Proposition 51K2788

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (III).

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT EC Regulation food inspection adoption of a child pharmacist work health care profession greenhouse gas foreign national cooperative veterinarian animal production direct tax protection of privacy fine genetically modified organism mortgage indirect tax tax on income environmental protection notary public safety police social security town-planning profession tourism organisation leave on social grounds insurance insurance occupation insurance company veterinary inspection public health midwife employment policy unemployment unemployed person self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

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 ¶

Feb. 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are several rapporteurs, in particular Mrs De Block, Mr Muls, Mrs Galant, Mr Lano, Mr Gustin and Mrs Dierickx. The Minister of Internal Affairs is not present yet, but I can already do the round of reporters.

After the report, I will be the first to give you the word for a sort of preliminary question.

Among the reporters, who wants to report?

I refer to the written report.

Good so so. Myheart Muls? I see him at the moment not. And Madame Galant?

I am referring to the written report.

C is good. Mr Lano is? I do not see at this moment. I see Mr. Gustin standing. It refers to its report written. And you, Mrs. Dierickx?

I also refer to the written report.

Who is the responsible minister? Are there several?

Mrs D’Hondt, do you sign up for the general discussion?

I would like.

I too .

You are right. I wonder where the responsible minister is. I will see who is present at the moment. I’m removing the speaker list. I have already registered Mrs. Vautmans for the general discussion. Who will intervene?

I will intervene when the Minister is there.

Do you want to intervene when the Minister is there? Mrs. D’Hondt, who can hinder you to use that verb. This is Ecce Homo! The Minister of Internal Affairs comes from outside.

The [...]

But he is there.

[...] until 10 April.

Until April 10th?

[...] second week of Easter holidays, because the majority is not present in the committees.

Mrs. D’Hondt, you are the first speaker. Or not, Mr. Tante is the first.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Tant would like to make a declaration in advance. I know them. Finally, I suspect I know them. I will give him the floor, prior to the discussion, on the part of the bill containing various provisions for which you are competent. Okay to? Then I will follow the list of speakers. All journalists referred to their written reports.

Is Mr. Cortois also registered? You translate well. You have the word for what I know you are going to say.

Mr. Speaker, in any case, you already know it, but I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues and in particular the attention of the Government to the fact that the present text, in particular Articles 119 and 120 of the draft, give rise to the fact that this text is affected by a lack of form. I will clarify myself, first by saying what the content of the provision is.

In advance, Mr. Minister, you know that it was the original intention of the Government to have a much more voluminous text approved by Parliament on the occasion of the budget, the program law and the draft containing various provisions. Together with a number of colleagues, we have succeeded in bringing the government to a better sense on this point and in clarifying the provisions both in the Programme Act and in the draft containing various provisions, and which are not budget-related, and in making the object of a separate corpus of legislative initiative.

Articles 119 and 120 of the present draft are an example of this. May I ask your attention, colleagues? I apologize to me. This is, at first glance, quite a technical matter, but I think it also has practical consequences. I will try to show that at the end of my introduction.

Article 119 of the draft proposal aims to replace, in Article 91 of the Code of Taxes Equal to Income Taxes, the reference to Article 1 of the Act of 24 October 1902 on gambling by a reference to Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the Act of 7 May 1999 on the same gambling. To put it simply, Article 91 relates to the automatic relaxation devices. The tax established on it has become a regional tax under the Special Finance Act of 16 January 1989. It is, therefore, a matter of legislation on gambling, which is now largely within the competence of the Regions. Thus, since 1 January 2002, the Regions have been competent to modify the tax rate, the basis of taxation and the exemption from these taxes. There are two exceptions, Mr. Speaker, namely the determination of the tax object, which has remained a federal competence. The Regions shall also be empowered to adopt the administrative procedural rules relating to the tax referred to in Article 3.

However, according to the Council of State, the reference that the proposed provision intends to make in Article 91 of the Code of taxes equated with income taxes does not regulate a matter relating to the tax object of the tax, nor a matter of administrative procedure.

Those two issues of legislation governing gambling have remained a federal jurisdiction. However, the State Council states that the proposed provision, which is now the subject of Article 119, which precedes, does not fall within the competence of the federal legislature. The State Council therefore concludes that the text should actually be removed from the draft.

Mr. Minister, I apologize, but I would like you to try to listen. I know that a person has two ears, but sometimes it is difficult to use them at the same time.

Mr. Minister, the State Council actually says that the provisions of the present text should be clarified. I have already pointed to this several times. The questions have fallen in doomansors. However, I would like to point out that the withdrawal of Articles 119 and 120 is still possible. There are serious reasons for this, Mr. Minister. I refer you to the text of the coordinated laws on the Council of State and in particular to Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, which stipulate that if, according to the opinion of the Law Department, a preliminary draft or a proposal of law, decree or order, as well as an amendment or a draft amendment goes beyond the competence of the State, the Community or the Region, the preliminary draft, proposal or amendment shall, as the case may be, be forwarded to the Conciliation Committee.

I agree, Mr Minister. If the State Council releases a problem of competence, what it does in these, then the Government or the competent minister must submit the problem to the Consultation Committee. I have repeatedly asked and asked if that happened. The answer to that is no.

Mr. Minister, I assume that you are not aware of it, because it does not belong to your competence. However, we are appointed – apparently we alone, because the others are not there – to exchange opinions on this.

Has the Government, as you know, submitted this matter to the Consultation Committee? If not, why not?

I would like to ask for your explicit attention. Contrary to what you might think, this is not a purely academic, legal issue. I would like to draw your attention, colleagues, to the fact that, in the meantime, in the Walloon Parliament, this same matter is regulated by decree. Therefore, it is indeed the same matter that is not regulated by the federal, but by the regional legislature. Therefore, it is not just a matter, Mr. Speaker, of non-compliance with a number of rules of play in connection with the establishment of the law in these. Moreover, this issue, I repeat it, is already regulated by a regional law.

Mr. Speaker, I have made it easy for you: I have put both texts side by side. The first concerns Article 9 of the Decree of 16.12.2003 as approved by the Wallish Region. The second is the text of Article 119. Colleagues, what I want to say is that there is not only a problem of competence that is theoretically replicated by the State Council and as such should give rise to consultation in the Consultation Committee. Furthermore, it is established that another body, in this case the Walloon Parliament, has already settled the same matter.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree that it is not possible that we now silently act as if this decree did not exist! It does exist: I give you the text. This conclusion has important consequences in principle. If indeed it is necessary to come to the determination – and to that determination one must come! – that a form error was committed, then this is a reason not to treat the draft as such – says the Council of State – but to refer it first to the Consultation Committee.

Moreover, there is also the conclusion that the same matter was approved by the Wallish Parliament in a quasi-analogue manner. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how you view the organization of the further course of the work here. There is only one good solution.

I suggest them to you myself, which I have already done several times. Those articles should be withdrawn, unless you are aware that another body, in accordance with the opinion of the Council of State, has rightly settled the same matter. It is unthinkable, however, that the Federal Parliament would do that a second time, that is, again.

Colleagues, Mr. Tant has asked some sort of preliminary questions. This is not the first time.

Mr. Tant, we have talked about this twice, ⁇ three times, in the Conference of Presidents. At a certain point I followed your argument very closely – it would be quite regrettable – and also have been investigated by our services in the Chamber.

I personally, as president, can do nothing about this. You know; I have told you about it. I will briefly explain the reasons. When the Constitution or the special laws – which they were, I do not know exactly – were amended in 1980, the word “design” had also been mentioned in that text. Those words were deleted by an amendment submitted, and they were kept with the word “pre-project”. That means that if I get it here, that I’m dealing with a design, and not with a pre-design.

Mr. Speaker, you will then, together with me, knowing what we know, have to come to the conclusion that the text in question is affected by at least one form defect.

Colleagues, I will call the Minister of Finance, because that part, which comes in the course of the debate, is with him. I had a brief exchange of thoughts with the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not his matter, so I do not want to include him as such in Mr. Tant’s prejudice argument, where there is something to say. I will not wipe it off.

The same issue has been resolved by decree this week.

Yes, I see that now. I did not know. Mr. Tante, that is new, because you did not know it yourself when you first spoke.

I will tell you.

I will send Minister Reynders. What you said, I will let him know as soon as possible. He must react. There are various possibilities. Do you have patience, Mr. Tante? I cannot stop the discussion now, if you agree.

well well .

Colleagues, we now come to the bottom, if I can say so – taking into account what Mr. Tant and I have said on the subject – to the general discussion. The following speakers are registered: Mrs D’hondt, Mr Cortois, Mrs Pieters.

Mrs. D’Hondt, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if Minister Vanvelthoven is coming. In the committee, I had an amendment to the draft adoption leave. I withdrew that amendment in the committee in order to give the Minister the opportunity, upon his request, to examine whether he could intervene on the basis of the amendment. I said that we would then examine the answer before deciding whether we would submit that amendment again in the plenary session. I would therefore like the Minister to communicate the state of affairs during this plenary session.

You are right, I’ll let you see where the minister is now. I have now only two amendments that have been submitted again, namely on Article 92 and Article 93, by your colleagues Goutry and Verhaegen. These are amendments to abolition.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Cortois, hoping that you can get an answer to your question in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Can I take the word from here?

Of course, but do not keep it too short!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly intervene in connection with this bill containing several provisions. It was mainly handled on behalf of the VLD cells in terms of domestic policy and it also covered the State Secretary for Administrative Simplification. This is the arrangement that is now possible in connection with the registration of travellers in hotels. A new system of hotel bills can get shape and will simplify things very much, both at the demand of the sector itself, where 20,000 people are employed, and at the request of the police.

I would only say that, as regards the VLD, these provisions demonstrate that administrative simplification is actually possible, even through the application of new technologies such as digitalisation. I urge, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that the announced royal decrees should now also be implemented quickly.

My argument is actually in the same line.

Mr. Minister, I had asked this question to State Secretary Van Quickenborne but I have seen that this topic has been included in various provisions containing the law. For the police services, this could indeed mean an administrative simplification. However, I am somewhat alarmed by the sector itself, which is not so satisfied with it. They say that this may be an administrative simplification for police services, but that it is a question of whether security will be improved.

Another question that concerns the tourism sector is what is the definition of a tourist accommodation? Are holiday homes rented for private purposes covered by this?

I consulted the website of the Secretary of State. It defines tourist accommodation as: "All buildings or places where persons are temporarily staying for tourist or professional reasons, without being registered in the population registers." This includes hotels, motels, hostels, campings, bungalows, bed and breakfast, hoff tourism stays and accommodation where tourists and business travellers can stay. In addition, he also states that this concept includes: "An apartment that is made available by a private person for tourist purposes to, for example, family members, friends or third parties". This corresponds to the definition as it was predicted. That means that when one rents his apartment to friends, they will be forced to fill those chips.

I think that goes too far. And I am not alone, the whole tourism sector, the rental sector finds that goes too far. On the one hand, there is an administrative simplification for the police services and on the other hand there is a burden on the tourism sector.

I called Mr Vanvelthoven. Per ⁇ ministers can be a little more attentive when draft laws of their interest are on the agenda.

Then I have a problem. I also called Mr Reynders. I would also like to submit the text that Mr. Tante has put forward here.

I can do the following. If you agree with me – it’s not my habit – I can suspend this discussion and move on with something else and take them back later as soon as those I have called are here. I do not want the other colleagues to suffer from the possible absence of ministers. It is not too orthodox, but if the Chamber agrees, I can do it.

The [...]

Mr. Tante, the effect of drop by drop is incredible, but it takes a lot of time.

I do this exceptionally. I come back to this. I am temporarily suspending the discussion of Bill No. 2788/1-16 on.