Proposition 50K1458

Projet de loi modifiant les lois sur l'emploi des langues en matière administrative, coordonnées le 18 juillet 1966.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 19, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil service police use of languages

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Georges Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Jacques Lefevre (LE) abstained from voting.
• Paul Tant (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 17, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have the honour today to report to you the work of the Public Service Committee relating to the bill amending the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters. by

Initially, our committee examined the aforementioned bill during its meetings of 27 November, 4, 5 and 12 December 2001. Two procedural issues were previously examined. The first was about possible hearings. After an exchange of views, the committee decided, with 8 votes against 2, not to conduct the hearing of the members of the Standing Committee on Language Control. The second problem concerned Article 1 of the law in that it stipulates that the regulated matter is a matter referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution. by

The President, Mr. Paul Tant, questioned the Minister of Public Function and Modernization of the Administration on the procedure

The committee discussed in November and December 2001 the bill amending the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters, coordinated on 18 July 1966. Due to two procedural problems, the committee decided not to hear the members of the Standing Committee for Languages.

The second problem with respect to article 1 van de wet krachtens welk of wet one aangelegenheid regulates as bedoeld in article 78 van de Grondwet. KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE followed by this bill. Does this project not fall within the scope of Article 77 of the Constitution? After a long exchange of views, the Minister stated that there is no doubt that the regulation of the use of languages in the bilingual centralized service, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution, remained within the competence of the federal legislature. This residual competence of the federal legislator with regard to the use of languages in administrative matters falls within the monocameral procedure since neither the aforementioned Article 30 nor the subject referred to therein are included in the list of articles listed in Article 77, 3° of the Constitution.

The President, Mr. Paul Tant, said he was not convinced by this interpretation. In the notice that has just arrived to us, the State Council has taken a decision on this issue, precising that — I quote —: “None of the amendments made to the draft text concerns any of the matters referred to in Article 77 of the Constitution, so that it is justified to maintain the reference made in Article 1 of the draft to a matter referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution.”

The Minister then began his introductory presentation. In essence, it will be removed from his interventions that the government’s will is to integrate the principles of the Copernic reform of administration into the coordinated laws on the use of languages in administrative matters. These amendments have been submitted for advice to the trade unions and the Standing Committee for Linguistic Control. The Government’s unambiguous response to the Standing Committee’s opinion was included in the statement of reasons.

As a reminder, one of the fundamental principles that structure the reform of the services of the federal administration lies in the accountability of line management. For the Minister, this management plan is the leading thread and the staff is the indispensable element for its realization. Interaction, guidance and evaluation of employees are of crucial importance for the successful management plan. Therefore, the manager will need to have, in the long run, the functional language knowledge required to allow this interaction, that is, this direct contact.

The Government has decided that it is appropriate to clarify, test and sanction the content of these functional linguistic knowledge, because it wants to have the guarantee that the SELOR tests will be designed based on the language knowledge really needed. The linguistic knowledge to ensure the unity of jurisprudence or, better yet, to guarantee a fair treatment of Belgian citizens shall be ⁇ ined and explicitly provided for by law. These principles are incorporated in an article 43ter which is inserted in the Coordinated Laws of 18 July 1966 on the use of languages in administrative matters.

The key point of the reform is that the federal public services will now know only two language frameworks, one Dutch-speaking and one French-speaking, instead of three. All jobs, with the possible exception of the chairman of the management committee, will be distributed between these two linguistic frameworks.

The bilingual framework disappears. For the Minister, this is a logical result of the introduction of the management system in the administration. The idea is that a manager assumes the direction of his service and that he must therefore be able to communicate with his staff. As part of the assessment, a functional bilingual assessor may eventually second the hierarchical superior Na navraag bij het ministerie van Ambtenarenzaken inzake de wetgevende procedure blijkt dat de reglementering van het gebruik van de talen in de gecentraliseerde tweetalige diensten overeenkomstig artikel 30 van de Grondwet een federale bevoegdheid blijft. It concerns a residual bevoegdheid waarvoor of monocameral procedure geldt.

Since the President, Mr. Paul Tant, was not convinced by the Minister’s interpretation, the Minister emphasized the Government’s intention to integrate the principles of the Copernicus reform into the coordinated laws in question.

The reform of the services of the federal administration is based, among other things, on the responsibility of the line management, which the minister considers as a guideline. Furthermore, this reform stands or falls, according to the minister, with the staff. Consequently, the interaction, guidance and evaluation of employees are of capital importance. Language skills are crucial for the success of this interaction and ensure the uniformity of the case-law.

In this way, a fair treatment of the Belgian citizen can also be guaranteed. The language regime referred to in Article 43ter shall apply to the central services and to the services executing decisions of the federal public services. The new language status will therefore apply to these two federal services.

Basically, this reform ensures that the federal public services will count only two staffing formations, one Dutch-speaking and one French-speaking, instead of three.

From tweetalige personsformatie verdwijnt dus. Volgens de minister is dit het logische gevolg van de invoering van het managementsysteem in de KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE as long as the latter has not proven functional knowledge of the other language. To be comprehensive, I must add that the project provides for different degrees of knowledge. In addition to the functional knowledge attributable to any manager, the law establishes specific requirements for agents to ensure the unity of administrative jurisprudence. For the Minister, such functionality requires knowledge of the administrative and legal vocabulary in both Dutch and French.

The proposed reform has caused many reactions among parliamentarians, mainly on the French-speaking side.

In a long speech, Mr. Olivier Maingain defended the idea that the bill modifies in a very sensitive way the linguistic balances organized within the public service for ⁇ seventy years. According to him, although the government defends, the bill fundamentally challenges the basic principles wanted on both sides of the linguistic border by all those who have always considered that a good coexistence between the communities of this country wanted to recognize in the public service the possibility of career for unilingual agents. This is the principle of unilingualism of agents and bilingualism of public services. These principles guaranteed the two major communities of the country the assurance of a harmonious representation. For Olivier Mangain, these principles are disrupted, at least for the highest public office.

And the same interviewer concluded that if it is desirable, in the name of linguistic courtesy, that an agent may have the ability to understand an agent of another linguistic role placed under his authority, this presupposes that a passive bilingualism is established and not an active and passive bilingualism as is provided in the bill in the draft.

for Mr. Jean-Pierre Detremmerie, this bill is of the utmost importance in that it disrupts the linguistic organization of the federal administration.

The current system, which is based on the unilingualism of agents and the bilingualism of services, has worked properly until now and has ensured community peace within the services of the federal administration. Therefore, it should only be changed with caution.

for Mr. Detremmerie, this is not the case of this bill, which is according to him an anti-franchophone project.

and M. It should be added that such a reform is not absurd as such. However, since it makes language knowledge a condition for access to this type of functions and intervenes without any transitional period, it is unacceptable for French speakers. Indeed, it will result in many competent French speakers being dismissed from management functions for linguistic reasons and depriving them, in addition, of the time necessary to acquire the knowledge indispensable to occupy such functions, when previously such knowledge was not required.

I will leave Mr. Van Hoorebeke took care of developing his own intervention.

M is Tant s'est inscrit dans la logique of M. Van Hoorebeke and regrettant that the minister n'utilise pas the Copernic reform to encourage the officials to learn the languages. The administration . The manager leads his service and communicates with his staff. If necessary, the hierarchical head for the evaluations will be assisted by a functionally bilingual employee. A premium encourages staff to expand their language skills.

The design provides different degrees of language knowledge. The proposed reform has caused a lot of reactions among parliamentarians, especially among French speakers. Their

According to Olivier Maingain, the language balance is substantially altered by challenging one of the principles attached on both sides of the language boundary, namely the recognition of the possibility for single officials to develop a career in the public office. It is about the principle of the unitary of the officials and the bilinguality of the public services. That principle is now put on loose screws, at least for the higher public offices.

It is ⁇ desirable that an official understands a colleague of the other language role, but that presupposes a passive bilingualism. Their

Mr. Detremmerie believes that the language organigram of the federal administration will be substantially changed with this draft. As far as he is concerned, the existing arrangement has proved its virtue, and therefore the necessary caution must be demonstrated if one wishes to apply to it. According to him, the reform is unacceptable for French speakers, as it will likely result in many skilled French speakers being disqualified from management positions due to lack of adequate language knowledge. In addition, they will not have the time to acquire the required language skills.

I think dat of Mr Van Hoorebeke KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CAMERA -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE M. Verherstaeten extends this idea by estimating that practice will demonstrate that the minister has not placed the bar high enough. The language requirements should be in the straight line of the requirements imposed more generally on the heads of the federal administration.

Finally, Ms. Van de Casteele points out that it is delicate to touch language legislation because of the many balances it contains. The risk of side effects is therefore ⁇ not illusory. It also notes that, as regards the notion of functional knowledge of the second language, much will depend on its concrete implementation. In this regard, for the speaker, it is really to fear that in practice this notion is interpreted in a minimalist way, which will give rise to the unacceptable situation that top managers will not be able to understand their employees by expressing themselves in the other language.

In response to this first round of the table, majority partners and the government submitted a number of amendments aimed at reconciling the different sensitivities. Many amendments were also submitted by members of the opposition.

The Minister has also formulated the following various elements of response.

1 of 1. The scope of the project does not concern the Brussels-Capital region. With regard to the job parity of Chairman of the Board of Directors, a 50-50 distribution is introduced across all federal public services. In case of an unparalleled number, parity will be restored using the language role of the Selor Delegated Administrator.

2 of 2. Proof of functional bilingualism will only affect 250 employees out of 60,000. The impact of the project is limited.

3 of 3. Based on the case-law of the State Council, the Minister asserts that the principle that the assessment interview and the assessment documents are drawn up in the language of the assessed is not challenged. Therefore, the evaluated has not only the right to speak but also to be interpelled and understood in their own language.

4 of 4. Finally, as regards the entry into force of the law, the Minister recalls that the main provision of the law, namely §7 of Article 43ter, will enter into force on a date fixed by the Council of Ministers.

Then came the votes of which it must be remembered that the draft as amended by the government and the majority parties was adopted by majority against opposition, in this case by 10 votes against 5.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, you already know that this bill has, from that moment on, no longer followed the usual parliamentary path. Certainly, after the vote I just mentioned, he was sent back to the plenary session, but it was only to make a brief passage. In fact, by letter dated 19 December 2001, Mrs Françoise Schepmans, President of the Parliament of the French Community, communicated to the President of the Chamber of Representatives the motion adopted on 18 December 2001 by her assembly. With this motion, the Parliament of the French Community, requested the House of Representatives to suspend the procedure for the examination of the bill inserting articles 43ter, zijn standpunt hier zal verdedigen. De heer Paul Tant vindt het evenals de heer Van Hoorebeke jammer dat of Copernicus-hervorming niet de bedoeling heeft de ambtenaren te motiveren om de landstalen te leren. De heer Verherstraeten is van mening dat de vereisten zouden moeten overeenstemmen met de eisen die gesteld aan de bestuurders van de federale overheidsdiensten.

Ms. Van de Casteele stressed that it is a difficult matter to strike the balance of the language legislation. She fears for a simplistic interpretation of the concept of functional knowledge of the second language.

The majority and the government submitted an amendment to reconcile the sensitivities. The opposition has also submitted. The Minister also pointed out that the law will not apply to the Brussels Capital Region; that a 50/50 distribution is introduced for the relationship of the chairman of the management committee of the federal public services; that the test concerning functional bilingualism but concerns 250 agents of the 60,000; that the principle according to which the evaluation takes place in the language of the persons concerned is ⁇ ined; and finally that the main provision of the law, more specifically § 7 of Article 43ter, will come into force on a date determined by the Council of Ministers.

The amended draft was adopted by 10 votes of the majority against 5 of the opposition.

By a motion adopted on 18 December 2001, the Parliament of the French Community asked our assembly to suspend the discussion of this draft. The House has ordered a number of deputies to consult on this subject. Our committee has drawn up an opinion responding to the arguments put forward by CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50th SESSION 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE 44bis, 46bis, 69 et 70 dans les lois sur l'emploi des langues et matière administrative coordonnées le 18 juillet 1966.

In application of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Chamber has constituted a delegation responsible for the consultation with the Parliament of the French Community. The delegation was made up of MM. Herman De Croo, Chairman, Paul Tant, Chairman of the Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service, Charles Janssens, Member of the Committee on Internal Affairs and Karel Van Hoorebeke and myself, both rapporteurs.

In accordance with Article 61-1 of the Rules of Procedure, our committee undertook the drafting of an opinion responding to the arguments raised in the motion in conflict of interest.

Following discussion and submission of various proposals, the aforementioned opinion took the following contours.

1 of 1. The Committee of the Interior of the Chamber has taken note and knowledge of the motion of conflict of interest of the Parliament of the French Community.

2nd While understanding the concerns of members of the Parliament of the French Community, it considers that there is no conflict of interest in this matter.

3 of 3. It is not less true that the content of functional bilingualism remains to be determined and that the text would gain in clarifying the contour of the requirements that will be concretely imposed.

4 of 4. Amendments were submitted by a majority. They indicate, on the one hand, that the conditions and program of the examination referred to in the law as well as the composition of the jury will be fixed by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers and, on the other hand, that functional knowledge of the other language is a knowledge suitable for the evaluation and therefore aims at active and passive oral knowledge, as well as a passive written knowledge of that language. This knowledge aims to improve communication and collaboration between management, the evaluator and its employees.

The objective of knowledge adapted to the evaluation activity is therefore explicitly included in the law to avoid any misunderstanding. The justification for the amendment specifies that it is neither knowledge designated by the notion of "sufficient knowledge" nor knowledge designated by the notion of "deep knowledge". The knowledge that is referred to here concerns, so to speak, in particular active practical knowledge that promotes collaboration, communication and transmission of information between line management and employees. Passive written knowledge aims to ensure that its holders are able to control the veracity of the written rendering of the spoken word. Functional knowledge suitable for the evaluation activity cannot be considered as a thorough knowledge of the other language, but is at a lower level. If such knowledge should be required, this would go beyond the objective as stated above. This proposal for an opinion was voted by 8 votes against 5.

On the basis of this notice, the delegation, already cited, of the commission of the public function to meet with a delegation of the Parliament of the French Community. La procédure de concertation prévue dans la loi a donc eu lieu et a abouti à la solution suivante dans le terme fixé par l'article 32 de la réforme institutionnelle du 9 août 1980: cited in the motion on the conflict of interest. This shows that the fear of a conflict of interest is not shared, although the text would be more meritorious if the requirements of functional bilingualism were concretely framed and although the majority will submit amendments in the plenary session. Amendments were submitted on the examination procedure, which must be determined by royal decree, and on the concept of functional bilingualism, which is defined as knowledge adapted to the evaluation with the aim of improving cooperation and communication.

This draft opinion was adopted by eight votes against five. On this basis, the delegation of the Chamber met with a delegation of the Parliament of the French Community. The consultation procedure resulted in the following solution: in accordance with the Act of 9 August 1980 on the Reform of the Institutions, the Speaker of the Chamber shall request the return to the committee, the additional report shall be forwarded immediately to the Council of the French Community and, in the event of amendments, that Council shall have to take a decision within fifteen days if it considers that it is seriously injured.

Het wetsontwerp werd aangepast op grond van de twee bovenvermelde amendementen, die met 10 stemmen tegen 3 bij een onthouding werden aangenomen. Het Parlement van de Franse Gemeenschap besliste zijn motie in te trekken. De procedure is dus niet langer geschorst.Tijdens de laatste behandeling in de plenaire vergadering vroegen 53 leden het advies van de Raad van State over of articles 1 in 2 van het ontwerp.Diezelfde dag nam of commission voor de Binnenlandse Zaken het advies van de Raad van State in overweging. De heer Tant betreurde de oppervlakkigheid van KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE 1. the chairman of the Chamber shall request the plenary session to return the suspended bill to the Public Service Committee; 2. the supplementary report, which will be made, shall be immediately communicated to the Council of the French Community; If the draft law is amended, it will be up to the Council of the French Community to decide within fifteen days if it still considers to be seriously injured.

When it was returned to the committee, the text was corrected by the two amendments to which I referred a few moments ago. These amendments were adopted by 10 votes against 3 and 1 abstinence.

Acting these amendments to the draft text, the Parliament of the French Community decided, on Tuesday 26 March, to lift its motion in conflict of interest, clarifying that it no longer felt hurt by the draft law. The text is therefore no longer suspended and can therefore be submitted to your review today.

During the last passage in plenary session, 53 members requested that the State Council review Articles 1 and 2 of the draft. This opinion has been distributed to you. by

Three elements can be considered: 1. Article 78 of the Constitution. I have already talked about it before, I will not return to it; 2. The concept of functional knowledge. For the sake of precision, the State Council suggests a slight adaptation of the text; 3. The composition of the examination committees.

Today, the Internal Affairs Committee took into account the aforementioned opinion of the State Council. The President, Mr. Paul Tant, regretted that the latter did not address in depth the problem submitted to him. The Minister responded to the suggestions made by the Council. In conclusion, the committee confirmed by 10 votes against 4 the adoption of the bill as slightly amended from a technical point of view.

I would like to point out, in addition, that the written report was distributed, a few moments ago, to all members. by

This is my report on the work carried out by the Committee of the Interior, General Affairs and Public Service on the bill amending the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the objective analysis to which I have just submitted is a bit frustrating. I have heard criticism from the main speakers. I also mentioned the position of openness held by the majority partners and by the government. In a second time, I would like to express my own feelings about this bill. by

I will not hide from you, Mr. Minister, that I too had fears in the first reading of the many amendments you advocate. I have also carefully read the opinion of the State Council, the opinion of the Permanent Commission for Language Control and the legitimate claims of the associations of staff of public services. by

At first, I also thought that the reform was too radical. It is true that we are touching an eminently symbolic matter here. I clarified this in my report; the concern of most het advise. De minister ging in op de suggesties van de Raad.De commission bevestigde de goedkeuring van het in technisch opzicht lichtjes gewijzigde wetsontwerp met 10 stemmen tegen 4.

On a personal basis, I would like to point out that the numerous amendments proposed by the Minister inspire me fear. Initially, the reform seemed to me too radical, I feared that it could jeopardize the subtle balance of the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters.

Now, however, I am fully reassured: this risk, which is inherent in every large-scale reform, will not lead to the bad consequences that some feared.

Everyone took this passionate debate to defend their own cause. The French-speaking opposition demanded a status quo, while certain Flamingos demanded a total “revolution”. The fact that the reform is moderate and reasonable is demonstrated by the fact that those extreme views are not met. The entire administrative structure is not affected and, in addition, functional bilingualism is opted for. Thus, candidates should not take exams that are irrelevant to their daily work. A second fact that must remove our original fear derives from the ratio legis itself of the reform. In fact, this legislation only regulates the linguistic aspect of the Copernicus reform. The core idea is a new view of how public services should be organized. In a management logic, it is perfectly normal that those who hold a key role can demonstrate that they can lead a team, and possess the necessary language skills for this purpose. The Government wants to make interpersonal relations within the administration more smooth and easy. The Chamber 4th SESSION OF THE 50th SESSION 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE intervenants were the rappeler that the laws on the employment of languages and matters administrative find their foundation in a subtle balance. The idea had been at the time of its existence at two principles: the one of the unilingualism of agents and the one of the bilingualism of services. Toucher à ce binôme, c'est bien entendu prendre le risque de rompre l'équilibre et, par là, d'engendrer une possible dégradation de la bonne coexistence entre les communautés au sein de la fonction publique. C'est un risque mais je suis aujourd'hui, à l'issue de ce long travail parlementaire, pleinement rassuré. This risk inherent to every reform of envergure does not result in the consequences that some have imagined. Three elements comfort me in this idea. Their

The first is that if you have dealt with a passionate debate, you have also dealt with a debate serving as an alibi to all causes. I have, for example, heard the Franco-speaking opposition talk about an anti-Francocophone project or a pre-separatist project but I have also heard the Flemish theses that blame the minister for being too frightened in this reform. The first demanded a statu quo, while the second demanded a complete revolution. by

We must know how to decode such debates and remove the substrate from them. I believe that the dissatisfaction of these extreme and contradictory positions demonstrates sufficiently that we are here facing a measurable and reasonable reform. Then, of course, we argue about the principles of unilingualism of agents and bilingualism of services but this does not affect the entire administrative structure and then, above all, the choice is made of a functional bilingualism, that is, a pragmatic bilingualism where one intends first and foremost to promote good communication between agents and therefore, ultimately, the good functioning of the public service. It is therefore not, in this matter, as is unfortunately too often the case, to impose on candidates esoteric examinations, totally unnecessary for the fulfillment of their daily functions. by

In my opinion, the second element that should calm our initial fears results from the ratio legis of this reform. In the course of the discussions, the government’s deep will in this matter has been very clear. I told you. The extent of the reform worried me during the first exchanges of views, but I believe that it must be kept in mind that this bill is, in fact, the linguistic aspect of the Copernic reform. In other words, it is only the linguistic aspect of the Copernic reform. In my opinion, we should be careful not to see demons where there are no demons. The basic idea is management, i.e. a new conception of the organization of the public service. In linguistic matters, this new concept also has its reason to be. In a management logic, it is normal for each holder of a key function to prove their abilities to lead a team. It is obvious that in order to do this one must be understood and easily understood by its employees in the administration of their daily functions.

In my opinion, the will of the government is therefore to fluidify or relax interpersonal relations in the administration. This is an objective that must receive our membership.

Finally, the third element to take and consideration for tempérer nos inquiétudes, ce sont les nombreux amendements déposés par les partenaires de la majorité et par le gouvernement lui-même qui visent, d'une part à lisser certains aspects du texte, peut-être problématiques et, d'autre part, à éclairer quelques concepts nébuleux. Amendments submitted by the majority parties and the government aim to remove a number of potentially problematic aspects of the text, and to clarify some notions not too clear. Thus, the concept of "functional bilingualism" is defined as the practical, useful and pragmatic knowledge of the other language, adapted to the daily use within the function. The program of the language examinations will be determined by a decision adopted by the Council of Ministers. This is an achievement and an important security measure, as the concrete implementation of the reform must be approved by a paritary body, which must also ensure that candidates are not imposed unlawful demands.The Mouvement reformator will support your reasonable and thoughtful initiative. It will contribute to a change of mindset and enable the revision of the organizational schemes without destabilising the structure itself and disorienting the officials who have been in charge of public services for years.We will take care to ensure that the achievements resulting from parliamentary work are not distorted and are correctly implemented. A procedure for conflicts of interest has been established with regard to the draft law, and this will have to be taken into account in the practical implementation of the reform. CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE Among these amendments, your song and premier place à celui qui précise la notion de bilinguisme fonctionnel. I have spoken in my report but I return because the point seems to me essential. Functional knowledge is defined as a knowledge adapted to the daily function of the agent. It is not about an in-depth knowledge but it is not about a sufficient knowledge. It is a mastery of practice, useful, pragmatic, as you already have this.

Other shelters were also imagined. I will retain the provision that the program of language examinations shall be defined in a royal decree deliberated in Council of Ministers. This is an important achievement, it is important that a parity body endorses the implementation of the reform and ensures the legitimacy of the requirements imposed on candidates.

In conclusion, I would say that the MR group will support your measured and reasonable change initiative. Like you, Mr. Minister, we believe that a soft revolution is necessary in our administration. It is about changing mentalities and rethinking organizational modes without destabilizing the building and without disorienting the agents administering the service to the public for many years. I think your bill achieves this balance.

Please be assured, however, that our group will ensure that the implementation measures do not distort the achievements resulting from parliamentary work. The matter is sensitive, a conflict of interest has been raised against this bill. The procedure is not usual. This is a warning. This should be taken into account when taking the measures that will give effect to the reform.

Before giving the floor to Mr. However, I would like to point out that the correction was purely technical.

I would like to add this amendment because it is not part of document 1458/15. In Article 2, Article 43b, at the end of the seventh paragraph of paragraph 4, the following words are added: "After consultation of the same committee, the King may by a reasoned decision, adopted after consultation in the Council of Ministers, of the rules of the distribution of the relations that coincide with management functions and the relations that are equivalent to it differ for the benefit of the central services whose attributes or activities affect the Dutch and French language regions in an uneven degree". Their

There is a paragraph 7. “After consultation with the same commission, the King may, by a reasoned decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, derogate from the rule of distribution of jobs corresponding to management functions and equivalent jobs in favor of central services whose attributions or activities are of unequal interest to the French-speaking region and the Dutch-speaking region.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, although the external signs to confirm it are missing, I continue to call this an important bill.

That has been said with a lot of spirit, I must admit.

I’ve been in this environment for a while, right?

If I claim that it is an important draft, it has nothing to do with the interest of colleagues or the press, but I say that mainly because this bill specifies the required language skills for who takes responsibility in the federal administration. the

Chamber 4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E SESSION PERIOD 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE

This debate deserves more attention. Neither you nor I can change much in this regard, although it is useful to think from time to time about the organization of parliamentary work. Thus, colleagues who want to gain insight into this technical issue and who want to play a role in the debate would have the opportunity to show it out. This latter is very difficult at this hour otherwise impossible.

Very correctly Mr. Tante.

Mr. Speaker, as the rapporteur has explained, this draft is an important part of the Copernicus reform of the federal government. This reform is announced as a major turning point. I would add that the principles could even beat the CD&V faction. Characteristic of this government is that the communication of the plans is always better than their implementation. The credibility of this reform was first acclaimed by the joker oning around the popular consultation on it. It was not of the nature to reinforce the seriousness or credibility of the reform. Furthermore, the impulse of the reform was in no small degree driven by one party, the PS, which very recently used community arguments to continue its grip on the appointments of officials. Their absence is indeed devastating.

I am convinced that community considerations were not at least used by this party to succeed in keeping a finger in the pot when it comes to designating managers. I will return to this later.

Mr. Minister, the initial objectives of the plan have already been quite weakened and its implementation is slow and difficult. I would also like to congratulate Mr D'Hondt for his excellent oral report, synthetically but therefore not less comprehensively.

Mr D'Hondt, with your personal concerns on the whole, I disagree on a number of points. I note how difficult it has been to make progress in this design and I think this is due to the lack of coherence in the team itself. The delay is explained by subcutaneous reaction from the PS. The reasons for this are also well known.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in the preparation of this presentation, I found in my documentation another newspaper article from November 2000, which reports a lecture you held for a group of human resource managers. To that selected group of listeners, you argued that as a result of the Copernicus reform, a job at the top of public services would become very attractive and that the government would therefore become a major competitor for the private sector on the labour market. In your view, the Copernicus reform was designed not only to introduce management techniques and procedures in public services, but also and above all to attract talent from the private sector for the new top positions of the reformed public services in order thus to incorporate the management thinking of the private sector into public services. One and a half years later, this goal has not been much achieved. The recruitment of government managers that has occurred so far shows that the candidates from the private sector do not have much

This bill is important even though the external signs that confirm this importance are missing. Our colleagues do not seem to be very interested in this project, which will have many implications for the citizen. This document deserves a more serious discussion at a more reasonable hour.

Although the basis of this reform does not like the CD&V group, it is again seen that the government is much more willing to announce its plans than it is implementing them. I think of the comedy that surrounded the popular consultation and the dilatory manoeuvres of the PS.

A November 2000 press article ⁇ that, during a presentation before a group of managers specializing in human resources, the Prime Minister stated that major posts in the public service would become very attractive and that the public sector would compete heavily with the private sector.

So far, this goal is far from achieved. by

Candidates from the private sector are not very likely to be held, which increases the possibilities of cabinet members. by

CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE. Candidates with cabinet experience have the more chances. The similarity with the “spoil system” as it is called in the United States, where top officials come and go with the politicians who are in power, are more numerous than the differences.

There are limits to what can be said.

Mr. Tant, there has never been, in any legislature prior to this, a procedure that was so difficult, so heavy and so objectively selected. Never and I know what I’m talking about. The conversations as I have experienced them, to find out who was in turn to deliver someone, have not happened in this legislature and can not happen. One must first survive an assessment of one of the two renowned external agencies, then one must pass a jury and then give the two agencies a final judgment. If one is in the group then one could speak of favoritism. Mr. Tante, you must be reasonable, otherwise I will name names. You can hardly assume that my own chairman, whom I chose myself, is necessarily someone who is a member of my department and of my party. You can also hardly assume, what a certain press wrote, that I had an agreement with Mr. De Clerck. Then you will tell me that I do not agree with Mr. De Clerck.

There are limits to what can be said. Never before had such a complex, heavy and objective procedure been organized. Applicants must first undergo an assessment test. They must then pass before a jury, after which they are communicated the final assessment of these two tests.

Mr. Minister, I do not know.

One can then, like one of your colleagues, say that it will be a boyfriend. It is not because one comes from the private sector and is female that one is necessarily better than anyone else who has worked in public service. Let us now be logical. Mr. Tant, no majority, not even the majorities I have taken part in before, has ever had such a serious procedure. You should have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that and then not tell stories that are not true. It is an advantage if people have cabinet experience, you know. You also know colleagues who have worked for a government. Some ministers do not tend to choose the dumbest. If they are not already stupid and willing to work hard, as is asked on some cabinets, and they also have the experience, then it is normal that they offer themselves with those elements, with their minds, with the consequences of their labor force, with the consequences of their experiences. Let us now stop this mentality that assumes that since someone has worked in a cabinet, this must be a political appointment. The assessment process must first be undertaken. I invite Parliament to undergo the assessment. I will not publish the results. But that everyone then has the fair play to in the future at least acknowledge that the procedure is serious!

To blame me for choosing the wrong candidate out of two candidates, that is something else. Mr. Tante, you can do that.

Some ministers are not used to appoint the most ignorant employees within their cabinet. This work requires great abilities and allows employees to gain experience. These people have undoubtedly qualities. Their nomination is not necessarily the result of a political nomination. I invite the members to participate in the evaluation process. I will not disclose the results. I count on your intellectual honesty and on your fair play.

I invite the Minister to listen to my speech. I have not commented on the quality of the selection tests. Mr. Minister, I have only said that your great intention to attract people from the private sector has so far virtually failed. (...) That is a first comment. I have not said that the selection system is not strict, I have only said that your selection system which you claimed was intended to bring people with

You ne me prononce pas sur la qualité des tests de sélection. You simply say that the objective of attracting talent in the private sector has not been realized. I want to prove the nominations that are already intervening. Chamber -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E SESSION PERIOD 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE to bring management skills from the private sector to the public sector has so far not worked. This has not been achieved in a credible way. I do not know exactly what results would prove the opposite. If I look at the de facto appointments, I find that experience in the public service has apparently weighed heavier than all the rest, unless you have failed to attract sufficient candidates in a credible way for these positions. I have not said anything else, and I will not take a word back from it.

First, it was your own faction who said that by the fact that we opened it to internal and external the private sector went to organize a raz de marée in the public sector. I then answered the figures of Britain and said it would not be so bad. However, that was what your own group accused. Today you are complaining about the opposite. This is of course somewhat annoying.

Second, sometimes the experience in the public sector will have taken part in the final choice. That is also not so bad yet. Sometimes it can be a valid argument.

Third, the reality is that the number of candidates from the private sector is not always so terrible. There are those who have a medium-sized function and come from the private sector. Why are there fewer candidates from the private sector? Mr. Tant, if the opposition had played a little less political politicienne and in a certain press had sought a little less sensation, then maybe it would be easier. Per ⁇ the attraction would have been a little bigger. After all, those from the private sector who have to apply for their candidacy will wonder in the long run how consistent and common this change is and to what extent it is being carried out. These are the questions that logically arise in people and sometimes prevent them from applying for their candidacy. I also admit that there are fewer than I had hoped. However, this is a shared responsibility with the opposition and the press.

First, your group had suggested that by making the positions accessible to candidates from both the private and the public sector, it would trigger an influx of people from the private sector. It is nothing. Secondly, I naturally admit that experience plays a role. Third, it is true that the number of candidates from the private sector is relatively lower. Negative information is for something. I have admitted that I have underestimated the scale of the phenomenon but, in this case, the responsibility of the opposition is engaged in the same way as that of the majority.

Mr. Minister, I admire the courage you have to continue to demonstrate your belief in these systems, despite the fact that a good part of the principles of the Copernicus reform have actually been undermined.

Which one?

Let’s take a look at the required language skills. Anyone who has a little logical mind says that, if it is intended to get the best forces in the right places, it is logical to expect those people to know the required language. This is the logical starting point in any normal business. That was ab initio also your starting point, but you have bent for the wind from French-speaking angle, up to two, three times. So don’t ask me for evidence, I’ll give you it later with pleasure.

I welcome the courage of the Minister. Copernic reform has been largely reduced to nothing. The government gave in to the pressure of the French. In the private sector, knowledge of languages is of course.

My first idea with the first text was immediately: functional language knowledge. I admit that the transitional period stipulated in the law is a form of negotiation. That’s right, let’s not talk about it. For the rest, that functional language knowledge was already in the first note, the note-Corbillon. This note was submitted two months after the entry into office of this government.

I immediately thought about the knowledge of languages. The transition period has been negotiated.

Chamber -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 Chamber -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE

There is a five-year transitional arrangement. What is the credibility of the whole reform? And then you express your amazement about the fact that you have been able to attract no one from the private sector! You should not point to the opposition at this point. It is the role of the opposition to criticize the texts on the table. This should come from my heart.

Mr. Speaker, it is dangerous to think too much of the past, because in the long run one is at risk of feeling old, but 10, 15 years ago, in a committee in this Parliament — especially when the committee meetings were not yet public — it was really possible to exchange ideas across the boundaries of majority and minority. Today I find that it has become an exception when a member of the majority parties in a committee makes a critical comment. This morning I was able to see it in the committee that I preside over. As president, I had to make a few comments myself, because otherwise no one would have said anything about a yet important topic. What is the reason for the existence of Parliament? What is the meaning of a parliamentary debate? Their

Mr. Minister, you would still blame us for wanting to play that role. I think this is the vocation, the role and the task of a member of parliament. I also count to this task the creation of decent legislation and I will show you that this could have been much better here.

To what extent is this whole reform credible if it is accompanied by a five-year transition period?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small comment on what Mr. Tant says about how it goes in private companies in terms of language use.

Mr. Tant, I must point out that the private sector is not always an example of managers who speak the language of their subordinates. I refer, for example, to the former Sabena, where at the top were also people who did not even speak the language of their employees. I would like to point out, by the way, that there is such a thing as the notorious "September Decree" that regulates the use of language in private companies between management and employees. This decree is increasingly being followed. If you take the private sector as an example, I would like to point out that there is not everything cake and egg.

The private sector is not always exemplary either. There were, at the head of the Sabena, managers who did not know the language of their workers. The September decree is becoming increasingly damaged.

Mr. Tastenhoye, what you say may be correct, but it does not actually relate to what I said. I have actually said that if it is intended, as in the private sector, to place people in the position most suitable for them, and if that function requires one or more languages to be spoken, then it is of course for everyone that one can provide proof of it and otherwise that one will be able to master this language in the shortest possible times. It was entirely in line with the whole Copernicus reform that this too would have been the logical accomplishment in the context of community pacification. In practice, under the pressure of ⁇ one political party that uses other arguments than the community argument, one has apparently failed there. That party strives to keep a finger in the bag when those so-called managers are to be appointed. That is the real motivation.

Mr. Minister, I close up with this part of which we are talking about.

When you want to place the people you hire in the most appropriate positions and when knowledge of foreign languages is required for this purpose, this knowledge is considered obvious in the private sector. The goal of the Copernic reform was for public authorities to do the same, but pressure from a single party made this project fail. I continue to think that at the present time, the procedure benefits candidates from the public sector and that KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE eigenlijk oneens zijn. Als het juist is dat onder gelijkwaardige kandidaten zij die experience have met in overheidssector een intrinsiek voordeel hebben op kandidaten die deze ervaring niet hebben, dan verliest de doelstelling van de Copernicus-hervorming om talent aan te trekken uit de private-sector een stuk van haar geloofwaardigheid en zullen potentiële kandidaten zich minder aanmelden. I’m going to be a candidate, I’m going to be a candidate, I’m going to be a candidate, I’m going to be a candidate. U bent er in elk geval niet in geslaagd om die beeldvorming te beheersen. Dit is maybe jammer, but it’s like that. Copernic reform fails to ⁇ its goal of making the public sector a competitor to the private sector. It is obvious that the candidates from the private sector will be fewer to present themselves. The minister has not managed to restore the blason of the public sector.

(...) I perfectly admit that. But I have not said that someone is de facto preferred because they have experience in the public sector.

Just look at the results.

Suppose a candidate is faced with a role in which he must handle a virtual matrix. That candidate may then be able to discard the theory of the virtual matrix, but if he solves the three cases given to him during the conversation, each time through the method of the hierarchical matrix, there is something wrong. Now, suppose that that candidate has previously worked only in private companies where only that hierarchical matrix is used. At that point it is better to choose someone who resolves the cases presented to him consistently in a virtual matrix line. That person may be from the public sector, that can be best. And then, of course, one can shrink the matter and say that, since one candidate is from the private sector, and the other from the public sector, it is the public sector that has been given priority.

But no, Mr. Tant, at that time has been given priority to the one who proves that he can cope with the essential of the story, namely the handling of the virtual matrix. And in virtual matrix we come to service level agreements, standards and standards. In other words, we choose one that does not fall back into the hierarchical matrix, because that would be totally contrary to the Copernicus philosophy and what is fixed there. So you should look at the various motivations that can play. You must not separate one of the many characteristics and say that only that characteristic is the motivation.

It is exact. But having experience in the public sector does not necessarily constitute an advantage and people who come out of it are not favored. Other elements are taken into account.

Mr. Minister, I do not say that you do not have the intention you originally formulated where to try to make. You have formulated that intention, among other things, on the occasion of that meeting of top managers to which I already referred. No, I am convinced that was your intention. I only say that you have failed to ⁇ them. This is the case when I refer to the results. You cannot deny that you said that the government would become a major competitor for the private sector. This has not been done, Mr. Minister.

I simply said that the Minister has not been able to realize its objectives. Public authorities do not compete with the private sector.

But this is a process, Mr. Tante. A change, change management, read all the books after, takes years! No such thing is judged one and a half years after it started. This is judged after 10 years. Now take the merger of Fortis and ASLK. I invite you from now on to talk to the board of Fortis and ask how far they are in their merger. Look back in the past, when we were young, Bank Brussels and

The process is still ongoing. It is impossible to evaluate such things after just one year! Let’s meet you in 10 years. CAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CAMER -4 E SESSION OF THE 50E LEGISLATURE of Bank Lambert.

Mr. Minister, you are an excellent Minister, but let Mr. Tant make his thought.

Mr. Speaker, do not exaggerate. Mr. Minister, you say we have to make the bill within ten years. Let’s meet around May 1 in ten years. I will then come to the NMBS for a moment to talk about it with you, or wherever you are at that moment.

The [...]

By the way, it would not surprise me that at that moment, under the scrutiny of any assessment, one is looking for a successor for Van den Bossche. I warn you, Mr. Minister, as the assessment is perfected, it will become more and more difficult.

Mr. Minister, in any case, it is our opinion that top managers can be expected to have sufficient language skills in order to make their services function properly. A modern personnel policy implies a regular evaluation of that staff. It requires, as far as we are concerned, a thorough knowledge of the second language, for whose profession it is to conduct services which have as their field of work the whole country, a fortiori, when they are responsible for employees who in their job must be given the opportunity to realize themselves and for the proper functioning of the service in question.

However, due to the fear of the French-speaking side that there might be insufficient French-speaking candidates to fulfill many management functions in the Copernicus reform, the minister – which had escaped the attention of very many – brought in the forefront two new language notions, including functional bilingualism. One is apparently intended — so it is formulated — to enable the evaluation, the other to ensure the unity of jurisprudence. These are actually two new concepts in addition to the three already existing. More about this later too.

However, that was not enough. The rapporteur has equally emphasized that in the French speakers, the notion of functional bilingualism continued to raise fears that the Flemish would be favored because they generally know French better than they know Dutch, to put it simply. Thus, as a result of the aforementioned PS-opposition, the French speakers obtained an important concession from the minister, in particular the parity distribution of the top positions in the public services. The efficiency arguments and the demands of modern management, therefore, had to deviate from the legalities of the flat political compromise, which, by the way, was the case in the appointment of the top of the federal police, when too many Flamings threatened to succeed for those top positions. At the federal police, there was suddenly language parity in the top positions. It is so, Mr Cortois. I now come to more punctual comments on behalf of myself and my group on this draft. I have a few questions that I would like to ask the Minister.

First, I will come to a procedural issue. You don’t need to chase me now, I’ve been constantly in dialogue with the minister.

The appointment - you are taken.

We believe that in order to work properly, a manager must be able to communicate with staff members in their native language.

The fear of the French speakers of a lack of French-speaking winners inspired the minister to some new motions. The first led to imagining the requirement of functional bilingualism, which, however, was not enough to dispel the fears of French speakers. This is why the linguistic parity of the leading functions within the public service was guaranteed. Efficiency must therefore give way to political compromise.

There is also a procedural problem. We have good reasons to doubt the Minister’s point of view that the bill would fall under the application of Article 78 of the Constitution and that it would therefore be a bicameral matter.

Chamber -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 Chamber -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE

The [...]

I don’t believe it, he never did it, and you should not teach an old monkey to draw smoothies.

Not just an old monkey.

That is true, yes. The Minister has submitted a draft to the Chamber with the qualification that it falls within the scope of Article 78 of the Constitution, optional bicameral. I am not going to resume that discussion, please rest assured, but I can only mention that the uncertainty that existed and exists on this subject was partly at the basis of our proposal to request a second consultation of the State Council. For this proposal I had received the formal support of colleagues from the majority, including Mr. Erdman, and last but not least, also from you, Mr. Speaker. You were also of the opinion that we should take the opportunity to ask the State Council for advice on the constitutional qualification of this matter.

You would also ask the State Council to give an opinion on this subject and to this end also provide him with all useful, necessary elements of our discussion. By the way, you would also point out to the State Council, and I hear that you have done so, that in fact it had 14 days to issue this opinion. I therefore understand the less that the State Council formally refers to the high urgency invoked and already gives its opinion on 2 April. This is within the strict three-day period. I was a little disappointed at that point. I had hoped that the Council of State, which had already spoken on this issue, would at least have made the effort to go deeper into it. I think this is a missed opportunity and colleagues, I do not want to obstinate in this, but is it logical that a draft that first contained common, judicial and administrative provisions, as a whole, went to the State Council and then was qualified as a matter of Article 78? However, the State Council noted that this text, which regulates both judicial and administrative matters, must be signed by the two ministers concerned. What does the government do? The government divides the text into two sections, a judicial sections and an administrative sections. What are we reading? Article 1 of the judicial loop: this is a matter of Article 77 of the Constitution.

Admit that there are reasons to ask for clarification. I regret that the State Council did not participate in this. Their

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the State Council has also made clear to you on one point. In our first consultation request, you have pledged not to submit the amendment to Article 1 — the re-qualification — to the State Council because it had already spoken about it. Now the State Council says that any amendment can imply that one gets into a new qualification. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have all reason to give the State Council the opportunity to re-qualify for almost every consultative question that proposes that amendment. You declared this amendment inadmissible the previous time, but in that reasoning this opinion of the State Council fails. It is useful to bring this element to your attention. This will no longer apply, at least to the extent that you, unlike the government, would like to take the opinion of the State Council into account.

The State Council stated that the text must be signed by both ministers. The government then decided to divide the project into two parts, one legal and the other administrative. Article 1 of the legal part stipulates that this is a matter referred to in Article 77 of the Constitution. Our attempt to consult the Council of State was undermined by the Chairman of the Chamber who declared our amendment to Article 1 aimed at re-qualification unacceptable. The President also refused to request the State Council’s opinion on amendments aimed at removing articles contained in projects that had already been submitted to the State Council’s opinion. The chairman of the Chamber shall not be entitled to take such a decision in place of the Council of State, which is the only one to decide on the matter.

This afternoon, the minister ignored all the observations, though formal, of the State Council, which will eventually question the usefulness of his work, which risks creating a vicious circle.

The government’s amendments do not lead to re-qualification. The Council of State has decided only on this specific part and not on the whole. In this case, he did not decide on the content. The project tends to compensate for the poor knowledge of the second language among French speakers and thus undermines the linguistic balance. Why can’t one require top managers of public service to be bilingual? These persons must demonstrate exceptional abilities, except in terms of knowledge of languages. In addition — and we have omitted CAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CAMER -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE hold.

Mr. Speaker, although the State Council also points to a number of shortcomings in the text, which we have already identified earlier. I will return to this later. In this sense, therefore, it has been demonstrated that we had good reasons to seek the advice of the State Council. It is a pity that the opportunity has not been exhausted. Their

Mr. Minister, on the basis of our experience this afternoon, when you submitted this comment from the Council of State, I fear that we are at risk of falling into a vicious circle. The Council of State limits itself to but practical, but almost formalistic remarks on the subject. The government does not take any attention to this. It is understandable that the officials at the Council of State are beginning to ask themselves what they still have to get tired of. I wanted to warn about it. We are threatening to fall into a vicious circle that ⁇ no one wanted.

I return to the question of whether this is a matter of Article 67 and therefore not of Article 78 of the Constitution. Mr D'Hondt, you refer to the opinion of the State Council, which would confirm that this is very clearly a matter of Article 78. That is not true. The State Council is limited to saying that the amendments submitted by the Government and thus the subject of the consultation request do not give rise to a re-qualification. The State Council has spoken only about this and not about the whole. He fails to provide any substantive argument on the subject. Their

Mijnheer de voorzitter, collega's, i aarzel een beetje, but dat is vanuit de zorg om beknoptheid. I have a number of things out of my text removed. by Vandaar. Explain why – these employees must prove their functional knowledge of the second language only six months after their appointment. However, the likelihood of a manager being fired after six months is virtually zero. The amendment submitted as a result of the conflict of interest further eased the linguistic criteria. It is surprising that the Flemish majority parties have agreed on this point. Amendment No. 35 Janssens defines functional linguistic knowledge as the knowledge necessary to succeed in the assessment. If the two definitions are identical, why should the amendment be adopted? Even the opinion of the State Council does not bring any clarity. However, it should be taken into account that these texts will have to be applied someday.

I don’t want to stop you in that, Mr. Tante.

The design emphasizes the aim of addressing the preconceived lower knowledge of the second language due to the French speakers. In this sense, it undermines the balance provided for in the current language law by setting a new balance at a lower level anyway. In fact, the so-called functional knowledge of the second language will in any case be more limited than the knowledge of the second national language currently imposed under the bilinguality requirement. This is the comparison that should be made.

The fundamental question is why the top managers of government should not be required to be bilingual. For me, there may be a transition period, but preferably not five years. If we take into account the requirements that top managers must meet and the recruitment process that they must undergo — you have emphasized it yourself, Mr. Minister — it must be white raven. Only when it comes to their language skills, the lat is suddenly put down a lot. What top private sector functions consider to be an obvious requirement, namely, if necessary, to know another language, does not apply here. In this sense, I think you are somewhat overlooking your goal, Mr. Minister.

Furthermore, functional knowledge of the second language for the exercise of a management function should not be demonstrated at the time of recruitment, but only 6 months after the appointment. On the question

During the evaluation, a manager can be seated with a translator. The manager must be able to control the accuracy of the translation. For this purpose, it is necessary to properly master the knowledge of the other language.

La justification de l'amendement comporte des éléments bizarres: the knowledge adapted to the mission of evaluation is neither the knowledge sufficient, nor the knowledge approfondie. The Minister has declared, nevertheless, that a "functional knowledge of the second language" corresponds to the level "sufficient" actuellement and vigueur in the framework of the matters professional. And outre, two types of linguistic knowledge are established, ce qui porte atteinte à l'intégrité de notre législation CHAMER -4 E SITION OF THE 50E SITION PERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE why this exception is made, there has not been an adequate answer from the Minister. The so-called stake behind the door, the premature termination of the mandate if the person concerned does not provide proof of the required language knowledge within 6 months of his appointment, is in fact none. After all, imagine that a manager is hired and that you have to show him the door 6 months later. First of all, I want to see that happen. Furthermore, this means that a new recruitment procedure must be initiated, with all its effects on the functioning of the public service concerned. The so-called sanction is unbelievable, Mr. Minister. Do not blame me for that. In addition, it does not serve the proper functioning of the public service.

I come to the next point of criticism. The functional bilingualism has been further weakened by the amendment, following the conflict of interest with the French Community. The latter was already low, but it has been lowered under the impetus of a French-speaking majority party. The fact that the Flemish majority parties have cooperated with this is, gently speaking, strange.

However, you did not really surprise us. In all the community files under this coalition, the French speakers get in what they did not get in the past. This is because the Flemish majority parties are constantly bowing their heads. Amendment No. 35 of Mr Janssens, which was accepted by the majority and the minister in the committee after the French Community had made its conflict of interests known, provides a definition of functional knowledge of the other language, adapted to the evaluation.

In the original text there was an active and passive oral knowledge and a passive written knowledge of the language. The State Council puts the finger on the wound. Therefore, there are two definitions of that famous functional bilingualism, which exist side by side. The minister says they have the same meaning. Can you explain why the amendment was approved? If the two texts say the same, why was this amendment submitted and approved? Their

No other conclusion can be drawn: a new text, which is made on the same subject, says something different. That intrigues me. We have not been able to provide full clarity on this issue, not even on the basis of the opinion of the State Council. I think it is a missed opportunity. I’m afraid you’ll keep the flou artistique at that level to keep your majority behind the text. That is it and nothing else. You must also keep in mind that it is not only a matter of votes, but that your texts are also applied in practice, preferably in the most equal way possible.

You are already beginning to spray mist in the text itself, which the State Council notes — you can’t look at it now — and I regret that you didn’t want to comment on it.

Mr. Minister, let me be concrete. Assuming that you use, as you say, the most stringent definition, in particular the active and passive oral knowledge and the passive written knowledge, then that goes indeed beyond what is understood under the general definition of language knowledge, necessary to evaluate. A manager needs to do much more than just evaluate. We have already exchanged thoughts on this.

... and linguistic. by

After the adoption of this bill, we will have functional linguistic knowledge of no less than five concepts of which we do not know how they differ from each other. If the introduced amendments are accepted, the Minister will have to return to previously concluded agreements. In addition, there are contradictions between the various conceptions. by

Another example of faulty legislative work: the acceptance of Amendment No. 34, which was adopted following the conflict of interest with the French Community. This amendment relates to the constitution of the examination jury. The formula currently used carries the risk of a politicization of this jury as the examination programmes and conditions are now established by the Council of Ministers, which means that they are eventually tailored for potential candidates. This was clearly the wish of the PS from the beginning. by

Functional language knowledge will not come into effect immediately. It shall apply only on the date fixed by the Council of Ministers. The Government intends to impose this mandatory functional language knowledge only if, within a period of six years, new management functions are conferred or if existing functions are renewed. And in this case, managers will have another six months to justify their language knowledge! Government friends can sleep on both ears. by

And, in other words, it is the next government and not this one who will be confronted with the difficulties consecutive to the application of the notion of functional knowledge of languages. ROOM 4 E SESSION OF THE 50th SESSION 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE Mr. Cortois, for more details, you are not yet the seatmaster of the assembly and you do not necessarily have to silence your colleagues of the majority in the debate, even in these circumstances – which has already been done quite often. For me it does not need. I guess it’s a bit annoying when colleagues get into bad papers. You should at least give them the chance to make their contribution if they find it useful.

Mr. Minister, I will continue with my speech. A manager who needs to conduct an evaluation interview, who has the functional knowledge of the second language, but does not have the active, written knowledge, can be assisted by a translator. What does a French-speaking manager do in an evaluation interview with a Dutch-speaking employee? He can do so in the language of the person to be evaluated and makes a written report, undoubtedly in French. This must then be translated into Dutch. Colleagues, then it is said — and that is totally unbelievable — that that manager must be able to judge the correctness of the translation, while it is precisely about the knowledge of all nuances. So that description is entirely “caduque”.

Mr. Minister, however, the accountability of the amendment is interesting, because there are also strange things in it. Mr D’Hondt has referred to it, but I don’t know if he is aware that, when one reads it together with the report, there can be real contradictions. That accountability clarifies that the knowledge adapted to the evaluation task is neither sufficient knowledge nor in-depth knowledge. This is contrary to your answer to questions about the draft in the committee. I quote you literally: "The level of the notion of functional knowledge of the second language, corresponds to the current level sufficiently within the framework of the professional subject". Their

By accepting the amendment, you have returned to a previous statement in the committee; the accepted amendment is also contrary to Article 21 of the Administrative Steel Act.

Mr. Minister, there may indeed be a contradiction or I must say a disagreement between the two concepts designated by the Council of State. That there are two concepts and that this can give rise to uncertainty shows even from your own statement in the committee.

Furthermore, we cannot get rid of the impression that the language legislation has improved coherence by introducing two types of functional language knowledge. You have not denied it; you even admit it. In addition to functional knowledge for the purpose of evaluation, there is functional knowledge for the purpose of ⁇ ining unity in the jurisprudence.

As a result of that design, there will therefore from now on be five notions: those of which I spoke later, but also the elementary knowledge, the sufficient knowledge and the thorough knowledge. It is only completely unclear in what relation they are opposed to each other.

I will give another example of careless legislative work, which has also been pointed out by the Council of State: the acceptance of amendment n. 34 to paragraph 7 of § 7, which was also accepted after the conflict of interests of the French Community. That member shall, inter alia, stipulate that the composition of the examination committee shall be determined by a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers. The Le groupe CD&V n'adoptera pas ce projet.

CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE Paragraphs 1 and 5 provide, however, that the examination committee shall be constituted by the delegated director of Selor. This is stated in the texts.

I mentioned this in the first discussion of the amendments. You have said that it must be understood that the Royal Decree will determine the General Terms and Conditions and that they will then be applied by the Deputy of Selor. The State Council correctly notes that, if that is the interpretation, it must be written in the text. You say that it is not a problem: "If there would be contradiction or ambiguity in the interpretation, it should be returned to the report". I thought that it was the first concern of the legislator to make his clear texts; that is one of the reasons for the existence of the Council of State. Mr. Minister, I am sorry that you also put that misfortune aside.

The formulation now used is not only ambiguous, it also involves the risk of politicization of the examination committee. I am deeply convinced that this was the essential driving force for the submission of this amendment. In any case, the door is opened for an extensive form of politicization. Exam programmes and conditions are established by the Council of Ministers, preferably a political body. In other words, they can be made tailor-made to potential candidates. I am deeply convinced that this is the main purpose of the PS and that the community aspect is just a shame. Partly because of the final amendment, the text has become a legal dragon that must keep the door open for a party policy personnel policy. I do not claim that this is not a sharp formulation, but I fear that it is right.

In addition to all this, the functional language knowledge, the famous §7 of Article 43ter, does not come into effect immediately, but only on the date determined by the Council of Ministers. From that date on, the government can apply transitional measures for no less than five years for managers who are already in office — five years! The government plans to impose the mandatory functional language skills only when new management functions are filled or existing functions are renewed within six years. The managers will then have another six months to prove their language skills.

The government can thus uninterruptedly continue working with the managers it employs, who are appointed: the friends can be reassured. As with many measures of this government, the difficulties in applying functional language knowledge will be for the next government, not for this one. This, of course, is also a way to get out of the problem and, in the meantime, to be able to declare that a very important reform has been implemented.

I repeat that I believe in your intentions, Mr. Minister, but I regret that you have left yourself so far away from your original purpose. For all these reasons, my group will not approve this draft.

Mr. Minister, I ask colleague Tante to wish to replace me in another capacity. He will not be able to answer if you address him ad hominem. So I give you this advice because in this position he can hardly replicate if he wants to. But you will not do it, because you have already done it.

I would be grateful if you would like to replace me as president.

Voorzitter: Paul Tant, second undervoorzitter. CAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CAMERA -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE President: Paul Tant, second vice president.

I have not lost you since this morning.

Mr. Cortois, you must admit that I have already demonstrated some “expeditivity” in my home.

Mr. Speaker, I will say Jazeker, as usual.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Tant, in your introduction, you correctly stated that the present bill aims to add a number of articles in order to adapt the administrative languages to the Copernicus agreements. You said you believe in the good intentions of the minister and therefore of the government. It was only at a later stage that you came to the conclusion that not much of those good intentions would come into practice.

During all the discussions on the Copernicus agreements, I note that all parties, including yours, have increasingly agreed that public services should work efficiently and customer-focused. This idea is new in Parliament. One of the great merits of the currently ongoing reform initiated by this government is that with terms such as “government management”, “customer-friendliness” and “efficiency” we have clearly embarked on a new path with the functioning of our public services or administration. You are trying to shake it all behind community and linguistic upheavals. You cannot deny that the concern for higher quality in the public sector is somewhat more present in the debate.

Mr. Tante, I’m sorry that I can’t see you here, from the speaker, to inspire me, because you now function as president. I endorse and even somewhat admire your technical knowledge of that dossier. As a member of Parliament, you are doing this very well. On the other hand, politically, I can’t get rid of the impression that you are still in the period “where the star has remained silent”. Behind every measure, thus also behind it on the level of the management languages, you are looking for the community obstacle and anguish, but you actually lose the essence a little from the eye.

How can we make public services more efficient in a country like this? This is what we actually have to deal with. Of course, this requires an adjustment of a number of laws, including the administrative law.

Mr. Tante, I would like to point out that today, in the end, we are no longer living in the same country as ten or twenty years ago, in the good old time when the Christian People's Party with all its power occupied all the important positions in this country. In contrast to the very central state then, we now live in a federal state. If we look at the linguistic relationships in a central government which, fortunately, has been sharply narrowed and whose powers we want to further narrow in the coming years, we should no longer stand from the point of view of a central state. We no longer have to do everything ourselves. Things evolve rapidly. Therefore, let us use some other flexibility. The current standards are no longer the strict standards of a tight, united Belgium.

Mr. Tante, I have doubts about your reasoning which, in my opinion, is largely outdated. Today we live in a different world.

The project under consideration adapts the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters to the innovations of the Copernic reform. Persons in a management position must have functional knowledge of the second language in order to be able to communicate with their employees and evaluate them. Two roles and two language frameworks will continue to exist only where parity remains in place for management functions.

by Mr. However, it is still difficult to adapt to new trends. The time when the CPP dominated everything is over. Language relationships have also changed. In addition, the central state has undergone a radical weight loss cure. The standards are no longer the same as at the time of strict unitary Belgium. by Mr. This follows an outdated reasoning. The world we live in today has changed.

With regard to the central administration, we cannot violate the principle of the unilingualism of officials and of the bilingualism of services even if a trend breakout seems to be announcing. The requirements for minimum knowledge of the second language have generally remained dead letter, especially on the French-speaking side.

The proposed amendments do not come for granted and face reluctance from both the Flemish and French-speaking sides, which probably means that the project is balanced.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the notion of “knowledge KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE (...)

No one can deny that there is a will to modernize and renovate the government apparatus. As regards the central administration, I agree with you that, of course, we cannot prejudice the principles of the unitary of the officials and the bilinguality of the services. Whatever they say, and whatever delays occur in this Parliament, we cannot ignore that the current approach of the present bill shows a clear break from the approach in the past. There is, at least in the long term, a clear trend break. We always want to idealize the past. In the future, however, there will be an end to the situation of central governments in which the requirement of some knowledge of the second state steel remained for a large part dead letter. It is a phenomenon that occurred and occurs mainly on the French-speaking side.

I also do not understand that the proposed amendments to the Administrative Law cannot simply be perceived as obvious, in particular since no one has yet seen the dynamics that these changes will produce in practice. It is not surprising that the present draft gives rise to some restraint both to the Dutch-speaking — though to a lesser extent — and to the French-speaking side. The Minister may argue that the reactions on both sides are proof that the draft is balanced.

Mr. Minister, it must be clear that the notion of functional language skills cannot result in the elimination of a number of existing protection and safeguards. I learned from the discussion in the committee that this is by no means the intention of the minister. I would appreciate if he repeated these good intentions again in the plenary session.

For the VLD, the main objective is that a manager as responsible administrator of a federal government agency should be engaged not only and exclusively with the results of its service, but also with the staff itself and their contribution. It is clear to us that the manager can be assumed and required that from a linguistic point of view he possesses the ability to understand and be understood in the exercise of his function.

The VLD therefore assumes that the government will do everything in its power to ensure that these conditions are met. We expect the Minister to emphasize once again that a functional language knowledge can not be limited to a mere passive knowledge, but that it involves a solid, oral and active knowledge.

By the way, the VLD — and I think the majority of the members of the Parliament — considers it quite normal that the holder of a management position would see his mandate terminated prematurely if he has not been able to provide evidence of functional knowledge of the second language within the prescribed time limit.

Those who make the decision to observe a top function should know what requirements are associated with it. Their

Mijnheer de minister, ten slotte suggested of VLD dat de minister, eenmaal de regeling effectief in voege zal zijn, na verloop van een redelijke tijdspanne de Kamer een evaluatie zou bezorgen om na te functional linguistic" shall not affect existing guarantees. I would appreciate that the Minister confirms, in plenary session, the point of view he had already formulated in committee.

The VLD believes that a manager working for a federal public service should care sufficiently about his staff and not only take into account the results of his service. One can expect from a manager that he has sufficient language skills to understand his staff and be understood. The VLD hopes that these essential conditions will be met and that the Minister will confirm that the passive knowledge of the second language is insufficient. It is quite normal to end the mandate of a manager who does not meet these conditions.

Finally, the VLD suggests that after the implementation of the new regulation, the Minister organizes an evaluation that will confirm the positive results, hopefully, of functional bilingualism of the federal services.

For all these reasons, the VLD approves the project of law. CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE, which, I hope, will have positive consequences, the functional bilinguality of the top management on the functioning of the federal services. It is in the light of these considerations that I can inform you that the VLD will approve the present draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will be very brief. As you know, this bill has already been moulded in the committee until in the mourning. Everything has already been said about this. Mr. Speaker, I basically agree with your excellent presentation, which you have held for a long time and behind which the Flemish Bloc can fully stand. Therefore, it seems to me no longer necessary to repeat all these technical explanations here. Their

Mr. Speaker, we will, by the way, firmly support the amendments of the CD&V. Mr. Minister, I would like to put this bill in the general framework of the Flemish-hostile administrative acts of this government. When one wants to touch the language legislation which, as you know, was fought in the 1930s with sweat, blood and tears, then we must always be very careful. This government has made a habit of damaging the Flemish interests. I refer, for example, to the so-called linguistic fairness agreement in Brussels, which in the meantime turns out to be a completely dead letter and is in total contradiction with the language legislation. I refer, for example, to the intention of the Minister of Justice to start appointing one-sided judges in Brussels, again in violation of the language legislation and again a massive exhaust of the Language Act of 1935. I refer to the introduction of mixed police zones in the Flemish-Brabant region around Brussels, where zone heads will now have to be bilingual. This is also contrary to the language legislation. I refer to the introduction in Sint-PietersLeeuw of bilinguality for one of the peace judges. I refer, for example, to the disastrous Lambermont agreement that has hit Flanders 20 years back and that will make us lose Brussels in the long run. Their

Now recently there is the new attack, this time on the entire language legislation and on all community balances that have been established in 70 years in Belgium with the signing of the famous Framework Convention for National Minorities of the Council of Europe. These are all gross attacks on the integrity of Flanders. It is somewhat in this context that I also want to see a new bill that once again means a new leveling and exhaustion of the language legislation, this time by introducing a new so-called functional bilingualism for managers in the reformed public services.

I had promised that I would no longer engage in the technical aspects of this; we have done enough in the committee. Two things are essential for us. First, for leading federal officials, we require a thorough knowledge of the second national language. The second major principle is that we require the 60/40 ratio for federal officials as long as this country still exists.

Our first basic principle of thorough knowledge of the second language we have poured in our main amendment in which we intend to replace article 43ter, §7, paragraph 1 with the following text: "To be able to evaluate officials of the other language role, the official must provide evidence of the thoroughness before an examination committee, composed by the delegated director of Selor,

This bill has been discussed in detail in the committee. Therefore, it seems us unnecessary to repeat the technical explanations. We will firmly support the amendments to the CD&V. by

The current government has never defended the Flemish interests. Many measures have already been taken that are contrary to the language legislation and the community balance. The integrity of Flanders is once again undermined, due this time to the introduction of the notion of functional bilingualism for senior officials of federal administrations. For the Vlaams Blok, two elements are primary in this discussion: leading federal officials must possess in-depth knowledge of the second national language and the 60N/40F language ratio must be the standard for federal officials. by

This concern is reflected in the amendments we have introduced. In this case, the amendment no. 22 to Article 2 of Mr. Annemans and of myself, in which we emphasize that in our opinion, in-depth bilingualism is an indispensable prerequisite for a leading federal official to enable him to properly perform his mission. Other amendments by Mr. Annemans and myself tend to introduce the population criterion for the assignment of managerial functions (amendments 17 and 18 to article 2). by

Un autre de nos amendements, le n°20, a été réécrit par le gouvernement et, heureusement, CAMER -4 E SITION OF THE 50th SESSION PERIOD 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE Knowledge of the second language, adapted to the exercise of this evaluation task, which means that he must be able to understand and be understood by his employees, to understand all the nuances in his presentation and to be able to express himself a nuanced vision, all this both in writing and orally. This examination includes the items provided for in the language examination for inclusion in the former bilingual framework as referred to in Article 12 of the Royal Decree of 8 March 2001 laying down the conditions for issuing the proof of language proficiency required by Article 53 of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Administrative Matters, coordinated on 18 July 1966. Are exempt from this examination: the officials who have passed the examination referred to in § 5, paragraph 1 in fine.

For us, this is the essence. The submitters of this amendment, Mr Annemans and I myself, are, in fact, of the opinion that a thorough knowledge, both written and oral, of the second language is essential in order to be able to essentially evaluate employees. It also ensures that the rights of defence are not violated. This is also very important. Furthermore, it is necessary that the managers are also those who must ensure the unity in the jurisprudence. This is a principle that you have rightly pointed out. Only from this vision can the services be optimized and language problems can be reduced to an absolute minimum. The proposed amendment also provides a serious response to the concerns of the Standing Committee for Language Surveillance regarding the level of knowledge of the second language. At the same time, this proposal to amend the draft is an incentive for French speakers to acquire the second national language. Let’s be honest, maybe this can also be increasingly an incentive for some Flamings to make themselves own of the other country steel. In particular, it is the French speakers who want to keep Belgium up. That must be said. They have mainly financial interests. Those who want to live in a country with two main languages, however, should, in our opinion, also draw the appropriate conclusions there. In this way I immediately defended my amendments and I will therefore no longer take the word for them.

Another essential amendment aims to replace Article 43ter, §4, second paragraph by the following: "On each language level, the relations that correspond to management functions and the relations that are equivalent to them are divided in a 60/40 ratio, respectively to Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people." Their

In fact, we believe that as long as this country exists — we hope that this will not be too long — the population criterion should be used in the distribution and allocation of management functions and the relations that are equivalent to them.

A subsequent amendment aims to replace Article 43ter(4)(3) with a text aimed at introducing that 60/40 ratio in the management committees. We also refer to the population criterion.

A fourth technical amendment reinforces the purpose of deleting Article 43ter, paragraph 4, fourth paragraph, provided that the two previous amendments are adopted.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, i think that i hiermee zeer beknopt ben geweest. and accepted. These are the opinions of the Permanent Committee for Language Control. The Minister thus demonstrated his openness of mind and his willingness to join good proposals, even when they emanate from the Vlaams Blok.

Of course, we will support our amendment and that of CD&V at the vote, but we will reject the draft in its entirety because it serves the Flemish interests.

CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE I would like to inform you, Mr. Minister, that I am a bit pleased that one of our amendments was accepted. This is the amendment no. 20 which was briefly rewritten by the Government in amendment no. 33 is This amendment introduces the provision that opinions to the Standing Committee for Language Supervision should be requested in a timely manner. In addition, this amendment sets a fixed deadline so that the procedures cannot be unnecessarily extended. The minister has demonstrated once again that he is not a sectarian, shrunken male but a man with an open mind who can appreciate a good proposal, even if it comes from the Flemish Bloc.

In my brief speech I explained our fundamental amendments. We will support our own amendments but also the amendments of the CD&V. We will not approve this bill because we believe it fundamentally damages the interests of the Flemish Community.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in fact, everything has already been said in this debate. The positive was said by colleague Cortois and the negative was said by the serving chairman and colleague Tastenhoye. Their

Mr. Minister, you will be disappointed, but this was a bad bill from the beginning. You will remember that I also said this in the committee. Thro ⁇ the path that this design has taken, it has become even worse. I would also like to congratulate colleague Denis D'hondt on the overview he has given of the treatment of this bill.

Mr. Minister, you must, of course, defend this bill, but you cannot deny that this bill has been exhausted by the vaudeville that has been raised. After all, a number of groups that initially approved this bill in the committee have ultimately invoked a conflict of interest.

Honestly, I do not understand the French speakers. In fact, they are blowing up our bilingual country, built on a very fragile balance, themselves by the way they decompose bilinguality and divide it into two. I deeply regret that. In ten years — and I may not be here anymore — we will indeed have to make the evaluation. This way of working undermines the existence of our country and the functioning of our administration.

I disagree with colleague Tant when he says that the Copernicus reform cannot thus come to its right. I believe that the assessment procedure, Mr. Minister, indeed provides the possibility for qualified employees to be able to perform the function they aspire to. On the other hand, the introduction of language frameworks may not bring the right man or woman to the right place. If at any given moment there are no 40 or 50 percent skilled French speakers or skilled Dutch speakers available, one may have to select less skilled candidates in a particular language role. This is partly undermining the Copernicus reform.

I try, Mr. Speaker, to limit myself to what has not yet been said in the debate. Therefore, I would like to refer to the opinion of the Standing Committee for Language Supervision. You will remember that I urged to hear the Chairman of the Standing Committee in the Committee on Home Affairs. This has been denied by

Both the positive and negative aspects of the project have already been sufficiently highlighted. It is bad from the beginning and the vaudeville about the conflict of interest and the amendments have not improved it.

I do not understand the French. Their policy of undermining language laws leads them to undermine the foundations of this bilingual country.

The Language Control Commission stated from the outset that functional knowledge of the second language is not sufficient for an official in a senior position who is forced to evaluate someone. Therefore, it is necessary to be more familiar with this second language.

Why can’t French-speaking people accept that a leading federal official must be bilingual in order to perform his functions properly? Is it a problem of ability or will? The Flemish people know, as a general rule, that it is necessary to have a good knowledge of both languages if one wants to exercise functions at the federal summit. by

The present bill appears to be part of a new offensive of French speakers within the government. The Flemish ministers have once ceded from KAMER -4 E ZITTING VAN DE 50 E ZITTINGSPERIODE 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E LEGISLATURE of meerderheid.

The Standing Committee for Languages Monitoring has made it clear from the very beginning — and that was before the exit phase, Mr. Minister — that functional knowledge is completely insufficient for evaluating officials to handle staff records in the other language. This has already been emphasized by other speakers. Who needs to evaluate does not need to know the other language perfectly, but should at least have feelings with the other language. The Standing Committee for Language Supervision even expressly states in its opinion that functional bilinguality is a step backwards in comparison with the prevailing jurisprudence of the State Council. It further notes that even on the basis of the weakened criterion of functional bilinguality, the functional bilinguality of managers will result in a deficiency on the French-speaking side. The reason for the lack of bilinguals on the French-speaking side is not cited.

Let’s be honest — and I am addressing myself specifically to my French-speaking colleagues — and ask why a candidate who aspires to a position as a manager or as chairman of the management committee cannot be sufficiently bilingual, as most Dutch-speaking people do. I do not want to generalize either with regard to Dutch speakers who are not all perfectly bilingual, nor with regard to French speakers.

Should we take this bilinguality out of this way? Is it a question of ‘must’? Is it a question of ‘not wanting’? I will tell you a fairy tale about two princesses. One princess, a girl from Wallonia, meets a bilingual prince who lives in Brussels, and they marry. Another girl comes from Argentina, does not speak Dutch, meets a Dutch prince, and they marry. We’ve heard the two princesses on television. Well, Mr. Minister, colleagues, you have been able to judge your own knowledge of their Dutch. One speaks the language quite well, the other needs the support of her husband to say how well she actually speaks Dutch. Extortion of French speakers? Songeons notamment à la magistrature bruxelloise, à l'assurances dépendance, à la SNCB, à Wezembeek-Oppem etc.

Minister Van den Bossche knows well that this bill takes water from all sides, but he probably had to swallow this debris in compensation for other cases. I am convinced that the Flemish members of the majority will approve this project without making any illusion about its value.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, who looks at ‘Royalty’ every week?

It is not a fairy tale, as I know.

Every fairy tale always has a ground of truth. I just want to say, if it needs to, it can. And that’s why I say to our French-speaking compatriots: trade like we, Dutch-speaking people, and do just like we, when we aspire to a certain function, an effort. Indeed, I must assist a number of colleagues in this Parliament in their conclusion that we may be advocating a French-speaking offensive aimed at bilingualism. If we see how you put the principle of bilingualism, also in the magistracy in Brussels, here on the slope, then today we can not say that this is just a fact divers that we can bypass.

Mr. Minister, you are — and I know that you are doing your best, and you are often bringing your message that is not always the most pleasant — that together with the government once more emphasize the French-speaking blackmail. I could cite examples: the time credit, the health insurance, the NMBS, the one-sided magistrates in Brussels, Wezembeek-Oppem where one has gone through the knees because the prime minister needed the French-speaking liberals not to vote for the immigrant voting right. It is still: I give you something so that I could get CHAMER -4 E SESSION OF THE 50 E SESSION PERIOD 2001 2002 CHAMBRE -4 E SESSION DE LA 50 E LEGISLATURE. Their

After invoking the conflict of interests and submitting the amendment by the majority, you have said in the committee that every coherent whole has been sought from the draft law. You eventually accepted this draft law to probably get other matters, and this is always the case in this country. Their

I come to my final consideration. If one must eventually evaluate someone after six months on his language skills, then you can not assure me today that if that person eventually receives an unfavorable evaluation — at that point he will have already held a certain position for six months — he will leave his position.

We are evolving toward a total extinction, even of functional bilingualism. Mr. Minister, as colleague Cortois asks you to confirm today in the plenary session that functional bilingualism must not become a mere passive knowledge of the second language, he has thus already expressed his uncertainty and concern. Mr Cortois, from the way you put the point, I think I can deduce that you are also not at ease. In a few years, we will know what impact the bill will have on the linguistic balance, which has been gradually established.

Therefore, we will not approve the design and we will examine the extent to which the necessary adjustments can be made in a timely manner.

The list of speakers has been completed and the Minister has the word, if he wishes.

I have nothing to add to my words in the committee. Of course, I would like to thank the reporter for his excellent report and the chairman of the committee for the way he led the difficult committee work.

I have nothing to add to the statements I made in the committee. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report and I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee for the way he led the debates.