Proposition 51K1751

Projet de loi instaurant une indemnité compensatoire de pertes de revenus en faveur des travailleurs indépendants victimes de nuisances dues à la réalisation de travaux sur le domaine public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

financial loss merchant public works damages self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Ecolo Open Vld MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Josy Arens (LE) voted to reject.
• Stijn Bex (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Roel Deseyn (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Camille Dieu (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Annemie Roppe (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Annelies Storms (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Koen T'Sijen (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Oct. 20, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the bill was transmitted by the Senate and provides for the provision of an income compensation allowance for self-employed persons who have to close their business as a result of public works. The bill was drafted by Senator Jean-Marie Dedecker. The same proposal was submitted in the Chamber by colleague Miguel Chevalier and by myself.

A proposal for the opinion of the State Council and the Court of Auditors, and a proposal to hold a hearing, were rejected in the committee.

Colleagues, the bill provides, as I said, for compensation for self-employed persons who have to close their case for 14 days as a result of works in the public domain. The fee is EUR 44.2 per day, including weekends. That amount was chosen by analogy of employees who are economically unemployed. The compensation applies only to small self-employed persons and therefore no more than 10 persons may work in the company and the annual turnover may not exceed EUR 2 million.

The fee is paid by the Participation Fund and for its financing the builders deposit an amount of up to 0.25% of each uncontested invoice relating to their works in the public domain. With that maximum amount, 5,000 self-employed workers could be compensated for 51 days a year. However, it is unlikely that this will be necessary. According to the minister, the percentage may be limited to 0.15% or even 0.10% of the invoices.

Another important element of the draft law is the obligation for municipalities to inform merchants. The hearings in the Senate pointed out that the main point of criticism of the merchants was that they did not know sufficiently in advance when and how long the work would take place, so that they could not make the necessary arrangements.

I will briefly summarize the main points of discussion in the committee.

Many members found the bill not sufficiently comprehensive. The requirement that a self-employed person should close his shop and not have any other professional income was perceived by some members as “too little.” Some found that self-employed people are encouraged to close with this bill. The Minister rejected the argument, because the daily salary is indeed not so high.

Some committee members also pointed out the need for preventive measures to minimize the obstacle as much as possible.

Some committee members also pointed out the need for preventive measures to minimize the obstacle as much as possible. Others then thought that this belonged to the competence of the regions. They also wondered whether the formalities to obtain compensation were not too heavy. However, a simpler procedure was not found.

Another important point of criticism was that the bill would override the costs for a large part to the municipalities. After all, half of the builders of works in the public domain are the municipalities. That objection was not held by the majority, as the financial burden is already relatively low and very widespread.

The bill was approved by the committee with 10 votes for and 5 abstentions. So far, colleagues, the report of the discussion of the bill in the committee.

Now you have the word, on behalf of your group.

Colleagues, in front of you stands a satisfied and even relieved man. The [...]

Believe in yourself...

This is the beginning of self-knowledge.

I am a satisfied man, because today, after years of parliamentary debate, we can conclude with a broad consensus that obstructing self-employed persons in public works is effectively a serious problem. I am relieved because today, after years of talks and discussions, we can finally vote on a concrete measure. After all, a study by Professor Eddy Laveren of the University of Antwerp shows that as many as 84.3% of traders are the requesting party.

However, there is absolutely no euphoria man in front of you. I do not exclude that the present bill, at least as regards the VLD, is still largely insufficient. For us, it is a first obstacle to be taken and, as you know, in horde riding, the first horde is usually the most important. This is also the case here.

The fact that we today legally establish the principle that a self-employed must be compensated if he must close his shop as a result of public works, is a giant step forward. I share the criticism that not only the merchants, who have to close their stores for more than two weeks and do not perform paid work during that period, suffer from public works. However, it must be of my heart that some of the colleagues who now most loudly shout that the bill for that reason deserves an insufficient, ironically, are those who initially had the most problems with the principle of that income compensation. Their

The self-employed in this country will probably not blame us for having taken note with the VLD faction of an old Flemish proverb about birds in the sky and bird in hand. The sum of 44.2 euros per day may seem modest, but for those who have to close their store for a whole month due to works, this is about an amount of 1.370 euros.

Colleagues, we absolutely did not want any further delay with the VLD group because we believe that the approval of this bill is very urgent. For years, this proposal has been hanging like a root in the nose of so many small self-employed individuals who must fight daily to avoid bankruptcy. It is not evidence of good governance to submit new amendments to the draft law, to organize another hearing and to seek advice from the State Council and the Court of Auditors. Their

Remember also that next year are municipal council elections and the colleagues who deserve their footprints in municipal policy know too well that the municipal authorities prefer to plan their infrastructure works in the years before the elections. The timing for introducing an income compensation is therefore absolutely not a day too late.

Importantly, I would like to reassure our group with the arguments of the colleagues who may later defend that self-employed persons who do not close should also be compensated for their decline in turnover, that there should also be something to happen with regard to works that last less than 14 days and that the self-employed persons who have other professional income should also not remain in the cold. Their

We see the bill as a first step. You have to start somewhere. We start with the traders who, as a result of work, must completely close their business for at least 14 days. We would like to promise with the hand on our heart that in the coming years in this house with great enthusiasm and with great conviction we will help the VLD advocate other bills that take the necessary steps to help deal with traders who do not have to completely close, even partially in their income end.

Finally, I would like to talk about funding. Some colleagues will say that the bill implies additional charges for the municipalities. Mr. Tante, I will not deny that. However, it is only about an amount of about 0.15% on an entire invoice. These burdens are fully distributed and are therefore not exaggerated for anyone.

Some will say that the municipalities will account for it and that it will end up on the neck of the taxpayer. That is true, but any income compensation for each employee in this country is also financed by the taxpayer. Who would otherwise pay? Nothing is free.

Another source of funding consists of fees on the fines for late execution of the works. One observation made by the industry in this regard is that the penalty scheme in the general conditions of employment is a fragile balance exercise and that it is better not to touch it.

The system has the advantage that it is primarily the bad executors who pay and that the municipalities are respected in this regard. On the other hand, the purpose of the fine is to prevent delayed work. If the fines are effective, everyone will do their work on time. However, it is not because they are not late, that they cannot last very long, especially for a self-employed who therefore has no or less income. Structural financing, such as a percentage of the invoices, is therefore in any case indispensable.

Colleagues, the VLD group will support this bill with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as the rapporteur noted, the government has converted a proposal from the Senate into a bill to grant income compensation compensation to self-employed, victims of works in the public domain. Three similar bills have been added: one from me, one from Mr. Chevalier and Tommelein, and one from Mrs. De Meyer.

The discussions in the committee did not run from a loose roof, Mr. Speaker. We had to hold several meetings to reach a conclusion. It was pleasant for the opposition to see how, once again in the Committee for Business, socialists and liberals stood against each other with dragged swords.

The socialist colleagues came to the trap with an alternative proposal. They submitted an amendment no. 14 that actually rewrote the entire text of the draft law.

The discussion was, at times, a hilarious slide. The sp.a filibustered hours after hours. It was clear that the Minister of Medium State did not get the majority again on a single line.

The bill has been in the Senate for a long time. The design seeks to meet the suggestion of especially small self-employed. When public works take place in the vicinity of a retail store, this is of course always accompanied by a loss of revenue. Public works are not pleasant for anyone, but for the small self-employed, they mean much more than a wrap around an open road.

They are hindered to such an extent that they lose customers and that their turnover — their sales — decreases sharply. There are already some ways to protect yourself from these effects, but these are ⁇ cumbersome, with long, expensive and difficult procedures. This bill responds in part to the need to bridge this difficult period of hindering public works with immediate financial support. The great merit of this design is that it is finally acknowledged that self-employed persons suffer a lot of hinder from public works and that there is a need for compensation. Their

The design presented here also has very important shortcomings. Mr. Speaker, we have tried to remedy the many shortcomings in this bill through amendments. While reading an article in The Time, yesterday or today, I wondered, Mr. Speaker, how long we will be allowed to submit amendments. Since we are being ticked on our fingers for asking questions, I expect that we will soon be ticked on our fingers for amending bills. As we plan to ask further questions as before, we will also submit amendments in the committee. Their

We have submitted amendments, initially to ease the conditions surrounding income compensation, because we consider them to be very strict. The self-employed is obliged to close his business for at least 14 days and for this he receives a small gross amount of 44,2 euros per day. Furthermore, and this was also stated in the report, the self-employed should not have any other occupational income. In practice, this means imposing a complete ban on the self-employed, in exchange for a small fee of 44,2 euros per day, while the fixed costs for the self-employed, such as the rent, continue to run. This is not in line with the economic reality. After all, every trader, despite the obstacle and certain loss of turnover, will still try to take a number of things to heart, for example exceptional home deliveries, so they go to customers themselves to realize the necessary sales still, only temporarily or for a number of hours a day open the store or a number of days a week, for example two days a week, without staff. This is prohibited by that law. Their

There will be heavy sales losses anyway. All this comes in exchange for just 44.2 euros per day. I have therefore, together with my group, submitted an amendment providing that the trader of an impaired facility who decides to keep his case open would be entitled to a partial compensation, being 44,2 divided by 2. The conclusion of the case is no longer an absolute criterion. It is important for CD&V that compensation is granted to the independent trader as soon as access to the facility is prevented, prevented or seriously impaired without the need for an effective closure.

I come to the second deficiency. We found the chosen procedure not an example of administrative simplification.

Mr. Secretary of State, I did not know that you would be present here this afternoon, but that is for the next, which has been added to it.

I am referring here again, as I did yesterday in the Committee on Internal Affairs following your administrative simplification no. 2, to the famous Kafka test. I said that in the committee. If this passes the Council of Ministers with an approval of the Kafka test, I don’t know...

The [...]

This is a bill, Mr. Minister. It comes from the Senate as a proposal, it is turned by the minister into a bill and all bills — you say — must pass the Kafka test. Well, if this has passed the Kafka test, you can call that a vodje paper.

The [...]

If you want to say something, you need to press your button.

No, Mr. Borginon was first and then the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, a bill approved in the Senate is automatically a bill.

That is right. Mr Van Quickenborne.

Mr. Speaker, let us be constructive in our response to Mr. Pieters’s suggestion. I have nothing against, colleagues, to explain to you the morality of the Kafka test, as we apply every week in the Council of Ministers, coming here to you. We may then be able to apply it to the various bills that are submitted here or bills that are approved. My knowledge on this subject is at your disposal. If you want to enroll the Kafka test in the respected House and Senate Rules, you can copy the model from us without any problem.

How about Kafka?

No, Mr. President, that would take us too far. I will ⁇ not deny the Secretary of State the sense of initiative to try to do something about the problem he is charged with. I have the impression that the traditionally established useless formalities are indeed addressed by him. At the same time, I note that during the period in which he is Secretary of State, one makes every effort to impart new, sometimes enormous, obligations to the local authorities. I invite you, Mr. Secretary of State, to go to the town halls these days — we have already talked about it — and to see how it evolves there with the people who come, for example, to claim their fuel oil premium. One decides with the most ease and then one says that everything becomes easier. For the same money, the often very complicated obligation is transferred to the municipalities.

This is the same, Mr. Speaker. You should look at it in the text, which contains fourteen articles: I think you will find in the text a reference to the municipalities fourteen times. The municipality must do this, the municipality must do it. We need to urgently think about this. It is very easy to make principled decisions here and therefore transfer the responsibility to the local authorities to apply all that.

Mrs. Minister and Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to see it happen all the time. It permits me to challenge you for a moment to take the necessary implementation decisions within a period of — I will be extensive — six months. I really would like to see that. I think that is almost impossible. But in the meantime – and every political formation feels compelled to do so, and I say it myself in all clarity – we do not stop giving signals when they then find a translation in texts of which we know in advance that they draw on “no balls”. You must read them first, Mr. Secretary of State. And "balls", which is still relatively simple in design!

I had to say that for a moment because the Secretary of State has earned himself to strengthen this meeting with his presence.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to ask you the following one at a time, and for if kafka is not too tired. Please consult this text.

I am not sure that you will be able to address him again in the next fourteen days, but the work may be done.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee responsible has been quite pressured during the committee meeting over the poor legislation and its inapplicability.

This law is an example of an administrative tax for municipalities. I would like to summarize the obligations for the municipalities that are bound by this bill.

In the first instance, the municipality must recognize the obstacle area, mark it off.

Second, the municipality must provide a certificate to the self-employed.

Third, the participation fund, which is activated by this government for everything and everything else and which is located in Brussels, must recognize the impaired enterprise in the municipality.

Fourth, the participation fund must provide an attestation.

Fifth, the company itself must then request compensation.

This means a lot of administrative burden, both for the municipalities and for the self-employed.

Also, the deadlines within which the various steps are underway are either too short or too long. We have therefore tried to remedy, through amendments, to adjust those deadlines to the normal procedures, to the normal periods. The minister, however, had no ears to it and Kafka made no comments.

... ... with a distant history. We experienced that this week too.

A third disadvantage concerns the question of who pays the bill. In this case, it is the builder. Now we come to the crucial point: who is the builder? In 57% of cases, the municipalities are the contractors for the works. This means that municipalities, as the committee chairman just said, are punished for – usually necessary – investments in their public domain.

There is also a lot of uncertainty in some areas.

Mr. Minister, I am addressing you.

Based on the provisions as they are now, I consider that all works of general use in the public domain give rise to mandatory financing from the Participation Fund, even if they do not cause any obstacle. Article 3 stipulates that every building owner pays the compensation. Nothing in the law explicitly stipulates that only the building owner for works that cause impediment must deposit the compensation.

Can you exclude this? If a draft law lasts so long that the treatment lasts until after the recession and the treatment also involves a working period of three to four weeks, we naturally have time to review the draft again thoroughly. As a result, new questions arise.

Do works of general interest in the public domain indeed give rise to mandatory financing from the Participation Fund, even if the works do not cause any obstacle?

Despite these shortcomings — I do not mention the legistic shortcomings, because Mr. Tant has already named them — ...

You say that in many cases — which is quite correct — the commissioning board is the municipality. In many other cases, it will be the region. The Parliament, as I know, without consultation with the Regions, will establish a new arrangement which will have its consequences.

I am referring to the competent Minister.

I wonder whether in this matter we should not have had the conversation with the Regions, so that we could at least get the legal solution that we are looking for now.

The design directly affects the maintenance of the railways, of which there are still a lot. Can the federal government in this file unilaterally and without consultation impose an obligation on the regional government? I ask myself.

I wanted to relieve the problem. Given the very direct involvement of the regions — you must not forget that the vast majority of the former roads of the state have become roads of the state reform — I do not know what constitutes it. Nobody talks about it. No one thinks about it. As far as I am concerned, you do it, if it is only us to do the symbolic value.

Mrs. Minister, can you tell us what in this matter should be the normal way, otherwise the legal way — not to say constitutional way — of work?

Mr. Speaker, despite all the shortcomings and the many questions that remain in connection with this bill, I am convinced that this is a first, though imperfect, step in the “right direction”. Complemented with initiatives from other governments, small self-employed workers will now finally receive compensation for the often long-lasting damage and income loss caused by public works.

Since the bill finally principally recognizes the obstacle to public works for self-employed traders, we and our group supported the bill in the committee. I have another question to the Minister. I note that progress is very slow with the KBs that should result from a number of business bills that we have approved in the Chamber. A number of KBs should also be issued here. When will these KBs be issued and applied?

Mrs. De Meyer’s amendment is on our banks. It largely corresponds to what Ms. De Meyer and her group have submitted in the committee. What I cannot accept, Mrs. De Meyer and the sp.a. faction, is that you are proposing that the contractors should charge for the payment to the independent traders. I can agree with the proposal of colleague Drèze that the federal government would contribute to the amounts deposited in the participation fund.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I was able, as well as other colleagues, to put all my amendments I have submitted to the committee, here again on the table. I think we have held the debate. This debate was held in the committee four months ago. Through the amendments, we pointed out the shortcomings: the compensation per day, which we find too low, and the demand for a partial compensation. So I can submit amendments that make a bid to increase that fee per day from 100 to 150. Mr. Speaker, we have decided not to do so and to stick to the position we have taken in the committee.

Granting compensatory compensation to independent merchants who lose income as a result of prolonged public works is a good idea in itself. On the other hand, putting the cost of this compensation at the expense of the master of the work, and in any case of him alone, is not suitable for us.

Furthermore, the estimated amount of 44,20 euros/day is too low in relation to the damage incurred. Finally, the fact of regulating from the federal has two disadvantages: on the one hand, in your project, the federal decides but does not pay and it again relays the burden on others; on the other hand, the federal forgets that, in a number of cases, agreements and compensations are decided at the local level.

In fact, the primary goal we should all pursue is to manage the planning and organization of works as best as possible so that the annoyances are as low as possible, not only for merchants but also for the locals and all the people involved and disabled, near or far, by a public construction site.

We consider that the local political level, the actor of proximity, is the best able to ensure this management as a good family father. However, if the federal wants to intervene in the game, then it must also pay! Therefore, we submitted a first amendment. It stipulates that article 3 of your project would be supplemented as follows: "An amount identical to that referred to in paragraph 1 is allocated to the general budget of expenditure to the participation fund". In other words, for one euro contributing at the local level, a second euro would be contributed from the federal budget.

First, it can be estimated that your project, in its current state, organizes a transfer of charges from the federal to the municipalities and regions. Indeed, the project masters will have to pay a supplementary amount to the amount invoiced, without taking into account whether or not the works caused any inconvenience.

Then, the CDH has always defended the respect of the principle of the decideurpayer; this principle has also been repeated, at our request, in the agreement of the Walloon government, for example. I ask Mr. Listen carefully to the following. The Wallonian Interior Minister, in response to a written question from Senator and Regional Deputy Christian Brotcorne, specified this with regard to the compensatory compensation: "Of course, it is the question of financing that is most concerned for the municipalities. I observe in this regard that while the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia had proposed to feed the fund of participation by the collection of additional cents on the fines applied in the framework of the construction site, the proposal of the federal government finally opted for a participation at the expense of each project owner, namely 0.25% of the total amount of the invoice.

The Wallon Minister continues: "I would like to clarify that I adhere to the proposal of the Union of Cities and Municipalities to feed this fund and I will intervene with the federal in this sense. This bill will impose new charges on municipalities and, as a result, reduce the budget margin for infrastructure works." He concludes by saying: "I consider, therefore, its impact on municipal finances and the possibilities of finding a solution in this matter."

I would like to hear, just recently, a reaction of the PS group regarding the remarks of its Wallon minister.

Our amendment aims to implement the principle of decideurpayer by providing that the financing of the scheme of compensatory compensation for loss of income is not only assured by each project owner, but also by the federal state, the latter paying — I already mentioned — to the participation fund an amount identical to that paid by the project owner.

However, our second amendment provides that in the first of Article 8, the amount of 44,20 euros is replaced by a double amount, namely 88,40 euros. Since you have a double recipe, you can pay a double compensation. I repeat that, in our opinion, the 44,20 euro package is far too low. Our second amendment therefore aims to double the amount of the compensatory compensation in order to better take into account the financial difficulties of self-employed victims of inconvenience due to the performance of works in the public domain, the financing of such compensation being ensured by the payment by the federal state to the participation fund, an amount equivalent to that paid by the master of the work on the basis of our first amendment. It’s not too late, but it’s time.

Mr. Drèze, I thank you for taking advantage of your intervention to defend your amendments.

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, what is currently understood is, according to sp.a-spirit, a wrong proposal. We have already said this in the Senate. During the discussion in the Chamber, this is, in our opinion, only confirmed.

It is formalist and bureaucratic, and it cannot withstand the Kafka test. It encourages self-employed to close and it installs a funeral allowance instead of a support. It constitutes a shame for all those self-employed people who curl under public works and want to do anything to stay open.

That is just peculiar and typical of the small self-employed: his enormous inventiveness and entrepreneurial urge. As a daughter of a small self-employed, I know everything about it. A self-employed person facing difficulties will open all registers in order to keep his or her business open and not to lose his or her clients. Self-employed people who are disabled are creative and inventive. I refer to the UNIZO survey. In case of disruption, 48% of small self-employed will carry out additional advertising and promotion, 38% will do everything to increase the comfort of their customers and the accessibility of their business. They will do all sorts of things. They are going to offer extra items to customers. They will set up a home delivery. They are going to rent an outlet somewhere. They are even going to transfer their thing temporarily in a container. The possibilities are legio. That creativity must be rewarded. Funeral fees should not be distributed.

What are we talking about in this draft?

First, 44 euros per day gross. Net this, depending on the situation, can drop to 30 euros per day. That is very low, not even enough to pay the rental. I quote my good colleague Lenssen: "Given the minimal amount, they will do everything to stay open." This is an ex-absurd reasoning. In fact, we are talking about a mere symbolic compensation.

Second, one must completely close for fourteen days. Everyone, every group has intervened in the committee to say that this is really not good. "Fourteen days closure as a condition is a bad thing." I would like to quote Mrs. Barzin.

Third, one should not have any other income. This is a total professional ban. I draw your attention to Article 7, paragraph 5, which literally states: "It is forbidden to the self-employed to carry out any work." The law speaks of labour.

The work! The law does not speak of “paid labour”, just about “work.”

This means that a self-employed person who enjoys the "riante" benefit of 30 euros net per day may not even work on his own house and his cottage, for example, may not renovate when his business is closed. It goes even further: there are penalties of at least 250 euros provided in the law if he dares to work. So, that means that, if a grocer during his closure, with his receipts of 30 euros net per day, sells an egg to his neighbor, he can be punished with a fine of 250 euros per day.

A person whose one case is closed and the other is open will not receive compensation. A person with a subsidiary profession will not receive compensation. A self-employed person who also does the markets and can no longer use his shop but still does the markets will not receive compensation. A self-employed person who closes his shop, but still organizes a home-to-home tour, will not receive compensation. A self-employed person who runs a store and rents the upper building will not receive compensation. In short, — you know all this — once a self-employed has closed his shop for such a long time, it is extremely difficult to get over the water again. In short, we find the proposal too little too late.

Mrs De Meyer, Mr Tommelein asks to intervene.

Of course, people always compare with what is not allowed. I had a creative proposal, but I did not formulate it in the committee. Maybe I can say it here. Mrs. De Meyer, if we now say that merchants who are forced to close their stores are allowed to sell door to door... Of course, you are against that again, colleague, that is the problem.

Absolutely absolutely . I am talking about a home-to-home round. We have absolutely nothing against the fact that this is an additional service for the people. We have something against the fact that they cheat people and that certain people abuse them. We have something against it!

The next point why we are opposed to the present draft is that the municipality of office must pay a certain percentage of the invoice. The municipality has no, but therefore no, possibility to reduce the amount of that invoice. It is just so. It is so much percent. The municipality must pay for it, and it cannot do anything about it, even if that municipality opens all registers in order to enchant less-hinder measures out of the closet; no, it must pay that certain percentage of the invoice.

After all, the procedure is extremely complicated. With the application and grant through the Participation Fund, Kafka is not far away.

I would like to talk about our alternative, which is very simple. Since the discussion in the committee, we have simplified this a bit. I think it would be a good thing if we were given the opportunity to discuss it again. What does this come down to? The contractor pays an obstacle compensation to the municipality, a ratio of the number of obstacle facilities. That amount can be reduced by taking less-hinder measures. This means creating an incentive for contractors and municipalities to look together with the disabled self-employed to find less-disability measures. Everything is done at the municipal level. No complicated, national overbuilding through Participation Funds and the like. Everything is organized and arranged locally. Local consultation with the self-employed and their associations is encouraged.

The disability allowance is also immediately paid to the affected self-employed who can use it to take all kinds of additional initiatives to keep their cause alive and attractive. In short, to ensure that the case remains alive and kicking. The disability allowance is a means that he receives in addition to his often reduced income. A small portion of that disability allowance, by the way, remains with the municipality so that there is also money available to take less-disability measures. Until then, we have a simple and simple proposal. It remains local. It stimulates and helps the self-employed to remain open and not to close the door forever. Their

Now that we have been able to read a recent study from the Vlerickschool which showed that the neighborhood store has indeed a future, our proposal can breathe with breath to the small self-employed who provides precisely additional life in the cities and municipalities; for proximity, neighborhood and warmth in our cities and municipalities. So what we think is not a good proposal. It is an embarrassment for the affected self-employed and is not a serious solution for the more than 9,000 companies affected each year by hinder via work. I would like to quote this from the report of our parliamentary work. When we asked Mrs. Minister how many additional staff she provided in the famous Participation Fund to carry out the tasks imposed on them by this law, the Minister replied that 1 person and 1 secretariat position might be sufficient because she estimated the work at about 50 files per year. That is the content of this law. An alms of 30 euros net to 50 people per year. We do not participate in that!

We don’t want alms, no funeral fees. We want to accommodate more self-employed without imposing them the obligation to close and with a built-in incentive for contractors and municipalities to take less-hinder measures. For this reason, colleagues, we urge to consider our amendment seriously in the interests of the more than 9,000 affected.

In any case, one cannot say that those microphones do not work.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. La

That said Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the project that is submitted to us today is ⁇ a first important step in terms of compensation for independent victims of works carried out in the public domain. Nevertheless, it is also true that the proposed procedure is complex, that the conditions for granting such compensation are very strict and that such compensation is provided only in the event of closure of trade. This has already been emphasized by previous speakers.

Nothing is therefore planned for self-employed workers who keep their trade open and suffer a significant decrease in their turnover. I am indeed of the opinion — the previous speakers have also indicated it — that the fact of granting the sum of EUR 44,20 per calendar day, when it is proven that the trade must close for at least 14 days, constitutes only a modest compensation and that this will not prevent some small shops from ⁇ having to permanently put the key under the door.

It is still true that at the present time, in the same situation, the independent does not receive a euro of compensation. It should not be forgotten — it has also been said — that out of 225,000 stores, about 5,000 are affected each year by a closure due to the execution of works completely preventing the customer base from accessing the store.

During the discussions in the committee, I, like other colleagues, had put forward the idea of reducing the minimum number of closing days entitling to compensation and increasing the amount thereof. However, the adoption of these two or more proposals would ⁇ have made the parliamentary debate very long and would have led us to resume the discussion that took place in the Senate and that lasted more than a year and a half, while having, in the end, an uncertain outcome.

I am convinced that we have thus done well to adopt in committee the measures proposed to us by our colleagues senators so that the independent can benefit from them as soon as possible. However, I hope that we will soon be able to look at this issue again and provide a more comprehensive answer. However, by adopting this text, we will not delay the implementation of provisions long awaited by traders.

The purpose of Senator Dedecker’s bill was not only to compensate merchants who are forced to close their ⁇ during works carried out in the public domain but also and above all to change the mentalities of public authorities in the organization of the works. Indeed, in some municipalities, there is little, or even no, consultation with self-employed workers when planned works in the public domain cause significant discomfort to the nearby merchants.

From now on, in this case, the municipality will be obliged to inform the merchants of the date of commencement of the works, their presumed duration and the possibility for them to be compensated. Furthermore, it can be assumed that these new provisions will also lead the municipalities to better manage the organization and planning of these works and avoid them taking too long. Members of the MR group will support this project because it ensures that the self-employed obliged to close their trade, a compensatory compensation for loss of income and provides for the obligation for the municipalities to inform the merchants when they perform these works. However, as Ms. Pieters and Mr. Tommelein said earlier, we believe that the measures envisaged are only a first step towards a wider compensation for traders in this kind of situation.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this bill, which is in fact a bill by Mr. Dedecker in the Senate, has — finally I would say — a final vote. The remuneration scheme for self-employed persons who face obstacles due to public domain work has been extensively discussed in the Senate, including hearings with, among others, the Neutral Syndicate for Self-Employed Persons, the VVSG, the Wallish counterpart, Unizo and l'Union des Classes Moyennes. The discussion was based on Dedecker’s proposal submitted on 5 December 2003. Per ⁇ it is this latter, the figure of Dedecker, that is the reason why the socialists and in particular the Flemish socialists have just as much rattled against the proposal in the Senate as they are now rattling against the draft in the Chamber. Their

I continue to find it incomprehensible that the sp.a in the committee again demanded hearings while this has already been discussed extensively in the Senate. I do not understand this because ultimately it is about preventing social dramas in a particular population group, namely the retailers. We believe that it is not too early to vote on this scheme, approve it and implement it as soon as possible. Political games such as they are played today do not help the self-employed move forward. It is not because we welcome the draft law, the proposal-Dedecker, that no comments can be made and that no refinements, improvements, perfections can be made to the design. For us, the proposal-Dedecker was then and the design is now a necessary arrangement that can no longer be postponed. The Flemish Belang group will therefore not approve the amendments and give full support to the draft because we as a social party believe that we can no longer leave the self-employed and the merchants in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, Dear colleagues, the text we are examining today aims to better address a real problem: the impact that public works can have on the economic activity of self-employed persons, in particular that of small merchants. by

Let us say it from the beginning: if the problem is real, this text does not provide a proof-of-solution, quite the opposite; I will return to it. Yes, merchants suffer disadvantages due to the performance of public works. Yes, the execution of the works sometimes has serious economic consequences for them. Yes, this must be taken into account. However, I do not believe that this objective will be achieved with this text. First of all, the system established by this text creates a heavy procedure. Mr. Peterson has ⁇ this. The merchants, after completing the document of the municipality attesting to the disadvantages, must send it to the participation fund and wait for the decision of the latter, within thirty days. In case of a negative answer, they can still appeal to the Minister, with a period of 60 days. Then only the first compensation is paid. This is the first problem. by

The second problem: the project grants compensation of only €44.20 gross per day of closure. You will agree with me that this amount is very small and will in no way compensate for the lack to earn for the small trader. Add that this compensation is paid on the sole condition that the self-employed does not have any other professional income and that he closes his business for a minimum period of fifteen days. In other words, to get €44.20 gross per day, the independent must close his store for at least fifteen days. by

How can we imagine that with such a ridiculous sum, as other colleagues have already ⁇ , a merchant can bear the fixed costs of his trade, pay his rent, manage the stock, provide for the needs of his family? How can he imagine that he can pay his workers? How can we imagine that this compensation allows merchants to avoid bankruptcy as a result of public works? Is this the way we want to help small ⁇ in difficulty? We think not. by

Under the cover of compensating the merchants, they are forced to close their trade, that is, to deprive themselves of their work tools. However, all studies, especially the UNIZO study, prove this: a trade that closes will remain closed. The vast majority of independent workers are doing everything they can to keep their trade accessible. Keeping your customers is fundamental. A closure, even temporary, can only be harmful. by

This involves voluntarily putting the self-employed in a state of clinical death before attempting a possible resuscitation. The doctor who would do this would not only be considered an incompetent but immediately condemned! The project encourages them to do more harm by closing their trade than by opening it now.

With regard to this compensation, we have sometimes been accused of denouncing its low level without having the budgetary means to raise it. This is a bad trial. We believe that taking such a measure will in no way solve the problem posed and that, therefore, it is better to devote the available resources to thoughtful policies rather than to measures that will ⁇ not exceed the effect of announcement and which, in addition, risk burdening the budget of public authorities, in particular that of municipalities that support half of the work carried out in our country. by

Let us emphasize that the establishment of a financially heavy system is not without consequences for municipalities. In the long run, it could lead some of them to renounce road works and abandon the public arrangements of a few neighborhoods, or even give them a good conscience to renounce them or, on the contrary, make them last longer. In this regard, it is quite unpleasant to see the reproach thrown upon the public authorities, who would carry out works without any consideration of the opinion of the neighbors, whether they are merchants or not. Let us be clear about this! It is of course in the interest of the municipalities that their economic tissue is healthy. Merchants are an essential component of community life and I have no doubt that the authorities are fully aware of it.

That is why a proper consideration of the problems arising from the implementation of public works requires, in our view, an increased involvement of all stakeholders, namely, at least, the municipal authorities, the contractors who carry out the works but also the self-employed who may be injured. by

We would therefore have desired, and we always wish, that the dialogue between these stakeholders be encouraged from the beginning of the procedure and this, throughout the construction site, until its completion and ⁇ even beyond. We therefore emphasize the importance of prevention and dialogue in this area, which could be realised, for example, through a charter of public works.

We do not sin by naivety. We are well aware that a code of conduct alone will not solve all problems and that a system of compensation for the most serious damage should be established. However, we want the system to be able to effectively address the economic concerns of traders without compromising the general interest. by

Compensation should therefore be effective only in the most serious, the most exceptional cases, those that go beyond the normal framework for the maintenance and management of the public space. It may also take other forms than compensation for closing days in order to be effectively effective for traders. It is true that closing their trade for fifteen days, as I said just before, is like sentencing them to death. The aim must therefore be to help them continue their professional activity and to minimize the economic impact of the works. Today, this goal is ⁇ not achieved.

We believe that the complexity of this problem would have deserved a more comprehensive approach than the one considered today, taking into account the constraints of all the parties present.

In my view, the real problem lies in the level of skills. Is it normal to systematically make decisions for communes without affecting the federal entities, which have the tutelage over communes? At a time when local authorities are already suffocated financially, this is obviously a measure that cannot be admitted.

For this reason, we believe that it is the Regions to take the initiative in this area, which they have already begun to do. I mean as proof the work of the Brussels Parliament, which is planning on the measures to be taken to ensure the support of independent workers whose activity is made more difficult by public works.

For all these reasons, we would have wished to have a discussion during committee work, to be able to hear representatives of merchants, cities and municipalities. We would also like to have the opinion of the State Council and the Court of Auditors. All of this has been denied. Of course, the State Council had already issued an opinion but this opinion was delivered on a text that was debated in the Senate and which, in the meantime, has been heavily modified. So we could have gotten this new opinion.

There was also no dialogue around this project. It was to take or to leave, we regret it. We also regret that this bill was voted in a committee in a hurry under the pretext that it is a “first step that goes in the right direction” and a “message to the independent” and that therefore it had to be adopted quickly. I can only repeat that in my opinion, the text we are discussing will not solve the problem of small merchants at all. This is a bad message, both for the merchants but also for the municipalities. That is why the representatives of the PS group abstained from voting in the committee.

In conclusion, we consider it false to claim that this project will help traders disturbed by work in their professional activity. The adoption of the project would not even be a positive signal in favour of the independent. On the contrary, it could give the illusion that the problem is definitively resolved, that their situation is improved, while in fact it is getting worse!

That is why the PS group will vote against this bill. This position is not intended to defend certain interests. This position does not ignore the problems of traders, it translates the fact that we did not believe that the path taken here is the right one.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will keep it fairly short. I will not repeat all the arguments that my good colleague Magda De Meyer has already put forward with regard to the amendment we present here today. I will also not point out all the shortcomings of the draft presented here today. However, one thing I find regrettable and regrettable: the equality statements are apparently taken. Nevertheless, I note in the debate that there is a large consensus on the purpose, in particular, of helping and compensating self-employed persons when they are hindered by public works.

When I read Mr. Dedecker’s design, I find that it has the merit to give a signal, to say that something needs to happen. In fact, the figures show that more than 80% of the self-employed are requesting parties. With this everything is said.

I think everyone — even the right-wing colleagues who just said they will follow the vote they held in the committee — has pointed out the deficiencies. They even say that the law is imperfect. Sometimes I wonder what we all do here exactly. We all enter our number and all ponder our statements. Wouldn’t it be much better if we reassemble all the ideas we have about the problem, discuss them in the committee and try to come up with a better conducted proposal. Mr. Tommelein, it cannot be an argument that we are a year ahead of the municipal council elections, that there are many public works and that we must therefore quickly pass an imperfect law. We also feel that something needs to happen, but do not make a blue fetish of it for internal or external use. This is not a good policy.

I would like to point out one element that has not yet been addressed here. It is a fee of 44,20 euro gross per day, 1.370 euro gross per month. I give you a leaflet that when a self-employed goes bankrupt and calls the OCMW, he will get more, better served, have a broader financial base. After all, a self-employed person with a family will soon receive 850 euros net per month, with child allowances and social allowances added. These people are assisted professionally: legal assistance and in all possible areas, budget guidance. That is much better. The systems are there. The support is there to be able to help a bankrupt self-employed - because that is what ultimately matters when one must close a business after two weeks - to be able to help a bankrupt self-employed.

The document that we will vote on later is merely a symbol. I regret that. I urge everyone to seriously think about this. We heard this afternoon from almost all the groups that they want to do something about the problem. It would be better if we re-discussed this proposal in the committee and quickly proceeded with it so that we would quickly have a new, thorough and decent law and not this imperfect law.

Mr. T'Sijen, we have been working on this for one and a half years. For a year and a half there have been discussions and hearings. Thro ⁇ this time, amendments and delaying manoeuvres will continue to be submitted on your part. It may be a symbol for you, but for the small self-employed who are in that case, it is a blessing. If you find 1.370 euros a pearl shell, there are a lot of self-employed people who have to work a lot to reach that amount. I can assure you. If you want to send them all to the OCMW and you just want to give them all gifts, that can, but that are people who work hard for their cents and who with 1.370 euros in that case are thickly satisfied.

Then work on and make sure they get compensation in addition to what they get as self-employed and then don’t let them close their stores. That is our proposal. That is what we must go for. We should not force people to close before they can arrive with an alms of 30 euros. You always talk about gross figures, but you don’t say that. You are sowing mist about it.

Indeed, the discussion has lasted a long time. There have been many hearings in the Senate, but we want to give you the guarantee that we can go quickly. If we put together your proposal and our proposal with a number of amendments and comments from colleagues, then we can get good legislative work, even before the municipal council elections. Unfortunately, the equals are apparently taken. This is a regrettable matter for political work.

Mr. T'Sijen, I do not know if you were present when I held my speech, but I have made it clear that if this was approved, we will cooperate with full conviction on other proposals for the self-employed who should remain open during public works. You have to say everything when you tell a story.

It is interesting to pass the last one, after hearing all the speakers speak. If everyone votes as he announced, I think that the Senate proposal, which has become a project, will not pass the ramp today and that it might be interesting to resume the work.

Like everyone else, we consider that this project has the merit of existing as it is a first concrete step to take into account the inconvenience that traders must endure. In the same way as the others, we have criticism of the content as to the weakness of the amount, as to the obligation to close for fifteen days to benefit from this compensation, as to the complex procedures and as to the intervention of the participation fund.

On this last point, I will have a question. For the first time, we have a body that works well. Adding him a task that does not belong to the tasks assigned to him risks strengthening him. If there should be funds, I would prefer it to be another fund than the participation fund.

After hearing the developments of my predecessors at this tribune, I have new questions beyond all those I had planned. If, at this stage of the final discussion of a project aimed at helping merchants, the positions expressed today appear so diversified, it is that within the government in particular, there is no way to discuss between a liberal family and a socialist family on this taking into account merchants and independent workers in general. Things are settled here.

I also have a little trouble hearing the speeches from the socialist banks: they say they want to defend the merchants. However, as has been seen in other areas, a blockage appears from the moment it is the small trader close to other actors, such as large surfaces.

I would like to add new elements which, in my opinion, must necessarily be taken into account, in addition to the proposal on the compensation of traders.

Trade workers should be able to benefit from economic unemployment. Indeed, when a merchant is forced to close his trade because of work, his staff currently has no access to economic unemployment; the merchant would have at least the amount of compensation but he would in any case have to compensate his workers.

The question of extending economic unemployment to trade workers who, today, cannot benefit from this unemployment because they have an employee status, is not within your competence. Such a measure must be taken so that in the event of compulsory closure of its business, the trader is not obliged to continue to pay his employees.

Another issue was raised during the hearings in the Senate. Thus, from studies that have been conducted, in particular by UNIZO, it appears that almost 8 months are needed for a trade to regain some vitality. The trader is often obliged to consent to new investments in order to be able to resume his business. Therefore, formulas of loans at reduced interest rates or without interest to allow him to resume his business, after a period of closure, would be interesting. This is also not within your competence. However, such a measure should be taken.

I share the position that it is the project masters who must finance a fund through contributions fixed on the basis of a percentage of turnover. I don’t understand how some might argue that this fund should be fed by entrepreneurs who perform work commissioned by master works who generally refuse to demonstrate coordination. Whether it is water, gas, electricity or the municipality, it is often found that the work is carried out one after the other, without real coordination. by

I would like to take the example of the city of Liège. For three years, works have been carried out on Rue Hors-Château. We started with work on gas pipelines. They followed electrical work, then work on water pipes, etc. Today, the street is being decorated to make it much more beautiful. This street has been under construction for a year. Shops, which had to close their doors for several months, have now reopened. The cafes and restaurants on this street have seen their turnover decline sharply.

There is also a federation.

It is true that there is in this street a political federation that has not closed! But it must be acknowledged that it is not the clientele that makes it live. In any case, we are well placed to see that merchants in this street have been forced to close. by

It should be noted that the municipality is not obliged to warn the trader. It has the obligation to inform the owner that it begins the work. In this way, some merchants in this street were not informed because their owner had not warned them. I leave the framework of this law with the aim of returning the ball to those who take into account the interests of the municipality and the merchants. Work must be complementary to the regions and municipalities.

I generalize again: when we discussed the draft law on commercial settlements, we had difficulties in taking into account the interest of proximity trade in relation to large areas. At that time, I had introduced an amendment — trying to take it into account — which consisted in giving more autonomy to the municipalities provided that they elaborate and file, in relation to the Regions, a plan of economic development. This plan would describe how they organize economic and commercial activity on their territory and would determine the criteria for acceptance or rejection. This was, in my opinion, denied. The Region was asked to take this point into account in the structural schemes. In the Walloon Region, the current majority refused to take it.

As long as no measures aimed at defending small ⁇ or protecting merchants — especially in the case of works — are taken at the federal level, we will not ⁇ anything. This is another level of power that must take over. This is the big reproach I will make about this bill: it is not based on an agreement of cooperation or a linking of the different levels of power, whether federal, regional or municipal. This is indispensable for the Region to provide resources to the municipality, so that it properly fulfils its task of coordination between all the actors in the management of the works, the whole of the merchants and the inhabitants. This should be in line with a community development project. The municipality is actually part of the master of works, so it will be partially concerned by the money to be placed in a fund.

The Ecolo group intended to abstain. This project is a first step but a lot of other things need to be implemented in parallel. Nevertheless, having heard the discussions of this afternoon, a more comprehensive reflection, with measures emanating from different ministers with different and complementary competences, would seem interesting to me.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak at this stage of the debate, but on the basis of the interventions during the speech of our colleagues, in particular Mrs. Pieters, the question has arisen to me — I have put them on the table for a moment — whether the federal government, acting through a common law, is indeed competent to impose an obligation unilaterally not only on the municipalities — this can be further discussed — but also on the regions and the communities. Why am I asking that question?

Since the autonomy of the Regions and Communities has been established and since the passing of the law establishing the financial autonomy of the Regions and Communities, I have thought that it is logically impossible for a federal government to unilaterally impose financial obligations on a regional government. Before you demonstrate that this reasoning really cuts wood, I would like to say for a moment that I, together with my group, approved this text in the committee, also because in the long run, Mr. Speaker, we ended up in a sort of symbolic discussion. No one wanted to vote against the principle because we all, in all banks – I assume it – find it logical that whoever suffers damage by the action of a government receives compensation for it. That is why we approved this.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I can ask your attention. This does not relieve us of the obligation to carefully check whether we remain within our competence. There may be other sources — I have also addressed a few people about it — but I read that Mr. Jan Velaers, yet an authority in this, in his work "The Constitution and the Council of State", says the following under the title "No federal expenses transfer to the Communities and the Regions". I quote literally:

The federal legislator cannot, therefore, by ordinary law, charge the costs associated with the exercise of a federal power to the Communities and the Regions. This would, after all, mean that the State, by ordinary law, gives itself a virtual grant and, in derogation from Articles 175 and 177 of the Constitution, changes the financing system without a special majority. What should be deduced from it? This is not even possible with a cooperation agreement. If one wishes to act in accordance with the division of powers, then one is obliged to establish such arrangements by special law. Their

Allow me to repeat it again and I hope it applies to everyone. It is not possible, however, that we say to be affectionate to the symbol and thus to approve any text, apart from any jurisdictional arrangement. I tell you in all honesty: I will not do that under any circumstances. I do not endorse such texts, when I read verbally that this is not within our competence.

As a regionalist, I would like to hear you advocate this here. I will even go a little with you. I am even convinced — I think we should look at it and investigate it — that Flemish Minister Peeters, responsible for Public Works, here should actually carry out the policy to enable the disability measures for the self-employed. I do not know what the vision of your group is, but I think that Minister Peeters is actually much better positioned to conduct the policy for the self-employed from Flanders.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should not extend this now. It is an interesting debate, but it is another debate. Why Why ? If you want an arrangement for the whole Belgian territory, you must work through the system of the special law. Then both regions are equally entitled to act in these areas. Just as no resources can be transferred to the Regions and Communities without a special law, so the opposite is also true.

I see that the minister is swallowing with papers. It was only the competent state secretary who prevented her from using the papers. Per ⁇ the legal comments of Mr. Tant can be answered by the competent minister.

Very good, Mrs Minister. In any case, Mr. Speaker, who knows, the papers with which the minister swings, and even more, what she may say on the basis thereof, can convince me. I am ⁇ tolerant on this point. If one can persuade me intellectually — I do not always let myself be easily persuaded — then I am willing to follow the family, to use a Christian term.

Mr. Tante, you are touching the Room.

This term is wrongly attributed to Catholics. I read the same in messages from people of a completely different obedience. However, this is not the matter.

Mr. Speaker, if nothing new comes out of the bus, I would like to ask you to consider considering, in the case of absolute high urgency, seeking the advice of the State Council on this matter. You will see that I was right.

Now that this debate is over, I ask the government if it wants to replicate.

Can I ask a question to Mr. Tante?

Mr. Tant, have you held your presentation on behalf of the whole CD&V group?

I did it in my own name.

You did it in your own name. That is important.

Except for belonging to a particular group, other considerations also apply when we carry out legislative work.

I thought I could draw political conclusions from your statement.

You asked a question. You got a response.

Mr. Annemans, you have to decide for yourself.

As you can see, this topic raises a lot of discussion and a lot of passion. This debate has been going on for several months, both in the Senate and in the House. I think every member of the committee has been able to express his point of view.

Are the 44,20 euros enough or not? The important thing is to know that today, the independent who is forced to close for more than fifteen days — Mrs. Ghenne, it is obviously not about forcing her to close; it is obvious — receives nothing at all, 0 euro, 0 franc, 0 cent! We could discuss the issue of compensation for a long time but we must know — comparison is not right, I know but it seems to me that, in this case, the comparison is interesting — that the 44,20 euros correspond to technical unemployment. That is why we have fixed the compensation to 44.20 euros.

The two long-term goals may be contradictory. On the one hand, I am willing to study how to go further in compensation, but we must first keep the budget balance. On the other hand, it is necessary to compel the master of the works—they are the ones in question; this project is not aimed at the municipalities, the Regions, or the federal state—to give a much more complete and correct information. Achieving this goal will involve — I dare hope — the fact that the whole of the master of works on the public roads will make arrangements so that no more merchants will have to close their trade and that their lives will be made easier. Mevrouw Pieters, I come to your question. Als de stemming gunstig is, zal de wet normal gezien in werking treden op 1 July 2006. The royal decisions will be ready against the same date. We will write of royal decisions. Normaal gezien zal op 1 juli alles klaar zijn in zal de wet in werking treden samen met de koninklijke besluiten.

Mevrouw De Meyer, ik heb uw amendment gelezen, maar ik vrees dat uw amendment meer administrativieve lasten voor de gemeenten zal teweegbrengen dan dit ontwerp. I fear for municipalities as your council is accepted. It brengt more administrative burdens. Bovendien would by your voorstel of gemeenten both right as party be. In the remarks of Mr. It can be said that the project is not aimed at the municipalities or regions, but rather the master of works. I would also like to point out that Mr. He knows ⁇ as well as I know in his capacity as chairman of the committee, this is the opinion that the State Council has given at the request of the Senate. If you want, I can read an excerpt or you can trust me. by

I quote: “The determination of the consequences resulting from harmful facts is a matter that falls within the residual competence of the federal authority. The federal legislator may also provide that, for certain types of damages, the public authority is responsible for repairing them in whole or in part on the basis of the solidarity that the legislator considers desirable in such cases.

I think everything has been said.

Mr. Speaker, I will soon receive a judgment of the Arbitration Court which deals with the same matter and comes to the same conclusion, in particular that if the legislator wants to regulate this — I will read it to you later, if you allow me to do so — this must be done by a law adopted by a special majority, or the majority required by Article 4 of the Constitution.

You will soon have the opportunity to do this, ⁇ with your voting statement. After all, I do not know what you intend exactly.

As far as I am concerned, I am based on the opinion of the State Council. If there had been a problem of this type, I suppose the latter, to whom I trust, would have solved it.

The amendments of Mr. As I said, we must first ⁇ budget balance in the current framework. And it is the same for Ms. Gerkens’s: before raising the compensation, one must first know whether the budget balance will be achieved.

With regard to the effort of the federal authority, it makes the participation fund, as well as its officials, available. The state is sometimes also the master of the work and will therefore also be subject to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mrs. Minister did not answer two important questions, first, Mr. Drèze’s question on public financing, the Participation Fund, and second, one of my questions, which I have nevertheless asked twice.

Mrs. Minister, I think I can draw from the law that all works of general use in the public domain give rise to a mandatory financing of the Participation Fund, even if they do not cause any obstacle. Is it so, yes or no?

This particular issue should be regulated in the Royal Decree.

So my answer is yes. But it will have to be specified in the arrests.

So even when no obstacle is caused, should one make a mandatory funding in the Participation Fund? I understand that.

So, when a work master orders a work on the public road ...

The [...]

I would like to comment on this important point, which I expressly pointed out in my amendment. I thought everyone understood – but apparently, this is not the case if I observe the reactions of the members sitting both on my right hand and on the benches in front of me – that ultimately, this law would refinance the equity fund!

It is clear! But that is obvious!

No misunderstandings, because here “verba manent”!

First, the participation fund does not need to be refinanced, it has just been refinanced by a bond loan. So, even if his products work very well - I thank Mr. Dare to refer to it, even indirectly – this project obviously does not aim to finance the participation fund. This will be the subject of a separate account within the participation fund. Accounting will be hermetic. This is not about collecting these amounts to finance other actions than those planned in the framework of this project.

One last comment before I close the general discussion, Mr. Drèze?

Mr. Speaker, I would have wanted the Minister to clarify what she means by "budgetary balance". I take examples. Thus, the amendment of Mrs. Gerkens is interesting in itself. But within that framework, the notion of budgetary balance is at the level of the master of the work, since according to its amendment, the amount charged to the master of the work is increased; so for the federal, this becomes quite equilateral. Thanks to Ms. Gerkens’ amendment, there is no problem of budgetary balance at the federal state level. On the contrary, it will be the federal entities that will still have to bear an additional burden.

On the other hand, when you say – I’m not sure I followed you well – that our amendment could be interesting, provided that the budget balance is respected, I mean that you would be willing, provided that you reopen the dossier – it is imperative in my opinion to return the dossier to the commission and even within the government – and to negotiate within the federal state a budget margin for the latter to contribute to the arrangement.

I conclude by saying that with regard to local authorities, I refer to the documents submitted by the Prime Minister last week, in particular the budget annexes. Page 11 is very clear. I suppose you know the picture by heart.

Do you have the judgment you were talking about, Mr. Tante?

Yes, Mr the President. 63/2005 of 23 March 2005 concerning a dispute relating to the distribution of the profits of the National Lottery, in particular concerning a provision in the Act of 22 July 1991 concerning the National Lottery. Article 15 of that law stipulates: "The profits of the National Lottery shall be used for the financing of the programmes of assistance to the developing countries and for purposes of public benefit determined by a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers ...", and so on.

This is the subject of the dispute before the Court of Arbitration. In order for us to understand each other well, this is less extensive than what seems to be today. In fact, it is only about the expenditure of resources, but of which Article 62 of the Special Act of 16 January 1989 concerning the financing of the Regions expressly provides that the matter of the distribution of the profits of the National Lottery is regulated by this. I emphasize the words “thus is arranged”.

Mr. Secretary, I will refer to the case that we are currently concerned with. You create a fund called a participation fund. You decide what can be done with this fund. I will leave the feeding of this Fund out of consideration for a moment, but what I have just read then leaves no doubt.

Even where it is only about determining the destination of the funds entering the Fund, the Arbitration Court, under the provision, read in conjunction with Article 175, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, says: "... of which the Councils of the Flemish and French Communities, each as regards him, regulate the allocation of their revenues by decree, the establishment of the financial resources for the conduct of " - in this case - "a cultural policy belongs to the regulation of a cultural matter". This is, therefore, a matter which falls within the competence of the Communities and the Regions.

Mr. Speaker, I am joining together. On the basis of the literal reading of texts and comments, it is impossible for the federal government to retain its competence and impose obligations. You don’t have to be a great legal scholar — I am not — to understand that. It is quite logical, however, that if we first grant financial autonomy to the regions, it is not possible that the federal government would at the same time retain the power to impose bon gré, mal gré obligations to deposit contributions.

I can only continue to insist. I hardly dare to say it, but I think that you should submit this matter for advice to the Council of State, at least in case of urgency, given the judgment that has been passed in the meantime. For me, this is the urgency.

Therefore, you should seek the advice of the State Council, as far as I am concerned, in the case of high urgency.

The State Council gave an opinion. It will not do it a second time. I know this for a long time. I think the room knows enough.

This must stop. Consider how much time the State Council has had to speak on this issue. One of the main reasons for the questionable legistic quality of the texts relates to the fact that the State Council is not given the time to do its work properly. It is stated that the State Council has spoken.

It belongs to your competence to explicitly ask the State Council whether or not there is a question of competence.