Proposition 51K2874

Projet de loi portant des dispositions en matière de baux à loyer.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 29, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

lease

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 ¶

March 15, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I have a number of reporters.

Ms. Raemaekers is a reporter, Ms. Lahaye-Battheu, Ms. Ghenne, Mr. Stijn Bex, Ms. Douifi, Trees Pieters, Anne-Marie Baeke, Camille Dieu, Colette Burgeon and Hilde Dierickx. That is a lot.

What will journalists do?

Mr. Speaker, I am a rapporteur on technical amendments to the Law on the Apprenticeship System, the Law on the Funds for Survival Security and the Law on Occupational Accidents.

I will begin with the apprenticeship system for employee professions in Article 64. The proposed article provides that the sectors themselves may derogate from that age requirement without having to give the NAR prior permission. This rule is consistent with common practice.

Amendments to the Law of 7 January 1958 concerning the Funds for Social Security. The statutes of the Fund for Social Security, which are established with CAO, often only indicate the place of establishment of the Fund, for example Brussels, but not the full address. In administrative practice, this often leads to errors. In accordance with the draft provisions, the full address must now be indicated.

Then there is the Labor Accident Law. There is the specific accounting plan of the Fund for Occupational Accidents. The relevant reference to the Work Accident Act should therefore be replaced by a reference to the accounting to be kept as referred to in the Royal Decree of 3 April 1997 laying down measures for the responsibility of public social security institutions.

Then there is Section 2, the handling of complaints and mediation requests by the Fund for Occupational Accidents. The new Article 87ter is intended to clarify the powers of FAO in this regard and to align it with the Royal Decree of 21 June 2006. The article thus clarifies that FAO has exclusive competence for handling complaints and requests for mediation within the framework of its legal mandates.

The new Article 87quater makes it possible to conclude a protocol to regulate the mutual exchange of complaints falling within the competence of the FAO and the Insurance Ombudsman Service, respectively.

Mrs Greta D’Hondt intervened during the general discussion. She pointed out that during this legislature the Government has submitted a record number of draft program law and draft provisions containing various provisions.

Article discussion and voting. Apprenticeship system for employee professions, Article 64. No comments were made. This was unanimously adopted.

Chapter II, amending the Act of 7 January 1958 on subsistence funds, Articles 65 and 66. No comments were made on these articles. They were unanimously adopted in succession.

Chapter III – Occupational Accidents. Ms. Maggie De Block suggested that a protocol should be concluded between the insurance mediation services and the Fund for Occupational Accidents with regard to the complaints. The complainants may sometimes find it difficult to determine to which service they should submit a complaint. The Minister of Labour has intermitted to indicate that Article 70 meets the remarks of the speaker.

No comments were made on Articles 67 to 70. They were then unanimously adopted. All provisions referred to the committee were adopted unanimously.

Thank you very much, Mrs. I suspect that the other reporters and reporters refer to their written report.

I suspect Mrs. Creyf wants to cut off the nuclear passive. Mr. Verwilghen is present. I will let the rental legislation be dealt with if Mrs. Onkelinx is there. I try to arrange it a little.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill containing various provisions IV introduces major changes to the Fund for the Provision for the Dismantling of Nuclear Power Plants, better known as the Nuclear Passive. If the nuclear power plants are closed – in the current legal scenario this will already be possible in 2015 – there must be funds for the dismantling of the nuclear power plants and for the disinfection of the sites. For this purpose, a fund was established, established by the consumers of energy. There are currently approximately 4.5 billion in this fund. In fact, it is expected that the double will be needed at the time of complete dismantling.

This fund of 4.5 billion euros is therefore a savings pot for the future. This fund is managed by Synatom. Synatom is managed by a board of directors composed of directors affiliated with the sole shareholder, which is Electrabel, and two government representatives who have a golden share and who are appointed by the Minister of Energy. Importantly, the producer of Electrabel can invest 75% of this fund in its own company, subject to conditions. Therefore, there is 25% in that fund that does not go to Electrabel.

Well, the law containing various provisions establishes that 10% of those 25% that are not borrowed to Electrabel can be used by third parties, at a low interest rate, lower than on the market. If we re-calculate that, it is about 110 million euros. This money can be borrowed to third parties. Which third parties? There is nothing in the law about this.

In addition, with a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers, even more can be borrowed to third parties, thus more than 10% of the 25%. By way of speech, the entire 25% could be borrowed to third parties. Even the ratio 75-25 can be changed by a royal decree.

After the decision on this in the Council of Ministers was communicated that it would be environmentally friendly investments or projects. However, this is not stated in the bill, and not even in the memory of explanation. The savings pot or part of the savings pot can therefore be borrowed to third parties, without any specification in the law regarding who those third parties are or may be.

The Committee on Nuclear Supply will determine which legal entities and projects may be eligible for a loan. There is money from the Nuclear Fund. A royal order may decide that more money will go out of the fund and a commission will decide to whom the money will go. There is no control of Parliament. and nothing. and done.

Minister Di Rupo has promised to the Wallonian mayors that €100 million in low-cost loans will be made available to finance energy saving measures. In Vers l’Avenir of 13 January 2007, it is announced that the 100 million euros promised by Minister Di Rupo for renewable energy will be financed from the Synatom Fund. In the future, the nuclear passive will be used to finance the Wallish government’s promises. We are therefore seriously concerned.

The CD&V position is as follows. We are not against investing more funds from the Fund in our own country. We are not against investing those funds in environmentally friendly projects, on the contrary. The latter is not in the law. Therefore, there are no guarantees that this really goes to environmentally friendly projects. We also fear that there will be a hole in the nuclear passive.

The money in the nuclear fund generates money and must, in order to be sufficient, increase by 5% annually. We doubt whether that 5% growth rate can be sustained by borrowing 100 million euros or more at a interest rate below the market interest rate, ⁇ below 5%. The money goes to third parties. There is always a risk of borrowing. The Minister himself acknowledged this in the committee. The question is whether the money will be available at the time it is needed. For example, what will happen in the event of bankruptcy with such a third party? Therefore, there are risks that the borrowed money at a too low interest rate will not be available, or may not be able to be repayed at all at the time it is needed.

The government is calm and can be calm. In fact, the law also states that if there is a deficit, i.e. if the available money in the Nuclear Fund is insufficient for the dismantling of the nuclear power plants, the producer will pay the deficit. The manufacturer must fill the hole. The producer is in fact the consumer of energy and therefore risks having to pay a second time for the dismantling of the nuclear power plants.

This is typical of the government-Verhofstadt, namely taking money where there is money, without considering the future.

We require waterproof guarantees when borrowing the money. We will also not accept that the money is used for purposes other than investments in renewable or alternative energy.

If I have understood, Mr. Wathelet will speak on the same subject. I’m trying to group the topics together, which is not easy.

Mr. Speaker, I will not return to the theoretical part that Ms. Creyf mentioned. Today, the Synatom Fund is funded with €4.3 billion to finance the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the treatment of waste. Rarely is known that approximately 75% of the fund is used for waste treatment and that only 25% is actually used for dismantling nuclear power plants.

A mechanism of financing or almost self-financing was envisaged thanks to the yield of this fund assured by the money borrowed essentially to Electrabel. It is not as if it was a fund with a minimum of available money and from which one could withdraw some money. The whole of this fund with its expected and imposed yield today will be fully spent when all of the power plants have been dismantled and the waste has been treated.

What is the government’s position? What idea did he issue? It consists in lending some of the money from the Synatom fund to a number of companies that, thanks to these amounts, will invest in renewable energies.

At first, the idea seems quite interesting. However, questions come directly to our mind. To whom will we lend that money, about 110 million euros, and on what criteria? How do we plan to distribute loans to these different companies, funds or commissions? We cannot afford not to recover that money. It will have to be used to dismantle our power plants and to treat our nuclear waste. It is therefore important to know to whom it is borrowed. However, this point is entirely delegated to the King who must determine the modalities and criteria.

Another question is how much you can borrow. It is now known that in the 4 billion, 3 are borrowed to Electrabel with a yield rate of just over 6%. And the remaining 25% is borrowed to other institutions, less long in time but with a lower yield. What part of the fund will be borrowed? We are talking about 10% of the 25%, so 2.5% of the fund, that is, an amount between 100 and 110 million euros. And, at the same time, by royal order, the government can decide to lend more if it wishes! He gives himself the right.

Not only can the government decide to whom to borrow without any “guideline”, without any constraints, without any element of choice included in the legal text but it can also borrow what it wants from the 25% that are not borrowed to Electrabel and, worse, it can even go further and lend a part of what is now borrowed to Electrabel with a return of more than 6%. The government therefore has the full powers to lend money to whom it wants, but also to determine which part of the fund it will lend.

In the end, and this is ⁇ the most important and unacceptable element in this text, what is the rate of return that will be imposed on the companies or funds to which we will lend the money? How will we ensure that the Synatom fund is guaranteed sufficient yield to allow, a few years later, to dismantle our power plants and treat our nuclear waste? There is nothing in the text: Delegation to the King!

The return that must be assured on the loan of these 110 million is not determined in the text, it is the government that can determine it. This money is borrowed, it must produce a return that should allow to feed the fund, but this is delegated to the government. Worse, as to how to repatriate this money into the fund, the text also says nothing and leaves a total freedom to the government.

As to knowing to whom one lends, as to how one lends, as to how one repatriates the money, as to the rate of return that must be achieved by that loan, everything is delegated to the King.

I can absolutely not accept this! This Synatom fund, which works well today, is expected, in a few years, to be used for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the treatment of waste. So it is nothing! We need to make sure that this money goes back to the fund. We must ensure adequate yield. We must decide to whom we lend the money. It is necessary to determine what part of the fund you can afford to lend to a number of companies that want to invest in renewable energy.

There is nothing in this text about this, absolutely nothing! This text grants special powers to the government and allows it to do anything with the Synatom fund. We understand the purpose of the government.

I remember, Mr. Minister, a discussion I had in this assembly with the Minister of Budget. For one time, we were assured that this fund would be well fed. I asked her if she could guarantee us that she would not touch this fund, that she would not use it for the budget. Then we could see his discomfort. In the face of these questions, his position was not comfortable. Why Why ? We have the answer today: we allow the government to do what it wants with this Synatom fund. In other words, he can use it as he wants: he can grant amounts to whom he wants, he can define rates of profitability, define terms of repayment and define criteria setting the amounts of the fund that he can use at his own discretion.

This, Mr. Minister, cannot be accepted.

This question, which contains several aspects, I propose to answer you now.

Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief, since this issue has been discussed extensively in the committee.

In addition, I recall that before processing the text in the committee, I had some questions of a rather nervous type, whose answers may also have been somewhat nervous; I asked to wait until the moment when we would have the text.

I would like to repeat a very important principle. In essence, the law adopted on 11 April 2003 does not alter the principles contained in that law, namely the establishment of facilities for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the regulation of the management of the combustion fuels of the same power plants on a very defined system. These continues to be ⁇ ined, including the three fundamental principles underlying that law: the full responsibility of the commission manager; control of the adequacy and availability of the commission and the maintenance of the guarantees. That was our starting point.

There are two changes on the agenda. The first is the percentage of provisions, following a distribution key of 25/75. It can be revised, but it is not for now.

The possibility exists that a portion of the remaining 25% – more specifically 2.5% – can be used for specific loans at a rate more favorable than the market rate.

However, they must still lead to the same end goal. If they do not do so, the companies that operate and hold the nuclear power plants are not exempt from the costs in any case. Furthermore, they can or should no longer transfer those costs to the customers.

I understand that some questions come back, questions also asked in the commission: the types of loans, their amounts, etc. I replied then that a commission was specially created to look at the projects that will be submitted to it, as well as to process the files of companies that will be candidates for this type of loans.

I also immediately stated, Mr. Speaker, that this under no circumstances affects the agreements that have been concluded. The question then was whether this did not involve any risk. I have always said that it is difficult to exclude risks with a loan. There are also risks for banks. What do banks do to secure themselves? They demand adequate guarantees and that will therefore not be different here. In this regard, there are sufficient guarantees for hands.

I think the government’s proposal is useful both with regard to the distribution key and up to 2.5%. I now hear that it is possible for them if those goals are respected. That is the underlying content. It is said that this work is more in the hands of the government so that one has no control over it. Let us be honest, Mr. Speaker, whatever work the government does, it is accountable in Parliament. It is controllable at all times. I am therefore convinced that, if defects are identified at some point, one will not fail to respond to them. Again, all guarantees are at hand because the principles, inherent to the Act of 2003, have not been changed.

I don’t want to make it a mini-debate but it may be easier if it is replicated immediately so there is a unity in the debates.

I think we can only tell the same story. The 2003 law contains important principles, but it is the first time that this money is now borrowed and given to third parties. The guarantees, which are indeed contained in the law, are therefore, in our opinion, no longer guaranteed in the same degree.

Secondly, the 5 percent. It has been calculated using a mathematical and mathematical model that that 5% is needed, if one wants to reach the final amount that is needed. If you now pay those loans at interest rates lower than that 5% then there is a hole, that can not be different.

Third, in the hypothesis that there is indeed a hole being broken, it is our fear that not all the money will be at hand at the moment it should be there. This is a fund with a destination and a very important destination, namely the dismantling of the nuclear power plants at the moment it is needed. That money should not only be there, but it should also be available.

The whole question is what will happen if the money is not there. The government can feel calm because the producer will pay the difference. We know that the producer will report this to the consumer. That fund is now fed by the consumer, the consumer of electricity through a tax on the kilowatt hours. If this fund back turns out to be insufficient because money was borrowed from it that has not been returned, it will be that same consumer who will pay a second time. Therefore, the consumer risks having to pay for the same nuclear liability a second time. The government is taking a very high risk.

Mrs. Gerkens, I called you because I have the impression that you are intervening in the discussion of this aspect. Mrs. Creyf and Mr. Wathelet spoke and Mr. The Minister has already answered. As it is a law with different provisions, I try to combine the interventions. You have the word. We will see if Mr. The Minister still considers it necessary to respond.

The President, Mr. Has the Minister already answered?

He responded to Mrs. Creyf and Mr. by Wathelet. Who knows? Maybe he will respond a second time to please you? It depends on your questions, of course!

It would be good if he gave answers that I would like to hear!

A minister is here to answer, not to please!

We will continue to try to influence it.

My speech focuses on articles relating to Synatom and the management of its reserves for the dismantling of power plants and the treatment of irradiated waste.

In the provisions of the bill, the reading of several points worried me and continues to worry me, despite the discussions and responses of the minister. I can be reassured about the amount and supply of these reserves and the Synatom Fund. I can accept the interesting idea of investing part of that money in energy saving mechanisms and energy efficiency measures. Moreover, it is known that investing money in energy efficiency mechanisms – in the federal, these terms should be used – through the third-party investor mechanism, for example, allows the amortization of investments over a period of five to seven years. It is quite possible to develop planning programmes to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings, to carry out the necessary refunds and to manage the money in cycles to ensure the availability of reserves when needed.

The problem is that the bill proposed to us does not specify that this money will be spent on energy efficiency projects. Some ministers have talked about it. by Mr. Di Rupo, in his capacity as PS chairman, stressed that Synatom’s money would be invested in these projects, but this is not included in the law. This means that, through these articles, you can do anything with that money. Nothing will stop it! Certainly, the intention is not to do anything, but the only guarantees we can have regarding the use of money go through the definition of this purpose.

We have submitted an amendment in this regard. He was rejected. I will, of course, allow myself to repeat it, for I still cannot understand why this accuracy is not mentioned, given that it is an objective, a noble intention of using this money.

It is worrying to see, in this mechanism of making available a part of the money of the Synatom fund, that not only the purpose but also the selection criteria on the basis of which these projects or legal persons will be held are not specified in the articles. It is an open door to all imaginable drifts.

I would like to come to a point that I had not considered in the committee. This money will be borrowed at a very low rate, the only lower limit of interest is inflation. Now, knowing that the money of the Synatom fund is not subject to any taxation or charge and if one considers that it is used by public officials who must repay interests, will these interests eventually fill a breach or will they simply be added to the Synatom cash?

Is it true that lending that money costs nothing to the Synatom fund, except that the money is placed differently at a certain interest rate? It is only requested that there be a refund of the interest rate not earned due to the immobilization of this amount. I would like to know the logic of profitability of the loan granted.

Two things worry me and I have already formulated them: on the one hand, it is not specified that it is for the purpose of energy efficiency and, on the other hand, it is not known on the basis of which criteria the legal persons or projects, who will benefit from this money, will be selected.

I had asked the question quite clearly: is it aimed at mayors who were informed of the availability of this money and who were therefore invited to submit their projects quickly? Or will this mechanism be open to a whole series of other projects? If yes, based on what criteria? We ignore it.

Among other provisions, the articles of law remain equally worrying. If I understand correctly, the monitoring committee will become a provisions committee and three representatives of Synatom will be members. This body will therefore be represented by the one who is controlled; it is he who will have to verify how these funds are managed and invested.

Rules determine how a portion of that money can be used. They also stipulate that this money cannot be used solely or too much by the nuclear actors themselves. Now, three members of Synatom will be part of this commission and will have to take care of this. They will make decisions and will be responsible for giving opinions. Incompatibility is total.

In addition, a royal decree will suffice to decide on the change in the amount that may or may not be invested, especially in the nuclear sector. It is also a choice regarding the use of the funds that will be made without consulting the Parliament or without amending the law. A simple arrest would suffice. It is true that a decision must be submitted to the Council of Ministers. However, this is a mere arrest. Therefore, the democratic control of the management of this fund is waived. However, this fund is fed from the contribution of all Belgian citizens through their electricity consumption. In fact, electricity producers feed this fund from the revenues they earn.

If there are malversations in the use of funds, if risks are taken unconsciously, it will again be the citizens who will have to pay to fill the deficit. In the event of dismantling, if the reserve is not sufficient, it is the State that must intervene.

Beyond these remarks that explain our opposition to the provisions of the bill submitted to us, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I have decided to submit amendments that reflect the criticism I have just put forward.

I would also like to ask a question of actuality to the Minister.

Mr. Minister, in the committee, I asked you about the observations made by the monitoring committee. He criticized the way Synatom had managed these funds. You answered me that the amendment of the law does not prevent the prosecution and settlement of the dispute. I would also like to point out that this dispute was still not resolved when I intervened in the committee.

Today it appears that Synatom has once again had to report on the management of the last three years. This report must be submitted to the monitoring committee, after the opinion of UNDRAF, before these opinions are finally transmitted to you.

Can you tell me exactly where this report is? Will the arrangements, which are being taken today, have an impact on the ongoing procedure with regard to the latest report of Synatom and, possibly, the monitoring committee? Could you also tell me how and within what time the conclusions of this report will be communicated to us? Indeed, these conclusions should allow us to reassure ourselves – or to worry even more – about the new arrangements taken.

Ms. Gerkens spoke of a topic that was not addressed as such by Mr. Gerkens. Wathelet and by Mrs. Creyf.

Mr. Speaker, the questions asked by Ms. Gerkens are very similar to those addressed in the two previous speeches. My answer will be the same, of course.

However, there are two specific questions. As for the first, the loan is granted at a slightly lower rate than the market; so this is not spectacular. This is an annex. When money is returned with interest, the whole goes back to Synatom, the provision company. There is no possible doubt about this.

Mrs. Gerkens, in your second question, you speak of current disputes. Current disputes follow their course and they have nothing to do with changes since changes are not the cause. They will then follow their course, as I told you when we dealt with the matter in commission.

In the committee, you actually answered me that this was following its course. Is it true that, at the moment, the same type of report as the one that was made by the Monitoring Committee on Previous Investments is underway? I do not know if there will be a dispute, because this is a new report.

Will this report be drawn up without being influenced by the new provisions? (Yes) is very good.

I will communicate my amendments.

I will return to the amendments during the discussion of the articles.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gerkens asked a question that I had not asked but which I found ⁇ interesting. It concerns the composition of the Nuclear Provision Commission, which has changed. I really do not understand the usefulness of this change. Why has this change occurred?

The only goal I can find here is to increase the power of the government to be able to dictate action within this commission. I really do not see the link between this project and the changes in the composition of the Nuclear Provision Commission. What is the added value of this change of people? Except for the reasons that Ms. Gerkens mentioned recently, I do not understand.

This is a reinforcement of the public sector. Since these are projects relating to renewable and alternative energies, to energy efficiency in a much wider field than what the Commission normally deals with, it is primarily a strengthening of the public sector.

As for the course of the work, Mrs. Pieters, you are also registered. Now I want to address the section of rental legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will also represent Mr. Reynders for the part relating to his subject matter.

I am looking for the gentlemen Claes and Courtois. Mr Dewael is in Madrid. In principle he is replaced by Mr Van Quickenborne. Mr Reynders has been detained from this point on and is replaced by Mr Verwilghen.

I will deal with the “Loyers” section.

For this are registered: Mrs. Lalieux, Mrs. Marghem, the gentlemen Wathelet, Laeremans and Verherstraeten.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, there have been various reactions in the media about the articles on the rental in the bill containing various provisions. Among them was the acid law.

It is my stomach that, despite this, we are dealing with a very important chapter in society, namely the rental legislation, the organizations and the actors in the field were not allowed to be heard, despite our request.

I was able to find through the computer science path that, despite the fact that the Justice Committee did not want to hear them, you as the chairman heard yesterday an interest organization, in particular the owners and the brokers.

Is that a compliment to me? I thank you for that.

I usually do the following. A petition may not be submitted in person in the Chamber. What is the reason I received them, what I have done ten times, and for me it was already so?

There were 28,000 signatures received by someone from the services and the courtesy of the chairman required me, just like all my predecessors did, to receive people briefly - half an hour - and listen to them. I have done this for many groups. I think it was the fifty-first group to submit a petition, which I do not personally accept.

I do what I think I should do. I respect the Constitution in this regard. If they ask me if I can receive people, I do. If they don’t ask me, I ⁇ don’t do it. I do not ask for it.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against you receiving people in your capacity as Chairman of the Chamber, but not in your capacity as a list dwarf of the Open Vld list for Eastern Flanders.

I regretted that no one was heard in the Justice Committee. The president did, but I also have problems with the president. After all, he has been very selective and has only heard the owners. I wish he had heard the tenants too. They have very interesting information on the subject.

This is, socially speaking, a very important and very sensitive topic. So owners, tenants, banks and municipal governments could have been more involved in the file, which was not the case.

When I heard the broadcast on ACP, I noticed that the broadcaster stated that the chairman shared the concerns of the owners and the real estate agents.

This was the interpretation of the President. You can be confident: He shares the concerns, but he will soon vote against the concerns.

( ... ) : ( ... )

Yes, and the whole open world.

Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister – I am now mainly addressing you –, which I also kept sitting on my hunger, is about the finding that in the government agreement ...

( ... )

Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, in that case, we would have liked that transparency had taken place in the committee and not in the closure of your cabinet.

You’ve also met the owners and tenants, I guess?

This should be done on an individual basis.

It would have been better done in openness and transparency. This could have benefited the wealth of the debate.

In the government agreement, I read that the current government would review the rental law and seek a new balance between tenant and tenant in terms of rights and obligations. When reading the draft law, I ask myself where the evaluation is. When drawing up the new draft – in the government agreement it was stated that the government would evaluate in advance – I would have liked to have seen the objective evaluation included. Was there a study? What are its results? What does the study show?

We did not have that. We have “à l’improviste” rotted something in the margins of the rental legislation.

Mrs. Minister, I fear that the rental legislation and the adjustments we will now make will be antisocial, cause too much government interference and too much bureaucracy.

In our country, we establish on the land that in Flanders 75% of the people own. I am happy about that. We are happy about that. We hope that the figure will continue to increase in the future. I also hope that the increase will also occur in the other regions of our country.

Wallonia has 40% tenants and in Brussels 50% tenants. One in two houses will be rented. There are completely different rental markets.

Mrs. Minister, Brussels is still different from Flanders, because in Brussels the rental market is slowly being completely institutionalized and that the modal tenants there are large investment companies, and the longer the more that are international companies. In Flanders, the landlord is more often the private person who has a second home, which he has inherited or for which he has been able to save, as the third or fourth pillar of pension as well. This creates completely different rental conditions.

If one comes into a very disparate rental market with the same concept, then in my opinion that is a wrong recipe. Mrs. Minister, you would like to apply a Brussels recipe in Wallonia and in Flanders, where that is totally impossible.

Mrs. Minister, we have problems with when later the rental price must be mandatory. I understand that you want to fight against discrimination. I have said that I also support you in this and that I think it is right that discrimination cannot. However, I fear that your intention, with the current text – now we have only the administrative fines – will be a blow to the water.

We have heard owners and tenants. Well, I have been at the coffee with the owners this afternoon for quite a while and apparently you, Mr. Chairman, yesterday in your capacity as either Chamber Chairman or list duvar of Open Vld - I do not know it - informed that you will not apply that law later, even if you will approve them.

I am the first to apply the law. I said I have some experience with the matter. That is all.

Mr. Speaker, I have been quoted: “In Brakel nothing comes from!”

Apologize to me. Now I understand you. I have said that for the municipalities, who will have to realize it all, it will take some time.

I suggest that you come to the committee as an experienced expert.

Mr. De Crem, if one has the accident to rent a few properties, then one has some experience.

Therefore, you are acting here in your capacity on behalf of the tenants.

... of your guests, Mr. President.

I invited no one.

The places where the signs may come.

I don’t rent plates, Mr. De Crem.

[...] where they are allowed to come. Probably the tenants.

I don’t need that yet, Mr. De Crem.

Mrs. Minister, I fear that the administrative fines will be a blow in the water, because they will not be applied, for example, in Brakel.

There were interesting questions related to the display, among others from colleague Wathelet. If a rental price is displayed and the rental price is accepted as a candidate renter, is there a rental agreement? You responded negatively and said that there are other contractual provisions that can be discussed and consulted.

Mrs. Minister, we together detest the tenants who are too badly faithful. We regret that there are so few, just as some tenants are not always in good faith. However, I think that the big thing on both sides is too good faith. Well, a renter who is in bad faith will always be able to bypass your article by saying that there were other rental terms with which one could not agree.

We talked about privacy. The Privacy Commission was also not heard. I fear there is a violation of privacy. As Christian Democrats, we are absolutely in favor of transparency in rental prices, but not in the way you organize it. We have made a proposal in this regard: transfer the rental legislation to the regions, to the regions. Transfer also the registration of lease contracts to the Regions and the Communities. If the lease contracts are registered, it is possible to see perfectly how the lease prices evolve from Mons to Luik and from Gent to, by way of speech, Alken. If there are problems in a given region, then by more activating social rental housing, one can intervene and adjust where the private housing market leads to associal effects. That would be transparency, transparency with respect for privacy.

Colleagues, it is damn difficult for some families to pay a month rent and at the same time three months rent guarantee at the beginning of a rental contract. With you, I am very aware of this.

I do not understand, however, that tomorrow a poor tenant will have to cough out a three-month rent guarantee, and his monthly rent guarantee, and the commission and the expenses of the bank, which will be charged to him anyway, while that for a rich tenant is only two months rent guarantee. For socialists, rich tenants are advantageous compared to poor tenants. I do not understand that!

I am afraid that will lead to stigmatisation. Owners will say they want a candidate tenant who can immediately pay two-month rental guarantee. I fear that some peacekeepers will also pronounce lease cuts faster, that after two months of lease cuts will already be pronounced a lease cuts rather than after three months of lease cuts, as is now the case, in part aligned with the lease guarantee.

Regarding the rental guarantee, both the owners and the tenants’ associations feared that this would cause rental prices to rise. If the two key actors in the field already have their fears about this, why should we change the provisions on the subject? My fear is that we will soon get threshold money on the private rental market, just like that exists with many rental rentals. First, a threshold fee will have to be paid before a rental contract can be signed, with all the associal consequences thereof.

What would we do if we were to take responsibility? We have a target group policy. There are people who have trouble, colleagues-socialists, to cough up the rent guarantee. For people with low incomes, we can make target group policies. The government may provide for a common pot, if necessary in consultation with the banks, which may co-finance. I am very willing to hold consultations to make a pot, so that for people who are under a certain income and for rental contracts under a certain rental price, as if immediately a rental guarantee is deposited, which can be temporarily, during the course of the rental contract, collected. If, highly organized, a limited rental guarantee fund was created for certain target groups, then I think that would have sorted much better effects than is now the case.

I also do not understand why there is a mandatory place description in the rental legislation. Location descriptions are good, but the legislation was in this regard right now advantageous for the tenant. The imposition of the location description is actually detrimental to the tenants. What will happen to these location descriptions? The longer the more institutions will prepare those place descriptions. They will cost money. Who will pay that bill? Well, the tenants will pay that bill, at least for half. In fact, this is a disadvantage to the tenants.

There are a lot of mandatory attachments, fortunately, now, for the new rental contracts, but there are no sanctions on them.

Banks will soon be obliged to provide rental guarantees to the client that will ask for them. What if the banks refuse? There are no sanctions either. I understand that the banks are already building legal arguments in this regard in order to indeed refuse questions. Also in this regard, I fear that the design will be a blow in the water for a bit.

The fear is that the market will shrink for a bit.

The owners expressed their fears, but also the tenants. Can I quote the tenants, colleagues? “The measures taken cannot convince us globally. Instead of addressing the major challenges, this government is changing a number of matters on the margins.”

Colleagues, I note that as the elections approach, the purple government partners also begin to confess their love for the midfield with their lips. Well, you could have respected the midfield here by consulting with the owners and tenants to find a healthy, balanced solution. This has not happened. I am therefore afraid that we will get an associal legislation on the matter that will not be applied not only in Brakel, but also elsewhere. We regret these adjustments.

The task is difficult to accomplish. Verherstraeten and his brilliant intervention, especially since, like him, having not had the chance to have as good hearings as the chairman of the House, I lack some information. The next time we talk about rents in the Chamber, we will think of proposing to register you in the list of people to audition, given that you are yourself a specialist in the matter. Of course, you will speak on behalf of the owners and you will not hide from them. There will be at least a bell sound, which is interesting in the debate. You can teach us about the local peculiarities of the market in Brakel.

If the majority does not get the quorum in the committee in the second week of the Easter holiday, we may be able to talk about that for a moment. We shall ensure the quorum. Is that agreed?

That is friendly.

Mr. Speaker, you can become a specialist in several committees; why not?

We should be pleased that paragraph 2 of Article 1716 has been removed. It would have created administrative and control difficulties. In this text, many measures are good, in any case from the point of view of the principle: the obligation to use the written contract, the obligation to register leases – what better for the tenant as for the owner who both have an interest in certainty in the dates and clarity in the terms of the lease? Or the state of the place.

As Mr. said. Verherstraeten, the current provision that does not require attaching a state of the places is almost in the advantage of the tenant since he is protected in fine if there is no state of the places, while the state of the places of exit is supposed to be the same as at the entrance. With this new obligation, one tends to restrict the rights of the tenant but in fact, the penalty remains the same and, in the absence of the state of the places, one returns to common law in which the states of the places of entry and exit must be identical. Between us – and not only, since I speak in the Chamber! –, this is the best possible measure: it is up to the owner to draw up a state of place if he wants to be protected. If the state of the places of entry has not been drawn up, it cannot be invoked: what is more normal?

There is also this obligation concerning the attachments to be attached to the lease contract at the time of registration. This may be a new administrative overload but it was not bad to draw the attention of citizens to the importance of these annexes.

The transparency of prices, a transparent market, the fact of knowing the rental prices, is a real progress. On most online real estate sites, prices are most often mentioned. Not necessarily the charges, but this is also done more and more often, even on websites. We are all interested in this transparency.

Even if they are going in the right direction, you are aware just like us that the problem with these measures is that it is very difficult to accompany them with sanctions. There is an obligation to display the price but everything remains to be negotiated later. There is an obligation to establish a state of the places, but there is no punishment. There is an obligation to register, but the penalty is also difficult to apply: even if the penalty is clearly defined in the text, it is unclear what consequences can lead to a breach in the annexes concerning, among other things, the conditions of sanitation.

The element on which we can absolutely disagree is the question of the rental guarantee – and our colleague Verherstraeten recently pointed out – in many ways.

The first is the risk that it becomes an additional element of discrimination. This has been discussed many times in the committee. The danger is that, if a landlord encounters a tenant who is unable to directly pay the two-month deposit and obliged to resort to the three-month mechanism, through the banking agency, he will fear that that tenant is insufficiently solvent only to pay the rent and charges. As today, the rental guarantee is often too thin to cover the unpaid rent and the various charges due in case of a lease break, a landlord will undoubtedly be even more watchful and will refuse to bind to that tenant.

The [...]

He paid three months today. Mr. Minister, you are not without knowing that we have submitted a proposal that could meet all the arguments. It does not necessarily have to pay three months: those who have the means to pay immediately can only pay two.

What is quite original – and colleague Verherstraeten well recalled it – is that today, having the means to immediately settle a lease deposit, one can pay less, i.e. two months rather than three.

Furthermore, in the event of the rupture of the lease contract, if three months proved insufficient to cover the owner against the obligations not fulfilled by the tenant, two months will be even more. That is why we had submitted a bill in order to establish a system of equal rental deposit for all, of three months, while ⁇ ining this possibility of bank guarantee. This guarantee has no reason to be for those who pay the three months directly on the globalized and solidary account, but it can come to the point for people who do not have sufficient means to pay the three-month rental.

Mrs. Minister, here, I agree perfectly with you: for many, unlocking three months of rent in addition to the first rent, in addition to the charges related to the previous lease contract, in addition ⁇ to the state of the place, or even the restoration of the home we have just left, this is what constitutes a considerable amount and sometimes unbearable.

That is why we had proposed this system of the same three-month rental guarantee for everyone. The system was therefore identical for everyone, each paying on the same blocked account, which would have provided a sense of solidarity and would have guaranteed sufficient profitability for the banking sector. And, at the same time, this did not constitute an element of additional discrimination at the time of concluding the lease contract.

This proposal would have had the advantage of not including a new element of discrimination in the head of the owner. Moreover, it did not favor the tenant who had the means to pay immediately and who would have been rewarded by having to pay only two months instead of three. Finally, it had the advantage of offering a genuine aspect of solidarity by placing all the collateral at the same time to be able to ensure sufficient profitability at the bank level in order to be able to cover those three months of collateral when, for example, the person would not have had time to pay or would simply not have paid the whole three months of collateral. This guaranteed sufficient solidarity for the owners, putting them all in the same situation, giving them all the same opportunities and the certainty that the deposit would be paid by the banking body, even if it had not been fully constituted by the tenant.

Mrs. Minister, as colleague Verherstraeten concluded, this proposal could have guaranteed this balance.

Rather than opposing tenants and owners by giving them each a carrot, this proposal for rental guarantee funds was aimed at ensuring balance. She safeguarded the tenant, allowing him not to have to pay his three months directly if he did not have the means, so that he was not discriminated when he entered the lease, and she assured the owner the guarantee of three months of lease. Furthermore, they did not reward those who were able to pay directly.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Flemish Belang is absolutely not to speak of the hypocrisy that comes with the current rental law change. It is, so to speak, about strengthening the interests of the rights of the tenants, but what is proposed here will have the exact opposite effect in the long run: it is in particular against the interests of the tenants.

First is the method of work. It is absolutely unusual, non-parliamentary and therefore undemocratic, Mr. Speaker, that such a major legislative change, with an impact on hundreds of thousands of people – think of the compulsory writing of oral lease agreements – is initiated by Parliament by means of a kind of program law, a law containing various provisions, without it being able to devote a serious and in-depth debate. At least hearing on this important matter should have been organised, as we had proposed, with both the tenants’ associations and the owners’ associations. We have proposed that and only CD&V has supported us in that, no one else. incomprehensible in such a matter.

If one wants that kind of legislation to be carried out by the population, one must first listen to the stakeholders and hear what their reaction is. In any case, I have found that both the tenant associations and the tenant associations have heavy criticism of the legislation, which will make it very difficult to accept in practice and will have counterproductive consequences. But it was once a fetish of the Minister of Justice: the rental price should and would be posted, with all the consequences thereof. This ideological trophy, at all costs, she wanted to bring in, and so it had to be chased by the Parliament with the carwats.

Onkelinx went a lot further. She also wanted to collectivize the entire rental market through an article which she had incorporated into the law after the Council of State’s opinion. The Minister had not even bothered to consult with the local authorities before this fundamental transformation of the rental law, while they would play a crucial role in managing all possible rental databases at municipal level. It was an oekaze in the most authoritarian-socialist sense of the word. Meanwhile, the same State Council has put a stake in this regard.

As for the substance of the case, I repeat what we have said in the committee. The mandatory publication of the rental price will have the opposite effect. The owners who want to retain the freedom of choice and thus make a choice between candidate tenants will display prices much higher than the price they have in mind, precisely to ensure that the people they prefer not to want are deterred by the price. Afterwards, it will be possible to offer at a more reasonable price.

That mechanism, colleagues, is perverse. First, the mandatory price indication will immediately create the impression that rental prices are steeply rising everywhere, which will trigger a real inflation: everyone will feel called to raise prices. In addition, it is still not entirely certain that in practice it will always be offered. If, despite a strongly increased price, many candidates still appear, the owner will probably maintain the higher pre-established price. In this way, a law intended to protect the interests of a small group of tenants threatens to have very serious and associal consequences for all tenants. The law threatens to become completely counterproductive.

Then we’re not talking about the possible long-term consequences of the law. With so many unilateral new obligations for the tenants, quite a few owners are in danger of reducing or falling away from the enthusiasm to rent. I quote Ann Van Beurden of the Turnhoutse tenant association in the Gazet of Antwerp of 21 February.

“With every legislative change that imposes new obligations on the tenant or imposes punitive measures, we see a narrowing of the rental market.” With all the consequences of this, of course, but that will be this Minister of Justice of course. If she can fight her ideological battle, but she can go home. If only she can see that she has imprinted her mark on the rental law and also in this matter has left her mark. Whether it is in the benefit of the tenant or not, that ultimately does not matter much. Furthermore, the rental guarantee scheme is strangely enough ⁇ unaccountable for small tenants, since less capital-powered tenants will have to take up three months of rental guarantee, compared to two months for more capital-powered tenants. That is apparently all of no count, that can all under a socialist minister.

The impression has been created, that you are dealing with the matter concerning rental, but not in the social sense, Mrs. Minister. Nevertheless, the media will do everything they can to fulfill their classic role of megaphone once again in the sense desired by purple. It is high time that we finally have a worthy Minister of Justice, who truly takes care of the interests of the little man and of the small tenants.

I would like to conclude with the observation that this law is critical for many reasons, but also because of its unreadability. We have rarely seen the State Council be as sharp in its opinion as in this file. It is stated literally, and I quote: “The Dutch text of the drafts and the article-specific discussions is understated from the point of view of correct language use.” It is not we who say that, it is the Council of State. However, the Minister has no ears to this criticism. After these comments, there was hardly anything changed.

This shows once again that this is a rush law, which is introduced only for ideological reasons, and which therefore also had to be introduced before the end of this legislature. On the other hand, it is high time for the Flammers to realize that this matter is also wrong at the federal level. The insights on rental – think about the debate about blocking rental prices – are fundamentally different in Flanders and Wallonia. It is high time that Flanders and Wallonia also become autonomous in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, I am ⁇ pleased that we can discuss these measures today in the plenary session. We knew that in this matter, antagonistic positions were present within even the partners of the majority. We are especially pleased that this has not led you to give up and that an agreement has been reached on this issue, even though it has made some people grind their teeth.

The right to a decent housing was enshrined in our Constitution more than a decade ago. Decent housing in a decent living environment should be considered as a first necessity property. It is also known that housing conditions, if they are good, contribute to social integration; they promote the success of our children and personal development.

But how can we not be surprised by the situations that many families are experiencing? How not to react when you know that there are places in some big cities, and especially in Brussels, where it becomes impossible to accommodate, simply because it is too expensive? When the absence of political intervention throws our fellow citizens into despair, how can we tolerate that owners abuse the weakness of certain tenants by renting housing near insalubrity?

Today, the housing crisis goes far beyond emergency situations. This is a large majority of families who are facing the difficulty of finding housing at a price and affordable rental. These men and women are not accidents of life. They usually have a job, a salary, a status. Their misfortune is that they have too modest incomes to cope with the flying rent.

Real estate inflation has become one of the major inequalities. They strike purchasing power. It prohibits the choice of residence. It paralyses social mobility. It is now attested that the rental price increases every year in much greater proportions than the purchasing power of households. Strong measures are needed and needed. Therefore, we find it important to make the market more transparent.

Thus, the proposed measure aiming at the obligation to indicate the price of the rent but also charges will result in a better understanding of the market and will allow candidate tenants to adequately compare the prices of the property rented, but will also help to avoid any discrimination in relation to the rental of that or that housing. This is a measure that goes in the right direction.

In the same sense, we find it important to better frame the relations between the parties by precisely defining the rights and obligations of each of them, in particular in terms of repair, for example by clarifying the status of contradictory places, by annexing these provisions to the lease contract.

This is, in our opinion, a condition for establishing real security in the relations between tenants and owners. We know all the contours of the problem: on the one hand, tenants who feel pressured without ever being able to negotiate the conditions of access and maintenance in the premises; on the other hand, tenants who fear unpaid or the degradation of their property without being able to finally recover it.

Here it is necessary to find a point of balance between these two parties to the contract. By clarifying the rights and duties of everyone, we are convinced that many unnecessary or unnecessary conflicts can be avoided. Real security should be established between tenants and owners.

Another measure that has been highlighted concerns the mandatory registration of the lease by the owner. This will allow policy makers to have a greater knowledge of the state of the rental park and ⁇ reorient policies, whether municipal or regional.

Changes have made a lot of ink and words flow here; that is the problem of the rental guarantee scheme. There are two possibilities: either two months if an individualized account is opened, or three months allowing the tenant to pay monthly payments. This is a step in the right direction if all the actors play the game and that will of course need to be evaluated.

Concrete solutions are here proposed to the opposite of conservatism displayed by some, and even by some government parties.

I also recall, Mrs. Minister, your experiences in the management of rents which – I hope – may, tomorrow, be extended to other cities and other municipalities. This is, in my opinion, a very important experience to be able to lead to other proposals tomorrow.

In conclusion, I would like to make two brief considerations.

We have an obligation of results in the implementation of an anti-exclusion strategy and access for all to decent and affordable housing. Equal opportunities must become, in every sense of the term, a common place. We need to provide concrete answers to these problems. These measures are an important first step. However, we must not cover our faces, they will not be enough. An arsenal will have to complement them; it is about the dignity of many of our fellow citizens.

The last speaker in the general discussion is Ms. Marghem. I will then give the floor to the Minister, if she so desires.

After that, we will address another chapter, taking into account the presence of some of our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, my speech will cover all the provisions on housing provided for in the bills containing various provisions which we are currently examining.

The right to decent housing is enshrined in our Constitution and constitutes the extension of the right to safety properly said: it is the right to found its nest and to put its own in shelter. In a society that wants to be democratic and evolved like ours, it means, despite all, more than that and constitutes one of the fundamental axes of the construction of the life project of each citizen. The free access to a home not only decent but also as consistent as possible with the choice of life made is an essential attribute of the security of existence that we must guarantee to everyone.

It is often said that the Belgian has a brick in his stomach. Becoming a owner is an essential goal for him. The MR has always supported this personal and individual ambition by considering that the desire to be the owner of his home, his place of living, his home must be encouraged and promoted by various measures at all levels of power.

During this legislature, under the impetus of our President and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, many tax incentives were adopted to promote the acquisition of his housing: tax deductions, tax reductions favouring the sustainable renovation of houses or their security, through the rehabilitation of less favoured neighborhoods in order to guarantee social mixture.

But access to housing also means respecting the choice of those who, by taste or by necessity, resort to the private rental market. Different measures have therefore been proposed in this regard in the texts that are submitted to us, in particular by you, Mrs. Minister.

First, the register of communal rentals.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the withdrawal of this highly unproductive measure, under the impetus of the MR and the VLD. The stated goal of this measure was to [...]

The [...]

and yes. We have asked [...]

( ... ) on the basis of an opinion of the State Council. On the other hand, this measure has been accepted by the whole government of which your political group – I think – is part.

The MR and the VLD are part of the government. We talked about it. We believe that it is under our impulse – and I see my VLD colleague, Claude Marinower, opinion of the chief – that this measure has been withdrawn.

I repeat his goal to try to make you understand why we thought it was inappropriate and counterproductive. The objective you claimed, through this measure, was to protect the candidate tenant by allowing him prior to the lease negotiation, to reflect on the characteristics of the lease and the monetary conditions, and to compare them with other properties to be rented.

To do this, municipal or intercommunal databases taking over the housing buildings rented on the market would have been made available to the public. The situation would therefore have varied – and that is where the problem was – depending on the municipalities and the resources they would have available to set up such an information system.

This project therefore presented the disadvantage of legal uncertainty. To this was added the risk of seeing the owners desert the municipalities applying such a system and, consequently, the decrease in the supply on the local rental market as well as a shortage of "average" housing while they are the ones that lack the most.

Furthermore, this formality increased the burden of the tenant, to which were added the usual risks of non-payment of the rent and of rent damage.

Finally, the proposed sanction was, in our taste, quite disproportionate to the alleged “infraction”. The tenant could thus have "benefited", by the possibility of unilaterally breaking the lease, from the non-compliance by the tenant of an administrative formality, that is, that in a purely private contract a completely external element was introduced, purely administrative and regulatory, and not private.

Second measure: the display of the amount of the rental and/or charges.

In application of the theory promoted in the exhibition of reasons for the bill, entitled "the public offer", it is provided that any public communication relating to the lease of a property must include, in particular, a description of the leased property, the amount of the lease requested as well as the amount of charges.

This measure is both a tool to combat the discrimination that some owners would practice against certain candidate tenants and would be part of a logic of good information to the consumer.

Failure to comply with these mentions will be punished by an administrative fine ranging from 50 to 200 euros, the municipalities as decentralized authorities being responsible for the finding, prosecution and sanction of these alleged "infractions".

Although the pursuit of these objectives is quite understandable and praiseworthy, one can think that the implementation of these measures will unfortunately not be uniform across the entire territory since it will depend on priorities and local, therefore municipal resources. Especially because a particular federal budget, as you said yourself, is not allocated to it.

In addition to the problem of means, the proper effectiveness of this method still seems to me quite random, the parties being always free to negotiate the height of the rent. This is the expression of respect for contractual freedom – at least – which should not be questioned in this matter, and I welcome it. As a result, the informative effect of such a measure is somewhat diluted.

What is even worse, in my opinion, is that this measure will in no way prevent the discrimination that is claimed to be eliminated. In fact, nothing prevents a scrupulous tenant from pretending to have another candidate tenant for a better price, thus refusing to rent his property to someone who does not like him. Let us not forget that, contrary to what some in the commission have said, the lease contract creates strongly coloured personal rights and obligations of "intuitu personae". It is a contract concluded between two persons with regard to a set of elements not included in the contract, but which constitute the relationship existing between these two persons.

This affirmed will for transparency through the measure, which is praiseworthy, constitutes nevertheless in any case a first step towards the establishment of a cadastre of the rental market that can lead to a control, or even a blockage of leases or to the full taxation of rental income.

I see that Mrs. Lalieux fully agrees with me; she therefore confirms my intuitions on the matter.

Third, the obligation of the written lease and the mandatory content of this contract. I am pleased again to find that, with regard to the obligation to use a written lease, our observations on the absence of transitional rules between the current law and the new law have been heard – and I thank you for this – in particular with regard to the fate of the oral leases relating to the principal residence of the acquirer. Indeed, if they had not been the subject of a written agreement at the latest within six months of the entry into force of the law, they would have been disqualified and would have become common law leases, causing the tenant to lose the special protection of the law of 1991 relating to the principal residence of the acquirer. Fortunately, thanks to an amendment, they will remain valid and subject to the ⁇ strict rules of protection of this law.

Finally, the mandatory annexation of certain information relating to the lease contract such as sanitary standards and the main provisions of the Civil Code in this matter may be interesting for tenants in order to make a decision in full knowledge of the facts, although it puts them in front of a real "bottle" more difficult and discouraging to read than a simple lease contract.

Fourth, the definition of the works other than leases to be borne by the tenant. The rule you propose modifies the supplementary character – by making it imperative – which was attached to the determination of the works incumbent either on the owner or on the tenant. This is a further distortion of the principle of contractual freedom which I find hardly justifiable. This will not always be favourable to the tenant because it could jeopardize the practice of renovation leases in which the tenant undertakes to perform works other than lease repairs in exchange for a reduction in rent, which is nevertheless the fundamental objective of the law. Contrary to what some claim, contractual freedom can also play in favor of the tenant.

In addition, as I indicated above, this provision will also have a counterproductive effect, decreasing the supply of housing and accentuating instead the rise in rent, two effects still common and which are somehow twins in the project that occupies us.

Fifth, the guarantee of locations. The reduction of the rental guarantee to two months of rental, when it is paid in a single time, is probably the heaviest measure for owners. This is evidenced by the important petition that has just been submitted in this regard to Parliament and has 22,000 signatures. Even more than the previous ones, this measure is the result of an outdated and caricatural view of the contractual relationship between owners and tenants.

I apologize for having to say this, but the truth is not as caricatural as this. This view always considers the relationship between the owner and the tenant as a relationship of force. On the one hand, the great evil owner, king of real estate speculation, who seeks only to become rich, and on the other hand, the poor tenant, economically weak at the mercy of the capitalist and individualist appetite of the first. This is a biased view of economic reality; you can believe me!

We must reset the debate in its context; it is not about arbitrating a match between David, the tenant, and Goliath, the owner. In history and mythology, David is the winner. Therefore, it is not worth worrying too much about it!

For a large number of landlords, the rent income they receive is not an enrichment that could be called “shameful” but rather an indispensable income for a simply decent life. I think in particular of the self-employed who have had to invest to ensure a supplement to their statutory pension that is not – it must be said, I am independent myself and, at 43 years, I hope that in twenty years things will have changed – not as high as one might wish.

Giving the impression that one part of the population benefits from the disarray and precariousness of the other is not only false but constitutes a shameful lack of respect for a whole category of citizens. This is to deny the fact that it is often to their labor that these citizens owe the constitution of their heritage.

As is known, already the current three-month deposit is insufficient, knowing that the procedures for termination of leases take several months without counting the obligation to repair possible lease damages. Needless to say, the situation will be even more problematic with a two-month rental guarantee. Moreover, let us not make illusions, we risk seeing more often tenants opt for the possibility of extending the payment of their deposit in time, and this is quite normal. While they spread the payment of their deposit over time, they can spend their money on something else.

This solution will be especially encouraged as it will be more appreciated by tenants who will receive from banks, in case of default of the tenant, an amount equivalent to three months of rent. Here again, I consider that there is a breach of the principle of equality on several levels between the rights and obligations of the parties. Certainly, bad faith is not presumed in a contract, that is, it is not presumed in the application of the obligations of that contract, but it exists. You have to know it, and it is not always where you would expect it. There are unscrupulous tenants who know well that a termination procedure in case of non-payment of rent will take several months and that the banks are still there to pay the three-month rental guarantee they chose. Furthermore, the option regarding the rental guarantee will depend in fine on a unilateral decision of the tenant, the owners cannot, in turn, exercise any choice in return.

It can be thought that appeals will be brought to the Arbitration Court.

In short, the result to which we reach the total seems to me counterproductive for the tenant: the rental market will, anyway, regulate itself - let us not make illusions! - and rents will increase due competition or, worse yet, the supply of the rental market will decrease, with buildings being abandoned, which will result in a decrease in resources for everyone.

In conclusion, these measures, under the cover of the protection of the tenant against the owner, will have many perverse effects that, voluntarily or not, have not been anticipated or calculated. As I said before, the decline in supply and the relative price inflation are not, by far, engaging prospects for tenants. In addition to this, some provisions will, while ensuring a better information of the tenant, weaken his position, especially when he is already precarious. I think in particular of the “bottin” effect of conventions and of the state of mandatory places.

Some wanted to go further and impose a blockage of rent. The reduction of the deposit amount is therefore the compromise we have reached. This is a temporary compromise, I have no doubt. This is a compromise and we will support this text! But it is obvious...

The [...]

Ah! to Compromises with the Belgian are absolutely miraculous! Otherwise, there is no longer a majority.

This is the fate of politics!

This is the lot of politics, which is the art of compromise in Belgium!

It is obvious that all measures impregnated with a negative connotation and a priori negative – I want to clarify it for having heard such remarks in commission – of one party in this contract against another seem to me doomed to failure because they break a balance and ultimately benefit no one. The important thing is to seek the right balance between the obligations and the rights of each.

We are trying!

We try, but it is very laborious.

... the rose!

In my opinion, the ideal is the rose, but without thorns!

The [...]

The rose in the wrist. Without the spines.

In this case, you have to buy the roses from the florist, because he has a device to remove the thorns! It is even quite violent!

The [...]

This is the political rose.

Yes, but I am not a rose.

The important thing is to respect the right balance - we try, but we have not yet reached it - between the obligations and rights of each, in such a way that both parties voluntarily engage in the contractual relationship, the commitments of one constituting the appropriate counterparty of the commitments of the other and that - the lawyers will not want me - in accordance with Article 1134 of the Civil Code which mentions that "the convention makes the law of the parties".

( ... ) : [...]

and no. This is the Civil Code. The Convention makes the law of the parties.

I said this at the beginning of my speech. You did not listen to me. “In cauda venenum.” The poison in the tail.

Let us keep this in mind...

In Cauda Venenum, in Cauda Venenum. However, some purists say "in caudam venenum", the latter being an accusation of movement.

Better and better! You are doing better than me, Mr. President!

Let us keep this in mind when these new rules come into force and let us – please – proceed to their short-term evaluation in order to correct, eventually – you will not contradict me – the negative effects. This is what we will take special care of.

Do you want to intervene, Prime Minister?

I answered from my bank. I will simply add that the provisions presented today will be part of a housing plan, defended since the beginning of the legislature.

This housing plan has generated €70 million as part of the policy of the big cities to support on the ground proactive policies for social housing or average housing; a housing policy aimed at lowering the VAT rate for the benefit of social housing or for the benefit of the ecological renovation of housing; a plan that allowed to revise the procedure for recovery of abandoned buildings to ease the procedure and weigh more concretely on the ground; finally, measures to re-balance between the rights of owners and the rights of tenants.

This housing plan was absolutely necessary: on the ground, it is one of the problems most often raised by our fellow citizens. It is clear that over the years, the share of the budget dedicated to housing has become increasingly important. Regions such as Brussels have a significant majority of isolated persons or single-parent families: it is a daily difficulty to find accommodation.

Therefore, it was necessary to invest for the benefit of housing. As Ms. Lalieux pointed out, far from me is the idea that the work is finished: this is just a step that has just been passed, but we will need to continue to respond to the call of distress we hear daily.

We both agree that there are problems in the housing market in Brussels. Indeed, there are some fiscal provisions and resources have been sent within the framework of the metropolitan policy, but these provisions in this chapter will not respond to them. Then, of course, the question is why this needs to be changed.

Mr. Speaker, I understand from you that the VLD has avoided even worse. Well, after hearing the intervention of the last colleague, Mrs. Marghem, I wonder if it could be even worse.

Mrs Van den Bossche, welcome. I don’t think anyone wants to address you specifically now.

Mrs Schryvers, Mr Courtois and Mrs Pieters are still registered.

Mrs Schryvers, I see that you are registered for the section Police and Home Affairs. Mr Courtois, you are registered for the section on safety at football matches. Mr Dirk Claes withdrew his speech. Mr Vincent Van Quickenborne will replace the justifiably absent Deputy Prime Minister, who is in Madrid.

I will finish the point. I will close the afternoon meeting when both the general discussion and the article-by-article discussion of this draft have been concluded.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to talk a moment about the mandates at the federal police and at the General Inspection of the federal and local police. As we have already communicated in the committee, we really have principled objections to the way in which this draft attempts to regulate the appointments of former police officers.

I would like to put the facts in a row. As part of the police reform, in 2001 Minister Duquesne had to fill a number of mandate positions for the top of the federal police. These appointments also occurred throughout the heisa of public service reforms. Procedures such as assessment and the like were also included here. In the meantime, of course, all of them have already been murdered, as is the case with other top positions in the public office. These appointments followed procedures before the Council of State for the vast majority of them. These, according to the problems that arise in the Council of State – we all know that – after years, one already slightly faster than the other, led to decisions of destruction. Instead of anticipating this, the destruction was simply anticipated. Subsequently, almost the entire top of the federal police – the commissary general, the directors general, the inspector general and a large number of the executive directors-coordinators, the DirCo’s – were appointed as servants.

Through the draft law containing various provisions, the government now wishes to nominally and with retroactive effect from 2001 to fill the various destroyed appointments. CD&V can absolutely not agree with this art-and-flight work. Article 247 of the Integrated Police Act clearly states that appointments are a prerogative of the king. This provision is now simply thrown overboard and all these people are – I repeat it – nominatim and retroactively appointed by means of a legal provision.

Even at the time of the announcement of the statute of the police services, the so-called Mammoet Decree, procedures before the State Council were also intensified by certain staff members. The government then adopted the same practice. The part of the royal decree against which the majority of the proceedings went, was then simply ratified by law. Why then and why now? Simply, because in this way you can break the legal process and any victims will have to seek refuge at the Arbitration Court, which is much more difficult and of course also much more expensive.

Why can we absolutely not agree with this? One does not correct the initial error in the procedure, but one simply seeks a way out through a back door. The selection procedure, in which a basic error was found by the State Council, remains completely unaffected. The results of that selection are simply confirmed by law. Mr. Minister, as a staple of respect for our rule of law and the decisions of the Council of State, this can really count.

It will undoubtedly be argued that the persons who were appointed at that time do not have to bear the consequences of the fact that their appointment was destroyed so many years later. I can only say two things. First, make sure that the backwardness at the Council of State reduces so that there is quicker clarity. Second, make sure that you, as a government, follow the procedures correctly, something we also recently warned you about when selecting the new Commissioner-General.

By the way, the government may be fortunate that the destruction that is now being attempted to repair did not occur on the basis of an individual’s objection.

I just spoke about the Commissioner-General. Now, in the present bill, his appointment is regulated retroactively by law, for the period from 2001 to 2006. If I was properly informed, an extension of the mandate was requested in a timely manner by the end of that period. What is the current situation? Will we, from a legal point of view, not have two Commissioners-General after the publication of the present law? The appointment in the mandate is retroactive for five years. Those five years have already passed today, on the date of the appointment by law. In the meantime, several of the mandatory holders would also have effectively obtained an extension. How valid is that extension actually still, if in the meantime their initial appointment has been destroyed? Will you renew the appointments that you want to regulate today by law retroactively soon? Will this be done by law or do you do it by KB?

I would also like to get an answer to the question of whether the mandatory holders now appointed by law retroactively were evaluated in the exercise of their mandate. Will they therefore be granted a renewal of their mandate? How do you evaluate the legal situation in which they are currently?

In short, Mr. Speaker, I can only decide that we have fallen into a legal clutter and hope that lessons will be drawn for the future and that all efforts will be made to handle procedures correctly. First of all, I think of the mandate of the Commissioner-General, in which the Minister of Home Affairs, together with his fellow Justice, recently appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a few moments about the provisions relating to the so-called "football" law. You will tell me that this is not extremely important. Nevertheless, this theme occupies a place of choice in our country, given that football remains the most important social movement in the Kingdom.

Like my colleague Annemie Turtelboom, I am delighted that the Minister has taken back one of our proposals, designed in addition with Mr. Turtelboom. Anthuenis, referring to the “recalcitrants” supporters. They are asked to appear at the police offices on the day of the match.

Why did we suggest this provision? First, because we remain convinced that hooliganism remains, at home, a phenomenon limited to 100 or 200 extremists. By definition, it is not the small number that must determine a policy for the majority. Then, these characters are well known to the police services. Therefore, it seemed to us that individuals who have demonstrated that they have nothing to do with the sporting sense, since they appeared in the stadiums only in order to create problems, should be put as quickly as possible apart.

It must be known, Mr. Speaker, that this proposal is only a continuation of a policy carried out for years, both by clubs and private companies. We therefore found it essential that public authorities, both judicial and police, provide an adequate response to hooliganism.

With this brief speech, I wanted to highlight the considerable efforts made by clubs, and in particular by professional teams, who have spent millions of euros to be able to regularise their situation in accordance with the “football” law and European legislation.

Among the measures taken, I will mention the adaptation of the stadiums, surveillance cameras, post controls, stewards. Just stewarding for certain sporting events costs our clubs millions. It was therefore appropriate that this arsenal of measures taken by our clubs and private services could be accompanied by provisions decided by public authorities, including the Ministry of the Interior. The latter thus made arrangements regarding the separation of supporters, their reception and stewarding. It should be added to the new measure concerning the presentation of hooligans in police offices.

Finally, this could not be complete without an adequate judicial device for this type of characters. It is a fact that when a hooligan is in a stadium or outside a stadium or if he wants to climb on a lawn and attack the law enforcement forces, the judicial authorities consider it to be a gang attack by people, possibly armed.

All this is a concept, a general philosophy in which it is necessary to well frame the fact that clubs make an effort and that public authorities make an effort. Here, the Interior Minister is making an effort but still needs to be accompanied by judicial measures.

These regulations concerning football respect the supporter. The supporter is someone quite sociable, who has no reason to suddenly become violent. It was therefore imperative that we take appropriate measures to meet the supporters of this country who want to be able to quietly attend a football match.

That is why I think it was necessary to emphasize the decision made by the Minister of the Interior to respond to the proposal regarding the passage of hooligans to police offices.

Mrs. Pieters, I then asked about which topic you would intervene. Can this be done with Mr. Verwilghen?

pollution of the environment.

Mrs. Onkelinx has been present all the time. Mr. Tobback came here some time ago. He is responsible for the environment. I will have Mr. Tobback recalled. I will also ask the Secretary of State to replicate loco minister Dewael.

We are talking about deadlines. This is actually a matter for Mrs. Onkelinx.

I let Mrs. Onkelinx leave. I did not know what your subject was. I will try to call her back. Because you weren’t there, I didn’t know what topic you were talking about.

Mr. Minister Verwilghen, would you listen carefully to what Ms. Pieters says?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, in the midst of the discussion around the new rental legislation, I feel that too little attention was paid to another part of the law containing various provisions. However, this has a lot of implications for business life. In particular, it concerns the introduction of special limitation periods for claims brought by public authorities to reimburse the costs of prevention and remedy measures in the event of environmental damage.

The principle that the polluter pays stands for me like a pillar over water. No one should suspect me that I want to see polluting agencies and companies treated impunely.

However, I note that the government can require companies and individuals to pay for the environmental pollution they have caused up to 30 years after the facts. This is 20 years longer than the normal limitation period.

The new deadline will also apply to the ongoing files. The new period begins to run from the day following the day on which the environmental damage occurred, even if this starting point is before the entry into force of this law. The new rules apply to anyone who has caused damage to soil, water, air, protected species and the natural habitat of animals, as well as increased risks to human health. Surprisingly, damage caused by fire or explosion is also covered by this law.

For the polluter, in this case very often an entrepreneur or a company, the cost plate can be very high. The government may recover the cost of repair for both measures to repair the damage and measures to prevent further damage.

I would like to emphasize here very specifically that not every company or entrepreneur in the past or in the present has consciously damaged the environment. Often, the negative effects of certain products or processes were not sufficiently known. Therefore, in my opinion, the concept of “historical pollution”, as it was incorporated in the decrees of the regions, is a reasonable solution. To put an entrepreneur or a company on the shoulder of the polluter for a period of 30 years is not an encouraging signal for business.

Minister Onkelinx has once again succeeded in making the business more risky and unattractive. It has only been a few weeks since we discussed here at the plenary session on Minister Onkelinx’s bill that allows companies to be imprisoned for a second, judicial sentence up to 10 years.

Recently, however, more laws have been passed that extend the liability of managers of companies. The risks associated with business are increasing.

Does Prime Minister Verhofstadt still dare to claim that he is ahead of entrepreneurs? With the new, upcoming legislative amendment on top, the current government makes the business in Belgium unattractive, not to say destroyed. For a good economy and for jobs, however, we need our entrepreneurs very hard.

Mr. Secretary of State, Mrs. Schryvers and Mr. Courtois asked Mr. Dewael a number of questions. Would you like to answer this?

I have received some information from the Cabinet.

As for your questions, Mrs. Schryvers, the matter has been sufficiently discussed in the committee. Regularization is a correction of past mistakes. It is about five-year mandates. You have asked what will happen in five years. The normal rules apply and that means that the mandates are opened, as has been the case for the commissary-general of the federal police. You know that Mr. Fransen was replaced by Mr. Koekelberg. The normal procedure was also followed.

As for your question about the evaluation, an evaluation has taken place. At each appointment there is an evaluation. This has also happened to these people, as is normally the case.

I will come to the comments of Mr. by Courtois.

Mr. Courtois, you explained your bill. The government will consider your suggestions, which are rather positive. However, with regard to the matter itself, it would be better that you address directly to Mr. Dewael, Minister of the Interior.

Mr. Verwilghen, would you like to comment on the comments of Mrs. Pieters?

This issue was discussed in the committee. A number of comments were made on the pollution theme and the associated limitation period. I have always known that in this very special matter special terms have played. In those circumstances, it seems to me that what was proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, falls within the normal deadline.

20 years longer than before.

The House seems to me to be sufficiently informed during the few hours spent on this important bill.