Proposition 51K1694

Projet de loi concernant l'instauration d'une cotisation annuelle à charge de certains organismes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 1, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

social-security contribution social security

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 23, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Is Mrs. Laruelle still coming?

Mrs. Laruelle will arrive in five minutes. I had allowed her to answer two questions in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, our committee discussed this bill at its meetings on 19 and 27 April and on 7 and 8 June. In the introductory explanation, the Minister declares that the draft law introduces a contribution in charge of the private and public institutions, in whose womb at least one person is paid for the exercise of a public mandate. These institutions will be liable for an annual contribution equal to 20% of the total amount of remuneration awarded during the previous year. The contribution will not be due if it does not exceed a certain amount, currently fixed at 1.250 euros.

The abolition of Article 5bis of Royal Decree No. 38 by the Program Law of 27 December 2004 caused a lot of shock. In the days and months following, a number of parliamentary questions were asked regarding the reintroduction of Article 5bis and the introduction of this annual contribution to be borne by a number of institutions.

The Minister responds to a number of questions asked by members of the committee. First question: what happens to the already registered connections of political mandatarists? Second question: why is the annual contribution set at 20%? Third question: is gross or net income taken into account? Fourth question: Does the bill have a retroactive effect? Fifth question: What criteria are used for the establishment of the list of exempt advisory bodies? Sixth question: Is the maximum amount of EUR 1250 fixed per mandatory or per institution and is this fixed per year or per month?

The Minister stresses that the Government with this draft addresses a number of concerns raised by the abolition of Article 5bis. In its concern to take measures of good governance, however, the government has preferred a clear and perfectly feasible measure.

As regards the explanation by the respective applicants of the attached bills, the following. Mr Drèze of the CDH group says that two things are of primary importance. First, the CDH wishes to safeguard everyone’s access to a public mandate so that also beneficiaries and people with a time credit can exercise a public mandate without being punished.

Secondly, the CDH aims to limit the administrative burden as much as possible by directors whose income from the mandate is lower than the minimum amount from which social contributions are owed, not to be subject to the social status of self-employed persons.

The speaker proposes to raise the threshold amount for drivers in the public sector. The Bill No. 1632 is explained. Ms. Annemie Roppe also acknowledges her proposal.

At the meeting of 25 April, Mr. Yvan Mayeur presented his comments in a broad speech. He makes it clear that there are many reactions of financial nature from the parties concerned, as the taxation of social contributions in the amount of 20% of the salary thus threatens to reduce the income at the head of the mandators of the public or private institutions. Especially the immediate entry into force of the measure strikes many mandataris against the chest.

There was a lively debate between members of the majority, mainly the PS and MR.

I myself could come into the comment of Mr. Mayeur. Indeed, the activity of the political mandators can be seen as an engagement, rather than as a professional activity. I have therefore concluded that the original intent of the draft law has been completely omitted. Initially, it was meant that mandataris would be subject to a social contribution. However, the debates evolved more and more to the idea that the municipalities should bear the new burden, which was extensively commented by the Association of Cities and Municipalities.

Furthermore, I have cited that I totally disagreed with the Minister when he stated that the bill under discussion would be an act of good governance. At that point, for four months before the crash point, no solution could be found.

I am pleased with Mr. Mayeur’s comment that it is not correct that the rules of the game are changed during the game.

I also suggest that the government will transfer new burdens to the municipalities.

I also challenge Article 5 of the draft law, which authorizes the King to exempt certain institutions from payment of contributions.

I also have objections to the bill under discussion, which has an irresponsible, retroactive effect. The obligation to contribute enters into force on 1 January 2005 for income from 1 January 2004.

I have also referred to the comments of the State Council. The opinion of the State Council shows, in the first place, that the planned contribution has the characteristics of a tax and not of a mere contribution, which constitutes an obstacle to the delegation of power by the legislature to the King.

I am pleased, however, that the observation of the Council of State on Article 2 of the preliminary draft has been followed, namely that instead of removing the amendment provision from the Program Act, the draft law at issue amends the provisions of the Royal Decree no. and 38. It is feared that certain mandators of a public institution would have to pay twice. That was also one of my comments. Furthermore, I also criticize the principle that the exempt amount of EUR 1 250 is calculated on the basis of the total amount paid out by each institution. In connection with Article 5 of the draft law, I have also said that a derogation is provided in favour of certain advisory organisations. Then I asked how it would go in practice. I then mentioned a number of troubles and made clear that we want a truly applicable law without undesirable and ferocious side effects and said that we must find a solution for all troubles.

Mr. Hove had a clear and specific question to the Minister about the Cross Point Bank of Enterprises. Should a contributing mandatary be registered in the Crosspoint Bank of Companies? Does he get his own number? If so, what further rules apply for obtaining his registration number?

Ms. Roppe says that the contribution scheme to the independent system is subject to a lot of criticism and that it will lead to irregularities and unnecessary complications. The degressive system is ⁇ unfair and illogical, because the more a self-employed earns, the lower the contributions to be paid. Mrs Roppe is an ardent advocate of a single progressive contribution that applies to all employees, regardless of their status.

Furthermore, there was another problem, which is exactly a main profession and a secondary profession. Mrs Roppe agrees with the comments of the State Council. It also points out the extremely crackly conversion of the French text into Dutch in the memory of explanation.

Mr. Richard Fournaux of the MR wants to focus primarily on the difficulties of informing the mandataris. For whom does the regulation apply and for whom not?

Mr Drèze notes that it is necessary to prevent municipalities from being forced to pay for the costs and thus see their spending increase. Some municipalities are members of many intercommunal associations. For those municipalities, paying contributions to the intercommunales would be a heavy financial dumb.

In response to Mr Mayeur’s observation that this bill would treat the representatives of small institutions unfairly, Mr Fournaux emphasizes that the existing regulation in any case already constitutes an injustice. At present, there is an unjust difference in treatment between the directors of small companies, who earn very little or nothing, but must pay substantial social contributions, and the mandators of public institutions, who can raise a salary — sometimes substantial — without having to contribute to it. In order to correct certain matters, Mr Fournaux says he will submit amendments. Mr Drèze asks some questions to the Minister: "Is there a precedent in federal legislation in which in the past a tax was imposed in favor of the RSVZ?": "Is it possible," further asks Mr Drèze, "to have the budget document showing that the social contribution to be levied will amount to 8 million euros?" Mr Drèze also asks: "When will the government finally solve the problem? The government had promised a solution by 31 March 2005. Meanwhile, there are 4,500 mandataris who remain in the cold and do not know what to do."He fears a whole series of legal proceedings, instituted by the RSVZ.

Ms. Gerkens is surprised at the government’s approach in the context of this bill. The Government has failed to regulate the financing of the social security for self-employed persons through the appropriate means such as the revision of the social contributions of self-employed persons. Instead, the government has sought its salvation in an alternative form of financing by imposing social contributions on public mandators. The government, according to the speaker, has clearly failed in its policy.

Ms. Gerkens further says that the government has opted for the social contribution to be paid by the institutions and not by the mandataris themselves. Many intercommunals have already indicated that they will increase the seating pensions they pay to the mandataris so that the mandataris themselves can continue to receive the same salary as before. As the institutions themselves determine the amount of the remuneration, the Minister has no guarantee that the measure will generate €8 million.

Mr. Tant asks the Minister which bill should now be taken as the basis. The speaker advocates that the majority parties should first vote the violes equal before proceeding with the examination of the bills. This is not a decent way of working, says the chairman of the committee.

According to Mr. Tant, the bill is the result of a poorly edited program law that was quickly chased by Parliament. In the treatment of the program law, the opposition has repeatedly but in vain pointed out this. Mr. Tant refers to the proposal submitted by him to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of People’s Representatives with regard to program laws. Mr Tant points out the legal uncertainty created by Article 174 of the Program Act of 27 December 2004.

Mr Tant regrets that the State Council has not been given more time to thoroughly analyze this bill. Despite the short timeframe — says Mr. Tant — the State Council has made some fundamental remarks. Thus, the State Council considers that it is not actually a social contribution but a tax and that it is primarily the municipalities that will collect for the social contributions. And, says Mr. Tant, according to the State Council, the bill is contrary to an important principle in tax law, namely that a tax is never affected in advance. By allowing the King to grant exemption for the payment of social contributions, the bill also violates Article 172 of the Constitution, which states that an exemption from tax can only be introduced by law. Mr. Tant concludes that the government in the draft law has not taken into account this yet essential comment of the Council of State. He believes there is a high probability that intercommunals will be equal in the Arbitration Court. If they initiate a lawsuit before this court against this bill, this will result in the destruction.

Meeting of 7 June 2005. Mr. Ortwin Depoortere first points out that the draft law follows a law that he believes has been quickly incorporated into a program law so that it would not be noticed by parliamentarians. He then notes that this bill has caused numerous disputes in the committee. Furthermore, the Flemish Interest considers that the opinion no. 38234/3 that the Council of State issued on the draft law leads to the conclusion that this draft law cannot be supported. This is not about a tax, but about a tax. However, it is positive, says Mr. Depoortere, that the present bill removes the legal uncertainty concerning whether or not mandataris should join the social fund for self-employed. He is also convinced that cities and municipalities, through intercommunal associations with other institutions in which they are represented, will have to bear the costs of a deficit at the federal level.

Ms. Gerkens notes that, in response to the draft law, it is pointed out that it is necessary to restore in part the equity between the public and the private mandators and that, on the other hand, an eight million euro deficit in the RSVZ must be filled. However, — says Ms. Gerkens — the profitability of a similar measure depends on bodies that do not fall within the competence of the federal government. Since, in particular, Wallonia has planned a reduction in the number of intercommunal associations, Ms. Gerkens doubts whether the measure is capable of delivering the predetermined amount.

The Minister emphasizes that if the institutions pay the contribution themselves, they will make things much easier for the mandators concerned, since in that case they do not have to join a self-employed fund in their own name.

The government believes that the choice lies with the institution. The Minister also confirms that the Government considers the amount to be paid under the bill as a contribution and not as a tax.

Regarding the alleged reduction in the number of intercommunal associations, the Minister considers that, in the presumption that the planned measure is effectively issued at the Waals level, this should increase the amount of the attendance fees.

Mr Benoît Drèze requests a budgetary forecast note. He wants to be sure that the promised 8 million euros will be benevolently collected. The Minister replies that the budgetary forecast of 8 million euros is based on the number of applications for derogation 4,500 - pursuant to article 5bis of Royal Decree No. 38 of 27 July 1967 establishing the social status of self-employed persons, as well as on the average amount of the attendance fees - 178 euros. The Minister considers that amount to be quite realistic since it was adopted by Minister of Budget Vande Lanotte. The amount actually collected will also depend on the content of the Royal Decree determining the derogations.

Mr. Drèze is not satisfied with the Minister’s response. I myself doubt, like Mr Drèze, that the measure will generate €8 million. I agree with the Minister when she says that the amount actually collected will depend on the permitted derogations. I regret that the Minister is still unable to determine these deviations.

Chairman of the Commission, Tant, has agreed that this bill consists of putting money out of the pockets of the subordinate governments – usually the municipalities. According to him, this is not the right way of working. Furthermore, Mr. Tant complains that the existing legal uncertainty caused by the fact that the previous law is still in force remains as long as the new law is not approved.

Next, I would like to highlight two other existing legal uncertainties, namely the obligation of accession imposed by the new law, resulting from the draft under discussion as amended by the amendments of the majority. That obligation applies from 1 September 2005. Initially, the date was presumed to be 1 July 2005 and my question was therefore formulated in that sense. Will the law actually be passed by that date?

I also expressed the fear that lives among many mayors who sit in intercommunal associations and who in theory should have joined a greenhouse for self-employed. They are now in an illegal state as the RSVZ had told them not to join.

Mr. Lano points out that this way of looking for money is of all times. Commission Chairman Tant asks the Minister on what legal basis, after the approval of the new law, one will be able to compensate the four aforementioned mandators who have joined a greenhouse for self-employed before the RSVZ was instructed to refuse the joining of public mandators from now on.

Then Mr Tant criticizes the basic principle of the draft law, because it in fact leads to the introduction of a flat tax, which does not vary depending on the income of the persons concerned. Mr Tant has questions regarding the scope of the terminology used in amendment number 7 of the majority on the draft article. In the Dutch text of the amendment the word "vereffend" is used. Mr. Tant asks whether this means that the bill imposes the payment of a contribution not only for 2005, but also for 2004.

In the article-by-article discussion, there are comments from Ms. Gerkens, who submitted amendment number 1. The Minister does not support the amendments submitted by Ms. Gerkens. Ms. Gerkens repeats her question to the Minister whether she has a list of the exempt institutions. Mr. Drèze shares himself behind this question. I am also behind this question. In order for such authorisation to be legally valid to the King, the law must at least be able to determine the criteria on the basis of which it can be determined whether or not an institution can be exempted by a royal decree. The Minister replies that the bill intends to establish that list by royal decree in order to demonstrate the necessary flexibility. Mr Depoortere highlights additional problems arising from the absence of this list.

Mr. Tant is silent on Article 5, paragraph 2, of the draft law. The Dutch version thereof reads as follows: "In derogation from paragraph 1, any advisory body expressly intended by the King shall not be subject to this law." First, the speaker finds the use of the term "advised", or "visé" in French, inappropriate. Second, he recalls the opinion of the State Council, which states that the contribution in question is in fact a tax, which prevents the King from being empowered by the legislative power to determine the scope of the exceptions. He also considers that the law should set out on the basis of which criteria an institution may or may not be exempted by a royal decree.

The Minister considers that parliamentarians should not allow their voting behavior with regard to the draft law to depend on the existence of a list of exempt institutions.

Mr Drèze announces that he will vote against this bill because the minister refuses to provide the list of exempt institutions. Ms. Gerkens recalls that her amendment 4 was precisely intended to provide a more detailed clarification regarding those institutions concerned. The Minister points out that something can be read in the memorandum of explanation to the draft law. Those institutions must, in particular, meet three criteria: first, to the penalty of invalidity, second, to the mandate of advising and, third, to be included in the royal decree containing the list of institutions exempt.

The Minister gives a number of examples of institutions that could be considered as advisory bodies. She mentions the Competition Council, the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, the Bioethics Committee, the Social and Economic Council of Flanders, the Conseil économique et social de la Région wallonne.

Article 6 of 6. Mrs Sophie Pécriaux approves Amendment No. 5. Contrary to Article 6 of the draft law, the amendment submitted provides for the 20% contribution not to be levied on the basis of the total income of all mandataris, but rather on the basis of the remuneration received by each individual mandataris in the context of his activities as mandataris. The speaker also clarifies that, in accordance with the amendment submitted, the first split of 200 euros, of the fee received for the mandate, is exempt and that the 20% contribution is only levied on the part of the fee that exceeds the aforementioned amount.

Mr Drèze asks why the amount of 200 euros was chosen.

Ms. Gerkens believes that this amendment will harm the RSVZ.

I would like to ask for some clarification of the last sentence of the amendment, which contains the words "the institution's own expenses". What is understood under this?

The Minister replies: "The proposed exemption scheme on an individual basis, amounting to 200 euros, aims to re-establish equality between the agencies with a small number of mandates and the agencies with many mandators." The institutions’ own expenses are, for example, the agency’s expenses on paper, ball pens, coffee, heating, and so on.

Mr Casaer clarifies that when a net remuneration is to be calculated, the similar case-law of the labour courts should be applied in respect of costs that are inherent in the employer.

Article 7 of 7. Ms Pécriaux gives explanations to amendment 6. That amendment aims to distribute the proceeds of the measure among the RSVZ and RSZ.

I conclude from the above that the amount could exceed the forecasted 8 million euros while there will be a distribution between RSZ and RSVZ if more than 8 million euros are collected. I support the request of Mr Drèze and Mrs Gerkens to obtain the budget table.

Article 13 of 13. Mrs Pécriaux gives explanations to Amendment No. 7 to Article 13. This amendment aims to shift the deadline on which the institution must register with the Rijksinstitut from 1 July 2005 to 1 September 2005. The same applies to the payment of the contribution for 2005, which will no longer have to be paid before 1 October 2005 but before 1 December 2005.

The entire, thus amended bill is adopted by 9 votes for and 3 against. Last week it was decided to go back to the committee to submit the draft to a legal opinion from the House. The Chamber prepared a legal opinion in which 22 comments were formulated.

The chairman of the committee states that the legal service has only examined the legislative text. The Chairman considers that it would also be useful to review and adjust the explanatory memo, in particular the sixth paragraph. Their

When discussing the observations of the legal service, it is noted from note 1 to note 3 that these are technical observations, technical changes. Minister Laruelle points out that note 4 of the Legal Service is a repetition. The Committee agrees to ignore this comment. Their

Note 5 accepts the committee as a text correction. Their

In note 6, Mr. Tant refers to the discussion already held extensively in the article-by-article discussion of the draft law. He refers to CD&V’s proposal to change the terminology “recommended/visé”. This was then rejected by the Commission. The Chairman considers that an amendment with a new terminology, as proposed by the Legal Service, is necessary as it is a substantial correction. Other members of the committee are of the opinion that this is a technical correction. The vote of 7 committee members for and 4 against decides that the committee accepts the legal service’s comment as a text correction. Their

Note 7 and 8 are considered as text corrections.

In note 9, a choice must be made between the French and Dutch text. The Committee accepts the amendment submitted by CD&V in this regard. Their

The Committee accepts the comments 10, 11 and 12 as a text correction.

The same applies to comments 14 and 15. Their

The Minister proposes to ignore Note 16 of the Legal Service. I referred to the discussion held in the committee during the article-by-article discussion in which the opposition made comments similar to those of the legal service. I am proposing an amendment to address this comment from the Legal Service. However, the committee does not take this amendment into account. Nor does she take into account the comment of the legal service.

Note 17 is considered a text correction. Their

This also applies to comments 18 and 19. Their

In note 20 I have noted that the legal service proposes an explicit addition. However, this is not accepted as an amendment, but rather as a text correction.

Note 21 and 22 are also accepted as a text correction.

The overall vote was 8 votes for and 4 against.

Mr. Speaker, that was my report of the many meetings devoted to this bill.

Mrs. Pieters, the Chamber thank you for your comprehensive report, both for the written part and of course for the oral part.

Colleagues, I have received a question from colleague Giet, who wishes to keep a very short presentation. Normally I start with the opposition, but has anyone an objection that I now give the floor to Mr. Giet? Then I start with Mr. Tant, Mrs. Pieters or Mr. Drèze. (the approval of)

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to thank Mrs. Pieters for her comprehensive report. Therefore, I will not return to the many committee meetings devoted to this project. I would just like to highlight the position of my group on this matter which, as I said, has been the subject of a few discussions.

As far as we are concerned, we have never questioned – and we do not wish to do so – the principle of a tax on the remuneration granted to public officials; this also contributes to a greater equity towards private officials.

It is also important to emphasize the budget objective of a return of €8 million for INASTI which we clearly support.

However, we have taken one conclusion: the fact that the repeal of Article 5bis of Royal Decree No. 38 of 27 July 1967, organising the social status of self-employed persons provided for in the looprogramme of 27 December 2004, posed serious problems to many public officials, both in terms of their rights and in terms of the definition of their status.

Indeed, it was unacceptable for my group to consider these public officials as self-employed workers sensu stricto. In fact, this is not the case at all, and it also betrayed the intentions of the legislator who, at the time of the insertion of article 5bis in the law of 9 June 1970, stressed that there was no question of considering them as independent. In this regard, I would like to refer to the preparatory work of the time.

Nor should we discourage the citizen investment of many persons holding a public mandate who sit in associations, sometimes of social or sociocultural vocation, with most of the time remuneration barely covering the costs incurred.

Based on this and concerned with our remarks, the Minister presented a bill that regulated, in large part, these perverse effects.

My group can only welcome the discussions that followed and the richness of the debate. He has initiated several amendments to the draft. We all together, within the majority, achieved a project that reduced the difficulties that public officials could encounter (no administrative formalities to be carried out individually, immunisation of part of the remuneration, etc.), while ensuring a more balanced distribution of the output of the measure between INASTI and ONSS, if necessary.

Today we are in the epilogue. The PS will vote on this proposal. As with any project, we will remain attentive to its implementation and then check if, eventually, adjustments need to be made.

I just noticed a small technical problem.

Mrs D'Hondt has a technical amendment, the amendment no.

In a room as close as possible to this room, Mr. President.

Can I request that the committee meets at 18:00 and that an oral report is delivered?

Let us meet in the hall.

I note that it will take place in room 3.

I recommend all services from the beginning. In Room 3 the Social Affairs Committee meets at 18:00, in order to examine what I believe is a consensus obtained.

I will not follow the order of sprekers try to bepalen you. I will then ask Mr. I am delighted to come and replace me.

The speakers on my list, without giving any order, are: Mr. Depoortere, Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Tant, M. Tagged as, M. Michelle and Mrs. Pieters. Their

I suggest you let Mr. Tant begin, followed by Mr. Drèze and Depoortere.

I have good news to announce to you. The cold buffet will be available from 18:30.

Mr. Speaker, before you leave, I would like — I don’t know if I can do this — to insist on your presence for a moment so that you can hear a few comments that will not leave you insensitive.

Do you want to do that at the beginning of your argument, because I have a day that is divided over a horizontal and a vertical situation, as happens in some institutions in our country.

I will listen to you first, Mr. Tante.

I will try to respect that as much as possible, Mr. Speaker.

I immediately come to the problem that I think everyone should deal with in the House. I will try to summarize this briefly, Mr. Speaker. By the way, I refer immediately to the text of the opinion of the State Council, which very strongly states that the draft violates Articles 170 and 172 of the Constitution, concerning the power to impose taxes.

The State Council says — I recommend you read the opinion, Mr. Speaker; I could read it to you, but I will spare you — that there can be no doubt that this is a tax issue. It is not unknown to you – Article 172 of the Constitution is ⁇ clear – that only the legislator is competent to do so.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you want to make the effort to look at the articles of the draft, you will find that, first, in a particular article the King is given the authority in general terms to “exempt some institutions that are in principle subject to this new tax.”

I do not know, colleagues, whether you realize this sufficiently, but it comes down to the fact that the House approves a new tax and that then the executive power — read: the King — says to whom that tax will not apply. An analogue provision is outlined in another article. I had intended to quote it, Mr. Speaker, but in order to save time, I do not. It is even left to the King to specify the taxable object.

The State Council is very clear: it is not just an unacceptable transfer of power to the King; it is a transfer that is in itself unconstitutional! For my part, it goes on. This becomes the custom in our House that the Government puts half-box texts on the table in Parliament, which then — we have already talked about this in the Conference of Presidents — in the best case, if time is given, are reviewed by the legal service of the House; and which then give rise to text corrections. In the end there is a text — but that is at the end of the ride — that is more or less, but not more than acceptable.

I say that too, Mr. Speaker, because the Legal Service — my first observation — has not ruled on this. Of course not! The legal service does not examine the constitutionality of the texts; it only examines the form.

That was my first comment.

So they do. I repeat it: it becomes a habit. Someone sits in the committee and asks for attention to a problem, but not only does one refuse that attention; often one tries to ridicule the intervention that wanted to unleash any debate. Then the minister and the staff are there and they watch if they are not calling!

Second, I think that a committee chairman also has a part of his own responsibility. I still feel personally committed to this. Well, I was able to persuade the Minister last week not to address that point last week, but to postpone it for a week so that the legal service can make its comments.

Can I note that there are almost twice as many comments as articles? Furthermore, when we look at the text before and after the so-called technical corrections, we come to the conclusion that, fortunately, it has become a completely different text. That was also the intention I had with my request for the advice of the legal service.

Mr. Speaker, however, then comes a question, which we will sooner or later have to pay attention to in our House, given the huge number of so-called technical corrections: who judges whether or not a text amendment is a technical correction. As far as I am concerned, it is then unacceptable for a committee to decide by a majority against a minority to qualify all observations as technical observations and technical corrections, and to adjust the text accordingly. However, there are comments between which the Legal Service of the Chamber says that a choice must be made, because the text in Dutch does not have the same meaning as the French text. The question is, therefore, whether the French or Dutch text will be followed in order to ⁇ a more adequate translation.

Please allow me to take advantage of the opportunity that you are still in a vertical position for the time being.

This is obviously an important question, because it is a legal question. If the Dutch text differs from the French text, it would be appropriate for the minister to answer the question instead of laughing.

Mr. Tante, I thank you for starting your comment on the technical corrections. You know the reason why I will be replaced by our first Vice-President. I appreciate that.

Usually the predicate "technical corrections" is a difficult matter. You will have noticed that I telkenmale during the plenary session, when I suspect it is a technical correction, read the correction in extenso, let it act in the Integral Report and also draw the attention of the members to it. In my opinion, it can continue as a technical correction: forgetting a word, an untranslated term, an incorrect reference. However, I implicitly ask for the Chamber’s approval of the article-by-article discussion.

It is obvious that you are cutting up a problem that is not insignificant. You will remember well that four or five years ago, together with other members, I was the foundation of, firstly, the expansion of the legal service and, secondly, the inclusion of a timing in the Rules. Mr. Tante, I still know very well that colleagues of the majority were not so happy with this, because they thought it could be abused by instincts by any opposition party. I did not agree with it.

We have, therefore, to a certain extent, to a large extent, the advantage of any draft law or draft law that we can obtain very many, sometimes small — I know that — but very interesting, thoroughly examined examinations from the competent service under the responsibility of the secretary and from other colleagues charged with that matter.

However, there is also a boundary to what is and is no longer technical. One of the ideas — you know I have followed you in it and I thank you for it — came up at yesterday’s Conference of Presidents, namely the request to send the text back to the committee. It was proposed to have the text with a report, which was given by Ms. Pieters, then discussed again in the plenary session. For me, if the committee had hesitated whether the correction was technical or non-technical, that was the opportunity to settle the issue appropriately. That is my feeling about this.

I am not sufficiently competent to look at the specific issue here. However, you are cutting down an important problem, Mr. Tante. Mr. Verherstraeten is right. I will take the time to look at it.

In our system, the two texts, the Dutch and the French, are legally valid. I know that some lawyers play one text against another. However, regardless of the national language of our legislation, the two "versions" are considered to be legal and applicable.

Mr. Tant, you know that for some time there have been judicial bodies that from time to time make a judgment about what we do in our House. I think I answered the problem correctly in this way.

Mrs. Roppe has the word.

Thank you for giving me the word. Of course, I do not have the years-long experience of Mr. Tant, nor of you, Mr. Speaker, nor of the other colleague who has made comments on this subject.

I just wanted to respond to Mr. Tante’s comment. He says that if there is a discussion about a text correction or a content element, it should be checked who decides on it. My modest experience in this regard has taught me that it is up to the commissioners of the committee to speak on it, after the Chamber’s legal service has made comments or suggestions. Mr. Tant suggests that another body should be found to judge this issue, while I still think that is one of the essential tasks of the Commissioners in the committee itself.

It is the Chamber that decides whether it considers an amendment as a text correction. We have already had votes on this.

However, the debate is really worth too much effort, for everyone, no matter what majority, to keep any text against the light again. I will not fail to do this in the coming weeks. President: Jean-Marc Delizée, Prime Minister and Vice-President. President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing Mrs. Roppe.

First, this has nothing to do with experience in this house, Mrs. Roppe. It is a matter of correctly interpreting and respecting certain rules of the game that govern the operation of this House.

Second, it did not have to be a problem whether something as a technical correction could be accepted or not because it was equally possible to submit amendments in that sense in the committee. I opened the way for this by sending a message to the committee again. The committee could accept amendments without any problem. In short, it would have been perfectly possible, with exactly the same effect, to find themselves across the boundaries of majority and opposition in order to ⁇ the same goal and to approve an amendment on the points on which there is controversy.

The blow to the chest that the minister, at the moment that the committee can only approve an amendment on at least one point — this is especially useful to know, Mr. Speaker — admits that I am right but asks me to let the majority sign the amendment! That is to fall from his chair!

This will disclose the minister, the government, ⁇ this majority. The majority should apparently not accept — even if the logic is what it is — that this amendment would be submitted by the opposition.

To return to my experience, Mrs. Roppe, what happened yesterday in the committee, I have not often met. I have not often experienced that in the appreciation of an element as a technical text correction, only the mere majority rule is played. If it can somehow, one tries to find each other. Why refuse this if it does not make any difference in content? Except for the reason I just mentioned. This is of a ⁇ questionable and low alloy.

I would have proposed otherwise, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to disturb you in your conversation with your party chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I consulted my leader to know the most appropriate answer to Mr. Speaker. President of the Economic Committee. After the consultation with my Deputy Prime Minister is over, I can answer you.

The work on this project in the commission has been long but fortunately fruitful. The proposal finally comes to a plenary session. During these discussions, President Tant drew our attention to a number of arrangements coming from the Chamber’s legal services. The only thing we may regret — I am convinced, Mr. President Tant, that you are not there for nothing and I am not — is the slow reaction. This project has been on the table of the committee for several weeks; it has been approved, majority against opposition, in the committee for several weeks and we only receive technical comments from the Chamber Legal Service Tuesday evening! I take note of it.

Yesterday’s meeting was very constructive. However, Mr. Tant argues that the French text was not in adequacy with the Dutch text and that an amendment was necessary to remedy the discrepancies. Now, Mr. Speaker of the Chamber, if we look at the exposition of the reasons of Article 6, we read well, in French, that the term "attribute" should be used. Since the French text of the statement of reasons used the term "attribute" and the Dutch text of the article also used it, the majority of the members present yesterday decided that an amendment was unnecessary. I acknowledge that there was a slight shell, given that the French text of Article 6 indicated the term "push" and not "attribute". However, I believe that the body of the text deserves a higher debate than the one we have at the moment!

Applause of Applause (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, the Minister makes sense that the legal services intervene late, after three months of debate in the committee. However, she forgets to say that it took three months for the parliamentary majority to agree on a text, which was known at the end of the three months.

If my knowledge is accurate, the legal services can only intervene after the vote on the last article.

Mr. Speaker, I had asked for the word quite a moment ago, because Mr. Tante answers directly to me. It is not my job, nor my role, nor my intention to defend the minister here. I would only like to point out that, as Mr. Tant himself says, if certain corrections can be made through text correction, it is ⁇ not necessary to do so through an amendment. Certain interpretations were given, certain choices were made yesterday, and I happened to have experienced that part of the discussion. In my opinion, it was not necessary to submit an amendment on this subject and the case could be improved through a text correction, as it has now actually happened.

Mrs. Roppe, Mrs. Minister, I am not talking here about a punctual matter. I am talking about a total of 25 comments from the legal service, of which the vast majority of the legal service receives the qualification of language correction, technical correction and so on. There is no discussion about this. But if the legal service says that the two terms used in Dutch and French respectively do not cover the same load, then one must make a choice, either for Dutch or for French and then do the conversion into the other language. What’s wrong with trying to understand each other at least on that point?

I am faced with an increasing degree of intellectual laziness in some banks, including those of the employees of the minister, in which every dialogue is avoided. Is it because they don’t know the matter? I do not know. In any case, when the opposition makes comments, the majority, even if it must acknowledge — because it can’t go outside — that the comment is right, they take away. That is the style of the house.

At least you are not responsible for this. I will not be tired to repeat all the comments of yesterday, nor to use the time of the Chamber for it. I recommend everyone to, for example, the comments nrs. 15 and 16, which you were concerned, read for a moment. Then you will come to the conclusion that it is not true that it is simply a matter. By the way, the Minister refers, colleagues, to the memory of explanation. That may be useful, Mrs. Minister, but the Chamber does not comment on this. Thank you very much that the Chamber does not have to speak about this.

I will read you, colleagues, a text from the memory. Then you should try to understand what it means. This cannot be amended, Mr. Minister. Be careful what you refer to. I read it for you.

Madam, I am not talking about that one punctual comment, which you apparently have understood. I am talking about a number of others, which I wonder if you have understood them. If so, what is the reason for your unwillingness? I feel, Madame the Minister — I am not waiting, hear — ⁇ poorly rewarded for the care I have cared for the quality of your texts. When I agreed to refer the matter again to the committee, it was precisely because it gave us the freedom to use even amendments without jeopardizing today’s vote.

You did not want that. You do not decorate that.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to read it. Try to follow. It is about the famous authority that one wants to give to the government to exempt some institutions from those new taxes. I read: "But it was agreed" - with whom, we do not know, but well - "that an organ established by law, royal decree or ministerial decree or by any other decree or order, and which, under the penalty of invalidity, has as its primary task to give opinions to the legislative bodies or the legislative chambers..."

On punishment of invalidity as the primary task has to give advice? In fact, the following is meant — I tell you it myself —: this applies only to the institutions that give obligatory advice. You must ask for advice. At least that’s what the minister meant, but she writes it here completely differently. It is useful to refer occasionally to the memory of explanation, isn’t it, Mrs. Minister?

By the way, we vote, as I said, not on that memory, but on the text, on the legislative text itself. Then it should be the responsibility of every right-wing member of Parliament to ensure that that text is at least understandable and as clear as possible. Not me, but the legal service has determined that this is not the case in many points.

Mrs. Pieters, I must also congratulate you on your report, you have made an attempt to bring the attention of the Chamber to a long discussion. You had reasons to be a little more extensive because one has returned on his steps twenty-seven times. If one would compare the original text with the text that now precedes, one would find that it deals with a very different matter. Okay, I am not going to remain silent on that.

We will soon have the opportunity to return to some articles and amendments.

Colleagues, I want to tell everyone how this law is a good illustration of how it should not be, how this text is a good illustration of how it should not be. Can I remind you that one has initially intended to seek a solution to a problem of a deficit in a part of the federal government budget, in relation to the self-employed households, through the program law? The program law contained the original regulation and already in its discussion we have said that this could not and was not applicable. It took six months before it was possible to make the necessary correction. For six months, colleagues, there is a norm applicable to the population as a whole, to which mandators are considered to adhere. Moreover, they are even considered to pay contributions. Some have, by the way, done that. I don’t know if you realize what that means. If I can believe the minister, four of the many mandataris to whom the original norm was applicable, have thought that the law should be respected and therefore applied.

No more than four, Mrs. Minister. Fortunately you can vote for it. However, for those who think a little deeper, this means that respect for the standards approved here, thanks in part to the practices we have experienced in the past months, has fallen to a questionably low level.

As I said, it took six months. In the end, a new text was submitted, which was amended at eleven o’clock on essential points because it had to accommodate a number of comments. Mr. Giet has talked about this. The text was intended to reflect a number of comments interpreted by Mr Mayeur on behalf of the PS Group. He demonstrated in a very long explanation that, as far as his faction was concerned, it was unacceptable that in fact the municipalities would again become the child of the account.

We did not see Mr. Mayeur again in the committee afterwards. I think he was kept away there for security reasons because he had an opinion contrary to what the PS’s philosophy is. In the years I have been here, I have never experienced otherwise than that the PS, like CD&V that also does in Flanders, is the advocate of the municipalities and does not accept that one simply unilaterally transfers obligations to the municipalities.

This time the PS has allowed the defence of its mandatarists to prevail over the defence of the municipal interest. Indeed, the PS was prepared to approve this arrangement on the condition that the mandators, on whose remuneration contributions had to be paid, would be left aside. It is said that the institutions - read the intercommunales - from now on will pay themselves.

We all know that the intercommunals are the municipalities. Therefore, it is very emphasized that the municipalities are again the child of the account. How many more times? I still remember vividly the discussion here about the Elia tax. At that time, they also grabbed in the municipal treasures.

Summarized here in its simplest form, the story is as follows. The federal government has a shortage in the treasures of the self-employed. What does the federal government do? It takes the money, which is necessary to supplement those shortages at least a little, from the municipal treasures. This is called the model state. It comes down to the fact that the federal government, which has too little money, makes the municipalities pay for it. This is a clear shame. This is a government that bears responsibility unworthy.

This is also the main reason why this arrangement is unacceptable to us, no matter how necessary it is, ratione temporis because the old norm is still applicable. The federal government is going to get the money, which it has not managed to give the correct destination, back to the municipalities. The federal government has planned to use its own resources differently. The municipalities need to do so.

Until then, a few general comments.

Mr. observing President, I know that you have a delicate task, but I would like to say for a moment that if we approve this we will approve a norm that is explicitly unconstitutional. It also implies a disregard of the competence of this Chamber. Colleagues, if you think you need to approve this then that is your responsibility, but it will in any case not be ours.

The institutions have a choice. Either the institutions pay, or they do une ponction sur les jetons de présence.

There are no costs for the municipality. It is a social benefit. Institutions shall pay the contributions instead of public mandatarissen. Do not try to believe anything. This is not a tax, it is a contribution. We talked about it in a committee, a previous prime minister, or minister of the time, had set up a contribution on companies. This was not a tax. His first name was Jean-Luc Dehaene. by

I understand that this can bother a number of people and that one is never happy to have to pay more. These are salaries and therefore social contributions. I herhaal het: from institutions have of choice.

I do not know if it makes much sense. They talk like against a wall. Mrs. Minister, you give a reply. I think that whatever comment I make, you will give any response.

Could it be proposed otherwise? The intercommunales will have to pay the contribution — if you want to use the word contribution, but I will come back to that later. From whose greenhouse comes that at the end of the ride? From those of the municipalities! There is no other explanation for this.

Mrs. Minister, it would adorn you if you wanted to make an attempt to show some intellectual honesty. If it is paid — I do not advocate it, I only make the comment — by the mandateholders themselves, who pay on the basis of an income they earn, then there is a logic behind it. The institutions make pay — I repeat it, the institutions are intercommunales and thus extensions of the municipalities — means that the municipalities will once again be the child of the account.

I come to a final comment. The Minister insists that this is not a tax, but a contribution. I read literally what the State Council thinks about it. I am quite inclined to follow the Council of State in these, especially because in its extension it raises a constitutional objection and even points to the competence of our House. That is one reason more. I quote: “The question arises whether the contribution referred to in the draft should be considered as a tax.” The Council of State further states: “The contribution referred to in the draft is a fee, by authority imposed by the legislator and intended to cover general expenditure of public benefit. Unless there are contrary indications, that contribution should therefore be regarded as a tax.”

We have responded to the comments of the State Council. We do not agree, Mr. Tante. This is not the first time and it will not be the last time. For you it is one interpretation, for me it is another. We will soon see at the vote which interpretation is the right for the Chamber.

I hope that you have not missed that last comment. She is important. The Minister says that the interpretation of the law is determined by the majority. The rest of the room has nothing to do with it. You are again on the same track as yesterday.

What you say is not correct.

What did you tell?

It is a social contribution. We have responded to all comments from the State Council.

The State Council has struggled — ⁇ Mr. Drèze will come back to it for a moment — to confront the question of whether or not we can consider this as a contribution as the purpose of those funds is social security. After examining this — then I stop quoting, because apparently I am exciting, more than I intend — the State Council declares in point 7 of its comments: "Now it is established that the contribution referred to in the draft is a tax, it is necessary to examine whether the proposed arrangement is in accordance with the principle of legality in tax matters as set out in Articles 170 and 172 of the Constitution."

Then there can be no doubt about it. The Council of State states that this is a tax matter and that your transfer of power to the executive power cannot go through the bucket. You will only vote on it, with or without the smile, but you should know that in this way you will once again take a step back in terms of an essential competence of the Chamber and of the representative bodies. I do not want to arouse too many emotions, but you should know well that the first and most essential task of this Parliament, ⁇ in our time frame, is to vote on taxes and to make available to the federal government or any government the resources that are to be obtained from the citizen. Well, here you give out this essential, historically oldest authority of the legislative body. You do, but I had to say this for a moment, even if it is only because I want to maintain my self-esteem.

I have been watching you for half an hour playing with Mr. President. At the same time, the President of the Commission. What surprises me is your smile and I guess your pleasure in this play. Per ⁇ there is an explanation...

I am a happy nature, Mr. Drèze. Do not see any other interpretation.

Mrs. Minister, your happy nature, everyone agrees with it, but ⁇ it is compatible with another explanation? During your childhood, you may have ⁇ playing ladies or family chess. Here, for six months, you have played with everyone’s feet but eventually you have gained cause. Indeed, I imagine that, soon, this assembly will vote the fruit of all this discussion "game of ladies, chess, etc."

Mr Drèze, you just asked the minister about the reason for her smile. I think colleague D'Hondt is right. You should find the reason for the smile in the fact that the minister realizes that she is taking the money out of people’s pockets, without having to gesture it. She refuses to call it a tax, but it is. Admit, you would smile too.

I would also laugh: someone else must pay for it.

Let’s go seven months back in December. Initially, your idea was to find an alternative funding of 8 million for INASTI and to establish equal treatment between private and public representatives. Nothing to say! Then you arrived in this assembly, in the process of examining the law-program, with this famous article 174 which, I imagine, was inserted in an anodine, ⁇ coquine way within the government. I think the other majority parties have been somewhat deceived. It is a personal idea.

What I can, in any case, not accept is improvisation in terms of technical competence – let’s not talk about politics at this stage! - at the level of work in intercabinets and in Council of Ministers. Indeed, in the months of January, February, March, during which, with Ms. Pieters in particular, we addressed you multiple questions as well as to the attention of your colleagues Mr. Pieters. Demotte and Ms. Van den Bossche here present, showed that apparently Article 174 which was ⁇ concise — we are for simplification — was, in any case, not practicable on the ground. I do not understand the naïveté, the candor, the incompetence, the carelessness of the inter-cabinet groups who have looked at this article 174.

The complexity of the final arrangement that we are going to vote about now indicates another element: from the beginning, this project should never have been included in a program law, but in an autonomous law. We would not have experienced such a waste.

Now, I will develop for a few moments the amateur work done by the majority over the past six months. First of all, in January and February of this year, Ms. Pieters and myself asked questions both in the committee and in the plenary session, which involved a series of forgetting in the initial analysis. I will cite the main ones:

1 of 1. The impossibility for certain beneficiaries of social benefits, for example the beneficiaries of the time credit – as is attested by an ONEM note presented by Ms. Van den Bosche in commission – and for certain professions, for example teachers, both to be public representatives and to meet the requirements of article 174 of the program law of 27 December 2004.

2 of 2. The difficulty for some to be independent as complementary. You may say that this presents a psychological difficulty, but it can sometimes be very pronounced. I think of the representatives of trade union organizations, who sit in some intercommunals and for whom it poses a almost ideological problem to find themselves independent one day, while they have always defended and devoted their lives to defending the status of an employee.

3 of 3. The disproportionate cost for those who would be obliged to be independent in the main, despite a small compensation at the level of their public mandate. I take two extreme examples: a household spouse with no own income and a parliamentary who has no other income, who, therefore, is not independent as a parliamentary and who should become it if he had an indemnity of even 1 euro, with the consequences you now know from heart.

The fourth element, essential for the CDH, is the fact that you have forgotten that your article 174 would induce completely unnecessary administrative hassles for public officials receiving small compensations, namely those located below the floor from which contributions are due. This is where we need to see the bill I introduced, including Mrs D'Hondt of CD&V, to solve this problem of unnecessary administrative hassles.

The last forget that I will highlight, but one could highlight others, concerns the harassment for those who have small mandates which, in total, lead to being above the floor or slightly overwhelmed, but which cause for these dedicated mandates many steps and therefore many small costs that would lead them to contribute while, in the end, they have, all the way, no net income from these activities. Hence the bill coming from the parties of your majority, namely sp.a-spirit and VLD. This proposal, it should be emphasized, indicates that there was not only a profound divergence of views between the MR and the PS but that there was also a different approach in the Dutch-speaking component of the government through the sp.a-spirit and the VLD.

Another element of this amateur work lies in two assumptions. Either you do not know, and can be understood, the situation of the 4,500 public officials — a number you regularly mention —, having not been yourself; or your party has deliberately decided — I hardly dare to think about it, but I hear it say — to attack its socialist partner. In fact, I sometimes hear an explanation from the mouth of socialists. We have just tried to consider an explanation for your behavior, there is one here that would come, not from yourself, but from your party: most liberal representatives are already independent and therefore little affected by Article 174, while most socialist representatives come from the social security of the employees and are therefore logically unlikely to find themselves independent as a complementary.

It would take three months for the government to agree on a bill replacing this improvised device, this article 174. It is quite rare — I have only been here for a year and I have not known any other case — it would have taken three additional months for the majority to agree on a new version, the third official version. I also imagine that other versions, unofficial, were written, rattled and eventually abandoned.

I will go over the multiple tensions between you and the PS, the first episode of which, and I will mention only that one, was an amendment distributed and then presented for two hours by our colleague Mr. Major and finally, I must have understood, not filed since this amendment does not exist in the official documents relating to your bill.

I come to the last episode of the leaflet, this famous legal notice of the Chamber services that led us to add yesterday a plenary session and a committee and which led Mr. So much to start a nice conversation with you for many minutes, just recently.

I pass on your coqueteries to accept Amendment No. 16 of my excellent colleagues Paul Tant and Trees Pieters. If I understand correctly, you eventually accepted this amendment in a praiseable concern to avoid too poor legal quality of your project.

I talked about the last episode. The future will tell us if this is true. God knows what can still happen in the Senate or on the occasion of possible appeals.

Given our interest in the opinion of the Council of State, we were forced to insist, especially since you wanted to deny this opinion of the Council of State. We insisted on whether it was a tax or a contribution. For my part, I remain convinced — I trust the opinion of the State Council and our reasoning — that this is indeed a tax. This discussion can be used as an argument to feed on possible appeals.

Last item on this amateur work - Mr. For at least six months, the 4,500 public officials you identified except four are in the illegal. You indicated that four of them had decided to join in order to be in order. I conclude that 4,496 deny the legality, especially the deputies of this assembly – this is not my case, otherwise I would have been the fifth to join – who did not affiliate on the basis of article 174 which is now in force.

Not all of them are necessarily in illegality since some who enjoy a public mandate already pay contributions. Not all of them are illegal.

That said, as I pointed out, the four people who affiliated will be reimbursed if they paid contributions on the basis of the law passed in December.

What you say is interesting. I thought the 4,500 representatives concerned were still not paying any contributions. But if I understand you right, in this calculation plate, there are people who already contribute.

Then comes the budgetary objective. The final project is, according to the State Council, a tax and not a contribution. In fact, it now applies to institutions and not to mandators. Furthermore, at the level of these mandators, it does not open any rights either in the social status of independent workers or elsewhere. It is true that the corporate contribution was decided by a CVP minister of the same trend as ours. Still it is that I do not know other cases of a levy called contribution that does not open any right and that applies to an institution while the rights are open to individuals.

Aside from the company’s contributions, I don’t know of any other case.

You are hoping for this tax — this is how I will call it from now on — a return of €8 million while you have never presented the slightest budget cleansing, even simplified, despite my insistence at every meeting and still today. You have only mentioned the fact that you have multiplied the number of 4,500 representatives by an average amount to reach those 8 million euros; today you tell us that, out of those 4,500, some of them already contribute and that they are therefore to be deducted from your multiplication.

Today I ask you — and you have a few minutes before the vote to answer — to inform us about the minimum of the minimum, namely what is the average amount of contributions on which your budget clearance is based and how you have established that average amount. In the course of the six months, you have changed the concrete terms of your project several times. First, they targeted the representatives, then the institutions; then, according to the texts, the thresholds of application of the tax were worded and were applied in a different way but, curiously, the 8 million remained 8 million, ⁇ by a miracle that escapes me, I must confess.

At the time when our committee votes the draft, in this month of June – as I have already had the opportunity to tell you and, besides, we will vote this law-programme – in the Social Affairs Committee, the government learns us through the voice of the Minister of Social Affairs, Mr. Demotte, that the INASTI presents a 2005 budget in bonus of €40 million based on the current assessment.

I sincerely welcome this, but I do not see how you will explain tomorrow to public officials and relevant bodies the introduction of such a complex and delayed tax. Why disappeared? Indeed, what is the relationship between an intercommunal and the INASTI? It will have to be explained. How will you justify the establishment of this tax with these representatives and the relevant agencies, at the very moment when the INASTI budget is in bonus?

In the committee, you answered me with an explanation relating to debt discharge, to an extension, very well! I believe however that you will have to go around the intercommunals to give this same explanation, otherwise the misunderstanding will be total, in my opinion.

Regarding the tax itself – ultimately, this is the most important thing – you say that it will probably be covered in fine by the representatives themselves since each institution can decide, it is your wish, to postpone the tax of 20% through a reduction in the compensation of the representatives.

Madame the Minister, you know better than I do that one of the main blocks within your majority at the federal level is not so much the fact that there are administrative hassles, nor that some representatives, if they have to contribute to the INASTI, will not be able to continue to be public representatives, nor even that the status of independent poses a difficulty to some (union delegates and others) but above all - and I would have liked that Mr. Giet be there to debate more in depth on this point – the fact that mandators didn’t want to see their income drop by 20%.

I would like to remind you that at the end of 1999, at the beginning of 2000, after the CVP and the PSC of the time found themselves in the opposition, somewhat everywhere, the compensations were multiplied by two or even three and that today, we are fighting for six months to avoid, despite this sharp increase, to see these compensations drop by 20%.

Madame Laruelle, if you have not been able to impose your point of view on the federal, it is obvious that you will not be able to impose it on the local level, where the mandators are both judge and party, and far away from the orders of the presidents of political parties! With regard to the objective of equal treatment between public and private, in view of the foregoing, no hypocrisy, no deception, no candor: there is no equal treatment! More seriously, the message addressed to the public opinion (to the taxpayers in general and to the independent representatives of the private sector in particular) is this: the political environment grants itself, once again, privileges and makes the note pay by others.

Whatever you have said just recently, Madame the Minister, it is the others who will pay; to balance their accounts, the intercommunal will transfer these 8 million new tax on their clientele and on the municipalities.

To conclude, if the government had known, in the beginning, all this context that we have just mentioned, Mrs. Pieters, Mr. So and so, I suppose that the government would never have accepted to insert the famous article 174 in the middle of the program law of 27 December 2004 and that the majority would never have proposed to this assembly the alternative draft that we will have to vote just now.

Dear Members of the Government, Dear Members of the Parliamentary Majority, What a waste!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I must first admit that our party did not feel immediately involved in the present draft. It is, in fact, what you call a contribution to the private and public institutions in which public mandators sit. The municipal, provincial, district and OCMW councils are not covered by the design. What remains is mainly the intercommunales, from which we are banned. You know that this is the effect of the famous cordon sanitaire, which is applied in the many cities and municipalities in Flanders and Brussels, and which is a shame.

Despite this conclusion, I would like to oppose the draft law in the speech. After all, in my opinion, it is our task to deliver sound, legislative work, which the draft law is not. Moreover, in this way at least one speaker here today in the minutes can note that this disastrous draft compromise — a compromise concluded in the back chambers of the majority parties; I will explain myself further — with a misleading title, does not take into account the opinions of the State Council, which, however, has formulated fundamental concerns.

Colleagues, Mrs. Minister, you came with the draft on 19 April 2005 to the Committee for Business, because the abolition of Article 5bis of the Royal Decree no. 38 by the Program Law of 27 December 2004 caused a lot of disturbance. Not least, this was the case among the mandators themselves.

It should be noted, however, that the original intention was to subject the mandataris and public and private institutions to the social status of the self-employed. It was mainly the mandatarists and the municipal vzw's and intercommunals that were affected by the measure.

Mrs. Minister, the aversion was great, especially with the PS, who, in the wake of Mr. Mayeur, heavily protested in the committee. I will not continue this discussion here. I don’t even want to get involved in this discussion between PS and MR, which, as I said, was conducted in front and behind the scenes. Our party is not a party involved. We have few or no representatives in intercommunals.

The fact is that the bill is a new, second attempt to fill the federal Treasury.

Mrs. Minister, our group does not agree with the course of affairs and with the course of work known to the draft. Not only did you wait almost four months after the approval of the program law to submit the bill to the committee. Moreover, when the PS in the committee started filibustering, you have waited more than a month for the draft to be re-scheduled. You can read it in the report: between 27 April 2005 and 7 June 2005, the draft was no longer discussed.

Three amendments were submitted by a majority. If the opposition asked for explanation, it was the minister who should give the explanation, rather than the subjects themselves of the amendments. If you can’t count! And yet the government requested the emergency treatment and the draft rap rap had to be chased by the Chamber. It is just the arrogance at the top. Your own failure during the program law and the disagreement between the majority parties first made the Chamber, and in fact all involved, the hostages of your failing policy. Now that the folds are eventually more or less smoothed with your socialist partners, it cannot go fast enough. You ignore the relevant comments from the opposition, the Council of State and even the considerations of the Court of Arbitration. You were still confronted yesterday — Mr. Tant has perfectly illustrated this — with no less than 24 comments from the legislative services of the House. This is due to the rapid hunting of designs by our institution.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the title of the draft law presented here today is not only misleading, it is a pertinent lie. The draft law concerning the introduction of an annual contribution charged to certain institutions is not at all about a contribution. It is also not about the fact that public mandators would be given a social status. No, it’s a rough attempt to impose a tax on public institutions. My position, Mrs. Minister, is supported by the State Council and the Arbitration Court. I have already said it in the committee, but I repeat it here, so that everyone would know it well and no one can say afterwards that one was not aware. I will no longer cite the report of the State Council here. Meanwhile, Mr. Tante has done this with verve. I must say, however, that it is striking to me that you are the second French-speaking minister to dismiss the opinions of the Council of State. After Ms. Onkelinx, who in long past times referred to the State Council as a non-democratic institution, you are the second French-speaking minister who simply dismisses fundamental comments of the State Council and does not take them into account.

The observation of the State Council is simple: the contribution in question is not a contribution, but a tax, and that should be regulated by law and not by KB. This is exactly what you are doing, in particular in Articles 3 and 7. Mrs. Minister, you will issue a royal decree with a list of exceptions from advisory bodies that will be exempted from the contribution.

Meanwhile, it is a royal decision that is unconstitutional. You refused to release this list. We have a guess about the reason for this secrecy, but let us assume that we still have suspicions that the great institutions, which are filled with political nominees, will remain out of control. You can still contradict me, Mrs. Minister, hic et nunc. However, you can assume that we will monitor the implementing decisions with the necessary suspicion.

The real reason for the draft, of the introduction of a new tax, is the hole in the greenhouse for Self-employed, which amounts to 8 million euros. That financial pit must be filled at whatever cost. How can it be the simplest? Precisely, by getting the money where it is: from the institutions themselves, and – as Mr. Tant correctly noted – from the municipalities. After all, it will not be the institutions that will collect for that tax. It will be the cities and municipalities. Of course, it will be the intercommunals who will have to deposit the global amount to the federal government. Indeed, Mrs. Minister, in theory they have the choice to reduce their seating fees so that they are no longer subject to the law, but I wonder which intercommunal will do that in practice. They will tell that stories on the municipalities and thus in fact on the taxpayer.

I was deeply disturbed by the fact that Mr. Lano of the VLD, yet a member of an anti-tax party — I thought so, colleague Hove — said in the committee that the process of seeking money where it is, is of all times. That is the solution of the VLD, the anti-tax party. They are no longer involved. They continue in their own way. They do not look back, but accept one tax after another.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will decide. This hard-worked fabric that you want to call a bill is in our eyes a perfect illustration of the knitting of purple. The engine does not turn; the government parties are in the clinch; the opinions of the Council of State are put to their side as if the opinions of the first were the best bird pic club — with my apologies, by the way, to the bird pic clubs.

You just keep going, without looking back, and you want to keep going for another two years, until 2007. Colleagues, Mrs. Minister, in fact, I must thank you for this because you lay the foundation for the next election victory of the Flemish Interest. Thank you very much.

Dear colleagues, as regards the organization of the work, I suggest that you complete the examination of this project before taking a small half-hour pause during which you will have the opportunity to support yourself. There are still three members to speak: Mr. Michel, Mrs. Gerkens and Mrs. Pieters.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will raise an unsustainable suspense from the beginning: the MR group will support the bill because we are convinced of the relevance of the objectives set.

I haven’t said anything yet, but if you want to interrupt me.

[...] because I have just read the report. I don’t know if you were present, but the comment that Mr. Fournaux gave on his minister’s bill was, though, complacent.

I will not talk about mr. He is currently seriously injured. However, it is not because I was not personally present in the committee that I do not have the ability to have a look at the different bills that are discussed in all the committees. This kind of terrorism according to which you have to be a member of a committee to have an opinion on bills does not like me and I leave you this type of analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief comment. The plenary session is counted to allow those members who are not in the committee to express their views on a draft or proposal. It is the opposite of what you think. In principle, the committee members are not the first player here, but those who were not there. I would like to give it a moment. After all, I often hear the comment in the context of "you weren't in the committee". Sorry, it is the reverse. Here it is intended that others also defend their cause.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peterson, I am addressing you in particular. You need to give understanding. Our young colleague Michel has just been hired as a lawyer by Mrs. Minister. The replica she apparently couldn’t give...

You know what you will say. That is impressive. It is really impressive.

I have seen you receive instructions from Mrs. Minister while others were speaking.

That happened when CD&V was in government. Now it is different. We are now in a different time, Mr. Tante. That has now changed. That is a long time ago.

That is true. CD&V is a very young party.

Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a moment. I literally repeat what I have seen happening in front of my eyes. The minister himself does not address the difficult points. She hired a lawyer. I think this is a fair practice, no, my colleagues. This must be done. So I support you.

I would like to thank our colleague Tant for his pleasant support. More seriously, I would like to tell you that we support the project and I would like to make a few considerations. One can actually have fun with technical-legal arguties, discuss for hours regarding the difficulties in exposing the reasons for a point of the translation, pretending through so-called technical arguments that one will not come back on substantive arguments. This is what you did when the commitment you took as the chairman of the commission was the opposite.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to stick to the essential. What is it? It is to restore justice through this bill. This is the first objective. There was a situation of privilege to the benefit of the mandators in the intercommunals who were exempt from contributions. We put an end to it and restore fairness with this bill. Furthermore, the set rate is simple and fair. We advocate for administrative simplification and show the example since it is an affiliation of the organization and not of the representative. We are pleased with this, it is clearly an improvement for further administrative simplification.

I also want to tell you — and I address to our friends of CD&V and CDH who have deserted the banks, as well as to our colleague Tant — that, in this text, there is no feedback. It’s fun to say this when you make the inventory of the text projects you supported at a certain time when retroactivity was the rule and therefore where legal uncertainty was the rule. Here we choose not to support a logic of retroactivity.

by Mr. Drèze is fun and I regret that he is not present. He tells us that it is scandalous, that in reality the INASTI has enough resources and that there would be a budget bonus. There is indeed a quite exceptional budgetary conjunctual bonus. This is a recurring and good management measure. I am pleased that the exceptional budget bonus has been allocated to debt discharge. This is the choice that has been made. It is therefore a bit short as an argument to come to be moved by asking if we do not need these means since there is a budget bonus, which in reality is quite exceptional.

by Ms. Pieters cannot resist the need to interrupt you.

It is a great pleasure to be interrupted by Mrs. Peters!

Mr. Michel, you have talked with so much applomb about the retroactive force that was also applied at the time of the CVP.

I think that during the previous legislature your government commissioner worked for four years under the tutelage of Minister Reynders and performed performant work. He even wrote a book about it, stating that retroactive force in legal context was from the evil and that it could never be used again.

Mrs. Pieters, your intervention is an added value to this debate; I thank you for this statement.

Additional €8 million for the social status of independent workers! This debate drops the masks. There are those who are angry, angry when they succeed in creating additional means to improve the social status of the independent and there are those who, sincerely, want to fight to try to value this status. This is part of this bill. He delights us!

Some argue that this is a transfer of funding to local, municipal institutions. In this regard, I warn: an evaluation will be made. Local representatives, members of the bodies of such intercommunal bodies, shall have the power to decide whether they take into account, on their remuneration, the amount of the affiliation or whether they make this burden bear by others. I would be very curious to see, in a few months, what choices will be made by one and another. I have no doubt that there will be a correlation between the political affiliation of those who direct the structures in question and those who have made decisions in one direction or another. These were the elements we wanted to highlight. We hope that this bill, along the way some have tried to lay down a few bananas skins, to delay it, to complicate it, will be approved. I am delighted because it means an additional eight million euros for the social status of independent workers and the restoration of equity. For us, these elements are fundamental.

As long as Mr. Michael is still there, I will use it to answer him, since I have not interrupted him. My intervention is built around the two arguments you have cited, that of equity, according to your terms, and that of refinancing the INASTI. Of course, I do not share your conclusions on how these goals have been achieved. I even consider that we are living here the last performance of a circus that lasted three months, with a great success. There was a discussion of a project that, in the beginning, had as an official objective and announced the equity between private mandators who pay contributions from their remuneration as independent and public mandators within public bodies who, they, are exempt from these contributions even though some, I agree, receive sometimes very large remunerations. This project also had an unspecified or unassumed goal, that of providing a complementary financing of INASTI through the collection of contributions. This is where it hurts the socialist partner — and this is my reading here — who refuses to increase the funding of INASTI to sufficiently improve the social status of the independent. What is on the table today?

Without wanting to polemize, I would like to know what you mean by "where it hurts the socialist partner".

I will come there immediately. Who is concerned with the payment of contributions to ensure this financing of INASTI? The public officials. Who represents the majority of these public officials? On the French-speaking side in any case, I think that a majority of the mandates is socialist. In my opinion, the way in which the debate was organized, the way in which this project is brought to ensure the necessary financing of INASTI, is a way of settling certain accounts between socialists and liberals. Now, I am not at all opposed to this contribution but I will explain the follow-up of events and you will react afterwards. For me, the scale of things in time forms a coherent whole.

What happened in the commission? We met with a project announcing that people would contribute by equity in the same way as private representatives. The disadvantage was the perverse effect that was removed: given their status, some people could not adopt the status of independent and occupy a position of public mandatory, which was not democratically acceptable. So instead of trying to reflect on the status of public officer, looking for a way to adjust things, we removed the individual contribution. This is where the argument of equity is no longer valid. Objectively, it may be equal to me that the money comes from a corporate contribution — as there is a corporate contribution — rather than individual contribution but the main objective of equity is not met.

Public officers will not pay contributions; public bodies will pay contributions on the basis of the remuneration they give to their officers, which is not at all the same thing: this contribution will not open any rights, but I strongly doubt that the agencies will impact it on the officers.

During the committee discussions, we witnessed a sort of crazy energy spent by your government partners, bringing proposals that aimed to prevent public officials from paying contributions.

That is why I really have the impression that the way that all this was organized was aimed at financing INASTI.

For refinancing, you say you get eight million. That’s fine, but the problem is that we have no guarantee that it will be eight million in the short, medium and long term. What will be the most important revenue? Those coming from intercommunal agencies where mandatory officers receive especially high salaries.

I see that mr. Michel doesn’t like that I tell him not to agree: in fact, I doubt a guarantee of having those eight million in a structural way. Indeed, the number of intercommunals, the largest contributors and the number of representatives within them depend on other levels of power than the federal.

For example, in the Walloon Region, there is a project to reduce the number of intercommunals and the number of mandators. Your income will be reduced by that.

If Ecolo had still been in government with the MR, it was possible, Mrs. Gerkens.

It is this, and I can join you: you bet that the current majority in the Walloon Region will not decrease its number of intercommunal and its number of representatives. However, we are also not sure.

It is therefore based on a dimension that does not depend on the federal power. Absolutely, there is no problem about this, but we cannot say that there will be eight million based on our current estimates. We can’t do it because we don’t have the necessary tools.

Mr. Speaker, we really have the feeling that Mrs. Gerkens is a little bit of your bump because I have not been able to interrupt her for a long time. This is said with a smile!

I have two observations. First of all, it is of course that the agencies in question, intercommunal in particular, are led by representatives. These representatives will be held accountable and will decide either not to pay a penny to their salaries, or to take into account the fact that they and they must also contribute. We will then see the evaluation that will be made. I pointed out this recently to show that this is not just a transfer of charges to local authorities, as some seemed to say a little briefly.

Second element that I give with a huge smile on my lips, since I was in charge of this case even a few months ago; I do not believe a second in the sincerity of the Wallon government in its affirmed will to rationalize the intercommunal for a very simple reason: the first decision in the government declaration to the Wallon Region was to delay everything, while the decisions on paper had been made.

I therefore believe very little in this element, although, indeed, I must agree with the risk of decreasing the estimates operated, I would favor for my part a rationalization of the intercommunal in Wallonia because I think that Wallonia is deeply needed in terms of economic activity and job creation.

I share Mr. President’s fears and hopes. by Michel. Therefore, it will be necessary that neither of us returns to a Walloon majority before a certain time to continue to guarantee the financing of INASTI.

In addition, I am not sure that the mandators will deprive themselves for the benefit of the agencies. The risk that things are taken over by the components of the organizations, including local authorities, is very real.

Furthermore, among the clown elements of this file, it is observed that, not only is it not certain to obtain eight million for the INASTI, but the device also provides that if the eight million are exceeded, the additional money collected will go to the ONSS. I believe that this mechanism is a new proof of beautiful hypocrisy that reinforces my reading of resolving conflicts between the socialist and liberal components of the government. This allows some to claim that they have fought to defend the interests of employees and the interests of the public.

In conclusion, if I can rejoice that access to public mandates is respected for everyone, regardless of their social status, if I can accept the fact that significant remuneration for public mandates – without the requirement of equivalent benefits – participates in the financing of INASTI through social contributions, if I can appreciate the measure allowing that it is actually the high remuneration that contributes and not the remuneration below 200 euros per year, if I can also appreciate the fact that there is a refinancing of INASTI, I consider that this project does not meet the objectives pursued or that it does not, in any case, present the guarantees to meet them in a sustainable way. Furthermore, I consider that it is risky not to have taken into account the remarks of the Chamber’s legal services regarding this transfer to INASTI and ONSS of the amount of remuneration.

The legal services claimed that it resulted from this project that no judicial control could be exercised given the way things were formulated in the article. They added that this fixed amount could no longer be modified subsequently and could no longer be modified for the year 2005. It was considered that the majority knew what they were voting for when voting on the bill and that these remarks could not be taken into account. Personally, I doubt that the parliamentarians of the majority, present in the committee at the vote, knew that they were voting for that.

Therefore, Ecolo will vote against this project. However, we will soon submit a proposal to grant a specific status to public officials. It is necessary to recognize the specificity of this type of mandate which presents a social and democratic utility while accepting the need to grant them a remuneration equivalent to that of the private when they have identical benefits in time and capacity. This will enable them to participate in solidarity and will facilitate the exercise of their mandate. In fact, today, some people volunteer in many organizations before taking holidays. However, these people are not taken into account by the provisions that concern us today. I believe that this debate should be conducted between us.

Mr. Speaker, if we voted on the present bill last week, it would have been exactly six months after the approval of the program law. The Program Law was adopted on 16 December 2004. Today is June 23, 2005. Exactly six months and a week we are working on the matter.

Officially, four meetings were held dedicated to the bill, on 27 and 29 April and 6 and 8 June. Several times we were unable to start because the majority was not present. This was not a coincidence, but a conscious absence. Several times the bill was deliberately scheduled as a second point, so that it could not be dealt with, because the first point had to be completed, even though it was only 11:15 pm. We had the guess. In any case, it was clear that the majority was in the knife over the bill.

The purpose of the articles in the Program Law are now well known, in this case the collection of a solidarity contribution as "independent" for all public mandators who sit in private and public institutions. That is a noble goal, in order to help the social cashier of the self-employed to additional resources as a result of the new contracts received by the government cashier for a slight increase in pensions.

I would have liked to ask Mr. Michel which masks fall down here, ⁇ his own. However, he is absent. CD&V has always found it a good thing that the RSVZ got money. However, the way it is is another element.

For more than six years, CD&V has already repeated that the promises of purple are loose. The promises on the social status of the self-employed, launched by Gabriels and acquired by Daems, have ultimately resulted in Gembloux in a fantastic social status, of which we must today conclude that we have come no further than a slight increase in pensions - nothing more than that - and that the cents must be collected over and over through such bills.

It is told to me that in the preparation of the 2004 budget, the majority partners agreed to pay 8 million euros to the RSVZ. To make flow. When the way of working was announced, the bells began to ring.

Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Entrepreneurship, you pointed out that CD&V made a few cautious comments, without however touching those famous masks of the social status of the self-employed at the time we discussed the program law. I remember very well that when I told the minister that she did not follow the rules of the social status of the self-employed.

That was a first comment. Secondly, here is a famous cost deduction, I say only what I said then, I do not ask your opinion; you answered me on it. You shake with your head. That cost reduction would go to the municipalities but this was laughed away like so many things. It became more serious when the workplace, the mandataris, became aware of that measure. When I first questioned the Minister, on a Thursday afternoon during the questioning hour in the plenary session, I still remember vividly the gaze from one bank to the other bank, from Minister Laruelle to Minister Reynders, in which to read: What are they now doing? What does she bring now? There is no problem. We know what we are doing and we continue. I see the same contemptuous gaze, the same contemptuous smile on each other, on our behalf, a gaze in which it was read, "Stupid people, what are you doing?" Their

The commotion became bigger and bigger. When several weeks later, again in the questioning hour, now assisted by Mr. Drèze and a number of other colleagues from the opposition, among them Mrs. Gerkens, again asked the question what was going to be done now — that was exactly on 7 April — a new proposal was launched: a tax of 20% with an exemption per institution of 1.250 euros with an income for the RSVZ. I know well that I have tried in the walkways to grasp the content of what was said at the time. I walked to Minister Van den Bossche who said that this was not acquired, I have become accustomed to Minister Demotte who also said that the affairs are indeed so together, but that it was not acquired. At that moment it was clear that something was going on. Their

Then followed a new bill that framed – listen well – in a good administration of this government. Then I almost fell back. Good governance, with a second draft after three months waiting for a serious argumentation and a serious solution to the problem raised!

Meanwhile, the time went by and the period of compulsory connection was over. As we have heard, four mandatory officers have set themselves up in the rule. Some did not do it or could not do it and others have waited. The discussion in the Chamber Committee of the new draft began on 19 April. We have based our criticism primarily on the criticism of the Council of State. The State Council was given — imagine, we are six months busy — five days of time, as part of the emergency treatment, to give an opinion. Indeed, the State Council has made a number of serious comments. I will not repeat it again. Collega Tant read them clearly because the majority apparently did not understand it well.

It is mainly about the many delegations of powers to the King and secondly about the fact that this is really a new tax. Mrs. Minister, on page 5 of the State Council report it is clear that it is not a tax, but a new tax. Also, point 6 in the report of the State Council clearly states that there can be difficulty with social security contributions but there can be a tax. Until now, you have continued to deny that.

Furthermore, the Council of State has made serious comments on the royal decree to be submitted to the Council of Ministers on the exemptions to be granted. This has been a delicate point in the discussion, both for CD&V, for myself and Mr. Tant and for cdH, for Mr. Drèze.

After six months of urgent discussion, a list of exempt institutions can still not be submitted. From that list, the minister says that she will use it as a means of determining the revenues. When it sees that the revenues are not collected, a number of exempt institutions will disappear from the list, but if the revenues are collected, a number more will be added. The biggest confusion! We heard the most impossible explanation.

We still wonder why there should be exceptions to this. Why should this be by royal decree and can not be included in the law? Who is behind this? Who is this meant? It will not be the small, local mandators who have seats, through their mandate and their commitment, in many intercommunales, who will enjoy this.

I must say that the majority does not follow their minister. I tried to explain this to Mr. Michel. From the report you have been able to clearly assert that even the speaker of the MR – Mr Fournaux, unfortunately not present here – dismisses the bill of Minister Laruelle.

On a cool morning, we meet in Hall 5, where the PS submits an entirely new proposal in the form of an amendment. It is a completely new design that was never officialized, never printed, and therefore is non-existent. We have it all in our files. It was distributed to all committee members.

Then the chaos was at the top. Even the Minister wondered what she should do. Mr. Drèze, you remember the conversation. We tried for a moment to assist the minister and offer an alternative to the bills that we had been preparing. Then I saw a worried minister. Then the smile disappeared.

In the meantime, all deadlines expire. If I point out the illegality in which mandatarists - future mayors - are located, this is also laughed at. On 7 May, two months after the submitted draft law and six months after the inclusion in the program law, amendments will be submitted by the majority. Articles 6, 7 and 13 are amended.

There was the fact that it was already cited here, in particular that the majority leaves the explanation of Article 6 to the Minister. I would like to make an exception here for Mrs. Pécriaux who had the courage to explain the following articles. I would like to make an exception for the ladies Ghenne and Barzin who were with us on mission in the Czech Republic and may not have known what it was about. In addition to the above-mentioned fact, I still remember vividly the three VLD’s – Tommelein, Lenssen and Lano – who blindly stared at their laptops, not moving, not opening their mouths, not knowing where the bells sounded. Then the Minister explained the amendments of the majority.

The exemption of EUR 1250 per institution has been changed to EUR 200 per person, with the exception of the reimbursement of the institutions’ own expenses.

Mrs. Minister, if we ask you what it is about, then you are talking about paper, about pens, about coffee. We added the cookies. We know better. We know that this clearly refers to all kinds of indirect charges, such as transport costs. However, there was no further response from you, Mr. Minister.

I myself and other colleagues realize too well that the amount of 8 million euros was calculated with the wet finger. After all, we are facing a new amendment, without a single revenue being quantified. Their

Mr Drèze, today in The Time or in The Standard can be read a description of the proceeds of this law to the RSVZ. It is very clear that the 8 million euros will never be achieved. Well, Mr. Chairman — you are also of PS signature — then the PS is also seen in its noble intention to distribute the surplus between the RSZ and the RSVZ.

The President must always be neutral.

Mr. President, I know it. There is no one in the PS. I cannot address anyone else.

Therefore, there will be no distribution of the surplus between the RSZ and the RSVZ. Their

Repeated questions about proper budgeting refer to the budget capacity of the Minister of Budget. We can indeed welcome this. It is about the budget capacity of the Minister of Budget, Mr. Vande Lanotte. I can only conclude that one does not know how much this stuff will bring. Everything depends on the Royal Decree with the exemption. That is an impossible step for me to approve this bill. Mrs. Minister, it is simply unacceptable that at this moment you still do not give insight into who and what is exempted. Their

In addition, we had to conclude that some amendments were submitted with the wrong date. You remember it, Mr. President. In the Dutch text the date was 1 July. It was blasphemy until then.

We have already experienced a lot from the opposition. I have repeatedly pointed to the soap stories following the bills of the majority, in order to ⁇ a goal set by the majority. However, this is unreleased: a quarreling majority, a Council of Ministers who patiently monitors how majority parties do each other’s duel, poor legislative texts, essential amendments through amendments that have not been reviewed anywhere, and, above all, a backbone of local mandators, which forms the basis of all parties, who still don’t know what to do. Per ⁇ some of them are now in total illegality. I hope from the bottom of my heart that I am wrong.

I repeat, I and my group would like to see that the RSVZ can work and that it can fulfill its mandates, but this is not the appropriate path. As a member of Parliament, I am ashamed of what happened. In addition, I am of the opinion that other members of our committee share that embarrassment, but do not dare to say it here. The Government and the Minister of the Middle East have repeatedly blunted. The committee members had to resolve this work with an uncomfortable feeling. Everyone wanted a solution. I was prepared as an opposition member, Mr. Drèze was also, to help find a solution. However, I had to conclude that from the government in an arrogant manner has been sold with us. After too long talks and quarrels, one has created a law, that name unworthy. We will therefore vote against.

The model state is becoming more and more a monkey country.

If there are no other requests for intervention from colleagues at this stage, I think it is up to the Minister to eventually give some reactions and answers to the various speakers.

I will be very short.

First of all, I would like to thank the members of this parliament for spending so much time working on this project which, as we have heard today and during the committee debates, pursues several objectives, the main of which is to restore some equity between public and private representatives.

Some speakers have repeated the history of the case; so I will not recall it.

The Government wants to propose an alternative solution. Ingevolge het ontwerp zullen van sociale bijdragen worden betaald door van instellingen in niet door van publieke mandatarissen zelf. This is a simplification. The government has, of course, made a number of remarks, both in plenary sessions and in committees. You cannot blame everything and its opposite. The government listened to the comments, which is why it wanted to propose an alternative solution. I would like to thank the parliamentarians who have worked constructively in the committee to improve the government text, given that a number of amendments have been approved in the committee.

In the face of the vigorous reactions of some members of parliament, I understand that this project can most ⁇ disturb some. However, what is more normal is that public officials can also participate, like private officials, by paying social contributions! We wanted to simplify the text as much as possible. Therefore, it will be the institutions and not the public officials on an individual basis who will do so. Some accuse me of a budget that provides a bonus to the INASTI.

I really don’t know what to do, Mr. President. When certain subjects are in deficit, ministers are vigorously arrested and criticized by members of that parliament. And I, who find myself fortunate with a bonus to the INASTI, are also criticized. I no longer know exactly what to do! I suppose that we need to get to the balance, that’s what we will do with INASTI, since I have decided to allocate the possible bonus – it’s still just a budget – to debt reduction. I would like to thank all the parliamentarians for being so passionate about this project that is, of course, of crucial importance.

Mr. Minister, I suppose it is not me you are targeting when you spoke of parliamentarians who criticize the budget. I think the services will faithfully reflect my words. I said I was looking forward to the budget bonus, I would like things to be clear.

I said, in his time, that there had been misinformation on the law-program and Mr. Dresden felt targeted. Today, I say that some seem to blame me and he feels targeted. Mr. Drèze, if these words concerned you directly, I would do so in a clear, clear and frank manner.

Mr. Minister, I am a little disappointed because I asked you a question, just recently, which was about the minimum of the minimum. Do you have an answer regarding the budget cleaning?

Mr. Dresden, we already have

We discussed this issue in the committee. It is difficult to have a budget clean as you would like it because one institution is obviously not the other. Furthermore, the number of representatives per institution and the amount of remuneration are far from being homogeneous. So we had to work on the basis of averages and we assumed that on average, a public officer should receive between 1,700/1,800 and 2,000/2,200 per year. It can be calculated. Of course, the compensation of 200 must be deducted. You multiply by 4,500, but the number of public representatives is not the same every year. The calculation is very simple to do. Make the calculation, you will get around 8 million euros. For this reason, the government wanted to establish budgetary controls in a very regular way, in order to be able to follow the evolution of this forecast.

Thank you for finally giving us the desired numbers. But, Mrs. Minister, there is still a reservation: you have told us recently that among the 4,500 mandatory officers, there were those who already contributed. You have to deduce them. Do you have an idea of the number of representatives already contributing, who should therefore be deducted from your calculation?

We are not in a debate about the gender of angels! In my response, I mentioned a number of them. We worked on average. I gave you the average salary ranging from 1,700/1,800 to 2,000/2,200. As long as the average changes by 100 per year, the change in the number of representatives will not occur. When we talk about 4,500 public officials, these figures come from INASTI but it can be about 5,000 public officials. It may not have been listed all, since it was necessary to request the application of Article 5bis. We are not convinced that everyone has requested the application of this article.

Some elements make us think that we will have some mandators less, others that we will have more. Ask me again the question when we will finally put this bill into effect. I will then answer you with all the certainty required by yourself and by other colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, one last comment. Mrs. Minister, I am learning now, because you are a little more speaking, and I thank you for this...

This is why there is a plenary session, Mr. Drèze.

It is hard to be serious!

Just recently, you accused me of laughing. I hope you don’t get involved too! You can’t blame me for being smiling and then ask me questions out of laughter, it’s not serious.

I now learn that it is the INASTI that makes the projections of the number of representatives concerned. Mr. Minister, INASTI does not know the representatives concerned since, by default, they are known only at the level of tax returns. However, in these tax returns, they are identified in such a way that they do not contribute to INASTI and the information is not transmitted to INASTI. Numbers can be known, but ⁇ not through the INASTI! I am asking myself more and more questions.

Mr. Drèze, when I say INASTI, you must of course understand me! When we thought about this project, we asked a number of information from INASTI, which ⁇ informed the tax administration. You know, data exchanges can take place between administrations, when one questions the other. It is probably this way that the figure reached the INASTI.

Very shortly, Mr President. First, I am a little shocked by the minister’s reaction, which gives the impression that we would not like the functioning of the RSVZ. From the beginning of the discussion of the program law, I, like Mr. Tant, requested that the RSVZ should have sufficient resources to carry out its work. The question is how the RSVZ gets those resources. I remember vividly from the first parliamentary discussions — when you were not even a minister — on the improvement of the social status of the self-employed that that improvement would come from the general resources. But nothing of this: it is step by step that resources are created.

Secondly, Mrs. Minister, you thank the colleagues who helped you implement the draft law. Then you do not mean the colleagues of the majority, because I have not heard any of them intervene.

There are amendments from the majority, Mr. Speaker, not from the government.

of which act.

And the people’s representatives voted!

By whom were they made?

By the majority, Mrs Peters.