoid any further discussion, I read from the report that was also approved by you: “The speaker – your servant – emphasizes that these measures will only benefit the free education of the French Community, because the management of the buildings intended for the free education of the Flemish Community is completely differently organized and subsidized by DIGO. Mr Jef Tavernier (Agalev-Ecolo) disputes this interpretation. The amended bill will also be beneficial for the subsidized free education that is followed in Flanders by a majority of the members. Indeed, the management of the buildings intended for free education is in the hands of subsidised VZWs. Therefore, there are no measures that would benefit one community more than the other. Ms. Fientje Moerman fully agrees with the statement of the previous speaker. In Flanders, DIGO grants grants for the work carried out in the school buildings of free education. However, providing for the tax-free transfer of the real rights on the buildings used or intended for education to property-right entities as envisaged by Mr. Poncelet’s amendments 1 and 2 is a very different matter.” Hence the nuance to you, Mrs. Moerman.

However, free-subsidised education in Flanders is also largely organized in the form of VZWs. They will therefore also be able to make useful use of the proposed measures.

Mr. Tavernier, however, you must confess riderly that I stand up for the Flemish interest when I warn the majority for the merchant art of Mr. Verhofstadt. After all, amendments are approved that are not even understood, and that are detrimental and discriminatory for the Flemish education. Admit that you said I was wrong and that my concerns were wrong. Let me give you a brief historical overview. On Monday morning I told the party office of my party that this was detrimental to the Flemish free education. On Tuesday or Wednesday, Flemish People’s Representative Luc Martens, on behalf of the Party Bureau in the Flemish Parliament, asked an urgent oral question — or whatever the name there is — to the Prime Minister of Flanders, Mr Dewael. As far as you and the Flemish majority are concerned, the matter has only started to roll when Prime Minister Dewael in the Flemish Parliament spoke the following liberating words: “Mr. Leterme is right and you would better approve his amendment, otherwise the Flemish education is discriminated for about 1.1 billion francs”.

At that very moment, the case has been settled and it has been admitted — Mrs. Moerman first, honouring whoever is worthy of honour — that one had made a mistake, and that we were actually right. Only then was the first heavy counter-reaction rejected against what I had said in the committee. I do not want to turn the knife into the wound, but if someone has a well-founded argument, even if that person is in the opposition, it is wrong to say that he is not right, simply because it comes from the opposition and because it does not fit in any political agreement, in this case with the PSC. In the previous legislature, I never did this. It would have been better if we had come to a good solution within the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the amendments 7 and 8, or 8 and 9, as soon as I do not know exactly, which I signed with Mrs. Brepoels, were quickly edited; in the corner of the table as if. That is partly the answer to your question.

Such bills are being pursued by Parliament and now exactly the same happens with major bills. This was also mentioned today at the Conference of Presidents.

Such a process leads not only to poor legislative work, but also to situations such as this, in which a number of shift stretches need to be corrected. Their

Indeed, the amendments I signed together with Mrs. Brepoels are less well drawn up legislatively and technically than the text of the amendments drawn up by Mrs. Moerman and submitted to me last week, in which she reasonably suggested to me — which I appreciate — to submit them together.

The amendments signed by Mrs. Moerman and myself are solid amendments and I hope that the majority will want to approve them.

Apart from the technical content of the documents, I would like to say the following. When in such a situation one is faced with arguments which can be difficult to refute in terms of content, it is appropriate to accept these arguments, even if they come from the opposition.

In any case, this was an important lesson for me — and hopefully also for you, colleagues. Apparently it is only when at another level, in the Flemish Parliament, a minister of the same party says that the opposition in the House gets a point, that there is something moving. In this regard, the Flemish interest could have been better served.

Whatever it said, I am convinced that a converted soul experiences more joy than one who persists in wrath. I am pleased that these documents can be approved.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I regret, ⁇ together with other colleagues, the following. During the committee meeting that was just discussed, there was a lot of animosity and agitation in the ranks and there was also a lot of media attention for the discussion of the donation of Prince Laurent.

Well, as soon as the next point was discussed, namely the bill proposed by Mr. Poncelet and the amendments that were submitted and which actually replaced the bill with a new text, many members took their book bags and left the hall, even though some of them had at the previous point uttered large thyrambes in the framework of the Flemish, no, Mr. Goyvaerts. They didn’t even find it necessary to combat this for Flanders detrimental bill.

Mr. Leterme, you are not going to blame others for organizing media attention in the committee?

Mr. Tavernier, everyone struggles with the resources at their disposal.

I only said that the bill in connection with the dotation of Prince Laurent deserved attention, but that attention was not in proportion to the little attention to a bill that also serves the Flemish interest, but to which less attention was attached because it was too technical to follow in extension.

To this limit my discussion in the general discussion.

As for the article-by-article discussion, I think we should not give much explanation anymore. The scope of the amendments is clear from the statements and the written justification.

For the sake of clarity, we withdraw the amendments 6 and 7.

I would like to point out that at that time errata appeared more than once in the Belgian Staatsblad.

We all tried to solve this problem through two techniques. First, I am very sensitive to the excellent work of the committee secretaries, and I would like to emphasize that.

Secondly, since February last year, we have a full-time legal service in the Chamber that provides excellent work in addition to the work of the committee secretaries.

Third, the Rules of Procedure have been amended and a sort of legal reading is provided. Regularly, legal observations are submitted by the committee secretariates and by the legal service. After all, nothing is more annoying than seeing a law appear in the Belgian Staatsblad and having to signal errata a few weeks later.

After all, nothing is more embarrassing than seeing a Belgian Staatsblad in which a law appears which a few days or weeks later follows a series of errata. It may still happen, but the Chamber has put on a set of legal sandbags to stop those dive breaks. I think this should also be said and I would like to pay tribute to the services in question.

Mr. Speaker, the existence of those legal sandbags, as you call it in a new decrousism, must not prevent attempts in committees to organize the work in such a way that meaningful, legislative work takes place, even though these services provide excellent work. It is my conviction that in the last few days it has been on the wrong side in this area a little bit. I hope that we will find a partner in you to organize this correctly.