Proposition 51K1881

Proposition de résolution relative à la reconnaissance du droit à une mobilité de base minimale garantie.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Guido De Padt, Bart Tommelein, Hilde Vautmans

Submission date

June 22, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable mobility resolution of parliament means of public conveyance commuting strike right to strike

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP

Voted to reject

Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Herman De Croo (Open Vld) 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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

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

Discussion ¶

Feb. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as you said, we had the opportunity to discuss and adopt in a committee last Tuesday three proposals: a special bill and two bills related to the increase in energy costs, as well as the requests made by the collective services authorities across the Communities and Regions. by

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance made two clarifications at the beginning, namely that the amount of 10 million euros resulted from an agreement with the Regions and Communities, agreed jointly on the basis of the surplus costs as presented to the federal authority, and that it constituted a rounded figure, slightly higher than the actual addition of the requests made.

The discussion was relatively short. by

I will only mention the two questions asked by Mr. Bultinck who, on the one hand, wondered why the number of students had not been taken into account in order to proceed with the distribution of those 10 million and, on the other hand, wondered what he thought was a precipitation in parliamentary work on these subjects. by

It was answered that, since it was a demand from the Communities and Regions in relation to the surplus cost caused by the evolution of the oil price, it was normal that those criteria were taken into account for the allocation of the 10 million euros.

Finally Mr. Borginon clarified that this was a budget issue, that it was essentially about the budgetary technique and that, therefore, only the House was competent in this matter. by

During the discussion there were also some adjustments related to the quality of the French language. Indeed, the president, sensitive to the question, has noted two or three stylistic imperfections and we have gladly followed him on this path. In addition, we had an interesting and at first glance surprising discussion about the terminology used in Dutch about the Brussels-Capital Region. by

I submit this point to the reflection of the members of this assembly. The submitted proposals spoke of "the Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest", which is the terminology retained in the special law, while the president, and he, if I have a good memory, noted that Article 136 of the Constitution specified for him "the Brussels Hoofdstedelijke Gewest". There are two official terminologies. Finally, not wanting to bother the president and in a broad consensus, since we considered that the constitutional prescription was still the most important, we adopted "het Brusselse Hoofdstedelijke Gewest" as terminology. As the Deputy Prime Minister noted, this will involve proceeding in the coming months to clean up a number of parliamentary documents. But we have already had the opportunity to see that the Senate was very skilled in this matter and had a lot of time to devote to such things.

I thank you, Mr. President. I would add that all this was unanimously adopted by the Commission.