Proposition 51K2518

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 31, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT EC Directive EC Regulation food inspection petroleum petroleum policy excise duty adoption of a child work work contract labour inspectorate occupational accident occupational safety organisation of professions occupational disease seizure of goods buffer stock foreign trade civil procedure civil aviation central bank civil liability cooperative overlapping of income cumulative pension entitlement provision of services direct tax drug addiction sustainable development electrical energy electronic mail energy policy bankruptcy guarantee gas prisoner family benefit drug traffic firm governed by commercial law trade regulations indirect tax tax on income armed forces pay nationality natural disaster development aid parental leave transfer of prisoners civil service public sector overseas territory pension scheme damages claim social-security contribution welfare social security town-planning profession itinerant trade criminal procedure criminal law use of languages tobacco telecommunications home working crew organisation confiscation of property leave on social grounds rail transport insurance veterinary inspection public health detention before trial training leave teleworking third-party insurance sea fishing self-employed person health insurance maternity leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Simonne Creyf (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Carl Devlies (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Joëlle Milquet (LE) 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 ¶

June 28, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am replacing Mr Tommelein.

Is Mr. Tommelein replaceable? That is a determination.

For the other project, the rapporteurs are Mrs Meeus, Mrs De Block, Mrs Storms, Mr. and Muls. Mrs Verhaert, Mr. Ms. Madam Galant. by Mr. by Lano, Mr. Tommelein, Mrs. God and Mrs. De Meyer.

The project contains 70 articles.

The second bill contains 364 articles. Mr. Jamar, it was planned that a number of ministers would be present “in blocks”. If my memories are accurate, in a first phase, we would have mr. Reynders and Mr. Demotte, which should come a little later. Then came Ms. Onkelinx, Mr. Tobback and so on. by

At the Conference of Presidents, a list was submitted which I think was also approved. Now I need to know who will publish his report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the elements of our agreement at the Conference of Presidents was that three excellences would be present here. I assumed that this would be from the beginning of the debate. I only notice Mr. Jamar.

In these circumstances, we cannot start the meeting. An agreement must be fulfilled.

Tante, you are right. In this agreement there is one possible - if the Chamber agrees with it - slight deviation, in particular the possible later coming from Minister Demotte, who apparently is engaged in something else. It is correct that we have requested the presence of three excellences.

The first series of ministers present would be the gentlemen Reynders, Demotte and Dewael. In this regard, I received a double message, namely that Mr. Demotte will come a little later and that Mr. Dewael will probably be present within a few minutes.

We had planned dat er omstreeks 16.00 uur een tweede reeks ministers aanwezig zouden zijn, namely mevrouw Onkelinx, mevrouw Van den Bossche in de heer Flahaut. Then, we had planned a third series of ministers, for which we cannot yet determine the exact time. This is Mrs. Laruelle, Mr. From Decker, Mr. Tobback, who must also be present for an interpellation of Mr. by Deseyn, Mr. Dupont is Mr. Vanvelthoven, Mrs. Van Weert and Mr. by Tuybens. by Mr. Verwilghen, who today returns from Moscow, would intervene in the last place, around 19.00 - 19.30 hours. I do not have any precise details on the time.

It is true that, for the first part, we plan three ministers. You want to understand that M. Jamar temporarily replaces M. Reynders, not he is the secretary of state. Nevertheless, you are facing a problem of doublement technique and you do not want to deviate from our convention. I must inform the members of the House that the opposition has also worked very constructively in the Conference of Presidents. We have agreed that tomorrow at the vote declaration — I say it now — the opposition colleagues who wish to make a statement before the vote on these two important bills have ten minutes of speech time.

Ten minutes per speaker designated by each opposition group. I will stick to it.

Members of the majority have 5 minutes to speak for a vote statement.

The one is also connected to the other. We have afgesproken deze namiddag en global discussion te houden met de door mij zopas aangekondigde afwijking van het Reglement morgennamiddag tijdens de stemverklaringen. But we had also agreed, Mr. Jamar, that a series of ministers would be successively present. I ask you kindly what the government is doing and, more specifically, what the Mr. and Reynders. by Mr. He called the phone and Mr. Dewael said he would be slightly late. Where are we?

Mr. Tant, it is customary that the report can be published as such, but the discussion is not initiated.

The House will listen to the rapporteurs; as soon as the discussion begins, we will need the minister I just talked about. It is clear!

Mr. Speaker, I hear that Mr. Reynders is very little present in the Committee on Finance and is usually replaced by his secretary of state who is a kind of minister in service, I have great respect for that. Their

However, I still think that when a number of proposals, such as those discussed this afternoon, are discussed in the House and, in addition, this morning it was explicitly agreed that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance would be present, he himself should be here and not, I say this again with the necessary respect, a minister in service, who almost always and everywhere replaces him. A Deputy Prime Minister should be in Parliament from time to time. It is not exaggerated to ask that.

This is not exaggerated. I share your opinion. Their

I make a proposal. I will give the word to the journalists who want to take the word. If I do not have the ministers about whom we have spoken, I suspend the meeting. I will give the words to the journalists.

Mr. Speaker, if we have an agreement, I would like to comply with it, but if the other party does not comply with it, there is no agreement. That is, everyone in order — that order will be determined by you, Mr. President — can take the floor and demand that the competent minister be here. If this is not the case, then this debate cannot take place, Mr. Speaker. Their

Pacta sunt servanda, agreements are agreements. We also make an effort to ensure that the discussion can run orderly and that everyone has the opportunity to say their own without exaggerating. If one wants the other, then one must make it known, if necessary by the absence of the ministers who have promised to be here.

I will not deviate from my position from thereafter. I therefore propose the following. We listen to reporters. If the ministers are not present after the report, I suspend the meeting. Their

It is time to hear the speakers. In the absence of the latter, I will suspend the session, Mr. Tant. by

The reporters present can tell me whether they report or whether they refer to the written report.

Please note that you are registered as a rapporteur. I refer to you as a speaker.

Ms. Meus, would you like to publish a report?

I refer to my written report.

I also refer to my written report.

Lano, what are you doing?

I can give a very brief report.

So I hold you as a reporter and you also replace Mr. Tommelein.

Madame God, I will give you the word, in a moment, to expose your report. You are of a promptness that would disturb a Senate!

Mrs Dierickx will refer to her written report.

I refer to the written report.

I refer to the written report.

I don’t see Mrs. De Block and Mrs. Storms. I suppose they refer to their written report. I have not seen Mr. Muls. I suspect he is referring to his report, Mr. Chairman of the Group.

Ms. Galant refers to her written report.

Mr. Borginon, what does Mrs. De Block do?

Mr. Speaker, she refers to her written report.

by Mr. Massin, the rapporteur, refers to his written report.

In conclusion, Ms. Camille Dieu and Mr. Pierre Lano will come to exhibit their report at the tribune.

Mr. Speaker, we will not oppose the conclusion you draw. However, I do not want this to create a precedent.

I have respect for those who are present here, but in principle it cannot be that a reporter does not come to inform himself that he refers to the written report. I think this cannot be done in principle. A reporter still has a role to fulfill in the debate, for example when a dispute arises about the text of the report. Mr. Speaker, you assume that people who are not here renounce the right granted to them by the Rules of Procedure to deliver their report orally. If everybody agrees, I am willing to put myself down, but I repeat that I do not want it to create a precedent. The least that can be expected of a rapporteur is that he comes here to say that he agrees to the reference to his written report.

You are right, you have to say it yourself.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with Mr. Tant’s words and to add that in this Parliament it has been made a game of refraining from any discussion in the Committee of Reporters of the Flemish Interest. However, I can assure you that if someone from Vlaams Belang was a reporter, he would be present here now.

Mr. Van den Eynde, the reporter — in which Mr. Tant is right — has the manner in which he or she wants to publish the report. J'en ai quand même deux!

The ministers are not here. Reporters are not here either. We are at the end of a parliamentary year. In the long run, I wonder whether Parliament effectively has anything to do in the period between the recessions in. I am convinced that this is a ⁇ bad service to the credibility of this institution. It will be different when the elections are approaching: then the Parliament will be the temple of democracy. However, in the moment we need to talk, we see no one! That is unacceptable.

That is not respectful to all those I see. Fortunately, I see a lot.

I am not completely wrong with Mr. President. However, I would like to give two words to what he said.

The majority of the speakers are present. Some refer to their written report, it is their right. We will have two oral reports and I think it will be well balanced.

Second, I draw attention to the fact that, according to our agenda, some rapporteurs are not supposed to know that we have coupled the two projects and some, in any case those concerned by the law containing different provisions, may have thought they should intervene later in the afternoon. This is a recent decision that not all members are aware of.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very clearly to Mr. Delizée that we made appointments this morning at the Conference of Presidents.

The [...]

This morning. The group leaders were present and are expected to inform their members.

Mr. Speaker, I also assume that the services have also done their utmost to ensure that the decision of the Conference of Presidents is made by everyone.

The [...]

I don’t want to make it difficult, but please tell me with whom we should debate in these circumstances, Mr. Bacquelaine? Tell me that!

First of all, I would like to remind Mr. with a certain modesty. His group is currently represented by three members, which is neither a sign of concern and consideration for the debate, nor for other groups. Therefore, it does not seem to me that he can give us lessons today.

Secondly, the government is present, whatever Mr. This is because the Secretary of State, Mr. Jamar is here now.

Third, as regards the rapporteurs, it is true that we have unilaterally amended the agenda with respect to the rapporteurs. It is therefore understandable that some rapporteurs could not join us. by

I invite Mr. To demonstrate good faith.

Mr. President, Mr. Bacquelaine, we have always understood each other well. Before you speak, you should take a look behind you and determine how many members of your group are present.

The [...]

This is not the issue, Mr. Bacquelaine! When a parliamentary debate is held, the government usually plays a role in it. The government is not present, despite the agreements made.

Did we agree, yes or no, that three ministers in the hemisphere would be present at 14:15?

Mr. Bacquelaine, would you please keep your word? That is how I know you! You should not change your face.

I see Mrs. Storms. Will she publish a report or will she refer to it?

Mr. Speaker, in the Social Affairs Committee we have the tradition that the reporter actually comes to report. However, I was mistaken in the assumption that I did not arrive at the turn until 17 o’clock, when the part of my report is also covered. I am prepared to publish my report at 17 o’clock.

There is a point. U hebt allebei gelijk, both of Mr. Delizée as of Mr. Tant. Mr. Tant says dat de werkwijze tijdens de middag werd veranderd. I know that said late is, but I hope that of journalists timeig were ingelicht. by Mr. Delizée is also right: exceptionally — and I insisted on the singularity — you accepted the decision taken at the Conference to deal with the substance of the two different projects in the same debate, whether to deal with the projects separately afterwards.

I understand that this may have surprised one another. My decision, however, is very clear: I will give the floor to the rapporteurs here present, regardless of the project. If the ministers who were supposed to be present are still not there at the end of their report, I will suspend the session until they arrive.

I would like to remind Mr. Jamar what was our agreement, of course at 12.30 am, I recognize it! To begin with, we have the group Reynders - Demotte - Dewael. Then it will be the turn of the group Onkelinx - Van den Bossche - Flahaut. As for the third group, it is composed as follows: Laruelle - De Decker - Tobback - Dupont - Vanvelthoven - Van Weert and Tuybens. by Mr. Verwilghen will intervene in the last place given its international obligation.

That is what we have agreed. That is clear.

I notice the following, Mr. Deseyn. M is Tobback is a foreigner. He would be replaced by Mr. Dupont. I let it check. I only get it in sight now.

The rapporteurs are now reporting. If, at the end of the report, I do not have the agreed presence, the session will be suspended until the arrival of the interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, we also agreed in the committee that our colleague could hold his interpellation in the context of the discussion.

and yes.

When I hear now that Mr. Tobback is abroad, there is a new problem.

Can I check out? I read the note. I read it wrong.

I apologize, I read wrong. It is mr. Mr. Dupont who is abroad and is replaced by Mr. Dupont. and Tobback.

It’s my fault, I’ve looked at it too short.

“Dupont” is such a common name, isn’t it?

Errare humanum est.

Madame God, please forgive me. I know you were ready to start.

I heard everything that was said. Apparently, an agreement was reached in the presence of the representative of the Prime Minister around 12.00 a.m., 12.30 a.m.

Absolutely absolutely .

I also see that Mr. Demotry is coming.

For my part, the Minister of Finance asked me to replace him by 17:00. In my opinion, he wasn’t supposed to know at 12.30 that he was supposed to be here at 14.00 or 15.00 hours. Since he is not in Brussels, we should not expect the Minister of Finance to be present before 17:00 today. Our agenda was prepared for two, three days accordingly.

by Mr. Demotte is now present and I am announced that mr. Dewael should come continuously.

by Mr. Is Reynders coming?

He will arrive at 5 p.m. Nevertheless, as regards the substance of the files, be aware that I personally attended the discussions and discussed these issues in the committee. In my opinion, this does not pose any major difficulty — in any case, it is my opinion; if others find it difficult to accept my presence, let them report it — and I am ready to debate these cases.

Lord, please forgive me for a moment.

We will ⁇ have here—I already see them and I greet them—Mr. DeMotte and Mr. and Dewael. Mr. Jamar, if I understand correctly, for reasons I do not yet know, Mr. Reynders is validly late and you temporarily replace him. This means that I will not close the debate as long as Mr. Reynders could not answer if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to Secretary of State Jamar that when one deals here with a program law and a draft law containing various provisions, it is a rule almost never violated that the ministers to whose competence belong the provisions contained therein are present.

What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that all ministers should be here in principle now. If there are only three ministers — I can say that for a moment, Mr. Speaker — it is the result of a constructive proposal from the opposition, especially from me, to enable you to organize the work in the best possible way, in that sense to have the ministers come in group by group, so that the members who wish to take the floor can take account of it. However, too much has been requested! Their

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the position you take because I am increasingly convinced that the government treats the Parliament as a fool, does its sense, and we have to suffer that.

I will let Mrs. God read her report. Mr. Tant, I am not God the Father, fortunately, but Mr. Reynders will be with us at 5 p.m. If I had been God the Father, He would have been here at 14:15!

Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, I will intervene in the framework of the draft law-programme on two articles that have been submitted to the Infrastructure Committee, of which I note the absence of its President, despite what he has said just recently.

These are precisely Articles 58 and 59 of the bill which, for Article 58, dealt with the “Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen” and, for Article 59, with the SNCB Holding. In this case, it was the federal state’s takeover of the pension funds of these two public enterprises. It was mainly about bringing into law two royal decrees that were taken in December last year, following the decision accepted in the program law of December 27, 2005. These two royal orders were taken to sink the decision into arrests texts. Unfortunately, it was necessary that within the twelve months, these two arrests were themselves immersed in a text of law in order to continue to produce their effects.

by MM. Deseyn and Mortelmans intervened on these two points, considering that this resumption of pension funds was in fact a trick to balance the state budget at the time, and opposing it. by Mr. Deseyn wanted to know what this would cost the budget in general. by Mr. Mortelmans insisted that this operation was not neutral, as promises had to be made to the city of Antwerp to calm the staff. In fact, there seemed to be dangers plotting on the staff, although Mr. Mortelmans did not explain what the promises were. The latter also insisted that it was for the federal state to regain a healthy situation that belonged to the Flemish Community.

The vote was held on these two articles separately and then on them as a whole. It was acquired with 8 votes for, 4 votes against and 0 abstentions. by

Mr. Speaker, I refer to my written report regarding the Infrastructure Committee in the bill containing various provisions.

Mr Deseyn, can I first read the report by Mr Lano?

Mr. Speaker, of course, I heard what procedure was agreed on this afternoon. However, you also immediately see that this ⁇ does not nourish the debate and makes it difficult to replicate and ask questions to Ms. Dieu. You are also sensitive to the fact that the debate is going well.

I have some precise comments about those articles, but that will completely separate from the debate we will have here later in the afternoon or evening. You immediately notice that interfering with that three-minute oral report will not have any follow-up in the future. It makes no sense to organize a debate in this way.

It is always difficult when one works with cut sludge, now the more because you will soon also have the right to interpell.

I ask Mr. Delizée to replace me shortly. Mr Lano, the reporter, has the word.

Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President

Mr. Speaker, I will first report on Articles 51, 56 and 57. Article 51 relates to the public institution Koninklijke Muntschouwburg. The State shall therein guarantee the obligations of supplementary pensions towards the staff. Article 56 formalizes a common practice concerning the continental plateau and the marine environment. Article 57 is in the same line. These articles were unanimously approved. Their

I will go on to the Economics section, Articles 84, 85, 91, 97, 99 to 113, 141 and 160 containing various provisions. Articles 84 and 85 concern economics and energy, in particular the subrogatory claim of insurers against liable third parties and the action against minors, to limit in case of malicious intent. According to the opinion of the State Council, Article 85 of the Act on insurance against natural disasters, in particular in connection with the tariff office and the compensation box for natural disasters, is revoked. Their

Articles 91 to 97 were unanimously adopted. These concern the measurement units, standards and instruments or, in short, the metrology law. It declares its willingness to adjust the regulation and to outsource in accordance with new European standards. Articles 98bis to 98quater give rise to various rights relating to economic competition. Articles 99 to 100 relate to the Apetrawet and the system of mandatory reserves of petroleum and petroleum products. Articles 101 to 106 cover formal improvements relating to the latest legislation on the transport of gas-like products. This involves determining the fair margin and depreciation of the natural gas transmission system operator, the natural gas storage facility operator and the LNG facility operator, following a European benchmark based on comparable operators. Their

There is no discussion about gas.

However, there is a problem with Articles 107 to 113 which, mutatis mutandis, where there is less discussion about the transport of gas, deal with the organization of the electricity networks. In fact, Article 108 relates to the extension of the application of the Royal Decrees on transmission and distribution tariffs. There is a cascade established by these two laws. In order to avoid the conflict of one law with another, the date of application was extended by six months, so that these laws only enter from 2007-2008-2009, rather than in 2006.

There is a small problem with Article 108ter. This article was unanimously approved. Well, there is a distinction between the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking text. In the Dutch-language text — Mrs. De Prins has just provided me with the text, as it is printed — there is twice the phrase “on the basis of similar network operators”. So I think there is no discussion possible; this is a correction. Non bis in idem. I think this can be accepted as a technical improvement.

However, there is also discussion about the text of the sentence "on the basis of similar network administrators". I wait until the minister is present — he returns from Moscow — to submit an amendment. I have talked with the Chairman of the Committee on Business in order to discuss this issue possibly in the committee meeting tomorrow. But that is still premature. I would only point out that we still have a small problem, not only of a technical nature — that technical aspect can easily be accepted by the members of this assembly — but also with regard to the substance of the case. I will eventually return to this later.

Articles 113bis to 113sexies deal with the reorganization and reform of the CREG, which was also discussed a lot. The colleagues Simonne Creyf, Melchior Wathelet, Trees Pieters, Karine Lalieux and Muriel Gerkens spoke about this. There is, of course, something to say about the reorganization of the CREG. I suspect that the Minister will return after his presentation around 19:00. With the exception of Article 108ter, which was adopted unanimously, most of those articles were adopted by 9 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

A brief reference to the problem of the middle-state. Article 141 refers to custodial seizure which must serve as collateral for a self-employed. The subsequent articles up to 148 deal with ambulatory trade. Some things have also been adjusted in this area. With the exception of Article 141, Articles 142 to 153 were adopted by 9 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

I also accept Mr. Tommelein’s request. He asked me to report on the work of the Committee on Finance. I refer to the written report.

I have already registered a number of speakers: Mark Verhaegen, Paul Tant and Roel Deseyn, Simonne Creyf and Trees Pieters, Luc Sevenhans and Bart Laeremans.

Do other speakers want to sign up?

Ms. Pierrette Cahay-André is also registered.

You are the first to have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that at least some of the ministers who had to be here from 14.15 am are here. This was explicitly agreed at the Conference of Presidents. I find it especially unfortunate that we have to exhaust ourselves for half an hour to obey accords that are not more than two hours old, the ink of which is thus not yet dry. I basically regret that.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that the role of Parliament and the members of Parliament has always come to my heart. I assert, colleagues and gentlemen ministers, that for the government the Parliament has only become an inevitable evil. I find this ⁇ serious. They wash their feet, agreements or no agreements.

I will speak a little from the confession. I looked closely at the Conference of Presidents — I just told the President personally — how the Prime Minister’s representative reacted when we reached an agreement on which ministers should be present. I realized that it was against his will.

I do not need to protect the chairman of the House. That is usually not necessary, but in this case, as we do, it is used as a foothold of the government. I would like, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Secretary of State, that you transmit this message. You know it or you don’t know it, but I made a proposal at the Conference to keep the work going in an orderly manner—those who were there know it—to make it possible for everyone to engage in a substantial debate, so that the partners in that debate, the government and the parliamentarians, are present. I deeply regret that here afterwards the struggle must be fought again to do what we had agreed. I want to say one thing, Mr. Speaker. I must address you because Mr. De Croo is not here, but I wonder how long a Conference of Presidents serves. In principle, it serves to make agreements between parliamentarians among themselves and between parliament and government. What is the purpose of these agreements if they are not fulfilled later?

You know, Mr. Minister, that I have no bad character. On the contrary, I always have to make myself a bit of violence in order to set things enough sec. I always have a tendency to round the corners. I did that this morning too, but I can tell you that we are especially badly rewarded for that, right?

Until then, Mr. Speaker, a preliminary comment.

For the rest of my presentation, I would like to address the Minister of Interior in particular. Their

Mr. Minister, you can guess which topic I want to discuss.

There is a provision in the draft containing several provisions, in particular in Article 62, on the use of the languages in administrative matters, in particular for the police services and the Brussels police services.

I had promised you that I would return to it and I’m apparently one of the few who keep his promises.

In order for everyone to know more or less what it is about, I repeat that the draft includes an article 62 which aims to extend a transitional arrangement established in article 69 of the Management Steel Act. It may also be a secret language. To put it simply, Article 69 of the Administrative Police Act provides for a transitional arrangement primarily in charge of the people of the federal police, the then National Guard. They were subject to a different language regime than the people of the local police, and a transitional arrangement was provided to give them the opportunity to adapt to the new regime. They were given a period of five years. That period ended on 31 March 2006.

The purpose of the provision in this draft containing various provisions is to extend the planned transitional period until the end of 2007. Mr. Minister, it will be a coincidence that you will put this issue over the date of the next parliamentary elections. You roll out the hot potato before you and leave it to others to decide about it. At least I expect that the others will be. In any case, in this way you escape your own responsibility.

That there is a responsibility, I will demonstrate to you later by referring to some express quotes from your own party chairman. He says it is up to you to address and solve this problem.

Mr. Minister, you do not solve it, but simply put it out for you. Ladies and gentlemen, there is more. The Minister asks that we approve a transitional arrangement that should allow the law on the use of languages in administrative matters to be set aside at a certain point for a period of five years. That transitional measure is actually intended to give non-compliance with the law a more or less legitimate dress.

That transition period has now ended and you want to extend it for a certain period. A first question is whether it is relevant to extend the five-year transition period for the same people – it is essentially about extending the one-and-a-half-year period for people who move from the National Guard to the local police and thus have been employed for some time.

What its relevance is, at first glance, is not clear. However, I will be so free, in the absence of other possibilities, Mr. Minister, to try to understand you, as regards the causality of the article you propose.

The extension of a transitional arrangement implies first and foremost an evaluation of its application. What has the existing transitional arrangement brought us to? You know that I, together with a number of other colleagues, including Mrs. Creyf, have interpelled you on this subject and asked several times for the exact figures on this subject. I have asked you in particular, and I ask you again, Mr. Minister, how many police officers, mainly state guards, have invoked Article 69 to be at least engaged in the local police during the transitional period.

A second question lies in its extension. How many people have subsequently settled in order? That was the intention. During those five years, they were obliged to do so, even on a personal basis and no longer from the point of view of the service alone, when they were engaged in a police zone covering an area with a special language regime. Well, how many of those people have, in the meantime, provided proof of sufficient language knowledge?

I know that a large proportion of people are no longer tired of this. The law is the law. Only when it serves them, they talk about it. For the rest, the law is something to which, in any case, the current majority with the most ease wipes their feet. However, it would be useful to find out for a moment how the actual application of the scheme, which is five years old, is in place.

Mr. Minister, how many members of the Brussels police services have been recruited since 1 April 2001 and are in possession of the language patents required by the Language Act?

Mr. Minister, I think I know that there has been another incident in the Committee on Home Affairs this morning, in which you blamed the colleagues for claiming your responsibility. I think I am quite fully and objectively informed about this. You have held a tirade against one of our colleagues because she had the courage to question you about the application of some laws. It has come a long way if even that is blamed.

I ask for the word for a personal fact.

Mr. Tante again does not know what he is talking about. I am in possession of an email from the Chamber member Schryvers concerned. It was wrongly based on the Summary Report and not on the Comprehensive Report. I quote her, “There is a misunderstanding. Based on the full report, the Minister was substantially correct in his answer. I would like to offer my apologies to the Minister completely on my own initiative."

You don’t know what you’re talking about, but keep calm.

I know better than you know what I am talking about. Both the Summary Report and the Comprehensive Report have already been published. It is the most normal way of working that parliamentarians refer to those reports. Both have the same monetary power. Both were published by the Chamber.

Mr. Minister, I am not talking about the answer our colleague gave you. I am talking about the way you have dealt with her.

Mr. Tant, a colleague from your group said that I was violating the truth. I refuted this with the report in hand. She apologized in writing.

Prefer to go on another topic, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. If your group pleasure apologizes, she decorates it. If you, despite being absent from the committee this morning, think you can reflect what really happened, you are mistaken.

This is very close to “Devil.” Mr. Minister, on the basis of the fact that a member of Parliament quotes from the Summary Report, you have planned to have her executed and to give an unjust ballwash. Apart from the fact that an exchange of ideas can result in an agreement, such an attitude is unworthy of a minister.

The incident is closed.

Mr. Minister, we will feel your truthfulness to the tooth, to say it in an appropriate expression. During a number of successive occasions, you have promised...

Mr. Minister, if you wish to listen for a moment to be able to assess the correctness of some statements. If it suits you, Mr. Minister. I do not want to disturb you in the conversation with colleagues. This is what Parliament serves!

On very various occasions, you have promised to submit to Parliament the figures relating to the application of Article 69 of the Administrative Steel Act.

You have not done this at any time effectively, despite express promises. I am pleased that our colleague Mrs. Creyf is here. She interviewed the Minister a few months ago. I would like to read again, Mr. Minister, with emphasis what I read about this not in the Summary Report but in the full reporting. You expressly state that you will make the figures available in a listing on 1 April. That’s right, isn’t it, Mrs. Creyf? On April 1, Mr. Minister. An explicit promise, contained in the report. We are now more than six months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it may be annoying that I occasionally try to address the Minister while he makes all sorts of attempts to give the impression that he does not hear me or understand me.

He is listening to you, Mr. Tante.

This is indeed the case at the moment, but not at the moment. If a debate needs to be conducted, then it is only possible if people not only talk but also listen to each other, Mr. Minister.

I repeat it. You will not like to hear this, but in an interpellation by Mrs. Creyf almost three months ago, you have expressly promised, in response to your answer, that by 1 April you would give the numbers that we have been asking you for so long — initially in a friendly way. You have not provided them yet.

It is not just about the principle that promises must be kept. I am also concerned, Mr. Minister, that without these numbers, Parliament cannot do its job properly. You are asking us to extend a transitional arrangement. I think every righteous member of parliament then rightly asks the question where that original arrangement has brought us. You refuse to give the figures. You say you don’t have those numbers. Well, Mr. Minister, and I will weigh my words, but allow me to say that I do not believe you.

The Social Secretariat of the Integrated Police belongs to your competence. That social secretariat has requested and received data from the various police zones up to three times. I assume that there is something missing here or there; that some figures from one or another zone are not there yet. However, I do not assume that you are saying that you do not have numbers. I assert that these numbers exist. Furthermore, those figures, which rely on the Social Secretariat, serve as the basis for the calculation of the bets of the police officers. If you have paid the betting, how would you not have the information about it?

Mr. Minister, you want to demonstrate on the basis of some shadow boxes that you are sincere, that what you say is correct and therefore credible. Well, do not blame me, but at this point we do not believe you anymore. It is not true that you do not have those numbers. Your obstinate refusal to make these figures available raises some suspicions among us. The question is simply why the minister does not want to publish this. We think that there is only one possible explanation: If Parliament and parliamentarians of the majority knew the effective numbers, they would not want to approve your Article 62 because it would show that what you really intend is nothing more or less than the regularization – or at least the possibility of doing so – of a series – we don’t know how long that series is – illegal appointments. Colleagues of the majority, Parliament must thus serve to give illegal decisions that have occurred over the past five years a pseudo-legal character. That is what the Parliament, gentlemen ministers, may serve for; to give the irregularities committed by this government a pseudo-legal character. I think this is a shame.

If one had at least the honesty to say about how much it is, then I would like to talk about it again, although I do not claim that I would agree with it. If there are problems, then they must be solved, whether this happily meets us or not. There is no other possibility. Parliament has at least the right to know what it is about.

Mr. Speaker, that was a first series of comments on the unwillingness of the government and of this minister in particular, who invokes his own credibility, to demonstrate that over time we can only doubt it fundamentally. I see no other option with the best will in the world. Their

Colleagues, secondly, the transitional arrangement, which was established five years ago, has led to the establishment of Article 69 of the Administrative Steel Act. That article was the subject of an appeal to the Arbitration Court.

Submitted by us!

That is right. We are not talking about who said the first thing. I know that happened in kindergarten.

The Court of Arbitration has made a judgment. I do not want you to remember this. The Court of Arbitration says the following. It refers to the principle of proportionality. The judgment relates to the original Article 69. The Court of Arbitration said: “The measure also does not have disproportionate consequences. It is, in fact, a temporary measure whose duration, which may not exceed five years, is established by a decision consulted in the Council of Ministers. A transitional arrangement is even more appropriate for compelling reasons of continuity of public service, since the legislator was confronted with the harmonisation of different legislation and the absence of language frameworks for the national guard when establishing the new police. However, the measure would be disproportionate if it did not expire on 1 April 2006, five years after its entry into force, a date that is also expressly mentioned in the parliamentary preparation.

Mr. Minister, the Arbitration Court says in its judgment at issue here, that in no case could be accepted that the transitional measure would be extended. You may be gesturing that you do not know that judgment. Well, in his opinion to the draft law containing various provisions, the Council of State expressly notices this and says that you miss any serious basis to propose the extension, moreover, that if one person goes to the Arbitration Court, we know the outcome in advance, unless the Arbitration Court would change its mind from day to day, which is not my experience.

Moreover, if one person goes to the Arbitration Court, we know the outcome in advance, unless the Arbitration Court would change its mind from day to day, which is not my experience.

Mr. Minister, what you are doing here is therefore not just based on texts to install the legal uncertainty. Furthermore, you are assured that when someone returns — ⁇ a good hint for some colleagues — to the Arbitration Court, the provision will be put out of force again.

Mr. Minister, you do it, against better knowledge. That, I suppose, is another proof of your respect for our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, there is, on our part, a third element of criticism of the provision of Article 62. I know that the interest of many colleagues is what it is. However, those who still know something about language legislation in administrative matters know that, when it comes to language legislation relating to language-homogeneous municipalities, the matter falls within the competence of the ordinary legislator. However, when it comes to municipalities with facilities, i.e. municipalities with a mixed language status, a special majority is required for the amendment of the Administrative Language Act in this regard.

It is not only politicians who say this. There is also the opinion of the State Council on the matter, namely on the occasion of the creation of the original Article 69. The opinion states very explicitly — Mr. Minister, I challenge you to oppose you on that point — that a special majority is strictly required for the matter in question.

Now you will argue that the aforementioned conclusion in the opinion attached to the new Article 62 no longer occurs. This will not surprise any of the colleagues who have a sense of reality. In fact, the opinion had to be issued again, once again, with the highest urgency. In those circumstances, the State Council can only limit itself to a number of observations at first glance.

Mr. Speaker, in the opinion attached to the original article 69 — I refer to the document in this regard, which is the opinion of the State Council in the draft amendment to the Act on the Administrative Language, which eventually led to the new article 69 — it is written: "It is difficult to dispute that such a provision regulates the use of the language in the services concerned. The provisions of the proposed article 69 shall be incorporated into a separate draft special law, insofar as those provisions apply to municipalities or groups of municipalities bordering another language area and where the law requires or allows the use of a language other than that in the area in which those municipalities or groups of municipalities are located.

Simply put, the Council of State is of the opinion that, in order to settle this matter, one must have a special majority. You obviously do not agree with this. You load the provision in the draft containing various provisions. I argue — and not only myself, also the State Council and a lot of well-meaning colleagues with us — that this is actually not possible. One might say that—I know that some argue this way—the main concern is the arrangement of an affair concerning the generality of the communities, and not only the language-mixed communities, if I may so express myself. However, you will agree that the provision of your article 62 is intended precisely for the language-mixed municipalities and not for the other. This must have been adopted by a special majority.

Mr. Deputy Ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, this is another proof that this government is drying the floor with all the legislation and with all our institutions.

I come to my last consideration, Mr. Speaker. You know that within the framework of the administrative language legislation there is such a thing as a Permanent Commission for Language Supervision. That committee is primarily tasked with advising the government on the application, and I quote from the relevant article so that there are no misunderstandings, because it is formulated even more intrusively: "The ministers consult the committee" — read: the Permanent Committee for Language Control — "on all matters of general nature concerning the application of the coordinated laws". It even describes a whole procedure. Now you are not going to tell me, Mr. Minister, that this is not about applying the language legislation. You cannot be next to it. There can be no other interpretation than the one I have just given.

I find it a little embarrassing to use the vehicle of the various provisions. First, to put Parliament cold-bloodedly aside and to deny it the data that would allow it to judge in a judgmental manner the extent to which it makes sense to extend the transitional provision over time.

Secondly, you do not respect the competence of the State Council, the Arbitration Court, or the Standing Committee on Languages: that is the way you make the law, Mr. Minister. Their

I still remember the time when you were the leader of the group in this half-course, Mr. Minister. You were then constantly looking — rightly, that was your role — to see if everyone remained within the crete lines. With the theatrical gifts that are yours, you rejected this whenever you found something. We do not find anything, Mr. Minister: we find a series of reasons to warn the House that the approval of Article 62 of the draft containing various provisions cannot. If the Chamber has a different opinion, it only does: we cannot stop it from the opposition. I decided to say this explicitly again. Their

If the Government is no longer compelled by the Chamber itself to follow the law, what is the purpose of the laws? More fundamentally, what does this Parliament still serve? Except maybe to add numbers. I never wanted to do this as such. I may be one of the generations left behind who think that Parliament should still try to make the law properly. However, making a law only makes sense if it is also respected and this does not happen again and again. I regret that, Mr Dewael. Allow me to say once again that I did not expect this from you. You are a reasonable man with whom you can normally exchange thoughts. You did not want to do that until now, even if it is only by remembering the numbers.

As the next speaker, Mr Laeremans is registered.

We will then be able to hear the reports of Mrs. Storms and Mrs. De Block, if they wish, about the "Social Affairs" section.

First of all, I would like to address Mr. Tante. Their

Mr. Tante, you just said it in a wonderful way. You have done this in all sincerity and you have followed the case well in the past. It is only a pity that I cannot say the same thing about your party, in the sense that your party in this Chamber rightly storms against this part of the special provisions, but that in the Flemish parliament, where it can make the difference, today – I just heard it via gsm from my colleague Joris Van Hauthem – has decided not to support the conflict of interest that our party has submitted against it in the Flemish Parliament. I wonder, therefore, where is the credibility of CD&V, when they say in one Chamber that this is not possible, that they will fight it and that they will vote against it, while in the other Chamber, not a hundred meters away, they let the chance to torpedo it or at least bring to the consultation between the various authorities, shoot.

Mr. Speaker, since the colleague is addressing me personally, I would like to intervene.

Mr. Laeremans, it may be that what you say is correct, I have no source about it at the moment. I tell you with all clarity that I would regret if such a thing happened, if it indeed corresponds to reality. I have something else here that I can read for the Minister's convenience if necessary. It is about a number of protests in the Flemish Parliament, which do not lie about it, not even at the head of the minister. However, I reserve the possibility to use it later. I can tell you that we are currently in the Federal Parliament. Mrs. Creyf, myself and a number of others have played our role here as we thought it should be. I will not speak on the basis of what you claim and what is or is not right. I will take note of this with attention and add the comment that matters to it.

Thank you, colleague Tante. To give you a little more information, I can tell you that this has been discussed today and that CD&V and N-VA will not vote against the conflict of interest, but will abstain. These parties, therefore, apparently do not want to put the purple parties in the Flemish Parliament in trouble at any time. They will abstain. I deeply regret this. I just got the confirmation. There came here a minister who walked up or on the side and with a wide smile said "it has happened, however." So he confirmed what I just said and he was, of course, very satisfied.

I would like to address this Minister too. After all, there is the cause of the problem, the core of the story.

Mr. Minister Dewael, it is another community scandal in a row that we are experiencing with this purple government. With this important legislative change, the language law of the Brussels police – which until recently was the last bastion of bilingualism in Brussels – is undermined.

As with the Lejeune law — last weekend with the unimaginable statements of Prime Minister Verhofstadt — and as with the youth law, here the tactics of the lie, of the shameless lie, Mr. Minister, are used.

Mr. Minister, you are trying to convince Parliament, all of us, that it is only a matter of time. Our efforts to force the bilingualism are yielding fruits, you say the State Council, but give us one and a half years of time, because we have lost one and a half years on the road, and then everything is in order; in one and a half years everything will be in order, and then we get it around.

That is exactly where the calf is bound, because in one and a half years nothing will change for the better. The Minister knows this too well. He even had to clearly admit, after I asked him that question on the man in the committee, that in a year and a half the problem will be as big as it is now. Then, again, a number of agents will have been hired without any stake behind the door for them, without the legal obligation of language proficiency being imposed in any way.

The only difference with today — which has been rightly stated since then — is that in a year and a half there will be a new government in power, with ⁇ also another Minister of Home Affairs who will either have to look for a solution. The minister actually passed the hot potato to his successor. I can hardly imagine it differently, because it does not seem too rosy for this majority. The minister thus passes the hot potato because he himself does not know the advice. It would still have been appreciable if Minister Dewael had also said that directly, instead of packing it in flat voiced lies. This minister is simply not concerned about language legislation. For him, the language law is just a piece of paper that should not be taken into account.

The need for bilingual police in Brussels is for him, the abdicating Flemish prime minister, a big blind spot. That Flemish, Dutch-speaking Brusselsers, Flemish pendlers or Flemish visitors to Brussels, in their capital in their own language, can reach the security services, is for this minister, for the carried opportunist Dewael, completely irrelevant. It is even so bad that even months after the questions were asked, the man is unable to communicate the figures on bilingualism to the Parliament or does not wish to communicate them — possibly colleague Tant is right in this regard — so that the need for the extension of this transitional measure cannot even be demonstrated objectively, with solid data.

The Minister of Security was not even able, not even three months after the first figures were requested, to outline for parliamentarians a coherent picture of the language situation with the security services of the capital. As a result, Dewael not only shuffled the Parliament, but he also immediately showed clearly that as a minister he had never even thought of a follow-up system, a regular evaluation or a step plan, let alone an organized, outspoken encouragement to pass the language exams.

Dewael has no view of the situation at all and does not want to have a view of it, for the simple reason that it is all just outside his field of interest. The only thing that really interests this guy is how he can get rid of it the easiest way, how he can pull his head into the greenhouse in the least noticeable way, and how he can move through the troubling problem. That is the man to do. The inevitable consequence of this Flemish lazyness, of this sinful cowardice, is that the language knowledge of the Brussels police comes on the negotiating table at the next government formation and that the obligatory bilinguality there will be further exhausted. That will ultimately be the result of the new dewael flight.

After undermining bilingualism in the municipal services and magistrates, it is now the turn of the police, thanks to the collaboration of the Flemish ministers of purple.

I would like to emphasize that what is happening here is very far-reaching. The transitional period which existed was intended only for the old Reich Guards and those who were in some way at that time, from the federal level, in service there, for a limited contingent of persons in permanent service for whom before there was no language obligation and for whom a transition period was consequently also defended for us.

The arrangement, as we can formulate in Brussels — and colleague Creyf will ⁇ be able to confirm this — was steamly extended to all new agents, so that they all were given a five-year transition period to learn the other language. That is twice as long as the staff members of the municipal governments in the so-called, by the Council of State because of complete illegality shot on fire, language courtesy agreement received.

This tremendous extension to all officers and all new police inspectors is today homologated and ratified by paars with the bill. That is the real purpose of the bill. From now on, every new agent and inspector knows that it is legal for him too. He will be given five years to pass his exam, after which he will be able to scratch his kick in Brussels and scratch into a single zone.

Mr Laeremans, Mr Tant asks for the word.

Mr. Laeremans, you just addressed me on the basis of a message you had received via your GSM.

I find that the message largely corresponds to reality. However, I would like to add immediately that a press release, which was spread in the meantime, revealed that the group leader of the Christian Democrats in the Flemish Parliament, Mr. Caluwé, had indeed proposed a text to the majority parties to proclaim a conflict of interest independently of your party.

The other majority parties have coldly refused to intervene. The truth has its rights. This is not a new history. This is not the first time that our party is shot in the back by so-called Flemish Conscious.

Colleagues Laeremans and Mr. Speaker, I refer to some of the statements of then Prime Minister Bart Somers. After being the mayor of Mechelen, where he would never leave, he became prime minister in the Flemish government. He was questioned about the topic. You must allow me to quote him for a moment, by which he shows how the word of some does not count and is of no value.

“You claim that the former French-speaking Federal Minister of Interior and the Prime Minister-President of the Brussels Capital Region play the ball together and do not want to take any responsibility.”

Mr. Dewael, then he talks about you. He says: “We now have a Flaming as Minister of Interior, Mr. Dewael. I am confident that he will take this seriously. He now bears a considerable responsibility. My point is that we are here with a conflict between the Federal Minister of Interior and the Prime Minister of the Brussels Capital Region.”

I will read a little further. It is beautiful. “You say rightly,” he says to the questioner, “that in the past two cats played with the Flemish-Brussels mouse.” It is an image, Mr. Speaker, let us not misunderstand each other. The cats have been replaced. One of them is now a Flemish cat." Apparently we are sitting with a cat. “I am confident that the new Federal Minister of Internal Affairs will properly advocate the Flemish interest in this file. If that is not the case, if his answer does not offer any perspective, then I would like to commit myself to put this dossier on the agenda of the Consultation Committee.”

You see, Mr. Laeremans, colleagues, what all these words of career men are worth in the short term: nothing! Even a commitment expressed to a parliament, which you, Mr. Minister, actually take as a witness and want to use as a lever, is of no value. I am embarrassed and upset about this.

Collega Tante, I thank you for this very useful information and the very useful quote. It proves that even in this hemisphere, despite the fact that we are not really allowed to use it, GSM can still play a very useful role and really enrich the debate.

I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Tant, I only regret that the same linearity and regularity is not applied in the Flemish Parliament. As far as Mr. Dewael is concerned, you are 100% right. On the Flemish level he has become a total disappointment, as in the dossier of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, where he at some point even threatened to prosecute the Flemish mayors, even party members, because they wanted to observe the Constitution. It is so bad with that man. This man is indeed the incarnate opportunism. However, I regret that your party is now only slowly coming to the understanding that there is really something fundamental wrong with the Flemish reflex of the VLD and the sp.a.

And I regret that!

Indeed, you regret that and for that I am very grateful, but you know that in the Flemish Parliament an alternative majority is possible. If CD&V and Vlaams Belang at a given moment stand on their Flemish streams and cooperate, then the other parties are really shaken and then it can be agreed that they will pull the Flemish line next time. However, if CD&V now also creeps in its shell, then nothing changes.

I understand that it is difficult to suddenly break that cordon just before the municipal council elections and work with Vlaams Belang. As you know, in the foreseeable time we are going to a very large community confrontation. After the municipal council elections there is a very large community confrontation at the federal level. We are going to community negotiations that could sometimes lead to the fragmentation of the country.

I hope you are drawing the right card at that time. I say it again. In the Flemish Parliament there is a Flemish majority that wants to defend the Flemish interests — interests with a small b. I hope that CD&V at that moment finally draws the Flemish card and considers that more important than a few ministerial posts. After all, we can work together and have a lot of common things to do in this area.

I return to the speech I want to keep. The true commitment of the draft law is indeed the homologation and approval of the extension of the transition period, not only for the ex-righteous guards, but for all new agents. This is about it. From now on, every new agent-inspector knows that it is now legal for him too. He has five years to pass his exams. After that period, he can in Brussels scratch his spat and scratch into a single-spat zone. As a result, the problem persists and is ⁇ ined.

The unitary is institutionalized with the draft law. Colleagues of the purple majority, you do that knowingly and willingly and you also have the great comfort that it is still beaten to death by the media. Collega Tant has rightly referred to the judgment of the Arbitration Court, which came to us at the request of our people in Brussels. Their

Minister Dewael is now very busy conferring or gesticulating with his colleague Reynders and is therefore barely interested in the debate, just as he was not interested in your comments, Mr. Tant.

The decision of the Court of Arbitration and the opinion of the Council of State are largely ignored. Again, it proves that the Minister of Internal Affairs is nothing but a responsible politician.

With regard to the report, I would like to emphasize that he is now stimulating Mr Jamar. There is therefore constantly an interlocutor with whom the whole theatre can be conferred, so that it is made clear that what we say here is actually of zero and no number.

The minister himself proves in fact that he is nothing but a responsible politician, who respects the institutions, and that for someone who is considered to perform the office of Minister of Interior and thus be the guardian of the institutions. Mr. Minister, it is truly unimaginable.

Mr. Minister, I would like to conclude with you now for the fourth time asking a few questions about the language knowledge at the Brussels police.

Per ⁇ something has happened in the meantime? Per ⁇ you got the answers? You have ⁇ already received some answers, but a few weeks ago you said you had not yet had the time to process the answers. Per ⁇ you have already processed them? Or will you again be so shameless to ignore Parliament and send our right of interpellation and questioning to the moon?

My questions are the following, Mr. Minister. First, can you finally give an overview of the situation with the former Reich Guards? How many of them still work in Brussels? How many French speakers have not passed the Dutch exam? How many Dutch speakers have not taken the French exam yet? Can you give an overview of the evolution in this area over the past few years? Are there people who simply refuse to take the language courses? I have asked this first question now for the fourth time.

Second, can you give an overview of the language skills of the newly hired inspectors? How many Dutch speakers provide proof of knowledge of French? How many French speakers delivered the proof of knowledge of Dutch? Their

I would like to add that the Minister is currently on the phone. Is it not that he makes a conversation with the gentlemen Bacquelaine, Reynders or Jamar then he confers by phone. I would like to point out before the report how attentive this Minister of Interior is.

That is a very good suggestion.

He prepares the answers.

Are you preparing the answers, Mr. President?

You are not listening, Mr. Minister.

He is listening.

You point to your left ear and now you have the horn on the right ear. Do you hear with your left ear? I am curious.

Yes, I am sure of it. Go ahead, Mr Laeremans.

Now the horn is laid down and we can start with the second question. Their

Mr. Minister, can you give an overview of the language skills of the newly hired inspectors? How many Dutch speakers provided proof of knowledge of French? How many French speakers delivered the proof of knowledge of Dutch? How are these new inspectors encouraged to attend the language courses? What happened to the announced language bath?

Third, can you give an overview of the language skills of the newly hired assistants? How many Dutch speakers provided proof of knowledge of French? How many French speakers delivered the proof of knowledge of Dutch? How are these new assistants encouraged to attend the language courses?

Fourth, can you provide an overview of the language skills of the inspectors and agents who have been in service in Brussels for the past five years and still work there? How many Dutch speakers presented the proof of knowledge of French? How many French speakers provided proof of knowledge of Dutch? How do you explain that some of these people fail to pass a language test? Is this problem systematically followed up? This question has already been answered – no. If not, why not? How are these people encouraged to take language courses and take the exam?

Fifth, can the minister for each of the six zones tell how many Dutch speakers and how many French speakers are in service? How many Dutch speakers and how many French speakers have been employed in each of the mentioned zones in the last five years?

Sixth, how many Dutch speakers and how many French speakers in globo have passed the language exam in each of the six zones?

Mr. Minister, these were my questions. I would not find it surprising, but terribly disgraceful, if you could not answer it today.

Dear colleagues, I consult the assembly to see if there are other issues that concern the Department of the Interior. If not, I suggest that Mr. The Minister gives us his answers now for the clarity of the debate. Thus we close one chapter before we begin another, in this case the issues that concern the Department of Social Affairs and Public Health.

That is part of the discourse that we are just Mr. Laeremans. The questions raised and the criticisms raised were discussed extensively and broadly in the committee. I have also given a comprehensive answer. Their

Until now, I have not heard any alternative. I know, of course, that the five-year transitional period has ended and that the goal of achieving bilingualism has not been met. In order to remedy this irregularity, the government proposes to extend the transition period through the draft of various provisions until the end of next year. Their

I have been asked several times if I have done nothing to realize bilinguality. I have given a very comprehensive answer to that. I have referred to the measures and resources made available, to the funds for the European summits which year after year provide funds for the Brussels zones, which, by the way, have been awarded premiums. I have also repeatedly pointed out in the committee that the language prizes awarded to the police are in fact ten times higher than the usual premium in the public office, and that for both operational and administrative employees. I referred to the organization of language teaching that was arranged by several zones themselves. I have referred to the fact that agents who go on training retain their other premiums and allowances so that there is no loss of bet. I referred to the fact that there is a zone that has even attracted a language teacher, while other zones have entered into a partnership with the language training schools. However, it was not possible to meet the objective. Their

I have then asked several times whether we were asked to remove those who do not meet the two-language requirement from the police force. On the other hand, I have been asked for years what I am going to do to fully fill the frameworks in Brussels. I must combine two imperatives: bilinguality and safety. No one has ever told me, neither Mr. Tant, neither Mr. Laeremans, nor Mrs. Creyf, that I should remove those people from the Brussels zones. Then, of course, one would say in any incident that would happen in Brussels, that security is no longer guaranteed. In other words, one stays there on the other side of the bar, so to speak, pretty stupid. Their

Now the figures are gradually complete. I was asked in detail about the situation of the Brussels zones. I got the figures and yesterday in the Senate Home Affairs Committee said that those figures are now being listed and contextualized. We must now all consider additional measures and incentives to meet the requirements of bilingualism by the end of next year. Their

Other arguments were put forward. Mr. Tant talked about the need for a two-thirds majority. That is, in my opinion, not serious. Mr. Tant should know that an opinion of the Standing Committee for Language Supervision is required for the application of the Language Act. It is, of course, up to Parliament to decide whether the Language Act should be amended. This is still the prerogative of the Parliament. Nothing in the law states that Parliament cannot amend that law unless the Standing Committee for Linguistic Supervision has given prior advice. These are all arguments that I refuted during the parliamentary debate.

I regret the tone being raised, including the personal way in which the Minister of Home Affairs is addressed. I am just different.

Again, what printing means does the Minister of Home Affairs, regardless of his language role, have to remedy that situation? The answer is none. He can conduct a positive and stimulating policy. Mrs. Creyf asked at the time whether police schools could not be engaged. I asked her whether police schools should provide for language learning. All police schools should be involved. After all, one can follow his education anywhere in the country and nevertheless arrive in Brussels. Is it up to police education — despite the investments — to teach language skills? This seems to be the world on its head. We need to contact the communities on this issue. In addition, in our country, not only in the south, but also in the north, we find a decreased awareness of language knowledge. In an international city such as Brussels, it has long been not about too few French speakers who know Dutch but about the knowledge of French, Dutch and English. This deserves a wider debate.

In the committee, after the parliamentary recess, I undertook to initiate the debate on the basis of the figures from the different zones. I will explain the figures. Everyone will be able to draw conclusions from this. I am open to all possible suggestions to respond effectively and as quickly as possible to the goal of bilingualism. The end of 2007 is another important deadline. It is not my intention to let things evolve. The opposition must also be clear. They need to make concrete proposals. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have police officers, but I don’t hear of any other alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to think again before they push the button.

First, we asked for figures, which should allow us to generally assess the desirability of a particular legal adjustment. The minister says he has some numbers, but he obstinately refuses to provide anything. There must be a reason for this. There is only one. The Minister wants to not only cover up the irregularities committed in this context, but also to regularise them. A word more about that later.

Second, the Minister wipes the floor with Parliament, which is not able to judge in a judgmental manner between each other and with the Minister and eventually conclude.

Third, he wipes the floor with the Arbitration Court, which has issued an explicit judgment stating that an extension of the arrangement will in no case be dusted.

Fourth, he also wipes the floor with the State Council, according to whom that cannot be settled with an ordinary majority. This requires a special majority.

I don’t know if you still listen to your own minister. That is also not always advisable, but he comes here to say that Parliament judges whether or not to adjust a particular legal framework. If we say so, what prevents us from amending the Constitution, if the Parliament so wants? If it is a matter of the will of the Parliament alone, then the Parliament can indeed decide what it wants to decide. Then, therefore, apart from any arrangement of competence, one can do what a certain majority intends at a given moment. That is a good starting point.

Fifth, Mr. Minister, you wipe the floor with the part of the language legislation that relates to the Standing Committee for Language Supervision. Then you will come back with your too often reversed refrain. The opposition does not propose an alternative, which, by the way, is not true. You say above all that we have to make a choice. Either one chooses security, or one chooses respect for the legal order and the law. This is a false dilemma, Mr. Minister. You know the problem for six years. I will not lie that you have made modest contributions here and there and that attempts have been made to encourage people to get in order with the law and in particular the language law.

Mr. Minister, however, you are not going to convince me that you have done enough. That is the problem. If you say that you have no alternative, then we have said here so many times that in the basic training for the police could be enabled a language training that provides at least in the long term prospects for a solution. You did not want to do anything at that point, ⁇ because the suggestion came from the opposition. I am afraid that is why it is.

This is a matter of security. I read from time to time what is said in other parliaments and I try to follow what comes in the media. Mr. Minister, is it not a problem for security when people, Dutch speakers in this case, facing criminal acts, want to report this to the police and not even understand but, on the contrary, misunderstood? Is this your contribution to security? There also arises a fundamental problem, not only in respect of the rule of law but even in regard to the care for security that you put at risk in the head of a portion of the population without more and cold way.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister now says there will be figures in October. It may be, but he has already made so many promises in this regard. Meanwhile, this Parliament will, in any case, again and again be taxed by the fact that although one still makes himself a fan of approving the law, but for the same money it is most easily deposited by him, moreover, creates a legal framework for not only to overthrow but to regularise irregularities. Congratulations and thanks.

Many things have already been said and I will not repeat everything. It is indeed a false dilemma to put one against the other, the language problem versus the security problem. Both should be taken seriously. This Minister does not do that at least with the language legislation. In fact, he says that the language law is subordinate and that he will not comply with the language law. That law may be ignored for him for a long time, even though it is of public order.

I would like to add to the report once again that the Minister is now speaking with two other MEPs, Mr Malmendier and Mr Bacquelaine. These are now the new decorum to show once again how indifferent this Interior Minister stands to this debate. It is truly unimaginable. He stigmatizes with many theatrical gestures to show how indifferent he is to what we say here today. It would be useful if his voters knew that, that one simply ignores the Flemish opposition to cocktail with French-speaking friends.

This is what he does indeed: holding a cozy tea crown with people who may also be liberal, but who are on the other side of the language boundary, just at a time when there is a community debate and that we would expect the minister to address the interests of the Dutch speakers in Brussels in some way ...

The Minister gives me a sign, but I don’t know how to interpret it. It hangs his throat, probably. We know this for a long time: the Flemish problem hangs his throat. More than ever, we will clearly say to its voters that the VLD is not a party that defends the Flemish interests or the interests of the Flemish voters.

It is an abdicated prime minister who really is no longer interested in the rise of the Flamings in his own capital. It is really disheartening to engage with that.

Second, as regards the figures, the Minister has indeed said that they will be there after the resumption of parliamentary work. I can only draw one conclusion: these figures are scheduled for October. The debate is again delayed to October, while it was intended to be completed by 1 April. That is simply unlikely.

I interviewed the Minister on 12 and 13 June. Then he literally said to me: “I asked the services, at the six police zones in Brussels, to give me the figures by June 12. You can understand that I haven’t processed it all today.” – Today is June 28th. Apparently, the minister is not able to put some numbers together in a period of fourteen days, or he does not want to. Probably it is the latter: he does not want to give Parliament an overview or serious analysis, because that is apparently irrelevant to our debate, because Parliament should not be informed at the time when it should be able to debate about it. That is the worst thing that happens here.

If the minister still admits that he has the most numbers inside, it is even more disheartening for him, because then it means that he has no control or authority over the police zones, since they had to submit their numbers on June 12. Today is June 28th. If he still does not have them now, then he is exposed with his ass, then he has no authority as Minister of Home Affairs and then he can better accumulate.

Mr. Minister, in the debate you always come back to the so-called dilemma with the question of what we prefer: police, but single-language, or not police, because not bilingual. As long as you put the problem in those terms, you deprive those involved, namely the candidate police officers, of any incentive to actually take language courses.

What do the officers now notice on the ground? Even though they must be bilingual, they can still remain single. Both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people who have made efforts over the past five years to learn the other language are in their trouble. Those who have not taken the language course are treated in the same way.

Those who have not made an effort can wait again. After all, they have waited for five years and have not made the effort. Why would they do it now in a year and a half?

Mr. Minister, learning another language requires an effort, regardless of whether someone is Dutch-speaking or French-speaking. However, if those involved find that those who make the effort are not rewarded and that those who do not make the effort can just as well stay sitting, functioning and promoting, everyone is deprived of any motivation to learn a second language.

That is a vicious circle, for which you are now partly responsible, in particular by the measure you now want to have approved.

Since Parliament has the last word in the debate, we can move to the next section.

We start the discussion of social affairs. We initiate the discussion of the Social Affairs section.

We have two reports to hear for this part. We will start with Mrs. De Block.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am reporting from the Committee on Social Affairs, in connection with the examination of the law containing various provisions relating to the competence of the Minister of Social Affairs.

Can I tell you that you are calling the phone? You just said that no oral report could continue. You can therefore pay some attention to this report.

That incident was closed, Mrs. De Block.

The Social Affairs Committee began discussions on the draft on 6 June last year. In his introductory presentation, Minister Demotte gave an overview of the four themes addressed in the draft, namely the family allowance, the better collection of the social security contribution, the extension of the post-accident rest in the RIZIV regulation and the extension of the supplementary social status for local mandators.

As regards the provisions on child allowance, the main change is the adaptation of a number of provisions on adoption.

As regards the collection of the social security contribution, it is mainly about a number of measures to prevent an interruption in the provision of the child benefit.

Mr. Tante, I address you in particular because you asked for the report.

The [...]

You may have a lot of grandchildren, Mr. Tante!

The third theme concerns the postpartum rest period extended by one week if a medical certificate can prove that a person has been ill during the entire period of six weeks prior to the delivery.

The latter theme is an extension of the supplementary social status for local mandators to the presidents of associations of municipalities and the presidents of associations of OCMWs, in other words mandators who now had no right to it.

Following the explanation, a number of questions from the members followed, in particular from colleagues Van Grootenbrulle who submitted two amendments, from Mrs. Turtelboom, Mrs. D'hondt and myself. The amendments were adopted and the committee adopted the Articles 115 to 127 as amended on 21 June.

So far the report.

Mrs Storms, you will be given the word for your report.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will report from my bank.

We discussed in the Social Affairs Committee the section on pensions and the section on work. In the area under Minister Tobback’s competence, it was largely about the income guarantee for the elderly, the transfer of pension rights to the Community institutions, and colonial and overseas social security.

Three points were addressed: first, the discrimination between men and women was eliminated; second, an authorisation was given to the King to adjust the benefits to the evolution of the cost of living and, third, all provisions relating to the Belgian franc were converted into the euro. During the general discussion, both Ms. CahayAndré, Ms. D'hondt and Ms. van Gool expressed positive opinions on the legislative changes contained in the draft law. Mrs D’Hondt had specific questions regarding the budgetary impact on overseas social security. Minister Tobback gave a comprehensive answer, with a series of tables.

All provisions were approved by 10 votes in favour with 1 or 2 abstentions.

As far as pensions are concerned, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the section on work, Minister Vanvelthoven gave an introductory presentation on remote work and on the statute of the seafarers and the statute of the shipping staff of civil aviation. He has also come to explain how the powers of the Labour Inspectorate are extended. He also explained that the Employment Fund, which is now finally closed, is also legally closed.

He also talked about paid educational leave and the activating policy in restructuring. Amendments have also been made to the High Council for Prevention and Protection at Work.

As Ms. De Block has already said, a change has also been made to the maternity leave.

As regards the cumulation of pensions with benefits for occupational diseases, as well as the cumulation of pensions with benefits for occupational accidents, a judgment of the Court of Cassation has been legally confirmed.

During the discussion of the work section, the discussion was mainly about remote work. Several colleagues have commented on this. Minister Vanvelthoven then submitted additional amendments on behalf of the government, which makes it possible to organize telework also in the public sector.

The second aspect of the discussion was the extension of the powers of the Labour Inspectorate. Both Ms. Turtelboom, Ms. D'hondt and Mr. Michel asked for an opinion from the Committee on the Protection of the Personal Sphere. Mrs D'Hondt also asked for the opinion of the National Labour Council.

The Minister replicated that the opinion of the Committee for the Protection of the Private Life will be requested and will be available on the occasion of the discussion of the draft introducing a social criminal law.

The opinion of the National Labour Council has been requested, but apparently the National Labour Council has indicated that no advice can be given. Minister Vanvelthoven has also submitted a number of amendments, which include an improvement of the articles concerning the extension of the powers of the Social Inspection. It refers in particular to the powers that the VAT inspectors already have in relation to VAT fraud.

I try to keep it as short as possible, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the vote, almost all provisions were approved with ten votes for and two abstentions, with the exception of a number of articles that were unanimously approved.

Thank you, Mrs. Storms, for your brief report. Mr. Muls was also a reporter. Mr. Muls, do you refer to the written report or not?

The departments have prepared an excellent report. I will therefore refer to it.

Which is the case, Mr. Muls.

For the Social Affairs section, I have so far a colleague who is registered, Ms. Cahay-André. I immediately give him the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I would like to return on a few important points. I will then discuss the draft law containing various provisions since Mr. The President is committed to both areas.

First, let us welcome the sanitation of the social status of the independent. The government, and more ⁇ Ms. Laruelle, helped to release INASTI from its heavy debt to the federal state. In 2003, this debt was still close to 471 million euros. This debt will be fully repayed in 2006, while the repayment scheme was to be extended until 2009. This anticipation shows how effectively the social status of independent workers was managed by Minister Laruelle. by

This sanitation is a fundamental step for the future of self-employed workers. It will help to create significant structural budget margins for balancing the social status of self-employed persons. We will be able to continue to improve this status. by

Secondly, the Social Agreement in the Federal Health Sector, concluded for the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2010, provides for the establishment of a second pillar of pension for private and public sector workers, as well as for independent nurses and nurses in the home sector. This includes the establishment of a pension fund for independent nurses with a total budget of 3,420,000 euros. We can welcome this measure. Undoubtedly, the MR is pleased that a step has been taken in favour of independent nurses and nurses through the conclusion of this agreement.

Finally, I come to the provisions on the liability of business executives in case of non-payment of ONSS contributions. These provisions are aimed at combating organized fraud, which is a commendable goal. However, it must be certain that the measures taken will not be of such a kind as to dampen the willingness to undertake in our country. That is why I strongly insist on the fact that it is about fighting organized fraud. Thus, these measures seem necessary.

I have finished with the details concerning the law-program.

I now come to the bill containing various provisions of which we have examined part in the Social Affairs Committee. I would like to return to the part relating to the overseas social security regime, more commonly referred to as the OSSOM regime.

The project under our review includes advances in terms of equal treatment between men and women and on the valorisation of periods of military service in terms of colonial pension. Obviously, these arrangements are satisfactory and necessary, but we regret not having gone further. Indeed, for years my group has been supporting a deeper harmonisation of the OSSOM regime without achieving a real change. by

I would like to remind you here that various bills have been submitted and that we are waiting for the time to discuss them. The problem of the payment of the pension of the month of death and the problem of the survival pension of the divorced wife of a colonial agent remain suspended. It is necessary that we devote ourselves to a thorough study of this pension scheme. by

I concluded with regard to the section "pension" of the law containing various provisions. by

Now, I would like to briefly recall our position on the cumulation of a pension and an indemnity for occupational illness or accident at work.

The law containing various provisions, in its Employment chapter, brings a correction in the matter: it is the restoration of a royal decree that has been declared illegal by the Arbitration Court in order to maintain the system of limitation of cumulations dating from 1983. In this way, the limitation of the cumulative between the pension and this type of compensation is ⁇ ined. Although on a budgetary level we understand this measure, I would like to insist on the fact that the MR group is in favour of the non-limitation of the cumulative pension and compensation for occupational illness or accident at work. However, it is understandable that, for budgetary reasons, the debate cannot take place at the moment.

Now on to the employment measures. The proper articulation of private and professional life times must now be at the heart of the reflections aimed at the reform of the labour law in general and of the career in particular. The aspirations of workers have changed. Modern life has a different rhythm than the one in force at the foundations of our social legislation. Furthermore, new technologies open up everyday more comfortable and flexible work prospects. But, at the same time, economic challenges impose effort, creativity and dynamism to generate the jobs that are lacking in Europe.

In this logic, we believe that teleworking today does not have the importance of the constant development of modern communication tools.

Technological developments make home work fully possible with multiple benefits: flexible conciliation between work and private life, ending problems related to childcare, reduction of home-to-work travel, operating economy for the enterprise and less valid employment opportunities.

We are pleased to see the final legislative framework allowing a real development of telemarketing in the private as well as in the public. by

It will be necessary to ensure that the CCT 38 organising the matter fully meets the expectations of employers and workers in this important reform of our organization of work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with the delicate question of measures to strengthen the fight against social fraud. by

It is not necessary to discuss the objective pursued – I have already said it – but rather the means used to ⁇ it. by

I am pleased that the Minister’s general policy note, which devotes an important chapter to this matter, has found a large implementation within the framework of the law under discussion. Several groups have, however, expressed concern about the possible deviations allowed by the draft text, which grants significant prerogatives to social inspectors. by

The government has proposed a number of amendments that we support. by

We will be very attentive to ensure that the new balance guarantees the effectiveness of the fight against social fraud and respect for privacy.

Does anyone ask for the word? (No to)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the word for your answer.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the reports that have very correctly reflected the discussions in the committee. We have already had this discussion in a committee; it has been long enough and that is probably why we are no longer holding a long plenary debate today.

Only the question asked by Mrs. Cahay-André remained; I can only send it back to Mr. Cahay-André. Vanvelthoven for further clarifications since the cumulative "pension - occupational illness" is obviously within his competence. However, it should be noted that it was the Court of Cassation and not the Court of Arbitration that made a judgment on this matter.

With regard to the various provisions of the text that is being examined and which has been the subject of comments regarding our law on the new provisions on social matters, we have tried to respond to a number of corrections made by most parties, transcending the boundaries of the majority. I am referring in particular to: - the measures relating to public vehicles; - the provisions aiming in particular to correct certain abnormal situations allowing fraud in the field of family allowances; - the provisions relating to the issue of adjustment measures in the systems of financing of social security, in particular the provisions relating to INAMI and overall management.

All these discussions took place in a relatively consensual framework, which is important!

The discussions concerning these different provisions also concerned the implementation of measures which, in themselves, were fueled by several plenary interventions, during other topical discussions. I think in particular of the Non-Commercial Social Agreement for the federal healthcare sectors. We can say that this text probably allows us to make progress, which may not be extremely spectacular but which all go in the direction desired by the majority of the members of this House.

Madame Cahay-André, the Parliament having the last word, you have the word for your replica.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that it is true that I was wrong. It was the Court of Cassation and not the Court of Arbitration. The minister had to be very careful to notice this mistake.

We take note of it.

If there are no more speakers, I close the chapter "Social Affairs and Public Health".

Mr. Minister of Finance, your presence was strongly requested. Would I even dare to say that you have been desired by the opposition in this assembly but I can only see that I have not received a request for intervention for your department.

I ask the question again. Does anyone want to intervene in the Finance chapter? (Not to)

However, I would like to comment on this absence of intervention.

This is your strictest right.

Nevertheless, I would like to react as a neighbor — since I am a neighbor of Parliament — to thank the members of the House for their special interest in my department and especially in its holder. Indeed, having attended Parliament for a few years, I can say that it is extremely rare that a minister is required only for the pleasure of seeing him! I thank the groups who wished my presence to have the joy of seeing me. However, I will disappoint them: if there is no request concerning me, I will have to leave you.

But I tell you right away, I plan to spend the most of the end of this day next to the 12th. In case of emergency, if a member of the Chamber was taken by an immediate need to see me, I will gladly return. I did not want to leave any doubt about this.

You do not want anyone to suffer, Mr. Minister. Where are we in our debates? Here we conclude the first part of the discussion. We have seen the Interior, Social Affairs and Finance, even without question. Ms. Van den Bossche has just left, the Minister of Defence is present. by

There is an intervention by Mr. Roel Deseyn for Mrs. Van den Bossche but she is coming. There is also an intervention by Mr Sevenhans for Mr Flahaut. Will he not come?

Can we ask Mrs. Van den Bossche to join us? There is another request for intervention for National Defense and Mr. by Flahaut? In that case, Mr. Minister, I assume that you are at the disposal of the Parliament, as Mr. The Reynders?

I would like to join the “replica” of Mr. and Reynders.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I think that we have had a thorough discussion in the committee about the bill containing various provisions. We have also made a thorough analysis. However, Article 66 of the adopted text, the former Article 55, as proposed in the committee, raises a number of questions. There are still some precisions needed. Some aspects of the legislation should definitely be adjusted. That also inspired me to submit the amendment, as it lies on the banks. I have warned in the committee of possible problems related to this article. Further research could only strengthen me in that conviction.

What is this specifically about, colleagues? During the discussion of Article 55 in the committee, our group pointed out that this article, which stipulates in paragraph 1 that the revenues of the BIPT include, inter alia, "the whole of the rights collected on the basis of titles III and IV of the Act of March 1991", contained several errors, in particular the reference to Article 89 of the Act of March 1991, since this article was already repealed by another legal provision in the Act on Electronic Communications. The reference to the Act of 30 July 1979, which was repealed by Article 156 of the Act on Electronic Communications, was also at least problematic.

We have reached an agreement on these issues. Certain things were deleted, but if we see what ultimately remains in the adopted text, then one must admit that this correction was incomplete and a little premature. We discussed this in the committee, but you did not want to enter into our third amendment, Mrs. Minister. We have also pointed out for the sake of honesty that the correction was ⁇ not easy and could simply be shaken out of the sleeve, but after a few days of additional study work and reflection time I think that the amendment presented, from my hand, can correct the situation.

You proposed in the committee for the removal of the references to the wrong law and retaining the rest of the article. We have already argued that the substitute provisions of the Electronic Communications Act should probably be referred to, but you thought that was not the case at that time. We submitted an amendment in order to implement the amendment you have guaranteed.

What has the further research resulted in? It learns that although the replacement provisions in the Electronic Communications Act must indeed be referred to, otherwise the BIPT will lose part of its income. That is not insignificant. Mrs. Minister, you are taxing — I call it illegally — the sector too much, for 3 million euros annually. That is another discussion. I hope that we will be able to discuss this too soon. We have also prepared a bill for this. There may also be a referral from the European Commission. It may not be the intention to make the operators pay contributions, by a legal error, causing others to escape. This must be avoided today.

I really think that correction takes place. On the one hand, at least reference should be made to the whole of the rights collected under Title II of the Act of June 2005 on Electronic Communications and, on the other hand, to Title IV of the Act of March 1991 on the reform of certain economic public undertakings.

Chairman: Herman De Croo, Chairman President: Herman De Croo, President I think it would have been better if we could have discussed in the committee a little longer. Per ⁇ we had already reached those findings. I would like to continue my amendment, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my amendment. It glorifies the Minister that we could also have reached an agreement in the previous corrections to amend the law so that it could be improved on the legislative and technical level.

Here is my comment on the article and the amendment.

Do you expect a response from the Minister?

I would like.

“ ...” all other statutory and regulatory revenues related to its activities" — that is, the whole of the activities of the BIPT — "and the fees for performance." In other words, the risk that the BIPT would not receive revenues for its activities is nonexistent. The addition of Mr. Deseyn would not harm the law in itself, but it is not necessarily necessary to ensure that the law is concluding in itself.

I am already satisfied that the minister says that my addition would not harm the law. I think that is a first step in the right direction.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us examine the arguments you have cited to not do so. You argue that with the amendment we would actually carry out a redundant correction. You say that a broad formulation is already being used, which refers to “all other legal and regulatory revenues related to the activities of the BIPT”. Imagine now that the correction would be redundant, Mrs. Minister. If the correction is indeed redundant, the entire paragraph 4 can actually disappear, because then the article is also superfluous. Therefore, in your reasoning, it would not make sense to say the same thing twice. In fact, Paars I also made a mistake when we refer to the 2003 design. All sources of income listed here would be redundant.

A second point in my replica is that it can be argued that the listed is ⁇ not redundant. That supports the theses of my argument. I clarify myself.

In my view, the two distinct points of the conscious paragraph — point 3 and point 4 — regulate two different matters. Let us summon in on that.

Section 3 deals with all other statutory and regulatory revenues associated with its activities and the remuneration for performance. In the above-mentioned passage it is about revenue related to work, and about remuneration for those services.

For example, work can include market analyses that serve the entire sector and are carried out by the BIPT. By performance, for example, the examination of the BIPT can be understood on the request of an operator to use a frequency.

Point 3 thus concerns, which is just the point, services which, on the one hand, apply to multiple operators or to the whole sector and, on the other hand, services which the BIPT provides to an operator or to operators and which, therefore, can be directly charged.

Item 4 refers to the totality of the rights collected on the basis of the titles 3 and 4 of the March 1991 Act. It can be understood that the use of the numbers and frequencies is a public good, so to speak. On the other hand, there is no direct work or performance. Here it is just about a tax on the use of something that is limited or even scarce.

To put it simply with a plastic example, the general control of the frequencies falls under point 3. On the other hand, the use of a frequency block, of a portion of the bandwidth over a certain period of time, falls under point 4.

Therefore, it is about separate matters. It is good that the legislation clarifies that distinction. Hence my contribution in this replica to your argument that making the distinction would only be useful. You say it beautifully, in the sense that you say it could not harm. However, with the additional arguments and with your argument that it can’t harm, there would be no reason not to accept the distinction.

I thank Mr. Delizée for his kindness.

Vice Prime Minister, can you give another answer? After all, I still have something to do with Mr. Deseyn and Mr. Tobback, later as the interpellation takes place. I try to make everything go orderly.

I saw Mr. Flahaut, but he took the powder of scampette.

The amendment has not yet been discussed. Their

Given your cooperative attitude, there can be no objection. You say that it could have its place, that it would even be a clarification and that, legistically speaking, it would be better than referring those falling under that jurisdiction to the parliamentary discussion in the plenary session of 28 June. It would be better to appreciate the law and immediately create more clarity. Their

There is therefore no objection, for example, to convene the committee in the morning afternoon, when all the colleagues are present, if there is no opposition of the majority to support the amendment, like the two other amendments that we have submitted to the article. Then we can hold a committee meeting. We can commit ourselves to not request a written report so that we can have the amendment entered into the law immediately in the subsequent plenary session at the voting. Mr. Speaker, with some goodwill, if the government and the majority in it are cooperative, we can do it smoothly. If there is no cooperative cooperation, there are, of course, some provisions in the Rules of Procedure that we can rely on to continue the discussion. Their

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to exhaust ourselves into that type of procedure, if we could do it in an elegant way tomorrow after a brief reference to the committee, before, during or after the questioning hour.

I try to see how our conversations can continue. Their

I don’t know who you expect an answer from, Mr. Deseyn.

Freya Van den Bossche: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. It would not harm the law, but it is absolutely not necessary. It is superfluous. We had this discussion in the committee. Mr. Deseyn, I thought you had a point to remove part of the fourth member, but not to have to add this to it. It could not harm. In itself it is not a deterioration of the law, but it is also not necessary. Mr. Deseyn, what you say is widely understood by the third member of the article and so I do not accept your suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, your position is clear. We will continue to differ in views. I fear that if someone later invokes the legislation as it will be adopted, there will be a lack of a tax base on which other market operators will be able to invoke to contribute to the BIPT or not. Their

It would be interesting to obtain the opinion of the State Council on that amendment. Then maybe we could get an arbitrator in this discussion, with some arguments left and right to dust the discussion more. Their

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something more about the treatment in the committee, at that same meeting. I am talking about Article 66. It is about the way of working and what we have seen during the discussion of this draft in the Infrastructure Committee goes a little beyond the powers of Mrs. Van den Bossche. The amendments that were then rounded up during the meeting without the specialists and ourselves being able to bow over their consequences on the budget were also of a very questionable nature. Their

I would also like to remind you that other colleagues did not provide any answers. I think of the amendments on the Rail Infrastructure Fund and on air traffic safety. During the initial vote on these amendments, we left the committee because we did not want to participate in these practices. Their

But we know that if we want to improve the legislation, we can unanimously deviate from the Rules of Procedure. Only a member of the Chamber may invoke the Rules of Procedure for reference to a discussion in a committee. If we do so unanimously, we can perfectly handle the affairs even in the plenary session, if the Minister is convinced that we can make such a valuable contribution to this draft.

Mr. Speaker, one does what one wants, but if it is the sincere opinion of everyone that the text is susceptible to improvement, then I would like to repeat again what I have said to the Minister and Mr. Van der Maelen. Their

You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that if the Chamber accepts an amendment and no one asks for the transmission, and a contrario if the Chamber engages with the members who are here now – if one understands me well – not to ask for that advice, then it will be so. If you have a unanimous Chamber that says it is not a requesting party, then this is the problem of the job. However, one does what one wants.

Mr. Deseyn, will you come back later for an interpellation?

I will definitely return for the interpellation.

You also have questions about railways to Mr. Tuybens later.

I still have concerns for colleagues Verwilghen and Tuybens, but that will be for later on the day.

Mr. Tuybens will come later in the afternoon. You can see how this goes best.

I see where we are. I have a number of interventions here: Mr. Driven by Mr. Wathelet, mevrouw Turtelboom and mevrouw De Block for Mr. Vanvelthoven is coming. Then there will be the interpellation of Mr. Deseyn for mr. and Tobback. by

I have questions for Minister Verwilghen, which is a little annoying because he is currently on a flight from Moscow.

Mrs. Laruelle is present but, at first glance, I do not see anyone who wants to intervene.

Mr. Verhaegen wants to make a presentation for Mrs. Van Weert. I let her get her. Mr. Verhaegen, are you ready to hold your presentation as soon as Mrs. Van Weert is present?

Mrs Van Weert, the Chamber is pleased to see you appear, and colleague Verhaegen even more.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, a year ago, the Chamber took note of the report of the Court of Auditors on the coordination of the federal policy on sustainable development addressed to it. That was in June last year. The Court of Auditors issued several recommendations. One of them was to amend the Act of 5 May 1997 on the coordination of the federal policy on sustainable development in order to remedy the so-called "confusion between court and party".

Thus, the Court of Auditors meant that the Federal Planning Bureau could no longer prepare the policy on sustainable development, in accordance with Article 4 § 1 of that law, on the one hand, or evaluate it, in accordance with Article 7 of that law, on the other.

In its response to that report of the Court of Auditors, the Government held that the aforementioned Act of 5 May 1997 should not be amended. At least initially. Apparently the insights have changed today because the present bill adapts that law. Mrs. Secretary of State, why this sudden reversal?

After the approval of this law, the Federal Planning Bureau will no longer be competent to prepare the preliminary draft of the federal plan on sustainable development. This will be a task of the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development. So we could ask why the government has opted for that preparatory task for the ICDO rather than for the POD Sustainable Development.

The Secretary of State said this was to advance the matter in the field of sustainable development. I hope that this does not mean depreciation for the POD Sustainable Development, which still does a good job.

We also want to warn that the POD Sustainable Development should be sufficiently armed to operate independently. However, the aforementioned remedy only seems to bring an end to that confusion between the judge and the party. The representative of the Federal Planning Bureau in the ICDO — he is not, by the way, the least: he is the number 2 of the Federal Planning Bureau — ⁇ ins his position as secretary of the committee. The fact that the present draft law stipulates that he will be assisted in the performance of his secretariat tasks by staff members of the federal Programming Public Service for Sustainable Development can ⁇ not remove that appearance.

A further amendment to the Act of 5 May 1997 is therefore necessary in order to ⁇ a more efficient division of tasks among federal policy actors in the field of sustainable development.

Hence, colleagues, Mrs. Secretary of State, that I also submitted an amendment, which is later on the table and that everyone has got to his bench.

I have also suggested an adaptation in paragraph 2 of the draft Article 324 in order to better align the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking texts. In short, I have submitted two amendments, the first is more substantial and the second is more of a technical nature.

Els Van Weert: Collega Verhaegen, in the committee you have asked the same questions. We have discussed this.

Why do we choose to have the Interdepartmental Committee on Sustainable Development play an important role in the formulation of the Sustainable Development Plan? Unless all policy makers and all departments are fully involved, we will not make any progress on sustainable development. This is organized in the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development. It has a very important role to play in terms of formulating commitments and targets in a realistic way for the sustainable development policy and its implementation.

This does not affect the role of the POD, which is clearly reinforced by the adaptation and will play a very important role throughout the entire preparatory phase of the drafting of the plan for sustainable development. The people with know-how at the Planning Bureau — this is regulated by law — will be able to continue the work, but under the direction and together with the people of the POD Sustainable Development. In this way we will ⁇ meet the Court’s observation that the formulation of the preliminary draft of the plan and of the plan should be separated from the evaluation. After consultation with all stakeholders, we have opted to develop a protocol supporting the preparation of the preliminary design by the POD and to hold the evaluation with the Plan Bureau.

Mr. Verhaegen, with the protocol and a number of other measures we have, in my opinion, taken into account the observations of the Court of Auditors on this point and on other points.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that the Plan Agency be completely removed. I am convinced that such measures are not necessary.

You have also specifically referred to the person who is currently secretary of the Interdepartmental Commission on Sustainable Development or ICDO. This question was also asked in the committee. Today I can tell you what I did not know at the time, namely that the person concerned sent a letter of resignation.

That personal doublure is therefore at least disappearing and we must therefore look for a new secretary for the ICDO. I honestly think that the adjustments you propose are not really necessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the word for a response.

Mr. Secretary of State, I thank you for your response. It is indeed another step in the right direction that that double function—the partial solution, as you mentioned it—is gone. That is very important. Their

I would also like to hear you say that the role of the POD will be strengthened. I hope that one will have enough people and resources and can also demonstrate independence to do the work well.

I did not propose the removal of the Federal Planning Bureau. You have misestimated that. I think that the Plan Bureau can continue to play an independent role as an evaluator, but no longer as an elaborator of the plan.

I thank you in any case for your answer.

Minister Tobback is present. Mr Deseyn, you would like to speak for your interpellation, as we have then decided. Would you like to speak in the debate?

and no.

Then I will let you develop your interpellation.

Colleagues, it is often said that there are not enough interpellations held in the plenary session, but the opportunity is now. This opportunity is taken advantage of by the good interpellant and the well-responsive minister — please do not put any other words in my mouth. So the opportunity is now.

Mr. Speaker, this interpellation is budget-related and fits into various provisions of the Mosaic Law mentioned by you. In addition, yesterday, due to the impediment of the minister, we could not zoom into this problem. Therefore, I think there were too many reasons to come back to this issue today, in the form of this interpellation.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, gentlemen ministers, I would like to make the problem of survival pensions clear to the Minister. Mr. Minister, I would like to introduce you to the problem of the target group. You are working on a roundtable conference and you are preparing a design. You work out all sorts of things. I think it’s time to present some aspirations very clearly, because the people, with the fragments they pick up from your decision making, have more than reasons to be worried about.

At the end of 2005, a number of provisions on survivor pensions were incorporated into the Generation Pact. From 1 January 2007, the calculation of that pension will depend on the total income of the persons concerned, i.e. wages and pensions, and no longer only on the level of the professional income.

At first we were quite optimistic. Members of our group, in consultation with the target group, have already pledged a lot for that file to ease the fate of those affected by the death of a partner and who therefore sometimes come into very difficult financial papers.

But I think there are a lot of reasons to fear if certain things, such as those in draft texts and sunset notes, would become reality.

First and foremost, it remains regrettable that the government once again sends the signal that survival pensions are being stopped in the corner of the end-of-life problem and aging. I have to tell you clearly that many conversations teach that survival pension often has nothing to do with this. After all, it is not only those over 60 or those over 55 who are dealing with a death of a man or woman within the marriage for whom the financial consequences cannot be underestimated.

It is a good thing, I must admit, that the all-or-nothing system is abolished. It decorates you that there can be drafted a scheme in that direction. Those who exceed the total amount will see their amount decrease proportionally. This has been done to meet the wishes of many widows and widows. That seems to me to be a very good aspect of the agreement and I would like to emphasize that too.

In the past, these people had to fearfully check whether they would not have excessive income from work. They were, indeed with an accountant in the attack, month by month afraid of a promotion or an additional premium, because then everything would not be done and because then one would lose everything. Promotion sometimes meant a serious, real loss of income, however paradoxical.

Since the announcement of the new rules in the Generation Pact, little has been announced about their concrete fulfillment. I hope that we will receive very concrete and satisfactory answers from the Minister. I hope that at least he says he has heard the comments and this summer will want to take some extra time to nail them up or update them in that direction. The target date is 1 January 2007. Something else can happen for the good.

What is the situation today? How far is the format of the KBs? How are consultations with social partners and target groups carried out?

A number of simulations of calculations according to the new system causes concern. Thus, we must together realize that the new system is in several cases more detrimental than the current one. If the system is introduced in this way, people need to be urgently informed about what is likely to await them. Especially those who are now just below the income limit of 14.843,13 euros would have less remaining at the end of the month. I do not think that is the purpose of the new rules. I repeat again that it will be detrimental to those who were just below the income limit of 14,800 euros. Is this a conscious choice of the Minister? Has he checked the concrete consequences of the new regulation? If it was intended to improve the situation of the widows and widows, then the minister should at least proceed from an improvement of the existing situation.

The proposed interim solution, which consists in having a three-year choice between the current and the new system, is of course not an adequate answer. They have been fighting for a better system for years. If the old system is better for some, it simply shows the inconsistencies of the new system. In addition, people still experience the disadvantages of the old system, namely the all-or-nothing aspect.

The question, of course, also arises as to why the sum of 26.200 euros was reached. I have a certain fascination for it. What logic or calculation is behind this? Is this related to another figure? Wouldn’t it be better—this is a suggestion that must be considered very seriously—to assume the maximum wage of the workers or a percentage of the maximum wage of the workers, in particular 43,314,93 euros? Then we, politicians, could at least explain to those involved that there is a concrete, real bond with certain affairs and visions of the government. The origin of the amount is clear. The advantage is also that the maximum amount evolves with the increase in wages. Otherwise, one is faced with an arbitrary cumulative ceiling, for which no one actually has a meaningful explanation, for which it seems to be a little about wet fingerwork. Therefore, I ask for an explicit link to the maximum wage limit for employees.

After all, one of the reasons why survivor pensions have such a poor status is that the limit amounts do not automatically increase with the cost of living. In this way, data subjects undergo an effective impoverishment each year, merely because the limit amounts are not adjusted. By linking to the maximum wage limit, the aforementioned injustice could be avoided.

In the current proposal, the basic amount is increased by 3,710 euros per child in charge. That is a good thing. Please do not touch the principle. The child burden must be accounted for in the survival pension in a certain way.

I am also aware of certain insights circulating behind the scenes. Some people say that the increase in the total amount in case of child burden occurs and not more per child to be charged. This is, of course, a very different matter. In other words, the number of children—the real family composition—would no longer be counted, which is again a great injustice.

We all scream from the roofs how expensive children are and how the government should deal with them. For the target group of people who have ⁇ ined a certain level of income and have adjusted their spending pattern to that, we must also ensure that the child burden, according to the number of children, is discounted.

Whoever says A, must also say B. When the government acknowledges that the upbringing of a child involves additional costs and therefore adjusts the limit amounts, it must also acknowledge that the upbringing of multiple children is more expensive than the upbringing of one child. That is the logica zelve. Therefore, the limit amounts should be adjusted to the number of children.

Finally, Mr. Minister, many widows and widows have been looking forward to a more equitable system of cumulation between survival pension and labor income. The announcement by you within the framework of the Generation Pact has aroused a lot of hope among those involved. They really look forward to the next step that will be taken.

Unfortunately, now it turns out that a group not to be underestimated could sometimes be worse than before. For some it will be better. It is interesting to do systematic simulations. We should look at who gets the most off. Of course, the issue of child abuse should be raised above any discussion.

I close my interpellation with the following questions.

Are all the details of the new system already known? Otherwise, what is your agenda for the coming months?

What kind of consultations are organized with the civil society?

What decisions have you already made?

Is there room for discussion?

When will the publication of the implementing decisions follow?

Do you meet the deadline of January 1, 2007?

The calculations also show that many widows or widows will earn less than before. Was that your intention?

Will you still adjust the rules for the above category so that at least everyone starts on an equal basis? I mean that at least no one is discriminated against by the new system.

Let’s ask something more about those 26.200 euros. Where does this money come from in God’s name? Under what calculation has this been achieved? Is it not possible to assume a clear reference point, for example, the maximum wage limit of employees? That is a suggestion that I make. Their

Finally, if there are several children in custody, will the basic amount be increased only once, or will the amount as originally intended per child be increased by 3,710,80 euros? Their

I know that these questions almost assume the intonation and lust of a supplication, but I am quite active with people who are in that situation and want to be regularly informed about it. They come to present their files and I think they really have a point and that politics should be able to satisfy their aspirations.

That is not. Their

We are aware that there are problems for some people in the context of survival pension, but I would like to emphasize two things clearly. First, permissible labour for persons with survival pension is the highest of all income limits permissible labour in the entire pension system. It is sensibly higher than for sixty-five, sixty-five and mention only. Second, it is, of course, also true that, in any case, objectively, the situation of a widow who has been married and enjoys a survival pension is infinitely much more advantageous than the situation of an unmarried widow who does not enjoy a survival pension, but for example also faces child burden, with payment of a mortgage and the like. Their

To say that in general people — mostly women for all clarity — who enjoy survival pensions are doomed to poverty, or that it is a poor status, as you just came to say, is a little too extensive for me.

So what did we do, starting from the two goals we had? From 1 January 2007, the extent to which one can earn a surplus will no longer be determined by a uniform income limit for all — an income limit for professional work — but by a global limit on the total income, i.e. survivor pension plus the gross income from permitted work, to be increased with child burden, but I will immediately return to that. This has as a first significant effect that for those with a low survival pension the chances of still building a full, decent income are greater than in the current system and that, in other words, the social concern is very strongly present in it and also very strongly translated into that measure. Their

Moreover, it is also planned, the all-or-nothing arrangement will indeed disappear. If the total income is exceeded, the pension amount for that year will indeed be reduced proportionally, but with the exemption of an excess. In the current scheme, 50 per cent of the surplus will be exempted from the reduction of survivor pension, preventing the suspension of the pension anyway if it goes above 15 per cent and — secondly — approximately guaranteeing that every euro earned above the maximum amount still brings a net benefit to the person concerned, which should have a clear activating effect.

At this time and at the time of making the decisions under the Generation Pact, knowing that the situations of the different persons, mainly women, who enjoy survival pensions, are very diverse, we have indeed built the security — because we do not want people to decline — in order to guarantee in the first three years in which the new system will apply, 2007, 2008 and 2009, in any case that the most favourable of the two schemes will apply. Why Why ? This gives us the opportunity to remove some unintended perverse effects, if any, from the concrete cases that emerge in a new system anyway. Some we can resolve in advance, but of some effects we know anyway that they will not appear until the moment the regulation comes into force, as is always the case.

Specifically, you are asking for the origin of the amount of 26.200 euros. For all clarity, all figures and all modalities in the Generation Pact are provisional modalities. Both the amount of the total income, the percentage of the exceeds and the increases in child labor must be further determined, including by means of a number of studies which I am currently carrying out by October 2006, the time when I am holding one of the conferences on women and pension, and which I will dedicate exclusively to the problem of survivor pension. At that time, there should be definitive figures.

This figure originates in the addition of the guaranteed minimum survival pension for a full career and the guaranteed minimum monthly income. Count those two together and you get to 26.200.

Also the flat-rate amount of 3,710,80 euros comes from another scheme and is, for the sake of clarity, in the current proposal determined per child in charge.

All these figures will be further evaluated until the time the scheme enters into force. In any case, we will have fundamentally substantiated arguments for these or other figures by October 2006.

Furthermore, by the same date — October 2006 — I expect the results of additional research on the needs and needs of those who lose their partner. I would like to address the fact that the family situation and the working situation of long-lived spouses may be very different and may require very diverse solutions.

I think I have answered most of your questions. You asked for the consultation. I have already referred to the fact that I will devote one of the conferences of Woman and Pension, which is very broad and open to everyone, to the discussion around survival pension.

At this time, the preliminary draft implementing decision is being submitted for opinion to the management committee of the RVP, which, as you know, also represents the various social partners. The management committee still has time to do so, as the entry into force of the measure is scheduled for 1 January 2007.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I hope that after the completion of the modalities the applause of the Socialists will be in place. I sincerely hope it together with you, Mr. Van der Maelen.

I agree that the fall of inactivity should be avoided. I assume that for some people it is not a real poverty situation, but it is at least a problematic status.

A number of rights are built up, but one comes to the core of the political ideological debate when it comes to derivative rights between already married or unmarried partners. The question is whether one wants further respect for those derived rights and for lasting relationships. I think this is a point of discussion. I hope that each individual child will be disconnected.

I am pleased that you have known the origin of the amount. However, it would be socially fairer if this corresponded to the wage limit of workers or was a derived percentage of it. This seems to me somewhat more logical when it comes to the coverage of needs and the financial income limits. After all, it is always about the financial suffering that comes in those situations above the human suffering.

I hope that with those studies, which roundtable conferences and the consultation of the coming months, there can still be hope for the people. Hope gives life.

I hope that when the decision is finalised and the entry into force of the system is there, there will be very good communication with the people.

I don’t want to bother you with numbers, but I made a simulation. Some people with a survival pension of 16,000 euros and an income of 14,500 euros will receive 2,150 euros less in the new system.

Yet yes. You knock no. I quote further: “...a survival pension of 16,000 euros and an income of 14,500 euros. The current limit without children is 14,843 euros", so they retain the accumulated amount. In the new system, the same person earns, I count everything together, 30,500 euros and the limit is 26.200 euros. That is 4,300 euros too much. In the new system, half of it remains. The survival pension is 13.850 euros. With his income of 14.500 euros I get to 28.350 euros, which is 2.150 euros less than before, than the cumulative amount of 30.500 euros.

You say impulsively that it has not deteriorated. I created an Excel program. If I make a simulation with it and fill in the figures of an individual situation, then I do not come to that conclusion. This must be made known to those people in a timely manner, so that they can prepare themselves for a serious decline in income of many hundreds of thousands of Belgian francs.

Are there any speakers who specifically want to address the Minister of Labour?

Bruno Tobback: You mean the Minister of Pensions, Mr. President?

In fact, the Minister of Labour comes afterwards. Usually, retirement comes after work, but here one has to look at it differently.

Have you forgotten something, Mr. Deseyn?

I have submitted a motion, Mr. Speaker.

Tot besluit van deze bespreking werden volgende motions ingediend. At the end of this discussion, the following motions were submitted.

A motion of recommendation was submitted by Ms. Nahima Lanjri and by Mr. Roel Deseyn and reads as follows: "The Chamber, having heard the interpellation of Mr. Roel Deseyn and the response of the Minister of Environment and Minister of Pensions, asks the Government 1. to raise the new limit amount of the total income of persons with survival pension so that everyone has at least the same amount in the new calculation method as in the current calculation method; 2. link the limit amount of this total income (income from work + pension) to the wage limit, so that the amounts are indexed; 3. increase the limit amount of total income per child carried out.”

A motion of recommendation was submitted by Ms. Nahima Lanjri and Mr. Roel Deseyn and is worded as follows: "The Chamber, having heard the interpellation of Mr. Roel Deseyn and the response of the Minister of Environment and Minister of Pensions, asks the Government 1. to increase the new ceiling of the total income of beneficiaries of survivor pensions so that everyone has at least as much in the new method of calculation as in the current method of calculation; binding the ceiling of this total income (work income + pension) to the wage ceiling, so that the amounts are indexed at the same time; increase the ceiling of the total income for each dependent child."

A simple motion was submitted by Mr Dirk Van der Maelen.

A simple motion was submitted by Mr. by Dirk van der Maelen.

Over motions will later be gestemd. The discussion is closed. The vote on the motions will take place later. The discussion is closed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have given the vibrant character of this room at this moment half of my reason deleted.

Mrs. Turtelboom, if one would adjust the length of the nets to the number of listeners, then the meetings in this Chamber would at some moments be quite short. So do not stay in.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to stop. Their

In this speech I would like to cut two themes. The first is the amendment approved in the committee on the transposition of Article 6 of the European Directive on age discrimination. The second issue is the problem of social inspections. Their

First, there is the transposition of European Directive 278. The transposition of Article 6 does not come a day too early. It came because a judgment of the Arbitration Court of 6 October 2004 had removed the limited list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as gender, nationality and ethnic origin, as well as age. This means that any form of discrimination can fall within the scope of anti-discrimination legislation and that the definition of discrimination is fully open. Their

Specifically, this means that any direct discrimination is prohibited in employment matters and in employment matters, except where an employer can give an objective and reasonable reason. If there is a determining and substantial professional requirement, one can still discriminate, for example on the basis of age. Their

Of course, this means that the door was quite open. That was a comment that the State Council had also made in the draft law on the Generation Pact. It was asked whether any age discrimination, any article based on age, is based on objective and substantial characteristics. That is, of course, quite difficult, because there have not always been enough objective studies to suggest that, for example, an outplacement fee or an outplacement training can only be entered from a certain age. Why do you choose 40 years and not 45 or 38 years? In principle, this should be based on scientific grounds. Their

The transposition of Article 6 of that European directive ensures that it is still possible to introduce age discrimination. This conversion had to take place before December 2006. Given that it is only June, we are quite on time.

I have to say that some lawyers at the moment still argue that the transposition of Article 6 is insufficient and that we should structurally reform our labour market by reconsidering the age-related articles and rather by moving towards a labour market based on merits, merits. Their

This is, by the way, a typical Belgian problem, because we have a labour market that is historically, for a number of reasons, much more age-related than, for example, the labour market in the United Kingdom, but also in other neighboring countries. Their

Well, the transposition of the European directive, with the amendment that has yet to come during the discussion of that bill, was, I think, a ⁇ good thing.

The next topic I would like to briefly address here is about the social inspection. The Minister already knows that I am not so happy with the transposition in the articles concerned in the bill containing various provisions. It is not meant to hinder the fight against social fraud. I have said this several times in the committee. On the contrary, I would have very much liked that the bill also included the establishment of a special social inspection, which is called SIOD or the task force in the field of social inspection. I would have very much approved it. My concerns are mainly driven by your statement in the committee that the Social Inspection will be subject to a regime that is a copy-paster system of the powers of the VAT inspectors.

Following our plenary debate, I reviewed again the articles describing the powers of VAT inspectors and I must honestly say that for me it still remains a copy and extended passport system. After all, if I read the articles in question properly, the VAT inspectors themselves may at any time — which must be interpreted very broadly — request documents, but they must not, as is now the case with the social inspectors, seek documents themselves.

In short, I think it is a very broad authority that goes very far in terms of privacy. Five professors have expressed their concerns, in a fairly extensive and solid free tribune, concerning the incompatibilities of the provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR and the vague characteristics of the new powers of the inspection services. I re-enter the report of the five inspectors, precisely because the section on the social inspectors is cleared from the Codex Social Criminal Law and these five inspectors are very closely involved in the creation of the Codex Social Criminal Law.

My comments on the social inspectors are twofold. First, I think the powers go too far in terms of privacy. Secondly, I think we go too quickly with those articles. We will come to Parliament in autumn with the Codex Social Criminal Law, where we will be able to examine the full package of social criminal law. Regardless of the substantive argument, I still do not see the usefulness of having to go so quickly with the paper on the social inspectors.

Does that mean that I do not want to deal with companies that work with malafide constructions and are too badly faithful? and no. But I also pointed out in the committee that we must be careful that we do not work with two sizes and weights and give certain inspection services very extensive powers, some aspects of which normally pass to the investigation judge, and to other inspection services not.

Mr. Minister, I am pleased that you have submitted a number of amendments in the committee aimed at refining the articles, building more certainty and addressing some fundamental observations.

Apart from that, I remain in my view that this aspect of the social inspectors goes too far and too quickly. The often cited argument is that one should be able to exclude all malafide constructions because the borders are opened to foreign workers and this latter could take place faster. Of course I am a supporter of this. I would like to refer again to the proposal of the social inspection services. In my opinion, however, we must not mislead the debate. The whole debate on foreign workers also deals with self-employed workers and dispatches, matters that this debate does not always involve.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to reiterate that the VLD agrees with the goal, namely the fight against social fraud and malafide constructions. My great concern remains the protection of privacy, not only of the employer, but also of the employee whose confidential or medical documents may be present in the company space. I continue to ask questions about the articles relating to the social inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as regards the matters dealt with in the Social Affairs Committee, we agree with most of the provisions given that these are largely changes aimed either to address gaps in the legislation or to correct errors in that legislation – such as certain articles relating to the Covenant of Solidarity between Generations, adopted a few months ago – or to bring Belgian legislation into line with factual situations, or even to transpose European directives into our Belgian law.

Therefore, such arrangements are positive and do not cause long discussions on our part.

However, some articles touch on points where the CDH would have liked that the proposed amendments do not only address gaps or legal errors, but are also the trigger for more substantial progress.

In this regard, I think in particular of four topics.

First, as regards family allowances, the amendments introduced by this bill aim to address deficiencies in Articles amended in 2005 relating to the granting of family allowances for wage workers.

These changes are good as they address legal gaps; however, we would have wanted the government to move forward simultaneously with measures in favour of the independent. With the new measures, the gap between employed and self-employed is only growing.

Far from questioning the advances contained in this draft law in favour of employees, we regret, like the CD&V, that the government does not also propose measures aimed at helping self-employed and reducing the differences between them and employees in this area of family allowances.

My second proposal concerns the cumulation of pensions with compensation for occupational accident and occupational illness. The draft law containing various provisions responds to a legal uncertainty that arose since a judgment of the Court of Cassation in February 2006. Again, there was no doubt that legal certainty really needed to be restored.

However, the issue of cumulating pensions with work-related accident and occupational illness benefits mainly affects minor workers who receive very low pensions. This includes the link to the well-being of pensions. As you know, Mr. Minister, the statutory pensions in Belgium are too modest and are among the lowest in Europe. We need to react to this situation.

According to the CDH, the government should explicitly provide for the automatic linking of social benefits to the general evolution of private sector wages, which represents the evolution of the well-being of the working population.

As envisaged by the Pact of Solidarity between Generations, the evolution of the amounts of the replacement social benefits is even lower than the evolution of wages, which automatically implies a decrease in the standard of living of the social benefiters compared to that of the whole working population. As a result, the poverty rate in Belgium risks increasing. Only an automatic and complete link to the evolution of the occupational income of the working population can guarantee a growth parallel to the evolution of the general well-being.

My third observation concerns the provisions relating to maternity leave. These meet one of the commitments made by the government at the Council of Ministers called Ostende. This is a good step forward because the related articles aim to extend the maternity leave by one week during the postnatal period in case of difficult pregnancies. Nevertheless, the government had made other commitments in this area at the same Ostende council, namely the increase of adoption leave or the increase of family allowances for disabled children. What about these commitments? I have not seen or heard anything about this. Maybe I haven’t been careful enough?

Furthermore, we would have wanted the government to go further on matters concerning the combination of family life and work, in particular by increasing the deductibility of childcare costs. This is a theme dear to the Minister of Finance, which has been long and repeatedly announced through the press, but which has not yet been the subject of an agreement within the government. Nevertheless, this is an important stimulus if we want to promote employment in addition to promoting a better quality of life.

Fourth, the articles of this bill incorporate several of the legal provisions requested by the social partners in their CNT opinion on telework. It is very good. However, it is a pity that the government does not answer all the questions contained in this same opinion of the National Labour Council. In particular, nothing is said about work accidents, while the CNT’s opinion mentioned that it was a problem to be addressed because the collective agreement relating to this specific work did not provide anything in this regard. Indeed, it may be difficult to distinguish between accidents occurring in the workplace and the place of private life, in particular when telematic work is carried out at the telematic worker’s home or in a residential premises.

Furthermore, solutions should be developed as regards the proof of the work accident.

The CNT proposed to question the Management Committee of the Labour Accident Fund on this subject. Mr. Minister, can you tell me if the opinion of the Management Committee of the Labour Accident Fund has been requested? Corollary Question: Does the government wait for the opinion of this committee to adopt legislative measures in this regard? by

I will conclude with the changes in labour inspection. Unlike most of the other provisions of the bill, it is about introducing some novelty. The rights and powers of labour inspectors are enhanced in order to facilitate their work. We fully agree to help better control social fraud and, in this regard, we support the government’s approach. Nevertheless, we deeply regret, once again, that the social partners have not been more involved in this very important issue. Furthermore, we are surprised to see the government advance such provisions without resorting to further consultation, while a committee composed of Flemish and French-speaking university professors has been working for four years on the reform of the Social Criminal Code and that labour inspection is at the heart of the competence of this committee. by

We also regret that the Privacy Protection Committee was not consulted in time, while the main concern raised by the provisions is that they violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

I expect the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Economy. However, the latter landed only at 18.28 from Moscow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, in addition to the report on this bill, I would like to say a few words on the telework on behalf of my group. Mr. Minister, you know that I have been following this dossier for a long time. After asking many written and oral questions about that dossier, including to your predecessors, the submission of several resolutions and finally a bill, I am very pleased that the government has sought to respond to the demand for a legal framework for telework. The fact that the provisions relating to CAO-85 enter into force on 1 July makes the time pressure even greater, but that does not mean that the conscious CAO did not provide a solution for the public sector and the public enterprises. Therefore, I would like to thank the Government for responding to my request for amendments to the draft law.

That amendment makes telework possible in the public service and the public companies, including for example Belgacom, which is ⁇ the requesting party for this, also given the nature of its activities. There are various types of pilot projects. The legal basis is expected to allow the projects to continue uninterruptedly and also to be implemented in practice and into further contracts.

If these projects are implemented soon, officials can also enjoy the opportunity to telework part-time as soon as possible. I say “enjoy” because it has been proven that the work gives more satisfaction if it is more aligned by the employers to the combination work-family. Employees can last longer.

We are talking about part-time telework because we have already had the killers of the danger of social isolation or the images of women sitting at home behind their PCs with one hand a child on their womb and in the other hand the computer mouse. However, we were able to refute all those images. No one advocates the introduction of full-time telework. No one claims that telework completely soothes the fileled or makes childcare superfluous. We all heard this in the committee.

It is not a miracle solution, but an efficient tool, which can be used when it can fit in the individual work situation and that the combination of personal life with the job can make the content more comfortable.

So it is not a debate about the meaning or nonsense of telework. In the end, it is sufficient for us that there is a sufficiently flexible legal arrangement that can distinguish the remote workers from the former domestic workers, allowing them to perform their work in their home part-time in a legally closing manner in a way that best suits their working situation.

I would also like to ask the Minister to ensure that the provisions on the Arabic language and the welfare at work can be settled as soon as possible. After all, it cannot be the intention to fall over this for the implementation of telework.

Telework, colleagues, belongs to a modern labor organization and requires a great responsibility of both employees and employers, as well as a great trust of management in their employees. It is a challenge. We must have the courage to do so, with the understanding that a telework agreement cannot be a right of the employee, but it is always an arrangement that is reached by agreement between the employer and the employee and which, in addition, can be revoked at any time by both parties.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I hope that all these provisions can be successfully applied to the workplace as soon as possible.

There are no other speakers for Minister Vanvelthoven. That is why I give him the word. Then I will close the afternoon meeting and then open the evening meeting a few minutes later.

Peter Vanvelthoven: Mr. Speaker, of course I thank the colleagues Turtelboom, Drèze and De Block for their presentations.

Regarding the transposition of the European Directive on Age Discrimination, the first point of Ms. Turtelboom, it is of course ⁇ important that we also transpose the exceptions permitted by Article 6 of the directive into Belgian law, not only because we have already been misrepresented by the European Commission, but especially because we have only until 2 December this year the possibility to transpose those exceptions. Otherwise, we will face ⁇ serious problems.

Regarding the maternity leave, which Mr Drèze referred to, I think it is an important extension that is now put to the vote. It dates back some time ago, if I am not mistaken of the Council of Ministers of Oostende.

In connection with the tax deduction for childcare, I think we have made significant efforts in the course of this government’s drive. This will undoubtedly be further discussed in the context of the 2007 budget discussions.

There were also questions about telework. In this regard, I think it is also important here that a statute has finally arrived for the teletube worker. That statute was necessary and provides a certain legal certainty which will make teleworking much easier in practice. Employees have greater legal certainty. It is important that we will effectively approve that statute today or tomorrow. It is indeed a statute that applies to the private sector. You know that, as far as the public sector is concerned, we have decided at the Labour Market workshop that colleague Dupont will submit a proposal on remote work for the public sector. We can definitely expect that in the coming months.

Mr Drèze also spoke about work accidents. I can confirm that the Management Committee of the Labour Accident Fund has been asked to take a stand on a number of issues related to teleworkers’ work accidents. As soon as we receive the opinion of the management committee, we will examine whether further legislative work is needed to address this problem.

Mrs. De Block suggested to somewhat accelerate the work on welfare legislation, the ARAB. It is indeed the case that the draft KB, which is ready and which is for advice to the NAR and the High Council for Prevention and Protection, has been abandoned for a moment, awaiting what will be approved in the House tomorrow. I can assure you that if the law containing various provisions, which regulates everything, is approved tomorrow, I will again consult with the social partners as soon as possible to arrange this draft of KB as soon as possible.

I come to the most important chapter that also caused the most discussion in the committee. This discussion also led to a number of additional amendments that were approved in the committee. These are the responsibilities of the social inspection services. I would like to remind you that the purpose of that regulation is very clear, in particular to address precisely those employers who accuse themselves of serious social fraud and initially those who are in bad faith and who refuse to cooperate in the investigation of the social inspectors.

In fact, the social inspectors are faced with the problem that this category of employers refuses to hand over certain documents which they are legally required to keep in the company accounts. As a result, the social inspectors must be authorized to view those documents anyway. Before one has that authorization, one is a few days away and now the social documents and the other documents in which one has access, have been adjusted.

It is of course also at the request of the employers and the employer organisations themselves that we choose to provide the necessary resources to the social inspection services. In fact, they constantly and rightly complain that unfair competition is slowly turning them around. Unfortunately, there are employers who can compete below the price because they use black labour and illegality.

Therefore, there is a need to address the heavy, social fraud. The goal is very clearly to address employers who are badly faithful. With the amendments, we have been able to clearly align the framework within which the social inspectors should perform their tasks, so that some concerns can also be removed in this regard.

These are very specific documents. These are documents that the government as a legislator has stated that the employer must keep them. The second condition is that he must keep them with him in business premises. This is also very clear. It is not about documents that are kept in the private home. After all, when we talk about home search, we are talking about private housing.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that today the social inspectors have access to the premises of the business every day from evening to morning and from morning to evening. At this point, we do not change the law. We have also specified that only in the case of refusal the social inspectors may use the special detection power and that this circumstance is also linked to conditions. In that case, they should draw up a record of the refusal by the employer and expressly indicate that they are using the special detection power. They must also report all documents they would confiscate, for example. In addition, a copy of the minutes must be handed over to the employer. Subsequently, the employer — which is also the result of a new amendment — can, as in short-term proceedings, if he does not agree with the intervention of the social inspectors, immediately appeal to the President of the Labour Court.

Finally, we decided that the Minister of Labour, following the advice of the Federal Coordination Committee, the so-called SIOD, will draw up a deontological code to which the social inspectors will have to respond.

This means that for the access to and detection of all documents other than those prescribed by law and required to be kept in the corporate accounting, the authorisation of the investigation judge is still required. When it comes to other premises than the business premises, such as the private residence of the business manager, one must still be in possession of a permit from the investigation judge. Other actions such as telephone tapping or shadowing of persons can only be done with the authorization of the investigative judge.

According to a speaker, a privacy issue continues to exist because confidential documents may sometimes come to the eye of the social inspectors. Two comments in this regard. First, the confidential documents that would come to the attention of the social inspector cannot be used in the investigation at all. Second, it is primarily the employer who is responsible for this. If the employer cooperates in the investigation of the social inspector, he shall not use the special detection power.

Mr Drèze, the opinion of the Privacy Commission has been requested but we have not received a response yet. There is no special abbreviated procedure in the Privacy Commission. We have requested this. As soon as the opinion reaches us, I will forward it to the Chamber and it will be discussed during the discussion of the preliminary draft of the Code of Social Criminal Law.

The Minister answered all my questions except one. But Minister Demotte might be able to answer that.

He has already come. He was here around 15 o’clock.

I will return to this issue in the committee.

June 28, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Given the contents of the proposed provisions, my speech will be brief.

I would like first to reiterate the observations of my colleague Olivier Maingain concerning the proposed amendments to the Act of 20 May 1997 on international cooperation with regard to the execution of seizures and confiscations.

The regulation currently in force provides that all objects or patrimonial advantages confiscated by a Belgian court at the request of a foreign judicial authority are assigned, through the Domaines service of the Federal Public Service Finance, to the Belgian Treasury. by

Therefore, after the possible execution of the foreign order of confiscation, the patrimonial advantages are allocated exclusively to the Belgian Treasury. The foreign authority, which requests the confiscation, cannot therefore claim the patrimonial advantages which have been confiscated by one of its judicial instances. The logical step that should logically follow is missing. Belgium is not able to hand over to the requesting foreign authority what belongs to it.

This situation has the consequence that the patrimonial advantages, which were seized at the request of Belgium and confiscated for it by other countries, cannot be handed over to it. In fact, many countries demand reciprocity.

From now on, the correctional tribunal, when deciding on the exequatur of the foreign order of confiscation, may determine the destination of the confiscated goods in the following ways: - it may decide that the confiscated goods shall be assigned, in whole or in part, to the requesting State; - it may also decide that the goods other than sums of money shall be sold and that the proceeds of their sale shall be, in whole or in part, assigned to the requesting State.

In both cases, it will take into account the costs of seizure, conservation, alienation, confiscation and transfer.

If it is not possible to stop the assignment of the confiscated property, they will be allocated to the Belgian Treasury. During the discussion of the articles, I wondered how civil parties will be notified of the hearing and decision-making of the correctional court ruling on the exequatur. The Minister clarified that in principle all the parties are known because they have already intervened in the proceedings on the merits that were initiated in the requesting foreign state. However, the court will have to examine whether the interests can also be harmed in Belgium. by

It is true that the procedure provided for by the Act of 20 May 1997 on international cooperation in the execution of seizures and confiscation does not involve any measures for informing civil parties. I fear that it will not be easy for foreign civil parties to assert their rights before a Belgian correctional court. Practice will say that.

I would also like to intervene on the provision aimed at amending Article 16 of the Law of 20 July 1990 on preventive detention. If the arrest warrant is executed in respect of a person subject to military laws who has committed any offence on the territory of a foreign State, it will now be allowed to use, during the interrogation, radio, telephone, audiovisual or other technical means that allow the direct transmission of the voice between the investigating judge and the suspect while ensuring the confidentiality of their exchanges.

In its opinion, the Council of State acknowledges that the defendant who is abroad with a troop is in a different situation than a defendant who is in Belgium and that this circumstance justifies that an interrogation in the physical presence of the examining judge may be dispensed in order to replace him with what is closest to it, namely the hearing by audiovisual means. However, the Council of State draws attention to the fact that a simple radio or telephone interview poses problems in relation to Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution and the principle of respect for the rights of defence. The State Council notes that within the short time it was granted, it was unable to further examine these fundamental issues. This opinion sparked a discussion in the committee that led me to propose to allow the military in question to be assisted by a lawyer.

In its judgment of 26 October 2005, the Court of Arbitration denounced the fact that a party without sufficient financial resources cannot obtain legal assistance for the appointment of a counseling physician and the assumption of its costs and fees for judicial expertise in a medical dispute concerning social security benefits. by

The Court of Arbitration, responding to a question for a preliminary ruling, found that in so far as they did not settle the situation I just talked about, Articles 664, 665 and 692 of the Judicial Code violated Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. by

In response to this judgment, the bill was aimed at supplementing Articles 664 and following of the Judicial Code in order to establish the benefit of judicial assistance for the appointment and the costs and fees of technical advisors of the needy parties during judicial expertise. by

These measures have a significant practical importance, mainly in technical litigation where it is common to resort to judicial expertise, medical litigation such as the one on which the decision of the Arbitration Court is based, but also litigation in matters of construction, defect or litigation relating to works of art. by

I think that we adopted here an essential measure that should be taken so that in all disputes the equality of arms between the parties is respected. This equality is in fact an important element of guaranteeing a fair trial, a principle enshrined in Article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. by

Although, as the State Council pointed out, the matter could have been settled in the framework of legal aid, the amendment of the provisions on legal assistance, however, allows to ⁇ the main objective, namely to allow economically weak parties to benefit in advance of the costs and fees related to the intervention of a technical adviser during a judicial expert. Note that, in the context of family mediation, it is the articles on legal assistance that have been supplemented. by

A delegation to the King is also planned to determine a balance sheet and payment arrangements for these technical advisors. In this regard, we will not fail to carefully examine the royal decree that will be taken so as to enable technical advisors to assist effectively and effectively the economically weak justiciables. It must therefore be ensured that the services rendered by the latter can be properly remunerated under the penalty of not fully responding to the breach of the equality of arms. The designated technical advisors will execute the minimum in relation to the amounts provided for by the Royal Decree, while the less disadvantaged parties will be able to offer themselves more elaborate benefits.

Another modification of the Judicial Code is also proposed by the bill: it is the seizable matter and the seizable or transferable quotas of income, referred to in article 1409 and following of the Judicial Code. by

The current system provides that the income tranches determining the unattainable or unattainable quota increase by up to 50 euros (indexed) per child borne by the debtor. In these progressive tranches, the amounts that can be seized are increasingly important. With this system, the impact on the calculation of recordable mass is felt in the highest income ranges. This has the effect that the more income the person has, the more the benefit for the child under care is complete for him.

In addition to the problems of practical application that prevent this increase from being implemented, it should be noted that this measure does not adequately meet its objective of protecting the income of the lowest. by

A multidisciplinary working group looked at these different difficulties and developed a new system based on an inverse perspective: it is no longer an increase in the unattainable income tranches but a direct decrease in the seizable quota, at the rate of 50 euros (indexed) per child. The seizable quota continues to be calculated on the current income tranches. This method has the advantage of ensuring better equality between debtors who have children under their care, guaranteeing them an identical direct advantage. by

Furthermore, it is planned that from now on it will be the third party seized who will have the task of receiving the declarations of the debtors concerning the children under their care. These statements shall apply to all creditors associated with the ongoing enforcement proceedings. A period of at least 10 days before the next payment deadline shall be left to the third party deposited to calculate, on the basis of these forms, whether and to what extent the deposited debtor can benefit from the reduction of the quota available for child under care. These tasks are currently carried out by the instrumenting executor. by

This procedure of recourse to the good offices of the third party seized appears to have the advantage of being less formal and ⁇ more pragmatic and efficient than recourse to a court enforcement officer to make these statements. However, it will be necessary to ensure that this new procedure does not impose an excessive responsibility on the third party. Indeed, it is the third party seized who will have to, in the first line, verify the truthfulness and relevance of the declarations of the debtors, which risks to induce delays or the questioning of the proceedings at the detriment, ultimately, of the debtor seized. Our group will pay particular attention to the proper functioning of this new method.

I would also like to highlight a provision that will now enable better combating the harm related to drug trafficking and drug use.

In the future, if there are serious indications that illegal activities compromising public safety and tranquility are repeatedly carried out in a private place accessible to the public and involve the sale, delivery or facilitation of the consumption of drugs, the mayor may, after prior consultation with the judicial authorities and after hearing the responsible in his defence means, decide to close that place for a period that he determines.

The closing measure shall no longer have effect if it is not confirmed at the following meeting of the College of Mayors and Chiefs. It is brought to the knowledge of the municipal council from the first session of the following. The closing measure, which may not exceed the duration of six months, may be extended for the same period after a favorable opinion of the municipal council, provided that new similar facts have occurred or have appeared since the initial decision.

These are the main measures of the bill in its part Justice. I found it appropriate to emphasize them because these measures are aimed at improving the fight against loot-based crime, better enforcement of rules, better respect for equality of prosecutors and better protection of society against the harm caused by drug trafficking and drug use. That is why our group supports the bill.

Except for Ms. Genot, are other people still registered for this part of the debate? (Not to)

After the intervention of Mrs. Genot, I will wait for Mr. In the hope that the East will bring it back to us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return at this plenary session to the “Drug” part of the bill containing various provisions. Indeed, while browsing this bill, I was surprised to discover, in the middle of the 500 pages that make up it, two articles amending the drug law.

The first article is to extend the authority of mayors to close establishments if there are serious indications that illegal activities related to the sale, delivery or facilitation of the consumption of narcotic products are repeatedly carried out in a private place accessible to the public.

The second article aims to allow the administrative arrest of a person found manifestly under the influence of soporic or psychotropic products in a place accessible to the public, if his presence causes disorder, scandal or danger either for others or for himself.

I was very isolated in the Justice Committee when I was worried about these articles. Today, I would like to share with you the analysis of the Anti-Prohibitionist Liaison, an ASBL that has been working on these issues for years.

In its analysis of the new article 9bis, namely article 41 of the draft, the Anti-Prohibitionist Liaison notes that the government considers that administrative and judicial instruments to combat the sale of drugs in establishments such as cafes or discos are lacking. However, Article 134quater of the new municipal law grants the mayors a general authority to close, for a period of three months, a publicly accessible establishment if the public order around that establishment is disturbed by the behaviors that take place there. Already at that time, the State Council considered this possibility offered in the new municipal law rather disproportionate.

In addition, the judicial authorities may order, in accordance with the Act of 24 February 1921, the temporary or permanent closure of an establishment when certain violations of the Drug Act have been committed. We see it, we are not without judicial arsenal in this matter!

The Anti-Prohibitionist Liaison considers these instruments largely sufficient to repress possible violations of the drug law. It may be that the government considers that the public administration should be strengthened due to the specific nature of this crime. The government may also consider that the duration of the closure of an establishment by a mayor is too short; yet, three months, it does not seem to us as short as that! Furthermore, the procedure would not be quick enough because the judge can only intervene years later.

In fact, it is generally regrettable that the means of justice do not allow it to advance faster. I don’t quite understand why prescription issues are regularly involved in white-collar crime and why we don’t act specifically at that level. On the other hand, in this case, a parallel justice is created where the mayors "coordinate with the judicial authorities". I confess not very well understand what this means!

Madame Genot, is this sincere or is it a handshake effect?

Mr. President, you can explain exactly what this means, but I am afraid that just...

Have you ever experienced difficult situations? Do you ever go to neighborhoods where this is a problem?

I have lived in Saint-Josse for years and I know these situations.

If you know these situations, why do you say you don’t understand? You know very well that if young people are in a neighborhood surrounding a public institution, they can truly be dragged into criminal situations and lead to catastrophic situations. In this case, action must be taken! by

Yes, mayors can act in consultation with the judicial authorities so as not to harm a judicial investigation! I have already told you! I do not understand why you persist in saying that you do not understand. What do you need to do to explain it correctly?

No, they can’t hurt a judicial investigation! It is therefore normal that a mayor who wants to work in this direction to eventually close an establishment can contact the judicial authorities. This is not difficult to understand!

Why is the local legislation not sufficient?

I explained this in the committee.

Your explanations are not clear and I am not the only one who does not understand them! I apologize for having a different opinion than yours.

One day or another, when there is a catastrophe, you will be the first to say that we have done nothing!

We will see if something is done on the ground and if these articles will really improve the situation. I am on the ground and since the new municipal law, there has been no progress. I do not know how this new article will solve the problem. The problem is that there are not enough places where young people can address when they have drug problems. The only thing they are offered is the distribution of a little methadone!

At present, it is impossible to find a place for a young man in Brussels! This is the reality!

In the field of health, there is no article about drugs, there is nothing!

Ecolo had a minister responsible for the French Community at the time! There is a responsibility at the community level.

As for drugs, it is at the federal level!

Please talk one after the other.

I would like to have a serious discussion. I’m tired of the effects!

Madame Genot, the Communities are responsible for health and prevention, you know. Don’t start asking why we don’t open reception centers because it’s a responsibility of the Communities. Ecolo was responsible in this matter during the last Community Legislature!

In terms of prevention, look at Ecolo’s budget, it had increased, which is not the case with Ms. Fonck under the current government, which your party has the presidency.

Then, maybe you don’t know it, but for the internal treatment of people who are followed medically, it is the federal that approves the number of seats. Currently, this number of seats is decreasing and new approval applications have not been accepted! For example, we were forced to shut down the only beds in the Namuro area that could accommodate criminals. Not many criminals do not want to stay in the Brussels area when they have problems and went, for example, to this center in the Namuroese region that we had to close.

There is a decrease in the number of beds funded by your colleague, Mr. Demote, for the reception of these cases.

Have you ever talked about him?

Of course, I have done it several times. He promised to look for a solution but for now, the number of beds has decreased. by

I hope I can continue to share my analysis. I understand that you have had a tough day but I consider that developing arguments in Parliament when freedoms are attacked is part of my work.

And I consider that if we

Laurette interpels us on the ground, we politicians, blaming us for putting entire neighborhoods in danger and the fact that there is no longer freedom to go and come because we are afraid to go out, we are actually forced to make arrangements. I also feel that it is my responsibility.

You will introduce me to those neighborhoods where you no longer dare to go and come. For my part, I travel without problems in Schaerbeek as well as in Saint-Josse, two neighborhoods that I know very well.

Ask their opinion to some young people and some elderly people!

This is another problem, which relates in particular to the way the public space is organized. At Schaerbeek, the problem is primarily there. We will discuss municipal policy in Schaerbeek another day and I will return to...

The [...]

Indeed indeed . But the Socialists are also in the majority in Schaerbeek.

As you speak of Schaerbeek, I tell you that Ecolo is in power there.

Absolutely at all. I know the local reality.

We are in the federal parliament.

Just, I developed an argument based on articles all the more federal, glued into the law-programme to avoid the debate. Nevertheless, I would like this debate to take place. by

So you explained to us that there were major problems at the municipal level and that these articles had been adopted following the assassination of Joe Van Holsbeek. Joe Van Holsbeek’s colleagues were at least surprised by the decisions taken following the murder of their friend. They did not expect such measures; it is not really understood how such measures can counteract this kind of violence. by

Second part, in Article 42, you write in all letters that "several large cities are confronted with junkies who wander and gather under the influence of banned products in search of their own or a dealer; their presence can sometimes be so imposing that the citizen feels a sense of insecurity." If we present drug users as junkies and dangerous beings, rather than as people with problems and more ⁇ health problems, difficulties, it will not re-create trust between these people and those who are afraid.

Do you agree to say

Laurette that a person under the influence of drugs and seriously injured can suffer from a lack of care, this being an obvious public health problem, and at the same time pose a danger for others? I have also been Minister of Health in the French Community and I try to support all projects involving this "health" aspect. It can be both at the same time. You focus on the fact that this person needs help and care, which is true. But this person can also be dangerous to others at certain times. Both aspects must be taken into account. I can’t cut it in two.

I hear you, but how do you decide who is dangerous and when? A junkie that goes wrong, I am unable to say if it is dangerous or not. Usually, people are arrested after the facts. That is life.

Ask the mayors for police zones reports and see when, in some establishments, people meet, deal with drug trafficking, and try to expand their scope of action by addressing the population, especially young people in the vicinity. Generally, these establishments are known and have already been the subject of multiple police reports.

It’s not about that here: we’re talking about “junkies” who are wandering and not resellers or “dealers”. It is not the same problem.

Yes, it is exactly the same problem.

Clearly, we do not see things in the same way. Personally, I think that the term "junkies" does not have to be found in a law article. It is pejorative and stigmatizing: therefore there is no place for it.

You therefore intend to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act to allow administrative arrest for a maximum period of six hours, of persons who are under the influence of products if their presence causes disorder, scandal or danger either for others or for themselves. The bill also provides for the notification of this administrative arrest to the judicial authorities in order not to go against the existing aid trajectories. That is exactly how you say it.

The Anti-Prohibitionist Liaison states that it does not accurately perceive the scope of such a measure while legal instruments are largely sufficient to end situations that may disturb public order. Indeed, at present, on the basis of the law on the police function, it is possible to proceed with administrative arrest, arrest not communicated to the judicial authorities.

It can therefore be asked what is the exact intention of this notification to the judicial authorities since it is the new element in this part.

I regret that discussions on such important projects still do not happen. In 2001, you had submitted a comprehensive note on the problem of drugs. At the moment, I have the impression that the debates are being squeezed to announce small security measures without a comprehensive project of this drug policy.

Do you still want to intervene or do you think you have answered during the discussion?

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered by trying to be complete.

I thank you very much. I think we’ve finished with the part Justice.

I appreciate the arrival of Minister Verwilghen, who comes from Moscow. I will now let Mr. Wathelet intervene.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and wish him a good evening.

I will then give the floor to Mrs. Creyf while I call Mrs. Pieters. by

I now give the floor to Mr. by Wathelet.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for returning specifically from Moscow for this discussion.

What would not be done for Parliament, Mr. Wathelet?

From time to time, the Parliament has a good back.

Mr. Minister, I guess you talked a lot about energy in Moscow. We will not change the subject.

I wanted to return to a topic that holds me very close to the heart and I imagine that you doubt what it is about: I am talking about the CREG.

Belgium, like the whole of Europe, is now experiencing terribly important turns, mainly in terms of electricity and gas. We talk about the merger of Suez with another company, whatever it is; we also talk about the strong concentration that exists in the electricity market and in the gas market. That is why we absolutely need an independent and autonomous regulator. It seems to me that this regulator must have two important tasks: that of regulating, in terms of infrastructure and price, the electricity and gas markets and that of giving opinions, advice to the political world regarding the energy policy of our country, advice that the politician is not compelled to follow but which should help it in its positions on energy matters.

It is essential that the CREG, our federal regulator, remains independent and autonomous. But, despite this, I have the impression that the government is going in a totally different direction. I will try to demonstrate this in my speech.

I would like to remind you first that the directors of the CREG waited several months before knowing what sauce they were going to eat. Before they knew what their status would be, they had to wait almost a whole year, staying in a legal vacuum from which they did not know how to get out, which did not allow them to have a status, which did not allow them to know how and whether their mandate would be renewed, which did not allow them to know their future functions. CREG, at a crucial moment in Belgium’s energy policy, has just experienced a period of floating in terms of the status of its own directors.

Two elements tend to demonstrate that the government really has very little consideration for the CREG: firstly, a whole series of competences are taken away from it and, secondly, it is actually being put under custody.

With regard to the skills that the CREG is being removed, there is first – we talked about it a few months ago – a series of skills that will now be assigned to the administration. This involves the drafting of supply plans and the distribution of the operating bonus. These CREG competencies are now transferred to the administration.

It is also, within the framework of the law we will vote for tomorrow, a number of competencies at the level of the objective formula for price indexation. Indeed, when it comes to defining tariffs and having the position of the CREG in this matter, tariffs include these objective formulas for indexing tariffs. At the level of the said formula, the CREG had the power to make proposals. Today, this power of proposition is removed from her, since she has only a power of opinion. It can therefore no longer use that initiative power that previously belonged to it to initiate new objective formulae of price indexation. They are forced to give only one opinion. by

This, Mr. Minister, was the subject, in committee, of the deposit of an amendment to the law containing various provisions. I would allow myself to re-submit an amendment, co-signed by Ms. Creyf and Gerkens, aiming to restore this competence to the CREG. It is good that our regulator can initiatively propose a number of objective formulas for indexing tariffs. This is, in my opinion, indispensable, especially since when it comes to tariffs, from a general point of view, the CREG has systematically a competence of proposal and not only of opinion. Therefore, in order to have a coherent tariff policy at all levels at the CREG level, it is important that the CREG has this power of proposal and not only that power of opinion.

In order to ensure coherence and a truly interesting policy at the CREG level, this power of proposal should be left to the CREG. I have submitted an amendment in this regard.

In short, on the one hand, certain competences are removed from the CREG to be assigned to the administration and, on the other hand, there is a change in the powers of the CREG that can no longer make proposals and must be limited to giving an opinion. This is the first part of my speech.

The second part concerns the placing under custody of the CREG. This is done by small touches. But all these touches always go in the same direction, towards a CREG tutelage.

First, I will talk about the skills that the future Chairman of the CREG should be equipped with. However, it is quite extraordinary that the future Chairman of the CREG does not have to demonstrate energy competence. Mr. Minister, I can’t understand that the person who will preside over our regulator on energy, gas and electricity — you know like me how horribly technical and complicated these matters are — must not demonstrate any competence in energy.

Is it because you already have an idea of the person who will have to ensure this presidency? Do you want to entrust management to someone who has absolutely no technical competence in gas and electricity? At such an important time for our energy policy in Belgium, I could not understand that the chairman of our regulator is not at least competent in gas and electricity.

My second observation concerns the general policy notes which, today, must be submitted for approval by the Council of Ministers. As the CREG is a so-called independent and autonomous body intended to advise the government in its energy policy, I do not understand that it must submit its general policy note to the approval of the one it itself must advise. It is nevertheless extraordinary that a body such as the CREG, which must remain autonomous and advise the government, sees its own policy conditioned by the approval of the Council of Ministers, which it itself must advise. I do not understand it either!

I come to my third comment. The results and measures of this general policy note are reviewed by the Council of Ministers itself. And again him. Previously, a kind of administrative tutel was exercised by the General Council multidisciplinary. The FEB also highlighted the fact that this competence was removed from the General Council which, in my opinion, had the quality of being this multidisciplinary body.

Today, this multidisciplinary body that was responsible for analyzing these results and these measures organized by the CREG is being removed from its competence. The CREG is again under the tutelage of the government!

Whether it is at the level of the CREG presidency, the general policy note or the control previously exercised by the General Council, it is always a very precise guardianship. These powers previously exercised by the CREG are always put under the tutelage of the government.

Mr. Minister, I am concerned about this today, especially since Belgium is experiencing a crucial moment in its energy policy. We absolutely need an independent and autonomous regulator; I am not the only one who says it, Europe says it too. Of course, in some countries, the regulator is within the administration itself, but in Belgium, we are lucky to have an autonomous regulator, independent of the administration. This is positive and Europe asks us to go in this direction, while ⁇ ining national specificities. However, if one can have an independent regulator, it is better! However, its leadership is left in statutory uncertainty for almost a year, continuously withdrawing competences from the CREG and increasingly inserting a government tutelage mechanism on that same CREG. This, Mr. Minister, I cannot understand.

Effectively, from time to time, the policy must be able to not follow opinions that would be given by the CREG. That is the role of politics! But it must be acknowledged that a regulator such as the CREG can bring real added value by fueling the political debate with an independent and autonomous opinion. Today, we are deprived of it.

I do not ask the government, Mr. Minister, to always respect the opinions that are given by the CREG or to share all the analyses. But what is interesting is to have this independent and autonomous value added provided by the CREG. Today, we are deprived of it.

That, Mr. Minister, I think this is not good, ⁇ not at a time when politics is at a real energy crossroads.

Ms. Creyf has the word in the discussion of these two bills. Then I will be able to close, I think. We listen to you, Mrs. Creyf.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to announce in advance that I will be quite comprehensive. If you come back from Russia especially, Mr. Minister, then it must be worth it.

I hope you will be shorter when the colleagues from next door come in.

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, but I still have something to say to the Minister and also something to ask.

Mr. Minister, I would like to begin with a general comment. I will talk about the bill containing various provisions. With each draft law containing various provisions, one can actually say that there will be changes to the laws on gas and electricity adopted in early 2005. This happened with the draft law containing various provisions of June 2005. This happened with the draft law containing various provisions of December 2005. Now, of course, it is no different. Mr. Minister, the industry and the sectors are not at all served with this, because they are attacks on clarity and legal certainty.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the work in the committee was quite chaotic, as the draft for the meeting was supplemented by a large series of amendments from the government. These amendments were subsequently amended by the same government and by the majority. The government drew amendments to submit new amendments, all at the meeting and just before the voting. We do this every time, and from the opposition I find this extremely unpleasant, because one is then insufficiently equipped to test those amendments for their full value. That is also the reason, Mr. Speaker, why we should subsequently correct a number of matters in other new various provisions.

At eleven o’clock, the government, through an amendment, added a completely new bill to reform the CREG, the federal regulator on gas and electricity. Such a serious matter deserves a separate bill. You acknowledged that, but gave an explanation in connection with urgency. That explanation of the high urgency can actually convince us only moderately, since you have been dealing with the matter for some time, Mr. Minister, and we already heard rumors in 2005 about possible changes to the statute of the CREG, the board of directors of the CREG and the functioning of the CREG.

Mr. Minister, we have known for some time that the purple government is not very well-established with certain proposals from the CREG. I remember the spring of 2005. At the time, the British research agency London Economics provided an uplifting study related to the liberalization of the gas and electricity market. The dominance of Electrabel is one of the major pain points. The CREG submitted twelve proposals. The government was not involved at all, on the contrary. Furthermore, the representatives of the federal government in the general council of the CREG made every effort to prevent the general council from coming to a unanimous opinion.

At the end of April 2005, two bills were adopted limiting the powers of the CREG, among other things in favor of the administration. Who is the administration different than the minister?

The relationship between the government and the CREG remained tense. In the draft law containing various provisions, it is not so much about the concrete reduction of the powers of the CREG, but rather about an even greater grip of the government and the Council of Ministers on the CREG and about the fact that the independence of the CREG is undermined.

What is the reform about? The reform covers four points: the supervision of the CREG Executive Committee, the provision of opinions — the role of the General Board in these opinions and the timing of the opinions by the General Board — the number of CREG Directions and their powers and the remuneration of the directors.

Administrative supervision is transferred from the General Council to the Council of Ministers. At the same time, of course, the powers of the general council of the CREG are also significantly limited. The general council, which already has not too many powers, is again reduced powers. The General Council is still the only body where the civil society, large and small consumers, producers, network operators, consumer organisations and regions can sit together at the table and express their views on federal energy policy. The Minister argues that so far the administrative supervision by the general council would be null. Consequently, the Minister removes the administrative supervision from the Council and leaves it to the Government. In any case, the State Council says that the path chosen by the government is problematic.

Mr. Minister, you might not have to change the supervisory body, but you would have to make the general council more efficient, with clearer powers, more resources and – in our case – possibly limiting – in order to be more efficient. In addition, Mr. Minister, you have not at least once submitted a complaint to the general council, or am I wrong? Has the general council examined the case? Was the general council’s statement that she did not share your analysis? I hope, Mr. Minister, that I cannot assume that this is the reason why you deprive the general council of the administrative supervision.

Furthermore, the fact that a complaint has already been submitted to the General Council, that the General Council has dealt with the complaint and has taken a decision on the matter also proves that complaints are being dealt with by the General Council. If there are no complaints, the general council does not need to do so. By granting administrative supervision to the Council of Ministers, the government’s grip on the CREG is strengthened, which puts the independence of the CREG at risk.

You refer to the European Commission. Indeed, the European Commission has not imposed the obligation to create a fully politically independent regulator. Only independence from the actors in the energy market itself should be guaranteed. However, the European Commission has recommended that the regulator should be independent of politics. The European Commission has said that the highest possible transparency towards political authorities must be guaranteed. The question is whether giving the supervision of the CREG to the Council of Ministers can pass the test of the greatest possible transparency.

The general council does not only lose its supervisory function. In addition, the advisory authority, as elaborated, is no more than a towel for bleeding. In fact, as is also evident from the opinion of the State Council, it is a non-binding opinion. Furthermore, the period of 40 days within which the general council must give its opinion may be shortened on the advice of the management committee and, therefore, indirectly on the request of the minister. All this makes the general council even less striking power. Furthermore, in the absence of an opinion, the opinion of the general council shall be deemed to be favourable.

It is up to the general council itself to issue a opinion or not. To date, not giving advice has never been considered a favourable advice. The general council should have the freedom not to express its opinion on all cases. It is not possible that not giving advice is considered a favourable advice. In addition, you say, Mr. Minister, that the term of 40 days is not observed by the general council, but by the executive committee. Such a claim is of course a challenge. I have tried to check and trace this from various members of the general council. As you know, the general council is a very diverse composite organ.

Mr. Minister, what you say does not seem to be true. Currently, there is a one-time period of 40 days for the Management Committee and the General Board together. I am told that the general council cannot comply with the 40-day deadline, because the management committee must use the 40-day deadline to obtain the file.

Moreover, say some members of the general council, the representatives of the government in the general council would cause delay, because they only come up with their comments at the last moment. Mr. Minister, that is a very different story than the story you tell, namely that the management committee respects the 40 days, but the general council does not. So I heard from a good source that it is completely different.

The [...]

Members of the General Council. The Minister says that the management committee respects the 40 days, but the general council does not. However, there are only 40 days, for an opinion from the Executive Committee and the General Board together. If the Board of Directors needs 40 days or more, the General Board cannot do so. So simple is that.

Other important provisions relate to the so-called CREG statute: the remuneration of the management committee, the number of directors and the powers of the directors. Mr. Minister, first of all, you said that the CREG has no legal status. Is that right? I believe that the CREG has the same status as the Commission on Banking, Finance and Insurance, namely, a mandate received by royal decree. Is that right? Why should only the CREG statute be amended?

Mrs. Creyf, I have a great appreciation for your contribution. I can assume that you would like to make full use of your speech time here, but at the moment we discussed the government’s amendments regarding the CREG, you were, for some reason or another, apologized. I then explained what the current statute is. I also described the problems that existed.

If you now come to me from the speaker’s floor to say that I would have claimed, at the meeting at which you were not present, that the CREG has no statute, then I regret to say that — or you have not read it exactly — I then informed that there was no administrative statute for the members of the CREG’s Board of Directors and that that gap in the law should be addressed. I have already explained this in the interpellations I received from colleague Wathelet, already in the month of December. I have always said so. I never hid it. That is something else than coming to say that you have read or heard say that I have claimed in the committee that the CREG has no statute. Of course, the CREG has a statute. This is quite obvious.

Mr. Minister, there is a royal decree that grants a mandate and then there are the contracts of indefinite duration. What changes your bill on this? and nothing.

The only thing that changes your bill is the award of the salary. Where until now it was the management committee itself that determined the salary, it is now the minister who will determine the salary. The Royal Decree of Appointment and the employment contracts remain. In what way can you then say that you have introduced the administrative statute of the CREG – which did not exist –?

You have decided that you will award the salary. I think it is right. After all, I do not find it possible that a management committee itself determines what its remuneration is and I follow you in that whole. I think it is a good thing that you do this now.

However, if you say that there was no administrative statute and that you are granting it now, please tell me what that new administrative statute is. All the rest remains. The royal decree of appointment remains, the employment contracts remain, everything remains except who decides how high the remuneration is. I believe this is correctly stated.

The number of directors is limited. Where there are now six directors and one chairman-director, the number is reduced to three directors and one chairman. There will be an Administrative Directorate, a Directorate for the technical operation of the market and a Directorate for the control of prices. The Chairman is concerned with management.

Mr. Minister, we are also not deaf for rumors, claims or complaints that we receive from time to time in connection with the functioning of the CREG and the directors. I would even like to address a certain rumor that comes up repeatedly and that you undoubtedly also know.

We hear claims that the CREG has become too big and has recruited too many people with attractive remuneration and other benefits. I calculated it myself. The average budget cost per employee is very high in the CREG.

I have, by the way, already discussed this with you at the time the CREG was financed through a tax on the kilowatt hours that we all pay. This, in my opinion, is ⁇ a matter in which we follow you when you say this should be considered.

We also notice that there is a high level of mistrust among the directors, with all the negative consequences for the functioning of the management committee. It belongs to the ministerial responsibility to address such matters when there are problems.

Mr. Minister, there are many - right or wrong - rumors around. You also claim something that I hope is true. I have heard you say it myself. One of the things you claim is that a number of directions have never taken on the tasks. For example, you say that there has never been a market dispute in the last six years.

Could it be that you contradict yourself? You claim that the CREG has already done a good job in the past in terms of pricing and in the merger of Suez-Gaz de France.

The work on the merger Suez-Gaz de France comes from the management of marketcontentieux. The study on the pricing of the standard suppliers, which can be found on the CREG website and where one can read who made that study and who signed it, also comes from the direction marketcontentieux.

When it comes to dispute resolution, you proclaim a self-fulfilling prophecy. You remove the dispute room. You do not install the Ombudsman service. You will not install the Mediation and Arbitration Services. You discontinue the cooperation between the Directorate of marketcontentieux and the competition authority. Then you claim that this management has never taken on the tasks. I also think this is not entirely fair.

We need not only an independent regulator, but also an expert regulator. Mr. Minister, we fear the grip of party politics. There will be four seats in the Management Committee. The current government also has four parties. We know — I have already said it to you during debates — that some political parties find that they currently have little to say in energy policy. The timing is also very good for the government. By 15 October, the new management committee must be installed, in all the air of the parliamentary seat.

Mr. Minister, I also read that you refer to the appointment procedure through a limited offer request, where only reputable selection agencies will be assigned. We know the procedures of this government at the time, Mr. Minister. This is pure window dressing. First we decide who it will be. After that, a whole selection procedure is set up to get out of the one that one actually wanted to appoint. We have already experienced this in other areas.

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Creyf speaks of experience. What happened in the past, she probably wants to transfer to the present. I suspect that’s what she actually wants to tell. Or it anticipates the Minister’s vision.

If she talks about experience, she should not answer me.

Mr. Lano, you are not blind and deaf for what has already happened in various departments in all those assessment procedures?I think that Mr. Verherstraeten has already questioned the competent Minister for Public Officials on more than one dossier.

By the way, all those assessment procedures, all those exams, those were not there before. This government has installed it, so-called, to be able to independently appoint the best candidates. What have we experienced in the meantime? All these assessment procedures are windowdressing. It suggests who they would have wanted to appoint. In various domains this has happened.

Does Mrs. Creyf mean that today one plays a kind of comedy, while in the past one did not take the effort to play it?

I think it is quite...

That is what I understand, Mrs. Creyf.

Mr. Lano, if the minister says at this time that we are going to set up a very good procedure, I would like to believe him. I’ll tell you what’s still on my paper. The strange thing is that I already hear from the most diverse sources who of the present seven will remain and who will have to leave. You probably know it too, Mr. Lano, you probably know it too. The Minister knows too.

You can send as many insinuations to the world here as you want. There are not seven members, there are six members. That is the first thing I would like to say. One would go from six to four members for the sake of rationalization. The procedure followed is identically the same as the one that led to the appointment in 1999 of the current CREG. Can you blame me for the fact that this regulator, which has followed a similar procedure as other regulators, will now suddenly allow politics to play while knowing that the people who will want to participate will be able to participate? Time will be given to be able to register again. I assume that some of the current members of the CREG may return to participate in the new procedure. If it is done in a way that is known, that is transparent and what is explained, then I really wonder what is wrong with it.

Mr. Minister, I would actually like to do what the wizard Jan Bardi has often done in the past, especially predicting results. I would like to be in a sealed bus...

Please don’t tell me anything about the political appointments from the past.

I would like to deposit in a sealed bus the forecast of who will be what. At the right moment, we can then open the sealed envelope to see if it is correct. Mr. Minister, I come in many different mediums when it comes to energy. This also applies to you and other colleagues. I am not deaf or blind. I tell you that names are circulating right now. Don’t break my mouth or I’ll say more. I will keep it here. I tell you, I would like to say under a sealed envelope who they will be.

Mrs. Creyf on her word. Let the hair do. Give her a turn. If she wins, I’ll give her a box of champagne.

Mr. Lano, I would increase the number of boxes a little!

I would then suggest that at least those who have taken the effort to stay here so late tonight and listen to us could enjoy the champagne.

You can entrust the change to me. I will carefully watch over it, on behalf of the Chamber.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a concrete question on the following.

Is it true that on 27 October 2005 you requested a study on the tariff components from the CREG, with the request to deliver it within forty days? Is that right?

Were these 40 days observed by the Board of Directors?

What is the state of affairs between now and now? Is that study already there? The advice had to come within forty days. Between October and the end of June, eight months have passed. Where is the study, Mr. Minister? Who has this study?

What is the procedure for such studies in connection with delivery to the Minister, in connection with publication, and so on?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, finally, I would like to point out another point, which has nothing to do with the CREG, but rather with the problem of the conclusion of the program agreements in the oil sector. This is the last aspect of my speech. By the law containing various provisions of late 2005 a law was passed that authorized the Minister of Economy to conclude program agreements with trade associations. It provided that if the trade association represented at least 60 % of the number of companies in the sector, the program agreement was considered binding for the whole sector. In fact, it was also a law containing various provisions.

Now that law is being amended again, by a new law containing various provisions. The change consists in the fact that the number of companies is no longer determining whether or not they are representative of the entire sector. From now on, the amount consumed is decisive.

Concretely, this means that from now on, organizations such as the Belgian Petroleum Union, which represents the independent distributors, and Brafco, the small fuel dealers, can no longer conclude program agreements, because that will only become the domain of the Belgian Petroleum Federation, the so-called seven majors.

For us, this implemented change cannot be understood in a reasonable way. I do not know where that change suddenly came from and what interests have now played. But that there is strong lobbying and that certain agreements have been made, that is certain.

I refer to the discussions in the committee following the current bill containing various provisions. During those discussions, the Minister stated that it was never intended that members of the Belgian Petroleum Union, the BPU, and the BRAFCO could conclude program agreements.

Mr. Minister, this statement is manifestly contrary to what you have stated last time. I do not take it out of the air. You can read the committee report immediately. Last time, you argued that program agreements also regulate points relating, inter alia, to the distribution margin and the minimum margin for pump holders, elements which do not relate to the activities of the Belgian Petroleum Federation, but which are of interest to the Union and BRAFCO. As a result, it would be unacceptable that that federation could conclude agreements that are not useful to it in itself, but apply to the other sectors. Colleagues, that is literally what the Minister said during the discussion of the previous bill containing various provisions. The Minister himself referred to the fact that it would be about 1,500 companies. Therefore, according to the minister, the system had to be changed, at that time very to the dissatisfaction of the petroleum federation, as some colleagues will know while we were addressed by them.

What do we hear now? The entirely opposite. Only the 7 Petroleum Federation majors can conclude agreements for the entire sector that also cover the distribution margin and the minimum margin for pump holders. That would always have been the intention.

Mr. Minister, that is not true. That is unacceptable. It is incomprehensible that from one draft containing various provisions to another, you argue differently, in which you are completely opposed to what you have said before. That is not true. CD&V is looking for the true reason for the change. It ⁇ ’t surprise us that the government has promised this in return for something. Can I refer to the fuel oil invoice? It will be denied in all tournaments. In such a way, making such a curve and entering in line with what was argued six months earlier can only be motivated by external interventions, an exchange, a cow trade. Otherwise I cannot explain it!

For all the reasons mentioned above, it is impossible for our group to support the bill containing various provisions.

Mr. Minister, you can now answer the statements of, among others, Mr. Wathelet and Mrs. Creyf.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, first, I find it normal that a minister, at the time of the work related to the program law and the law containing various provisions, himself is present at the debate, especially if he himself has submitted some amendments to the law.

Mr. Speaker, I could easily hide behind the fact that I was on an official mission.

Mr. Minister, I say it officially: I appreciate the fact. I have telephoned you several times.

I have too much appreciation for Parliament to be absent from the debate. You would have rightly blamed me if I had not been here.

I appreciate that. Others were less far away and were not here.

On the other hand, I disagree with the manner of proposals ...

Specifically coming from Moscow and flying back tomorrow. (The applause)

In any case, I disagree with Mrs. Creyf’s approach. We know from experience that the laws containing various provisions and the program laws always give rise to rather tense debates. Changes are always possible in the last instance.

However, the chairman of the committee and I agreed to the observance of an agenda that gave the members sufficient time to read the articles and listen to speeches. However, the debate did not take place immediately after I gave the general explanation. The discussion was delayed telkenmale, including the discussion of the amendments relating to the CREG. For the discussion of the amendments, special work was done with a week difference. Mr. Speaker, I use this opportunity to put things in order in this regard. You voudrais tout d'abord revenir sur le fait que la plupart des interventions portaient sur le travail du régulateur de la CREG. Their

It should be remembered that in an open and free market, one tries to see how this market should be organized if there is no competition in the sector concerned. Thus, in the banking sector, in that of finance and insurance, the market is open, and there is competition. In these sectors, a regulator would be superfluous. There is, of course, the CBFA, but this institution has another role to play.

On the other hand, in areas where there were previously monopolies, it seems to me quite normal to try to regulate the market in advance. This is why regulators have been created in the field of energy and telecommunications. A regulator will soon be established for transportation. We are trying to organize the ex ante market. We are moving forward!

This, it is also necessary to take account of the regulation of the market ex post established by the competition institutions, the Council and the services. A law aimed at doting these institutions of new weapons comes out of the other hand to be voted. I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, to the CREG itself. One seems to be quite inclined in Parliament, certain and firm in the arguments I have heard today, to doubt that the CREG is indeed a sufficiently independent and autonomous body, as if the CREG is a sort of deus ex machina that lies completely outside the world of accountability of politics.

However, I would like to warn you that it was never the intention of the European Commission to shake that way. That is why, following the debate, I would like to clearly repeat the first Electricity Directive and the first Gas Directive. It was then asked – and I literally quote from the text accepted by the committee and approved by the Parliament: “Adjusted and effective mechanisms for market regulation, control and transparency must be established to prevent abuse of dominant positions, in particular to the detriment of the consumer, and market undermining practices.” It was then very clearly added that that independence must apply to all actors in the electricity and gas sectors, but that it does not include: the governments themselves.

The regulator is therefore only independent from the interests of those actors in the sector, not from the government. This is also the reason why in some countries there will be no regulator because they have decided to give that power to the administration. Belgium has, I think, made a healthy deviation. We have pledged for an independent regulator, but at the same time we have removed that regulator from the administration and made it a separate legal entity.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter I zeg dat hier met des te meer overtuiging opdat u zou merken dat de interpretatie die wij daaraan geven ook de interpretatie is die gegeven wordt door het directoraat-general Transport in Energy, zowel voor de elektriciteitsrichtlijn als voor de aardgasrichtlijn. I have the English text of this pre-read. I herneem alleen het belangrijkste: "These authorities shall be wholly independent from the interests of the electricity and gas industry. This therefore does not necessarily require the regulator to be separated from existing government structures."In this regard, I would like to emphasize that the Green Paper that the European Commission has just presented to the Energy Council advocates for a European regulator. This proposal has been rejected by most countries because they consider that energy policy is largely the responsibility of a country. According to them, it is up to this country to ensure its supply and to guarantee it to its citizens.

I partially agree with this opinion even though I have pledged for a proposed European regulator.

According to me, the essential is that a regulator is first a controller and that he must take care of this primordial task. I say this here with the greater conviction, because I have found that the CREG has been performing the general task of supervision and control well since 1999. However, we must also conclude that, in addition to the powers conferred on it, it has attracted a number of advisory tasks. Sometimes it has taken positions that have led to discussions.

Mrs. Creyf, you have yourself cited the discussion concerning the study of London Economics. I have no objection to requesting such a study. I only say that it is hardly acceptable that one has had to wait for a very long time for a position of the Board of Directors of the CREG and one has actually still to wait for a position of the General Council until now. The general council has stated that it does not wish to intervene in this file, ⁇ because it has felt that the findings of that study are no longer sustainable. The best proof of this is that the management committee itself has at some point said that the split, the sauce sunrise as they were intended to be made, would absolutely not bring earth to the dive.

Mr. Minister, you also know how

The general council of the CREG has not yet given a unanimous opinion. Do you find it normal that the representatives of the government are also present in the general council of the CREG and that there must be a unanimous opinion of the general council before who can give a advice? If the civil society takes a position and the government representatives do not agree with it, then there can be no general unanimous opinion.

What you said now, Mr. Minister, I find aberrant.

There is nothing aberrant there. Ten first is a wet that in the Parliament was approved by a meerderheid. Het was dus de wil van de wetgever dat de procedure op die manier zou worden geregeld. Ten second, juist met dat punt wordt goed aangetoond dat men niet tegelijkertijd rechter in partij kan zijn: ofwel is men controlor as regulator, ofwel is men advisor. Two together is not possible. This brings me, Mr. Wathelet, to your first observation. You said that I was taking over the competences of the CREG and you referred to a decision taken during another debate that we held in this hall, that of the law "Gas and Electricity", according to which the matter of energy policy and its preparation must be the fact not of the CREG but of the administration. The reason for this is simple: we want to avoid the confusion of the roles I talked about at the moment.

If you really want to avoid the confusion of roles, go to the end. Why should the general policy note be subject to approval by the Council of Ministers? Why should the results and measures that were previously examined by the General Council now be examined by the Council of Ministers?

It is you who create the confusion of the roles. Let the CREG have this power of independence and autonomy. I do not ask the political powers to follow it necessarily, but at least leave this competence of opinion in an independent and autonomous way.

Independent and autonomous. But the actors...

Please let me finish, Mr. Minister. I will return to what Mr. Mr. said earlier. Lano: Who says it? We say it, but you ask for names. The FEB itself, a member of the General Council, insists that it is no longer the General Council that has this competence which is now assigned to the Minister. Why is this multidisciplinary body, the General Council, which allowed to have this surplus value within the CREG, abandoned for the benefit of a guardianship exercised by the minister?

It is always in the same direction. This is no longer a confusion of roles since the only role is assigned by the minister and not by the CREG.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with the presentation. I will, by the way, also refute the argument accurately cited by colleague Wathelet. Their

We now have six years of operation of the CREG. We were able to evaluate the institution and I cited the positive points and the negative points. The positive points we have retained, the negative we have tried to remedy. There were four comments. Their

De eerste opmerking was dat men pleit voor een optimalisering van de directies, gelet op de takenpakketten. I was surprised by the fact that you found it very strong to choose a president or a president who has no energy skills. This was never planned. Furthermore, in the profile we are looking for, it is obvious that the person in question will not only have to be an expert in the matter, but that he will also have to run the entire CREG. The three directors, who have quite specific skills, must be specialists. The chairman or chairwoman will need to know the energy market as a whole and will have to demonstrate certain capabilities to lead a team.

Why did you not vote for the amendment I submitted? This person must, of course, be able to operate a commission. You even talked about a communication obligation. I submitted an amendment aimed at asking the President to have competence in gas and electricity markets and it was rejected.

This was never envisaged in the law. The procedure to be followed provides for defining the required qualities.

I told you, on the other hand, that the distinction we had made between administrative, technical and price seemed quite logical to us.

You aviez your own reasoning but we are not on the same longueur d'ondes. As regards the procedure of advisory provision, it seems like you are coming to me to say that the advice provision is now of such nature that one, the management committee, can follow and the other, the general council, cannot follow it. Both have 40 days. However, I do not want the government to be paralyzed because, if a opinion comes within 40 days of the mandatory advisory procedure, the opinion must then go to the general council before it can be known at government level. We have therefore insisted that it should also be delivered directly to the Minister responsible for Economy. This also seems to me no more than normal.

I also want to lose something about the statute, because you tell me that we do not solve anything. No, we resolve everything by saying that the statute will be legally regulated and that the powers have thus been placed in an unambiguous way with the Minister of Energy, who will now determine how the statute will be completed and can continue its course. This is, of course, very different from a situation where all the steps for the administrative statute have been taken outside the minister, without any supervision over it. I do not comment on whether there have been irregularities or not. That is not the question. This is not the question that is being discussed. The question at issue is the absence of a legal status and that we have now introduced the necessary provision for this.

A last point I would like to point out concerns administrative supervision. There is a lot to be done on this. They say that I take it away from the general council. In fact, it is also not removed from the general council, in the sense that the general council will be able to continue to speak and remain involved in the procedure. The General Council has its own powers and retains all the powers as they have been established in the past. Only a similar application of administrative supervision is made, as we know it in the BIPT and as we will know it in the CREG. It implies that at least one will be allowed to make the political comparison between what is prescribed in the policy plans and what is realized from them. If it is consistent, then there will be no problem about it, but if it is not consistent, then I think that a procedure should be provided in which the committee will be heard. The committee will be able to explain why it has not achieved certain of its objectives. Per ⁇ she will be able to give a perfectly concluding explanation and then the government will be able to live with it, but if that is not the case, then I think that the political responsibility must be of such a nature that the Council of Ministers can request additional information from the CREG and that it must also respond to it. This is in full accordance with what is stipulated in the European Directive.

In those circumstances, the powers that we now confer on the CREG, which mostly bring more light on its supervisory task, in no way affect the provisions of the Directive.

The last observation I would like to make concerns the program agreements in the oil sector.

Mrs. Creyf, I am surprised that you say about this that the government puts the Belgian Petroleum Union, the distributors and also the BRAFCO out of play.

First, the program agreement is — the word says it itself — an agreement, a contract. It is a contract that until now has always been concluded between only two parties, namely the Belgian Petroleum Federation, on the one hand, and the government, on the other. These are the only two parties that have so far intervened in the contract. There was never anyone else involved.

If you want to make a change in it and thus want other parties to participate in the contract, you should therefore terminate the agreement. This must, of course, be done in agreement with the other parties, in this case the Belgian Petroleum Federation.

So far, neither BPU nor BRAFCO have negotiated. However, something new—which was also defined—is that they can object to decisions taken that concern them. You have given the example of the margin in the distribution sector.

I do not think that the aforementioned bodies will not use the objection procedure if they consider that their rights have been exercised too short.

For the sake of honesty, I must say that I do not share all the considerations that were made with great earnestness by Ms. Pieters in connection with the work in the committee. I disagree with that approach, with that way of representation that one would too much want to introduce.

When I returned today, I did not have the illusion that your party or the CDH would now say that they would suddenly approve the various provisions. To abstain, or even vote against, in this regard, belongs to the right of political decision-making of this group.

I would like to start my reply with the last point that Mr. The Minister has just spoken. I also talked about this in the committee. This is the program contract.

This is extraordinary: the minister just told us that today the program contract is being negotiated between the government and the federation!

Mr. Minister, if the criterion is 60% of the turnover, tomorrow, the program contract will be negotiated by the government and the federation! Indeed, the federation accounts for much more than 60% of the turnover and you know that very well! You wanted to change the system for a few months by changing the criteria. You have chosen the criterion “60% of companies”. The distributors thus had a greater weight since they were more numerous to be heard within the federation, but here you simply return to the old system!

I would like to remind you of a proposition that I had introduced and which, in my opinion, was not entirely meaningless. It consisted in proposing a double majority mechanism, which enabled the meeting of these two interests.

It is a pity that you want to change the system. Even if I disagreed with the arguments you invoked, I understand that you felt that it was not positive to have the federation as the sole interlocutor, that you felt that it was necessary to change the system and ensure that the number of interlocutors for the program contract multiplied. Nevertheless, you have nevertheless modified the system to — it is aberrant — now return to the system that you yourself have fought before, with the result that you find yourself again with the federation as the interlocutor. Per ⁇ we could have avoided a few outbursts.

Mr. Minister, with regard to the CREG, you came to repeat a text that you had already cited in commission: "It does not necessarily require the independence from the authority." I have also emphasized this again in my speech: independence from the authority is not mandatory, but it is preferable! by

In Belgium, we had an independent and autonomous CREG and now we are going back! I do not understand! We had made the right decision; we had been in the right direction! Now, today, with every proposed measure, we are moving towards less and less independence and autonomy from the authority! The authorities are returned to the administration. A proposal competence is changed into an opinion competence. The CREG is subject to supervision at the level of its general policy note, results, measures and presidency. In this regard, you reassured me: the president will have energy competencies. I regret that this has not been written in the law. It would have been better.

Therefore, we are facing a succession of measures that go in the wrong direction. Members of this General Council, of this multidisciplinary instance, who are very interested in this energy matter and who should have their word to say — I think in particular of the FEB, a major energy consumer — are concerned, for the same reasons as Mrs. Creyf and myself, of this loss of autonomy and independence of the regulator that is the CREG.

Mr. Minister, we appreciate, of course, that you have returned from Russia to have this conversation with us. However, the fact that you are returning specifically from Russia should not prevent us from saying what we think of the law on the various provisions. Their

Regarding the program agreements, I follow you when you say that they are only with the Petroleum Federation, but I would like to point you back to the rubbish that you have made us swallow. In December 2005, we had to pass a law “diverse provisions” stating that program agreements can be concluded if the trade association represents at least 60% of the number of companies in the sector. Their

Mr. Wathelet and I have asked a lot of questions. We submitted amendments to ask for a double criterion: 60% of companies and also of sales. No, our amendment was opposition speech and had to go away. This is literally stated in the report. You say, “This will not cause any problems.” We were all then contacted by the Petroleum Federation who absolutely disagreed with the fact that 60% of the companies could conclude a program agreement. They represented seven companies and did not agree at all. Their

We intervened, but the minister defended his position hand-and-tand and now, six months later, the minister says the opposite. Now it is no longer 60% of the companies, but only the turnover, making it only the seven companies that fall under the petroleum federation. Mr. Minister, if you make such a turn in six months and that comes to defend with equal conviction, where does that change come from? I tell you, there is lobbying, there are other things behind it. I remain there. Again, it ⁇ ’t surprise me, as this is again a contribution to the Petroleum Federation, which again has to do with the famous fuel oil program. That is one. Their

Second, what does the European Commission say about the independent regulator? It is true what the European Commission says, that there must be independence from market players. However, the European Commission also makes recommendations on independence from political authorities. You say that this is not necessarily required, but that can be read in different ways. Their

Something that is not necessarily required can mean that one can do without. In my opinion, this is a suggestion to go as far as possible towards a transparent relationship between the government and the regulator.

Why do we push for this independence? We press on it because we know the Belgian market, with those dominant players. We do not want to jeopardize the position of the companies in this area. Mr Wathelet, like me and ⁇ other colleagues, has received a letter from the VBO showing that he is very concerned about the recent changes made to the powers of the CREG. They fear a large grip of the government on the CREG.

What is the problem, Mr. Minister? You also know. The dominance of Electrabel. What has the government done in the meantime to counter this domination? The market is not liberalized as such. What happened to virtual sales? What happened to the availability of the unused sites? There are a number of measures that could hide the dominance of Electrabel. However, the government has done very little in this regard.

Therefore, it is also important in our energy market with dominant players that the regulator is independent, both from the market players and from the political government.

Mr. Minister, at the end I had asked you a very concrete question about the study of 27 October. Can I expect another answer?

I will not return to the debate. I don’t want to make it a Welles-Nieß-Spiel. Everyone has their own approach and remains with that approach. Their

I actually forgot to answer that question. I asked that the CREG would give me advice on the rates, so would make a tariff comparison. I have not received that report yet. I will probably receive it shortly. Their

However, I must say that a wider work has been done because I and cours de route have asked to make that price comparison with other countries. I am tired of seeing Belgium appear in tables. Once we pull the peloton because we are the most expensive country. The next time we say we are the cheapest in that segment. I want to know exactly now. Their

I have asked for the comparison of those tariff components, a kind of benchmarking, with other countries, but not to compare apples with lemons, but to be able to compare things that are really comparable. This is the only way to determine where the horse is bound. One can guess about where the horse is bound, but I would like to get confirmation of that. Their

For the rest, I will return to the most important argument, namely the liberation of the market. I have said it all the time, they will never hear me say anything else, that we are only at the beginning of the liberation of the market and that Belgium is therefore absolutely not yet far enough. Furthermore, 17 of the 25 countries have received a negative opinion from Europe saying that liberalization is not yet far enough. Unfortunately, our country is also involved in this. Per ⁇ we should take the opportunity to address what is happening now. Their

To say, however, that there is movement in the market, we have determined that putting it on the stock exchange did not have the desired result. We have created a new player, but a player that has not been able to become strong enough or has been able to weigh on that market, which represents too little percentage. It also does not have access to certain production mechanisms, which are fairly inexpensive. Therefore, the CREG is right, and that is a task that it will always be able to perform, also in the future as unhindered as now, will be able to report and will be able to say where the horse is bound.

I will immediately add one thing. That is a weakness that I attribute to the CREG. She had been assigned the market contentious as one of the powers, but she did not use it. She could have used that perfectly and could say that on the basis of market contentieux she was of the opinion that it is absolutely unacceptable that the efforts to be delivered by the end-destination, whether it is the individual family or a business, are unacceptable. So I think that first of all we must absolutely take advantage of the interconnections that are currently running because they open the market to new players. Secondly, we must take advantage of what is currently happening on the European energy market, namely that for the first time there are gremies from which it can be inferred that there will be regional markets in which multiple players will be present. The simple fact that Gazprom’s interest in being present in the Russian market, in cooperation with other players and in competition with them, has now been demonstrated in the Russian mission, is also a proof that Gazprom is steadily moving in the right direction. However, we must remain vigilant about this. This will not only be the work of this government, it will also remain the work of a Minister of Economy in the future.

Mr. Minister, I would like to talk about this study.

I think it’s interesting that you asked for that study and for benchmarking. However, I find that it becomes immediately clear here that forty days for such a study cannot be done. Asking for advice in forty days can not, but we are now eight months ahead.

I hope the CREG will finally come out with this study after eight months.

I just want to tell you that when the CREG issued an opinion on the merger, one has seen how many days it has taken. It took a lot of work and it took less than forty days. So it can.

Who did it?

and the CREG.

The Market Contentieux Directorate did so.

That is best possible.

And you say they have done nothing.

Marktcontentieux for me means the disputes that exist on the market regarding the pricing.

You said that service did nothing. Do you sweep the praise of a study and who made it? Directorate of Market Contentieux.