Proposition 50K1289

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 novembre 1967 portant création du Bureau d'intervention et de restitution belge.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 8, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EAGGF intervention policy agricultural policy market intervention farm price support

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) 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 ¶

Feb. 21, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that we dealt with in two meetings in January 2002 and it has a dual purpose. With this draft we want to provide the possibility for the existing Belgian Intervention and Restitution Bureau to be financed from the resources of the general budget and the remuneration and to adapt the structures to the political commitments and to give more involvement to the regions after the Lambermont Agreement. It remains a federal institution and therefore the government has also taken into account the observations of the State Council and amended the draft. The number of members of the board of directors was increased to 10 so that in addition to the federal government now there are also 5 representatives from the regions. The amended bill was adopted with 8 votes and 1 abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I will be very brief.

The bill on the BIRB is in line with the Lambermont Agreements. A political agreement was made to reach a certain composition of the BIRB organs. In essence, that arrangement meant that there would be another federal representative. The submitted text was forwarded to the Council of State for advice. The Council’s comments urged the Minister to override the political agreement and to appoint five additional federal representatives.

Let me be very clear. This is a violation of the political agreement. Furthermore, I think that the reasoning of the State Council is subject to discussion. In fact, nothing prevents the federal legislator from developing a system for the management of the BIRB — a federal authority — in which the role of the regions is much more extensive than in the present text. I do not understand why the fact that special laws provide that the main competence of the BIRB remains at the federal level necessarily implies that the management of the BIRB must also remain at the federal level. I think this is just sound clear nonsense. It is not because the State Council consists of eminent lawyers that they are unable to make a mistake.

If, however, I would like to listen to the State Council’s argument, there is also another solution to confirm the political agreement in this regard and at the same time to refer to the State Council’s technical comment. In fact, nothing prevents you from applying Article 92 of the Special Act, which clearly stipulates that the federal government may conclude cooperation agreements with the regions and communities in respect of jurisdictions falling within its territory. Nothing had prevented you from developing a solution in place of this technical solution in which you respected the political agreement in the framework of a cooperation agreement.

I think this text is a violation of a political agreement. It is also poor legislation, which testifies to a lack of creativity in finding technical solutions within the constitutional framework.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, my comment on this BIRB draft goes in the same direction as that of Mr. Borginon.

This bill dates from 8 June 2001 and was originally intended to change the financing of the BIRB. A few weeks later, the government decided that it should adapt this bill to the Lambermont Agreements, mainly when it came to the composition of the Board of Directors. Indeed, she wanted to give the regions a dominant position: two members from the Flemish government, two from the Wallish government, one from the Brussels Capital Region and one from the federal government. The opinion of the State Council was ⁇ negative on this point. It argued that this draft law was not in accordance with the Special Act of 13 July 2001, as it only refers to a guaranteed and significant representation of the regions. The Special Act does not stipulate that the districts would acquire the majority in the Board of Directors, so the BIRB remains a federal competence. The State Council was followed in this opinion — which is not always the custom of this government — and therefore corrections were made by appointing the same number of members of the federal government as of the regions: two for Flanders, two for Wallonia, one for the Brussels Capital Region and five for the federal government. Their

We have therefore decided to submit an amendment to this special law in order to regionalize the BIRB. This amendment was based on the resolution of the Flemish Parliament on coherent powers packages, the opinion of the State Council denouncing the unclearness of the provision and the fact that the BIRB has very extensive powers. Our warnings were rejected by the majority. Now we find that the legal clutter of the time, the government’s reluctance to clarify vague terms and the bullying attitude of the majority have as a single result that the regionalization of Agriculture is slashed and that agreements made are not met. We will not approve this bill.

Of course, this bill is still the result of Hermes and Lambermont. Among other things, the BIRB remained a federal matter despite the removal of the powers in the field of agricultural policy. In the consultation committee of 9 March 2001, it was decided that the Board of Directors would consist of six members: two from the Flemish Region, two from the Wallish Region, one from the Brussels Capital Region and one member of the federal government. This was concretized in the amendment submitted by the Government to the Chamber of People’s Representatives to its bill amending the law of 10 November 1967 establishing a Belgian Intervention and Restitution Bureau. This amendment replaces the entire original draft. Their

However, following the opinion of the State Council, the government decided to submit sub-amendments, which fundamentally change the relationship between federal government and western governments. According to those amendments, the federal government would not be allowed to appoint one, but not more than five members in the Board of Directors of the BIRB. The President must also be a member appointed by the federal government and receives the decisive vote in case of strike of votes. The federal government therefore unilaterally changes the arrangement made within the consultation committee on the representation of the regions in the BIRB’s board of directors. Consequently, it is clear to us that this has damaged the importance of the Flemish Region. In the Flemish Parliament we have therefore invoked a conflict of interests by Joris Van Hauthem. Three NVA members abstained from this motion. The rest voted against.

In any case, we will vote against. We are also interested in the voting behavior of the Flemish colleagues and in particular of the NVA.

The Lambermont Agreements provide for the transfer of agriculture to the regions. However, the BIRB would remain federal and for practical reasons. After all, there had to be an institution where the regions could make joint decisions. Furthermore, they should have “a guaranteed and significant representation” there.

We have repeatedly asked in the committee and in the plenary session what is meant by significant. In response, the consultation committee decided that the Board of Directors should have a composition of 2+2+1+1+. In the nuclear cabinet of 16 January 2001, it was decided to vote on the bill simultaneously with the Lambermont agreements. In the voting of the two special laws of the Lambermont Agreements, therefore, the term “guaranteed and significant representation” could not be interpreted other than the composition of 2+2+1+1. The Government has followed this interpretation in its draft law. Then there was the negative opinion of the State Council because it would be in conflict with the federal logic of this institution. One of two things, Mr. President. The board of directors of the BIRB must be composed of 5+5 with a major vote from the chairman. Then you must follow the advice of the State Council and amend the special law. After all, you have otherwise filled in the words that you had voted by the majority and part of the opposition at the time, namely a composition of 2+2+1+1.

Either you respect what you said you wanted to accept at the time, and you leave the State Council’s opinion by your side. It is one or the other, Mrs. Neyts, otherwise there is a wordbreak.

Mr. Speaker, a number of speakers reminded the history of the bill, although not always completely correct. In fact, it begins with the advancement of the special law, which was passed on 13 July 2001. It stated clearly that the BIRB will remain federal, although indeed with a guaranteed and significant representation of the regions. After a first amendment in that sense was submitted, we received the judgment of the Council of State stating that it considered the originally determined composition of the Board of Directors inexistent, thus incompatible with the Lambermont decision stating that the BIRB will remain federal.

The State Council considers that a preponderance in the decisions of the regions is incompatible with the maintenance of the federal character of this institution. This is determined by one of the approved articles of the Lambermont Act of 13 July 2001. The Council of State adds that, if necessary, the composition of the Board of Directors could be changed, but only and only provided that the required special constitutional two-thirds majority.

It is in no way my intention to humiliate the members of Spirit, N-VA and related parties by recalling all the peripeties and fateful events that took place on the political level and which led us to consider it wiser to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, rather than seeking a ⁇ difficult two-thirds majority to put an end to the federal character of the Belgian Intervention and Restitution Agency. Therefore, the government decided to submit the amendments, as reminded by the rapporteur, Ms. Leen Laenens. I therefore ask the majority groups to approve this bill and to consider in the future whether or not the federal character of the BIRB should be changed.

Mrs. Minister, what did the words “guaranteed and significant representation” mean, at the time the special law was passed, other than the fulfillment given by you, the majority and the ministers of Institutional Reform – who, by the way, always referred to that composition –? What else did you vote in the House other than on that composition? You do not answer that question, although that is precisely the essence of the matter.

Undoubtedly, the Ministers of Institutional Reform gave that answer. However, they could not suspect that the State Council would consider this to be completely incompatible with the federal character of the BIRB, which is equally a decision of the Lambermont Act.

Mrs. Minister, if the draft in those terms is put to vote in the Chamber, then the special law does not necessarily mean that it is voted on the composition as it was defended at that time. Claiming that the special law should then be changed is simply reversing things. Indeed, it is precisely with what you want to carry through that the special law needs to be changed.

That is not true. The State Council has taken a different opinion, although you may consider this as a mistake on my part.

We believe that, given the current political constellation, it is wiser to follow the advice of the State Council and ensure that the composition of the BIRB’s governing bodies is compatible with the provisions of the basic articles of the Lambermont Act of 13 July 2001.

I do not always agree with Mr. Peters, but I do. Since the meaning of the Special Law on Significant Representation was clearly established at that time and you now attach a different meaning to it, you make this law subject to an appeal to the Arbitration Court. You realize that, right?

I know now that you think so, but I only know what is stated in the laws of the Lambermont Agreement, Mr. Borginon. Although I am not a lawyer and even less a constitutionalist, I know that when it really comes to it, only the text as it has been approved counts. That text says what I reminded you and does not recall the composition of the board of directors of the BIRP, because then, by the way, there would have been no problem. It was approved by the required majority. You find that this change cannot, but the law says what it says.

When repeating, it is asked what signifies significant in this context. We have repeatedly said that significant is not a legally relevant word. We have always been answered by referring to the composition of the Board of Directors. The word meaning is contained in that special law. You need to explain to me why that word now gets a different fulfillment than at the moment you approved that law.

I have no objection to a debate in plenary session. You are entitled to that, but I see in the report of the committee that no one has spoken. I have the report for me and it is two pages long.

I would like to clarify a few things because I am a member of this committee. At the time that the Minister submitted the amendments of the Government, we did not start the discussion because the majority was not in number. That meeting continued a few weeks later, when I myself had just fallen by the flu. I have not been able to participate in the discussions, but I have directly stated that in no case can we agree on this matter. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, the Government does not always follow the opinions of the State Council. I refer to the NMBS dossier and the cooperation agreement. In fact, the State Council determines that the organisation of the railway undertaking belongs to the federal competence. Co- and pre-financing are not possible because it is a federal authority. Since it is a political agreement, the government puts this advice aside. It is also about a political agreement. I remember very well that the BIRB was held federal because it could be better organized in this way. It is not a federal power as such, because there is no minister anymore. That passage has been removed from the law.

The Minister of Agriculture does not give any further instructions. It is the board of directors that manages and guides the institution in its activities, but since the political agreement stipulates that the regions are responsible for the management, this is a word breaking from the political agreement.

First, I think it is better for us not to talk about what is and what has not been a breach of words in all the peripeties that have led to the adoption of the law and what has followed in all those months. This is useless and fruitless.

Second, you must admit that I did not make a single comment on the progress of the work in the committee. I am always willing to resume a debate in the plenary session, even in the committee if it had been possible. I have no objection to this at all.

Third, I say with equal right and reason that the representation of half minus one is equally a guaranteed and significant representation, though not a majority.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill stipulates that both the federal government and each region will be able to appoint a commissioner to the BIRB, although you will not be able to persuade that to approve the bill. The basic philosophy that regions should be involved and that they should have the opportunity to shape the BIRB’s policy has indeed been met. I therefore invite the majority groups to approve this bill.