Proposition 51K1444

Projet de loi instaurant une cotisation d'égalisation pour les pensions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 18, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant pension scheme survivor's benefit

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 3, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will first report on the recent meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, which started at 15:15 because the Ladies Pieters and D'Hondt had submitted an amendment aimed at making the law retroactive on 18 January. This is the day of the signing of the KB. This is different from the original amendment that the ladies in the committee had submitted on 3 February. It stated that the provisions would enter into force on 1 January.

Minister Van den Bossche has held that it would indeed be better that the date of entry into force of the KB was the same as the date of the law, in order to avoid legal uncertainty or a vacuum. The amendment aimed at adding a supplementary Article 4 was unanimously approved in the committee. The global vote on the draft was passed and was also unanimously approved.

The Room can also work quickly and efficiently. That is a good example. I would like to thank the Ladies D'Hondt and Pieters for their amendment, which could count on unanimity. I do not have the text yet, so I can not vote on it yet. I suggest suspending.

( ... ...

April 28, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Indeed, I have already presented a report on this subject in the plenary session of 3 February 2005. I would therefore like to refer to the report.

I refer to my written report.

His members are Mrs. D'Hondt, Mr. Drèze and Mr. Nollet. Gentleness is not forbidden.

The word is to Mrs D'Hondt et puis M. Drèze and then Mr. Nollet.

Mr. Speaker, we had a committee meeting this week, since the Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee had put the matter on the agenda, and a majority was in favor of holding a full plenary debate today.

I believe that this comprehensive debate should begin with the knowledge of the results of the Interministerial Conference which succeeded the meetings held in the House and then in the Senate. Personally, I find it logical to start our work by hearing the competent Minister, Mr. Tobback, report on the results of this interministerial consultation.

In the committee, we decided to hold a comprehensive debate in the plenary session, which should begin with a presentation by Mr. Tobback on the interministerial consultation.

I received a letter from Mr. The prime minister who was communicated to me today, containing a copy of his letter addressed to the Senate and saying that there was a request to continue the debate.

I leave the floor to Mr. The Minister Tobback.

I received a letter from the Prime Minister. It is accompanied by a copy of his letter to the Senate President asking for the debate to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that in the letter of the Prime Minister it will already be clearly stated that the consultation committee has met on this subject. That was, if I’m right, last week. It showed that after a very short debate, no agreement could be reached with the regions on this draft and, in other words, there has been a conclusion of no agreement in the consultation committee.

The consultation committee met last week. After a very short debate, it became clear that there was no agreement with the Regions.

( ... ...

Tante, I do not know. I received today a copy of the letter addressed to the Senate – that letter was not addressed to me – in copy. This has now been repeated by the Minister.

I am talking about memory. In my opinion, there was a period of 60 days in the House, 30 days in the Senate and 30 days in the interministerial conference.

( ... ...

Yes, there is a problem! Mr. De Batselier had taken the Senate.

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, I recall, from some friends of the Communities and Regions present at these interministerial meetings, that the work was not so brief as this. The meetings were numerous, but it was a dialogue of deaf. Therefore, it was an exchange of views which was presided over by no spirit of conciliation. However, the discussions in the Senate were very interesting in the background, resulting in a motion voted both by the majority and by the opposition and indicating a flagrant lack of concertation in this matter - the minister has also acknowledged. He indicated that the ongoing consultation at the level of the Interministerial Conference was aimed at mitigating the initial lack of consultation recognized by the minister himself. The words that Mr. Tobback just held are extremely reductive. I sincerely hoped to hear the government say that the project was improved, so as to make it more acceptable for federal entities, otherwise all this is but a circus and a game of fools.

I heard from the Communities and Regions who were present at those meetings that the debate was not so short, but that there was only a deaf conversation. The Senate clearly indicated that there had been too little consultation. This was acknowledged by the minister and he stated that the interministerial conference would fill that void. I was hoping to hear here that the design has been improved.

For information, Mr. The secretary informs me that I filed the Senate on 10 February last year.

I am not talking about that now. I leave Mr. So much to answer this question! My question is about the post-Senate period. The interministerial conference that concluded a few days ago gave us hope, including the majority, that a consensus would be found. The Senate’s opinion is very clear, everyone concluded that there was a lack of coordination in the initial phase, that is, before the draft was submitted by the government to parliament. Everyone hoped that within the Interministerial Conference, a convergence of points of view would allow the matter to be accepted by all. But the minister simply tells us that it was brief and that there are agreements. If I hear it correctly, we move forward to the hussard! This is contrary to what is desired by most of the senators who have expressed themselves and voted their motion in the Senate.

Do you have a reaction to what has just been said, otherwise the debate will begin? We are properly seized.

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what else to add to this. The consultation committee is a formally prescribed procedure in the context of a conflict of interest. As I have also said in the Senate and as can also be seen from the report of the discussion in the Senate, there has been several consultations, also independent of the formal procedure between the different regions.

As far as it is up to me to provide concrete data from the consultation committee, I can tell you that only one region eventually opposed the draft and that there were no comments from the others. It seems to me that the consultation has at least gone a long way, but one can not help but conclude that after the whole procedure around the bill, which has been running since January, there is still in the consultation committee

The conflict of interest has been submitted to the Conciliation Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The discussions in the Senate showed that in the Senate too the concertation was intense. Only one Region expressed its opposition within the Conciliation Committee, while the others made no objection. Therefore there is no agreement, the deadlines have expired and the parliamentary debate on the project can begin. It is stated that there is no agreement. Ondertussen is de termijn daarvoor verstreken in kan of parliamentary treatment dus voortgaan, met alle arguments die daarbij van niet komen.

A short response and then Mr. by Nollet. Always on the procedure, Mr. Drèze.

At the end of the 60 day period in the House, a report was drafted and approved. The same happened in the Senate. I therefore request that the report of the Interministerial Conference be transmitted to the parliamentarians of this Chamber. In fact, this is an indispensable document for continuing our work.

If there was an agreement, there would be no problem. But since there is disagreement, we must at least have a written report from the Interministerial Conference. I ask that it be distributed in this room now.

I hesitate but if I remember correctly, only 4 cases were presented and I do not remember that such a report was distributed.

I received a letter from Mr. the Prime Minister who informs me that he has sent a letter to the Senate in which he states that the Committee has not reached an agreement and that the Government was asking the House to take the draft. He was sent back to the House yesterday. The Conference of Presidents decided, early in the afternoon, to include the consideration of this project on the agenda of this Thursday. We must now discuss it.

I do not remember that such a report should be divided. I have received a letter from the Prime Minister and I am pleased with it. The draft law has been validly attached to the Chamber which has entered it on its agenda. It is up to her to discuss the design now, which is the normal course of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had told us, which is not the case, that the consultation had led to a consensus, that the draft had been amended and that everyone thought it was a good project, there would be no problem.

But since there is disagreement and the opposition of this assembly does not agree, it would be normal that the written report of the Interministerial Conference be provided to us.

I hesitate, but as far as I know, in cases that have occurred in the past, this has not been the case.

I repeat that I received an official letter. The House took this matter this afternoon and approved the addition of this draft to its agenda. I now suggest that you examine it. This is the most normal path.

In principle, I would like to ask an informative question. I apologize for not being present at the Conference of Presidents when this issue was discussed, as there was also a meeting of my committee at the same time. However, I would like to know that the point of dispute of a few weeks ago was primarily related to the fact that the Senate was at that time satisfied by a letter from Mr De Batselier and that therefore the discussion in the Senate was initiated. You now say that you have in the meantime contacted the Senate yourself and that this happened at a later date.

The Senate received a letter from Mr. From Batselier here a few weeks and then started the debate. Today, the chairman of the House says he has contacted the Senate.

What has happened?

Le Sénat n’a not that Mr De Batselier had taken the Senate. I took the Senate on 10 February. It has been a misunderstanding because of colleague De Batselier and the Senate has not considered itself a faath. given suite at the request of M. The Batselier. I have then momême saisi le senat. It seems that there is a misunderstanding with M. The Batselier.

A misunderstanding you followed first, Mr. President.

Yes, but the Senate has then said that it has not been done and I have taken the Senate again, as it should be, Mr. Tant.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that you have well understood the first element of information — I believe there are others that the Minister should give us —: the Minister reports to us that, during the Consultation Committee meeting on 20 April, which ruled, only one Region formally opposed the agreement as presented by the federal government initially.

I would like to be sure that I understood the Minister’s communication correctly: during the Consultation Committee of 20 April, only one Region was opposed to the agreement originally proposed by the federal government.

I have here the letter of the Prime Minister, addressed to the Senate; I will read it.

Here is the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the Senate President. In it is said the following. I quote: “28 April. Anne-Marie Lizin, President of the Senate. With regard to the conflict of interest between the Flemish Parliament and the House of Representatives regarding the bill on the introduction of the legalization contribution for pensions, I can inform you that the consultation committee at its meeting of 20 April 2005 concluded that the relevant proposal of the federal government did not obtain the agreement of the members of the aforementioned committee. Having regard to the foregoing, the Federal Government, at its meeting of 22 April 2005, decided to continue the initiated parliamentary procedure. For the sake of completeness, I would like to inform you that the said decision still needs to be ratified by the next meeting of the consultation committee."

I got that, with an accompanying letter addressed to me, because that letter was addressed to Mrs. Lizin, of course. This is what the Minister said here.

So, I think we... I quote the letter of the Prime Minister: “28 April. Anne-Marie Lizin, President of the Senate. Regarding the conflict of interest between the Flemish Parliament and the House of Representatives regarding the bill establishing the legalization contribution for pensions, I can inform you that at its meeting of 20 April 2005, the Conciliation Committee found that the proposal in question of the federal government did not obtain the consent of the members of the aforementioned committee. In the light of the foregoing, the Federal Government decided at its meeting of 22 April 2005 to continue the parliamentary procedure initiated. To be complete, I would like to inform you that the referred finding still needs to be approved by the Conciliation Committee at its next meeting.”

You have read this letter. I was developing my speech and I found that the minister confirmed from the head. I am going

Minister Knikte bevestigend during my betoog. I now ask him for other information that relates to what has been discussed, to how this has been discussed within the Ministerial Committee.

The first question, Mr. Minister. Has the federal government made other proposals than its original proposal? Were there any counter-proposals? Will him no a number of other questions ask.

Are we already in the debate? Say it to me, otherwise I will not get out of it. You can ask the same questions in the debate, there is no problem.

We are in a procedural debate. At some point, we will start the debate in essence. Your questions belong to the House, the Minister will answer them and the House will speak through a vote.

We are in the process debate to see if we can move forward. And to do this, one must check whether one possesses all the information elements, those that must be given in writing, requested by my colleague Mr. Dresden, and those that the Minister may give orally in the sitting.

So will you allow the Chamber to initiate the substantial debate when it can determine that all elements of information are there?

Mr. Nollet, the minister will answer what he wants, of course, but I want to put things up. The House took this draft and put it on its agenda at the beginning of this plenary session. I just announced it as being on the agenda for the discussion. We are in a procedural debate, I understand it, but at some point we will come to the bottom of the project. The Minister will answer the questions and the Chamber will be satisfied or not, I do not know. It will be decided by a vote, which is the normal procedure. If the Minister wishes, in advance, to answer your question, I will gladly give him the floor.

Will you admit that the Chamber will come to the bottom of the file if it can find that all the pieces are there?

The House has already decided because it has put this project on the agenda just recently. Now, ⁇ your religion will be done in one direction or another according to the minister’s response, but this is the case for all members of the House.

The Chamber has already decided in that sense by scheduling this draft.

Mr. Speaker, I have as little experience as you, but it does not seem to me the custom of presenting the report of the consultation committee in a parliamentary hearing as it is a report of a discussion between the various governments. Their

Furthermore, I can only conclude that there are only two options for dealing with the conflict of interest. After all, the consultation committee comes in this only in the context of the treatment of the conflict of interest and not of the treatment of the draft substantially in the Chamber. There are therefore only two options, either the consultation committee has reached an agreement on the original or possibly modified draft and then it is up to the government to come here to explain why it proposes to amend a draft after consultation with the other regions. Either, as is also provided in the procedure, no agreement has been reached and then the only finding is that at the end of the entire procedure of the conflict of interest, the treatment in substance will be in the Chamber.

It is unusual for the report of the Conciliation Committee to be examined in Parliament since it relates, in short, to a consultation between governments. When the Conciliation Committee deals with a conflict of interest, there are two possibilities: either the Conciliation Committee succeeds in concluding an agreement and the Government submits a suitable draft, or it fails and the parliamentary treatment follows its course. In this file, there is no agreement and, therefore, the original project is ⁇ ined. and continued. I think there is no greener information to give you. by

Since no agreement was reached in the consultation committee, the government fully ⁇ ins its original draft law and requests its further consideration.

I think you are right, Mr. Minister.

I think your position is correct.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I think that the position interpreted by Minister Tobback is correct. We are at the end of the procedure. However, one problem remains. At a certain stage, you have so-called again requested the opinion of the State Council. Have we talked about this in the afternoon, or am I wrong? Well, the State Council, having already been caught up with a request for advice in cases of extreme urgency, however, decided to have to answer that the opinion was given.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to intervene on this matter this afternoon, but now I would like to bring it quickly into the debate so that there are no more precedents than necessary. It is not tolerable that the Government, which indeed has the authority to seek advice in cases of extreme urgency, thus systematically removes a body that has a role to fulfill in relation to the Chamber, in particular the State Council, in part because a advice was requested in cases of extreme urgency, and thus blocks the way to request a substantial advice. I believe that this should not be overlooked by the House, Mr. President.

I am not just talking about this case, Mr. Minister. I have talked about a series of cases. The Program Law is a good example of this. The State Council was urgently asked for advice on this subject, which resulted in the vote on a number of provisions relating to the status of mandatory employees, providing for a contribution obligation that implies that those who meet a number of conditions must compulsorily join a self-employed greenhouse. This obligation applies before 1 January. They had to make deposits for the first quarter. That first quarter is over. The law in the form of the program law still exists.

The competent minister takes a new initiative, as those provisions proved to be completely inapplicable. He again asks for the advice in case of high urgency on the present text. Mr. Speaker, the discussion of this text has shown that this text shows a huge number of shortcomings, including in the field of legislation. However, they refuse to allow the Council of State to do its work.

I just want to raise a principle problem here. I do not want to go further into this debate. I consider, however, that the Chamber should seriously consider whether it can allow the Government to systematically ask for advice in cases of extreme urgency, that it does not give the State Council the possibility to issue a substantial opinion and then, as new consultative questions are asked, to say that it has already spoken. This is not tolerable.

The position adopted by the minister is indeed correct, but it seems that the government becomes accustomed to ask for the State Council’s advice in an emergency in order to avoid an opinion on the substance. It is intolerable.

I can only give concrete answers in this case. The rest of the

You ne puis me prononcer que sur discussion must only lead the Chamber. Mr. Tante, I don’t know if it should be tonight, but that’s also up to the Chamber to decide.

In any case, on this draft, the State Council has expressed itself in a fairly thorough manner in an opinion within the framework of the original draft program law. This was in November last year, if I am not mistaken. The discussion on the supplementary opinion focused on two amendments submitted after the hearing in the committee. On the basis of the status of the procedure, and not on the basis of a previous opinion, the State Council held that at that time the request for advice was inadmissible. This had nothing to do with the fact that there had been a previous advice. The project to the exam. Dans le cadre de la loi-programme, le Conseil d'Etat a rendu un avis assez circonstancié à son sujet. It has not been given suite to the request for a supplementary notice on the two other amendments, not because the Council would already have rendered an opinion but because, in this phase of the procedure, the request was considered as irreceptable.

As I refer to the opinion of the State Council, I would like to be very clear. The amendment I submitted with Ms D'hondt and Ms Lanjri in this file is the result of a reflection that took place within the Chamber's Conciliation Committee. So it was the reflection within this committee with the Flemish Parliament that brought us ideas in order to find a solution that satisfies everyone.

During the Conference of Presidents, Mr. De Croo had acknowledged that it would be interesting to have the State Council’s opinion on these amendments, given that the matter would then be settled by an external judicial instance. If the State Council gave the government the right, the Mass was said. On the other hand, if the State Council gave reason to the amendment, the discussion was necessarily reopened.

At the time, everyone had agreed. Today, when the works in the Senate – and also, I imagine, in the Interministerial Conference – have reinforced the elements, arguments and findings of the existence of real problems in this dossier and of lack of concertation, paradoxically, would it seem that the opinion of the State Council is no longer needed?

What is the State Council’s opinion on the submitted amendments? It is extremely lacunar: “At this stage of the procedure, it is not acceptable for the State Council to examine it.” This is true, but this procedure is over, we are now in a procedure on the substance. So, even more than at the time, it is necessary to seek the opinion of the State Council. If the chairman of the House has a different attitude, it is totally incomprehensible.

The amendment I submitted with Mrs D’Hondt and Mrs Lanjri is the result of a reflection in the Chamber’s Consultation Committee with the Flemish Parliament, which led to ideas for reconciliation.

At that time, Mr. De Croo acknowledged at the Conference of Presidents that it would be interesting to have the State Council’s opinion on the amendments to cut through the node. At that time, everyone agreed. Today, while the work in the Senate has repeatedly demonstrated that insufficient consultation is taking place, that advice suddenly turns out to be superfluous.

Mr. Dresden, you were not there. In the plenary session, at the request of your group leader, I cited the Senate rapporteur, Professor Delpérée, who clearly said: "The State Council has given an opinion." He cited it in his report and also states: "The State Council decided and said that the ordinary legislator was competent." I cited this just recently, around 15.45 or 16.00 hours, at the request of your group leader. by

Do not tell me about things that, unfortunately and I understand, you could not get acquainted with since you were absent at that time. However, this dialogue took place correctly with Mr. by Wathelet. by

For me, the incident is closed.

Subsequently, at the request of your group leader and in your absence, I have cited the Senate Rapporteur, Professor Delpérée. It stated that the State Council has issued an opinion, that a decision has been taken and that the ordinary legislature is competent. The incident is closed.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the least, Mr. President, that one can say of the discussion of this bill is that it has not gone as it should. This applies not only to what has just been said around the procedure, but actually from the beginning. Those among us and I especially think also of the government that approved the state reform as it is now, should also remember in all the acts they approve which state structure we have chosen and how the distribution of tasks and powers lies. What happened here with this bill around the introduction of an equalization contribution for pensions is not in accordance with our state reform, has no respect for the state reform. Let’s bear in mind, it is not because a federal government and parties in that federal government think of lack of money to have to vote on a number of matters that a whole Flemish government should agree. It is actually an ignorance, a disregard of our state reform when one believes that the states must say yes and amen to what the federal government in its so common wisdom believes to have to decide.

It is not his matter here, Mr. Minister, whether or not there should be a payment on those fees, it is not his matter whether or not those fees should be overthrown and to which body of the RSZ they should be overthrown, it is actually his matter that with this decision the federal government has put in the pockets of the states. This is about it. Yes, Mr the Minister. As a non-specialist in state reform, I will tell you what I feel and what hopefully the citizen in the street also feels. What is it about, Mr. Minister? In the state reform, the powers were divided and the money was also given for that. They also gave the money for it, and they knew, they knew at that moment that the money they brought also contained that withdrawals that occurred on public servants' fees were not transferred to the federal level of RSZ where they might logically belong. This was taken into account in the distribution of funds.

What is the purpose of the present draft law? The draft is intended to eliminate those funds. This is contrary to the agreements made during the state reform.

Mr. Minister, I would still be susceptible to this reasoning if the federal government argued that it is not entirely on the grace that there are withdrawals on certain fees that do not collapse to the federal level and insist that this practice be corrected but at the same time also take the decision to increase the grant. Then it would be correct. Now, however, you are taking money away from the states.

If, within the framework of administrative simplification and transparency, the federal government had decided what logically should have happened, it would have had to increase the allocation. The allocation of the financial resources to the Flemish Community was without prejudice to the deductions on the fees of officials. In short, these funds would have remained in Flanders.

This is less, even more than in the pockets of the

The discussion of this bill did not take place as it should have taken place, and I am not talking only about the procedure. This draft law on equalization of pensions does not respect the state reform and only serves to fill some holes in the federal budget. The federal majority will agree on this subterfuge but the Flemish government is not obliged to do the same. This bill will simply allow the federal government to use itself in the pockets of federal entities. by

In the framework of the state reform, it was decided to transfer certain powers, while also transferring the financial resources that go hand in hand with these powers. The retention on the benefits of public servants would therefore no longer be returned to the ONSS, a federal body. Now we are told that this money must be returned. This is contrary to the agreements that have been concluded. If, as part of this or that reasoning, this reversal is insisted, then the allocations paid to the federated entities should be increased. by

Now, the government simply takes money from the pockets of the federated entities without prior consultation with the governments of these entities. This project is, of course, a matter of money but much more a text that betrays a lack of respect. by

It is clear that the federal government will attempt to find the means to shut down the budget. This is the true reason. Sa motivation n'est donc pas, comme d'aucuns le prétendent, de faire et sorte que les choses soient plus transparentes et plus logiques. States are sitting. That you are in their pockets is clear! If it had not been, there would have been a prior consultation. This has not been there.

Much more than taking away the money, Mr. Minister, is the absence of conversation and consultation with equal colleagues and at least informing them of it, a proof that one considers the provincial governments as inferior and does not find it necessary to inform and consult with them. You followed the reasoning: “They will agree. If we decide, they will agree with it."This is not possible, Mr. Minister.

For someone like me who has very consciously elected and will continue to vote for the Federal Parliament, this in our country with its state reform is an unacceptable thing! It is much less a case of money than of respect. I repeat it. This cannot!

Let us be, Mr. Minister. What was it about? In addition to the many other resources, they were looking for all the pots, envelopes and cigar boxes to get the budget around. It is about that.

Even if in this Parliament there is a plea for this measure as there has never been before, I will not be convinced that this decision serves transparency and logic. This decision was made because the envelopes and cigar boxes were being empty in order to balance the budget. That is the core of the case.

This is not only the case for this matter. It is also about other measures.

Since there are others who demonstrate what was going on at that time, I am strengthened in my belief that it was merely about entering the money. At the same time we had the cliquet system for the fuels, which was proposed as an environmental measure but that there was no in the far distance and only needed to collect the money. We also had the increase of the contribution for the commercial vehicles, so-called for the sake of the correct inning. They were all instruments, just like now the equalization contribution, to balance the accounts.

Is that rejectionable? No, that is not repugnant. When one must appeal to other governments, one must at least show the collegiality and decency to consult with them on this.

This is exactly what the colleagues have emphasized very strongly in the procedural discussion. I would like to do that again, from the speech floor. Indeed, we played in a hallucinating story: the point was added to the agenda of the Social Affairs Committee this week, but when we were going to start discussing it, it turned out to be unnecessary. Well, ⁇ from the question of colleague Drèze it shows that while we are to vote on the text later, we do not know how the story ended. The Parliament, and I, who will vote later, do not know exactly how the story ended. What is the outcome of the consultation? I do not know. We have no report on this. We are thus Le présent projet de loi a été ajouté à l'ordre du jour de la commission des Affaires sociales et il sera soumis aux voix tout à l'heure, mais nous ne savons absolument pas comment ça s'est terminé. What is the result of the discussion within the Committee of Conciliation? Les gouvernements des entités fédérées sont-ils, du reste, informés que le présent projet de loi sera soumis aux voix aujourd'hui? based on the rumors.

I think that — I am now also addressing the Chairman of the Chamber — is a very hallucinating story. Mr. Minister, are the counties now aware that the federal government has submitted the present draft law and that it is being discussed today? It’s their money, isn’t it? The other questions have already been asked by my colleagues.

Mrs D'Hondt, first of all, you should not continue on rumors about the consultation committee. There is a formal letter from the Prime Minister, addressed to the Chairman of the Chamber, to inform that the consultation committee has ended with the conclusion that there was no agreement. I do not call that a rumor. If you want to label the letters of the Prime Minister to the House as rumors, I leave that for you.

Secondly, the regions, as I know, are not dumber than the federal government or the House of Representatives. If they know that no agreement has been reached in the consultation committee, they know as well as you and I the continuation of the procedure. The treatment will continue in the Chamber. So, do they know that? Of course they know that.

The Prime Minister sent a formal letter to the Speaker of the House to indicate that the Conciliation Committee has not reached an agreement. Regions know the procedure and know that, in this case, it is the Chamber that deals with the case.

Mrs D'Hondt, Mr Bultinck also wants to interrupt.

I will be brief, Mr. Minister, you have just seen a little bit in your cards. Of course, I can take note of the formal message that we will not receive a report of what happened in the consultation committee.

But you have taken a look at your cards for a moment by saying, “We were already a step further. In fact, there was basically only one more region that made resistance.”

Well, Mr. Minister, when you say A to us, you can also say B. We are here to a closer order in a parliament where a minister must be accountable and not vice versa. So you can tell us which region was still troubled in this matter. When I hear both the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking colleagues, I am not even sure that there really is only one region dwarf. I would like to get a concrete answer to that question.

Can the Minister tell us which region opposed?

I would like to intervene on a few points.

The first point concerns the procedure and the adjustment of the agenda, as happened yesterday in the Social Affairs Committee. The committee had indeed yesterday that draft on the agenda, and possibly the discussion of a series of amendments was also scheduled. The committee was curious about the opportunity to discuss it or not, but found that it was not necessary, knowing that the work at the level of the committee had already been completed. In other words, the committee has used its power to adjust the agenda based on a judgment of whether it was necessary or useful to discuss it, and has found that it was neither necessary nor useful.

A second point is the following. Some of them act as if they

There are no procedural problems in my view. The Social Affairs Committee considered that a discussion on the bill was not necessary because the debate was already closed within it.

It is not necessary to feindre the ne pas savoir ce qui se passe au Comité de concertation. The report of the Committee of Consultation indicates from 1 February that there was no agreement on the modification. Le travail peut à présent se ignorant of the attitude and the results of the consultation committee. I refer already to the report of 1 February, which refers to the consultation committee with members of the Chamber and of the Flemish Parliament. In conclusion, it is clear that there is no agreement on an adaptation. I also refer to the letter you recently read. As a result, the Parliament can continue its work. This means that based on the report of the committee and the treatment of the bill, here the final discussion takes place, as is now. Therefore, I do not see the procedural problem. I think all the elements of the game are known. It is up to the Chamber to make a judgment on this basis.

Basically, Mrs D'hondt, you know that I myself, both in the committee and in the consultation committee with the Flemish Parliament, felt that there was indeed a lack of prior consultation. That view was, by the way, shared by the government and by the member of the government, who indeed acknowledged that it would have been more galant if a prior consultation had taken place on this subject. This is an element of the file, which has been said.

Mrs D'Hondt, I want to ask you a question in essence. You just said that it is not rejectable that this ends up in the closet, where it must end. Do you find it opportune or not opportune that that equalization contribution ends where it should end according to the draft law, which is in the balance fund? That is the crucial question. You can see as well as I do — you are at least as concerned as I am about the financing of social security and the financing of the pension sector — that decisions of the subregions, as they took place in the past years and months, were actually slying funds deprived of the greenhouse where they should end.

An increase in wages in education and an increase in the number of statutory officers according to the established rules, resulted in your financial problem in social security increasing as subregions also make decisions. I would like to ask you the following question very specifically. Do you find it a good thing or not that the funds recovered in this way for a piece end up in the Federal Social Security Treasury? That is the crucial question. proceedings to the Chamber on the basis of the report of the commission.

The government has also admitted itself that it would have been more courteous to conduct a prior consultation with the governments of the federal entities.

In recent years, federal government decisions, such as salary increases in education, have drawn huge sums from the Social Security funds. So does Mrs D'hondt not approve that the funds are now transferred to the Social Security as compensation? Does the balance of our pension schemes also hold him strongly at heart? It is necessary to check to which cashier the funds logically return.

Mrs. D’Hondt, you had the word.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier, but then maybe a little more explicitly.

Mr. Bonte, you say that the government indeed also acknowledges that it had been more galant. It’s not just about gallantry. Galantry is a nice added value, but here it is about our state reform. This has nothing to do with galantry. It is gallantry when one treats one another with another. That is galant. It’s about not making decisions with which one comes into the territory of another and that has actually happened here.

It is not a matter of galantry but of respect for a reform of the state and, in this case, decisions that impeach the powers of another government.

I would like to respond briefly to that.

Effectivement, mais cela vaut I can even follow you in your definition of being galant, but this is, of course, also something that applies to the sub-governments. If they make decisions that open up rights to the federal social security without contribution against it, you will have to admit that there is a problem with it. I also cannot remember, in my knowledge, that there have been requests from those participating governments for consultation with the Federal Minister of Social Security or with the Federal Government. also for the federated entities after they have the rights to social security without compensation or prior consultation with the federal government.

Mrs D'Hondt, I have a short break from Mr Bultinck. You are the mater discussionis.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not want to replicate what colleague D'Hondt says, because of course, from our opposition faction, I fully agree to her analysis, but rather to what colleague Bonte defends here.

I can understand it. He is a federal chamber member and he must ultimately defend the federal recovery that is taking place here today. But, colleague Bonte, what you come here today to defend is not crash? We are talking here about your own Flemish colleagues, your geographical colleagues of the SPAA in the Flemish Parliament and the majority colleagues of the VLD in the Flemish Parliament. Their

I am well informed, right? You mentioned the conflict of interest. Have your sp.a’ers and your VLD’s in the Flemish Parliament fully supported this conflict of interest? My info, and anyone who knows the dossier, says that in the Flemish Parliament the conflict of interest has been unanimously supported. That is the only crucial point, Mr. Speaker, in this debate. All arguments are completely exhausted. Therefore, today I will really limit myself to the only essence. This is once again the file of credibility, where sp.a'ers and VLD'ers in the Flemish Parliament say something completely opposite to what their colleagues say at the federal level. This is the only thing that counts in this file.

I would like to remind Mr. It is good that its co-religionaries in the Flemish Parliament as well as the Flemish liberals in this same homicide unanimously supported the conflict of interests. It is a question of credibility.

In response to Mr. President’s last speech. Bonte, I remind you that there is a mechanism of accountability in terms of pension contributions. This mechanism works. If you feel that you need to go further and change it, let’s do it! A mechanism is provided in the event of wage increases: this mechanism then operates transfers to the federal. I do not see where the problem is. If you are not satisfied with the mechanism, change it! It is a federal system.

There is a federal accountability mechanism in terms of pension contributions.

Mr. Dresden, you will intervene in a moment. We will not constantly interrupt Mrs. D'Hondt.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not have the opportunity to have a debate, we do not respect the agreement reached in the committee.

We are in the process, you can see it.

Mr President Mr. Nollet is absolutely right. I add that this mechanism works in consultation with the federal entities and therefore respects the balances in our country.

That mechanism, by the way, works in consultation with the counties so that the balance in our country is ⁇ ined.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be very clear. What we are talking about here is the retention on the holiday fee, which already occurred at the time of our state reform. At that moment, the arrest occurred and it was not broken down. These and thousands of other data have been taken into account in the allocation of the financial resources in the context of our state reform. That is my point.

The levy on the holiday leaf was already made at the time of the implementation of the state reform. These resources have been taken into account in the allocation of resources.

The [...]

No, Mr. Bonte, on the holiday fee, the retention has not increased. There have been other things added, that I admit, but here it is about the holiday fee and I want to keep it here. This was the case at the time of the state reform in the distribution of the financial resources and thus has been taken into account in the distribution of the funds. Their

Furthermore, as I have already said in the committee discussions, I believe that those funds are best spent where they should be spent, as is the case for other workers. I just said that if the government, which then distributed the resources and knows on what basis it distributed them, in the context of transparency – which I would dare to defend – says that it wants to change this, then it must be consistent and increase the allocation. Otherwise — and that is exactly my point — this is a savings on the cover of the states. That is the whole core of the case. You are in the pockets of the states. It is not a debate about transparency, but a debate about whether you can use the resources of others, the federal greenhouse to knock. These things are really overlooked. Even me revolts that and I do not, however, have the state reform under the main pillow. Just for respect, this cannot be defended. This is, of course, also the reason why this bill was and remains unacceptable for us. Their

I would like to make a few comments on some articles. The first is Article 3. It would be good to look at the previous text again. I know, and I have just tried to make this clear, that this is not about the principle, but about the yield. When it comes to income, it would be better to write it in Dutch. One should not be ashamed to write that right: it is all about revenue. This language error should at least be corrected.

So, I come to Article 4. That Article 4 introduces for the first time a similar contribution for permanently appointed officials assigned to the Pension Balance Fund. At the beginning of the discussion we had a very long discussion about whether or not to ask advice to the State Council. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this Article 4 was substantially amended following the opinion of the State Council. I ask you and the services to check this carefully. I am willing to admit that I have made a mistake, if you, in all your wisdom—which was so praised this afternoon—come to the conclusion that I am wrong.

Article 4 has been amended after the opinion of the State Council. Previously, it was stated that the existing deductions on the holiday fee and other premiums, as set forth in the various decisions, must

If the federal government now allocates these resources, the allocation of the federal entities must be increased. This debate is not about a lack of transparency but rather a measure of economy at the expense of federated entities. For CD&V, this bill is unacceptable.

Article 3 contains a linguistic error. Article 4 was substantially amended following the opinion of the State Council. If the article is approved as it is, the enforcement of the law will pose problems. Article 7 was not included in the original bill and was therefore not examined by the State Council.

On the procedural level, the examination of this bill may continue, but it would not be courteous. The parties that protest within the Flemish government, defend the project at the federal level. The majority groups show schizophrenia and mislead the opinion. This bill also changes the mode of financing of the Communities and Regions and must therefore be adopted by a special majority. At the very moment when an attempt is made to find a solution for Brussels-HalVilvorde, the parliament is undermining the state reform. by

are transferred to the relevant fund. The State Council held that this could not be done because the purpose must be included in each of those decisions in order to preserve the unity in the regulatory texts. If they had done so, the federal government could only modify its own texts through this path.

Another approach proposed by the Council of State and now followed by the current Article 4 concerns the introduction of a new social security contribution on those premiums — for officials of all public authorities — and the transfer of that withholding to the Fund. Subsequently, this detention or in the various regulations must be abolished.

There is now a problem, Mr. Chairman, because what if that Consultation Committee consists of deaf and dumb. If these regulations are not adjusted at the same time, I wonder if we are not facing a very serious problem because then both will continue to hold back. I really want to know if the deaf and the dumb — the federal level on the one hand and the states on the other — have reached an agreement on the date on which those regulations will be adjusted. Otherwise, we are facing a serious legal problem.

The more eminent lawyers will have seen this much earlier than me. However, you can only use what you have and I have only seen it now. I ask the Minister what this is about. A problem will arise if the different decisions, which regulate detention in different ways, are not adjusted simultaneously by the federal government and the other governments.

Therefore, we found that it was better to take a little more time to avoid this. After all, if we do not pay attention now and if I do not get a conclusive answer from the minister about this so soon, it would be possible that we will have to work with retroactive force and for a while will see two different contingencies exist side by side. Therefore, I ask for clear changes in this regard. Their

A further issue is Article 7. By article 7, the withholding on the holiday allowance of schepenen, mayors and OCMW chairs is now collected by the RSZ-PPO and passed to the Fund. Their

Here, too, I come back with the so-called State Council opinion. This article 7, which covers the vacation fees of shapes, mayors and OCMW chairs, was not in the original draft. This article has never been submitted to the Council of State. The reason for our request to ask the State Council to give an opinion was therefore not in question. I have already mentioned it here on two points. One point was Article 4, which was thoroughly amended, and the second point was Article 7.

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize our position in three points. Their

First, last week a consultation committee took place where no consensus was reached. In fact, it is correct that then, purely procedural, it is possible to continue. Friendly - to say it with the words of colleague Bonte - and galant is something different. In what schizophrenic country do we live, when parties protesting in the Flemish government, at the federal level, are the defenders of this arrangement?

Second, the reimbursement of the withheld contribution. Colleague Bonte asked me about this. Without hesitation, we say that this is the most correct way. However, the money to pay these contributions must also go to the states. Otherwise, this is a delayed fraud on the state reform. Their

Third, no matter how much one tries to conceal or camouflage it, it is an adjustment of the financing of Communities and Regions.

Therefore, we remain with our amendment, which we have submitted with a number of colleagues. This is a financing law, which in fact also requires a special majority to be approved.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at the moment when the country wraps itself in the most crazy curves to find a solution for BHV, the state reform is being violated here in the House. I don’t know if I can use that word.

This is a parliamentary term. There has also been a book about the occupation in '14'18 and that has as its title The rape of Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like first, if you allow it, to raise a small misunderstanding regarding the request for opinion to the Council of State.

I was searching at the foot up my archives. If I refer to the report that was approved, my colleague and friend, Francis Delpérée, told the Senate that: “The State Council reminded that it had already expressed itself on the issue at the time of the introduction of the initial project.” Wathelet also, three times, from the beginning to the end, the State Council opinion dated February 9, 2005. I allow myself to read it to you. It is relatively short. "The State Council recalls" — there is the same word "recalls" as in Mr. Delpérée on pensions and this is where the misunderstanding comes - "as a proceeding in conflict of interest, referring to a draft law establishing an equalization contribution on pensions, the particular conditions and arrangements, according to which its reasoned opinion may be requested at the current stage of the procedure, are fixed in article 32, §6 of the ordinary law of 9 August 1980." According to this provision - I quote paragraph 6 -, "the government, the negotiation committee, referred to in article 31, an executive of the Community or of the Region or the collegium gathered may request the legislative section of the State Council, if situated in the conflict prescribed by article 85bis of the laws on the Council of States coordinated 12 January 1973, to give, within a meaning of 5 days of work, an opinion subordinate to the application of paragraph 1 of article 84, if an erroneous jurisdiction of paragraph 1 or paragraph 1 of the Council does not include the co-ordinated law. Where, according to the opinion of the Legislative Section, there is a conflict of competence, the procedure before the Conciliation Committee is definitively closed."The State Council concludes its opinion with this sentence: "This request for opinion is therefore unacceptable."

Mr Delpérée stated in the Senate that the State Council had recalled that he had already spoken on that question when the original draft was submitted. However, it is a misunderstanding. In its Opinion of 9 February 2005, the State Council “reminds” — from that word the misunderstanding arises — that, “as it is an ongoing procedure concerning a conflict of interest [...] the Government, the Consultative Committee referred to in Article 31, an executive of a Community or a Region or the United College may request the legislative section of the State Council [...] to [...] issue a reasoned opinion on whether or not the conflict submitted to the Consultative Committee is free from a conflict of competence. If, according to the opinion of the Legislative Division, there is a conflict of competence, the procedure in the Consultation Committee shall be definitively closed.» De Raad Je crois avoir ainsi éclairci le malentendu.

My opinion, shared by other members of this assembly, is that if the opinion was unacceptable at that time, it is acceptable today. This assembly or its chairman can therefore perfectly ask for an opinion which, as I have already said, would definitively close the discussion on the matter.

In this context, I would like to highlight two or three points of the work carried out during the conflict of interest procedure, which I find interesting.

At the level of the report on the consultation between the delegations of the House of Representatives and the Flemish Parliament held on 1 February 2005, I had indicated that, in essence, this government project was intended to contribute to the balance of the federal budget for 2005 rather than to finance the pension scheme of the employees concerned.

Indeed, the fee for contractual employees would be allocated to the overall management of social security and the fee for statutory employees would be temporarily allocated to a pension balance fund. Indeed, following the fiscal reform of 1989, the government can, at the end of the fiscal year, transfer the balance of this fund to the state budget.

I will quote a sentence from the "Precision of Budgetary Rules for Parliamentary Use": "The legislator may terminate, in whole or in part, the allocation to the budgetary fund of the balance available at the end of the fiscal year. These funds are then again intended to cover all the expenses. The Government may also decide to reserve part of these resources to ⁇ the budgetary objectives it has set itself.”

This confirms, however, that the retention on the holiday pack is a way for the federal government to fill the budget gaps over the fiscal year 2005 and that, on the back of the federal entities. The receipt is not intended to finance pensions, but is simply temporarily stored in the budgetary balance fund of pension schemes.

In this context, I would like to relate to a judgment numbered 99/2004 of 2 June 2004 of the Court of Arbitration, judgment annulling Article 437 of the loiprogramme of 24 December 2002. The Arbitration Court examined the question of what is the legal nature of the retention of 13,07% on the amount of the Copernic premium granted to certain public service agents. This is another case, but with obvious similarities.

Article 47 of the Program Law of 24 December 2002 stipulated: "From 2002 onwards, a retention of 13,07% shall be made on the amount of the Copernic premium granted to certain officials of public services in the manner established by the King by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers." Note that such a retention had been instituted (I cite parliamentary documents): "to preserve the absolute parallel between the holiday peckle and the Copernic premium." It was proposed to introduce a similar retention of 13,07%. van State besluit bijgevolg dat of adviesaanvraag niet-ontvankelijk is.

If that was the case then, it is still so. This meeting can therefore easily ask for an opinion that would definitively close the discussion on this subject.

In essence, the report on the consultation of 1 February 2005 between the Chamber and the delegation of the Flemish Parliament states that this draft is intended more to balance the federal budget for 2005 than to finance the pension scheme of the officials concerned. Indeed, the withholding relating to contractual officials would be deposited temporarily in a pension system balance fund. The balance of that fund may be transferred by the Government to the public budget at the end of the financial year.

The deduction on the holiday fee may be used by the federal government to fill the gaps in the budget for the financial year 2005 at the expense of the sub-regions.

In his arrest 99/2004 of 2 June 2004, dat article 437 van de programmawet van 24 december 2002 vernietigt, vraagt het Arbitragehof zich af wat het juridische karakter is van de afhouding van 13,07 percent op het bedrag van de Copernicuspremie die aan sommige ambtenaren van de overheidsdiensten wordt toegekend. Dat dossier vertoont gelijkenis met hetgeen vandaag ter tafel ligt. In tegenstelling tot wat de regering beweert concerning begrotingstechnische aard van de inhouding, is het Arbitragehof van The government claimed at the time that the nature of the levy was purely budgetary. The Court of Arbitration, on the other hand, considers that “the alleged withholding does not present any characteristics of a tax or a social security contribution. It is nothing but a reduction in the amount of the premium initially planned. This amount is neither granted to a social security institution, nor assigned as tax revenue to the Public Treasury as a professional pre-count."This decision confirms, if necessary, that the retention of 13,07% is neither a social retention nor a tax retention.

I would now like to draw up two or three passages of the Senate report on the same conflict of interest between the Flemish Parliament and the House of Representatives. First, one member indicates that a consultation has been conducted for many years, as a colleague recently recalled, on the contribution of the Communities and Regions’ accountability in terms of pensions. Another senator asks if one could not get rid of this by incorporating the 13.07% retention product in question into the accountability contribution. These two quotes give right to my colleague Ecolo M. Nollet, saying that there is a mechanism accepted by all and on which the government could have relied instead of making a unilateral decision.

I quote a third senator who indicates that the starting point of Minister Tobback’s reasoning is sinful of historical amnesia—these are his terms. The Special Financing Act of 16 January 1989 did not transfer to the Communities and Regions all the resources required for the exercise of the transferred powers but only a percentage fixed on the basis of a percentage of the revenue of the time. Today, however, we want to give the impression that the Communities and the Regions are receiving all the necessary resources and that they abuse 13,07% of the vacation fee of their staff members. This is historically inaccurate and with its present bill, the government explicitly challenges the funding law.”

A fourth speaker explains that we felt for a long time — I share this point of view and I am not the only one — that something was wrong. Indeed, as we all know, the provisions contained in the draft were originally included in the draft loiprogramme which was voted on 27 December 2004, but these provisions were removed from the draft law-programme, obviously because the government feared difficulties that could have been reflected on the whole law-programme.

The last citation. This time, as recently mentioned during the debates on the procedure, the minister specifies that, I quote, "he must also find that the consultation on the bill under consideration has left much to be desired." The divergence of views between us is that the Minister considers that the consultation that took place on the existence or not of a conflict of interest is, for him, a finding on the substance, which is obviously an element that we cannot share from a legal point of view. The negotiation that took place for 60 days in the House, 30 days in the Senate, and then in the Interministerial Conference, was a negotiation in conflict of interests and, in the essence, the dots were piped since – I come to the last speech, citing a senator whose point of view I share – “the notion of concertation a oordeel dat die inhouding nothing weg hat van een belasting of social bijdrage. Uit de stukken van de Senat betreffende het belangenconflict tussen het Vlaams Parliament en de Kamer van volksvertegenwoordigers blijkt dat er een door iedereen erkende praktijk bestaat met betrekking tot de responsabiliseringsbijdrage. Government had given the same mechanism can apply in place of a one-sided decision-making op te dringen. Een senator verklaart trouwens dat de regering de financieringswet expliciet ter discussion stelt door te laten uitschijnen dat de deelgebieden ten onrechte een bijdrage van 13,07% op het vakantiegeld van hun personeelsleden inhouden.

The ultimate proof that something is not in the hook is that the provisions of this draft were originally in the draft program law (which was adopted on 27 December 2004), but that the government then dismissed them there. Their

Contrary to what the Government claims regarding the budgetary nature of the withholding, the Court of Arbitration considers that that withholding has nothing apart from a tax or social contribution. The documents of the Senate concerning the conflict of interest between the Flemish Parliament and the Chamber of Representatives show that there is a common practice regarding the accountability contribution. The government could have applied the same mechanism instead of imposing a unilateral decision. One senator stated, by the way, that the government explicitly challenged the Finance Act by making it appear that the sub-regions wrongly contributed 13,07% to the une signification spécifique in the jurisprudence of the Cour d'arbitrage et du Conseil d'Etat: une concertation est plus qu'une simple discussion. In order for there to be true concertation, it is necessary to have an open situation."

However, the situation in this case is closed because the government comes with a unilateral project and does not intend to discuss its content. In terms of the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration, I personally refer to a document of the Court of Arbitration of 15 January 1992, stating that, I quote, "the consultation makes sense only before — and not after — that the decision is made."

With all these elements, I can only share, and this is the minimum that the CDH can do, the reasoned opinion adopted by the Senate Committee on Institutional Affairs. I read it because parliamentarians may not have been aware of it, while it deserves to be taken back in the preparatory work of this assembly.

This is what the reasoned opinion says: "The Senate regrets that the consultation with the Regions and Communities has been insufficient. The Senate considers it desirable that any measure envisaged by the Government which has a significant influence on the Regions and Communities, be preceded by a real consultation with them. This practice should be implemented in a spirit of reciprocity.”

The Senate indicated at the time, I quote, “(...) trust the government so that, as far as possible, a solution that is acceptable for all parties can be achieved.”

Clearly, the government has not taken into account this Senate opinion. Today, therefore, I ask the members of this assembly to think carefully about the gesture they are going to make during the vote so far. Vacantiegeld van hun personeelsleden inhouden.

The ultimate proof that something is not in the hook is that the provisions of this draft were originally in the draft program law (which was adopted on 27 December 2004), but that the government then dismissed them there. Their

As regards the lack of consultation, I would like to paint out the disagreement between the CDH group and the minister. Based on a document of the Arbitration Court of 15 January 1992, we maintain that consultation is more than a simple discussion and only makes sense if it takes place before the decision. In this case, the government submits us a draft on which it has taken a decision unilaterally and the content of which it does not want to discuss.

The CDH agrees with the reasoned opinion of the Senate Committee on Institutional Affairs stating that it is desirable that the Government initiates a full consultation with the Regions and the Communities when it intends to adopt measures that may have consequences for the Regions. The government has put that Senate opinion aside, and I call on the House members to consider the consequences of their vote.

I will try to keep the timing. I will not develop the whole part of the meanders of the path of the project in committee, in concertation committee. I will not extend myself to the legal dimensions, even if there would be substance to do so. I will focus my speech on the substance and on three elements related to this fund.

In spite of all that you have tried to explain before and that you will probably still try to explain, we consider that this is

I will limit me to three elements what the content of the project concerns. De Ecolofractie is van oordeel dat het federale level hiermee een holdup pleegt op middelen waarover het al beschikt. Zonder overleg besliste de federale staat eenzijdig ⁇ of a hold-up that the federal government has operated on federal entities. Not only did they have no choice but, in addition, they were not consulted, this has also been recognized at times. At first, we tried to deny and hide it, but as the debate progressed, we were able to recognize and accept that this was indeed the case.

It is a unilateral decision but it is above all a unilateral decision that can be criticized in its choice because it denies the historical reality. In 1989, when a whole series of powers were transferred to federal entities, the retention was already carried out. You could not hide it in the parliamentary work. It is a fact. This retention was already operated at that time. By the way, if we want to be more accurate historically, the beginning of the collection of a retention on the holiday pécule was operated in 1982 at the height of 7%. In 1984, it rose to 12,07% and in 1993 to 13,07%. As we transfer skills in 1989, at that time we are at 12,07%.

How can you explain that you deny and hide that part that is already real on a sample? You also say that it should be, that it would be legitimate and necessary for the parallelism that the federated entities pay due competition of 13,07%, while 12,07% are already held at the time of the special funding law.

You transform a special law into an ordinary law. I would like you to tell me exactly if, yes or not, I am right when I recall the history of this file. In 1982, it was already taken 7%; in 1984, it was 12.07%. Therefore, at the time of the transfer of skills in 1989, we are already at 12,07%!

You could have found some legitimacy in claiming the difference between 12,07 and 13,07% but you had to do it differently; at least not by making them pay a second time! It can therefore be stated that this is a hold-up on funds that are already in the possession of the federal!

It would ⁇ have been clearer, more readable and necessary for the social security component to allocate them to the social security budget. But this is played within the federal budget; it is not by demanding money a second time from federal entities!

Here is the first point: the hold-up!

The second point I would like to emphasize is our fear for the future. In the discussions that we had in the Finance Committee, your colleague, Mr. Vande Lanotte, stated — I already quoted it earlier — that the same measure should be taken for the end-of-year premiums. You can read this statement in the report No. 375 of 27 October 2004. I can put it at your disposal, but I think you already have a copy.

I therefore fear that this measure creates a dangerous precedent, not so much at the level of the method — at this point, I hope you will change it — but at the level of the bottom. I am afraid that every time new constraints are reflected on federal entities. The opinion on the substance of the State Council was ⁇ useful because, in my opinion, according to our analysis, you are transforming into simple majority what cannot be. Tomorrow, you will continue or, in any case, you will risk continuing at a historische realiteit te ontkennen. Toen de bevoegdheden door de bijzondere wet van 1989 aan de deelstaten werden overgedragen, bestond er immers al een heffing van 12,7 %. Dat soort inhouding bestaat trouwens al since 1982 (toen ging het om 7 %). Vervolgens maakt mijn fractie zich zorgen over the fact that er aldus a precedent can arise. Minister Vande Lanotte has hereover in de commissievergadering Financiën van 27 oktober 2004 verklaard dat de kwestie van de eindejaarspremies via gelijksoortige maatregelen zou kunnen worden geregeld.

We should have asked for the advice of the State Council. It would have given us more clarity on whether the draft should be approved by ordinary or qualified majority. I am afraid of the future. They have now hanged the sub-regions a sort of Damocles sword over their heads by threatening with new negotiations on the 2006-2011 agreement. I fear that given the current economic context, it will again be the Regions and the Communities that will need to make an effort. However, they received no more than planned. They have received their part, less than what you are going to take away from them now. There is a financing shortage.

I have now focused on the substance of the case, but I agree with all the comments on the legal chapter that the previous speakers have formulated here. I am afraid that we will once again have the opportunity to return to this dossier.

This is due to the economic situation in which the country is currently situated. We have heard questions about the lack of growth in recent months. This can only result in further pressure from the federal government on the federated entities while it would do well to look in its own plate!

The third element of my reflection is addressed less to you as you are sent to defend this bill that is actually the result of an agreement to find a balanced budget, but on the back of the federated entities. I fear for the future because, throughout the process of consultation with the federated entities, the fact that there was a Damocles sword above their heads has been mirrored. This Damocles Sword is the renegotiation of the 2006-2011 agreement. We are familiar with the macro-economic budgetary context in which the small discussion on the 13,07% took place. Is it also because some federal entities, in the end, accepted the proposal? But did they really have a choice at that time?

I fear that, in the economic context as we know it, it will again be the Regions and Communities that will be called to make efforts. I know the argument of the Minister of Budget who says they received more than was planned. No, they simply received what was provided in the law minus what you take away from them by the law that you are going to make pass here. There is clearly this new risk of a settlement: you take back with both hands what you granted with the reform of the funding law barely at the fingertips.

I will not go further. My colleagues were more precise on the legal aspect. I remained focused on the background, but of course I share all the remarks that were made before me at this tribune, both the legal assembly and the course in which we were led, are not clear enough and not solid enough. I am also afraid that this is not the last opportunity to return to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly comment on some of the comments. Nevertheless, I must, first of all, conclude, to my slightly increasing surprise, that there is actually no one about the content and substance of the draft, namely the introduction of a new social security contribution, whatever has been said, but that it has mainly been limited to — but that is a choice — the whole procedural debate and the discussion on whether or not to infringe the interests of the regions. However, I will immediately return to that.

No one talks about the content, i.e. the introduction of a new social security contribution. It is limited to a procedural debate and a discussion on the possible violation of the interests of the Regions. by M. Nollet who asked whether the previous existence of this sampling had been hidden, I answer by the negative. Everyone knew he existed. The Court of Arbitration itself knew this when issuing its 2004 judgment. It clearly made a distinction between, on the one hand, the levy on the Copernic premium and, on the other hand, the levy on the holiday levy, the validity of which it has in no way questioned. by

Confirm to M. Drèze that, during the judgment of the Court of Arbitration, the prélèvement for the personnel of the sector of villes and communes and of the private sector was already attributed to the social security. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, l'existence antérieure de ce prélèvement n'a jamais été That that tax already existed before, was not kept hidden. Everyone knew about it, including the arbitration court. To answer Mr. Drèze’s question, when the Court of Arbitration issued its judgment, that tax had already been allocated to the social security, both as to the staff of the cities and municipalities as to that of the private-cachee. Like what already existed in the private sector and for the villages and communes, the prélèvement was attributed to the social security. concerning the sector. That is also the answer, Mrs D'Hondt, to your question, where you rightly referred to the opinion of the Council of State. In the original draft program law, one could discuss the track that the government had chosen. The State Council then said: you do one of two things: either the one, in which you will have to adjust all those regulations yourself, or the other, in which you make a social security contribution, which then is immediately invoiced. In this, the Government has not done more than explicitly choose one of the two pistes, which were expressly highlighted in the opinion of the Council of State.

There has not been a moment — not even in the Senate — of discussion on whether the federal government was authorized to collect that social security contribution. Indeed, the State Council has also explicitly stated — which is also a response to the amendments submitted by Ms. Lanjri and Mr. Drèze — that it is the federal legislature which is competent, by simple majority, to impose and collect social security contributions. That seems to be the logic of self.

Have we been in the pockets of others? Have we taken that decision on the territory of another? No, we have explicitly held ourselves on our own field with the draft law, namely the organization and financing of social security.

Mrs. D’Hondt, does that serve to make the account knock? Well, every income in social security serves to make the account knock, as I know. Therein is everything except unique. If the account is not correct in terms of income, we will, as you know very well, also in terms of expenditure, very quickly come into trouble with the social security, which you and I have at heart.

Therefore, I believe that there cannot be much discussion about the competence, nor about the desirability of such inning. When asked whether there should indeed have been more consultation before the draft program law — for that is ultimately the beginning of the whole story — I have already affirmatively answered in the Senate and in the committee that, as far as I am concerned, there could indeed have been a little more consultation. I think I can meanwhile say that after so many months — because we are now five months further — that gap is more than sufficiently filled. The fact that we have not reached an agreement in the Consultation Committee does not affect this.

In the meantime there have been discussions on this. The regions know where they are. The regions know the legal basis of that measure and know its financial consequences. They also know what it means for their staff.

So, no, Mrs. D'Hondt, I assume that there will indeed not be twice injured. In this regard, it is up to everyone to take responsibility.

I want to give short answers on two points. This is the answer to Mrs. D’Hondt’s question. The State Council indicated that the government had the choice between, on the one hand, the adaptation of its regulations and, on the other hand, the establishment of a social security contribution that can be collected immediately. The government has chosen. There has never been any controversy over whether the federal government was competent in regards to the collection of this social security contribution.

The State Council has written that the federal legislator is competent by simple majority to impose and collect social security contributions. We stayed in our field, namely the organization and financing of social security. These receipts will serve, like others, to obtain accurate accounts. Should we have discussed the draft legislation in the first place? I have already confirmed that it would have been better to act like this. Five months later, this gap is largely filled. The absence of agreement within the Conciliation Committee does not affect the situation in any way. Regions know what to do. They know the legal basis of the measure, as well as the financial consequences and consequences for staff. If everyone takes responsibility, there will be no two perceptions.

Mrs D'hondt indicated that Article 7 was not included in the initial project and had therefore not been submitted to the State Council. The principle was found well in Article 217 of the law-programme. The only novelty lies in the fact that the ONP is becoming competent in matters of perception. Un avis First, Mrs D'hondt, you referred to the fact that Article 7 was not in the original draft and was therefore not submitted to the State Council for advice. I must tell you that the principle and the basis of Article 7, thus also the collection for mayor, ships and the like, is actually in the original draft program law, in Article 217. Article 7 now adds to it only a reference to the Act of 1 August 1985 on social provisions. That only means that we actually authorize the RVP to collect those contributions in that case. So I really do not understand why we should submit that to an additional opinion of the State Council. It does not have the least sense.

Secondly, as regards the amendments, I would like to warn of a very dangerous interpretation. If those amendments are approved, we actually assume that any adjustment of the social security legislation that may have any impact on the budget of the regions — I point out that many regions as employers contribute to social security anyway — should be approved by a special majority. You see as well as I do, I think, if I describe it in this way, the absurdity of such a principle. That absurdity—my party has, by the way, in that regard, proposed to include social security in the Constitution as a fundamental right—is an implicit constitutionalization of the entire existing system of social security, with which you probably freeze it forever, because for an increase, a reduction, a modification or any form of adjustment of contributions, you will have to find a special majority in Parliament every time. In that case, I wish you a lot of luck. I think that would be especially unhealthy for social security as a whole.

I think I have responded to the various comments of the members. Additional is therefore not necessary.

If the amendments are adopted, it will be considered that any amendment to the legislation on social security that may have a slight or minor impact on the budget of the Regions should be adopted by a special majority. This thesis is totally absurd and “constitutionalizes” the current system. This would be a way to freeze social security.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I always have some difficulty when one takes me on my special attachment to social security and tries to swallow things that are constitutionally incorrect.

Mr. Minister, I have repeated here at the speaker’s table what I have also said in the committee following Mr. Bonte’s question. This debate is not about whether or not it is good that those funds are transferred to the fund for which they were held. This is not the subject of the debate.

What is intended here, namely the withdrawal from holiday payments, is, after all, the return to a situation that existed before the state reform and the associated financing were carried out. If it was the government’s intention to make the system more transparent, it should have discussed this openly and clearly with the counties. The system was embedded in the Finance Act. As a non-expert, I am trying to say that right now. At a certain point, the Finance Act determined how money should be distributed in our country. As a result, the counties became responsible for the withholding of the holiday fee, without depositing it through. This was one of the elements underlying the distribution of funds.

It disturbs me very much that people want me to accept things that are not correct on an institutional level because of my attachment to social security. The debate is not about whether it is good or not that the funds are paid to the fund on whose behalf the withholding was carried out, but that this situation existed at the time of the state reform and the settlement of financing. If more transparency was wanted, it would have had to be discussed with the federal entities and to take into account the fact that the non-payment of contributions was taken into account when allocating funds. This is a matter of financial order. Now we see that element. by

This is not a question of transparency, but a financial question. Their

Our amendment does not imply that in the future a special majority is required for any change in the collection of social security contributions. In this case, I am not concerned with the collection of social security contributions. It involves depositing, without compensation to the counties, the contributions collected on the holiday payments, a situation that existed before the state reforms and the Finance Act. That is what it is about! It is not about new things that happened afterwards.

When the counties, after the state reform and after the Finance Act, attempted to escape social security contributions through creative inventions such as the conversion of the end-year premium into meal checks – Mr. Bonte referred to this – I was among the first to protest this because this was incorrect on the part of the counties in relation to the federal government and the social security. This was after the Finance Act.

The current issue is dated from before the Finance Act. This is about it!

Mijnheer de minister, zeg niet dat CD&V met said amendment wil bekomen dat elke wijziging in de sociale zekerheid met een bijzondere meerderheid moet worden geregeld. So duldbaar are we toch in zoveel ken i er toch van! Our amendment does not tend to ensure that from now on a special majority is required for any collection of a special contribution. This is a transfer without compensation for the federal states. I was among the first to protest against the conversion of end-of-year premiums into meal titles, as was the case after the funding law. The issue that we are dealing with is prior to the funding law.

Mrs D'Hondt, I read in the motivation of the applicants: "Even if the bill imposes the withholding both to the institutions of the sub-regions and to the federal institutions as a motivation to say that this requires a special majority, it has an indirect influence on the way the regions and communities are financed." Now I want to make it clear to you that if we approve any draft that has an impact on the financing of the Regions and Communities here by special law, we will not approve much more.

The reasoning of the amendment specifies that the bill indirectly influences the mode of financing of the Regions and Communities. If all the projects that have such influence must be adopted by special majority, then we will not adopt much more.

You will immediately reject the amendment, I am very sure of that. However, we have drafted it as an amendment to this bill, on this matter and no other. We are not here in a social security reform law, on which we would submit an amendment. This is a timely matter, Mr. Minister. Let us try here to “do not pour the pot on each other.” Then I’ll play with you a little bit, I tell you that in all clarity.

This amendment is an amendment on this specific subject that concerns this bill. This is a punctual problem.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the Minister regretted that there was no discussion on the subject matter and that the debate was mainly a discussion on the procedure in conflict of interest.

I started my speech by talking about the substance. It was indeed very short.

De minister betreurde dat er geen bespreking ten gronde werd gevoerd in dat het debat enkel over de procedure inzake belangenconflicten ging. I have in the beginning of my measure In the essence, the measure is a budget measure. It is not intended to reflux the pension fund and to ensure the long-term balance of the pension budget. Even if this was the argument you put forward, Mr. Minister, I think I have demonstrated quite simply that, in the end, it is a budgetary measure for the balance not of the pension budget, nor of the social security, but of the federal state budget and that, consequently, this bill completely biases the law of financing of federal entities.

Moreover, if one is so attentive to this notion of conflict of interest, it is because there is a dangerous precedent here.

I am truly convinced that the unilateral nature of the federal decision in a matter that implicitly affects the funding law, breaks on the one hand – but other cases also breaks for other parts, and overall, this makes a strong and serious signal – and ⁇ in the long run, the confidence between the federal state and the federal entities.

I come to my third thought. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to apologize for returning to this point. But on February 3, 2005, you felt in your soul and conscience that the opinion of the State Council was useful to resolve the issue. Today – I am in your place, I was in commission this week – it is clearly under pressure from the government that the State Council’s opinion is not sought. At least that is my conviction. If it is a short-term gain to move this way in force — I am addressing here not only the chairman of the assembly but also the government — in the medium term we will lose a lot in terms of breaking confidence but also in budgetary terms. Indeed, – and this has been said in the Senate – there will be appeals. No one has any illusions about this. The fact of refusing at any cost the opinion of the State Council opens the door to appeals even more.

I will conclude by saying that I regret that this matter is so political: in the North — it was said to the Senate in particular, given the presence in this institution of the Senators of the Communities — the same natural person voted here white and voted black in his assembly, a federated entity. This schizophrenic situation in the North is clearly due to political reasons. One may even wonder whether some people, well or badly inspired, present in the government at the time when this was decided, did not think of putting a worm in the fruit and waiting for the consequences of rottenness to take advantage of it from a political point of view. by

In the South now. I sometimes hear Flemish parliamentarians say that the South is not coherent. Obviously we are not consistent: you are not, so there is no reason for us to be more. If the majorities are so asymmetrical among us between the federal and the federal entities, this obviously causes us difficulties. by

Sur le fond, mon parti, et Région bruxelloise, et Communauté française et en Région wallonne, nous demande très clairement d'aller jusqu'au bout. And that, if we could obtain at the federal a true concertation and be a return and back, or a dossier voted at the federal and consensus with the idea of the Communities and the Regions, this would be an excellent argument on the substance of the case spoken. I actually kept it short. The measure is budgetary in nature and is not taken to balance the budget of pensions but to balance the federal budget. We have given so much attention to the concept of conflict of interest because there is a dangerous precedent in it. This unilateral decision of the federal government in a matter that is indirectly related to the Finance Act violates the confidence between the federal government and the counties.

I regret that I will come back to it again, but on 3 February you were sacredly convinced that it was appropriate to seek the advice of the State Council. Under pressure from the government, this advice is no longer sought. In the medium term, it is not a good thing because of the breach of confidence, but the budget is also not moving forward. Your refusal to seek the advice of the State Council further opens the door to appeal proceedings.

I find it a pity that this document has such a pronounced political character. In the few months I have been part of this assembly, I have been able to find that the number of folded files is out of all proportion. I hope that the government will regain its calm in the coming days, so that the conditions for the population remain favorable at least until 2007.

of thing.

All this is explained for political reasons. Sometimes they are of the first degree and, sometimes, of the second degree; I regret that. I find that in the few months that I am in this assembly, the number of wrong files is really disproportionate. by

I hope that, in the very coming days, the government will regain serenity so that we move forward until 2007 in useful conditions for the population.