Proposition 50K1354

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 décembre 1983 de réformes institutionnelles pour la Communauté germanophone.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

June 14, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

German-speaking Community transfer of competence regionalisation regional finances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution and the Institutional Reforms examined, during its meetings of 6, 28 and 29 November, the bill submitted by the Senate and amending the law of 31 December 1983 on institutional reforms for the German-speaking Community. The report is published in the three national languages.

The project is part of the overall framework for the transfer of various competences to regions and communities, the refinancing of communities and the expansion of regional tax competences. The project therefore presents three major chapters: - the refinancing of the German-speaking Community; - the expansion of its competences; - the possibility of increasing the number of members of the government of the community. by

With regard to refinancing, an analogue to what is done in the other two communities is established, a funding system that takes into account the number of students. From 2002 onwards, the allocation of the German-speaking Community registered in the federal budget will be increased. From 2002 to 2011, fixed funds will be granted. As of 2007, the adjustment will be carried out at a rate of 91% of the actual growth of gross national income and the parameters for calculating this allocation will be regularly updated.

The German-speaking Community will also receive a percentage of the profit to be distributed from the National Lottery as well as a special allocation to compensate for the loss suffered as a result of the regionalization of the radio-TV fee.

With regard to the expansion of powers, the German-speaking Community will now be able to develop its own regulations regarding the control of electoral spending, the control of government communications as well as the supplementary financing of political parties.

As regards the possibility of increasing the number of members of the Government, the tasks of this Government being extended to the exercise of regional powers, the German-speaking Community may increase the number of its ministers from three to a maximum of five. by

The Council of the German-speaking Community declared itself in favour of this draft, which was adopted by our committee by 11 votes against 4.

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. 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. Die Verhandlungen des Auschusses haben insbesondere which deals with the following Themes: 1. the Bestimmung des Mitgliederzahles der deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaftsregierung; 2. the Absenheit der konstitutiven Autonomie der deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft; 3. Das Verhältnis zwischen der Logik der Finanzierung des Unterrricht in der flämisch-französischen Gemeinschaft, on the one hand, and in der deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft, on the other; 4. the possible extension of the competences of the German-speaking Community; 5. the individual legal issues related to it.

Uber these Themes has held an interesting opinion exchange. I thank myself.

Mr. Speaker, I would only like to point out that there was no Dutch translation during the German presentation of Mr. Pieters. You will therefore have to adjust your services if Mr. Pieters wishes to keep such statements in the future.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, the German of Mr. Pieters was so clear that we all understood it. Mr. Peterson, you will still speak in your own name. Would you do the same in German? Your German was good.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, unfortunate are the border areas when they are the first victims of the thirst for power and the warrior madness of men. But are they happy when, freedom and peace assured in dignity, the inhabitants have as a common project to ensure to their country and their region, civil security, socio-economic promotion, environmental enhancement and cultural and linguistic exchanges.

Located in the heart of the Liège-Maastricht-Aachen triangle, the Verviers district has always been open to the three national languages and has quickly and resolutely engaged in European construction. This is ⁇ the case of the German-speaking Community, proud of its identity, always concerned with permanent dialogue with the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Communities, faithful to the Federal Belgium and partner of a Europe fed by socio-economic and cultural exchanges.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, meets several legitimate aspirations of the German-speaking Community, both institutionally and financially; aspirations that reaffirm both its identity and its concern for openness and harmony. That is why the PSC group will vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the discussion of this bill has given rise to an interesting discussion in the committee, which was positively distinguished from the doomman conversation during the discussions of the Lambermont Agreement. At that time, a dialogue was hardly possible. We then conducted a doomed conversation with the government, which was represented before almost every committee meeting by another minister with special expertise. Sometimes there were even ministers who were not or barely involved in the negotiations on the Lambermont Agreement and whose knowledge of the subject was right proportionate to their existing or non-existent involvement in the negotiations.

With this bill we got answers to our questions. However, I do not mean that we could agree with those answers or with the draft law. I would like to point out that the lively discussion with mainly members of the opposition — I refer, among other things, to the meaningful contribution of Mr. Pieters — has been summarized in an excellent manner by the services of the House and correctly formulated by the rapporteurs. We have been critical of this bill in the committee. Our criticism actually has three strength lines. First, we criticize the funding system. Second, the expansion of the government of the German-speaking Community is also criticized by us. Third, we also criticized the extension of the powers of the same German-speaking Community.

As for funding, I can say the following. Since we voted against the financing arrangement of the Lambermont Agreement and the same principles of that agreement are reflected in this bill, it would obviously be illogical to take a different stance now. We reject the funding scheme because it works in the hand of consumer deregulation in our country. The principle that the taxpayer can also be held accountable for the expenditure of that tax money is once again ignored. Of course, grants are not compatible with that centuries-old basic principle of democracy. Whoever pays the taxes will not be able to hold the managers accountable, as the money is transferred to another region where the citizen has no control over the spending of the resources.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the tax competence for the Communities — thus also for the German-speaking Community — is abolished, and this despite the tax autonomy. The German-speaking Community will in no way be able to generate its own income, which is obviously contrary to any well-understood form of federalism.

A second point of criticism concerns the possibility of extending the government of the German-speaking Community from three to a maximum of five members. Collega Maingain, chairman of the Committee on Finance and eminent member of the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution, has rightly noted in the committee that in a federal state it is up to each district and every community to decide, though within the limits determined by the Constitution or by the special law, how many ministers a government can count. Where the possibility is offered to increase the number of government members, there must be accountability for this. Well, the reason given in the bill is that the tasks of the German-speaking Community are expanded. The Minister’s responses in the committee showed that this enlargement remains very limited: the employment policy, monuments and landscapes and possibly also the exercise of the supervision of the subordinate administrations.

I refer to a statement by Minister Jaak Gabriels, who has left us in the meantime and is now taking up a mandate at the Flemish level.

He, by the way, came from there for his interim among us. Now, Minister Gabriels stated at the discussion in the Senate that there was already an agreement on that removal. It turned out to be a principle agreement. On the elaboration of this agreement the discussions were still underway ten days ago, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget Johan Vande Lanotte was able to tell us in the committee meeting of 29 November 2001. Why the negotiations took so long and there was so much time between the announcement of the federal minister Gabriels and the time of the discussion in the committee, the yet well-informed and usually well-informed Deputy Prime Minister could not tell us.

The fact that these discussions take so much time is strange in itself. We do not dare to assume that this may have to do with the reluctance of the Wallish Region to transfer the supervision of the municipalities of the German-speaking area to the German-speaking Community. Or would it be that the Wallish Region is struggling with this and that what Minister Gabriels has declared in accordance with the tradition of the federal government does not fully correspond to the reality?

A third point of criticism concerns the expansion of the powers of the German-speaking Community. The current draft law enables the German-speaking Community to take control of election spending, government communications and the additional financing of political parties. In this regard, the State Council has noted that in the draft itself the arrangement for those matters should be drawn up, and this for the simple reason that the German-speaking Community does not even have the so-called constitutive autonomy. The regulation proposed in this draft law is therefore, according to the Council of State, contrary to the Constitution.

In conclusion, I repeat that because of these three objections, we will not approve this draft, consistent with our attitude regarding the Lambermont designs. In fact, we believe that the members of the German-speaking Community have the right to well-functioning, democratic institutions with responsible persons who can be held accountable by the citizens themselves. Unclear shift of powers and non-transparent decision-making are completely undesirable. Unfortunately, with such institutions, our German-speaking countrymen are not served.

I assume the principle that the German-speaking Community has all the rights of a full-fledged community, despite its numerical size. For this reason, I took the oath here at the time in Dutch and in German, I together with Danny Pieters submitted a proposal for a own province and I submitted a motion with Mr. Poncelet, who has left us in the meantime, to obtain a German-speaking army unit.

The balance of this given I overlook for a moment. We find it positive, primarily in terms of refinancing. It is certain — and people in the German-speaking Community who are not so affectionate about this project say this too — that without this decision the German-speaking Community is not financially viable. It seems to us fundamental. The extension of the powers contains a lot of beauty flaws for which I am not blind, but yet it remains a step forward. I’ve heard the previous speakers and the next one will probably say the same, and I’ve read the report, but they’ve picked up some negative part aspects. However, we take the whole out and weigh it off, and then the balance is positive. There is an expansion from three ministers to five. Then came the rather absurd criticism that Flanders with six million people have eleven ministers, while the German-speaking Community now gets five for eighty thousand. This comparison seems logical, but is actually absurd.

We respect another community and for us then fundamental determination is what that community itself says. I read in the report that the German-speaking Community has approved this project. For us, this is the federal logic. Like every federalist, I realize that the federal development of a state takes place step by step. There are a lot of beauty spots here.

Waiting until everything is realized and not taking any further steps in the meantime, however, is not our attitude. The argument that the same money can be opposed because there is no need for a two-thirds majority is also not valid. We assessed the project on its merits and weighed the advantages and disadvantages. According to our taste, the benefits weigh more. We will therefore approve the draft.

I have a sense of déjà vu in this discussion. It reminds me of the Lambermont discussions and the considerations that were made at that time. Sometimes this leads to other conclusions. Indeed, without this money, problems would arise for the German-speaking community. It is true: the design is far from perfect. Everyone agrees on this.

The question, however, is whether we should therefore approve the draft? I think there are a number of decisive arguments. There is the question of constitutional autonomy. If it is up to us, the German-speaking Community will have the same constitutional autonomy as the other communities. Now that is unfortunate, constitutional, not so. It seems strange to me that the German-speaking Community Council may exercise one aspect of constitutive autonomy, in particular the determination of the number of ministers.

As regards the number of ministers, it is not decided to increase their number to five, but it is created the possibility to increase their number to five, not dependent on, but ⁇ somewhat in relation to the new powers that the Waals Region transfers to the German-speaking Community. This is an evolution that we have already denounced following the Lambermont discussions. We are sliding more and more down to a situation where the German-speaking Community becomes a branch of the Waals Region. This is a bad thing for our federalism.

Finally, important in our considerations was also that by using a logic other than the logic for the Flemish and French-speaking Community regarding the counts in education, it becomes impossible to determine with certainty the number of pupils in the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking education if we also do not simultaneously organize counts every year in the German-speaking Community.

As I said, I have a sense of déjà vu. In the polls, some will undoubtedly experience that too.