Proposition 50K2152

Projet de loi protégeant le titre et la profession de géomètre-expert.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 29, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of professions town-planning profession

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Ferdy Willems (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Geert Versnick (Open Vld) 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.

⚠️ 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 ¶

March 19, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. President, the rapporteur, Mr. Van Aperen, refers to his written report.

Does Mr. Van Aperen also work on his election campaign?

No, Mr. President, he is present elsewhere.

Therefore, I note that Mr. Van Aperen is engaged in other work.

Mr Lano, you have asked for the word. Of course, I would be very happy to give you that. Then it is Mrs. Gerkens’ turn.

I didn’t know I had to open the fire.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your presence, although you have so much pain, for the treatment of the draft on the landmeter experts. They have long waited to see today approved the bill that should protect the title and profession of landmeter expert, that bill that allows to end the confusion that has long prevailed in the activities of landmeter experts.

It is, of course, a fairly complex matter, in the sense that there are many interests playing. I refer to the 78-page report. First and foremost, of course, there had to be a balance within the sector of landmeters itself, more specifically between the different balances concerning self-employed, employees and civil servants, but there had also to be a balance between the landmetre experts and the real estate agents. That was not an easy task, to euphemistically express it. It is therefore the merit of all stakeholders – the minister, his staff who waited three hours in the hall, the members of Parliament, and the representatives of the field of course – that efforts were made to come up with acceptable solutions.

Of course, the commission did not go ice overnight. Through the hearings, all parties have spoken extensively. We have received a lot of documented and diligent emails. In the hearings and subsequent discussions, we have taken into account with an open mind the aspirations of the various groups, or at least we have tried to do so. This has led to amendments which have supplemented and improved the draft on a number of points, ⁇ to the satisfaction — I hope — of almost all groups.

One of the balancing exercises that took place was the removal of the original article 9. That article stipulated that landmeters who are registered on the table of landmetre experts and who also carry out the activity of real estate agent were exempted from registration on the table of real estate agents. That article was an attempt to resolve a delicate matter. Afterwards, it turned out that this is not solvable in the short term. It is a real pity that the design would stumble at that point. Therefore, the Minister has committed to start discussions with representatives of both sectors in the short term in order to find a solution.

Other improvements were made. I do not need to summarize them all. For example, an operating landmeter that does not work under custody must now also be included in the list of landmeter experts and bear the same responsibilities and obligations as an independent landmeter. Finally, it is possible to appeal against certain decisions to the Council of State, for example in the case of refusal to register on the table. This is, of course, a faster and less expensive procedure than in the Court of Cassation.

Mr. Minister, Mr. President, dear colleagues, the draft law ends a long-standing situation. I admire the people who have spent hours waiting in Parliament until the committee meeting was over. In any case, there is now an end to the confusion that prevailed in the sector. There is now a regulation that is defensive in most matters.

It gives landmeters experts a status and title protection that they have been waiting for for a long time. With regard to the ratio of landmeters-property agents, solutions still need to be found and developed. We are confident that this can happen in a relatively short term. Both parties have an interest in clear agreements. It adorns the minister – wounded, tormented – that he is present here and that he will continue to bring both sides together in the future. Our group will be happy to approve these two bills.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the desire to intervene, even if only a little, on these two projects is also due to the dynamic that has been created around the examination of these texts, the first, recognizing the title and protecting it, the other, setting up a federal council of geometers-experts.

My career as a parliamentary is not long, but this is the first time I see representatives of the persons concerned present from the first to the last hour, since this point is on the agenda. It was probably also related to the fear that there was in the rivalry between real estate agents and geometers experts.

At the end of our work, we chose to eliminate certain paragraphs of the bill that confirmed the possibility for expert geometers to engage in professional actions as real estate agents, without necessarily being subject to the rules of the institute of the latter.

We have had long conversations with all these partners and it seems that real estate agents will have to confuse their code of ethics and rules with the rules that expert geometers will have to develop. It seems unthinkable to me that the criteria and rules to be defined for all the tasks common to the work of a real estate agent and that of an expert geometer are different. In my opinion, they will have to develop and follow the same rules. One will then be able to encounter the fears they may have, each body being able to interpell the other on the basis of criteria defined and recognized by both.

We have therefore decided to remove the rules concerning submission to the Code of Real Estate Agents and not to refer to them, knowing that this issue will have to be settled between the two bodies.

Our group will support the two submitted projects as it was time to find solutions and regulate, while recognizing the profession of expert geometers. This was all the more necessary because ⁇ important tasks would now be entrusted to them, in particular that of finally lifting the plans of all lands and of all properties and of certifying their conformity.

I think that in our daily lives, we have all been confronted with plans that could differ from one geometer to another or that sometimes differed in the information they gave between the two parties for the same analysis, depending on the applicant. This will serve the current or future owner, but also the state, municipalities and regions, it will give a healthier and coherent vision of the sharing of our territory.

I have two regrets to express. The first is about training. There are rules regarding the minimum training required for expert geometers.

We are in a context of transition as the Bologna process is ongoing at the European Union level to determine the "Master" titles, the number of years of training and how long and short types of training are combined. It appears, at European level, that other neighboring countries have already required long-type training for the geometer-expert missions. Flanders has also, in its training process, introduced the geometer-expert and the geometer-expert assistant that follows the short training. In the Walloon Region, we know a somewhat disorderly situation in these different formations. This is probably what paralyzed the demands that we could have had. I would have liked that clearer criteria were determined and that, for this type of work, a long-type training was required, while recognizing the title of assistant geometer, corresponding to a short training. This would have encouraged the French Community to organize the studies in this way.

The majority of the committee preferred to wait for the end of the Bologna process and the fixation of a canevas of the formations before adjusting the bill. I followed the wishes of the majority, but with regret.

The possibility for officials to be independent geometer-expert in a complementary way will require a thorough examination. This is already done, respecting a whole series of rules since the official must have the authorization of his minister of custody and, in order to obtain it, certain conditions are placed, in particular the height of income, compatibility or not with the tasks he performs. Nevertheless, there are rules that I think should be better formulated in order to avoid conflicts of interest. If we are relatively wide in the project, it is also related to the fact that the "public function" service where expert geometers are employed needs private geometers, the equipment they have and ⁇ also additional training that they can access through this private career. Finally, it is the private sector of the activity that pales the deficits of the public sector. The same applies to the cadastral plans. It is very clear that it is the independent geometers and experts who will fulfill this function and who, through the certified copy that they hand over to the administration, will allow the State and its various instances to stay in order.

We will support this project that corresponds, I think, to the expectations of the geometers and real estate agents who were concerned and who also accompanied our work.

I express these two regrets but, in my opinion, we can remedy them in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as already stated by previous speakers, hopefully here today is a point behind a discussion of which I was not aware, but which has been conducted since 1964. What is presented here today – the two drafts – seems to me to work administratively all the way toward a simple and clear structure. Independent landmeters experts will pay a registration fee to register on the tableau. That table will then cover the costs of the federal councils.

As simple as I formulate it here now, so complicated it seemed to me after the hearings. I am conscious of the fact that with every law one must always seek the best balance between all involved. In particular, the individual interest must be protected without interfering with the general interest. Here, however, it was primarily the protection of the individual through the protection of the title that fed the discussion. As colleague Gerkens has cited, the various diplomas that are at the base have also made it clear that the difference in Wallonia and Flanders is no longer sustainable. I therefore expect, as stated during the hearing by Professor Derwael as chairman of the interprofessional working groups, that the application of the Bologna Directives will also mean equalization and harmonisation at the Belgian level for Flanders and Wallonia.

Mr. Minister, I would like to take the opportunity to address one specific issue, which I have not had the opportunity to present to you in the committee, because it is important for a limited group of now sworn landmeters. In fact, they are those who have obtained a diploma in graduate topography in Flanders. They have taken an oath through the court of first instance. Now, when they read the bill as we read it, they are concerned because they wonder whether, on the basis of that oath, they really fall into the group that can count on the transitional measures for those who now exercise the profession. The question is whether that is correct. They fear that because until now they have been repeatedly refused by the trade association to register on the list of professional practitioners. Their

As stated, they are currently able to exercise the profession. Now they are not registered on the list of professional associations but they hope that they can also see the practice of the profession confirmed by the entry on the tableau. I would therefore like to have been confirmed that they can also benefit from those transitional measures. In addition to the lack of consensus that has gradually grown to consensus in the professional group of landmeters, there is also a dispute point between landmeters and real estate agents. I think this is resolved, though in part. I also think – and I hope to be able to trust – that there should be a not insignificant responsibilisation of the application of deontology to both professions. I emphasize both.

Much more than a double registration for landmeters at the councils and at the BIV, I think that’s the key to the solution. During the committee meeting and following the questions raised following the hearing, you have confirmed that both landmeters officials and independent landmeters in subsidiary occupation and landmeters in employment relationship cannot develop real estate brokerage activities without being registered with the BIV. I think this should give the reassurance that the real estate agents have asked us through numerous emails and interventions.

Another point of discussion was the cumulative of officials. Here too, I have, as far as I am concerned, received all the reassurance from Mr. Debroone, who stated that there are always four conditions for allowing such cumul. These conditions are that it is only about landmeter activities, outside the official territory, a maximum of 450,000 old Belgian francs per year and no real estate brokerage activities. According to Mr Debroone, these conditions would always be mentioned in any written permission to exercise landmeter activities under independent status in appeal as an official. Here too, I rely on the fact that the deontology of the officials, which is contained in a number of royal decrees, is the basis on which possible disputes will be settled. I therefore believe that the new federal councils of landmeter experts still have the not insignificant task of creating clarity, both on the main and secondary occupation as well as on the observance of deontology. Why is clarity in this matter important? This is a significant improvement for consumers – yet the largest group of stakeholders in this – and not so much for those carrying the title itself. From that point of view, there should be an obligation to provide information that makes clear those professional activities and possible differences between different stakeholders.

The tableau will be the important reference point, but as an ordinary consumer I do not believe that one gets into it by way of way. I also believe that, without a doubt, from those councils a constructive further cooperation will be needed. Think only of the harmonisation of training or possible disputes that arise in the future but that, I think, will never reach the degree of the disputes that have created that we have had to wait thirty years or more before we can vote on this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, these bills are indeed a preliminary point behind a years-long discussion. I say: a preliminary point, because some elements such as the removal of Article 9 and the discussion on the relationship real estate agent-landmeters have not yet been completed, unless the minister can today report on the promised negotiations on this point.

Unlike the previous speakers, we do not find the quality of the present text good. The way in which this proposal was discussed before the discussion in Parliament is, in my opinion, the main reason for this. I think the minister could have dealt with this differently. The draft submitted to the Members of Parliament was incomplete. We have been able to see this through the discussions and hearings. It was not discussed with the parties involved. I refer once again to the chaotic hearings which showed that there had been no prior concertation either by the Cabinet or by the administration. We therefore believe that this draft fits into the series of policy acts that the minister has made quasi-legendary in recent months. I am not talking about the Sabena committee yet and I adhere to the bills that have been discussed in the committee for business.

Mr. Minister, in your absence we discussed the program law last week as regards your part. We must have observed that that program law does not actually contain much more than corrections to the program law of December. I remember that your employee said that regarding the simplification of the contributions that self-employed persons must pay on the basis of the grossing of income, there needs to be another bill. There needs to be another draft law to revoke the simplification in this area, which was envisaged in your KMO Programme Act. This could simply not be done through amendments to the latest program law. There must be a new law. We stand for an important given. A simplification is implemented by the government almost two weeks after the end of the legislature, but it must be corrected immediately due to incorrect description. Minister Vandenbroucke at the time promised that the law would be submitted to Parliament. As far as I know, this has not yet happened. In fourteen days, however, we will already decide on the activities of the Parliament in this legislature.

I just want to say that the work in the committee was very often chaotic. It also did not testify to good, legal work. Of course, I do not want to talk too long about the way in which the business committee dealt with the relevant professional groups. This is a separate story. Several times the meetings had to be suspended because the majority was not in number. The relevant professional groups, on the other hand, almost camped in the committee. They had been on the road for hours. They had come far and far to be able to attend the discussions. Even at this moment they are present. Therefore, one can speak of a professional group that persists until the end.

Let me go back to the design itself.

Mr. Minister, I already stated at the beginning that the draft was prutswork. It started with the submitted piece. The chamber document did not contain the preliminary draft, as it was submitted to the Council of State. It contained a later version. Following the legal amendments in this House, that last week led to a lot of discussion.

Much more dramatic was the amendment in the committee. The amendment is called an enrichment. For the friends-landmeters, a fair number of professional opportunities are provided. Any decision of a Chamber of the Federal Council may be appealed to the Federal Board of Appeal. Until then, nothing special is happening. However, the amendment provides for even more appeal opportunities. After the decision of the Board of Appeal, the decision may be challenged before the Court of Cassation for breach of the law or for breach of substantial forms or for penalty of nullity. In certain cases, an appeal may also be brought to the State Council. A man or a woman can of course weigh his or her chances at both the Court of Cassation and the Council of State. Sooner or later he or she will have to be right. He or she can do it.

One would almost think that the current majority has wanted to have with our legal system. Unfortunately we know better. A member of the committee submitted a well-intentioned amendment. At the time, the minister was more concerned with his GSM than with the design. After all, the decision of the Arbitration Court was decided at that time and it was important for you, Mr. Minister, to know how it went. You have let beaten. You also found the intention of the proposer of the amendment good. By the way, we also found that. However, the result is not in accordance with the legislative. The amendment was approved without much thought. After all, everything had to go quickly. The urgency was requested.

Before us is the result: a design, which is not good. Mr. Minister, the design fits into your palmares. It belongs home in the line of bad designs, which have been approved here in the last few months.

In all these hilaric conditions one might sometimes lose sight of the content of the design.

Some things have been arranged with this design, but not everything yet. In fact, the text that prefaces is primarily a signal. The law does not say anything about the real pain points. I still hope that today we can get an answer on the pain points we discussed in the committee. Their

The distinction between landmeters exercising the secondary occupation — they often have a main occupation as officials — and landmeters exercising the main occupation has been shifted to a deontological code. This code will be determined later. The delimitation of the profession of landmeter versus the profession of real estate agent is also largely shifted to an adaptation of the royal decree to the real estate agent. Their

We give the landmeters a arrangement. That is obvious. Let this be clear. The dossier has indeed been drawing up for several years. It dates from the year 1992. Mr. Minister, you would like to talk about your cabinet experience. At that moment, I tried from a cabinet to incorporate this into the Law of Verhaegen. This was ⁇ difficult. I know you also wanted to walk another track. This path might have been more logical and better. However, you have not been given the opportunity within the government to walk that track. So we are a bit disappointed. Mr. Minister, we are especially disappointed that you did not make any effort in advance to bring the various occupational groups involved together. That was the essential. I am talking about ten years ago. That was also the problem at the time. We have now experienced the situation on the liver through the hearings. I regret that you have not tried to bring the professional groups together and actually solve the problems. You have to do it all now, Mr. Minister. The removed Article 9 must be replaced. So you will still have a lot of work to do before you can get a result.

Therefore, we submitted two amendments based on the report of the legal services. The first is an amendment to Article 5 of Draft 2152. This is a technical amendment. In the second paragraph, the word ‘statutory’ may be deleted. This may be because the word statutory has no meaning. A second amendment is a more important amendment to Article 5 of Draft 2151. This is stated in the report of the Legal Services of the Chamber. It is in point 13. In the sixth paragraph, the Court of Cassation is replaced by the Council of State. From the note of the Chamber’s legal services it appears that the proposed arrangement is a legal anomaly. Our amendment aims to propose a regulation that is legally coherent. This corresponds to the result intended by the applicant. This is the result that you, as a Minister, may have also had in mind at that time. However, you have been confiscated a little too much by your GSM.

Mr. Minister, since this bill is not completed and has a lot of unresolved points, we abstained in the committee. We will also vote tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear Colleagues, the Economy Committee has long examined the bills relating to the creation of federal councils of geometers-experts as well as the protection of the title and function of geometers-experts.

The confusing situation in this sector of activity since the royal decrees of 1921 and 1936 fully justified the need for legislation. Indeed, the diversity of statutes encountered and the difficulty of finding acceptable compromises by the various representative organizations have considerably complicated the discussions in committees. These representative organizations are the National Association of Geometers-Experts, the Royal Federation of Independent Geometers-Experts and the Belgian Union of Geometers-Experts in Real Estate.

Whether it is a civil servant, employee or self-employed, the expert geometers must be obliged to respect the same code of deontology developed by the whole profession, and not by a minority fraction of the profession. Most of the various professional orders and institutes do not distinguish, a priori, among their members according to their social status of principal or accessory self-employed, employee of the public sector or the private sector, official or even contractual self-employed or collaborator of an administration. Therefore, it will be necessary to remain vigilant on the implementation of these two bills and prioritize consultation in this sector.

Almost every Belgian lives in front of a roadway and therefore has a common boundary with the public domain. This implies that, on the ground, it is inevitable that two or even more geometers meet — each for their client or their employer — to measure the same limit and to draw up plans or minutes. Consumer protection requires identical rules valid for performing the same work together.

Furthermore, I insist on the essential role of the federal councils of expert geometers, which should be able to limit and punish unfair competition and confusion of interests between independent and non-independent and between independent.

The bill protecting the title and profession of expert geometers provides that all expert geometers will now have to hold a required degree, swear an oath and be enrolled in a panel of expert geometers which will be managed by the federal council of expert geometers. Personally, I am pleased that the graduate degree has not been removed or long-type studies imposed, because the different facets of the profession of expert geometers do not necessarily require a university degree. It is better to avoid an elite drift in this corporation characterized by an unwavering passion for this profession.

I will conclude by saying that my group will vote on these bills despite the imperfections they contain, at least for part of the profession, and also despite the difficulty of conciliating the prerogatives of the protagonists. My group hopes, in this regard, that the arrangements for the application of this text will take into account the obligation of equal treatment of the parties concerned. Indeed, the various representative organizations have agreed on the projects that have been submitted to us, but I wonder about the nature of the mandate that these organizations have actually received from their base.

We will therefore vote on those projects that will serve as the basis for a new conception of the profession and its future evolution.

We are delighted to have you back among us after a few weeks of absence. I hope you will get well, because in the coming weeks you will need good health to complete the many work in Parliament together with us. These two draft laws are also part of this. I was not able to attend the whole discussion in the committee because other committees also discussed draft projects that I would like to participate in.

While it was necessary to put an end to the existing confusion in the regulation concerning landmeters, I think the current draft legislation has only aggravated the confusion. I have found that these bills have given rise to a lot of controversy and that apparently no one is really satisfied with the bills. In practice it turned out that the existing regulation was inadequate since the introduction of the various royal decrees, which each attempted to elaborate a final arrangement.

Many landmeters have attributed themselves different names and titles. Thus we know the landmeters, the landmeters experts and the mine meters. By Royal Decree of 18 January 1995, the previous government sought to recognise the profession of landmeter expert, in implementation of the Framework Act of 1 March 1976 regulating that protection. However, for various reasons, a number of implementations of this regulation have failed. With the drafts presented here today, we want to replace this regulation.

Mr. Minister, I have already said that there has been criticism from the world of landmeters. They can be divided into several categories: the landmeters self-employed, the landmeters-officials in the main profession and the self-employed in the secondary profession, apparently also the landmeters-officials in the secondary and the self-employed in the main profession, and the full-time landmeters-officials. In those drafts, in fact, it has been attempted to elaborate a scheme for all these categories, while the interests of these different groups can, of course, be mentioned differently. Therefore, I regret that nowhere in the drafts is really spoken about the fundamental difference between landmeters in the public office and landmeters in a freelance profession. Neither are the problems of cumulation and conflicting interests thoroughly addressed.

It is clear, and I think that also from the hearings from the various groups has been shown that a landmeter who works on the cadastral and acts as a self-employed in a subsidiary profession can undoubtedly use and – why not – misuse his prior knowledge as a public official. I think it is important that this bill could provide a solution to this problem. The reference made in Article 3 to the deontological doctrine is to dispel the problem. I have here some press releases referring to a number of situations in which certain forms of abuse have emerged in the context of landmeters employed by the government who have a subsidiary occupation as self-employed, for example as treasurer.

There is no mention of an internship, a petition or any other means of completion of the profession. In a number of other intellectual professions, internships are introduced one by one and there is also a permanent training. Apparently this is not necessary for landmeters. However, measurements have also been subject to a number of technological innovations and improvements in the field of topometry.

The current draft law also aims to repeal the Royal Decree of 18 January 1995. Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a question that I would like to get an answer later. These bills are intended to repeal the royal decree of 1995. With that royal decree was created the possibility for certain persons to be admitted to the profession thanks to rights acquired in the past and without yet having the appropriate diploma. Can you tell me whether those rights acquired by means of an entry in the municipal lists will remain or they will disappear? I would like to hear this from you later.

In my view, there is also no arrangement concerning incompatibilities. I’ll give an example of the same study agency that carries out a land plot, conducts a stability study, decomposes a building and sells the construction. This example was also given in the bill. I dare to say that if the hope is established on the deontological doctrine to teach this, one could be deceived. Furthermore, for other categories of professions, there is indeed a legal regulation on the prohibition of cumulative work.

Even outside these professional categories, there appeared to be enormous criticism of these bills. As we have observed from the real estate brokerage sector, these designs could not be identified because they contained provisions for landmeters who also wished to engage in real estate activities.

As you know, colleagues, the original design determined that landmeters who also wanted to develop or exercise real estate activities were exempt from registration on the table of the professional institute for real estate agents. In the end, Article 9 was deleted and no new regulation was developed. I would like to remind the Minister for a moment of his promise in this regard in the Committee on Infrastructure. He informed the Professional Institute for Real Estate Brokers that he would have a conversation with them on the Royal Decree, which would include the possibility that real estate activities are exercised by other professional categories without having to be registered as real estate brokers. Mr. Minister, can you later say something about the intentions in this regard? Is everything open or is nothing possible? Because of this abolition, there is actually no regulation.

Mr. Minister, just before the discussion we talked about this: you submitted to Parliament a preliminary draft text that had already been adapted to the comments of the State Council. I would like to urge you to submit to Parliament the original preliminary draft, on the basis of which the State Council has formulated its opinion.

I have still been in contact with the Chamber’s legal services and they say that this should be mandatory to be added to the report. At the time of examining the amended amendments and examining the text juridically, the Chamber’s Legal Service has determined that the text of the preliminary draft, as we have it at our disposal, is not the original text. Therefore, we cannot determine whether or not the comments of the State Council have been incorporated into the texts. That is not only bad, but that, of course, leads to a lot of debate, as the legal service still notes that Article 3 on the table of the Federal Council is not in the correct draft and that it should be avoided in the other draft.

If we want to discuss this with the Minister in a serious way, then we will have to have the original document at our disposal, otherwise we cannot discuss it. The legal opponent has just told me that he cannot make a judgment as long as he is not in possession of the original texts. I think this is not possible, Mr. Minister. You should send this to us later. I have therefore submitted two amendments in this regard in response to the observations of the State Council. If you can prove, on the basis of the original texts, that this has already happened, then we can of course take a different position on this.

That these draft laws are absolutely incomplete and mature to be put to vote in Parliament at the moment, is evident, for example, from the amended Article 5. Mr. Minister, I see that it has been added in the committee through amendments that, for example, a landmeter who exercises his profession as a wage-taker, without being under the responsibility or supervision of an independent landmeter, must also be registered on the table of the Federal Council.

This provision has been added through an amendment. Is it correct in Article 5? The underlying text — the addition in the new text — states that if the landmeter exercises the activities referred to in Article 3 as a wage-taking, without being under the responsibility or supervision of a landmeter expert registered on the tableau, that landmeter expert must still have to register on the previously formed tableau. I am reading this right, Mr. Minister, what is added in Article 5? The intention is that someone...How do you say? Could you take the text?

The [...]

I want to know if it is correct what I am reading, which was added by an amendment to Article 5. Anyone who is paying may also be registered on the table of the Federal Council. [...] How do you say? He must. Then you should take Article 4, § 1 . It determines who must be registered on the tableau and refers only to landmeters who exercise their functions in the capacity of self-employed in the main or secondary profession. I have now, together with Mrs. Pieters, submitted an amendment, because we have only seen it now. You can see how this bill hangs with heads and eyes together. As soon as you start making changes, the other articles will no longer be valid. I would like to ask, Mr. Minister, that we can look at this in a serious way. I regret it and I can understand that you have wanted to develop a scheme after a lot of years of baking. I absolutely agree with that, but I think it doesn’t make sense to do so at this moment, where there are still many designs to be hunted by Parliament.This is a very fundamental decision for this professional group. I would absolutely like to ask for a quiet look at this and to bring the draft back to Parliament for discussion within a few months, in such a way that the anomalies can be removed from the texts.

I thought, Mr. Lano, that it was intended to provide certainty to that target audience and to that sector and to remove the confusion that indeed existed in the past. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

You know I have a tremendous appreciation for your parliamentary commitment and your work. But if you yourself acknowledge that you are not present at hearings that have lasted months...

I went through all the hearings.

...or in meetings and that you then come up with last minute comments, to postpone everything again, sorry, but then I don’t understand you anymore. One must make choices at a certain moment and the most important thing in that file is simply that one can leave. One has been jealous of a case that has been awaited for twenty years, and I think the last-minute manoeuvres would have been wrong and not only that, but also for the sector and the actors of the field.

I will judge for myself, Mr. Lano.

I do not blame you, Mrs.

I also let you speak. Look, I have been through all the hearings and I have not been through only the last discussions of the amendments.

I would like to point out that the majority of people have made mistakes in some texts. It is important that corrections are made. This is also in the interest of the sector. There is no point in filling the sector with incomplete legislation that is not in accordance with the comments of the State Council. The only one who can refute my position is the Minister. To this day, we still do not have the original texts he sent to the State Council for advice. Such behavior is unworthy of a Parliament. The Parliament shall have the right to access the comments of the State Council on the basis of which the original legislative text has been amended. That is nothing more than normal.

Rik Daems: Mrs Brepoels, you are submitting an amendment in which it should be shown that the text incomplete e is not correct. Quod not. Article 4 relates to self-employed persons. Article 5 relates to employees. A wage extractor always depends on someone else, thus a corporate form.

Your claim that an employee who is not under the responsibility or supervision of an independent landmeter is not allowed to exercise the profession is perfectly contained in Article 5. The word "must" makes it clear that it falls under the responsibility of the independent landmeter. It is hard to write the same thing in a bill twice.

Mr. Minister, that is not stated there.

Rik Daems: That is stated there. "If the profession of landmeter is exercised in the form of a company, - I emphasize the word must - "the wage-taking landmeters must work under the control and responsibility of the independent landmeter".

Mr. Minister, please read further. I am referring to the following paragraph that was added in the committee. I am not talking about the self-employed. I am talking about the procedure for entry on the tableau. (...) That is not true. Article 4 deals with those who are required to register on the table of the Federal Council. These are only self-employed persons in the main or secondary occupation. Article 5 states that certain categories of employees must also register on the table of the Federal Council. Article 4 should therefore be adjusted.

Rik Daems: Mrs. Brepoels, when I clearly describe the situation in Article 5, I write the same twice when I read such a passage in Article 4. What is that now. There is indeed an addition to the report of what is happening with the tableau. It is written literally. If he does not fall under responsibility, he must register in the tableau. If he falls under the responsibility of an independent landmeter, he should not register. This is stated in Article 5.

This is contrary to Article 4, Mr. Minister.

Rik Daems: No, Mrs. Brepoels, Article 4 is only about self-employed persons and not about employees.

Mr. Minister, I look forward to your response regarding the texts of the preliminary draft.

Rik Daems: That is something else.

This is what we are talking about, Mr. Minister. It is about the organization of the federal council and about those who must or should not register on the table. That is what it is about!

After the interruption of the Minister, I have no choice but to listen to his response. I am not at all convinced that his response will contribute to greater legal certainty and remove all confusion in a positive way.

Rik Daems: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief since I just answered Mrs. Brepoels’s question concerning amendment number 13, the content of which I do not accept for the reasons mentioned above.

I no longer know exactly whether it was Mrs. Pieters or Mrs. Brepoels, who cited the acquired rights of the royal decree of 1995. In any case, they are preserved. Their

However, topographs are not preserved. The topographers are a significant part of one of the categories of which the landmeters absolutely did not want them to be cataloged in the same way. They were not ⁇ ined in the basic royal decree and therefore do not fall within the scope of its application. I just verified that.

Mr. Minister, it is precisely about those who have received the oath as landmeters. According to the description of the diplomas, they do not fall into the same category, but they do the profession. Does this mean that they must cease their professional activities?

In a situation where for literally decades the matter has not been settled, I choose a solution of 90% rather than a solution of 0% after long talking with a lot of blade and little wool. That’s what I wanted to say here today: the problem of land meters is now solved for 80% or 90%. Point on the line. The next 10% or 20% will be resolved in the next legislature. I have a lack of a policy in which one keeps talking for decades, because one will never be able to create a perfect system for the very simple reason that the situation in 1964 was different than in 1974, in 1984, in 1994, and today. One simply cannot follow static reasoning when making a law. This is really not feasible. This is the reason why I maintain this draft as it is stated here, indeed in the knowledge that the Bologna reform, for example, has yet to be settled, that I also know, and in the knowledge that we have yet to settle the real estate matters. Here and there there may be another imperfection, but I know one thing: finally we have a arrangement for the landmeters.

I would like to comment on what the Minister has said here. In fact, you put your finger on the wound, Mr. Minister. You argue that you build up your argument by admitting that you have little time for a bill. Everything is in the concept of little time. You should have spent more time for that. You have four years to perform.

Rik Daems: ( ... )

Your government, your partners, your VLD have had four years to take this dossier in hand and concert it. There is the whole cloth of history. You assume that you are taking a step and that you will correct it. No, we assume finished texts that will adapt to the changing social conditions over time. I think this is a completely wrong way of working. This is what characterizes this government. If this is the slogan with which you go on May 18 – take a first step and then make corrections – then I don’t agree.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things briefly. I regret that the Minister still does not respond to our request to hand over the original texts of the preliminary draft.

Rik Daems: If you want it, I will give it to you.

We have asked for it so many times. I would like to...

13px;line-height:17px;font-family:Helvetica;color:#000000;} -->

I also don’t know why we don’t get them. Can you ensure that we get that before the discussion in tomorrow’s plenary session is completed? It must be possible that we get those texts before we finish that discussion tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Their

Mr. Minister, you have just tried to refute that as regards the registration of the wage-takers in the Federal Council. You should look at Bill 2151 which specifically refers to the federal council. Article 3 makes it very clear that the Federal Council shall keep a table of the practitioners of the profession who wish to exercise the profession of landmeter expert as self-employed. Your drafts are absolutely not in accordance with what was attached after the discussion in Parliament. I wanted to show you this later. This is pure confusion. We know that in the meantime. If there is still a possibility of implementing a program law, it would be attempted in the course of the coming weeks. It will then be up to the next government to honor these drafts.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Speaker, on what Mrs. Brepoels says, I can immediately refer to Article 5, which states that the employee, who does not fall under responsibility, must register on the table of the self-employed and fall under the same responsibilities. In other words, this is picked up.

To Mrs. Peters, I would like to say the following. I ask myself the following question. You say that the government had four years to concert and solve the problem. I started it one and a half years ago and I think I’ve arranged about thirty things. My question to you is why between 1964 and 1999 all other governments did not find time to concert and resolve the case. I would like to know that.

(...) of the federation of landmeters within since the beginning of the 1990s. You should not exaggerate and say that this could have been resolved already in '68.

Rik Daems: That’s been ten years.

In the explanation it was stated that it is a ⁇ difficult problem and for me it is half-solved.