Proposition 50K2288

Proposition de révision du Règlement de la Chambre des représentants.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Herman De Croo

Submission date

Feb. 12, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

national parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Jean-Pierre Grafé (LE) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 12, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. It also makes no sense to start this proposal for a long time now. I wonder for whom it would be done. I can only say that the present amendment to the Rules of Procedure has been the subject of two kinds of discussions.

An initial discussion should result in the texts being coordinated. On this occasion, a number of limited adjustments have also proved useful. We discussed the subsidies together in the committee. It has given rise to amendments—proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure, to be official—because of the President of the Assembly. It has also given rise to several initiatives from colleagues, including myself. I would like to say something very brief about it, even though we are not present with much more. I would like to lose a few more words on that point.

For the rest, I will limit myself to the reference to the report. It provides sufficient clarification for those in need.

Mr. Minister, few colleagues, there is one point that concerns me quite. It is a matter of program laws. I will not deny that both in the past and in the present, the system of program laws is used to quickly get things arranged, which in fact require a more thorough and serious treatment.

Mr. Minister, when you were still in a different capacity in the Chamber — it did not matter much — you did something less remote in that regard. To be honest, I think the moment has come especially well. No one knows who will be in the majority. Everyone complains that the Parliament is falling. In seven hurricanes, matters that have nothing to do with the budget are also discharged.

My proposal does not aim to make program laws impossible. However, it aims to provide that the provisions contained in program laws must relate to the budget. If not, they should be removed from the text. They must then be the subject of a separate draft or proposal, depending on their start.

We will not exchange opinions on this issue. However, it is possible that my party will be in the majority again tomorrow. At that time, however, I remain equally strong in favour of creating clarity in this matter. I believe that at this point Parliament should once again have the courage to put aside the mere opportunism of belonging to the majority. For once, Parliament must stand up for recognition and the quality of its work.

That is at least the purpose of the proposal I have submitted. Mr. Speaker, the proposal could, by the way, in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure have had quite a positive appreciation from several majority banks. I would therefore very much like to think about it again before we go to the vote tomorrow on the amendment that I have submitted on this matter. I mean that. I might regret it later. I do not know. However, I am convinced that we would at least prove this House a good service.

I have a second amendment. It is actually a result of the fact that the Arbitration Court has made its judgment. You know that on the basis of the text, which the government had proposed, one had to choose a language group. This no longer needs. We are returning to the old system. The provision in Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure therefore makes no sense. The legal framework has since changed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the services inform the Speaker of the House of Representatives of my third point. It is an ongoing topic of discussion. To what extent can Members of Parliament be imposed rules when they turn to the Court of Auditors? It is also an old discussion.

Amendments were submitted by several members of the opposition.

Hence, on behalf of the applicant, I would like to say that we do not insist on voting on that amendment at this time.

However, we request that the chairman of the Chamber consult with the Court of Auditors to determine whether that provision, which actually implies the possibility for the members of the Chamber to appeal to the Court of Auditors, should be interpreted more restrictively or more broadly.

Some people find that this must be regulated by a provision that comes from the Court of Audit itself, a regulatory provision there. Others believe that it should be included in the House Rules.

I would therefore like the Chairman of the Chamber to consult with the Court of Auditors on this subject. We will submit that amendment after that consultation, whether or not again, at the time we have to vote on the coordinated texts. The current vote is only about the amendment.

I wanted to give that explanation.

It allowed me to really insist again. I think that you, as a member of parliament and a member of a group, can play a final role tomorrow to think critically about that program law.

Mr. Minister, admit that it was not an image when submissions, whole drafts that had nothing to do with program laws at all, were submitted at once, with the reaction that the opposition is doing something similar. That serves no one’s credibility. I would like to urge you to think about this again.

If I can afford, I believe that there have been amendments in some committees to the previous law-program, amendments that came from the opposition and were actually taken from a bill. This is a derivative, you are right.

Absolutely at all.

This deviation must be avoided, whether on one side or on the other.

I invite you to think about it now that there is still time for it.

Mr. le président, this may not be all to do the logic of intervening in the framework of the Rules of the Chamber. What applies to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber also applies to the framework laws and the Program Law. It is the same reasoning. In the past, certain framework laws were very broad. You can think about it.

Mr. Minister, this is not the case at the moment.

With regard to the Court of Auditors, it is a good idea to send a letter to the President of the Court of Auditors. It is a general discussion, not only with regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber and of the Court of Auditors but also a new law on the Court of Auditors. We must continue to separate the different possibilities between a law on the relations between Parliament, Government and the Court of Auditors. Dans cette démarche, nous avons plaidé en commission, pour que l'on essaie de bien définir les champs d'application de chaque instrument juridique. It is not normal that the law rules as much as the problems that depend on the internal organization of the executive. It is not normal no more than by the means of a law, which must be sanctioned by the King, on examination of the regulation of aspects which belong exclusively to the functioning of the Chamber. Donc, nous avions demandé de renvoyer certaines discussions au Règlement de la Chambre. However, it is normal to make a distinction between the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber and that of the Court of Auditors, for example as regards the powers of the representatives. It is abnormal to regulate that through the executive power but it may also be abnormal to do so through the Rules of the Court of Auditors. Therefore, it may be a good question from the Chairman to the Court of Auditors when to say that there are different possibilities. In one case, it may be useful to do so through the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors, why not, on the proposal of the Court of Auditors. This is a normal procedure. But in another case, it may be more useful to do it through the Rules of the Chamber. That is my only comment on the last point. It would be interesting in all cases that the chairman of the Chamber seize the chairman of the Court of Accounts of this problem and that the question may be posed not only of the fund of the regulation but also of the best instrument to use. Le règlement de la Cour, le règlement de la Chambre ou la loi, je pense que dans le cas du contrôle parlementaire individuel auprès de la Cour, la discussion porte sur le règlement de la Chambre ou celui de la Cour des comptes.

Personally, I must confess to you that I would rather look for the Rules of the Chamber because it is not normal for anyone other than the Parliament to decide on the competences of parliamentarians on an individual basis. I have pledged in the same way in the committee that the law does not go too far in the organization of the internal work of the executive because this is not, properly speaking, the problem of Parliament.

Mr. President, I am the

This is perfectly agreed, but you only need to do it quickly. If one wants to do it still following the preceding amendment to the Rules, then one will have to be quick. Please allow me to say that your reference to framework laws is not entirely complete. Fortunately, framework laws are still approved occasionally – unless they are special law – with a certain framework. Program laws, it’s a fléau that comes back every year.

The [...]

Let’s not start this discussion or we will return to the majority/minority split. This is not really the intention...

Maybe by changing places.

Whoever lives will see. But it also matters for the future. No one can predict what will happen and therefore it is the right time to do so.