Proposition 51K1139

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 18, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure housing air transport judicial power subsidised housing

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo FN VB

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 ¶

June 9, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as colleague Tant just said, we would like to raise our reservation on the arrangement of the work. I see that the ministers Vande Lanotte and Onkelinx are present during the discussion. You know, we asked the Prime Minister. This morning there was an agreement and he had made a proposal because he was said to have been prevented from this discussion. We consider that there is an unfair jump in the treatment of the amendment of colleague Van Parys and I ask you to examine the possibility of allowing the Prime Minister to be present during the discussion of this first point of the program law.

I will ask where he is. I don’t know where the prime minister is. I can’t do magic.

Checking is not enough.

There are two Deputy Prime Ministers present.

We are talking about the Prime Minister. If the presence of a Minister is requested, it is about that Minister.

You also know that I can proceed to reporting. Let’s see who is ready for reporting.

The rapporteurs are Turtelboom, Galant, Roppe and Dierickx and Marinower and Lenssen. Mrs Turtelboom and Mr Lenssen refer to the written report. I suspect that the other rapporteurs will read their report. I will take the line off for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, there is an incredible fatigue among the rapporteurs. Therefore, I would like to launch a constructive proposal. Let’s start in the morning with the discussion of the program law.

Mr De Crem, the agenda was approved.

Mrs. Roppe, do you bring your report or not?

Ms. Roppe can report to both rapporteurs.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is of course a great honour and a pleasure to be able to report on a part of our work, and that in this ever warmer electoral period. My purely business approach will be in sharp contrast to the emotional debates we have experienced here this afternoon, which are probably not completely alien to that warmth.

The Committee on Finance and Budget discussed Articles 1 to 34 of the draft program law and Articles 4 and 5 of the draft law containing various provisions during its meeting of 25 May 2004. During the discussion of the program law, an article-by-article discussion was immediately transitioned, as the draft proposed amendments to various legislation. The law of 22 October 1997 on the taxation of energy products and electricity, the law of 10 June 1997 on the general regime for excise products and the law of 3 April 1997 on the tax system for manufactured tobacco were in question. Furthermore, a dozen other legislative amendments were necessary, of which I save the listing to this honored and busy assembly, and for which I refer to the preceding texts.

Several questions for explanation were read by Ms. Van der Auwera and the Minister responded motivated. In certain cases, such as the change of excise products, the Minister promised to instruct his administration to spread clear and clear guidelines. When discussing the excise duties on cigarettes, he emphasized the need to cooperate with the other European Member States. It was also noted in the committee that certain legislation apparently required several amendments in a short time, which led the minister to decide that some amendments were indeed necessary due to technical errors that had fallen into earlier legislation.

There was also attention to the adjustment of the definitions of the zones for positive metropolitan policy. The Minister emphasized the importance of carefully defining criteria to clearly define the zones to be aided.

Several articles were unanimously approved while in the vote on most other articles 9 votes for and 3 against could be noted. Article 34 was initially submitted with 6 amendments, all of which were approved by 9 votes for and 3 against. The part of the program law that was submitted to our committee was also adopted by 9 votes for and 3 votes against.

We could note the same vote for the bill containing various provisions. Here two articles were submitted that caused little or no comments.

At the meeting of the committee on 3 June 2004, we discussed amendment no. 7 submitted by the Government, to add a chapter 12 in Title 2 of the draft program law. This chapter was titled Interpretation of the Application of Article 2244 of the Civil Code. This amendment was transmitted in plenary session to our committee where it was immediately — the same day — considered.

The Minister made clear that the submission of this amendment should be regarded as a measure necessary to counter the obsolescence of the procedure for the collection of the tax. Colleague Van der Maelen had asked for this extra attention. Colleague Viseur had, by the way, submitted a bill on this subject. A request to submit this amendment to the State Council for opinion was rejected by the committee with 10 votes against, 5 votes for and 1 abstinence.

The discussion of the amendment led to an engaging legal discussion with quotes from the most reputable professors de Leval and Uyttendaele, who have curved on this subject. In the comprehensive report you will find a very good overview of this. The intention of the government was supported by all committee members, in particular to avoid the prescription occurring in certain tax files.

Much attention was asked to be paid to the necessary legal certainty which, according to the Minister, the provisions in question cannot be fully guaranteed from a legal point of view, but which, however, seeks the best possible solution, in particular through an interpretative law. The Minister stressed that this solution was, by the way, suggested by the State Council itself. The Vice-President submitted an amendment no. 8 in which was rejected with 11 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Finally, the Government amendment interpreting the application of Article 2244 of the Civil Code was approved by 11 votes against 1 vote and 4 abstentions.

Thank you for your unwavering attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I am reporting on behalf of the Committee on Public Health, Environment and Social Renewal on the draft program law, articles 83 to 90, 93 to 95 and 170 to 210.

The Minister notes that the provisions of the Program Act relating to social integration pursue various objectives, in particular the simplification of the categories of entitled persons to a living wage, the easing of the obligation to recover social assistance in rest homes and the clarification of the rules of jurisdiction on social assistance for illegal persons.

For the article-by-article discussion, I refer to my written report.

In the chapter on Public Health, Minister Demotte clarified that Article 170 of the Program Act authorises the King to establish a list of operations which, under certain conditions, relate to the performance of daily life and which do not belong to the exercise of a health profession.

I also refer here for the article-by-article discussion to my written report. All the provisions transmitted to the committee were adopted by 9 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

I have checked where Mr. Marinower is and I have received the message that he is coming.

I don’t see Madame Galant either. It is relatively annoying, not to say anything else, that the rapporteurs are absent at the time, announced well in advance, of the discussion of an important bill such as that of the law-program.

Mr. Speaker, except for a mistake of mine, I think we should hear another rapporteur, in particular Mr. Van Campenhout. He is not listed on the agenda, but in the Infrastructure Committee we have appointed Mr Van Campenhout as the rapporteur for the provisions relating to the Infrastructure Committee. One is always there in our committee like the chickens to designate someone from the majority, or at least someone from another party and ⁇ not a Flemish Blocker. I would like Mr. Van Campenhout to present his report as well.

To my surprise, Mr. Van Campenhout is not on my list, but you are right. The report 1138/

by Mr. Van Campenhout, however, is not on the list of speakers, but Mr. Mortelmans is right. This is the 1138/20 report.

Mr. Speaker, I would suspend the session and continue tomorrow. This is really not the case, and it is not the result of evil will or obstruction by the opposition.

Mr. De Crem, I have to give the opposition a little right, because I do not find it normal. There are seven journalists. I received a report from Mrs. Roppe, ...

and a report.

Reporters decide what they do. I have a reference to a report, with note, by Mrs Annemie Turtelboom. Mr. Georges Lenssen ...

Mr. Borginon, maybe the Justice Committee can meet? I suspended the meeting for half an hour.

Mrs. Turtelboom was also here. Since she intended to refer to her written report, she is no longer present but during the afternoon she was in the hall. That for all clarity.

The least I can do is suspend the meeting. Mr. Marinower will be here later for the report. I’ll see if I can reach Mr. Van Campenhout yet, but if that’s not the case, it can’t.

Mr. Prime Minister, this is not your fault. You are on time.

The Minister does not listen, the reporter is not there.

Mr. Van Parys, if Mr. Marinower is not here at 18.15 – I have to close the afternoon meeting first – I move everything to tomorrow.

I will suspend the session for half an hour. by Mr. Marinower will then have to be present in the district to present the report, and I will also try to contact Mr. by Van Campenhout. There is nothing to blame the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose that you use your prerogative and say: the meeting will be resumed tomorrow at 14.15.

I will close the afternoon meeting and open the evening meeting at 18.15. If the reporter is not there, then I move everything to tomorrow.

I now close the afternoon session. The evening session will begin at 18.15. If Mr. Marinower is still not there at that time, I will postpone the discussion to tomorrow.

We have experienced something today. First, hardworking members of parliament such as colleague Bogaert and colleague Devlies, because they did their work, were grounded and politically humiliated. Reporters were not there and no reports were issued. We kept the arrangements made at the Conference of Presidents, after which a minister — who was apologized, and we accept his apologies — arrived three-quarters hours late. We have arranged our work so that colleague Van Parys can speak in the general discussion. But there is no one present.

June 9, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I apologize for coming too late outside of my will, especially with regard to the members of the CD&V group who want to speak on this topic.

I will explain the report of the Justice Committee on the draft program law.

Chapter 3 of Title V of the draft is a part that was removed from the draft and was housed in the draft law containing various provisions. The committee has debated this. The problem was solved quite quickly.

In the draft law on programmes relating to justice, a modification of the law of 27 June 1921 relating to non-profit associations, international non-profit associations and foundations was first examined. Following the usual explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, it was emphasized that the supplement introduced is aimed at applying to the major VZWs, foundations and those VZWs that are subsequently subject to a principle of the audit of the accounts a scheme attached to that of the companies so that the audit of the accounts — unless the association or foundation makes a different choice in this regard — will be carried out by a commissioner who is a member of the Institute Der Betriebsrevisoren.

However, some provisions of the Company Code do not apply to associations and foundations. This is the case, among other things, for paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 134 of the Company Code relating to the obligation to indicate the individual activities or special assignments performed by the Commissioner. By analogy, Article 138 of the same Code, which provides for a warning procedure in the event that companies face a risk or a lack of continuity, should also not be applied. There is no reference to Articles 170 and 171 of the Company Code as regards the punishment provisions. It was decided not to provide for any specific criminal liability.

As regards this point, it may be decided that the amendments made are of a purely technical nature and aim to complete the work on the accounting of large associations and foundations that the legislature began in 2002 with the approval of the law in March 2002.

Mr. Verherstraeten has made the members of the committee aware of the path that the new VZW law has already taken since its creation. He recalled the discussions that took place during the previous legislature, including the signature by the King of the renewed VZW law on 2 May 2002, the publication of the Royal Decree on 6 June 2003 which would enter into force on 1 January 2004, but which gave existing VZWs until January 2005 time to adapt. Mr. Verherstraeten was of the opinion that small associations are subjected to too heavy accounting burdens.

Speaker Verherstraeten reminds that the regulations for commercial companies are imposed on the associations, up to the deposit of documents on the register of the Commercial Court of Commerce, while the companies in the reform of the corporate law were given five years to adapt. After February 2004, he recalled that this was extended by Parliament for another eighteen months, while the VZWs had to adjust within the year. Mr. Verherstraeten therefore insisted on the extension of the transitional period, otherwise the flourishing association life would be brought a dolkeek. Their

A small grasp from the complaints of the VZWs brought by speaker Verherstraeten. One, the fact that the VZWs now had to go to the griffies of the Commercial Court instead of the Court of First Instance, where a lot of documents — he said — had to be supplemented in the association file at the court. He argued that the staff concerned was not supplemented and received no additional training, which, in his opinion, resulted in the return of the persons who had taken freedom to arrange the documents of their association because of the use of an incorrect form. Their

A second type of complaint brought by Mr. Verstraeten concerned the fact that the legislature, which already provided that VZWs should keep an accounting equivalent to that of the VZW Act, permits their accounting to continue to be kept in accordance with the subsidy regulations and they are not obliged to follow the scheme imposed by the King. Their

A third complaint about which speaker Verherstraeten had it, concerned the new law which results in associations to change their statutes, where the modification of the statutes is a difficult procedure for such an association. Normally, it is about the essence itself, and associations would now be obliged to include less essential matters in the statutes. Their

Finally, Mr Verherstraeten advocates for a more customer-friendly approach to the association life, in which separate locks for VZWs should be established in the offices of the courts of commerce and in which VZWs should be given a longer transitional period in order to adapt to the new legislation and to avoid repeated changes to the statutes. Their

Mr Wathelet joined the comments of Mr Verherstraeten on the too short transition period for small associations. Collega Massin was surprised that the small amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice to the VZW Act would be applied to question the entry into force provisions of the law of 2 May. Mr Massin recalled that he had not been given any evidence that the entry into force provisions would put the associations in the face of insurmountable problems. He also noted that this law dates back to 2002. He recalled, by the way, that from the statistics compiled at the Court of First Instance, it appeared that it should not be forgotten that many small associations still still do not appear to meet the legal requirements provided for in the Basic Law of 27 June 1921. Their

The Minister of Justice noted that the new VZW legislation for the small associations ⁇ poses a problem. She emphasized that from, among other things, the FOD Justice, the necessary measures were taken to inform the small associations as much as possible about the practical consequences and novelty of the law and in which the efforts, she assured, in all respects would be continued.

They recalled that certain modalities of this regulation would be revised through ministerial implementing decisions. For the larger associations, it is noted that the greater transparency and control that the law of 2 May 2002 intended would benefit everyone.

Mr Verherstraeten pointed out, with regard to Article 66bis (new), that, in his view, there was no correspondence between the VZW Act and the regional decrees. He clarified this and submitted an amendment. The Minister replied that the State Council has always been of the opinion that regional authorities can deviate from the general rules in order to allow the regional efforts of public benefit to pursue the objectives imposed by the region. Following the Minister’s response, Mr Verherstraeten noted that those decrees are older than the law of 2 May 2002 which, according to him, contradicted them. He asked whether that principle still applies, in which he was assured by the chairman of the committee that this was the case, since the decreee had exercised his own powers and the federal government has no power to return to that decision which regulates a regional matter. This was also called by the Minister, on which Mr Verherstraeten introduced his amendment.

No comments were made on the following articles.

Mr. Verherstraeten submitted an amendment to introduce a new article 71bis in which he referred to a major anomaly that he believed would exist in the new law on VZWs and which was in the fact that the association itself had to judge whether its accounting is eligible for the exception provided for in paragraph 4. Mr. Verherstraeten reminded that everyone apparently agrees that it would be nonsense that, for example, schools or hospitals, which must follow accounting rules prescribed by the government in the framework of this law, would be confronted with other accounting rules. Mr Verherstraeten recalled that the legislator would have failed to create legal certainty. According to him, the term "at least be equivalent" was nowhere further defined. Mr Verherstraeten argued that, if a government imposes a accounting plan in the context of a betoelaging, that accounting plan should then be of such quality that it should be considered equivalent to what is stipulated in the VZW Act. He wanted to create legal certainty for a large group of VZW with his amendment. The Minister replied that he could not support this amendment. The amendment was rejected.

Furthermore, Mr Verherstraeten submitted an amendment to incorporate an article 71ter in order to avoid that any change of address would give rise to a change of statute and that, given the scope of the other obligations assigned to the VZWs, the aforementioned requirement would have no added value. The Minister concluded that a change of address is a substantial change which therefore requires a change of the statute and in which it is an obligation that benefits the legal certainty. The amendment of Mr Verherstraeten was subsequently rejected.

In Article 71c, Mr Verherstraeten made an observation. The Minister noted that the discussion on this subject was held during the discussion of the law of 2 May 2002. The Minister did not consider it necessary to return to this. Mr. Verherstraeten feared that the door would be opened for phony foundations that would develop financial activities under the guise of social goals. This amendment was also rejected by the vote.

To article 71quinquies, Mr. Verherstraeten submitted an amendment together with Mr. Wathelet to add a new article 71quinquies, judging that the transitional period permitted by the King for existing VZWs should be considered too short. He considered it appropriate to provide for a longer transitional period — at least three years — in order to allow the VZWs to adapt to the new obligations.

He was prepared to amend his amendment in order to distinguish between large and small VZWs as regards the transition period and to propose an extension of the transition period only for the latter.

The Minister of Justice referred to the introduction of this chapter and pointed out that such a change would disrupt the overall effort in the field of information dissemination and would create legal uncertainty. She stressed that the efforts are continuing to ensure that the officers are informed by sending letters. The amendment was rejected.

Chapter III relating to the amendment of the Act of 9 November 2001 establishing a temporary staffing of councillors in order to remove the judicial lag in the courts of appeal was housed in the bill containing several provisions.

With regard to the amendment of the Act of 24 February 2001 on the trade in toxins and sleeping substances, it was intended to re-clarify the investigative powers of the Food Safety Agency and the judicial police officer in this area, since the powers have been extended exceedingly by the Program Law of 31 December 2003 and the Law of 12 April 2004, including the authority of the judicial police officer to enter and inspect all places at night without prior permission from the police court.

Mr Maingain pointed out that the times and places at which judicial police officers, on the one hand, and designated officials, on the other, could enter are not the same. Mr. Maingain proposed to uniformize them. The Minister replied that a judicial police officer may naturally be accompanied in the context of a judicial investigation by a person acting as an expert. Speaker Borginon pointed out that the problem cited by colleague Maingain was mainly due to the fact that the new article did not take over exactly the text of the original article, so that article concerns other powers.

The proposed article 6bis concerned the powers of the officer of the judicial police, article 7 overtook those of officials of Customs and Accises and the designated staff members of the federal public service Public Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment.

The Minister noted that the legal doctrine provided sufficient clarity on this. The powers of house search assigned to judicial police officers by the Act of 1921, are regarded as an exception to the general principle that house search can only be done if an investigation judge has issued a house search order for that purpose. The Minister did not consider it appropriate to include this power in the proposed Article 6bis. According to her, it would only give rise to confusion. On the other hand, it would be appropriate to remove the words "and search", provided that the preparatory works expressly state that the authority to enter or visit a place implies that the place may be examined.

Mr Maingain submitted additional observations on this subject, after which the amendment was eventually adopted and the article was therefore amended.

Article 74 specifies the powers of the members of the FOD Public Health. When an offence is established, the common criminal procedure law should be applied. Therefore, it is specified in that Article that persons shall have access from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. to places intended for sale, delivery, manufacture, preparation, storage and storage and to all other places subject to their control. Outside these hours, admission will have to be requested and required from the President of the Court of First Instance.

Mr Maingain submitted an amendment replacing the word “enter” with the word “visit”. The amendment was adopted.

In the various provisions discussed, Article 298 was intended to amend the Act of 20 December 2001 concerning the compensation of members of the Jewish Community of Belgium for their property that was looted or left behind during the war of 1940-1945.

The Minister noted that the law of 20 December 2001 provides for the possibility of transferring to a public utility foundation an advance on the balance of the special account referred to in Article 10, in particular the balance of the amounts refunded by the State after the financial contributions for the individual compensation. Since the public utility foundation will be established only in the course of the year 2004, the proposed provision provides for the extension of the period within which an advance on the balance can be deposited, either not later than 31 December 2004. The Minister recalled that the tasks of the foundation are of a social, cultural and religious nature and also respond to the needs of the Jewish Community of Belgium. The missions could also be extended to the fight against racism, intolerance and human rights violations.

The article was unchanged and unanimously adopted.

Article 299 was intended to conduct a scientific investigation into the persecution and deportation of Jews in Belgium during World War II.

The Minister clarified that Article 3 of the Act of 8 May 2003 is amended in order to give the Study and Documentation Centre War and Contemporary Society more time for the preparation of the report of the scientific research.

This article was also unchanged and unanimously adopted.

I come to the bill containing several provisions. In the first place, there is Article 259ter of the Judicial Code, which stipulates that from now on, the interview of the High Council for Justice with a candidate is the subject of a sound recording which is kept together with the presentation file by the High Council for Justice. The Supreme Council will therefore no longer be obliged to draw up a detailed minutes, as the provision that came into force on 2 June still requires. At the request of the High Council for Justice, it was decided to abandon this systematic formatting. However, in order to safeguard the candidate’s rights, this article provides that the recorded interview will be written out when the candidate submits an objection to the Council of State against the appointment for which he proposed to be a candidate. The interview with the candidate who will be appointed to the respective position is also written out. The minutes are notified by the Minister of Justice to the Council of State. The amendment aims to maintain a high level of flexibility while at the same time guaranteeing the fundamental rights of everyone. This article was also unchanged and unanimously adopted.

Then there is the amendment of the law of 29 November 2001 establishing a temporary staff formation of councillors in order to eliminate the judicial lag in the courts of appeal. The Minister has noted that this aims to amend the law to establish a temporary staff formation of councillors in order to remove the judicial downturn. This legal framework was established by the courts of appeal for a period of three years. The deadline shall enter into force on the date of entry into force. It was therefore necessary to extend and double the three-year term in order to retain the 14 councillors in the courts of appeal. To my question on what stage the workload measurements are now at, the Minister replied that its predecessor had already begun the work around the measurement of the workload with regard to the parket, that this work is continuing and that on the methodology regarding the measurement of the workload of the standing magistrates there is now an agreement with the various actors, including working with an external audit. With regard to the sitting magistrates, the measurement of the workload, taking into account the particulars — such as, for example, the absence of a hierarchical structure and the homework — is not sinecure. The presidents of the courts of the courts of appeal then carried out a workload measurement themselves. The discussion of whether this study is based on quantitative data or primarily takes into account quality is still ongoing. A similar agreement, as exists with the standing magistrates, does not exist for the sitting magistrates yet, but according to the minister, there is a lot of work on it. This article was adopted with 13 votes and 1 abstinence.

Chapter 4 aims to amend the laws of 3 April 1953 and 29 November 2001 establishing a temporary staffing of councillors in order to remove the judicial downturn and supplementing Article 156ter. An amendment was submitted by colleague Verherstraeten, which sought to remind the minister of her promise made during the discussion of the law of 11 March 2004 amending the law of 3 April 1953 and temporarily allowing the appointment of magistrates in overtal, in particular that she would make an effort before the end of March 2004 for the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. Collega Verherstraeten recalled that although on 15 March 2004 the Minister concluded a cooperation protocol with the first chairman of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp in order to extend the scope of this court, the protocol has not yet been put into a legal framework.

Mr Verherstraeten considered that, given the fact that the Court of Appeal of Antwerp had requested an extension of nineteen magistrates, and as the appeal procedures take the necessary time, it was almost necessary, hence his proposal to include this in the Program Law. The Deputy Prime Minister of Justice replied that there should be no progress in the file and step by step work should be done. She said that the discussion on the situation in Brussels, Antwerp and Dendermonde is in a final stage. The Minister hopes to submit a draft law on this subject soon and will ask for this high urgency. This issue will then be on the agenda of the next Council of Ministers, after which the Minister will address the other problematic judicial districts. Mr. Verherstraeten fears that it will all take too long and urges to address the matter immediately. This amendment was rejected by 11 votes against, 2 votes for and 1 abstinence.

The second amendment of Mr Verherstraeten, which aimed at extending the framework of councillors of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp to six units, was also rejected. Their

The third amendment of Mr Verherstraeten, which aimed to increase the temporary staff of councillors by six units, was also rejected. The fourth amendment of Mr Verherstraeten, aimed at the introduction of Article 10, was also rejected, as was the fifth amendment. The latter aimed, in parallel with the expansion of the framework of the magistrates, to increase the number of referents and to take into account the temporary staffing of councillors, established by the Act of 29 November 2001, in order to calculate the number of magistrates on the basis of which the number of referents is determined.

A final amendment by Mr. Verherstraeten aimed to introduce a new Article 12, stating that the results of the workload are expected only by 2008 and that this amendment provided for a transitional provision so that the appointment would be valid for a period of four years. This amendment was also rejected with 11 votes against, 2 votes for and 1 abstinence. Their

All the provisions submitted to the committee as they were technically improved were adopted by 11 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Marinower for the extensive report. At the committee meeting of 2 June 2004, we discussed Articles 35 to 45, 48 to 52, 62, 63, 281 to 297 of various draft laws and Articles 2 and 3 of the draft program law.

Article 35 relates to the transfer of public servants. Mr. De Crem, that is important. Mr Van Parys knows that both the cities of Gent and Antwerp would like to use some extra staff because that is scarce, because the resources are scarce and because the budgets of those municipalities are under pressure. Applying for additional staff is always welcome.

Now, Deputy Prime Minister Johan Vande Lanotte states that that provision allows the definitive transfer of employees from the autonomous public companies to municipal public services. More specifically, 195 employees of Belgacom are deployed around the electronic identity card — an important project of this government — and in call centers. This is, of course, a crucial measure to support the municipalities and in particular the big cities in this important operation.

Ms. Dieu of the PS asked about the relations between the staff member and the public service. She asked more specifically how it is with the authority, management and supervision of those employees of Belgacom who are transferred to the municipalities.

Mr Van Campenhout — I myself, therefore — asked whether that dispatch was only restrictive for those projects. In fact, I must honestly admit that in government companies such as Belgacom and De Post there are quite a few staff members in overtal as it is called. This is interesting for the electronic identity card and the call centers. But it might also be interesting to have, for example, engineers from Belgacom prepare boxes for the construction of public domains. It was a dream from the big cities. The Minister responded that the deployment is currently implemented only in two projects. Delegation for other projects may be possible in the future.

After the transfer, the new employee belongs to his new public service where he is placed under the municipal government in terms of authority, direction and supervision.

The important Article 36 relating to commissionary auditors of public companies, creates the possibility to appoint commissionary auditors for a term that is shorter than 6 years. This is interesting because also commissionary auditors are sufficiently disputable. If the appointment period is not too long, they cannot settle too much in that position and the market can be consulted within a period of 6 years.

Article 37 deals with the legal restrictions of neighborhood. It is important that they no longer apply to the landings of public roads and railways because it is not always physically possible to comply with the legal provisions on light and visibility relating to railway infrastructure. This is important because there is a lot of additional railway infrastructure being built.

For Articles 38 to 40, I can refer to the Explanatory Memorandum. There was a very positive response. Mr Dieu was very pleased that the staff of the NMBS could be made available to subsidiaries. Even Mr. Ansoms did not find it all so bad. He only found that the NMBS was reformed too often in four years. Collega De Padt regretted that the strategic committee of the NMBS has not yet been formed. He regretted it rightly. It was a good decision to set up a strategic committee. Two trade unions have refused to nominate representatives in that committee. Colleague Schalck, present here, rejoiced over the fact that the NMBSh Reform, which was not evident, was carried out in a climate — I quote colleague Schalck — of absolute social tranquility.

There was also a request from colleague De Padt to set up the strategic committee as soon as the royal decrees are issued. I think it is an important request from the VLD group that the strategic committee of the NMBS actually become operational.

It is also important that the Minister said that the NMBS bears the consequences of the decisions made in the 1990s, in particular regarding ABX. I could initiate a debate, colleagues, about ABX, but I will not do so because undoubtedly we will continue to conduct exciting debates on this in the Infrastructure Committee.

Articles 41 to 45 relate to railway infrastructure. The Minister is convinced that these articles will be able to pass the review of the directive. Mr Ansoms had some questions regarding that review, but we have full confidence in it.

Article 48, concerning the Post, creates the possibility of granting a state guarantee to the commitments of the Post. That is very important. As you know, a state guarantee leads to a better interest rate, which is very important, among other things, for the profitability of the Post.

For Articles 49 and 50 relating to Belgacom, I can refer to the explanatory note. These articles include primarily a conservation measure. It is about the transfer of the pension fund of Belgacom to the government. This, of course, should not affect the pension rights and the pension amounts owed.

Articles 51 and 52 relating to BIAC regulate two matters: the royal decree of 27 May 2004 is ratified and new agreements with the shareholders concerning the composition of the board of directors are established. It is important that one thing is corrected. Ms Dieu regretted that BIAC was being converted into a non-commercial company and she had some concerns about the Zaventem airport as Belgium’s first economic engine. Please allow me to make a small correction. The first economic engine of Belgium is of course not Zaventem, but the port of Antwerp. I think it is important that this small economic misconception be corrected in the report of the plenary session. The Minister confirmed that Zaventem Airport remains Belgium’s most important window in the world. I, of course, absolutely agree that it is an interesting and beautiful window to the world, but the economic engine is of course the port of Antwerp. Mr. Speaker, this is corrected.

Do you already give a personal presentation or are you still a rapporteur?

This is purely reporting. I have little to say about Articles 62 and 63, as those articles did not give rise to debate in the committee. There are a few more articles. Articles 281 to 297 relate to public procurement. It states that the Post is included in the special sectors. I think it is important to mention this here.

Subsequently, Article 2.3 in connection with BIAC was discussed, after which the voting took place. Some amendments were unanimously accepted, but the whole of the articles as amended, was adopted with 11 votes for and 3 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there are at least as many ministers present to listen to my report as members of the opposition, although I will not speak as long as my two predecessors.

I will report on the discussion of the draft program law, which took place in the Committee on Social Affairs on 25 and 26 May and where four ministers were received, namely Minister Arena, Minister Demotte, Minister Simonis and Minister Vandenbroucke.

From Minister Arena there were only two articles in this program law, both of which were adopted unanimously.

Minister Demotte’s chapter, which, in his capacity as Minister of Social Affairs, obviously took up a very important chapter on social security, was based on seven subjects, namely the public institutions of social security, the statistical contracts of the public institutions of social security — which caused a lot of comments during the discussion — the social secretaries, the statute of the artists, the intersection, the amount of the alternative financing which was specifically provided for 2004 and the gap of overseas social security. Their

A second chapter dealt with compulsory medical insurance and benefits, addressing a number of aspects, including the adoption of medical oxygen and the introduction of more objective and controllable criteria for reimbursement of medicinal products. Their

In addition, the increased insurance coverage, the maximum invoice, the reserve funds, the pension cadastre and the maternity and adoption leave were also discussed. Their

Finally, we addressed the very important compulsory insurance for self-employed persons, which would in principle take place from 1 July 2006. Their

During the general discussion, especially Mrs D'hondt was speaking, which Minister Demotte, of course, replicated. The important loop on the article-by-article discussion is quite detailed.

Afterwards, State Secretary for the Family, Pensions and Persons with Disabilities, Mrs. Simonis, spoke and during her presentation she spoke mainly about the child allowance, the persons with disabilities and a number of related articles. Particularly Mr Goutry and Mrs Gerkens intervened in this discussion.

Finally, the Social Affairs Committee received Minister Vandenbroucke on 25 and 26 May. Its provisions in the Program Law focused mainly on three objectives, namely the concrete translation of recent government work to improve the quality of life as also discussed at the Extraordinary Council of Ministers, the measures to promote employment and the organization of transparent, effective and sound financing by allocating funds from the employment fund to the global management of the RSZ.

We closed the discussions in the Social Affairs Committee. The whole of the articles on the program law as discussed and approved on 26 May was adopted with 9 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

Ms. Turtelboom, Roppe and Dierickx and M. Marinowers have made their report. by Mr. Lenssen and Ms. Galant returned to their written report.

I am facing a small technical problem for which I consult the Chamber. Either we deal with the part Justice — I think of Mr Van Parys and Mr Vandeurzen — or we conduct a general discussion — and then I first think of Mr De Crem. I leave the choice to the group of CD&V.

I will follow the logic and ask for a general discussion.

And immediately after the part of Justice?

In Dan Justice.

And then we deal with the subjects of Mr Vande Lanotte. Are everyone agreeing? (approval of consent)

Who will speak in the General Meeting?

You and I must now consult the list.

I try the resume. Mr. Van Parys, Mr. Verhaegen and Mr. Marinower speak in Justice. Mrs Dierickx will speak on the subject of Public Health. M is Mayeur interviendrait and Affaires sociales, M. Massin and Finance et M. Duckarme and employment. M is Malmendier intervenes in the general discussion.

Johan Vande Lanotte: (...

In summary, Mr. Creme and Mr. Malmendier intervenes in the general discussion. Is it that?

The President, Mr. Unfortunately Mayeur had to leave us.

He came to apologize to me.

He was going to make a general intervention for the entire PS group that concerned not only Social Affairs, but also ...

Would you do it in his place?

I would like to intervene in his place.

I see it more clearly. I now have three general interventions: Mr. From Creme, Mr. Massin and Mr. by Malmendier. Then there will be specific interventions.

If no one is interested in your fate, I can make it easier. I do not know that at the moment. I need to consult the room first.

Mr. De Crem, I encourage you to consider some time limit.

I will not abuse time. I will keep it short and concise.

It gives me pleasure. This is the order of the speakers: Mr De Crem, M. by Malmendier, M. by Massin. Then we cut off the part of Justice.

Mr. President, I am

I am happy that I can make you a pleasure.

I will shorten my speech considerably to take into account the further course of this evening.

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, 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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. The Prime Minister then stated that his government had only one priority, the priority of the 3 W's: work, work and again work. It is also not superfluous to recall that the Prime Minister spoke these words not really long after the announcement that several thousand jobs would be removed in FordGenk and after the employment conference had taken place.

In his policy statement, the Prime Minister also asked a lot of questions to himself. He asked more questions than he could answer. Asked whether the measures of the famous Employment Conference were sufficient, he replied: “Of course not. Never enough resources can be used to create jobs. The government and the social partners will therefore continue to work on new reforms in the labour market even after this conference and – he stressed – the European and regional elections will not hinder the government from implementing that reform.”

Those words are ⁇ strange, especially because the Prime Minister has sinned in bad hypocrisy. After all, he said: “I know that a certain pre-electoral fever is growing ahead of the regional elections. I do not underestimate the risk that this could work more and more paralytically in the coming months. I tell you that the federal government will not sit down. The times are too difficult for that and people expect us to rule.” It was under that motto that a number of members of the federal government were placed in advance by their party chairman, making the government a little...

Mr. De Crem, I work harder.

Under these circumstances, he works harder. In this hemisphere there is little to notice that there is harder work, ⁇ not when I take the absent colleagues from a number of factions.

It is right that we are in full campaign. Many colleagues and ministers – although present now – were often seen more in television debates than in this Parliament. We will then take that into account. One thing we learned from this is that it is especially bad when candidates run on multiple lists and jump from one list to another.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go quickly. The debate here concerns the socio-economic situation of Flanders and Belgium. Considering this situation, I think we can conclude that our country must be governed well, that our prosperity is not an obvious and not an eternal achievement, and that despite the high level of prosperity, there are still many problems. These problems result in some population groups having an insufficient share of that wealth and a number of other population groups being threatened in their wealth.

My conclusion can be illustrated by a set of indicators of the socio-economic status. I will briefly overcome this as promised. The problem of unemployment is a primary and comprehensive concern. Flanders and Belgium have counted the past months, and compared to previous years, more eligible fully unemployed. This is a determination that cannot be avoided. The number of unemployed job seekers has also increased.

I will not come up with the figures on their own in this debate because they are sometimes too sterile. However, it is in any case true that unemployment continues to rise, with as the only and important finding that is not below the water line but as a cliff above, the Belgian unemployment rate which is at 12.3%. That is 1% higher than last year and 1.9% higher than two years ago.

Unemployment increased in 2002 and in 2003 grew more than the average in the European Union and the euro area. The unemployment rate is therefore just above the EU average, while we were still below almost 1% in 2001. The situation is really worrying. It is a painful conclusion that with this sharp rise, we are clinging to the European tail in terms of unemployment. In the Netherlands, Germany and Portugal the unemployment rate also rose sharply, but in Italy, Greece and Finland the unemployment rate drops for the second year in a row.

The great goal with which the legislature was started, this exclamation eleven months ago of creating 200,000 new jobs, is incredibly far away from those figures. This is not negativism but a painful statement of unemployment, of the forced unemployment of so many people. We know that our objective in the Lisbon perspective is not ambitious. Our part of the Lisbon objective, in particular a 70% employment rate, should entail the creation of 300,000 new jobs.

When we talk about conjuncture and growth, I would like to reiterate our presentations at different times in different committees. I would like to assume that when one compares the growth rates with other countries, it is easy to say that we are always better ahead. The old adagium is when referring to the Netherlands and Germany that have ⁇ poor growth figures, so we do it much better. Just the fact of comparing ourselves with countries with less strong growth should make it possible in our country to say that the performance of the Belgian economy would have improved since the arrival of the purple-green governments.

We know that when the government and the prime minister do, any suspicion is justified. I could refer to some figures, but it turns out that the Belgian economy during the first government of Verhofstadt grew by an average of 1.6% per year. This figure is 1% below the Eurozone average. Their

The growth cuts for 2004 are quite favorable, including the improved estimate of the National Bank of Belgium. The question is whether this will become a reality. The further rising unemployment in May and even in April, the very high oil prices, the international tension, the deteriorating economic culture indicators, the conjuncture indicators, the rise in the number of bankruptcies and the falling consumer confidence give food to our doubt.

Wage costs and competitiveness have declined further, according to the World Economic Forum. This is a painful determination. The competitiveness of our companies, in which we must first and foremost be able to compete with our first partners, the Dutch, German, French and British markets, has been ⁇ pressured. In November 2000 we were in 16th place, in November 2003 we were in 27th place. We must now even have Spain, Portugal, Estonia and Malta ahead.

The big problem is that of wage costs. Hopefully later, in better circumstances, such as on the occasion of an updated government statement, we will have the opportunity to stand up to this again.

The wage costs have increased by 3.4%. This is a pillar-like fixation, solid like a rock. In our three neighboring countries this is 3.8, 3.2 and 2.8% respectively. This is a particular disadvantage, which the Minister of Budget will continue to examine me. About the wage costs per unit product, I may be able to talk later. The Lisbon Competitiveness Index, however, also appears to be a special warning light that is constantly on orange, so as not to skip red.

The state of the public finances and the adjusted estimates for the 2004 budget were sufficiently presented by Mr Devlies and Mr Bogaert. They were received in a certain way by the Minister of Budget, but we have already talked about that. I do not want to turn into negativism on behalf of our group, because only the less favourable indicators would be kept against the light.

There are the numbers, there are the agencies: I think we can’t get out of the debate here. It is better to face the problems than to give the impression that everything is going well.

I will not repeat the quote of Minister for Employment Vandenbroucke here in extension. He said, among other things, “We are not a little sick, we suffer from a serious chronic disease: our labour market is an infected body full of puffs.” This is what Minister Vandenbroucke gave a decade ago in an interview to a newspaper.

About the many other major challenges, except those we have talked about, nothing can be found in this program law. It is about three hundred articles, of which approximately 75 or a quarter, are about repair events. However, the increase in the employment rate of the elderly, the end-time employment debate, social dumping, the modernization of the labour law, the modernization of the Social Security, the real status of the recipient parents and the abolition of the tax discrimination of bridge retirees I have not seen in this program law. For the third or fourth time, the State Council has been especially critical of the government’s conduct and repeats the warning.

I would like to say that we are submitting amendments to this program law and that those amendments will be discussed in the continuation of our presentations. I now leave time to the other colleagues to hold their argument, but also take the freedom to go even deeper into a number of important issues tomorrow, when we begin the discussion of the articles.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, the looprogram contains many provisions. I will focus on those that I think are essential. And I will start with the provisions that, once again, guarantee further tax cuts.

First of all, I have to mention the encouragement given by the government to the renovation of the habitat located in a positive action zone of the big cities. Already during the previous legislature, the government had committed to contributing, including through tax measures, to the improvement of habitat in disadvantaged urban areas. It was - but should I remind it? - to make the neighborhoods in question more attractive and, in other words, to make them places where it is good to live and work.

The law-programme that we are going to vote also provides for a tax reduction for the acquisition of a vehicle that emits a maximum of 115 grams of CO2 per kilometer. This initiative is part of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the government planned to encourage various sectors to adopt more efficient energy technologies.

This is part of the government’s green tax policy. In fact, it provides a tax reduction for the acquisition of “clean” vehicles by individuals.

Without going into the details of the measures, I will remind you that the tax reduction according to the type of vehicles and their degree of CO 2 emissions can reach up to 15% of the expenses actually made, without the amount of this tax reduction can not exceed 3,280. These new provisions apply to cars, mixed cars and minibuses purchased from 1 January 2005. The Minister of Finance is making a “plus” tax, a reduction in taxes.

Finally, I would like to emphasize the amendment made to Article 35 of the CIR 1992 which aims to remove a real tax loss to be borne by married pensioners who receive a household pension. This amendment is important in that it concerns the very frequent situation of married pensioners whose spouses have only had a limited professional career.

Currently, it may be more advantageous to opt for the payment of a pension at household rate rather than for the payment of two isolated pensions. As a result, in the field of personal tax, the pension tax reduction is granted only once.

In order to eliminate this tax damage, Article 35 of CIR 1992 is adapted in such a way that a household rate pension is considered to be each spouse’s income in proportion to the personal rights each of them has in the household rate pension.

Once the share of each spouse in the household rate pension has been determined, that personal share will be subject to the usual rules on natural persons tax, under which both the tax-exempt income quota and, where appropriate, the tax reduction for pensions will be applied.

This government initiative follows in its entirety the logic of income decumulation under which each spouse is taxed on their own income. For the MR, this is essential and it is a major achievement.

The program law devotes an important part to the status of self-employed workers. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, we will never repeat enough: in matters of social status of self-employed workers, the motto and our determination is: “rattrapage”.

The Government Agreement of 14 July 2003 insists on the need for increased social protection of self-employed workers. This is indeed essential. Let us never forget that 850,000 self-employed workers alone account for ⁇ 60% of the employment in our country. It is therefore appropriate to put the self-employed, the entrepreneur, in short, the one who has created his own job and who provides employment to others, in a more attractive position through improved social protection. That is why I can only welcome the progress made in this area today.

I would like to return to the two measures that I consider fundamental. First, the revaluation of the minimum pension of self-employed workers. This measure was one of the main claims of self-employed workers and it was important to translate it into legal provisions as soon as possible. Many self-employed people live below the poverty line, especially when they retire.

Thanks to this measure, from September 2004 and until December 2007, isolated persons and households will receive an additional €27 and €33 each year for their pensions, respectively. The increase will be 108 euros for the isolated and 132 euros for households. This revaluation adds to the normal increases resulting from indexations. The recovery in relation to the minimum pensions of the employees is assured. By 2007, 60% of the current gap would have been filled. We will have to go further. I can only welcome this provision which will contribute to the improvement of the standard of living of older independent workers. I find it intolerable that people who have worked all their lives find themselves at the time of retirement with a pension of 629 euros for an isolated and 840 euros for a household.

The second point I would like to address now concerns the integration of small risks in compulsory insurance. Currently, self-employed persons are only covered for major risks (hospital care) under the mandatory insurance.

Social contributions paid by self-employed workers for compulsory health insurance do not therefore give them any right to reimbursement of small risks.

If 80% of the self-employed already contribute voluntarily for the small risks in health care, we can never forget the remaining 20%, or more than 180,000 people who are composed of young self-employed at the beginning of their career and pensioners excluded from the system. by

The integration of all small risks, from July 2006, will allow self-employed workers to benefit from the same health care coverage as employees. It is fundamental! I can assure you that health has a cost and not the least. I am convinced that some self-employed people hesitate to take care of themselves and wait for "this to pass" for the right and simple reason that they cannot afford such expenses. Now, how do you want to do a good job when you are sick? For a self-employed, taking one day of rest means one day of less income; not everyone can afford it. The integration of small risks is indeed, in my view, a fundamental step forward in improving the status of the self-employed, as it will allow self-employed to receive care in time, which will avoid higher healthcare expenses, which most often result from late care of the disease. by

In addition, they will also benefit, like employees, from what is called the "maximum to be billed", that is, the amount beyond which a person sick or hospitalized, for example, no longer has to pay but is fully refunded. Likewise, VIPOs will benefit from the preferential refund system. Finally, contributions will be taxally deductible.

In the case of disability and disability allowances, for example, these allowances are currently much lower than the allowances received by wage workers (from 20 to 96%). I can only look forward to seeing them, in 2006, reaching the minimum granted to employees: plus 128 euros for a head of family and plus 160 euros for an isolated.

As for the problem of the false independent, I would like to not polemize on the subject, but I would nevertheless want to affirm that it is necessary to avoid as much as possible to enter into a logic of witch hunting to prefer a sectoral approach and respect the choice made by the parties. In fact, it seems to me that a mechanical application of general criteria without distinction of the specificities of each sector can only be detrimental.

However, even though I am extremely satisfied with the measures contained in the program law that is submitted to us today, I believe that we should not stop on such a good path. Further improvements need to be made in order to bring the social status of self-employed workers even closer to the social status of self-employed workers. by

Improvements still need to take place, at the level of family allowances, for example, or bankruptcy insurance. For the latter, we have considered among our priorities the need to implement an increased deduction for investments in measures to protect against attacks on persons and property and to prevent accidents at work. Similarly, further reduction of employer contributions is essential to make work more attractive for employers and thus encourage intensive investment in jobs.

I would also like to recall the need to continue to reflect on the bankruptcy regime and on the right to failure, which should be more recognized to those who took the risk of undertaking. Although such insurance already exists, it remains little known and I find this a pity. For this purpose, an information campaign would be welcome.

When it comes to family allowances, for me, the only acceptable equation is: a child is equal to a child. It is unthinkable that it could be otherwise. In this regard, it is imperative to continue to align the family allowances of self-employed workers with those of wage workers.

The displacement of the authorized work of pensioners is also an important measure that I would like to address now. Indeed, the Government Agreement of 14 July 2003 reaffirms the Government’s willingness to take measures to mitigate or permanently abolish the ceilings applied to the authorised work of pensioners after the statutory retirement age. On 14 October 2003, the Council of Ministers decided to increase the limits of permitted work by 25% again from 1 January 2004. Finally, the Council of Ministers of 21 March 2004 decided to deal with the case of the authorized work of pensioners as part of the social debate on the problem of the end of the career. The aim is to reach a final settlement on the issue of permitted work. The MR group has filed a bill aimed at removing the limits of permitted work for pensioners. Taking into account the principle of equality, this liberalization should apply to the various pension sectors: employees, self-employed and the public sector. Indeed, while many people want to continue after the retirement age because they still have experience to claim, they are in full shape and motivated, others want to continue an activity in order to maintain their standard of living.

As already mentioned, the company can find its advantage in preserving and enhancing the professional expertise of its senior workers. Furthermore, given all social contributions and the related taxation, a significant budgetary return can be expected.

All of these considerations can be transposed into the field of survival pensions, where they would find to apply in a similar way.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate my satisfaction to see that self-employed workers are no longer the “left-in” of governments, and this for five years. In the face of the new provisions to be adopted in order to improve the regime of the social status of self-employed workers, I can only express my great joy; and I hope that this is only the beginning. I spoke voluntarily of “rattrapping” at the beginning of my speech. I say it and I repeat it, we will have to dare to go further and strive for equal treatment.

I would like to add a non-transitional word on the public enterprise sector, and the SNCB in particular. By adopting the chapter of the program law on the new structures of the SNCB, we give the public enterprise the means that will enable it to face European competition.

The creation of a company responsible for the infrastructure separate from the one that operates the network corresponds to the model desired by the European institutions, since the beginning of the nineties. As a result of the political compromise, Directive 91/440 was limited to imposing only the accounting separation between the railway operator and the network operator.

By transposing this Directive only in its minimum option – accounting separation – Belgium believed that it could trust the managers of the public undertaking. Experience has shown that this trust was not deserved: the opacity of the SNCB accounts, in which even the Court of Auditors failed to remove all uncertainties, is the main reason for the abandonment of accounting separation and its replacement by a legal separation of the infrastructure manager and the network operator.

Could Belgium be lagging behind a large neighboring and competing country, France? In 1997, France established the Réseau Ferré de France, a separate legal entity from the SNCF. At the time, the main objectives were financial sanitation, control of infrastructure loads and the recentralization of the SNCF on its carriers business. It must be acknowledged that this restructuring could have had the effect of a revolution in some, since the SNCF had to pay a fee to the French Railway Network for the use of a railway network that, the day before, still belonged to it. Rather than a revolution, it is better to talk about evolution.

This is all the more natural as the European regulatory environment, at the expense of any state aid, tends to favor the creation, in the field of infrastructure, of specific bodies that can continue to benefit from public subsidies without compromising competition. Because it is necessary to be realistic: the creation, maintenance and development of a rail network cannot be cost-effective, except to question the accessibility of operators to that network. Public money will therefore be indispensable for the future of the railway, whether through the recovery of the so-called "historical" debt of railway companies or through appropriations for the public service mission related to the infrastructure.

We have arrived today at the end of a long journey that has seen the succession, over many months, of actions between the social partners approved by the government which now submits to us the text that will serve as the legal basis for the future development of the SNCB group. Recall that the program law of last December already contained the legal basis of the company Infrabel whose main activity will consist of the management of the railway infrastructure. Without the will to undertake, this structure would be just an empty shell. The main thing remains to be done if we want to guarantee future generations a mobility tool that is still under the control of the Belgian authorities. Certainly, the network is likely to be crossed by European competitors, but there is no doubt that the SNCB is no longer able to claim to play a major role in this market. It is therefore its responsibility to focus on its advantages, namely the maintenance of an optimal level of security across the entire network.

On the margins of this progress, within the structures of the public enterprise, we find that Article 39 relating to the Strategic Committee, which provides for a transitional system, refers to the next counting in 2008. This is obviously a very protectionist view of the representation of workers, especially when compared to our bill that aims to establish social elections in public enterprises. In fact, we consider that the staff of the SNCB, one of the main employers in the country, deserves to see its interests defended by democratically appointed representatives.

By signing this proposal, we may have been wrong to be right too early; the future will tell us. If we did, it is because we are convinced that the SNCB reform must also go through a greater internal democracy.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, dear colleagues, the law-program of this month of June transposes many decisions taken on the occasion of the Super Councils of Ministers that the Prime Minister organized with his team. Important measures have been taken in particular with regard to the revaluation of the social status of the self-employed. This is a reason for satisfaction for the group. We will therefore vote with enthusiasm, you will understand, dear colleagues. I also emphasize the fact that the regional election campaign in no way prevents the Prime Minister’s team and its majority from working and gathering important reforms and results.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to focus my speech on the discussion of two aspects of the program law, namely social affairs and public enterprises. I was waiting for Mr. the Minister of Finance to intervene more specifically on the fiscal and budgetary aspects and a particular issue that had been discussed in the Finance Committee; I will see later if I will have the opportunity to do so or not. As part of the section "Social Affairs" of this law-programme, I will limit myself to a few points that seem, for the PS group, quite essential.

The Ministerial Councils held in Gembloux and Ostende in recent months respectively enabled the adoption of an ambitious plan to improve the social status of self-employed persons and to program a substantial strengthening of the general social security system in the medium term.

The bill that the government asks us to approve already concrete some decisions of these two extraordinary councils. The PS group welcomes this but beyond the exceptional amounts of alternative financing that will be granted by 2007 to the social security, I would like to recall that the track of a generalized social contribution remains, for the French-speaking socialists, a priority to ensure structural financing of our social protection.

Furthermore, the question that will arise in the short term is not how to re-balance alternative financing that is not currently unfavorable to self-employed, but how solidarity should be organized between self-employed workers themselves. It is too often forgotten that social security cannot be reduced to the sole logic of protection against the obstacles of existence; it is primarily about institutionalizing a real solidarity that every modern society needs. It is therefore clear that if we want to establish, for self-employed workers, a social security system comparable to that of employees, the self-employed who today benefit from the ceiling of contributions must contribute, as much as others, to the social protection of all. For us, this is a prerequisite for any discussion on the strengthening of general solidarity for the benefit of this social status.

In health insurance, the provision on the maximum to be charged to make it impossible for the same personal share to be covered by the insurance and other public regulations does not resolve the problem of double payment when the insured has subscribed to additional insurance with a private entity. The solution that will be chosen, and I recall that the government has committed to it, will obviously not be able to harm social insurers who do not have the means to subscribe to a supplementary insurance. Indeed, it would be aberrant to come to say that the maximum to be charged is residual compared to the interventions of private complementary insurance.

The two points on which the PS group has ⁇ focused its attention are the reform of maternity leave and adoption leave, two subjects for which the PS group has submitted bills, partially concretized in this looprogram.

The extension of postnatal leave in comparison with the hospitalization of the newborn is consistent with our view of things and responds to a double concern, that of respecting the specificity of maternity leave and that of social justice. Unfortunately, there is no solution to the problem of late birth. Finally, we ask the government to quickly implement another measure, also decided in the Council of Ministers of Ostende, namely the granting of an additional week of postnatal leave for workers who have "consumed" their prenatal leave due to a health problem.

I will end with the chapter dedicated to occupational accidents and occupational diseases.

1 of 1. We would like to express our satisfaction with the government’s decision to revise its budget position in relation to the deindexation of employment accident benefits for disabled persons from 16 to 19%. As we stated during the 2004 budget review, a disability of 16 to 19% is not a small disability.

2 of 2. The text that is submitted to us concrete another Ostende acquis of capital importance to us since the salary ceilings will be raised to the level of the ceiling applicable in the AMI regime.

3 of 3. Regarding the "public enterprises" part, the program law is once again fundamental for the SNCB, for the state and for all railway users. Once again, because it refines and gives new coherence to the structure of the company. If some denounce managerial engineering, for my part, I would rather highlight the consistency of this model and the achievements it allows to move forward. The SNCB now has the elements at hand to address the important challenges that await it and which are related to the liberalization of railways in Europe. The new structure enables the EU directives to be transposed in a coherent way, both on the industrial and social level. It also allows the State to regain in 2005, in accordance with its commitments, the historical debt of the SNCB in the amount of 7.4 billion euros.

The new SNCB structure will allow, as demanded by Europe, a clear separation between the activities of the infrastructure manager and those of the railway operator. It offers all the guarantees in terms of security and customer service.

I would like to welcome two specific points: first the uniqueness of social dialogue, then the composition and role of the strategic committee. The current Staff Statute will therefore be fully applied within the new structure. All staff will be managed directly by the parent company, the SNCB holding company, and made available to either the infrastructure manager or the railway undertaking.

On behalf of the PS Group, I welcome that all personnel issues will be dealt with within a single parity committee.

Then, the composition of the strategic committee will be revised and its role redefined. It seems to me that in the face of the detestable social atmosphere six months ago, we are experiencing a real calm: respect for staff, respect for their status and social concertation are again at the center of the SNCB. The trade unions have welcomed this. Finally, to conclude on the SNCB, as the European news weighs on the future of public services, I would like to welcome the fact that we are expanding the public service missions of the SNCB at a high speed. This is crucial for the economic development of some of our regions.

Among the other points of the program-law, I would like to highlight three. First, the PS Group appreciates the opportunity for employees of autonomous public undertakings assigned to other public services to be employed beyond the assignment period if they wish. Then, with regard to La Poste, it should be noted — once it is not customary — that the government anticipates, in terms of public procurement, the transposition of a European directive. This will allow the Post to be proactive. Finally, to conclude this part, I would like to come to the privatization of BIAC.

Announced for a long time, she sees the government today give her an accelerator blow. I find it difficult to understand this urgency. We have already been long explained the reasons that advocate for the privatization of the airport manager: they are mainly related to issues of management efficiency in a hyper-competitive environment. Nevertheless, instead of discussing it, we can in no way save from a discussion on the charges specification that will be imposed on the airport manager and on its control. This airport must remain the Brussels-National airport, which means that it is the venue of the capital of Belgium, that it must be accessible and friendly, that it is the first window of our country. This concern should be central, even for a private operator.

To conclude with the public operators, since I do not have a question on social affairs, I would like to receive precise answers from the Minister of Public Enterprises to a few particular questions. Is the resumption of the SNCB planned for 2005 now on the rails? Is it organized according to a specific timetable? The State guarantees for a loan that the Post has requested from the EIB.

Collega Van Parys will still have the word and I think I can then close the chapter Justice, if you agree.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will keep it very brief and limit myself to two points, given the advanced hour. The first point is the following. Today in the Juristenkrant was made firewood of Articles 89 and 90 of the Program Law. You ⁇ remember the discussion. In the Program Act of 31 December 2003, the government had removed the possibility to perform home searches at night in places where drugs are manufactured or used. We then corrected this by means of a bill in which we reintroduced that possibility of home search – which, of course, was evident – for this form of disgusting crime. We approved that bill in the plenary session of 19 February 2004 so that, on the basis of that law, which was unanimously approved here, house searches at night in places where drugs are manufactured or used were re-enabled from 23 May 2004.

In the program law that is now underway, there are again adjustments concerning this possibility to do home searches. Currently in the Juristenavert are made fundamental comments regarding the relevant articles of the Program Law. The criticism is of a dual nature. First, the Juristenkrant says that the possibility of house search is wrongly significantly limited compared to the bill we had submitted and that was unanimously approved in this Chamber. For example, home searches are no longer possible when there is a suspicion that drugs are being sold in some places. This is a major gap in the relevant article of the Program Law.

Furthermore, according to the Juristenkrant, home search is only possible if there are significant indications of a crime, while in the bill approved by the Chamber one had applied the jurisprudence that is in the meantime of general scope. In that case-law it was ruled that such home searches are allowed when there is a reasonable suspicion that infringements of the law in question have been committed.

In those circumstances, the author of the article in the Juristenkrant, investigative judge Van Cauwenberghe of Antwerp, concludes that the principle of jurisprudence as it was created in the meantime is sadly abandoned. In those circumstances, it is regrettable that the article 6a, which was envisaged in the bill, which was very clear – as the author states in the Juristenkrant – is again creating uncertainty. I quote the article: “If we now revert to the text of the original article 7, § 3,” – that is what is found in the program law – “the possibilities are again limited, apart from the fact that this will again cause the necessary confusion on the ground.”

That criticism is double. First, it is said that it will limit the possibilities of home search. Second, one will make the confusion in the field complete. For indeed, imagine: until 23 May, no house search could be done anymore. From 23 May it was possible. From the publication of the Program Law, to the extent that the Chamber would approve those articles of the Program Law, home search is again possible, but to a certain extent. How should magistrates and police officers deal with this legislation?

I would like to quote for a moment the end of the article from the Juristenkrant, where one very explicitly warns the Chamber as follows: “Law making is one thing, upholding and enforcing it is another. Police offices, lawyers and magistrates who are responsible for the latter are ⁇ not benefited by law clashes that only create additional uncertainties. Per ⁇ the legislator should think about this. But again not too long," — says the author — "because the new program law is on the agenda of the plenary session of the Chamber tomorrow." Meanwhile, the author did not know that those articles would be found in the program law today and would be discussed here.

I want to save the Chamber from the shame of the approval of those two articles. I ask you to take into account the fundamental objections which, in my opinion, are rightly raised by the people of the field, which means that, with regard to the drug problem and more ⁇ with regard to the places where drugs are sold, we again limit the possibilities of home searching in private premises or in inaccessible premises, and in which we organize the confusion on the ground. I invite the colleagues who are interested in this subject to read the Juristenzeitung and on the basis thereof to determine tomorrow their voting behavior with regard to Articles 89 and 90 of the Program Law. You will be warned if you would approve these articles.

That is the first point I would like to point out, Mr. President. I hope that I can also arouse your personal interest in this so that we would not pass legislation that is effectively judged and condemned by the people of the field in such a way.

On the second element, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I will return tomorrow when the amendments are discussed. The CD&V Group has submitted a number of amendments. I will take them briefly. We have submitted amendments to enable the extension of the framework for Ghent and Liège because it is very clear from the various studies carried out — I refer again to the letter of the first president and the alarm clock he sounded — that it is absolutely necessary and urgent that Ghent and Liège have the necessary frameworks and that an extension of the framework is being carried out. It is in this sense that we have submitted amendments, to place the House for its responsibility and to invite it to address this urgent need. We also submitted that amendment for Antwerp and Dendermonde. Meanwhile, cooperation protocols have been established for Antwerp and Dendermonde. On that basis, I can hardly imagine that, given these cooperation protocols, one would still have scruples to approve these amendments. I think this is urgently necessary, that there is no need for delay, because, among other things, other needs have already been filled earlier, as you know the needs in Mons and in Charleroi. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the advanced hour, I will allow myself to come back to it tomorrow following the discussion of the amendments.

I have heard what amendment you are submitting. It means that you are now submitting the same amendment as the amendment already submitted in the committee by your colleague Verherstraeten. What concerns me about this and also disturbs a little, is the reporting that is sent from your party to the media.

Accidentally, the conscious committee was not attended by the press. Great was my surprise. What happened in the committee? Mr Verherstraeten proposed the same amendment. The Minister replied that the Antwerp Protocol was signed on 15 March 2004 and that the Dendermonde Protocol was under development. Over the next ten to fourteen days it would be signed. It was the intention of the Minister — which was also expressly acted as such in the committee report — that it would be submitted to the Council of Ministers on 11 June 2003, even before or just after the elections. The Minister would then ask for the urgency to discuss it in Parliament.

Who describes my astonishment when, the next day, in a newspaper whose belief is not so far from your party’s belief, I could suddenly read only the first part of the minister’s answer? It seems to me clearly that the communiqué was transmitted from your party seat or from your party. In addition, the majority voted against the amendment. There was not even a mention of the second paragraph of the answer received by your colleague Verherstraeten in the committee.

I now hear that you are coming to ask yourself today with courage or with uncertainty why, given the fact that there is a protocol in Antwerp and also in Dendermonde very recently a protocol was concluded and that the case is at that moment perfectly situated in the proposed timing, you must again, for another time, submit the same amendment. I am talking about Antwerp and Dendermonde. If I am not mistaken — but I think it is also included in the report — the minister had also said what she had said from the beginning, in particular that there would be acting in discs. So Antwerp and Dendermonde would first come in turn, and only then the other. This is well known to you too.

Mr. President, Mr. Marinower, what disturbs and disturbs me in this dossier is the inequality of treatment. Can I briefly repeat the history of the file?

For Mons and Charleroi there was no need for a cooperation agreement or protocol. The government has, of course, just submitted a bill and approved it in the highest urgency. When we found out that there were fundamental needs in other jurisdictions, we assumed our responsibility. Initially, we did so for the situation in Gent and Luik after the very critical letter of the first president of Ghent and after the needs study for Luik. It demonstrates good parliamentary work to address those needs and ensure that there is no problem in September 2004 and therefore no closing of chambers. If we want to do this before September, we must take the legislative initiatives now. I invite you to support them. At the same time, we took the opportunity to re-submit the amendment for Antwerp and Dendermonde. What would prevent you from approving these amendments, knowing that there is a cooperation protocol for both Dendermonde and Antwerp?

If you wish to send press releases to any newspaper, you are free to do so. It makes me cold what the press writes about it. All I ask you is to approve these amendments now. After all, you should know that if this draft is to become a law and the provisions must be implemented before the end of the year, it will be very difficult if there is another draft law to be approved in the Council of Ministers. However, this has not happened until now. Then it must be submitted to the Council of State and the law must be implemented. I therefore invite you to address the substance of the case and to approve the amendments on the basis of the cooperation protocols concluded so that Parliament can exert the necessary pressure to enable the judiciary to address the judicial downturn and to address the needs of citizens seeking a short-term ruling on disputes submitted to courts and courts. Their

I also strongly invite you, on the basis of the concerns of the people on the ground in the Juristenkrant, not to approve the relevant article in connection with the amendment of the drug law, so that there will be no total confusion about this. I am convinced that with your knowledge of this dossier and of the matter for this argument, you will at least be sensitive.

Believe it or not, Mr. Van Parys, Mr. Borginon and I have been full-blown in the Juristenkrant from the moment you started your presentation. You see what influence you have.

I believe you completely. I am hopeful that after you have read the argument in the Juristen Zeitung — which you may not accept from the opposition — you will not, together with me, engage in the articles on this subject in the Program Law.

Mr. Van Parys, since you are touching an important subject, I look at a number of texts in the Juristen Zeitung, as well as the report of our work. I have the impression that the article in the Juristen Zeitung is based on the text originally submitted. In the meantime, we have changed a number of things in this regard, among other things following Mr. Maingain’s statements. My first impression is that the criticisms in the Juristen Zeitung are based on the original text and no longer apply to the text as it was amended in the committee.

Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Justice, to read it a little more thoroughly: the article is very explicitly pleaded for the preservation of the "original" article 6bis that was in the bill, which was unanimously approved in this Chamber, in particular because of the fact that we must be able to ensure that in case of suspicion that drugs are sold in a place, an immediate home search should be possible. This is one of the problems with respect to the texts approved in the committee.

I invite you to review this evening thoroughly so that you can adjust your voice behavior tomorrow to the insights of people on the ground. There is no point in approving such texts. In this case, it is anyway that a notified Room is worth two.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind you that these articles of the program law were proposed to the Justice Committee with the agreement of all members. I talked about this to Mr. Van Parys, who was the author of the previous proposal. We know that the proposal as it was voted raised fundamental problems that could have been widely debated before the Arbitration Court because the balance between effectiveness in the fight against drugs and respect for certain fundamental rights was not respected.

After having a discussion before the chairman of the Justice Committee, it is in agreement with everyone that we reintroduced the articles as they existed before the errors of the loiprogram of December 2003. We re-established the situation, in agreement with all members of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the case that the Minister of Justice had requested the agreement to include these articles in the Program Law. We have given our agreement to this. We did not agree with the content of the articles.

It doesn’t matter if you say the opposite. I understand the special period we are living in. All I say is that you have confirmed to me that if it was to bring the file back to its original state, that is, as it existed before the December 2003 law, then an agreement was proposed on your part. I simply mention it here. That you question this is your right, it does not matter to me. You say what you want in a tribune, but I had your consent, including on the content.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to push the matter to the forefront, you just do it. I present the problem that is cited by the people on the ground in The Juristenkrant to the Chamber. If you ignore this, it is so. That is obvious. If one does not take this into account, one does not take it into account, but then the magistrates and police officers will have to deal with especially important files, such as trafficking and selling drugs, in the greatest possible confusion.

The [...]

The Minister, the only thing

you do, is interrupting people, but you do not do what you should do, in particular listening to the arguments of stakeholders on the ground. Their

We did not approve the draft in the committee, we abstained. When people in the field tell us that certain texts cause fundamental problems, we need to have the wisdom to adjust those texts.

The [...]

It is a permanent strategy of the Minister of Justice. When he no longer has arguments, he interrupts the speaker. If the Minister does not want to listen and only wants to interrupt, let her go out for a moment, so that we can discuss the matter calmly among ourselves.

We no longer have a minister.

The people on the ground tell us that there are fundamental problems. The investigative judge in the present case, who is in charge of such files, points to a number of fundamental problems. I can put them here. If you do not take this into account, Mrs. Minister of Justice, then the next home search that should take place in a place where drugs are sold will not take place at night and in a private home and then you must only bear the responsibility for it. This is your responsibility. I can only advise you to make proper legislation. This is the only purpose of my intervention.

He is a judge who, of course, has the right to have his opinion. Let’s not begin by saying that magistrates as a whole feel insecure in relation to provisions that were, on the contrary, expected to restore the balance between effectiveness in the fight against drugs and respect for fundamental rights such as the inviolability of the home.

With regard to the increase in the number of judges, Mr. Van Parys just said he wanted to wait for a more favorable time to be able to campaign tomorrow in the day. I propose to answer his argument at that time, when defending his amendment.

Mr. Van Parys, I promised that today I would only allow the general discussion to continue. Tomorrow the article-by-article discussion will take place and the amendments will be discussed. I will, of course, respect the regulations in this regard.

A few speakers have been registered.

by Mr. Ducarme is still in the group Mr. These are the only speeches that will take place unless other speakers wish to register in the general discussion. I would ask Mr. Demotte and Vandenbroucke come to join us. They are called. In any case, I will not mention the articles. I will do it tomorrow after the hour of oral questions.

We could conclude the general discussion of the program law and the law containing various provisions around 21:00. The discussion of the articles covered by this legislation will take place tomorrow, together with the amendments held and will be given the word to those who wish to speak about an article or an amendment.

Mrs Lahaye, what topic do you want to address?

Social Affairs Mr. Speaker.

Mrs Dierickx, I suppose you want to talk about Public Health?

Yes, Mr the President.

by Mr. Ducarme will speak on the employment aspect.

Would Mr. Verhaegen still speak, Mr. Van Parys?

I mean not, Mr President.

I called the ministers.

Mr. Mortelmans, I have made sure that the maximum number of journalists is present. You have rightly drawn my attention on Mr Van Campenhout. I had not seen it, and I thank you for it.

We will now wait a few moments until the ministers that I have called appear.

Mrs Dierickx wishes to intervene and for Minister Vandenbroucke I have two speakers, Mr Ducarme and Mrs Lahaye. Mrs Dierickx, you have the word for your intervention now that the Minister of Health is present.

As everyone knows, smoking is harmful to health. This message has been mentioned on cigarette packages for years. We must not forget that the consequences of smoking are the leading cause of death in Belgium, with more than 20,000 deaths per year. However, for many, smoking remains an existing fact, even though they know that it causes a lot of harm to their own health and to the health of those around them. It remains open for the health workers and ⁇ for the prevention workers.

As in many difficult files, it is especially important to limit the inflow. From that perspective, the VLD can fully find itself in the prohibition of selling to young people under the age of 16. A principled ban on sales has the merit of giving young people a clear social message. I am therefore pleased, Mr. Minister, that you have taken a number of measures to discourage smoking to young people and also to adults, and also to protect non-smokers. Other members of the government have already taken measures, such as the smoke-free working environment, the smoking ban in public covered places, the smoking ban on trains. This is a clear signal to the people. These are measures that actually contribute to a healthier working and living environment.

I think everyone agrees on the goal to be achieved. How should this message now be concrete? As discussed in the Committee on Public Health, I have a number of questions about the effectiveness of the measures taken. First, there is the ban on the "fun boxes" because they want to prevent the shocking photos from being shown. At first glance it seems to be a logical measure, but I am a bit afraid that measure will yield little. On the one hand, in places where smoke goods are sold, "fun boxes" may not be sold, but on the other hand, they may be sold in places where smoke goods are not sold. Second, the traditional cigarette boilers, which are usually luxurious leather etuis, can be sold.

It is therefore right that the State Council asks “how is it possible that the legislature can still ⁇ its purpose if there are as many possible escape routes”. In general, I also find that those shocking photos are better targeted for doctors and paramedics and that they are not directly useful for the general public. People must be deterred. I assume this will be the first time, but I think if this is repeatedly shown, the scare effect disappears.

Third, I would like to ask the question of the controllability of the prohibition of selling to young people. Even though I think this is a good measure, the law calls on the sellers of smoking goods to check whether the buyer is under sixteen years old. I can agree that we place a significant part of the responsibility there. A decrease in smoking behavior can, of course, not only be achieved by sanctioning sellers. First of all, young people should be motivated and informed. They must take their responsibilities and we must point them up with targeted campaigns. Their

There is a ban on smoking and not a ban on smoking. Young people are allowed to smoke. Part of the responsibility is placed on the official sellers. However, we fear that young people over the age of sixteen will set up a trade in order to sell to those under the age of sixteen. Of course, this can never be properly controlled. The same goes for drug and alcohol deals. I continue to say that I find it a good measure, Mr. Minister, but I ask a few questions about its feasibility.

Fourth, I would like to point out the importance of prevention campaigns for young people. Prevention is a competence of the Communities. I therefore urge consultation with your colleagues from the Communities to come up with targeted prevention campaigns. Education is also a matter of the Communities. Thus, school-focused campaigns can be established.

As a fifth point, I would like to point out the regulation on advertising. I am pleased that yet another amendment was adopted to prevent companies whose name refers to a tobacco product, but which have no further connection with the tobacco products, from becoming the child of the account.

Sixth, I would like to ask myself a few questions about the machines. There are 15,000 to 18,000 cigarette machines in our country. It will take about two years to adjust those machines. The purpose of these machines is to obtain a ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors. However, there is still no clarity on how one will work, with tokens or with a card. Since it will take about two years and the law will soon come into force, I also raise questions regarding the enforceability. It seems to me necessary to clarify this quickly so that the sector can comply with the law.

Mr. Minister, if you wish, you can answer now, because I am waiting for Mr. Vandenbroucke for the two presentations that are still on my agenda. This will allow you to highlight a number of things.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond immediately. As for the effectiveness, Mrs. Dierickx is right. It is a great challenge for us. We know this because it has already been discussed in the committee. In all honesty I must say that the challenge today is no less than a few days ago.

Some tools should be used if you want to use scary photographs to convince people that smoking is a real danger. Everyone is now aware that smoking is harmful to health. However, one cannot draw conclusions from our intuition, but rather from experiences abroad.

In Canada, a large-scale campaign has already been carried out. This proves without any doubt that, when one uses awful pictures, people not only react emotionally for the first time, but that it really has a profound influence on their behavior. We must learn from foreign experiences.

A delegation from our Parliament has been sent to Canada. This issue has also been discussed with various specialists. One of the strongest measures taken in Canada was not only banning smoking in public places, but also the deterrent campaign that has been able to persuade young smokers to either stop smoking or not start. This is also something very important for us.

Second, you say that we will still have problems with the machines. You are absolutely right in that. We are now negotiating. We are negotiating with the sector. So far, no clear and efficient answer has been given. I’m not going to do improvisation, that could be the worst thing to do. No bad solution should be proposed. Therefore, it will take a little time. If we have a very efficient and coherent measure, I will be able to explain that measure to the members of the Public Health Committee. I think they expect that. The issue of prevention campaigns was already discussed with the Communities at the meeting of 24 May. Like us, they are convinced that from our point of view we can do nothing unless cooperation between the different institutions is organized. I will illustrate this with the following examples. Promoting measures for young people under the age of sixteen who are not allowed to smoke, but doing nothing in schools, makes no sense. We must ask for the cooperation of schools, and for this we must negotiate with the Communities. A second example is that the federal government has an obvious interest in reducing costs from our curative supervision, something that only prevention can bring. Cooperation is therefore a mandatory pathway between the various institutions. Their

You also say that one can question the effectiveness of the ban on selling to young people under the age of sixteen. I am convinced that it would give an impulse to make it also a moral debate. Why Why ? Because so far nothing has been done to prove that we must fight this phenomenon with all our forces. It is known that in our society, younger and younger people start to smoke. According to some data, the average age of the beginner smoker is 11 years. This is unacceptable and measures must be taken against it. Will the measures be sufficient? Will we need to take further steps in the future? I think so. There will ⁇ have to be an evaluation, but doing nothing is unacceptable for me. Together with the other members of the government, I believe that the first steps are going in the right direction.

Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu I do not know which minister you want to address. Is there a part for Minister Demotte?

Mr. Speaker, my speech relates to the powers of Minister Vandenbroucke.

Mr. Duchamp, is it the same for you? (Yes is)

However, it is not serious. I would like to finish today.

I don’t want to work against height and mouth, Mr. Van Parys. I have informed the ministers concerned. They are promised to come.

Please continue tomorrow with those who are still on their turn.

I am confirmed that the Minister is coming. I did not want to suspend the meeting for the Public Health section because I knew that Minister Demotte was in the house and that I could count on him. I would like Minister Vandenbroucke to come. It is not like the plombiers.

Why do you not continue with the remaining chapters tomorrow?

I would rather have everything around today so that the general discussion is behind.

I too, Mr President.

I know, Mr Van Parys. You have been in the hemisphere since 14.15. Together with his colleagues, he was constantly present.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have contacted Minister Vandenbroucke. I propose that our discussion be continued at the time that Minister Vandenbroucke is present.

If Minister Vandenbroucke arrives within a few moments, I have no problem with that. Their

I would like to thank Ms. Lahaye and Mr. I thank you for your patience, just like everyone else. I begin therefore after the oral questions of tomorrow, around sixteen o’clock, with their only two interventions, followed by a response from Mr. by Vandenbroucke.

At that point, I will conclude the general discussion and then begin the discussion of the articles.

Is that the best solution?

There may be a discussion here or there. That will not be long, but you must give us the opportunity to do so within that chapter. But this will ⁇ not be extensive, as far as we are concerned.

I would like to conclude the general discussion today. You understand that, of course. It is not my fault that this did not happen. It is not your fault either.

I have a few questions to ask the Minister of Finance.

Per ⁇ you could intervene during the discussion of the articles.

I would like to speak in the context of the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to refuse to question the Minister of Finance. But since some colleagues wish to be able to intervene in the presence of the competent minister, I would also like to ask Mr. Reynders and not only as part of the discussion of articles.

Therefore, I would like to supplement my proposal regarding the session tomorrow at 14.15 a.m. After the oral questions, we will continue the present general discussion, in the presence of two ministers: de heer Reynders, aan dewelke de heer Massin vragen wenst te stellen, en de heer Vandenbroucke, aan dewelke Mevrouw Lahaye and M. Ducarme addresses their intervention.

Mr. Speaker, are we given this opportunity if one of us wants to react in this regard?

I cannot refuse it.

I say this only to make a clear agreement.

I have noted that, if you still want to respond, this will be short. Will everyone agree with this?

Can we take the word on the amendments?

of course . I had already promised that this would be possible in the discussion of the amendments and the articles.

I regret not being able to finish the general discussion tonight.

We agree, Mr President.

I don’t know what time we’ll finish tomorrow night.

I want things to be clear. The only two chapters that remain in discussion concern MM. Vandenbroucke and Reynders.

June 10, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We were unable to close the general discussion last night. Minister Vandenbroucke was not able to be present on time. I did not close the discussion, at the request of a member of parliament, as I had to do. Now the minister is here, but two registered speakers, Mr. Ducarme and Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, are not there. First, I give the word to Mrs. Lanjri.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the past we have seen that the Program Law was very often used to take all kinds of measures to promote the economy and especially employment. Regardless of the fact that program laws are not the most appropriate instruments to make work of employment and also independent of the effectiveness of all those measures, then something happened. Through these program laws, measures were also taken to do something about employment.

In the current program law, I see mostly what is not capable. There is no measure in that program law that is meant to promote employment. That is in sharp contrast to the government’s promise to create 200,000 jobs and thus evolve into an active welfare state. I think it is a missed opportunity.

I do not think it makes much sense to play with numbers, and ⁇ not in this electoral period. The use of numerical material will nevertheless always turn out in a welles-niet-game. We are just that, and I think the truth is often the first victim. Today, however, I will mention one figure, in particular 536.662. This is the number of unemployed in our country. You will not challenge that figure, because it comes from the majority itself.

I think that figure is dramatic. Despite that very high unemployment, we find no measure in that program law to give even a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people a vision of a future. Over the past few days there have been many interesting ideas in the newspapers about employment. Many of these ideas come from the VLD. I read, for example, the four-day working week, a pension bonus for those who continue to work longer, the abolition of the charges on low wages, a reduction of the burden for those who continue to work longer, the partial abolition of the bridge pension, no more ban on overtime, economic unemployment to spread even for employees over the whole year, and the encouragement of part-time learning and part-time work. Mr. Minister, you even baked cakes in a school to illustrate your enthusiasm. I saw a photo of it.

That’s all good, but why don’t we find all those creative ideas in Parliament? I do not want to discuss the content here and whether we agree with it or not. I have seen that the SPA also does not agree with some of those ideas. They find the proposals of the VLD unrealistic proposals. Why do we find those ideas in newspapers, on electoral follows and flyers, but not in Parliament? These ideas apparently found the way to the market, but not to the Parliament, where they must be poured into laws and where they must be realized.

Of all the ideas that were launched now or at the previous elections, nothing can be found in these programs. The difference between words and deeds, Mr. Minister, is huge. Your own party, by the way, also confirms this. I refer to the criticism of the SPA on the proposals of the VLD. We are not alone in this.

I do not want to evaluate these proposals in terms of content at the moment, because it would take me too far. However, some of those proposals are socially unacceptable, apart from the fact that, of course, they also need to be discussed with the social partners. They were not involved at all. Apparently, purple has no shortage of ideas, but when it comes to defending those ideas here and doing something with them, I see empty banks, as yesterday in the Social Affairs Committee. First, the commission was suspended and then cancelled due to lack of interest.

I give another example. I am attached to the letter of Prime Minister Verhofstadt to the pensioners, last year during the election: "Dear people, we will abolish the solidarity contribution."We thought this was good news, because that is a requirement that we can fully support. Meanwhile, a bill was submitted by the MR for this purpose. What do we see now? We have not noticed the abolition of the solidarity contribution, not even the pensioners. They complain stone and foot about the fact that the prime minister has announced this, but that there is nothing to find from it.

At the moment, we want to eliminate the majority. We will therefore submit an amendment to abolish the solidarity contribution. We will do it in a realistic way. We do not get them out at once. We will propose to abolish them partially next year and in 2006 and completely in 2007. So we now give the liberal colleagues the chance to realize their dream. They have to support our amendment. I am looking forward to the result.

Another example, which I still face on the ground, is the reduction of the social burden on the team premiums. This is also a measure that has been discussed a lot, both before and after the elections. Recently we saw on television Verhofstadt showing up in the companies, but the reality is — I use the words of my chairman — that this government has a lot of talk power, but little action power.

The only thing that comes out now is a reduction of the 1% advance tax on the total wage mass of the squad workers. From this, the employee, who must perform the teamwork, does not see a franc. He or she doesn’t care about it. We see this in the field. People ask: where is it, what has been achieved? Our proposal — we have submitted a proposal for the abolition of the reduction of the burden on team premiums — includes a reduction of both employer contributions and employee contributions, so that the worker also retains and is encouraged, ⁇ in the industrial sectors, but also in the healthcare sector, where there is a strong labour market. This is how we want to encourage people, and this is how we want to promote employment.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, you will be submitted our amendment again immediately. You know that we had already submitted this proposal in the committee. We serve it again from the demand of the people in the field to do something about it. The 1% now proposed by the government is actually a drop on a hot plate.

These are all great ideas, but I would like to keep it brief. The program law is a thick book, but the story in a thick book is not always interesting to read. In any case, the current legislation leaves something to be desired. It’s not a funny story and before I hear you calling what the alternative to CD&V is then, I want to tell you that we have a plan. We have not proclaimed it in markets, but translated it into legislative proposals and submitted it.

A little to our surprise - we boast happily about it - is some of our proposals, among others of the vision plan, included in the program law. If it is good, we will say it too. With a number of achievements that we have made and are in the program law, we are very pleased. We are pleased that the government wants to implement that. I think, for example, of the reform of the income guarantee for the elderly, the increase of the ceilings for the calculation of benefits for occupational accidents and occupational diseases, the extension of maternity leave for multiples. Although the measures do not always go as far as we wanted, it is a step in the right direction. We remain on our request to go further in this and ⁇ also to realize our other proposals from our vision plan.

It has already been shown that, despite being in the opposition, we can realize our proposals. I dare to say to both this and the next government that it is written in the stars that we will see some of our proposals, for which we continue to strive, realized by the next governments. I am referring to the status of the recipients, the volunteer status, on which colleague Creyf has submitted a proposal, another more career-oriented calculation of pensions.

We also submitted an amendment on the introduction of vacation allowance for disabled persons. We believe that they are entitled to a vacation allowance of 250 euros. That they are also right in this is no more than logical. We advocate for a thirteenth month child allowance. Pensions and health insurance should be sufficient to cover the actual costs, both in a rest disorder and at home. We also want the abolition of the contributions on square work, not only in the industrial sector but also in the healthcare sector. There is the financing of healthcare and child allowance from general resources in order to create more jobs.

I also think of other measures. So I find it a pity that often no cat of the majority was present at the yet very interesting debates around the final career problem.

That is really a jaw blow, especially for the professors and the other persons who are always well prepared to make their explanations. The opposition is there then, sometimes accompanied by one or two members of the majority. Mr. Speaker, you will have to admit that there is information about the presence. Mr. Minister, the last time I told you that sometimes it is better for us to drink coffee with each other and discuss the affairs there because there is often no one present. I hope — ⁇ together with you — that these elections will be over as soon as possible, so that we can indeed transition to the agenda, to the real work. The real work must be done here. If one speaks of work-to-work, then one must first do it here and then sell on the market. One should not sell it first on the market and then nothing of baking. If one pleads to ⁇ more, then one must also do so.

Ladies and gentlemen, I go around. There are at least 536,662 reasons — as many as there are unemployed — to not approve this program law, to give them an insufficient one. The time is pressing to really work out of the 200,000 jobs the government has promised.

Mrs Lanjri, Mr Bonte wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lanjri, I have comments on two points.

I truly regret sometimes that we, with too few members, follow the very engaging discussions on the work on aging. However, I never established that there were only two or three members. We were always at least five or six members and sometimes we were even more. It was also a difficult period. We had a busy agenda. Although I share your opinion about too low presence, the number of only two members present seems to me exaggerated.

Regarding the program law in essence, you should explain to me how you make things rime with each other. Yesterday we had a tough debate on the budget. The main position of your party was that there was a deficit that was concealed and that the budget was proposed too rosy. Today you say that there was actually much more to be done and that we had to make a lot more expenses. Well, I have listed above all the amendments you claim you would submit and in which context the cost of the proposals was calculated. The proposal to insert Article 146a costs 100 million euros and the proposal to insert Article 146b was calculated at 5.3 million euros. A subsequent proposal by Ms. D'Hondt to introduce Article 146sexies costs 19 million euros extra.

Another proposal from you costs 47.5 million euros, when you are talking about the holiday fee, and so on. You need to explain to me how you rime, especially on the one hand the statement that this government is submitting a careless, non-closing budget and, on the other hand, your plea for a spectacular expansion of the burden reduction and all these additional expenses. You need to explain to me where you will get the money from, unless you are advocating a budget deflation. If you put those two things side by side, I would attack this government with a little more scorn on its credibility. The program that you present will be all but reliable in terms of the closing nature of the budget.

Colleague Bonte, first, we have developed a vision plan, the cost of which is also calculated. Second, I think that some of our proposals have also been adopted by the majority. This is also not for nothing. I have also told the government that we are behind. There are also proposals, such as the abolition of the contributions to the team premiums, which we know directly and indirectly lead to more employment. When one speaks of an active welfare state, one says that one wants to activate the unemployed who are there now and that one must also activate those benefits. It has a return effect anyway. Therefore, it is not correct of you to ask what it will cost. This will also bring.

Another thing is that people would have made other choices than just tax cuts. They may also say that there should be employment-promoting measures, such as the abolition of the premiums on night work, teamwork and irregular performance.

Mrs. Mrs. I have well understood that your party is also not in favour of cutting down, for example, the tax reform and tax reduction. I also understood—that is the nail on which Mrs. D’Hondt is knocking—that we must ⁇ be careful with the social security budget. If we want to implement burden reductions, we must indeed make a realistic estimate of the return effect. I put this all in a row. You also advocate for closing budgets, but you do not want, on the one hand, to touch the tax reform, and on the other hand, to increase the benefits — which I may basically be — very heavily at this time and to implement additional burden reductions. This leads to nothing but a complete depreciation of the social security budget, since — where the realism of Mrs D’Hondt sometimes prevails — the reward effects of such a reduction of burden are less than the costs of that reduction.

Mr Bonte, the proposals we submit here, the amendments signed by Mrs D'hondt and by me, are, by the way, proposals that you have signed with. These are the requirements of the CM. You have signed them and we are serving them. You should not have signed them, Mr. Bonte.

At some levels of blocking, one must dare to go further. Now I have seen — and this is also stated in the program law — that a number of decisions have been made, that a programming has been made, that we are working on the wealth stagnation. What I have never undertaken — and I do not suspect you too — is that this would happen in this budget and at this time, precisely because we cannot deal with this budget today and therefore need to work with a programming. You should also dare to defend that intellectual honesty with respect to civil society organisations such as the CM.

The Minister of Finance is in the Senate. I have three more presentations from the gentlemen Vandeurzen, De Crem, Massin for Minister Reynders.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill-programme of this end of session and the budgetary adjustment underlying it allow us today to draw a first assessment of the employment policy carried out since July last by the violet majority. In essence, I would tend to say that the results are contrasted. On the one hand, Belgium still presents unflattering figures: the unemployment rate in Brussels and Wallonia is extremely high, with peaks at more than 25% as in the region of Charleroi and Centre, a activity rate of young and older people that stages well below the European average and above all European goals.

Instead, we are seeing a revival of the employment policy initiative. Ideological weights gradually leave room for pragmatic choices that favor the outcome. Employment policy is innovative, especially in terms of reducing taxation. Several workshops have been opened and some are producing their first results. Obviously, we must persevere and meet the expectations of our fellow citizens in this area, creating favorable conditions for job creation in a context of return of growth.

The law-programme that we are dealing with today is validly part of the extension of government decisions. This is a real law-program translating budgetary corrections. It contains few really new things, but I note, nevertheless, a few points that have ⁇ attracted the attention of the MR group of the Chamber. Adaptation and simplification of first employment agreements are continuing. This is a good thing, but there is still a lot to be done in this sector where we are still in the queue of the European peloton. Less than 30%, the employment rate of 15-24 years old is still ten points below the European average. The unemployment rate of young people, especially of the less skilled, remains considerably higher than the overall unemployment rate.

Therefore, it will still need to innovate to get the head out of the water in this matter. The federal government is not the only competent level of power. By reforming the link between school and business, the Communities have already taken a step, but there is still a lot to be done in this area. This is one of the main issues of Sunday’s election. In this assembly too, the MR Group will ensure that the conclusions of the National Conference for Employment in training lead to significant changes. The social partners and the government have committed to this: by the end of the year, a proposal on employment and insertion and alternating training should be drawn up. We will be very attentive to this.

Flexibility is obviously crucial in the labour market as we know it today. The law-program allows a very essential advance for my political family and that concerns the construction sector. Now, during periods of intense activity in this sector, it will be possible to do more extra hours, or 130 hours per year instead of 64. This is a measure of common sense. It could be a school if one ambitions to rethink the overall overtime regime.

The Prime Minister has spoken in the right direction on the issue. Here again, it’s about simply meeting the expectations of companies and giving them the opportunity to create or save jobs while remaining competitive.

Finally, the arrangements made for maternity leave have their merit. I think especially of multiple or problematic births. I am a little more skeptical about the extension of compulsory leave. Flexibility would have been a more desirable solution. One must ⁇ be able to take leave, but removing an optional week to replace it with a compulsory week may seem quite directive.

We accept adoption leave without reservation. Technical arrangements remain to be taken. We trust the government to facilitate as much as possible the logistics and finances of companies that will have to take these new holidays. This is what I will call the law-program aspect.

Today, the elections are behind us. The pace of reforms must be restarted for young people, but also for other age groups and especially for the elderly. The task will not be easy. The end of the career is undoubtedly a major difficulty in the Belgian labour market policy. The pre-emption regime was a significant success. As a result, the average career length, which is ⁇ short in our country, differs greatly from that recorded in other countries. The average age for leaving work in Belgium is just over 58 years for a European average of 61 years. There is less than 30% activity rate for this age group. European objectives cannot be achieved.

An extensive and very interesting debate on ageing in general was launched in the Social Affairs Committee. We count on the government’s effort, but we will also take initiatives to ensure that precise and concrete measures are developed by the end of 2004 and converted in concerted manner into practical decisions by the beginning of 2005.

With the ageing and expected decline of the working population, older workers must be recognized for what they are: an essential component of labour supply and a key factor for the development of our economy.

In this logic, my group has also submitted an important proposal aimed at displacing the work permitted for pensioners. We think this is a path to follow.

Now on to the job traps. We are pleased that the government has reactivated, during the super council of Gembloux, the establishment of the bonus "employment credit" with a very large envelope. In this country, making work definitely more financially attractive than unemployment must be a priority. Again, this is a matter of common sense. This is not always true, which is very difficult for us to accept. Work is emancipatory. Of course, it must be much more profitable than unemployment.

In this logic, it seems quite appropriate for us to reduce the social contributions of low-wage workers. They will therefore receive a higher net salary. It will naturally be appropriate that the reduction of contributions progressively affects a larger number of people. The numbers have already been stopped.

Anyone with a gross salary of less than 1,956 euros per month will benefit from this reduction. A person with a salary less than 1,095 euros will not pay any personal contribution. This year again, the maximum contribution reduction will be increased from 95 to 105 euros per month. The salary ceiling at which the employment credit bonus remains applicable will also be raised from the current 1.539 euro gross per month. However, the timing of entry into force of these new measures is not known to me. Per ⁇ the Minister will be able to clarify this aspect.

Finally, while we are satisfied with the fact that a clear timetable for the introduction of the new unemployed support system has now been established, we are more cautious about concrete advances in the fight against social fraud. We agree on the finding: it is clear that this fraud weakens social security and endangers the protection of the workers concerned. We also agree on remedies: we need more careful communication, we need to strengthen inspection services, we need to simplify regulation and reform the social criminal law. But what about timing? A second enlightenment from the Minister may also be useful in this matter.

In conclusion, since last July, employment has been the number one objective of the majority in place. This is also one of the primary objectives of the group. The volume of the law-programme that we are dealing with here should not deny it, but it seems to me that we must now reboot the machine and reboot the reforms.

Mr. Minister, some of your recent statements read by the press made you call Belgium “sick in terms of employment, sick of its mentalities, of its rigidities”. It is now necessary to go beyond the conclusions and diagnostics of the National Conference on Employment last October.

I said the priorities of the MR group for the return to employment, flexibility, the work of young people, the elderly; finally the attractiveness of the work, the fight against social fraud. We need to gather from the best European countries, take a model on them, be inspired by their successes. Citizens and ⁇ expect a lot, a lot of us in this area.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I am intervening last on Social Affairs and I promise you that I will keep it brief. Indeed, the provisions submitted by the Government in the Employment Part of the Program Law are largely of a technical nature. I would like to highlight only two points, namely the adjustments in the field of maternity and adoption leave and the problem of overtime.

During the extension of the Council of Ministers of Raversijde, the government has implemented some agreements regarding maternity and adoption leave. Maternity leave is extended in case of hospitalization of the baby and in case of a multiple, which in itself is a good thing. Those who adopt a child now also have enough time to receive the child together at home.

Within the margin of these measures, the VLD makes the following comments. The VLD advocates for an inventory in the Social Affairs Committee of all legislative proposals related to the granting of more holidays and then for a substantial debate on the basis of that bundling. Each party may have a different starting point, but one should come up with a global vision of the policy.

The VLD also supports the observation made in the committee that the allowances for maternity, paternity and adoption leave on the hood are not considered home to the health insurance. After all, it is a question of persons who – without consideration of the classical pregnancy disorders – are not sick. The idea of lightening these liabilities out of the health insurance and dividing them into a separate section of the social security should at least be studied in the near future.

I make a final observation. Self-employed persons are not included in this scheme. However, Minister Laruelle, Minister of Middle-Earth, has expressly stated in the Committee on Entrepreneurship in response to a question that for self-employed persons who are in one of the cases in question, namely the hospitalization of the baby, the birth of a multiple child or the adoption of a child, they are preparing a scheme allowing self-employed persons to choose to receive support, either at the domestic level, for example through service cheques, or at the professional level.

The Minister has said that it is looking for alternatives to the benefits that employees enjoy in the form of assistance to the self-employed or to the company for the self-employed. It does not intend to extend maternity leave in the same way as it does for workers, but it wants to give every self-employed woman the choice to prioritise her professional life or her private life. We follow this initiative closely.

The second and last point that I highlight from the program law is a new overtime regulation in the construction sector. The increase in the number of overtime from 64 to 130 seems to us a good thing to meet the peak moments in that sector. Also, the freedom of choice for employees, wage payment or compensatory leave, is a whole step forward. The VLD can only welcome that agreement and hopes that it will follow in other sectors. Indeed, a smooth overtime regime can be a good thing for both employers and workers.

Consequently, the VLD has submitted, on behalf of Ms. Turtelboom and Mr. Lenssen, a bill providing for the increase in the number of overtime with the choice for the employee of the method of compensation or compensation. I hope that the social partners will find each other in the near future to take initiatives in this regard.

Taking into account these comments, the VLD may agree to the articles proposed in the Employment section of the Program Law. Our group will therefore support this project.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the Chapter Support for Persons with Disabilities, which was defended by Mrs. Simonis. There have been a number of changes.

I would like to point out that it is very important that the bad legislation that existed before has now been corrected through the Program Act. It became an incredible story. At the end of 2002, the Program Act introduced a number of legal provisions in order to issue KBs to reform the benefits for persons with disabilities. Ultimately, the goal was to neutralize this, whether one was married or not. That was an interesting goal that we also supported at the time. We also supported a number of articles in principle in 2002.

Then it turned out that a number of KBs had to come, which, by the way, had to come into force in July 2003 and on 1 January 2004, they turned out to be non-executable. This was a total decline. Many people with disabilities would lose their accommodation because the concept of household was completely wrongly redefined. This had far-reaching consequences, but fortunately it was realized in time. It has been seen that there would be aberrations. I am sure that this was not intended, but it would have been annoying that a lot of unintended consequences would have arisen with the loss of benefits for persons with disabilities.

Then we submitted a number of amendments to the Program Law of December 2003 — which were also supported by the majority — to postpone the case because it would disrupt the entire system, follow a series of appeal procedures and create a huge administrative burden. The service for disabled persons already struggles with a heavy administrative burden. It now takes an average of 10 to 12 months before a file is completed. There was a great fear that this would completely go out of hand.

It was therefore important at that time to have the matters postponed until 1 July 2004. This has also happened. The program law is now a correction of what was wrong in the program law of 2002. This has now been unanimously approved.

There is now also a clear definition of the concept of household, how it should be interpreted when people are granted a disability benefit.

However, the time is very short. The program law, which is approved in the House today, is still to go to the Senate. Ultimately, this program law should appear in the State Gazette. This is followed by implementing decisions. All this should be done before 1 July, the date on which the new law comes into force.

We find this very dangerous, as many people will not be informed of the scope of the new provisions until September or October. Those people might be able to benefit from these new provisions. Therefore, it would be better to do a revision. But if that revision does not take place until October, it will not take place until 1 November. In that case, those people lose three months, simply because they are informed too late due to the late vote on the law, let alone the implementing decisions and their publication.

Initially, we submitted an amendment which was subsequently signed by Mrs. van Gool and finally by all members of the majority. In that amendment we say that the provisions apply. The text has been improved and it is good now. It is now in good shape, so we also approved it. The articles in the program law are useful in this regard. Only now have we developed a scheme that gives the data subjects time until 31 December 2004, if, for example, they only determine in November that they benefit from the new scheme, they can still report to do so. The system will then enter into force from 1 July, so retroactive, for those who benefit from it. For those who are injured by it, the scheme only comes into effect from the moment it is found and then it is eventually reduced. If the person concerned benefits from the new scheme, the benefit shall be granted retroactively. After all, it is never possible to inform the persons concerned in a timely manner of the yet serious scope and consequences of the changes made in the legislation.

I would like to point out that the committee, after a thorough debate – this has been a very sensible decision – unanimously and unanimously adopted an amendment by which we give a kind of application period between 1 July and 31 December, in order to ensure that especially vulnerable persons with disabilities do not become the victims of a much too complex and too complex regulation.

I wanted to discuss this point now, because otherwise it could not be discussed, since the amendment on this subject has been approved. Of course, that provision is now in the law and it is no longer discussed in the article-by-article discussion. I thought it was more than worth explaining a word about this.

It is good that you have come to report it to me. I fully agree that this is happening.

Mr. Minister, would you like to answer? You have heard the various presentations of Mrs. Lanjri, Mr. Ducarme, Mrs. Lahaye and Mr. Goutry.

I also wait for Mr. Reynders, because I have two questions for him from Mr. Vandeurzen and De Crem. As long as we have a bicameral system and the ministers do not have the don d'ubiquité, I can do nothing about it.

Most of the issues have been discussed in the committee. I would like to add one thing to what Ms. Lanjri said.

First of all, I appreciate that she says that there are also some provisions in the text that have very strong support from the CD&V group, in particular the simpler and better arrangement that we have developed regarding the income guarantee for older monastic members. I also attach great importance to this.

In the committee, I have urged to hold a debate on the problem of foster families even before the recess. In the present draft we establish arrangements for natural parents and for adoptive parents. Some members of the committee are of the opinion that we should also think about the situation of foster families that could potentially benefit from an interruption in the work of one of the foster parents. I did not want to improvise on this subject, but asked that we could have a debate about it before the recession. I would like to say this here in the plenary session, because I think that is important.

So I come to Mr. Goutry’s comment. I had something in my head.

From the eye, from the heart.

From the eye, from the heart? Absolutely not from the heart, it is rather the old day that strikes I fear.

Mr. Goutry, for your comment, I would rather refer to my colleague. However, my employees have carefully recorded what you said. I asked that too. I will send their notes to Mrs. Simonis.

Minister Reynders has arrived. Mr Vandenbroucke came at the end of his speech.

I have three interventions for you.

Mr Vandeurzen will speak. Ensuite of M. Massin, who you wait tonight, but we know your problems of agenda. Mr De Crem will also speak.

Mr. Vandeurzen, are you speaking first? You can talk about on your bank or as you want. You have the word.

Mr. Minister, it will not surprise you that in the general discussion we would like to briefly ask something in connection with the amendment submitted and accepted in the committee, concerning the new technique to overcome the obsolescence.

I went to the Finance Committee yesterday because I thought there was an exchange of thoughts on that topic on the agenda. I must have concluded that it did not go on, but of course I read with interest the report of the discussion, where indeed the Government submitted an amendment that gives an interpretation to the shocking nature of a compulsory order.

I have the following questions, Mr. Minister. If I put it all right in a row, it turns out that from May 2000 the administration was aware of the fact that in a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bergen the debate was initiated as to whether a compulsory order is of such nature that it has a legal shocking effect with regard to a claim of the tax authority. My question is, then, if one learned in May 2000 by a judgment — which is no longer an ordinary judgment, it is a judgment issued in appeal — that there was a discussion, then why did the government wait for the 2003 Program Act to address that problem legally? If I put everything in line now, despite all the mist that is sprinkled on this subject, it is clear to me that we have waited a few years before we have taken a legislative measure in Parliament to do something about the limitations in tax matters. So this is my first question: why have they waited for years to take an initiative in this regard?

I understand, and that is my second question, that according to the report — which is explicitly indicated on page 10 — you yourself are also not convinced that with what is now happening the matter is arranged, let us say, in a concrete way. You have indicated it yourself, I think. There is, of course, the responsibility of those who could have taken the necessary measures. This is an important question that we must ask ourselves. If we are indeed at risk of not being able to repair the obsolescence that has entered, the serious question of how the policy has responded is still to be raised.

So my first question is: why not earlier and not more clearly? And my second question is: to what extent are we now sure that we have a conclusive solution, because all jurists agree that making an interpretative law and making rhetoric in a case that has already been judged is not so obvious. To what extent can you confirm to Parliament that this solution is a final solution?

In that regard, I remain, however, with the strange conclusion that, in that situation, the Belgian State is a party in a tax case, that the fiscal office threatens to undermine the gap and that then the legislative power, a part of the Belgian State, would be able to take a measure by law which would justify itself and deny the interpretation given to a law by the Court of Cassation.

Mr. Minister, it is, in my opinion, our right to ask you on what legal arguments this type of solution is based. You said something about this in the committee. The amendment was not sent to the State Council for advice. We have well understood this.

Third question . What is the legal argument to be able to claim that you have drawn up an Orthodox solution while you know that there is a case pending before the court in which the Belgian State is a party? Now the Belgian State is taking an initiative to correct this. If we had acted earlier, we could have prevented this case.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I wanted to be able to ask these three questions again.

First of all, I would like to express the satisfaction of the Socialist Group for the work done.

The vigilance of the members of the Finance Committee, in particular that of the group leader of the sp.a, Mr. Van der Maelen, allowed the resolution of a problem whose consequences for the Public Treasury could have been very serious, because the amounts at stake are in the order of hundreds of millions of euros. This point was confirmed by the Minister of Finance in commission; if not this exact figure, at least the importance of the amount.

The rapid response of parliament to the questions raised by the government was therefore absolutely necessary. The discussions will allow us to come up with a solution that we hope to be reliable. In this regard, the government had considered an amendment and, therefore, an amendment to the program law. The Council of State issued a negative opinion, proposing a solution: to adopt an interpretative law following these two decisions of the Court of Cassation of 10 October 2002 and 21 February 2003.

As regards this interpretative law, the State Council, in its opinion, indicates that the notion of command must be interpreted. I would like to remind you that both for the Administration of Finance and for all persons who follow the tax matters, a commandment has always had the value of interruption of the prescription, whether there is certain tax debt or not. This has always been the practice.

Therefore, the judgments of 10 October 2002 and 21 February 2003 may – it is certain – have surprised everyone, including the Finance Administration, which I do not think was prepared for this interpretation that could be made of a tax practice, ⁇ as old as the prescription. Since this notion of command did not appear sufficiently clear, we were therefore obliged to change it, which was done through this amendment. We hope to have clarified this notion of command, at least in tax matters. by Mr. The Minister of Finance told us that this was the position of the government and we trust him in this regard. I hope then that he will resolve all the problems, thus going in the direction mentioned by the State Council.

In addition, a number of crashes should be avoided. We have always pledged to avoid the creation of a spotless interval between the first case of the Court of Cassation and today. The non-discrimination between taxpayers has caught our full attention. Therefore, a provision was needed that would not privilege those who would have taken advantage of the blur left in our right, at the expense of others who would not have been able to take advantage of it. This interpretative law was therefore necessary in order to allow a retroactive effect for ongoing cases.

The political objectives that the Socialist group defends with the adoption of this amendment are therefore clear: it is necessary to provide the necessary tools to the tax administration to stop the prescription of tax files that require such an operation and it is also necessary to provide feedback on current tax files.

As I said before in my speech, the Minister of Finance proposed us an amendment adopted by the government that goes, he says, in the direction of the Council of State. I think it is therefore desirable that the majority follow in this direction and vote on this amendment. I will conclude my speech by returning to the debate on the fight against tax fraud that we recently had in the Finance Committee. During this debate, the Socialist Group pledged that all means be given to the officials in charge of the fight against tax evasion to enable them to perform a quality, quick and loyal work towards the taxpayer. The episode we are experiencing today raises, in my opinion, a more fundamental problem. As the figures cited on both sides testify, the Finance Administration has very often and for large amounts recourse to the technique of suspending the prescription or interrupting the prescription. I believe that an essential task of the government will be to look at the reason or reasons for the impossibility of closing in less than five years a tax file for which a dispute exists. It seems to me that it is necessary to remain very attentive — and the Socialist group will be — to the evolution of this matter that we would like to see move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the discussion I held yesterday on the budget and in part on the program law. After Mrs. Lanjri’s presentation already, I will talk about the Finance section.

We have already shown in abundance that we are actually running a loose manoeuvre with this program law because the program law, as I said yesterday, shows a chronic and at the same time an acute lack of concrete measures promoting employment. We have, of course, also the repairs of a number of approved laws. In some cases it is about repairs of repairs. We can, of course, repeat this in abundance, and this story therefore turns out to be ⁇ monotonous, but it must be said again that some laws are contrary to previous laws and that certain measures that we have mentioned are now taken into the texts and draft laws, while they were rejected at the time by the government and by the majority.

It may not be the time to do a quiz, but I would like to ask our colleagues for a moment if they know how many articles there are in that program law. Well, there are about 306, of which 70 are repair items.

What is our most fundamental objection to this program law, colleagues, is that there is no employment promotion measure. There is no new job created by itself. I notice that this does not retain much attention in this Chamber and in this meeting. However, we are talking not only about economic growth or new jobs, but also about that terrible blow that is unemployment. No measures shall be taken in relation to the underuse of existing measures relating to burden reduction and their compensation. In fact, it deserves a zero.

Mr. Minister, I will limit myself from now on, as I agreed with you yesterday, to the part of Finance between the Minister is present.

The law relating to the ecoboni is undergoing a repair. This is not the first time this happens, but the third time in three months during the current legislature. We know under what questionable circumstances the ecoboni law came into being with the reusable packaging, how a game of cat and mouse was played there with the then green coalition partner. Now, however, we notice that, after we ourselves, together with colleague Leterme and others, at the end of the previous legislature, wanted to refine the law on the ecoboni, a repair is being carried out for the third time. That is once too much. I see that we have cited this in abundance and that our own proposals that we have submitted in this regard have not been adopted.

A repair is also carried out to the draft law of the sp.a, in connection with the licensing right. It is already a draft law, I have seen.

by Spirit.

It is sp-a-spirit. In the meantime, a draft law was already adopted in the House on 1 April 2004. At the hearing in the committee, we had submitted an identical amendment that is now being fully adopted. It may then be the old adagium that being right is not art, but that being right is art.

Regarding metropolitan policy, which Ms. Lanjri may have said something about, the increase of the upper limit of the tax reduction by 15%, from 500 to 1,000 euros per home per taxable period, and the repair through the delimitation of the zones, should be revised and so after repeated insistence from our group. The problem of urbanization is an interesting data because in that area there was a gap between Flanders and Wallonia. The big problem is what, by the way, we have always cited, knowing that no clarity has been created with regard to the delimitation of the zones.

The legal arrangement for the payment of a mobile advance tax on the shares with the VVPR stripes is of course one of those elements that come with it. The problem in the field of Finance is that a number of matters are announced, but that they are not visibly presented in the document. That is not at least so, Mr. Minister of Finance — your colleague of Budget was here yesterday too — for the whole problem of the announced transfer of the income from the fiscal amnesty to the Silver Fund, which cannot continue, for the abolition of the solidarity contribution for pensioners, which does not continue, and for a number of other measures including not least the anticipated new reduction of the corporate tax, which is also not implemented.

I will not talk about the part of Home Affairs that we have been able to deal with in the margin in the committee and about which the comments we have formulated in the committee are taken into account.

Regarding the problem of Infrastructure and the NMBS, we find that we are equal in this area as well. The division into different entities and the responsibilisation are now being carried out.

The colleagues Van Parys and Lanjri made ⁇ substantial comments on the Justice section. In the presence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to emphasize once again that the comments made by Mr Van Parys, which will be submitted as amendments at the article-by-article discussion, are of primary importance for the proper functioning of the rule of law. I suspect that no one can be opposed to the proper functioning of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, CD&V has submitted amendments and will defend them thoroughly and earnestly.

The first amendment that we will submit again — we hope for support from the VLD group present today at this discussion — is about eliminating the discrimination against married pensioners. During the first discussion of the budget we have already been able to say this. Married pensioners pay more taxes than before. There has been a reduction in the rate of personal tax. The double taxation of the holiday fee makes that in the circle retirees who are married net more pay extra. Mr. Van der Maelen must have heard this many times during his few or many streams in southern, eastern and central West Flanders. I leave in the middle whether these pensioners have a company and a swimming pool in their backyard to remind the argument of Mr. Bogaert.

The promise made by the Prime Minister in the electoral period of last year, early May 2003 – and which makes all letters to the 6 million Flamings today bleak – to abolish the solidarity contribution of the pensioners – I must not stand swinging with this writing – has come to many East Flamings and with the expansion of Flamings as words in the wind. No work has been done on this promise in any way, not even an incentive to enable the abolition before the end of this legislature. The proof of the pudding is the eating. How can people still believe what is being told in this campaign if promises announced in previous elections are not yet fulfilled?

The following amendment concerns making the VZW law more association-friendly.

The following amendment — I must repeat again what colleague Van Parys has cited — concerns the immediate assignment to Antwerp, Gent and Dendermonde of the promised additional magistrates in the context of the fight against judicial backwardness. This is the time of meeting with the truth. CD&V calls for the support of these amendments.

The last amendment we will submit is the amendment to expand the financing base of the municipalities by allocating the income from the crisis tax on the companies to the municipalities. We are not yet talking about the amendment we are going to submit regarding the immediate reduction of the corporate tax. That is an incredibly important program point of the biggest coalition partner of this up-to-date purple government.

Finally, we will submit an amendment that realises the promised reduction of the burden on the team premiums. That amendment is from colleague D'Hondt who is currently in Geneva, where she presides over the Conference of the International Labour Organization at the request of Minister Vandenbroucke.

So far, my substantive comments. These comments, comments and suggestions occurred in two phases. I would like to say again that I regret that the discussions last night went as they went. I am convinced that time will also advise. However, I would like to see that when there are again budget discussions, budget corrections and subsequent program laws, we can make good agreements on the discussions and that we use the budget as it should. It is a political instrument linked to a vision and a long term. This has not happened with this budget and with this program law. I can already link our voting position to this. We cannot approve these documents.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you have asked for the word for a brief presentation on your bench. You are the last in the general discussion. After that, the Minister, if necessary, will answer and we will proceed to the article-by-article discussion.

Regarding the Finance Chapter, I would like to address two points.

I would like to first address my colleagues from CD&V and their questions about their amendments. 2 and following, in which they abolish the crisis tax, have undergone the G-test. That is a test they apply to all initiatives taken by the majority.

I have examined these amendments and have three concerns, which I would like to share with the colleagues of CD&V. First, I note that if we follow the amendment of CD&V, we are breaking a hole of at least €250 million in the federal budget. I have read the report again, but I find nowhere a proposal from my CD&V colleagues indicating how they think to catch the gap in the budget. They blow so high from the tower when they talk about respecting the budget balance.

Second, when I look at the amendments, I find that I find nothing of what I always hear here from the CD&V group, namely the question of respect for municipal autonomy. She wants to abolish the crisis tax and leave the optimisms at the municipal level. However, it is Brussels that determines the options. That is something I have my concerns about. If CD&V does that, then their statements in the past are contrary to that.

Third, I don’t know if CD&V’s colleagues are aware that there will be problems with the allocation of the proceeds. There are two problems. On the one hand, there is a community problem. I wonder if they have gone through this problem with their colleague Bourgeois.

Can I finish my story?

They are not my affairs. After all, each cartel regulates its homework as it wants.

( ... )

Mr. Tante, I will listen to you later.

Are you aware that with your proposal the revenue goes to Brussels? Many social seats are located in Brussels. The municipalities want compensation for the burden of the business activity that a company carries. They lose that compensation, which goes to Brussels.

Mr. Devlies, as one of the specialists on behalf of CD&V, you are a member of the Committee on Finance. I will make the problem concrete. Did you know that the city of Leuven has lost all the corporate taxes it now leaves, for example at the headquarters of Interbrew, with your proposal? The proceeds will go to the city of Brussels, where the headquarters of Interbrew is located.

I would therefore like to ask the colleagues of CD&V whether, after applying a sp.a-G test to their own amendment, they will approve the amendment. I look forward to the voting behavior of the CD&V MPs. I will also look forward to the voting behavior of colleague Bourgeois.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add another point.

I would like to express my satisfaction over the introduction of a new Article 49 in the Program Law. We have determined, thanks to the vigilance of the two socialist factions, that after a ruling of the Court of Cassation and with the state of the law, there was a threat of obsolescence of the most rumored fraud files surrounding flat foreign tax, cash money companies, stock tax disputes and so on. We are pleased to note that the Government has submitted an amendment to the committee earlier this week, which we have approved, and that will become law when we approve it later.

I don’t want to say too much about this, but I want to say the following. The reimbursement effect of this new article is so great that, if the two advocates, Mr. Massin and I myself, remain parliamentarians for as long as you, Mr. President, the Belgian State will still deserve it. It is sufficient that one of those fraud files is successfully completed before a court. The reimbursement effect is so great that we can be a lifelong member of parliament. I am pleased to find that there are vigilant groups in the majority factions. I assume that the opposition factions had not noticed this. If we had to rely on them, we would have faced the same situation today as we were about a month ago.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of the G-test should actually be entered into the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber, in the first place to give Mr. Van der Maelen the opportunity to realize his entire amendment store regarding the limitation of tax offences, because he has harvested little from colleague Reynders.

It is touching to see how colleague Van der Maelen is exhausted and worried about the apparently positive situation of Brussels’ finances. I can understand that, of course, because, colleague Van der Maelen, it will probably not be unknown to you that the Agustaboete also went to Brussels. There were only two possibilities. Either the money was burned, or a fine was paid. Colleague Van der Maelen, I must tell you that we do not support the Elia tax.

The Elia Tax, which is now in the Senate and which supports you, your party and your majority, will be something else again. I hope from the bottom of my heart that you support it and that you find a majority for it. Then you and I in the Chamber will discuss credibility and G-tests. I say to you in advance: it is a pity that the people’s jury does not exist; it has again been raised for four years. I would like to discuss with you about the Elia tax. Then we will see how credible you are, ⁇ in light of the fact that you had to pay fines to Brussels following the Agusta affair, quid that you now know Leuven better because of the beer. I think you will pass the o-test today, namely the unreliability test.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I did not know that the attempt to break the limitation must serve to secure the bets of the members of Parliament. I would like to ask Mr. Van der Maelen the following. You know, better than me — you are more specialist in this than I am — that the Court of Appeal of Bergen in a dispute between a couple and the tax administration in May 2000 issued a judgment in which the compulsory order has no shaking effect. I am talking about May 2000. You must tell me, with a measure contained in the Program Act of late 2003 and with a solution now being brought and which the Minister of Finance expressly confirms in the report that he does not put his hand in the fire for its closing character, what is the criticism to be given here. What do you think the tax administration should have done in May 2000, when it became very clear in a judgment that there was a problem? It is now easy to think of a legal solution where the lawyers put a lot of questions. You know that very well, of course. The Belgian State is a party to a dispute and will then itself make a law to discontinue its own position in a legal solution. You know very well — the minister has confirmed it in the report — that there are a lot of legal questions to be raised. I know it, we live in a time of perception and you will show, after approving the tax amnesty, that you are very strict and very consistent in terms of taxation. You must tell me what should have happened in May 2000, when the judgment clearly indicated the enormous consequences threatened.

You know very well that at that time a legal arrangement should have been drawn up to overcome the still ongoing limitation or to adjust the rules thereof so that the limitation could not occur before the moment that a legal arrangement came into force. You know very well that this is a huge political mistake and responsibility. That is the point. I am looking forward to what the Minister of Finance will say about this. If you had been honest, you should have also said in your criticism of the other majority parties — which is ⁇ a pre-electoral profiling issue — that this is a historical, important mistake and that it has not been realized in time that action needs to be taken. Otherwise, we would not have needed all that legal high-tech now.

I was mentioned by Mr. Van der Maelen.

You have been mentioned more in your life. This is not a personal fact, this is a debate.

I would like to react. I am pleased to note that Mr Van der Maelen amendment no. 2 has read and that he also speaks of a G-test. It is actually a Gtest that is intended for the sp.a-fraction. In fact, Minister Vande Lanotte proposed several weeks ago in an extensive newspaper interview to abolish and replace the municipal corporate taxes with either a subsidy from the Flemish government, or an additional tax through the corporate tax. The reasoning used by Minister Vande Lanotte was fully consistent with the reasoning presented in our bill submitted a few months ago. We are pleased to acknowledge this position. We thought this was an opportunity to realize that proposal. The sp.a-spirit group will ⁇ support us, as Minister Vande Lanotte himself announced this proposal in an extensive newspaper interview.

With regard to your concrete comments on budgetary neutrality, I am pleased that you are so concerned about the evolution of finance. I think I can reassure you. You will have noted the very limited explanation of the Minister of Budget yesterday and have determined that he speaks of one entity, the government, and that entity 1 and entity 2 should be considered as one whole. Well, Mr. Van der Maelen, this proposal is just a shift from entity 1 to entity 2. So in globo there is no difference. There is, therefore, no problem in the vision of the Minister of Budget. There is no problem with public finances.

We think that 3% is normal. We must also take into account the competitiveness of companies. I think it is important that the same rate is applied throughout the country. So far, I have not received any negative reaction from the cities and municipalities. They are willing to accept that.

You also talked about the allocation of revenue. You made two comments on this. Unfortunately, I only heard one. You apparently did not make the second. You talked about the revenue that would be allocated to Brussels. You then talked about a particular company in a particular city whose headquarters would be located in Brussels. Well, there is the principle, which is also supported by the government, I thought, that the tax would happen at the place of the actual activity. According to our calculations, 55% of the revenue would go to Flanders and 45% to Brussels and Wallonia together. From a community perspective, this is in any case a correct operation. I think Mr. Bourgeois will have no problem in supporting this amendment. If he does not, it is of course his good right, but I assume that he will support it. For you, that was a problem, because you were worried about it.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly respond to the comments of my colleagues. To colleague De Crem I would like to say that I find that he avoids the debate on the two points I have addressed and that he thus loses himself by referring to other...

The [...]

De Crem, I didn’t interrupt you either. I guess you want to talk about other things, like Elia or Agusta. Where and when you want, I would like to talk to you about it, but I suggest that we limit ourselves today to what is on the agenda. There are two points on the agenda.

First, as regards the obsolescence, I would like to limit myself to the following conclusion: had we had to count on the CD&V room fraction, the problem would still be house-high. It is thanks to the vigilance of the sp.a and the PS faction that this problem has been addressed and it is thanks to the quick response of the government that this problem has been solved.

The second point we talked about were the amendments of CD&V. It is the right of a majority member to view amendments from the opposition and to apply the credibility test on them, as the opposition does with majority proposals. As for the sp.a-voostle that is in production, I invite you to take out the credibility test when the proposal will be on the table.

Your proposal is now on the table and in my eyes you are "moving". After all, I find that what you do goes against something that the CD&V group and also the sp.a group have always held very high in their flag, namely that we respect the municipal autonomy as much as possible. We wish to do so in this too. There comes here a CD&V directive from Brussels that says it will be 3% in all municipalities in Flanders and nothing else. If that’s what you want, we don’t agree. I repeat, colleague De Vlies, that you lose sight of the allocation of the income of the municipal tax. Where now the municipality or city where the business activity is carried out, the municipality or the city where one thus has the burden of this activity, receives resources to remedy the problem, it is with your proposal so that the proceeds go to the place where the social headquarters is located. One does not need to be a specialist to know that for many companies in Flanders the business activity takes place in a Flemish city or municipality, but that the social headquarters is located in Brussels. With your amendment, your proposal goes the revenue to Brussels. If that is what you want, if that is what you will approve later, I will be pleased to announce in Flanders to the Flemish cities and municipalities how the CD&V group in this Chamber deals with municipal finances.

I note that Mr Van der Maelen simply does not respond to the arguments I have just put forward. He repeats what he said before. I can only say that it is your faction that is now subject to the G test. We will see after the vote whether or not you are built in that test.

Didier Reynders: I will first answer the question of Mr Vandeurzen. After the judgment of a Court of Appeal in 2000, it was a legitimate reaction from my administration to go to the Court of Cassation, even with the same opinion as the Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation, even before the Court of Cassation. There have been only 2 decisions of the Court of Cassation in 2002 and 2003. The judgment dates back to February 2003 and my administration responded with a first law in June 2003. This is a short term. This was stated in the program law at the end of December 2003.

Is this a legal solution? It is a solution that was proposed by the State Council. I sent a first amendment to the State Council on the proposal of the government with a reference to criminal matters at the same time as tax matters. This was impossible, according to the State Council. The proposal of the State Council was that for income taxes the concept of payment order within the meaning of Article 2244 of the Civil Code and the concept of payment order within the meaning of Article 145 of the implementing order of the WIB '92 should be interpreted. We did this in a draft amendment and now in an amendment. I think we are following the proposal of the State Council. This is the best solution given the legal aspects of this amendment.

Mr. De Crem had a question about the other repair law. It is easily said in the committee, but it is difficult to make a repair to a law of Jean-Luc Dehaene, for example about the ecoboni. Per ⁇ we need to add other texts to make a very correct and complete correction to the law of Jean-Luc Dehaene more than 10 years ago. We will see if this is necessary or not. For the surplus, M. Massin évoquait les conséquences et les délais en matière de fraude.

With regard to the consequences, as I said in the committee, the text you are proposing is for legal but also political reasons. There has been a political controversy on this subject. I believe that the right formula is to try to follow what the State Council proposed but many figures have been cited in the number of cases and in the volume of fraud. I recalled that even for the files that some parliamentarians call “fraudulent,” decisions on the substance are sometimes favorable to taxpayers; I find this, for example, for the QFIE and other files. I know that one can make effects by qualifying any case going to court as a fraud case. I simply find that, in a number of cases, we do not obtain substantial satisfaction; in those cases, it is necessary to stop calling the taxpayers concerned fraudsters, but I will not be able to change the attitudes of one and the other. That is why I wanted, every time, to try to find a certain balance between the real risk for the State to lose significant revenues and the risk of endangering the rule of law for the taxpayer. I recall that the taxpayer, regardless of the word that is attributed to him, remains a citizen who has certain rights, including in court.

Regarding the deadlines, Mr. Massin asked what could be done to prevent ⁇ from running longer than 5 years. I hope the House Justice Committee and the Minister of Justice can help us in this matter. In fact, except for cases that last due to a purely administrative litigation, a situation that has been terminated with a new procedure, cases are essentially held in court with a first-instance treatment, appeal, cassation, sometimes a return to appeal and a new treatment in cassation. In this case, of course, we are bound to the judicial deadline. However, I would be very pleased that the Socialist Group will participate in a reflection on how to shorten these time limits in court, time limits to which SPF Finances is bound.

In my opinion, it will be useful to make a balance of the files one after the other to see if it was right to use what the State Council itself calls a procedure “a bit exceptional”.

The question must be asked whether the cassation rulings constitute exceptional circumstances. Personally, I am very pleased that the House chooses to follow the path of an interpretative law, then leaving the courts and courts the care to take a decision – this law will normally have to impose itself – rather than taking a specifically retroactive provision in matters of prescription. Here, we interpret the notion of command, which I think is an acceptable solution. Subsequently, we will see the balance sheet in terms of substance and in terms of procedure, of all the actions in progress.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister and Mr. Van der Maelen are still a little too quickly cycling around the political fact that the Court of Appeal of Bergen has issued a judgment that sharpened the problem. It is, of course, not correct to wait two to three years for what the Court of Cassation will say about it. After all, everyone knows — I suppose that most people in the administration are aware of that fact — that if something needs to be changed in the rules of limitation, one will immediately face the rights of defence and the requirements of a fair trial, and that a retroactive installation of a limitation for matters already outdated will encounter a lot of objections about those principles. That is conscience. In the case of the Securitas bands, we also had to address the problem of obsolescence. You know as well as the technicians that if there is a risk that a limitation will be estimated differently than by the administration, then as soon as possible it must be intervened in a correct way. If you have to try to repair that retroactively, there will always be discussions about the legal viability of that solution.

The political question, therefore, is not whether there is now a pseudo-solution of which we will know in a few years if it will continue to exist. Mr. Van der Maelen, I hope that you and your colleagues will be willing to consistently attempt to pay the wasted amount that the tax authority would not be able to collect if that technique failed — you estimate it at 270 million euros; a nice amount that the State would then lose receipts — especially after having heard your reasoning about the extent of your performance in terms of the number of mandates that can be financed by it.

It is not correct to leave the cases on their course, knowing that the risk could emerge several years later if the Court of Cassation confirmed the interpretation of the Court of Appeal. You had to find a very correct, legitimate, beautiful solution at the useful moment—you know that very well—instead of having to puzzle years later to find out how something retroactive can be made that strikes or may strike many objections. That is the point.

You may be able to hide it for three more days. After all, there is no press present and there will be no political responsibility to be taken. It is true that you should have acted much faster and legally correct.