Proposition 51K0722

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne la dotation allouée au Conseil supérieur de la Justice.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Jan. 22, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget judicial power national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Ecolo

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 ¶

Feb. 24, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, as you know, I am committed to fulfilling my duty as a rapporteur for this hemisphere, even if there is no large appearance of colleagues, I assume that this is merely coincidence, and even if this speaker is not very accessible. I assume that after our recent evaluation, we will also work on this. Their

I will spare those present the technical and legal aspects that preceded the adoption of these proposals. Indeed, the report distributed by the services of the Chamber on this subject perfectly reflects the problems that have arisen with the proposals initiated by colleague Lano. Their

However, it is important to note that the proposed legislation aims to establish by law a common basis for the control and approval by the House of Representatives of the detailed budgets and accounts of a series of institutions that you have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker. It concerns, on the one hand, the Court of Auditors, the Nomination Committee for the Notariat, the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Police and Intelligence Services and the Federal Ombudsmen and, on the other hand, through a separate bill for the High Council of Justice and through a proposal for a special law for the Arbitration Court.

Finally, by amendment, that arrangement is also declared to apply to the Committee on the Protection of the Privacy, for which the appropriations have also been included in the budget of the appropriations since 2004. The total amount of the appropriations entered in the general expenditure budget for the eight aforementioned institutions amounts to EUR 88 million. Together, these institutions have 800 officials. According to the applicant, there would still be savings on that amount. In order to enable adequate control by the Accounting Committee of the use of those appropriations, it would be desirable that those eight institutions use the same detailed schemes for the presentation of their budgets and accounts. They may, where appropriate, use the schemes already used by the Court of Auditors for its budget and accounts. During the general discussion, references were made to the discussions held on this subject already during the previous parliamentary period in the Committee on Accounting. The various political groups supported the proposals, ⁇ after the applicant provided the necessary explanations.

In the article-by-article discussion, it should be noted that the various articles, whether or not amended and technically corrected, were all adopted unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, when considering these proposals, the tasks of, for example, the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Police Services, the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Intelligence and Security Services, the Ombudsmen and the appointment committees of the Notariat are of a completely different order than the tasks of the Arbitration Court. The Parliament is also in a different relationship to such committees and institutions than to the Court of Arbitration, which holds an independent and autonomous position. Therefore, it may not be really lucky to shave all those settings over the same chest and treat them in the same way.

I think it would be useful to examine those initiatives in accordance with the specific mandates of the individual institutions and to organize an appropriate audit. At this stage of the discussions, however, we will not discuss this now. However, I would like to inform you that it seems necessary that the Second Chamber, from this perspective, should review the draft special law relating to the Arbitration Court and the allocation to that court. I understand that in the current state of the procedure we can no longer do this again in substance in the plenary session, but I would like to point out the problem that arises here and that in the Second Chamber it will undoubtedly have to be the subject of discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs. Roppe. She said she was going to make a duty-fitting report. I will ⁇ not fall into repetition.

I would like to remind the colleagues of the House that it has been a long path of suffering and the situation is very current, but look at what is happening at the College of Federal Ombudsmen. Therefore, it is not too early to approve the proposal. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the letter of the late first chairman of the Court of Auditors, Mr. Dumazy, to you, on the transparency of the audit.

I would like to reiterate that this is about eight autonomous institutions, whose control over the budgets depends on the House — not more than that — and whose appropriations have been allocated to the national budget. This is about it. Well, in that letter he repeats what it is about, isn’t it?

These include the transmission of the accounts, the previous audit report, the budget, the budget execution, the relationship with the awarded allocation, the budget result, the accounts, the overview of the evolution of revenue and expenditure, the examination of the accounting organization, the comments on the manner of accounting and internal control.

Every bird sings a little like it is baked, isn’t it? Mr. Van Parys and colleagues, I put that package there for you on the chair of the chairman. All the documents together account for approximately 2,000 pages, documents that the Accounting Committee must examine each year. I can assure you that this is difficult to do. Without the services of the House, we are not able to do that, although it should be the task — including of the members of Parliament — to look into it. There are no two similar documents. At some point it must be synthesized. I think the reporter correctly noted that it is actually about the same schemes and not more than that.

What do we do, colleague Van Parys? I don’t even understand the Arbitration Court’s response. I understand the susceptibility, but some existing practices will be formalized. These institutions are no longer required. They are simply asked to adjust to the same scheme.

It is a legal confirmation of what should happen. I can understand that you say that the Arbitration Court is not happy and that we should not shave everyone on the same chest, but colleague Van Parys, I just want to tell you that it is not about shaving. They do not want to shave anyone, they want to preserve the autonomy of those institutions. However, we want those institutions to place themselves in a certain context, which is good for everyone and promotes transparency. Therefore, I thank you and I thank the House for unanimously approving the proposal, both in the Committee on Accounting in 2002 and in the Committee on Finance.

April 24, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The draft law was unanimously adopted with the original text by two votes. Nevertheless, the Senate considered it necessary to amend provisions relating to the High Council for Justice and the Arbitration Court.

After that, colleague Pierre Lano submitted four counter-amendments to restore the original text, which was unanimously approved here.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. de Donnea, was also not present for the Senate amendment, initiated by lobbying, and stated that each institution must accept that its accounts are subject to control, even if it was only ex post.

Collega Van Biesen referred during the discussion to the accountability of counter-amendments by colleague Lano, which pointed out that some amendments by the Senate could lead to a disregard of the constitutional role of the Chamber as a budgetary authority.

Each article of the draft law and every amendment of colleague Lano were adopted with 12 votes against 1 abstinence. The entire general amended bill was therefore adopted with 12 votes in favor and 1 abstinence. With this, this decision of the Chamber was restored and we hope to do so again in the plenary session soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I do not want to fall into repetition, but today I listened attentively to Mrs. Sabine de Bethune on the radio. She said that the Senate’s program becomes inhumane, that there is blatant legistic work, that in addition everything with the karwats is hunted through it. This may be true, but this is traditionally the case at the end of a legislature.

I wish I had had Mrs. de Bethune also seen other matters and had been more complete. For example, when the Senate has the time, it also takes the time and takes three years to treat a bill that was approved quasi unanimously by the Chamber, thirsty and treacherously.

I repeat what the rapporteur said. It took three years. This happened with an intention. In fact, the proposal is nothing more than bringing transparency into the accounts and budgets of the major institutions that depend on Parliament and having them audited. The Senate does not seem to want to see this. I will not use the word "sabotage", but the Senate ⁇ holds a different view on the matter.

After three years, the Senate managed to send the draft back to the House a week before the end of the legislature, probably in the hope that the House would no longer deal with it. He even managed to submit amendments to the relevant legislation concerning the Arbitration Court less than a week before the end of the legislature, last Friday.

I will not repeat what Mr. De Donnea said. However, I can come to the conclusion that, by itself, the Arbitration Court is not worthy of the name “Constitutional Court”. In fact, I do not understand why these gentlemen could put themselves above the law or above the Parliament’s budget control. After all, that is what it is actually about.

That allows me, Mr. Speaker, to decide, after my brief introduction, on probably my last intervention in Parliament. I was given the opportunity to return to my stake horse, especially an effective government.

I have not yet been able to pass through the electoral propaganda of all political parties. However, I note that none of the parties speaks about the effectiveness of public policy and the necessary savings required. It is about responsibility. I think the core tasks of the government can be done much more efficiently and with less resources.

I must admit that no government has succeeded in reducing the costs of the administration of this country. I regret that because I find that the government gives quite a lot of lessons to the citizens of this country and to the private sector, but does not always give the example. This was a small bill that was a beginning of example, and one has managed to stop this by lack of vision and respect. I am happy that this is a small contribution to my parliamentary life.