Proposition 50K1748

Proposition de résolution relative à l'universalisation de la Convention d'Ottawa sur l'interdiction de l'emploi, du stockage, de la production et du transfert des mines antipersonnel et sur leur destruction et au travail intersessionnel.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Martine Dardenne, Mirella Minne
Groen Leen Laenens, Peter Vanhoutte

Submission date

April 19, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

conventional weapon resolution of parliament arms trade

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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

May 29, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the draft special law to ensure equal representation of men and women on the candidate lists for the elections of the Brussels Capital Council, the Wall Street and the Flemish Council was transmitted by the Senate. This draft is based on the same principles as the law that we have previously adopted and which applies to the European elections. It consists that when composing the lists, half of the candidates must be of the opposite sex and that the first two candidates must be of a different sex. For the next elections, however, a transitional arrangement is provided that one of the first three candidates must be of the opposite sex. The Minister points out that experts say that the objective we want to ⁇ with this, namely paritary democracy, is best achieved by applying the rits principle to the whole list or by applying the rits principle to the places at the top of the list. Experts equally say that the halving or complete weakening of the value of the list vote has almost no positive effect on the number of women to be elected.

Also the Council of Equal Opportunities for Men and Women states in its opinion, that it has subsequently brought out the results of the municipal and provincial council elections, that the halving or disappearance of the list vote makes only 3% difference. It is especially beneficial to women in the women-friendly parties. The Council also points out that if the proposal had been applied in the previous elections, there would have been 33% more female voters. Now there was only an increase of 22%.

The submitters of the subsequent bills, the Agalev/Ecolofractie and the PS group, judge that the Minister’s draft takes over their objectives.

At the discussion, CD&V stated that the arrangement would have been better incorporated in the upcoming reform of the electoral legislation. CD&V believes that the intended effect will be lost with the formation of provincial electoral lists. CD&V wants to apply the parity in the new arrangement also to the planned successor places. The group also points out that this is a special law, which regulates a common law, the electoral code. However, she acknowledges that it happened on the advice of the State Council.

The Flemish Bloc wants to postpone the discussion until the reform of the electoral legislation is in place.

The Mouvement Réformateur, according to Mr. D'Hondt, agrees with parity, but not with the prevailing arrangement. He believes that Belgium does not do so badly in terms of the representation of women. The Mouvement Réformateur wants to limit the regulation to one time and regrets that such a thing is not recorded in the text.

Cahay, on the other hand, stresses the need to provide for a transitional measure, otherwise the party will not be able to ⁇ parity on the list.

Spirit supports the principle, but wants to see it incorporated in the announced electoral legislation reform. The party, by the way, wants to apply the principle also to the successor places. The Agalev/Ecolo group says that the present draft is the logical consequence of the previously passed law. She argues that women in social life and politics are well on the way to ⁇ parity, but that that slow movement needs a push. The law will also protect men in the future. If parity has become a matter of course, these rules should be abolished.

The PSC relies on the support of women to maintain parity on the lists to protect, if necessary, the representation of men.

Several text improvements were proposed during the discussion. They were also accepted. Several amendments were submitted by the PS group aiming to include the sanctions provided for the submitted lists that do not meet the conditions also in the special law. These amendments were also accepted. The amended draft was accepted with 12 votes and 2 abstentions.

This was the report of Mrs. Grauwels. I now give her the word for her speech in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I think that it is not a detail that a female minister makes this proposal and also pushes it and tries to realize it. I am convinced that if women acquire positions, including in politics, they can actually defend women’s interests and we are moving forward. With this draft, the government makes a clear choice for a proportionate representation of men and women in politics. Unfortunately, this happens with a transitional measure and with a rather limited ride system. The mandatory representation of women in eligible places works. Our party has been applying this system for years with the result that women are very well represented. Of course, it is not the only and blissful instrument, there is still a lot to do for the rest. Why do we insist on this parity? The current overrepresentation of men is no longer normal. Not only among members of this assembly, but also in the government, women are still in the minority. Men are also overrepresented in the key positions of the various political groups. So it is a question of justice. Half of the population is male or female. Women are therefore not a minority or a specific target group at all; they make up half of the population. Parliament should be a reflection of that population. Do women make the difference? If a group is sufficiently represented, it can weigh on decision-making. Then they make the difference. After all, women put on other themes or put on other accents. This is because men and women’s lives in everyday life are still different.

Women still – despite all emancipation and all equality – take on more care duties and still step back on the labour market earlier than men. What concerns women from their other experiences should also be addressed in Parliament. This makes Parliament and politics more complete. In the long run, the group of women will also be able and must change the political mentality and culture. The evaluation of the law — which has been insisted on — will show that complete parity has not yet been achieved. I think there will only be an evolution. I think that the male MPs at that time will advocate for ⁇ ining parity on the lists to ensure that men are entitled to eligible seats.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I believe that this draft special law and the legislative proposals linked to it are in line with earlier texts that were already submitted for discussion. We also supported those texts at the time. Our attitude on this is clear and I will not say much more about it. I would like to make a few more technical comments.

I would like to start by pointing out how this government wanted to solve this problem at the beginning. Initially, the government wanted to improve the representation of women in Parliament by halving the list vote and at the same time eliminating the separate list of successors. The truth has its rights. They had initially chosen a different path. That path apparently did not deliver the expected result. Mrs. Minister, the liberal vision has achieved it in the government agreement — I assume that this gives you some pleasure — but the concrete effect of it...

The [...]

I can say it in your place, Mr. President.

This is not to say that one is mistaken on that point of horse. According to the minister, therefore, new interventions were needed in the form of a quota system to improve the electoral position of the female part of the population. Apparently, the Minister of Equal Opportunities managed to convince her colleagues and especially the liberal coalition parties of such an arrangement.

There was also a shadow side of your victory, Mrs. Minister. Meanwhile, we know that in a political agreement it has been chosen to significantly increase the electoral districts, in particular by making them coincide with the provincial electoral districts. Also for the purpose you are pursuing, Mrs. Minister, this is not a neutral operation. I will talk about it later. Furthermore, there is a significant exception to the generalization of the provincial electoral circles, in particular the fact that there is no division of the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, but according to the agreement of 26 April 2002 a specific solution for this electoral district. This solution is so specific that it is unconstitutional today. This is emphasized very strongly and in concrete points in the opinion issued by the Council of State at the request of the President of this meeting. Their

Nocturnal negotiations would no longer be there, but that proven remedy has yet to be used again. In nighttime negotiations where one is primarily engaged in, or even obsessed with, personal and party-political electoral interests, one risks the more to lose sight of a number of constitutional rules of play. This discussion will be discussed next time. Our group chairman will have the pleasure — maybe even the honor, I don’t know how he thinks about it — to feel the government tooth on this next week. Tooth with a D then, Mr. President.

In the discussion of the previous draft, when there was still no clarity about the provincial electoral circles, colleagues from my group pointed out that the introduction of the provincial electoral circles implies a weakening of the goal you pursue. As the number of electoral circles is smaller, the number of insured seats is also smaller, which is clear. In addition, with the foreseeable reintroduction of the successors, you run the risk that this will play a part to you. This was also stated by colleagues in the committee. Personally, I would have found it wiser if one had also been willing to approve an amendment on that point. Their

It is not wise that it has not been done, even because the text must be returned to the Senate. Then one could immediately, in all clarity, establish an arrangement which would in any case have served the aim pursued a little more.

Now we see that the government decided, in the form of a political agreement, to generalize the provincial electoral circles, though with one important exception that was just cited. In addition, it reintroduces the separate list of successors, which it had originally abolished. This will mitigate the impact of Minister Onkelinx’s draft.

Indeed, at the nightly consultation of 25 and 26 May, the minister had been more engaged — at least that feeling is given — in securing her own electoral position in Brussels and in her struggle against Minister Michel to keep him away from the electoral district BrusselsHalle-Vilvoorde, than with the representation of the ladies.

Mr Tant, Brussels will gladly welcome all Democrats who want to be there.

Mr. Minister, this is not the matter.

But yes. You say you can prevent both, but no matter how I try, I don’t understand you.

I will make another attempt to make it clear to you, Mrs. Minister.

All I want to say is that your design aims to create an enhanced representation of ladies on the lists. At the same time, however, you must undergo the creation of provincial electoral districts, which greatly reduces the effect of the provisions of your design. The fewer lists — because of the smaller number of districts — the fewer insured places there will be. You cannot bypass that.

In addition, the system of succession is reintroduced. Why does this happen, by the way? Do you really believe that it is intended to improve the position of women? The truth is that in this way the political parties can exert more influence on the designation of political personnel. On that I will come back later.

If I see what party politics is about when there are lists to be made and how many eligible seats are reserved! I will prove this later, by means of figures. You cannot ignore, Mrs. Minister, that both political agreements, namely the enlargement of the districts and the reintroduction of the system of the successor, are opposed to the goal you pursue in your draft.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make two comments on Mr. Tant’s speech.

Mr. Tant, at the beginning of your speech you gave the impression that reducing the value of the list vote is the best solution to ⁇ more parity. Now, in the report I just read, it is stated that the Council for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women clearly calculated — and decided — that this is not the case and that it would only make a small difference if the value of the list vote was reduced.

Moreover, you accuse the government of not going far enough with this draft. For us it might be a bit more extensive, but it gives an incentive; it is a sign of a political choice. It is important that nothing prevents political parties from moving forward. Our political party didn’t have to wait for this draft to give women a chance in eligible places, with all the results thereof.

Mr. Tant, I invite you and other political parties, thanks to this regulation, to provide themselves with other additional provisions that lead to women actually getting to eligible places and to be supported as soon as they are elected.

Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat strange intervention of Mrs. Grauwels, because in fact she confirms what I am coming to tell. I have said that the government agreement was originally chosen to ⁇ an improved representation of women in all political events by halving the list vote in the first place and the abolition of the successor system in the second place. I advise you, Mrs. Grauwels, to re-read the texts of the presentations held here. I remember that you yourself — several members of the majority have done so — cited the halving of the list vote and the abolition of the system of successors as an argument for the improvement of the electoral position of women. That is my first comment.

(Recognition of Mrs. Kristien Grauwels) Is it not right? Read your own government statement. Then you will see that it is right. Either we are conducting a substantial debate, or we are trying to use the old style to prevent each other from speaking by just producing some sound, right? Personally, I would rather have something to be said in terms of content.

Mrs. Grauwels, read the reports of this assembly. Then you will see that, when the halving of the list vote and the abolition of the system of successors was in question, this was explicitly used as an argument. You cannot look around there. Today the gun is changed from shoulder to shoulder, and it is established — as you rightly emphasize — that all this has led to little. Therefore, we must use other means.

Can Mr. Tante conclude his course of thought?

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I must also answer to Mrs. Grauwels’ second comment.

Ms. Grauwels will answer if necessary.

Mrs. Grauwels, I will be very precise. I note that in the most recent parliamentary elections on the CVP list, the proportional majority of women were in eligible seats. I will prove this by means of figures. It is more valuable to me than the thunder that you produce. In the scientific journal Res Publica, an article was published in which it was found that on the CVP lists at the elections of 13 June 1999 36% of the eligible seats were occupied by ladies. These are the lists for the Federal Parliament, the Regional and Community Assemblies and the European Parliament. Second, Mrs Grauwels, Agalev comes with 33%. Then we get Ecolo with 29%, the PSC with 23%, the PRL-FDF-MCC with 22% and the VLD with 21%.

Mrs. Grauwels, you tell me how we can guarantee the insured representation of ladies in a real election, but I advise you to follow in our footsteps, because we are trying to put it into political practice.

Mr. Tante, I think your comment cannot be taken very seriously. As to the actual representation of women in this hemisphere, I advise you tomorrow, if there are some more members present, to examine the exact number of women in the Agalev-Ecolo faction. You may then come to realize that there is some shortage in the representation of women on your lists.

In this hemisphere it is now 11 to 8!

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Mr. Vanhoutte takes the words out of my mouth, but I would like to emphasize once again that the systematic application of a drawing system has worked on the lists for years. The Agalev-Ecolo group is an example. You can see what representation this leads to. The rits principle works! But, of course, women should be in the eligible places. It is not enough to make a list consisting of half men and half women, at the top of the makeup, for example, a woman, and at the back of the rest. It is important that they are in eligible places in order to actually be elected.

Mr. Speaker, your final conclusion is correct as regards the draft. That is clear. We agree that in the composition of the electoral list we are guided by a number of rules. That was exactly my point! Read the article in Res Publica! We are talking about eligible places. I am not talking about the result. If the dioxin crisis had not occurred, our party would have scored better in the election and the women in my group might have been represented like the Greens. This is your strong representation!

The reintroduction of the separate list of successors will have the effect that the present bill will soon have to be irrevocably amended. I would like to emphasize that, legalistically speaking, we are in a special situation. First, the separate list of successors is abolished. The relevant laws have already been published in the Belgian Staatsblad. Subsequently, the draft proposals will be approved and also published in the Official Gazette. Even later, eventually, the laws that bring about the more general reform of the electoral law will be approved and published in the Belgian Staatsblad. Within a period of a few months, the system of successors is first abolished. Then there is an arrangement to get the ladies better in the backs for the first places. Then the whole system is confused again. This is the political system in which we operate. Sometimes one asks why politics has become unreliable. This is an example of that! One constantly jumps from one leg to another, so that in the long run the situation for no one is clear yet.

Mr. Speaker, I think you are rightly trying to emphasize the more than ornamental of your office.

Mr. Tant, the fact that new laws on electoral legislation are published every day and then repealed again shows well that the majority approach is based on the miscalculation that the policy does not suit the population because there would be too many procedures. That is a misconception. People want better policies. The purple-green majority believes that can be solved with transfers and mess with the electoral legislation. This is a fundamental misconception that will be revealed in the next elections. That is why in the Staatsblad a kind of novel is published with episodes of new amendments to fundamental legislation. The majority believes that the aversion of public opinion to politics has to do with procedures and electoral legislation. However, the aversion has everything to do with bad policy and a policy that does not meet the desires of the population. This is the reason for the dissatisfaction of the population.

I will, of course, endorse that, but that does not exclude that this also occurs as bricolage. The government behaves like a do-it-yourself who goes to a Brico shop, buys some material there, finds at home that he has material too short, returns from a loved one and then finds at home that the parts do not fit together. It is perfectly similar: this is a form of bricolage, Mrs. the Minister.

Mr. Tant, it must be known that women love bricolage. When they come home and see the rooms, they are happy; they find themselves there. This has been in line with their demands for years.

Madame la ministre, et tant que parlementaire, je ne suis cependant pas fier du travail juridique accompli. I would like to remind you of the work in the committee: almost every article, if not amended, is still corrected. We have contributed significantly to this. The fact that one stands behind a goal should not mean that every means is good, right? Be honest, however: first some provisions are abolished, then their concrete application is refused, and then they are re-introduced. It cannot be said that this is serious legislative work!

However, there are more, if I can tire you with this. There can be a few observations of a legal nature, Mrs. Minister. With this draft one can ask whether the plan should be realized through a separate law and why the provisions are not introduced in the respective electoral law. At least that would be decent work. The procedure of the Minister results in the abolition of provisions in the Electoral Act and then, with this draft and with the amendments submitted and adopted in the committee, being reintroduced in a separate law. From a legislative-technical point of view, this is ⁇ not the best way to work.

Article 2 of the draft special law stipulates that on the lists for the election of the Brussels Capital Council the difference between the number of candidates may not be greater than one, and that the first two candidates must be from the lists of a different gender. I think it is clear to everyone that it would have been more appropriate to include this article in the special law of 12 January 1989 concerning the Brussels institution, more specifically in Article 16bis concerning the nomination of candidates. Their

It belongs to home, but it is not registered there. With that method, it would have been sufficient to refer in Article 12, § 3, 2°bis, to 16bis of the Special Act. In that case, we should not have abrogated Article 12, § 3, 2°bis of the ordinary law. That article could simply be amended by referring to the special law. This approach would also have contributed to the coherence of the legislation.

Mr. Tante, Mrs. Drion wishes to interrupt you, but I have let you end your approach to legisticism just first.

I believe that Mr. As much as we are attached to the continuity of the responsibility of the state. And it seems to me that the minister who had previously equal opportunities in his attributions was a member of his party. If you were still part of the majority today, I am convinced that you could only congratulate the bill that is being submitted to us. I am a little surprised by this process you are putting in place, Mr. Tant.

Mrs. Drion, first of all, I think I have already said abundantly that in the past and even now we have tenderness to the spirit of the law. This has already been proven in practice. If you were to look at who in the past started the initiatives that led to the current situation, you would know that Ms. Smet was one of the initiators, supported by a broad movement in our own CVP at the time. However, that is not the point in the comment I just made.

You constantly give the impression that whoever makes any legalist criticism, is basically not in agreement with the case. Does this mean that your view of politics is that the end justifies all means? Does the creation of kaduke and inconsistent legislation have no meaning, provided that the aim to be pursued is worthy of support? I am sorry, but at that point we have a different view of legislative work. That is what we are doing. We create texts that must fit in an existing legislation, in a special law and in electoral legislation. You find that apparently everything is not important, as long as the law serves the purpose. Well, we fundamentally differ in opinions on this.

Mrs. Drion, allow me to give another example that you could still break up acid in the coming years. At the committee meeting I already told the minister that even technical provisions in the electoral legislation are now regulated by special law for some assemblies. Articles of an ordinary law shall be amended by means of a special law. Do you know what the consequences are? If you wish to re-adjust these technical provisions in the future, you will need to have a special majority. Then it will show that you will not get that adjustment through.

The [...]

Yes, Mrs. Minister, but is it not justified that I should pay attention to this? You should stop saying that this kind of criticism...

That was the proposal of the State Council.

Of course, but that is not the only alibi. As a member of Parliament, I show this black on white. You are not lying. On the contrary, you name my statements correctly. Draw the conclusions out of that.

At the legal level, we followed the proposal of the State Council.

That said, you are perfectly right to emphasize the fact that it is included in a special majority law. So if we want to change it, we will need a special majority. We discussed this in the committee and the majority said they were convinced by this method of working at the legal and legal levels. This will be included in a special law. This is a principle that we strongly support.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, the opinion of the State Council states that the essential elements should be regulated in a special law. However, this does not apply to non-essential elements. You do not make that distinction.

Mr. Speaker, the State Council told us that we need to change the electoral law as part of this special law. Furthermore, by entering into the special law the amendments of a law by simple majority, the provisions that were entered into the special majority law would be cadenated in the future by the vote provided for the special laws. These consequences, raised by the Council of State, were discussed in the Committee of the Interior. In fact, Mr. The President immediately started this reflection. There was an intervention of each and a legal note of the services, I think. We finally followed the proposal of the State Council by accepting the consequences mentioned by it.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, what Mr. Leterme says is correct. In the opinion of the Council of State, it is literally stated that a mistake is committed by seeking to regulate essential points in a special law. A contrario, it can be inferred that only those essential points were to be regulated by special law.

Do you realize that, colleagues on the majority banks who are planning to adjust the electoral law? An adjustment of the electoral legislation also has consequences regarding procedures, in which one can encounter provisions now established by special law. Well, unless one has a very large majority, nothing can be changed. It is not a small problem: making the law is also anticipating and thinking about a future order of society and ensuring that the control of the regulation of society remains possible in the future. I am sorry that I have to beg for attention to this topic.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tante, I understand your comment very well. What’s happening here proves that we don’t really overflow trust in ⁇ your party. We fear that you would turn the clock back if you could ever form an alternative majority. In a reliable way, we guarantee that a broad support — across the parties — will continue to be needed in the future in order to implement any further modification. I think this is also a matter of common sense and that we value Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am threatening to fall in repeat, but if Mr. Tant considers it so important that parity is guaranteed also among the successors — a concern that I share — then one can still strive within the party to take that option.

If the government does not decide, the party can still take that option. If one wants a parity democracy as soon as possible, this is a measure that any party can take and no legislation can prohibit it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I repeat myself. First, the greatest effort—how you turn it or turn it—was done by my party. I do not say that it is to read down on the actual seat distribution, but it is so and it is also historically correct.

Secondly, one can talk about political intentions and it is interesting to have a debate about it, but it is also interesting in a legal system to ensure that that legislation is coherent, qualitatively proper and that it can challenge time. That is precisely the purpose of my comments.

To the comment of Mr. Vanhoutte, I would like to devote little words. He says that mine is not reliable because she treats the legislation too seriously. Well, I hope it will remain so for a long time. If a party can only grow and grow by stepping behind a flag in inconsistent order, then one must realize in what kind of society one is in. This is the Parliament and we are discussing legislation that should be proper.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think from Mrs. Grauwels’ intervention that she does not have control over all elements of the file.

To inform Mrs Grauwels, it should be emphasized that six colleagues have currently submitted a bill providing for parity in the list of successors.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my presentation. I will limit myself to the general conclusions.

Indeed, it would have been much better to incorporate the most essential provisions into the special law and to incorporate the rest into the electoral legislation. This is the obvious way of working. How can people know how elections are organized? As a voter or as a potential candidate, they will consult the electoral law. Today they have to look for other sources. I can only regret that. This does not contribute to the coherence of legislation.

Mrs. Minister, I just spoke about the efforts made by both parties at Mrs. Grauwels’s request — or was it Mr. Vanhoutte? I have shown that my party has done a more than decent effort. This cannot be said of the PS lists. Only 17% of the eligible seats were reserved for ladies. In the SP list, that was even less, namely 15%. Then here you make the intention process of one and the other!

Mr. Tant, you should see what happened in the last municipal elections. There is a movement that is developing. I would like to thank all the democratic parties who, especially in the last municipal elections, have made a sensible effort. This effort must continue. History does not stop at a certain moment. There have been, at some point in my party, problems with the presence of women on electoral lists. But that has changed. We want to accentuate, solidify this movement that is developing, through the projects that are proposed to us.

I insist that I am in a continuity. I have always said, wherever I am, that the work done by Ms. Smet in this matter, with the contribution of Mr. Smet. Tobback, was quite remarkable in a ⁇ more difficult political climate. Just look at what happened in France. We have an environment that pushes more legislative decision-making to assume this parity. I would like to thank all those who have preceded me as well as all the movements and women pioneers in this matter. We continue, this is a movement.

Mrs. Minister, I only point out that in the best case the political parties can have their influence in this issue. In the last parliamentary elections, I see that one party has made a greater effort than the other. It is no longer a decent discussion when you argue that we should not talk about the legal quality because we have not realized politics. I remain confident that our party has made a decent effort in the past. Historically, this effort has yielded its fruits. We agree that the next step is necessary, but under legally decent circumstances.

I find it sad that Parliament has fallen to this level: one is no longer even willing to exchange opinions on the quality of legislation without confronting one another with prejudice. Parliament deserves better. I would rather see people behave differently. That is my personal vision and the vision of my party. In principle, we are pleased with the matter. We regret, however, that the whole must be created under such circumstances. By the way, we are not there yet. The questionable legislative quality has caused a number of amendments to be forced to be accepted. Consequently, the text can be sent back to the Senate. That is the actual consequence of what is happening here. The lack of quality is becoming increasingly prevalent in this Parliament and in particular in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the bill concerning the elections of the Federal Legislative Chambers and of the Council of the German-speaking Community. It is the same debate.

Indeed indeed .

As my colleague Christine Grauwels said, we are satisfied with this bill because it seems to us that at the level of our assembly, since January and since the vote of the reform of the Constitution incorporating equality between women and men within our fundamental charter, we are making sure that there is a real and equal representation of women and men in the places of decision and representation.

However, we regret that we could not go further at this stage and that this transition period had to be entered. In the next election already, candidates of both sexes could have equal access to the first two seats. I think the principle has been broken.

Nevertheless, we must remain realistic: within the political world, a number of our colleagues are still reluctant to these principles now unanimously recognized.

When our representative assemblies — for now, in the House, we are at 17 or 18 percent...

I think we are 28 or 29 percent.

Our assembly is therefore not among the bad students in terms of the representation of women in assemblies. There are others that are less supplied in our country.

It seems to me that it is necessary to keep in mind that putting women in good order and making sure they are elected must be accompanied by plans of action — which Ms. Minister has ⁇ thought of — and this in such a way that elected women are able to exercise their profession and that men who desire, as well as women, to have a series of local anchors and respect for their family life, benefit from it. Other measures are as important as those on which our colleagues are working on political renewal

Finally, for those who have the heart to concrete this equality between men and women in the facts and in everyday life, certain matters must be advanced.

It is not enough that women are elected, it is necessary that the actual issues relating to daily equality between women and men are taken over by the legislative and executive power. For example, the case on the maintenance fund, which proceeds very well, but also those on the individualization of social security rights and the removal of Article 80 of the unemployment legislation, which unfairly strike women who are therefore victims of discrimination.

It is necessary to be well aware, at the risk of cooling some of our colleagues, that by voting this bill, there will be more women and that the pressure, during the next legislature, will increase for these essential files on social security to progress and that this equality is marked in the facts and in everyday life.

I will soon communicate the exact percentages at the elections of June 13 and today because there are more ladies, this is due to the replacement of colleagues who have entered the government. You will be reassured, I hope.

In Dutch it is the same whether one ⁇ ins the French or the French-speaking Belgian interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will briefly discuss these drafts, but I think they are important enough to speak a word about them, even if we are not so numerous at the moment.

There are also six committee meetings.

I know it because I have to be there too. However, the organization of Parliament’s work lies with you and not with me.

If I try to organize a committee meeting on Monday, I have a lot of trouble getting it through.

Mr. Speaker, this may be because the members of Parliament have too many other activities outside of school.

I miss the ministers on Monday.

Well, let’s go back to the designs. I cannot say that I speak on behalf of my group, in human terms at least. Politically, I can do that, of course. I think no one of my female colleagues who sit here can say that. There is, of course, a bit of shame in all groups. One demands legislation that wants nothing but to assure the voter that he or she has a real choice in the future. This is the purpose of these designs. In fact, the lists should include people of both sexes in an approximately equal number and not in an arbitrary order. We know that it is especially in the order of importance that there is a different representation by gender. This is much more difficult in one party than in the other. Even though it may not be said so openly — even though it was done this morning in the committee — in discussions one always comes back to one argument. It is the capacity that must give the decision. We live in a parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, there is one kind of competence: to be elected. The voters decide who will sit here. Someone needs to define for me what competence is in terms of politics. Is it a high level of education? Then there would be a lot more women than men here because, on average, women in our country are now higher educated than men. Is it the ability to speak well? Historically, women have always been accused of being able to talk too much and too well. Therefore, it cannot be. Is it language knowledge? Then I propose to take some urgent measures in the government because there are ministers who may be able to read in the two national languages but ⁇ do not speak. The concept of competence is therefore a very relative concept. They must be elected. As in every other social organization, whether social, political, or economic, they try to retain power at a given moment—as we can call it something “colloquial”—who have the thing in their hands. When one as a company is dominant in a market, then one will try to start consolidating and defending a monopoly position there and possibly with two or three competitors to make an agreement on price or on vertical integration and let no one else enter.

We thought about that. In this regard, we have rules and laws both in Belgium and in Europe and worldwide that stipulate that such matters cannot be done. In politics it is no different. When a number of people has disproportionately much power and another group — not always consciously but nevertheless in the facts — excludes, then it must be looked at. For this, equal representation on the lists is important because the voter still decides as before. If the voters here in 2003 do not want women, then you should not vote for women. In the future, however, voters will be given a choice and that is important.

Mrs. Drion is right. In a democracy, power is in numbers. As long as there are not enough people here who also represent the other half of society, certain topics on the agenda will not be discussed. He mentioned some of them, but there are others. I can let you re-read the shameful display that was raised in the Justice Committee when we talked about the naming of children. I then heard the most grotesque arguments that had nothing to do with justice or good legislative work but all with ⁇ ining a power position and with frustrations.

For this reason, ladies and gentlemen, since we want a balanced society in all areas, more people of both sexes should come here. My group and I will support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something to Mrs. Moerman’s comment. It is no coincidence that such a problem arises around the name. Also in our political culture, a name and passing a name is a very important thing. We have political dynasties where naming is important. Per ⁇ that also played a role in the difficulty.

Do you want to react now or soon? Amendments have been submitted to this draft.

I suppose we will discuss them. The general discussion that has just taken place applies to both projects: 1680 and

In fact yes. In the law, no.

I will intervene now.

I prefer to stay in the same context. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words and make three remarks after the general discussion on these two projects (1680 and 1681).

First, equal opportunities between men and women are a constant struggle. The projects that are proposed to you are important but they obviously do not cover the entire scope of inequalities. You will have to know other projects that, in terms of gender/gender equality, have their importance. I think for example of the anti-discrimination law that is being examined in the Justice Committee, the creation of the Gender Institute that should come back from the State Council or the draft law on intra-marital violence that is also on the agenda of the Justice Committee.

You have cited, Mrs. Drion, some upcoming struggles, whether it be Article 80 of the unemployment legislation or the so difficult debate of the individualization of the rights to social security. Many others could be cited. I think, for example, of all the means used to revise the classification of functions since the current situation results in salary differences of about 20% for equal work between men and women, which is totally unacceptable.

What is offered to you is really important. With more women in parliamentary offices, this type of struggle to be conducted may be handled differently but, I repeat, this is only a fraction of the answer to the problems we still know in our democracy.

Secondly, one of the two projects, the one concerning the regional councils, must go back to the Senate. This is a very good thing. There was excellent legal work. The House has amended the draft which must therefore be returned to the Senate. On the other hand, tomorrow, I hope, there will be a final vote for the federal legislative chambers and the Council of the German-speaking Community. It would have taken two years of work to get there, two years! The first time the government accepted the bills I had submitted was on 19 May 2000, Mr. President. As you can see, it is not easy, it has taken a lot of steps. Under no circumstances should work be delayed. I know that specific bills concerning, in particular, electoral districts and the reintroduction of replacement members will trigger further debate. But let’s not wait to make a decision. One step will be passed. You will take the flame back when discussing these new bills and you will eventually propose changes that allow women to be better represented through the changes that are being announced. “One of yours is better than two you will have.” We are in a given situation in terms of electoral legislation. Let us impose, from now on, to cross this line of parity on electoral lists and the presence of both genders in the first places.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is never a right acquired in this matter. Therefore, I do not see any inconvenience in the fact that certain provisions in special laws are "betoned". Look at what happened in France where, after the vote of a legislation, a little more than a year ago, and as the parliamentary elections approach, some have already ⁇ that they prefer to pay the fine than to respect the legislation on parity in electoral matters.

For our part, we acted differently. There is no question of a fine. If the list does not meet the criteria you will decide, it will not be accepted. by

This is, of course, a battle with multiple facets. We will not finish our work with the vote on this project. Even though we have already won several battles, we must remain vigilant. Conservative forces are also there to sometimes question such fundamental achievements as this. by

I would like to thank all those who, from the beginning, have supported the approach initiated by the government.

The House will realize tomorrow that this is an important decision.