Proposition 51K0642

Projet de loi exécutant et complétant la loi du 2 mai 1995 relative à l'obligation de déposer une liste de mandats, fonctions et professions et une déclaration de patrimoine.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

March 1, 1996

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Member of Parliament multiple office holding national parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Pierre Lano (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 ¶

May 27, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the special and ordinary laws of 2 May 1995, soon ten years after that, set the basic principles regarding the obligation for public officials to file a list of mandates, functions and professions and a declaration of property.

As the Court of Auditors correctly recalls, this obligation made to public officials is based, I quote, “on the consideration that a democracy can only exist in transparency and that it presupposes respect for the principle of equal treatment.” This means in particular that the exercise of a public office cannot in any case unfairly benefit the person who exercises it. This is why the law provides for the obligation to file a list of mandates and a declaration of property. These principled laws and implementing laws that we will vote today undoubtedly make our democracy more transparent.

I would like to remind you here that these devices are not isolated: they are part of a much more general approach of transparency and accountability. Already Louis Michel, at the time president of my party, along with other colleagues in this assembly, had worked to realize these objectives through the Assises of Democracy.

Dear colleagues, several years ago, we voted in this assembly for very important legislation in this area: the public financing of parties, the law regulating and limiting electoral expenditure for federal, regional and European elections, the legislation limiting the accumulation of mandates. The enforcement legislation we will vote today will complement and make effective this arrangement that pursues objectives of transparency and democratic accountability.

The ordinary law and the special enforcement law therefore require the filing of a list of mandates, functions and professions. The scope of ratione personae is very broad as it extends from ministers to heads of strategic cells, through to mayors, chefs, CPAS presidents, members of parliamentary assemblies and general officials.

This obligation is an annual obligation. It shall be made before 1 April of each year by a written declaration which shall mention all mandates, management functions and professions, whatever the nature, which these persons have exercised during the preceding year, both in the public sector and on behalf of any natural or legal person, of any body or association of facts, established in Belgium or abroad.

The interested party will have to specify whether or not he receives a remuneration. These mandate lists will be published. A penalty is provided, in any case a moral penalty, insofar as the list of persons who have not submitted a list of mandates will be published in the Moniteur belge.

Let us agree: it is not abnormal, but on the contrary, that the citizen knows in full transparency the sphere of influence of his representatives and, more generally, of persons who exercise important public responsibilities.

This also concerns the notion of conflict of interest that has often been mentioned. It seems useful to me that everyone is aware of the functions and professions exercised by the members of an assembly when they intervene in the framework of a debate that may concern one aspect or another relating to the functions they otherwise exercise.

The legislation also provides for the filing of a declaration of heritage. This declaration shall be made by the same persons within the month following their first entry into office or their first appointment. This declaration of heritage reflects, in some way, the state of their heritage at the time of their entry into office. They shall, no later than one month after each resignation or one month after the expiration of each mandate or office, file with the Secretary of the Court of Auditors a second declaration of assets which satisfies the same conditions.

This measure is, indeed, much more sensitive. It is not necessarily obvious to declare your private property when you first exercise a public function or charge. But let’s be clear, and the preparatory work is: this declaration of patrimony will be kept, under sealed fold, in the register of the Court of Auditors. It is not public. The same will apply for asset declarations that will be made out of charge or function. There can be no question of any consultation of these statements by anyone. In fact, the objective is clear: the obligation to declare property must simply allow to verify whether or not the person concerned has illegally enriched during the exercise of his or her function or mandate when there is a judicial investigation or suspicion, and only in this case. This obligation constitutes a certain guarantee for the parliamentary or for the person who must complete this declaration of assets. This obligation can therefore enable to ensure that the representative has not obtained any unlawful advantage from the exercise of a mandate. If an officer is wrongly accused of having enriched illegally, the declaration of property will be, for him, a means of proving his innocence.

It is therefore the only and only object of these asset statements which, I repeat, unlike mandate statements, are kept under a closed fold to the Court of Auditors. Obviously, this arrangement should not prevent certain individuals who carry out private functions from engaging in politics. It would be a perverse effect that is not expected and that would be detrimental to politics that, in my opinion, needs people who do not rely solely on public mandates to live.

That is why I allow myself to recall very clearly, as do otherwise the preparatory work, the spirit, the purpose of the obligation to file a declaration of heritage, the confidentiality and the modalities of conservation which, I think, must reassure.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will conclude my speech by clarifying that the arrangement we are about to vote on will obviously involve the adoption of implementing measures, as well as the fulfillment of many formalities, in particular by the Court of Auditors. In addition, it will be necessary to assess the means necessary for the Court of Auditors to properly apply the legal arrangement. We must be consistent: if we want a transparent and very detailed system, we must give ourselves the material means to apply it. The Court of Auditors has informed us in this regard and we must listen to it.

I have said it and I repeat it, with this new law in effect, our country is endowed with a democratic tool that will assure the citizens of this country that their public and responsible representatives work and act in full transparency and within the framework of a democratic regime that is interested in the professions and functions exercised by these representatives with clarity and accountability.

As previously stated, Mr. Bacquelaine, the two laws that we will vote today are the conclusion of the agreements that the political world has made after 1991. It was during this year’s elections that the far-right for the first time saw a significant advance and that some political parties encountered financing difficulties. At that time, it was well understood the need to ensure greater transparency and fairer and more modern rules for the financing of political parties and the control of parliamentarians.

Thus, as a result of the agreements of Gesves and the Assises of Democracy, the provisions on taxation of parliamentarians, public financing of parties and limitation of accumulations were adopted, even though on this latter point, the law is relatively insufficient for Ecolo.

The adoption of the two laws, the Special Law and the Ordinary Law, which I hope we will proceed today, is important as it will help to strengthen trust and transparency between citizens and their elected. For some, transparency and information are elements that inspire suspicion. I am one of those who believe that trust can only be gained in transparency and information and that it is the honor of public men and women of this country to show citizens that they can have complete information on their income, on the functions they occupy, whether public or private, and on the power networks in which they participate. It is then up to each citizen to judge his elected on the basis of information to which he can easily access.

I would like to remind you that there is nothing exceptional here: European Commissioners must submit to the same type of declaration when they are appointed. In the United Kingdom, you find the same type of information on the official websites and this goes much further than in Belgium since even personal property is found in public information. These are different cultures: probably these materials are not understood in the same way in some Anglo-Saxon countries and in Belgium. However, remuneration, especially in intercommunal, public service, parliaments, municipal councils or colleges, is known, is public and sometimes even determined by law. Everyone has easy access to it. The great advancement of this law is that access to this information will now be relatively easy.

Two notes were submitted to the House, following the completion of the discussion of these projects. The first, very comprehensive, explained to us the implementation process at the Court of Auditors and did not highlight particular difficulties, but rather the need to continue the preparation of the arrangement. The second, transmitted by the services of the House, has fueled in its conclusions debates which, I think, deserve to be clarified. We should not lose ourselves in legal interpretations. According to the spirit of the legislator, this law can enter into force from the seventh month after its publication in the Moniteur belge.

It is unthinkable to think that the legislator wanted its entry into force to be postponed to 2009. Therefore, I hope that the government will do diligence for an immediate entry into force of the law on January 1, 2005. And if the House wants to do useful work, it must insist that it is this interpretation that must be retained, following our discussions and our parliamentary work on this subject.

In conclusion, my colleagues, the vote on the two laws we are discussing today constitutes a major step forward towards greater transparency. You know how expensive this principle is in Ecolo. We are therefore pleased that we have been able to unlock this case that has been ongoing for ten years and hope that today, finally, the House can finally approve these two bills.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to make a brief presentation on the draft proposals presented on behalf of my group. Openness and transparency seem to be very important to my group to avoid at least the risk of a bad image. It is always said that the image of politics is determining for its legitimacy among the population. One can dedicate whole epistles to it, but ultimately avoiding a bad image is one of the messages and goals rather than building a good image.

One of the arguments advocating the openness and transparency of the number of mandates and the declaration of assets is that, if one does not do so, as long as, as regards the assets, privacy is respected, it gives the impression that there would be something to hide. That would be at the detriment of politicians and politics in general.

The VLD has made this an important point since the beginning, since 1992. Proof of this is that in our party, for example, it is mandatory to declare all our mandates to what we call the statutory committee. In other words, all mandates of our mandators are known. The assets as such do not need to be delivered to the party chairman in a sealed envelope; such obligation does not exist.

It has already been initiated, among other things, at the initiative of the VLD in 1995 with the Act of 7 April 1995 on the tax status of the members of the House, the Senate, the community and regional streets and the European Parliament. There are legislative norms which are a result of the so-called conclave of Gesves, already cited by Ms. Nagy. Here a number of agreements were made regarding the publicity of assets, mandates and income of public mandators. The laws of May 1995 are restrictive. They only set out the general principles of a new regulation. It was then referred to a more detailed regulation for further implementation, which has never actually arrived. Only now, nine years later, will we implement it.

These include the establishment of a list of mandates, something the VLD members have been doing for years within the party, about an asset statement and about the way in which the Court of Auditors publishes both the list of mandates and the way in which the asset statements are handled. Therefore, an important role has been given to the Court of Auditors, which is ultimately the auditor of the Parliament.

Both regulatory texts are of the same direction and apply only to different persons. There is a common law for those subject to it at the federal level and a special law for the persons at the regional and community level. The concern of the ordinary and special legislator for not entrusting the execution of the law to the King is, in our opinion, primarily motivated by the interconnection with the private sphere. In this way, we believe that only the legislature itself can develop a regulation. With the draft proposals submitted to us for voting today, the legislator fulfils this task.

The obligation for public mandators to submit a mandate list and an asset statement is based on the reasonable assumption that a democracy cannot exist without the necessary transparency. A democratic system presupposes that the principle of equal treatment, of equal opportunities, must be respected. Therefore, this must be abstract. The assets must be declared and the mandates must be made public. In particular, this means that the exercise of a public function must in no way provide an undue advantage for the person who exercises the mandate. This can, of course, only be verified by means of the public data of the mandates, and, if necessary, by checking the asset statement if there are indications that there is a problem.

In other words, the draft concrétises a justified aspiration for a greater transparency of democracy, so that everyone can be sure of the place mandatarists occupy in the political order and above all, as I said at the beginning, to avoid even a swim or a seeming conflict of interests.

Let’s bear in mind: the design is not perfect. But after nine years, it seemed better to approve of an imperfect design than to keep stuck with some elements, undoubtedly not insignificant. The message to be brought out today is that we, as a political class in general and as the VLD in particular, stand behind the disclosure of those data, because we believe that openness and transparency to the public are very clearly a necessary aspect of democratic decision-making. One cannot engage in politics without being open and transparent to the population and showing that one will not abuse his function.

Therefore, the VLD faction will approve the draft. Colleague Pierre Lano will raise a number of additional personal concerns, which will show that the design is indeed not perfect. That does not mean that our group will approve the draft in the current state.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

First, we must not be ⁇ proud to have waited 10 years to adopt this text. We must draw as a consequence that Parliament must be much more engaged in this matter and must deal with the questions of the population more quickly.

The text is far from being a model. He will ask for improvements. This text contains gaps; some elements are suitable for interpretation. If in 10 years we have not been able to produce a perfect text, let’s not take 20 years to make a slightly better one. So let’s take the text we have and take it immediately.

Second, the majority interpretation that emerges from the preparatory work is that we are in the presence of a law whose spirit and letter want it to be immediately applicable. Let us therefore keep in mind that, seven months after its publication in the Monitor, it will indeed come into effect, including for mandatory representatives who are in the process of carrying out their mandate. Any other interpretation would result in ridiculing the parliamentary institution and reinforcing demagogy.

Thirdly, such texts should not scare us. Transparency is the best defense of honest people. We live in a society where as long as there is no transparency, there remain a number of fantasies. Through transparency, therefore, we must defeat both demagogy and fantasies. Thus, for example, for years, the text on the Parliament’s budget has been considered one of the most secret texts. Everyone thus imagined that through the budget of the parliament — and the press regularly ⁇ this rumor — horrible things were committed. As soon as transparency was made on the discussion of the parliament’s budget, the press no longer commented. Transparency has therefore been the guarantee that we properly and adequately manage the resources of the Nation. Therefore, we should not be afraid of advertising. Our culture is still subject to too much Latin influence. We are afraid of transparency and we prefer what I call the confessional culture where, in the shadow, one eventually confesses his faults. But if one does not commit a mistake, it is better not to go to the confessional and say clearly what the situation is. I believe in greater transparency. To those who say that with transparency we maintain demagogy, I answer that it is exactly the opposite.

Fourth, the approach must be continued. The few dissatisfactions that this law gives us relate to poorly written texts but above all a certain timidity. by Mr. Bacquelaine insisted, there is a great case of the fact that the declarations of heritage will be secret, covered by absolute secrecy. Will it be so annoying to declare, in the coming years after a first experience, our heritage at our entry and exit of office? I believe it is a natural evolution that perfectly corresponds with the logic of a society that is not afraid of its public officials. To restore confidence between the company and its representatives is also to recognize normally that these representatives are not minimexes who temporarily occupy a temporary special framework but quite normal people who normally perform their functions.

I would like to conclude by saying that it is not too late. As soon as this law is voted, its improvement, its evaluation and the translation of obvious improvements will need to be put into work. Let us not delay its implementation, let us make a healthy and serene assessment. Democracy will win, and I hope that we will not have to wait ten years to pass a new law that goes toward even more transparency.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the sp.a. group and its group leader are happy today that a path of suffering has ended. It is good to recapitulate the facts. Their

There was the consultation of Gesves, which resulted in a bill submitted on 30 January 1995 and unanimously adopted in this Chamber on 7 April 1995. Somewhat exceptional and ⁇ already a first indication of the fact that, although that law was adopted through a Chamber-wide consultation, there was still some opposition, is that the Basic Law appeared to require another law, in particular an enforcement law. Later, since they were extended to the provinces, the regions and the communities, a special law was needed. This is shown today.

The path of suffering began with the draft implementing law submitted to the House on 1 March 1996 and first approved on 30 April 1997. It was transferred to the Senate where it was amended and approved on 11 June 1998. Back in the Chamber it was again amended and it was approved on 29 April 1999. It was again handed over to the Senate and remained there for four years before being finally approved on 13 February 2003. When it then returned to the Chamber, something that I know has never happened in the last ten years happened, that it could not be approved because the quorum was not reached. The draft was declared invalid and was approved in our committee on 28 April 2004. Their

Hopefully we will vote unanimously or at least as many members as possible to approve this bill. Their

It would be good if we were to give a unanimous signal here. Those responsible for the suffering path of this draft enforcement law have rendered a very bad service to politics. Their

On this floor — and I limit myself to what has happened in this assembly — bakes full of hypocrisy were sold in connection with this design.

Among the most false excuses I have heard colleagues here advocate for the limitation of the scope of this law. Everyone has the right to be against it, but no one had the courage to say publicly that he or she was against it. With all kinds of false arguments, one came here to advocate that that law should not come or be kept as limited as possible. They have been exhausted by technical problems. The one after the other problem was thrown here before the feet.

The most punitive was that in this speech hall, when there was almost an agreement on the text, people came to say that the law has not gone far enough. Amendments were submitted to extend the scope of the law. These amendments were approved, mainly by opponents of the law. They knew that if they approved the amendment, the carousel between the Chamber and the Senate would continue. The low point in the examination of this bill took place on 8 April 2003. At that time there was no quorum in this Chamber to approve the law. These colleagues have, in my opinion, consciously or unconsciously contributed to anti-politics. I have not mentioned names, and I will not mention names. Those who want to test the parliamentary reporting on it, however, will be able to read who here, under all kinds of pretexts — from technical problems to amendments that even went so far as to extend the scope of the law — made that suffering lasted nine years. The sp.a-kammer faction hopes that this will end today, because this bill is necessary, useful and necessary to restore the trust between politics and society.

Society has a right to transparency. Anyone who joins a public mandate has the responsibility to provide the society with insight into his or her activities. The society has the right to know in which organizations, companies and others, someone holds management mandates, because the society itself must be able to determine whether or not there is a risk of interference. Society also has the right, if any suspicion can rest upon a politician who has enriched himself, to have the instruments to verify whether that politician has enriched himself. With the declaration of the assets under closed turnover to the Court of Auditors, this is realized.

For some colleagues, this goes too far. Allow me, however, to refer to traditions in the Anglo-Saxon world that go much further. In Britain, for example, no one who enters Parliament makes it a problem that his assets are known to the public. We have not yet reached that point, but we are happy that we are taking that first step today. For us, there is no problem to continue in this direction in the future. Today we increase transparency and increase the right of society to exercise control over its political mandators. For this reason, the sp.afraction will unanimously approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, democracy requires a contradictory debate. So I will probably be the only one to make a different sound heard, although I am not against the premises of the previous speakers.

First and foremost, I would like to address the previous speakers.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I would like to say that I am grateful for your statement: "Il y aurait possibilité d'avoir des effets pervers". To Mrs Nagy, I would like to say that nothing will remain of the "avancée majeure" except the symbol.

To my colleague group leader I say: whether the image of politics will be improved by this, I still doubt. I think there are more essential measures than the declaration of assets, ⁇ because that bill is not perfect. Mr. Viser, I agree with your principles. It was short and good. The vision was good, but you have this that it was far from being a text model. C'est à ce sujet que vous voudrais m'exprimer à cette tribune.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you have admitted that this is a ten-year path of suffering. If the Chamber had wanted it, then there could have been a perfect text. But it was apparently not necessary. Mr Van der Maelen, you have cited Anglo-Saxon models. This time they fit into your thinking pattern. Most often, however, you don’t want to know about it because you find that bad models. We live in a Latin country. If we want to make comparisons that last, then we must establish that we want to be a model state. I have already told several ministers the following. We want to be the best in the class. But by so many times being the best in the class, we will end up last in the class.

I want you to remember that I am not against the principle. You should all know that. There will probably be no unanimity. However, I do not want to feed the anti-politics. I will address that matter scientifically, logically, piece by piece, element by element.

The [...]

Mr. Van der Maelen, I have remembered myself twice.

The [...]

I am against it, but I also came out for it. I will, by the way, come back to that.

I refused twice, and I think I was right twice. For the first time, I abstained in the vote on the withdrawal from nuclear energy. I’ve always said that leaving such a decision to a force of superiority is dimensional foolishness. Yesterday, the Pope of the Greens in England, by the way — in an Anglo-Saxon country, Mr. Van der Maelen — said that this arrangement of exit must indeed be revised.

For the second time, I refrained from the electoral legislation. I predicted that it would be a cacophony. Who dares to say that I was right?

So today I dare to take a statement that is a little dissonant. The new political culture, the NPC.

The fashion word NPC, New Political Culture, has for about 15 years included an amalgam of bizarre but also serious proposals and initiatives.

At the end of the last century, a soup of high-minded and noble ideas emerged from the Belgian mouth of the mid-1990s. A number of scandals and incidents — I think of the Agusta-Dassault affair of 1995 and the Dutroux drama of 1996 — opened a window of opportunity for the political world. The rocket could go to the moon! For this, one should and must absolutely transition to a kind of ruthless tabula rasa. The label NPC was used as a collective name of solutions that from time to time began to get hysterical and even masochistic traits. The proposed drafts on the mandatory asset statement are a brilliant example of the exhausts conceived at the time.

After the White March, then House Speaker Raymond Langendries in December 1996 invited the heads of the democratic parties to deliberate on the strengthening of parliamentary democracy and a better relationship between citizen and state. The work in these so-called "assises of democracy" did not run out of a lame roof. Eventually, only the then majority parties, the room-red and the then PRL remained in the four working groups.

There came firm agenda points, of the kind with which one beats a farmer from his horse. Meanwhile, a number of key core elements of the NPC are still not really realized, more not realized than achieved. I summarize a few: the decumulation — I note silence in the hemisphere —, a popular consultation at all levels, the slendering of the cabinets, the depolitization of the appointments, the deontological code for federal parliamentarians, a deontological committee, the rules for preventing list shopping and the abolition of successors.

(Tumult) (Brouhaha) Cela doit être situé dans son contexte, Madame Lalieux. You see the whole. We are going in the right direction. We just got into a NPC saturation and the term went unused. The NPC was replaced by the new container concept Political Renewal.

At the beginning of this century, this concept was almost entirely reduced to a number of kiesh reforms. In January 2000, the Committee for Political Renewal was established under the chairmanship of colleague Dirk Van der Maelen and Senate President Armand De Decker.

Colleagues, you know the suffering path of that committee. Repeatedly, meetings had to be cancelled due to the limited attention of the commissioners themselves, who now likely will approve the draft proposals without any hesitation. They do not even know what they are talking about.

I finally get right on one point.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you will get right on 99% of your points. That one percent is the most important. Commission President Van der Maelen was even so wise to point out the diminishing importance of the NPC issue. In a newspaper at the time, he openly wondered whether it was not too much concerned with the legitimation of politics and politicians rather than with better governance and quality of society. This is called acidification. However, this term has also disappeared.

The commission-Van der Maelen started with a modest mandate, but with a very broad agenda. There were no less than 21 themes, with a total of no less than 84 concrete points. I have counted them. The issue of direct democracy was addressed. Until now, there is not even an interim report on this subject on the Commission’s website.

Point 3.5 of the agenda of the Van der Maelen committee would be about the asset declaration and the list of mandates. Well, from the report of the introductory discussion of July 2000 we can see that the speakers talked a little about everything and nothing, except what today again turns out to be an essential point. This is a necklace for democracy.

In the ups and downs of the NPC we have arrived today at the implementation and supplementation of the law of 2 May 1995 concerning the obligation to submit a list of mandates as well as an asset statement. From the outset, it was assumed that the ordinary and special law of 2 May 1995 was not enforceable. At that time, Senator Lallemand spoke of principled laws. The original proposal stipulated that the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives would determine the manner in which the declarations are drawn up and controlled. In this regard, however, the State Council issued a negative opinion. “It is not up to the House of Representatives in its Rules of Procedure to impose an obligation on persons who have nothing to do with this meeting. Furthermore, the legislature thus delegates to the House of Representatives an extraordinary power to enforce the law in a matter covered by the protection of private life. It is only up to the legislature to develop such a regulation.” From the beginning, therefore, it was said that the law was not applicable. However, it continues instead of bringing the matter back to the essence.

Others have already emphasized this and I look forward to it. The legislation dates from 1995. That is the era when the NPC hype hit with full force. Just before the dissolution of the House, the people’s representatives then wanted to pass the law. In this way, they wanted to prove to the voters that the political blast was blown up. The voter at the time had a lot of other things in his head. By the way, today it is still so. The evidence of this is the interest of the press in this dossier.

In the meantime, however, ten years have already passed.

In 1996 we had another intermezzo, namely the bills of the gentlemen Tant, Dewael, Eerdekens, Vandenbroucke, Reynders, Lefèvre, Deleuze, Annemans and Van de Casteele. In its opinion on this subject, the State Council pointed out that the Explanatory Memory and the dispositif did not always match. The Board asked in particular whether the Court of Auditors would be able to verify the completeness and correctness of the mandate statement. This probably explains why at the end of the last and preliminary legislature a majority was found to approve these bills.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I accept the challenge. I organized it last time and I also assume that. It is much easier to ensure that there is no quorum than a stupid law that is incomplete, incomplete and incorrect and does not respond to what the population expects to be passed. However, you have not mentioned, Mr. Van der Maelen, that the legislature also voted against it by introducing an amendment that I, the beginner, did not even know that this would postpone the matter to the next legislature. If I dare to say one, I dare to say the other, Mr. Van der Maelen. You will have to appreciate that someone dares to come out of his thoughts. The first time I sat here I did not know that the case, by approving an amendment, could not be approved.

So you didn’t know yet that a law can only become a law if the same text is approved in the House and Senate? Then I wonder what you did here between 1995 and 1999.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I find it fantastic what you say to me. After all, that would mean that Lano has a fantastic power in this Parliament. He can make sure there are not 75 present and he can also make 75 run away. What hypocrisy is that? I would say, they knew in advance what it was about. This was organized in such a way that the case could not continue. I may be one of the pioneers in this matter, but I tell you, the first time I did not know.

Today, therefore, follows a new strain of the “new political culture”. The declaration of mandates and assets aims to make democracy more transparent and provide a means to prevent even the appearance of confusion of interests. The craving for political correctness—to be more holy than the Pope—satisfies a general human need for absurdity and self-harassment.

There are two parts in the bill: the declaration of a list of mandates and the declaration of assets. In principle, I am absolutely not opposed to submitting a list of mandates. I have always done that, Mr. Van der Maelen, if the chamber chairman or my party asked for it. By the way, if you or anyone in the hall wants to know how many mandates I have, consult a single CD-ROM Belfast. There you will also find your own mandates, colleagues.

The administrative burden that this statement will entail is, of course, enormous. In 1995, it was estimated that the legislation would apply to 6,500 people. Now there are already estimates that outweigh the 8,500 reporting obligations, with more than 26,000 mandates in approximately 6,000 structures and agencies. Other estimates even predict 10,000 to 11,000 reporting persons. The Court of Auditors believes that this will require 20 additional staff members. So that is good for employment, but when it already exists on CD-ROM, one should not hire 20 people to whom each must be paid 3 million.

The [...]

That is another matter, colleague.

The [...]

Verhofstadt is who he is and I am who I am. I just want to say my thought here. That is my right. That is all.

(The Applause)

After that, I actually expected applause from the backbenchers. (Applause) In addition, colleagues, the Crosspoint Bank is now actually operational. I heard that this week from the Minister in the Committee on Finance. Imagine that one can apply this immediately to the Cross Point Bank. In fact, there is no need for administration. The problem with the Cross Point Bank, which will be spent millions more, is that there really needs to be written a new program to check whether the stored data is correct and to give people the opportunity to eventually improve that data. Well, this is also going to happen with that statement. Their

The disputes concerning the declaration of mandates and correspondence concerning them will also be overwhelming. For example, the institutions concerned, the so-called institutional information providers, should provide information on existing mandates. The reporting entities may even make mistakes and the Court of Auditors must also point them to this. Additionally, the complainants can appeal. Even third parties can initiate improvement procedures. Thus it becomes continuously, over the years, a very troubled intention that will likely be lifted after an experiment. Their

Mr. Van der Maelen, if that experiment, however costly and administrative loose it may be, eventually lead to the eventual transition, on the basis of correct data from daily practice, to a serious arrangement of political cumulation, with political decumulation as a result, then the work may not have been in vain. Their

It is with that necessary condition in mind that I here clearly say that I am not a principled opponent of the declaration of mandates, offices and professions. However, it can be much simpler. It could be much simpler. The elephant gave birth to a mouse. From common sense and management, one has apparently still not eaten a lot of cheese in this House. It applies to all of us, including myself.

Mr. President, Mr. Lano, you are a regional fellow. You say that the confusion of interests is zero. Am I wrong when I say that ever a Deputy Minister of Home Affairs has flooded you back as mayor in connection with a strike in your company?

I would like to get into that a moment.

You had then, as mayor, recruited the national guard to break a strike in your own company and the Minister of Internal Affairs then imposed a ban on you to act for your own cause as mayor and to recruit the national guard for that.

I will answer you, but you must give me five minutes. (Tumult) I hope that the Minister concerned will once again restore me in honor. That may be my last wish in politics, colleague De Coene. What has happened? On behalf of the Ministry, in consultation with the District Commander, I signed a document and I was so stupid to go to the trade union representative and report that. He called Mia De Vits and Johan Vande Lanotte and ordered by phone to say, "Do not do that." That is the truth. My head off if it’s not true! It was his right, but there were no witnesses. Who leaked it and why? You must ask those questions.

In the commentary to Article 1 of the original bill, a very fundamental thing is said, colleagues. The reporting obligation does not only apply to persons holding a mandate granted by election, but also to persons who, as a result of their function, may at any time be tempted to confuse the public interest with their own interest. In the parliamentary documents of the 1990s, the same justification for the declaration is found. The goal is and remains, and must remain: a greater transparency of democracy, of the place of the mandatarists in the civil society force field and the avoidance of conflict of interests. The ratio legis is therefore clear and not debatable. This is the ratione personae. The long list of "guided" is not limited to those who directly participate in the exercise of public power.

Persons who, in one or another capacity, have the possibility to misuse public money or power are also subject to the reporting obligation. This is a very sensitive point. The initially adopted text targeted 13 categories of persons concerned. Now it is a matter of twenty-four categories, among other things because through the special law the application now applies to the persons at the regional or community level.

We should not really be so interested in who is added to that list—why has that list been expanded from thirteen to twenty-four? We are now especially interested in who escaped the reporting obligation. The most striking category that has been able to choose the haze path from the very beginning is that of the so-called administrators and directors of the economic public corporations, the public-law non-stock companies, the public-law bank holdings and the public credit institutions, plus the directors of the commercial corporations of which the State is the majority shareholder. In the room they were taken out. The Senate has attempted to add them again to that list.

Managers of all public corporations can therefore suddenly no longer be tempted to confuse the public interest with the self-interest or to abuse public money or power.

In its opinion, the State Council also found the removal of the category of managers inappropriate, as there is a discriminatory distinction. Furthermore, the argument that those companies are managed according to the rules of the private sector was wiped out of the card.

According to the Senate report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs — I quote — “Directors of state-owned companies would have resisted the rules and threatened with dismissal.” Proponents of the exemption for managers of state-owned companies use as an argument "that it is very difficult for the government to find good managers and that the asset statement will make the search even more difficult". The debate in the Senate has taken a long time. The advocates of the government managers have taken the nipt with four against three, if I give it right. The committee thus largely relied on the argument of then Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene.

Dear colleagues of the CD&V, I am addressing you. What did Dehaene say in 1996? I quote Dehaene from the committee report: “In order to attract good managers in public companies, candidates should not be subjected to the difficult and unattractive obligation to disclose their capabilities and mandates.”

Colleagues, we need to think about this statement and replace the words "good managers" with "good politicians". Then we re-read the sentence from the Senate Report with the necessary attention. I am going to do it now, as our Jean-Luc would do: "To attract good candidates in politics, we must not subject them to the obligation, which is so difficult and unattractive for them, to show their ability and mandates."

If the House today considers that the introduction of an obligation to declare assets is equivalent to attracting inferior candidates, we can immediately go home! However, these are not my words.

By the way, why should the intended transparency apply only in political decision-making and not, or almost not, in the economic and social world? That was the question asked by then-Senator Stef Goris in the plenary session of June 1998. He was not alone with his question. Also senators of the then Agalev such as Eddy Boutmans and of Ecolo, José Daras, the VU'er Jan Loones and the SP'er Guy Moens asked this question. Even the PS, mon ami Eerdekens, was not happy with it and let this be heard at monde by Robert Hotya

Stef Goris then noted that of the four persons who at the time in Poupehan decided on the fate of Belgium, ⁇ a single present should be subject to the current declaration obligation.

On another occasion — then I will again address the Senate Committee on Institutional Affairs of February 2003 and the plenary session related to that — the senators Hugo Vandenberghe and Mia De Schamphelaere asked why the administrators of the media sector are not subject to the reporting obligation. But yes, "Never touch the fourth power", which is too dangerous.

We can go even further. Together with Senator Guy Moens, we can ask why the military leadership, the magistrates and the chiefs of the police zones are not addressed on this legislation, or the directors of hospital funds and trade unions. They also spend a lot of public money. Together with Senator Charles-Ferdinand Nothomb, we can also wonder why municipal councillors and provincial councillors remain out of shoot. Mr. Nothomb used the same reasoning as Mr. Dehaene. In fact, he feared that even at that level, few people would still candidate if they had to submit to the declaration obligation.

Colleagues, you can think about me whatever you want, but I had to think about it twice in the beginning of my political career in 1976. I support the principles of democracy, but sometimes good intentions can also be abused.

Why are the directors of the autonomous municipal companies and the municipal VZWs at the local level still exempt from the reporting obligation? These managers sometimes work with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of government money. Think about Antwerp or, if you prefer, Luik.

In fact, things are like that. The legislation of 1995 was a « législation de circonstances », dixit Charles-Ferdinand Nothomb. I would not dare to say that.

A pure shock of masochistic political correctness, in which, in the meantime, we have taken ten years to realize its absurdity. But still, apparently, there is no one who actually dares to adjust his voice behavior and realize that one should try to reconcile a little bit of realism with reasonability. We have to go through a curtain of madness.

When approving these drafts, which exclude certain categories from the reporting obligation — I repeat that one can ask why they were excluded — the Chamber actually says to itself that qualified civil servants or candidates will not or will not be subject to that regulation at all. The interaction between politicians and the civil world is now becoming clearly more difficult and I personally think this is not a good thing for the country.

I am finished, Mr. Speaker, but I have five minutes left.

I have been talking to you for a long time, Mr. Lano.

I don’t talk every day, so let me talk now.

If I only let those who do not speak all the days speak for a long time, we will speak here for a long time. Try to round.

I am talking enough. In the next legislature we will hopefully come to a good regulation of the decumulation and then silently but surely forget the rest of the legislation.

Mrs. Minister, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it would now — I weigh my words — be very regrettable and even entirely testifying to a certain falsehood, if one wanted to make of my argument a story as if a solitary liberal industrial here suffers solely and solely from the asset statement.

No, the big problem is that the spirit of the law is a ghost. Of course, the reason for certain exemptions does not escape anyone. In the assises of democracy, however, one suffers or suffers from acute memory loss. I do not share with so much hypocrisy and madness.

A journalist wrote that a parliament that passes laws that it knows in advance that they must be adjusted afterwards through a repair law makes itself ridiculous. The same journalist also said that the asset statement is a symbolic but empty box. It is, by the way, a fable that this new attitude in the public opinion would happen badly. The country has other cats to chew. Even a lot of categories of reporting obligations, including politicians in this hemisphere, say in the backstage that the draft law is not sympathetic. How many have told me that in the coulisses, I don’t have to indicate them all? After all, everyone knows that the average Belgian, politician or not, has absolutely no need to indicate to any authority what he is doing in his life and what the state of his wealth is.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will decide. As soon as the implementing laws appear in the Official Gazette and come into force, I will obey them as a democratically elected Chamber member. You heard it well. However, I wait to see if that will also be the case with the right-wing senators, His Royal Highnesses Prince Philip and Prince Laurent and Her Royal Highness Princess Astrid.

In conclusion, I am certain of the correctness of the obligation relating to the list of mandates and the corresponding remuneration, and of the obligation relating to the estimation of assets in no way. I have also said that loudly in Villa Politica: "more open and more transparent can not be." I have nothing to hide, but I have no intention at all to approve the law as it now presents.

I want to make use of this opportunity — since u mij has allowed a little longer you speak, mijnheer de voorzitter — om my amendment in you trekken. Alzo vergemakkelijk ik de stemming. Mr. Eerdekens, I see that you are listening with one ear. I will read you an excerpt from an article published yesterday in a French-speaking newspaper: "Mode, and not only editorial fashion, is to public confession. It is impossible today to ignore the sentimental life or sexual prowess of such an actor, such a sportsman, such a writer, such a singer or such a politician. The stars thus exhibit the insignificant extravagance of their hugs and emotions. There is pathetic in this overexposure. Not modern but archaic thought applauds this desire for transparency. She sees there a mark of courage when it is only the escape of self. Man is always more than he can show or put on paper. Per ⁇ we should question this desire of a part of our contemporaries.”

I continue: “Have you noticed that while transparency characterizes the individual, opacity continues to thrive in our institutions? Did you notice that the more we are informed about privacy, the more we struggle to obtain reliable information about public life? The Incas imposed the permanent opening of doors and windows to the people so that the spies of power could at any time watch and hear what was happening in the houses. At the same time, their priests and caciques were developing a writing system that we are still struggling to decipher.”

This is what will happen with this law.