Proposition 50K1317

Projet de loi relatif à Belgacom.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 25, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

telecommunications

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 3, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill was discussed in the Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday 25 June 2001. In application of Article 80 of the Constitution, the urgency was invoked. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the legal obligation of a majority participation of the government in Belgacom. The aim is also to empower the government to take all legal steps in order to be able to negotiate with strategic partners, this in response to the consolidation that is ongoing in the telecommunications market.

The government ⁇ that it is difficult for listed companies to negotiate under the suspending condition of a parliamentary agreement. Confirmation by the legislator is also difficult. However, it is stipulated that an ex-post report shall be issued to the Chamber.

It is important that in this bill all the rights of the social status of the staff are anchored and liberated. The commissioners questioned whether this bill does not mean carte blanche for the government. However, the committee concluded that the economic reality indeed requires the right legal framework to be created at the right time. Therefore, it is in everyone’s interest that we enter into a good strategic partnership with Belgacom.

The committee also said that this bill is fully in line with the government agreement to valorise the assets of public companies in order to reach debt relief. However, the Minister pointed out that this does not have to be a mere financial operation. The Government considered it important that the social status of the staff is fully liberated, and that there will be no discharges. The minister receives an authorization, but all royal decrees are drawn up only after consultation in the Council of Ministers.

The committee regretted that the opposition members did not want to discuss this bill, which is so important for Belgacom itself, but also for the whole community. The arguments of the government and colleagues did not want to be heard. The opposition simply did not participate in the debate on this topic, which is of interest to every calling citizen. After the opposition members left the discussion, the draft, as it fits, was unanimously approved.

I would like to thank Mr Van Campenhout for his report. He will again speak as a speaker in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the rapporteur referred to the position of the opposition. He said the opposition was not interested in the draft. I want to make it clear that the facts are different. We were informed on Sunday that there was an urgent committee meeting on Monday afternoon. However, we had not received the text of the draft at the time of the invitation. This text we found only on Monday, during the committee meeting, in our banks. We regretted this. So we asked the Minister if he would like to give a lecture on this important draft and give his explanation, after which we would discuss it at another time. The Minister did not agree. That is why we left the meeting. This is the correct explanation for the attitude of the opposition.

I will later explain what happened on Sunday and Monday, but you will first get the explanation from the chairman of the committee, Mr Van den Eynde.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak only in that capacity and then very briefly because Mr. Mortelmans will later explain the position regarding the Flemish Bloc group. Their

I would like to say something in addition to the arguments already put forward by, among other things, the CVP. If the majority abuses the fact that it remains alone in the committee to even have the report drawn up against the opposition, then I say to you in all serenity that this is not a democratic procedure.

This incident was rightly discussed at the Conference of Presidents. I have requested that the debate take place in the plenary session. I think you will understand my position.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the word in order to appeal to the Rules of Procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I am of course included in the speaker list, but I would like to draw attention to amendment n. 7 which we have submitted.

I just got it. I will let it round.

In application of the Rules of Procedure, I request the opinion of the Council of State on this amendment.

You know I need to check if your question is supported by sufficient members.

We are with the number required by the Rules of Procedure to request the electronic count.

Your proposal for consultation will be taken into consideration when it is supported by 30 members. The State Council will be asked for advice if 50 members accept your proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules of Procedure stipulate that a proposal for consultation with the State Council is also considered when it is supported by 22 members of a language group. You cannot refuse this question.

What exactly do you want, Mr. Leterme?

Mr. Speaker, I propose that the State Council be consulted on the amendment I have submitted. My proposal to consult the Council of State is supported by 22 members of the Dutch language group. I ask you to proceed to the electronic count if you do not immediately respond to my proposal to obtain the opinion of the State Council.

July 3, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a detailed look at the questions and comments of the colleagues and also give an additional explanation on a number of aspects that have not yet been addressed.

My answer contains two major elements. The first element has to do with the form, with the way we have worked so far. Second is the content. I have repeatedly said in the committee that I remain a convinced parliamentary and I must say that I am not entirely happy with the way the procedure has gone. I thought I had sufficiently explained that the reason why speed is offered has to do with the fact that, when you do not have the habilitation to be able to negotiate, some negotiations may not be able to end well.

This is immediately also a response to a question from Mr. Leterme because he spoke about the comments I had made about it at the end of 1999, when we did not get further there, based on those aspects. There were possibilities, but because of their confidential nature, I cannot go deeper into them. The element of uncertainty cannot be taken into account in negotiations with a listed company. That is why I ask for this authorization after we have examined a number of possibilities in the government and after we have today the intention to engage in decent conversations on this subject. As far as the form is concerned, I am not very happy with the way things are going. I would also like to explain why the draft was approved in the committee. The opposition left the meeting — and I say this without any evil intention — after I had proposed to finish the discussion of the draft that day. There has been no question about the content of the design or about any suspension. I do not want to put the responsibility solely on the opposition, but I have given my explanation only for the majority and the case was round. On the one hand, I understand the comments on the method, on the other hand, I can only indicate why I acted in this way.

In this context, a number of questions and comments were made on the role of the Parliament. Their

It must be clear. Parliament has a role of control over the executive. The executive decides, acts, the parliament controls through questions, interpellations and others. The logic would be that, and this is what we have seen in the past, the government acts, that it makes decisions.

Therefore, the government sets out actions and makes agreements. We can give many examples of this. Parliament then controls them. I have always tried to go much further than that, which I think the members of the Infrastructure Committee can witness. In the past, in the Committee on Infrastructure, I have often provided additional information behind closed doors that was normally not given in other circumstances. An example of this is, among other things, Sabena, where in the committee behind closed doors I have shown in advance what it was about. The Post is another example. I have gone so far in the closed-door committee to present the strategic plan, including sensitive information that could be detrimental to the company should get the competition in its possession. So I have always sought to go beyond the way I worked in the past. That is the reality. So I have a bit of trouble with the comment as if I were the one who would try to shoot out Parliament, while the facts show otherwise. Certainly, in this particular procedural case one could get a different impression. Their

I would like to return to the remarks of Ms. Coenen and Mr. by Vanoost. I think I can give a solution to your remarks, and to that of many of our colleagues, who say: is there no need for a law that confirms the royal decrees that, potentially, will be taken? The reason is that it is not possible, in the current context, in a market that is so fluid, to have this element of uncertainty in a potential trading process. This is where I ask for the authorization, which still presents security, namely that the arrests must be taken in the Council of Ministers and that in addition, the entry into force of the law of authorization is also fixed by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers. by Mr. Leterme made a comment on this. This is the political reason for making the law as it is today. There is therefore a double security lock: the entry into force that is taken by royal decree, and the royal decrees that will have to be taken in Council of Ministers, which, in the past, was not always the case.

In this context, I find it useful to find a solution that goes somehow against the way of working I have advocated so far, namely greater transparency and better information of the members of this parliament than in the past.

Procedures should be compared. As part of a normal procedure, one comes before the parliament with a royal decree that cannot be modified, as is the case for a normal authorization law. You can talk about it, but you can’t make changes. Under these conditions, I do not see where the problem of “security” lies, as the resolutions are taken by the Council of Ministers and their date of entry into force is decided by the same Council of Ministers. Indeed, in the other context, in the case of special powers — and you know that I am an expert in the matter — it is an habilitation. by

I have not changed my opinion. Why not ? I think there is another possibility, with the limitation that one cannot do otherwise. I have to take this into consideration, Mr. Leterme, whether you like it or not. So I think I can and will do the following.

I am fully willing to submit the Royal Decrees to the Commission, before submitting them to the Council of Ministers, so that it may know the content and scope. In fact, today we are going much further than in the past with special powers. Indeed, in this case, a minister or the Council of Ministers made a decree that was submitted to parliament, which could discuss it but could not change it. Today, I am fully prepared to present myself before the committees meeting for the circumstance before proposing them to the Council of Ministers. Thus, the Parliament will be informed before the Council of Ministers, which has never happened before. This will allow for better information and greater transparency. This procedure — I repeat it — goes far beyond the procedures that have existed in the past with regard to authorisations, special powers or “minivolmachten”, as some colleagues have called them. I repeat that I am ready to take this commitment.

I would like to answer Mr. and Poncelet. by Mr. Viseur pointed out to me that, in the past, a commission had examined the problem of swaps, a problem that you know well, Mr. Speaker. by Mr. Maystadt was then Minister of Finance, then leaving Mr. Maystadt in his place. and visitor. In the context of this issue, elements have been treated in complete confidentiality. I am fully willing to try, in consultation with the Conference of Presidents, to find a solution so that it is possible, in a context of confidentiality, to inform the Parliament of the progress of certain negotiations. I can’t commit to this at the time I speak to you because, in this case, it’s a contractual confidentiality issue. But I would like to commit myself to ask the Conference of Presidents to try to find a solution to this problem. In this context, I go much further — I repeat — than my colleagues have done in the past. I repeat that I am ready to start discussions without however changing the law because I cannot, at the moment, accept such amendments. But I repeat once again that I am prepared to try to find an adequate solution in this matter.

This concerning the form. I think we are going far beyond what a Parliament ever did in the past. It is also true that there has always been a certain attitude in the Infrastructure Committee in the past. Per ⁇ we can find a way to keep Parliament sufficiently involved in important processes, unlike in the past, where Parliament was in no way involved party. This is also a reality. The opposition must consider whether this is not a favorable opportunity or an element to oppose.

I then received a number of comments from colleagues Leterme, Poncelet, Brepoels, Coenen, Mortelmans, Chastel, Van Campenhout, Vanoost and Depreter. I will address some of these remarks. One wondered whether the confidence in this government was not shamed in the light of events at Belgacom. The examples were given, you also cited Sabena and UMTS. We will still have the opportunity to talk about Sabena, but let us take specific examples related to Belgacom. There are four major operations that were performed: an operation with BEN; not performing or rather a refusal to perform an IPO - of a stock exchange - by myself; UMTS is a key element and finally Infosources. You asked me if there were operations of self-reliance and stock exchange. Infosources is today the company in which we have created Skynet through what is called a “reverse merger”. Infosources is thus a listed company. This is one of the examples where I can indicate that that path has been followed, without, of course, remaining within the group. It is a separate listed company. The internet events of Belgacom are therefore listed on the stock exchange.

Let us then examine ME. We conducted an operation there for which we retained 48 billion net net worth in the context of an UMTS operation in the Netherlands. This is rarely cited. One makes comments about the negative sides, but this is a reality of format. 27 billion of these 48 billion have gone to the pension fund. This operation eventually enabled Belgacom to fulfill its obligations in respect of employees’ pensions faster. This is an operation which, among other things, was also supervised from the Cabinet and for which permission was required because the operation could involve stock transactions. Another example is the non-implementation of a public offer. I have submitted to the group leaders a number of documents from Morgan Stanley, who is our adviser and who was the adviser of the previous government in this file. I wanted to ensure a certain continuity here. We have not gone to an IPO and have always cited the argument that the market has reached its peak and we would withdraw money from hundreds of thousands of people. I’ve always said that and it’s indeed right that the market has collapsed until in some extreme cases a 75% drop in share value, but an average of 40 to 50%. This is seen everywhere in the telecom market and everyone knew that telecom had reached its peak. Everyone knows, by the way, that when telecom celebrates highs at the end of 1999 and you then opt for an IPO, you have left for at least 6 to 9 months. At that time, the market was no longer there. This is similar to UMTS. I think this was an important decision to keep the company standing up and strong. An IPO for a small business in a small market – no matter how healthy – does not even mean that you can then be an interesting partner in a strategic whole. When it comes to UMTS, I have always stood down against the insane amounts put forward by others. Experts have always been commissioned who spoke of 200, 250 billion. I have never deviated from my estimate of 40 billion for the four licenses, Mr. Leterme. Ultimately, it has become not 10, but 6 billion for a license and, yes, only 3 instead of 4. The market has changed drastically. My position is still that it was impossible to be ready at a time when there were only two auctions — the German and the British — that have taken up.

After all, no preparation had taken place and within the year we had to make preparations that took, for example, two years in Britain. Furthermore, only those two markets resulted in any result because they are large symbolic markets. Between hooks, with all the results vandien for other companies.

The market game was played correctly at the Belgian auction; the minimum value was taken, presumably because the value was too high for the market. That is the reality. An additional effect of this is in any case that Belgacom is now one of the most credible companies in all of Europe. By the way, this was mentioned.

However, we must understand each other well. It is either positive or negative.

My position was always that it was not to make the money, when it comes to UMTS. Hence, by the way, I always made comparisons with crazyly high estimates and ⁇ low amounts — which, by the way, proved too high for the market. The auction took place together with eight other countries. The end result is that we hold the fifth position in Europe in terms of financial yield. We are far away from the two major symbol markets, but that was inevitable.

The fact that the company was not listed on the stock exchange, in the context I just explained, led to Belgacom being one of the most credible telecommunications companies in Europe today. You can't blame me for some files not running well if you don't congratulate me for this file. After all, including through the policy decisions – management of course also plays a part – we reached a level where we occupy an interesting market position to engage in a conversation. Given the experience that not having an habilitation discourages sound conversations and given the fact that the company is very strong, an habilitation is requested in order not to miss a train in any case.

The Government approved the BEST program according to which, on the one hand, about three thousand people will be trained and, on the other hand, a thousand other persons will be offered the opportunity to work part-time under the same conditions as in the private or to be placed in "mise and disponibilité" in the context of an out-placement system. This gives decent premiums to persons over a certain age who are looking for another job where they can earn more, just like at Belgacom.

I am willing to compare the salaries of the employees at Belgacom with the remuneration in other companies. However, the cost will be significantly higher due to the burden. This is one of the old diseases of this country. At the moment, however, I cannot answer your question regarding the net wages.

With regard to the pension fund, as Mr Leterme correctly cited, it was thanks to the BEN operation that we were able to take an important step in securing the rights of the employees of Belgacom.

A strategic plan is the business plan of Belgacom itself. The strategic partnership was also recommended by Mr. Goossens, the boss of Belgacom. On that level, our statements coincide with those he has already put forward.

The word mother-in-law has fallen. My mother-in-law is a beautiful woman I should not be afraid of. Anyway, a government must work together and all those who have ever been part of a government know that. I think it is logical for a budget minister to give his opinion on transactions. For information, Mr. Leterme, in a Council of Ministers, no file can be discussed without a note from the Financial Inspectorate. In the event that note is negative or conditional, support is required by law due to the Minister of Budget. This is a legal procedure. If Mr Vande Lanotte is assisted by a number of experts, then congratulate. It seems to me logical that in important files the matters are studied accurately. If Minister Reynders says that all fiscal and other repercussions should be carefully looked at, it also seems to me logical.

It just proves that we do teamwork. That is the opposite of what you might want to try to make you suspect.

Under what criteria can an operation be carried out?

Mr. Leterme, for me, the management of the company is the most important criterion. That may sound crazy, but if the management of the company is convinced of a strategic operation, then politics has all the interests to stand behind it. That seems to be the right perspective. It is not the ministers who know how to run a telecommunications company and it is not the ministers who know how a strategic operation can be beneficial in synergies and other aspects. This seems to me obvious. This was also the case in 1995 with the strategic consolidation, when the management stood behind. For me, the prerequisite for carrying out any operation is that the management is fully behind the operation. Without this, I will not make a proposal to the government. With their support, I will do that. I will also ask the management to highlight all strategic aspects in this regard — the importance of a telecom operator being part of a larger whole, based in Brussels, synergies and cost savings.

You then asked for an opportunity to exchange thoughts on what might happen. I have undertaken to the Chamber to provide the royal decrees, before they go to the Council of Ministers, to the Infrastructure Committee on a confidential basis — which is evident in such a unique procedure — for information, supplemented, where appropriate, by aspects of negotiation as long as full confidentiality can be guaranteed and the procedure also enables this.

Of course, the debt position of potential partners is important. That is obvious. This will also have to be mainly the management itself. I would like to make a comment. If you look around Europe and you want to conduct a strategic operation with a European partner, then you will not find one without a debt position that is problematic in itself. There is no other choice. This will always remain an aspect. It will, of course, depending on the partner, whether or not weigh more. After that, someone hired Deutsche Telekom, where the level of debt is also huge. The debt may not be as large as in other companies, but it is enormous anyway. Let us be honest. Today, the volatility in the business world makes it possible to approach the abyss very quickly with a limited number of errors, ⁇ in the telecommunications sector.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the debt situations of the various companies or companies in Europe are different and the amounts can be compared. But you know as well as I know that there are assessment criteria. If you look at KPN’s debt, it is ⁇ negative or very poorly appreciated by international finance specialists. When we insist on the importance of debt, it is of course in absolute or relative value compared to other companies but also as such by the misappreciation of the international financial community. Recognize that in this case, KPN is one of the worst partners.

Mr. Speaker, to come directly to the comments that Mr. Poncelet has done about KPN, I reaffirm today that Belgacom is in contact with several potential partners. One of them is KPN, but there are others. Therefore, it is not useful today to enter into a discussion about the terms of a possible transaction when it is not negotiated and other possibilities are open.

Mr. Poncelet, I would like to consider the expert report which will take all these elements into account during a possible transaction. I am in favour of such a procedure. I let you note that, in the past, there was the famous privatization commission that had exactly the same role as this group of experts. There is nothing illogical here.

Mr. Speaker, it is in the extension of what colleague Poncelet says and in order to safeguard what eventually will happen with Belgacom in the coming months and years. Especially the debt position. KPN has a turnover of 520 billion francs. The debt position amounts to around 1000 billion francs, accumulated for the reasons we know, namely E Plus and the UMTS licenses. Deutsche Telekom has a turnover of 1,600 billion francs and a debt position of 2,500 billion francs. These are different numbers. I admit that they have evolved in the same direction in recent years. We emphasize this difference from the opposition in order to safeguard our views. We warn about the debt position. This should be an important element of assessment before entering into an alliance.

You actually give a very good example. 500 against 1000, 1600 against 2400. The position of Deutsche Telekom is huge. 2400 billion debt you need to look as it is. In proportion it may be less than KPN, but in mass it is 2.5 times larger. You can turn it and turn it as you like it, but the debt position will be an important element. For me, it is important that management in a potential operation can say whether the situation is possible or not. Guilt can be very different, you know, Mr. Leterme. The form of a debt can make a debt of 2.5 times so much easier to work away than a debt of half.

Quotation elements also play a role in the discussion, but the manager must be convinced that this is not the most important element at the level of a possible transaction.

It is obvious that the former privatization commission, the current expert committee, will also give me an opinion. It is logical. This notice is important if there are potential problems with future transactions. This opinion has not always been taken into account in the past, for other cases and the consequences are measured today. We will be able to return to it in the coming days.

Mr. Poncelet, there is no need to go into details because your particular questions are hypothetical. As for the general questions you have asked, I will answer them without any problem.

Mr. Minister, I note that the delegate administrator of the company Belgacom has spread very long on the antennas while he never does it and he only talked about KPN. It wasn’t us who invented possible discussions with this company, it was the delegate administrator of Belgacom who made long statements about the interest of a partnership with KPN. I have not invented anything. Letters too. It’s not even your majority, it’s the delegated administrator of the company itself. You can say that you’re not talking about it, but it’s the company’s boss who talked about KPN on the public square. So don’t blame us for asking questions about an agreement that the Belgacom boss himself presents as the best solution for his company.

Therefore, one of the conditions is already fulfilled since I told you that it was the manager who had to be convinced of the potential of the operation. I can give you the status of the situation in my capacity as a shareholder: at the moment, there are various potential partners. There are talks between these companies and nothing is exclusive at the moment. Nothing is concrete in the sense of a conclusion but it should not be excluded because, in this sector, things can go very quickly.

Mr. Pollock, I will return to your other questions. In a potential operation, would it be a “cash” issue? Who knows? This is not excluded. This depends on the type of transaction. Personally, I will not say that it is necessary. For me, what prevails is the strategic transaction, the short and the long term, and it is clear that it is the long term that matters much more. Why Why ? Because in the long run, one enters into the context of a positive strategic partnership not only in terms of shareholder value but also at the level of general interest, which is quite different but not necessarily opposite.

Many colleagues have raised the question of universal service. It is clear that the content of the Universal Service must be safeguarded. In what context? In what way? Again, it will depend on the type of operation. I was asked when there would be a debate in parliament. Let’s be clear: in the Infrastructure Committee, we have already received various people who have expressed their views. On Wednesday, representatives of the European Commission will be heard. On Thursday, we will receive Mr. Bolkestein who will express his opinion. On July 10, the government’s vision will be presented. I cannot speak until all the actors have been heard.

So I organized, for the first time in the Belgian Parliament, a very open discussion on universal service. I was given a comment when I thought I had solved this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this debate took place in close collaboration with the parliamentarians but it was not only due to the will of the minister.

No, it is obvious. I have no problem recognizing it. But it must be admitted that this debate on universal service has never taken place in the past. The government made every effort to contact any person who could issue an interesting opinion within the committee. It is remarkable to hear prominent figures present their views on universal service within the Belgian parliament. I am very happy to welcome these personalities among us. by

As for the form of the debate, it will depend on the types of transactions. The most important thing is that the universal service remains. We need to find a way that the citizen can always benefit from this universal service.

As for the social consequences, various questions have been raised on the subject. The project clearly provides that employees will retain all acquired rights. The European Commission has expressed its agreement on this issue. Currently, the persons employed by Belgacom have, so to speak, a civil servant status. Therefore, it is not a matter of social costs as in a private company. If the company becomes private, the European Commission should give its consent so that this system can survive. This is precisely the purpose of “grand-fathering”: ⁇ ining the same conditions for staff. Therefore, the operation will have no social consequences.

by Mr. Poncelet spoke of Belgian-Dutch questions but there are also Belgian-English, Belgian-French or Belgian-German questions. I can add nothing to that.

I will come to the punctual questions of Mr. Leterme. The counselors will be voted tomorrow. The previous government had the same counselors. I answered the questions about universal service. With regard to strategic services such as the military, these aspects must be taken into account in any transaction. Today, security is ⁇ possible separate from certain companies. This is a matter of encryption and so on. I have discussed the rights of the statutory staff. These rights will remain fully preserved in the grandfathering procedure. The royal decisions taken in this regard will first be negotiated with the trade unions. This means that the Infrastructure Committee will be informed of this before the royal decrees are submitted to the Council of Ministers. There is no greater guarantee. If the Royal Decrees have been approved by the Council of Ministers before they are discussed in the Chamber, they cannot be amended. I repeat that it is our only task to guarantee speed and security to potential partners. On the question of whether services or staff members are transferred to other government agencies, the answer is no. This is not included in the Best Program. A question was asked about possible coincidence regarding simultaneity with regard to the BIPT. This is not the case, but it is good that the BIPT should become independent by 1 January 2002. I just keep my timing.

This is rather exceptional.

Mr. Leterme, that is not so exceptional. Usually I stay quite well within my timing. In the past, I had to let myself go and set myself a deadline. At the end of 1999, I fell into such a trap. I will not do this again.

It is clear that the pension fund will be further funded. That is an obligation. Financing must always be continued. I answered the questions about the salary level. I also answered the questions concerning guarantees for staff in relation to the grandfathering. Their

The parity committee telecom does not depend on me. It does not seem illogical to me that such a committee should be established at any given moment. At present, the telecommunications sector is housed by the aviation industry. This is not logical. I am confident that Ms. Onkelinx, who is responsible for this matter, will develop an initiative in this regard.

Social elections will be held. The trade unions have warned us that in the event of an operation they wish to retain the current form of trade union representation for the next two social elections. There are so many words in the design. It is a concession to the trade unions so that they have certainty about the trade union representation that currently applies. We have included this in the law.

Questions were asked whether the staff can participate in the capital. The Stock Options Act was approved. It does not seem illogical to me that participation in capital will be possible in the future. If the company becomes a private company, it is only logical that it introduces the normal stock and remuneration plans that currently already exist in the private sector.

Ms. Brepoels is absent. I answered her questions about the debt, the agreement within the government, the trade unions, the various companies, the law of 1991, the universal service. I have understood that its group and the groups of Leterme and Poncelet have no objection to the content of the bill, but to the form.

Madame Coenen, I think I have answered you as clearly as possible. Before submitting the royal decrees to the Council of Ministers, it is necessary to be sure of its information and eventually organize a debate on the subject. In the case of a normal habilitation, you would not have that faculty because you could no longer modify the royal decrees. I’m not saying that it should be done, but in any case, it will be possible.

The question is whether this is a development project. This is obvious because we are looking for a strategic partnership. In the statement of reasons, it is clearly stated that this is not a purely financial project. On the contrary, it is an industrial project that we have been pursuing from the beginning. This explains certain operations such as UMTS and our refusal to use the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Mortelmans, you also made comments on the procedure. I have discussed this in detail, as well as the principles of corporate government that this government respects.

The comments of Mr. Chastel focused on the realistic or non-realistic aspect of the project. I think we are all realistic. In a government, the opinion of all colleagues counts. In fact, when you consider anything in the Council of Ministers, everyone must be unanimous. So the mediated image that it was an isolated action is contrary to reality. On the contrary, we are all aware of this large-scale project which, like all the other projects I have presented to the government and which have often been discussed in advance in committees, has been well carried out by the government as a whole. It is better to have security than to be without it. Personally, I am pleased that my colleagues help me with this matter.

Mr. Van Campenhout, you talked about speed. This is really a procedural problem and nothing more. The developments in the telecommunications sector have compelled us to show this out. I have already answered Mr Vanoost’s comment on the staff — the guarantees for the social status, universal service — I have already answered.

Mr. Depreter, you also referred to elements relating to the social aspect, the plan bis and the type of partner. I think I have already answered all of these questions. Any potential partner should be a reliable partner. The recent and distant past is filled with examples of agreements showing that this was not the case. In this regard, it is important to be vigilant. by

Corporate governance is important. I have always attached great importance to this aspect but not in a context where one keeps the eyes closed. This is the comment you raised and you are absolutely right. You also observe a potential lack to gain for the State, somehow joining the observations of Mr. Poncelet focuses on the differences between the short and the long term. I believe that the long-term is more important in the context of general interest than the short-term. by

As for the universal service, I think I have answered your comments.

Regarding the draft law itself, I will immediately answer some of the amendments, with the understanding, however, that I am always willing to come back to it if my colleagues wish. It was pointed out that, according to the opinion of the State Council, ratification by law is necessary. It is not so. In its opinion, the State Council expressly states that this is not the case. I quote: "Given the justification of the Minister, it can be accepted that ratification by law is not necessary."

Mr. Speaker, the Minister quotes from the State Council Opinion, case 1317/001, page 9 as follows: "Given this justification, it can be accepted that ratification by law is not necessary." It is quite selective to limit yourself to the first part.

I will read it for you, colleague Leterme.

Furthermore, on page 10 of the same document it is clearly specified that indeed in the bill itself the contours of the authorisation must be indicated.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leterme, as the State Council says, ratification by law is not necessary, provided that those delegations do not cover matters which, under the Constitution, may be regulated only by the legislature. In other words, it is about the reserved materials. In Article 24, there are two reserved subjects: education and taxation. These are the only two substances. The other must either be indicated in the dispositif, or it must be sufficiently clear in which direction they are going. This is stated in the opinion of the State Council. There are even arbitration court decisions that confirm this.

We are therefore dealing with employment relations and aspects of social security that are not reserved subjects. There have been judgments of the Arbitration Court of Legion on mandatory decisions made by previous governments, which repeatedly stated that employment relations and social security aspects are not reserved subjects. In the explanatory memo we have sufficiently clearly indicated the direction we want to take in terms of employment relations and social security. The reason why that was not put forward in the corpus is the protection of the staff.

When royal decrees have yet to be negotiated with the trade unions, and before they are still open to negotiation, the necessary flexibility must be ⁇ ined. The law can therefore not contain a provision imposing a restriction on the adoption of a particular royal decree safeguarding the rights of workers in terms of employment relations or social security. For this reason, the content is limited and the memorandum of explanation contains an additional statement which, in our opinion, does indeed take into account the opinion of the State Council. I understand your comment. However, if all governments so far had to have literally implemented all the opinions of the State Council, I would admit that this is now somewhat difficult. However, this is absolutely not the case. The advice of the State Council is taken into account to the extent that it is considered to be done correctly. We do that too. Moreover, we retain the flexibility to be able to negotiate with the necessary flexibility in the relations with the trade union organisations royal decrees that can now fully safeguard their rights in terms of collective labour relations and in terms of social security. The opposite of what you have put forward is the case.

The other amendments are semantic in nature. However, I have asked for a quick execution, so I will not go into it. In fact, I am familiar with the parliamentary procedures when accepting amendments and requests for a second reading. I explained why the bill was drafted as it is now and why the government cannot accept amendments. As it is now expected, the design must be preserved.

The latter article regulates the entry into force of the Royal Decree. We intended to provide that additional certainty in a — admitted — political agreement to ensure that all actors can be fully engaged in this matter, so that every possible operation or transaction is fully borne by the whole government and not the action of a few, contrary to the impression that one wants to create. With the elements I have submitted, I have sufficiently demonstrated that this is not the case.

The Minister responded to the questions for about fifty minutes.

Mr. Leterme, you are now asking the word for replica. However, the discussion by article and the amendments still offer you opportunities to speak.

You have already missed the discussions in the committee. I just asked for the word and you asked me to wait until the end of the Minister’s speech. We are now at the end of the Minister’s speech.

I thought you wanted to get into a certain point.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a few points. We have now come to the end of the Minister’s speech and I think that now, even if it was only for three minutes, I still have the right to speak.

Mr. Poncelet would like to take advantage of this opportunity as well. I have three more comments. First, the Minister has said that Parliament has the mandate to control. However, the constitutional division of powers is somewhat wider. It also gives us the power to do legislative work. According to the opinion of the State Council, this bill does not specify the authorisation granted to the King to take a number of measures, including those relating to the social security of employees and workers. In its opinion, the Council of State states that the description should be included in the text of the draft law itself and therefore not in the memo of explanation to which you refer. The State Council's opinion expressly states: "Such a general limitation of the king's authority" — thus a limitation of the authorization — "should be indicated for the reasons just outlined in the text itself of the preliminary draft". Therefore, this should not happen in the memory of explanation. This is about the constitutional division of powers, which is, therefore, not anything.

Second, you refer to the fact that the text of the draft provides for the approval by the Council of Ministers of the agreements that you will conclude. If I hear this as an argument, you are asking the House for a trust that is wider than the trust you enjoy in the government. In the government, after all, it has been said that this is not completely trusted and that you must therefore come with your file before the full Council of Ministers before you take steps. Now you say that with regard to the Chamber you cannot allow confirmation of the session terms of the agreement that you will conclude because this is an element of distrust towards the Contracting Party. However, that lack of confidence that you do not think can be recognised in the Council of Ministers. This argument is therefore completely invalid.

Finally, I know that there is a game of majority and opposition, but the discussion must make sense. At least one amendment was submitted by the majority. However, it is quite obvious that you are not willing to allow any change to the text, even no text change suggested by the majority. Therefore, the discussion of this bill makes no sense here. We can also close the books and go home.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have clearly stated that where the Constitution reserves certain domains for the legislator alone, confirmation is indeed necessary. However, collective labour relations and social security are aspects that do not belong to them. I also indicated why we indicated the direction more clearly, including in the explanatory memory. We want to provide the flexibility needed to conclude agreements that safeguard rights.

With regard to trust, everything here has to do with the fact that when one is in negotiation, one cannot afford to have so much time passing between the moment when one agrees in so far as it can be talked further and the time needed in a procedure to approve it. Let us not call each other Lisebeth, in the past, in these kinds of matters, one has always made an agreement that afterwards simply had to be swallowed. What I do here goes much further. By a royal decree I inform the committee before the decision has been taken. That is giving confidence to the Parliament and gaining confidence within the government. In other words, I think that the arguments of our colleague are not so well placed. I have stated that, for the same reason, I do not wish to intervene on a number of amendments submitted by him.

I agree with my colleague Leterme.

The Minister recently reminded us of the role of parliament and that of the executive. He says that Parliament controls the executive. Everyone is fully agreed on this. However, the problem lies in the fact that the bill that is deposited aims to subtract from the influence of the legislative a competence that the Constitution grants it. by

In this case, it is therefore not abnormal that Parliament wishes to exercise its rights. This is also in the interest of the opinion of the State Council, which puts well the limits of the delegation that is asked of us and which does not accept the principle contained in the draft government. by

In addition, the Minister undertakes to inform the Parliament or the Chamber of the draft royal arrests that he is preparing. We will return to this commitment in terms of amendments. There will therefore not be the slightest obstacle to our amendments being accepted by the government, as they simply aim to formalize, in the relationship it provides between the executive and parliament, the way to meet this concern of generous information presented. There is indeed a way to do this with a reduced size commission, in which the necessary confidentiality will be ensured; in which I fully share your concern. I therefore do not see what arguments you could argue against our proposed amendment to the text, which meets precisely this concern. by

In addition, I note that there would be no exclusive partnership with KPN. And I repeat the argument I mentioned all the time, when I allowed myself to interrupt you: everything the management says is not known to the shareholder, since the management announces to us practically the exclusivity of a discussion with the Dutch. And the shareholder you are doesn’t seem to be aware or have other prospects.

You know, I think I’ve read somewhere: “If your right hand doesn’t know what your left hand is doing, cut it off.”

Mr. Speaker, since I find this question interesting in terms of democracy and participation, I have to give my opinion. by

The proposal of the Minister involves a somewhat unexpected or at least unusual procedure in parliament. We are faced with a dilemma. by

If I have well understood the scope of your proposal, it implies that in advance, we could discuss the draft stops you wish to take, while keeping in mind that these discussions must take place in complete confidentiality since they would have economic and financial implications for the company.

Furthermore, you ask us to accept that the whole process is done and that, subsequently, once everything is decided, an information is made to the attention of Parliament, which will be able to take the matter and approve the agreement. by

So you offer us the choice between two strategies: either the one that takes place upwards — where you can discuss what is on the table — or the one that takes place downwards — and then we have the role of a maintenance chamber. There is always a question of trust. by

Should we make this bet? Should this method of discussion, exchange of information and debate be advanced? I think the answer to this question is affirmative in so far as it represents an advance from the original text, which confiscated us all of our competence. by

That said, such a practice would deserve a reflection in terms of methodology, which obviously should not be done here.

It was with interest that I listened to the words of Ms. Coenen. Or ⁇ ining the system that grants parliament, after the exercise of special powers by the executive, the right to verify, examine, hear and read the decisions taken and to sanction them – which is the normal and traditional arrangement in such circumstances. The government urges us to deviate from it by preventing us from exercising our parliamentary work a posteriori for reasons that can be discussed but that are related, he says, to the nature of legal uncertainty that would create in the event of a stock exchange, etc.

Or similar modalities are used, i.e. a parliamentary commission with elected members who sit, a priori, before the promulgation of these resolutions. It is a discussion and information within a parliamentary committee that exercises its role a priori but it is not anything in the air to the goodwill of the government that decides whether or not to inform a committee. That is why I submitted this amendment which comes in the spirit of what the minister has said - and I find that he has the arguments - to justify that, a posteriori, we cannot do it, but that from then on, a priori, we must put ourselves in the conditions to meet the concern of hearing the minister when he proposes us the resolutions he has prepared.

However, this must be done in the forms required and I have made a suggestion of commission composition with the confidentiality conditions that the minister insists on. But it is one or the other. One cannot satisfy himself with the states of soul, according to the good will of the government, before even using the right that this proposal will give it.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.