Proposition 50K1556

Projet de loi relatif au Conseil Central des Communautés philosophiques non confessionnelles de Belgique, aux délégués et aux établissements chargés de la gestion des intérêts matériels et financiers des communautés philosophiques non confessionnelles reconnues.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 10, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

religion

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V FN VB

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 25, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Dear Colleagues, the Justice Committee has devoted three sessions to the examination of this bill which aims to put concrete implementation of Article 181, § 2 of the Constitution, introduced in 1993, providing that the treatment and pensions of delegates of organizations recognised by law that offer moral assistance according to a non-confessional philosophical conception, are to be borne by the State.

The proposed provisions aim to treat non-confessional philosophical conceptions and recognised cults on an equal basis and regulate the procedures for recognition of the Secular Central Council, representing non-confessional philosophical communities before the civil authority, whose two branches are the Vrijzinnige Verenigingen Union and the Centre for Secular Action, as well as the operation and subsidy of its federal secretariat.

In addition to this central structure, moral assistance according to a non-confessional philosophical conception is sometimes at the provincial level, sometimes at the local level. Thus, the State financially allows this assistance to be realised at three levels of power: the central level, the provincial level and the local level.

The central element of the structure of moral assistance according to a non-confessional philosophical conception is located at the provincial level. In the capital of each province, a public law institution is established, which is endowed with legal personality and is responsible for the management of the material and financial interests of the recognized non-confessional philosophical community and the services located on the territory of the province. For the administrative district of Brussels-Capital, a doubling is planned from a linguistic point of view.

These institutions include non-confessional moral assistance services. They shall constitute, at the local level, the network of services of moral assistance for the benefit of the population. These infrastructures will operate in places accessible to the public and will employ both professional and volunteer employees. by

As regards staff, it will be provided for all the jobs provided for in the framework within a five-year period. In this regard, the bill that is submitted to you provides for seven delegates per establishment at provincial level, five delegates per infrastructure at local level and fifty delegates at the federal secretariat, i.e. at the central level. In total, therefore, it would be 354 delegates of the Secular Central Council to be paid by the State, in application of Article 181, §2 of the Constitution. by

In terms of administrative guardianship, this is a classic system. First of all, the Permanent Deputy of the Provincial Council has a power of opinion regarding budgets, annual accounts and works. Budgets and accounts are subject to the approval of the Minister of Justice, while civil works and operations of an amount exceeding 9,916 euros require the authorization of the King. by

Another important measure of the bill submitted to you is to grant a sui generis legal status to delegates who offer non-confessional moral assistance, and this is mainly due to the fact that many delegates who provide moral assistance have been in service for many years, thus posing the problem of acquired rights.

As regards the fact that their treatments are superior to those of recognised ministers of cults, this is justified by the fact that the delegates of the secular Central Council who offer this non-confessional moral assistance do not enjoy the same advantages as ministers of cults. by

During the discussions, including the general discussion, the following main problems and objections were raised.

1 of 1. The problem of inequality of treatment between ministers of cults and secular delegates. by

2 of 2. The problem of the cumulative takeover of treatments and the maintenance of the operating subsidy for the General Secretariat.

3 of 3. The fear of some of the unconstitutionality of the text due to the doubt of the federal competence in the matter since the state reform arising from the so-called Lambermont agreements.

4 of 4. The problem of pensions of secular delegates, since they are not statutory officials.

These questions received answers from the Minister. I encourage you to consult the written report in this regard, but I have no doubt that they will be taken back during the debate this afternoon.

I would like to conclude this summary of our work by clarifying that the entire bill was adopted without amendment by 9 votes and 4 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will limit myself to the essence. My group agrees with the constitutional principles found in Article 181 of the Constitution. The betting and pensions of the representatives of the legally recognised organizations that provide moral services on the basis of a non-confessional view of life shall be borne by the State. During the previous legislature, we had, by the way, prepared a bill that had received the approval of the government and implemented Article 181. It was somewhat surprising that at the beginning of this legislature this draft was not adopted, because under these circumstances we could have settled this problem for a long time. However, it took two and a half years before a new draft was submitted, the draft that we discuss here today.

I would like to point out that there are two problems with this draft. Those problems were also highlighted by the State Council. In fact, in the first place, it states that some articles of the present draft are unconstitutional. In the Constitution, we talked about the betting and pensions charged by the State, while in the draft not only the betting and pensions are charged, but also federal subsidies are made available to secularism to cover the operating costs. The State Council says — and the Court of Auditors confirms its strict interpretation — that this goes beyond what is provided by the Constitution. I think this cannot. The CD&V group has no problem with the implementation of Article 181, but it must be done clearly in accordance with its provisions and not contrary to or supplementary to what is stipulated therein.

Another second element was cited by the State Council in the various opinions on this subject. There is an inequality in treatment. I would like to illustrate two elements in the design, but there are others. For example, the present draft provides for a considerably higher remuneration for moral advisors than for the clergy. The clergy must make a low bet without ancientity, while the moral counselors receive a significantly higher bet of level 1, which provides for ancientity. As a result, it is used very generously in this matter, so that there is an inequality to which the Council of State expressly refers.

Secondly, I would like to point out the transitional provision in the bill for the existing staff of the non-confessional life-visual organizations. In fact, it has been prepared to enable the cumulation of the benefits of the private and public statute, thereby increasing the new betting scales of the existing staff by a thirteenth month and by doubling the holiday allowance.

There is no one official or official in similar circumstances that has ever obtained such cumulation, and I think it can be a precedent for some to bring forward a number of prerogatives. This is actually incomprehensible, just like the fact that one here apparently wants to use the circumstances to use himself very generously. And that is quite sharp, colleagues, compared with the scarce resources with which the Department of Justice has been raised, in particular the staff of Justice. For example, contractual officials there get a bet that is lower than the benefit of an unemployed family head who must get around with a very limited income. That hits us at the chest and we cannot accept it. A fair compensation is necessary, but a compensation of that size, which is also contrary to the principle of equality, can therefore not.

The provisions in the draft law on supervision show that the Lambermont Agreement has not always achieved homogeneous rules of jurisdiction and that efficient and good governance has not always been the priority. After all, we now come to a situation where the supervision of the church factories was transferred to the regions, while the present bill provides that the supervision of the organization of secularism remains federal. This leads us to a ⁇ inappropriate organization. The administration that deals with the matter will be partly transferred to the regions and partly will continue to function federally when it comes to the supervision of secularism. I say that in order to demonstrate that the Lambermont Agreement was not always considered, let alone realized, the principle of good governance.

The conclusion is, Mr. Minister, colleagues, that our CD&V group is willing and will continue to loyally implement Article 181 of the Constitution. This has been demonstrated by the draft legislation of the previous legislature. What we cannot accept is that non-confessional life-watching communities are so generously served that both the Constitution and the principle of equality are violated. We will abstain from voting on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill submitted to our vote aims to put into effect Article 181, § 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the treatment and pensions of delegates of the organizations recognized by law, who offer moral assistance according to a non-confessional philosophical conception, are to be borne by the State. The funds needed to cope with this are annually transferred to the state budget.

We can only congratulate that a legislation implementing this constitutional principle is coming to light. We welcome this even more because this initiative is part of our political project and our willingness to promote a pluralist society, based on the respect and recognition of each citizen in his own convictions and beliefs.

Such a project can obviously only be realized in full transparency of the institutions that carry it, a precise identification of its actors and clear financing rules. That is why we are joining a project that will allow to accurately identify, on the one hand, non-confessional philosophical communities, on the other hand, their representative organizations and finally, their functioning structure.

The project submitted to our vote envisages, in fact, the recognition of the Secular Central Council as a representative organization of the non-confessional philosophical communities of Belgium, the recognition and organization of the non-confessional philosophical communities and services of moral assistance, on the provincial territorial basis and the administrative district of BrusselsCapitale, the organization of the federal secretariat attached to the Secular Central Council and charged with a coordination function.

Furthermore, we share the concern to ensure a social status that guarantees delegates who offer moral assistance the legal certainty necessary for the exercise of their functions. It would be unacceptable to ask a person whose social status is not assured to offer any moral assistance to his fellow citizens. However, I express some criticisms and reservations about the bill under consideration as regards the obligation of the provinces to cover the possible deficits of moral assistance institutions. I would like to clarify that it is not the very principle of this obligation that is questionable but rather the way in which the provincial authorities have not been informed. They were simply placed before an accomplished fact without any concertation with the federal authorities.

Let me return, as in commission, to the financing of the deficits of the secularist organizations for the provinces. Our group does not in any way want to block or curtail the matter on this point, but we find it unacceptable that no prior consultation has been organized with the local authorities, therefore the provinces. This is often the case with municipalities. I think of the increase in the treatment of mandatory representatives that was decided without consultation with the municipalities. I also think of other allocations that have been voted recently. I insist that it would seem logical to me that each level of power finances its own commitments.

It is under this reservation that we will vote on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, collegàs, I will begin with the end of my speech and immediately announce that my group will approve this bill. After all, this bill is a step towards the logical equality of worship services and other life views. The criticisms which, without any doubt — and rightly — can be formulated on this draft, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of equality and the state order of this country, do not prejudice the principled belief that this law would be best accomplished.

Now I would like to highlight three aspects, namely, first, the fundamental nature and the relationship between the State and the worship services and life beliefs; second, the problem of the internal division of powers in this regard and, third, an alternative proposal to regulate the problem of the worship services.

Last week, Mr. Ferdy Willems sent to all members of the Chamber a copy of a freely stimulated letter exchange between the Minister of Defence and the Catholic Chief Mosqueer, about the role and place of the alms in the army. The spontaneous reaction of Mr. Coveliers to this, in this hemisphere, was that the State did not have to bear the costs of those men. Per ⁇ here and there more religiously inspired colleagues ask themselves in silence why the State should bear the cost of freedom of mind. Therefore, I do not find it unnecessary to look at the ratio of public funding for worship services and life-thinking beliefs.

Although the tradition of the Belgian Constitution, which at the time was rather progressive, remains important with its attention to the separation of Church and State, the weighting point, in my opinion, lies in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right also includes the freedom to change beliefs, as well as the freedom to profess his religion or belief either alone or with others and in public or private life. The State therefore has the duty to respect both the experience of a worship service and that of a non-confessional view of life, and that in equal measure. Otherwise, the European Convention would have limited itself to religious freedom sensu stricto.

Does this mean that the State is also necessarily obliged to provide for a financing mechanism for worship services and persuasion? That it belongs to an active duty of the State to promote these beliefs as well? I think so – although I realize that this is not undisputed – because otherwise it seems to me difficult to answer that the state order is one in which the government deals with many matters and grants subsidies to all kinds of associations, for example in sports, culture, environment, youth, education, victims of violent acts and other important social phenomena. Why are these associations supported by public funds? Because otherwise the actual exercise of all these important social aspects would be undermined; for it is not evident for a free association to collect and pay the high wages and wage burdens.

It is difficult to include in the Constitution a more important human right than the right to have one’s own belief or other belief, a right that is even stronger formulated in our constitutional order than the right to organize sports, youth or environmental associations, but at the same time not to determine a financing mechanism for one and for the other. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.

I know that, as a counterargument, one can say that in one case the government has a goal that it tries to shape through these subsidy mechanisms. The government, of course, can hardly have the goal of bringing certain religious beliefs into force. I think that the real public policy in this matter is the realization of the principle of tolerance and equality of worship. The only way to ⁇ this goal is to provide certain funding. Their

I think that support and tolerance for worship and life views is not an outdated relic from the past, but deserves to have defenders in this Parliament. They must be defended in our society, which in itself tends more and more to materialism. Their

The second element I would like to highlight for a moment is the question of whether or not this bill will be made in the best way possible if one wants to incorporate it into the regulations of this federal kingdom. Personally, I am very happy that the Lambermont Agreement has given an incentive to defederalize the area of worship. I am convinced that, in fact, the whole competence in this field is best entrusted in spirit to the communities, who have the most experience with all kinds of subsidy mechanisms and can be given the necessary instruments to organize other types of measures, for example in the area of church taxation. In the Lambermont Agreement, we have regionalized the church factories and the similar bodies on the worship services because they have traditionally a lot to do with the communities. That is the state of affairs. I think that is a positive given, but it can ⁇ and ⁇ better.

The fact that Article 6, §1, 8° – 6° of the special powers concerns only worship services does not necessarily mean that the federal government remains competent for the non-confessional view of life. This article can be applied perfectly mutatis mutandis to the freedom of mind, in particular since that system did not exist before and the equal right of both actually imposes this by the functioning of the European Treaty. Bets, pensions and recognition as such, in the same logic, of course, remain federal matters. Their

In order to remove any doubt — for one can also make the reverse analysis of the article — I am willing to submit a bill for co-signature to the various factions of this Chamber in order to incorporate that regionalization for the non-confessional life view also in the special law. At the same time, I would like to give the initiative to communitarianise the whole. I will submit that proposal. It is ready. You just have to look at it and if you want to sign it, you can go to the Secretariat of the Chamber.

I know, of course, that not so much a genuine analysis of the proper distribution of powers has prevented that, as such, it had already been entrusted to the regions and communities. I suspect, for the sake of honesty, that some people probably feared that the draft on liberalism — which has been in the pipeline for a long time — would be unnecessarily delayed if it had been de-federalized in the Lambermont Agreement. Once this draft has been approved, there can absolutely be no political reason for not rearranging it and preferably entrusting it to the communities, if necessary, the regions. Their

I would like to make a proposal to reform the matter as a whole. I would like to break a lance for the church tax system and a fair definition of what is a worship service and what is not. However, the discussion in the committee on the draft clearly shows that the financing mechanisms of the various worship services are different, difficult to compare, and in no way based on any rational distribution mechanism that cannot be explained solely by historical grounds.

The way this Parliament has treated the Islamic community is not ⁇ an expression of respect for our own Western values and tolerance. Even today, a member of a chamber dares to demand the withdrawal of the recognition of that worship. Many worship services which in some countries have a full status — Buddhism is a good example of this — are refused recognition in our country in a completely arbitrary manner. Reasons for establishing general, flexible criteria that can be applied in any case. At present, we have more to do with a lobbying system. The Ministry is reluctant about recognition of new worship services. We do not have rationally responsible, thoughtful criteria to test the whole.

As to how subsidization can be organized, I explicitly break the lance for a well-organized system of church tax. With a separate code cover — respect for privacy — one could choose which worship service receives a portion of the taxes. For the time being, in my opinion, this should be done in a closed system and there would be no freedom not to give a worship service. For me, it remains a provisional way of organizing a subsidy mechanism, a means of objectively determining how many people prefer to support a particular worship. This type of church tax is an alternative to a system in which a government would organize checks on the number of members of churches, a system that, given Article 9 of the European Convention, is difficult to operate in order to reach a fair count of the wishes of the population regarding the worship services.

In short, colleagues, there is still much work to be done to build our regulations on worship services and non-confessional beliefs into an instrument that takes into account a tolerance and emancipation that should characterize the man of the 21st century.

Not without realizing the imperfections of this text, Spirit wants to approve this draft in the hope that the factions across the boundaries of majority and opposition will want to join in building a better and more general system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill is the result of a long and sometimes difficult negotiation. But it seems to us that this text constitutes an essential step in the implementation of a true equal treatment between recognized non-confessional philosophical communities and recognized cults.

A considerable innovation towards a recognition of secularism was achieved in 1993 during the constitutional revision by the introduction of Article 181, §2 of our Fundamental Law. However, this article establishing equal treatment for organized secularism has not been practically implemented by previous governments. Nevertheless, this bill is largely based on the need for a number of people who adhere to the values promoted by these secular associations and who wish to live their ideological or philosophical convictions within an organization. Currently, several non-confessional moral assistance services are already operational and therefore the bill does not truly innovate but it concrete the will of the constituent of 1993 by consolidating the existing situation. Public financing of secularism comes to punctuate, if I dare to say, the expectation of a legislative framework that has been expressed by these associations for now almost ten years.

I will briefly highlight a number of elements that we find essential.

First and foremost, this was stated by Mr. Arens, the bill organizes a new structure on three levels: a façade structure, the Central Council, the creation of provincial establishments responsible for the management of assets assigned to secular organizations on the basis of what exists currently and finally, at the local level, a network of moral assistance services for the benefit of the population. It can therefore be noted, and rejoiced, that the structure that has been retained does not hinder the continuity of the associations since no interference is planned in the exercise of their functions. The will is therefore to ensure an internal functioning of secularism that is as autonomous as possible. This structure, with a limited number of levels, has taken into account a number of budgetary constraints and kept costs under control. by

Finally, a number of criticisms have been issued regarding the grants granted to cover the costs of the Federal Secretariat. This regime is actually based on the system that is established in favour of the Islamic cult that benefits from a subsidy regime and we believe that this is justified, since secularism has only been recognized since 1980 when the UN resolution was adopted. This has obviously had an impact on her heritage. Secularity does not have a private heritage or a number of other incomes. So, the measure that has been proposed through the text of the law seems to respond to a concern of coherence and realism.

Finally, I would like to highlight the constructive nature that presided over the preparation of the texts. I think that the MR group can express its satisfaction with regard to the cooperation work that has been undertaken by the Minister of Justice since this bill is truly the result of an agreement that was reached in collaboration with the field actors, who have also had the opportunity to repeatedly express their satisfaction. I also believe that this constructive work is expressed through the note that was communicated by the Minister of Justice in order to clarify a number of concerns or uncertainties and this constructive work is further underlined by the opinion that was requested from the Court of Auditors regarding this subsidy problem that I mentioned a moment ago.

As soon as this bill concrete a process initiated in 1981, as soon as it effectively places the non-confessional philosophical conception on an equal footing with the recognised cults, as soon as it finally allows the externalization of the pluralist character of our society in which different tendencies will be able to develop in full freedom, the MR group will convincedly support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I did not intend to intervene, but I will do it briefly.

We agree with the argument of colleague Van Parys. We too will abstain from voting, not because we would oppose the financing of organized liberal minds, but because new inequalities will be created. Among other things, there are large differences in salaries with the servants of the worship services. In this regard, we have received an interesting comparative note from the Central Free-minded Council, which shows how uncertain the income situation of the servants of the worship services is and what kinds of artificial handles one must use to raise their income.

The free-minded organizations thank you for this. We can give them the right. Therefore, I have only a question to the Minister of Justice, namely, whether after the adoption of his draft in the House, he will make efforts to review the incomes of the servants of the worship services and ensure that they receive a fairer salary?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. In his excellent report, Mr. Giet, perfectly identified the issues of this bill both at the level of institutions and individuals. I just want to emphasize how much my group is delighted with the positive outcome of this project after such a long period of preparation. by

An equality between the different philosophical options is essential and, as some of my colleagues have said, normal in a pluralist society. My group will vote on this project with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report, in which he provided a complete and solid overview of the legislation that is currently in place and to which I do not have to return.

The free-minded community in our country not only has a rich, flourishing and diverse association life, but has undergone an organizational growth process since the establishment of the free-thinking organizations in the 19th century. Through the development of a representative structure, since the 1950s, non-confessional groups have grown into truly full-fledged life-visual communities. However, recognition as such turns out to be a work of long breath. Through years of definite political life-vision overwhelmingness, all sorts of delaying manoeuvres, disinterest, lack of political will, and the so urgently necessary drive to clearly settle this question once and for all, organized liberalism was often in a confused position. In view of a number of benefits and a certain amount of public funding — I mean government support for buildings intended for freelance activities, the establishment of services for moral assistance in the military, hospitals and prisons, or the allocation of broadcast time to the public broadcaster, for which telkenmale proved a struggle necessary to obtain it — one was constantly confronted with the fact that the basic legal framework and the foundations lacked. Legistic art and flight work was the result and its chronology was somewhat bizarre.

Under the law of 23 January 1981, an annual subsidy is granted to the Central Freelance Council, which is recognised as the overarching body of organized freelance. The memorandum of explanation of the aforementioned law leaves little to the imagination: "The law constitutes only a phase of the recognition of the freedom of mind, awaiting the amendment of Article 117 of the Constitution, the current Article 181, the adoption of a law for the recognition of the freedom of mind and of a law concerning the bets of the play counselors". We write 1981.

The constitutional revision of 5 May 1993 with the amendment of the then article 117, supplementing the article with a second paragraph, according to which the betting and pensions of the representatives of the legally recognised organizations providing moral services on the basis of a non-confessional view of life are to be borne by the State, was a step in the right direction, but was not sufficient. Their

During the previous legislature, a draft law concerning the deputies and the institutions charged with the management of the material interests of the recognised, non-confessional life-thinking communities was eventually submitted to Parliament, but due to the lack of consideration that draft law has indeed been invalidated. In addition, the text of the Implementing Act showed a number of shortcomings, so that during this legislature new negotiations with the representatives of the Central Free-minded Council were initiated, resulting in the current balanced draft, which is the most comprehensive and the most reasonable so far and for which a broad social support can be obtained. Their

I would like to respond to the comments of Mr Borginon, who held a plea for a kind of Kirchensteuer, the introduction of a personal contribution, through a free choice and the abolition of control mechanisms and the like. I personally also support the introduction of such a system.

However, I think that there is still a lack of the broader social consensus necessary to introduce such a system, because it is a sensitive matter. That is also why we will support the present draft.

I want to make it clear that this consensus is socially more broad than one sometimes thinks. I remember, for example, the plea of Philippe Maystadt, a year or two ago, to introduce something similar. He can be seen as an unmistakable source in this, I think. So I think that one will find a social support if one begins to discuss it extensively.

In any case, I would like to invite the House to take this step as unanimously as possible now because this will also provide security to the free-minded community in this country. Then we can open up the necessary discussions.

I had hoped that we could do this unanimously. The members of the PSC will support this. Unfortunately, we will not be able to unanimously approve this, and I am pleased to note that a purple-green political constellation and a liberal Minister of Justice, whom I would like to congratulate on this draft, are needed to ⁇ what previously proved impossible for years.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank the reporter for providing a comprehensive presentation of the debates. Colleagues will remember that we have almost retired to discuss this design, entirely in the atmosphere of what should master this matter. Their

I would like to thank each member of the committee for the serene way in which these debates could be conducted, and I would not like to polemize on any point today, at the final stage of the discussion in the House. Their

On behalf of my group, I can fully agree with the text on the table. We were fully documented. I think that in this we fulfill our parliamentary duty in implementing a constitutional principle. I would like to say before some colleagues that the efforts have been made before, but possibly for various reasons could not be achieved successfully. I was at that time a privileged witness to the efforts made by previous ministers and this minister managed to eventually reach the final meeting. Let us see the reality as it is. Their

I wanted to intervene for a moment because colleague Van Parys has raised in these few legal principles. I must honestly confess that I do not understand the opinion of the Council of State on the subsidies made by the legislator in this to the financing of freedom of mind. I thought at a first reading that the word "only" was wrong in the reasoning, but when I read further, I indeed find that the State Council is based on the principle that if the Constitution provides that bets and pensions are borne by the State, nothing else can be borne by the State. This is contrary to the way in which funding for the first member has been provided over the years. For one has a whole set of legal provisions that grant other benefits to other worship services that naturally come on a very different level.

Therefore, the opinion of the State Council on this subject seems to me likely to be motivated by a strict interpretation of the text. Per ⁇ I should interpret the opinion in such a way that the State Council is wondering, since there is nothing in the Constitution about it, why then provide such provisions in the law. In my opinion, in addition to the clearly defined constitutional obligations, the legislator can add anything that the constituent considers useful.

Second, there is a reference to possible inequalities in treatment. During the committee meeting, we cited a whole series of points from which it was abundantly demonstrated that, by the way, in the light of the judgments of the Arbitration Court on this subject, there were ⁇ no inequalities. When we talk about inequality and discrimination, we must face the whole situation of those involved. In that case, you should necessarily establish that there is no inequality created. In this regard, the legal forms are undisputedly respected. Therefore, we should absolutely not scare back.

Thirdly, Mr Borginon invites us to eventually go a little further in regionalization. I fully understood the subtlety of Mr. Borginon’s proposal, but others apparently did not. Mr. Borginon speaks of the regionalization of everything concerning worship services, including betting and pensions. In my opinion, some colleagues read something different in his proposal, so that they may initially respond enthusiastically but would not necessarily agree with it at the final meeting. In my opinion, it is also not a good thing. It is true that the Lambermont Agreements do not contain any arrangement for freedom of mind, but what was overthrown with them is clearly defined. In the committee meeting I already said that a clear law does not need to be interpreted. We only talk about goods and nothing else. The Lambermont agreements therefore do not contain any implications for the subject we are discussing now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the members for the serenity with which the discussion has been conducted. In front of the room we now reach a final line. The Senate may still want to devote a word to the draft, which fulfils our constitutional duty.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on the matter, because the report of Mr. Giet seems to me more than sufficiently clear.

On the basis of the case, I would like to say the following. If the bill is approved, more than twenty years of diligence will be concrete by a number of people to allow the non-confessional life-confessional beliefs to enjoy the same rights as other beliefs through the law on the worship services. This has happened in several stages. In 1993 there was the constitutional amendment, which completed then article 117, now 187. The ultimate goal, namely the true equal treatment of the non-confessional life view with the other recognised worship services, has only now become possible. So we will be able to withdraw from the subsidy system we have used so far. These subsidies already amounted to almost 10 million euros in the financial year 2002.

I know that efforts have been made in the past. In the previous parliamentary period, we had almost reached the end. The dissolution of the Chamber prevented the vote on the final text. Then, on the basis of the text at the time, further discussions were conducted with the delegates of the Union of Voluntary Associations and the Centre d'Action Laïque. This also seemed necessary to me, because it was only then that the delegates of the moral services, who had been working for years, were paid in a different way than in the worship services, and therefore had to live from subsidies. There is no new debate ab novo. That is also why I would limit myself to the three points that were still discussed.

It is said that there are constitutional objections. One refers to Lambermont and one refers to a number of inequalities. My answer to this question will be brief. In fact, the constitutional objections were largely related to the manner in which the supervision would be exercised. It must be clear that the administrative control in the present draft remains in accordance with the classical system, as was the case until 1 January 2002, also for the church factories and the institutions responsible for the management of the temporals and the worship services. There is no problem with rice. In the course of discussions and commission of the Justice, the question of knowing why the tutelage of the institutions of moral assistance according to a non-confessional philosophy was not transferred to the regions as it is the case for the cults to be posed. It is clear that the special law of 13 July 2001 is mute to this subject. It is obvious that the institutions of moral assistance will not have a legal existence after the vote of this project. It was therefore not possible to make the legal decision on this subject. Finally, much attention was paid to the special legal status of the delegates of the non-confessional moral service. These people have been providing services for years. For this, certain achievements should be taken into account. One easily tends to make the comparison with the worship services. This is not a correct way of acting, because it is known that within the non-confessional view of life they cannot enjoy a number of benefits in nature, such as the housing and the emeritus. It is also known that they must not cumulate a function in the context of their moral service, unlike the practitioners of the worship services. The criticism of the lack of equal treatment can be answered by two points.

First, it is a life view and not a worship service.

Second, there is a possible difference in treatment based on objective and reasonable criteria. That is why we can now respond to the industry’s years-long demands. I invite the House to approve the bill.