Proposition 52K1200

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

May 29, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT occupational accident copyright bank deposit test tube fertilisation bio-ethics civil defence direct tax precious stones protection of privacy first aid bankruptcy pharmaceutical industry financial institution disabled person emergency medical treatment medicinal product family benefit indirect tax computer systems tax on income nuclear power station child protection arts artificial insemination foodstuffs legislation notary patent embryo and foetus public administration public sector quasi-fiscal charge pension scheme police experiment on humans mutual assistance scheme social security town-planning profession decommissioning of power stations criminal procedure crew insurance insurance company food safety public health self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

LDD FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

July 3, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Colleagues, the rapporteurs are numerous: Mrs Lecomte, Mr Van Hecke, Mr Van Biesen, M. by Arens, M Hamal, Mr. De Potter, Mrs. De Bue and M. by Jean-Jacques Flahaux I suppose they refer to the written report?

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Social Affairs Committee met on 11 and 17 June to examine the bill containing various provisions in relation to the subjects it has to deal with, in this case a section Social Affairs and Public Health and a section Employment.

For the Social Affairs component itself, the draft law submitted contains two chapters. A first chapter, entitled ‘Family allowances’, relates to Articles 93 and 94. Article 94, which refers to the rules of collection of family allowances, provides that, at the request of the ONAFTS, only when the identity of the allocator is not clearly established, it is the allocator, that is, the one who opens the right to family allowances for the child, who receives them, the aim sought being to avoid any suspension of the right to family allowances.

This article sparked the same comment from several Commissioners, namely, which persons were covered by this provision. And the Minister of Social Affairs to respond through concrete examples that were targeted both the allocators of the European Union and those outside the Union.

The second chapter, entitled "Maribel social", relates to Articles 95 and 96. The provision aims to abolish the former Fund for Hospitals and Psychiatric Care Houses and this, in favor of a single Social Maribel Fund, competent for all employers in the public sector, with the aim of clarifying the legislation.

For the Public Health component, Chapter 2, which relates to Articles 98 to 102, entitled "Cotations and contributions on the turnover of pharmaceutical specialties", modifies the regime of exemption and reduction of pharmaceutical contributions from which companies that develop research or reduce their marketing expenses can benefit, in that, on the one hand, it limits these reduction measures to six years, on the grounds that the European Commission considers them as state aid and, on the other hand, in that the exemption promised to companies that market stable blood derivatives cannot be held on the grounds that the European Commission considers discriminatory the distinction made between volunteer donors and paid donors.

Ms. De Block (Open Vld) Bonte (sp.a+Vl.Pro) and M. Bultinck (Vlaams Belang) are concerned about these changes and question the minister about what it is planned to do after the six years, since for blood derivatives, the minister has initially mentioned a new non-selective provision to be taken in consultation with the European Commission. The Minister wishes to develop another scheme that can be approved by the European Commission, knowing that the current scheme is valid until 2011.

Chapter 8, entitled "Modification of the Act of 6 August 1990 on Mutualities and National Unions of Mutualities", relates to Articles 151 to 153. These are technical changes following the inclusion of small risks in the mandatory insurance of self-employed persons.

For the surplus, i.e. for Chapters 9 and 10, i.e. Articles 154 to 162, I refer to the written report, concerning technical arrangements.

The articles in question were all adopted by 12 votes and one abstention, with the exception of Article 98, which was adopted by 11 votes and 2 abstentions.

For the Employment section, it was to examine Articles 83 to 92 in four chapters. The first chapter, entitled "Working Accidents", consists of Articles 83 to 86. Articles 83 to 85 relate to employers who are not insured and aim to ensure that, when an employer is not insured, the agreement concluded between the victim of a work accident and the Working Accident Fund is taxable to the employer, with the aim of avoiding that disputes made by the employer who is not insured lead to a revision of the compensation agreement.

Article 86 relates to the remuneration of mousses and grants minors and apprentices, in the event of a work accident on board a ship, compensation equal to that obtained if they were, at the time of the facts, major or at the end of a learning contract.

The first purely technical article of Chapter 2, entitled "Different Provisions", is Article 87, which relates to collective agreements relating to risk groups. The obligation of Article 190, § 2, paragraph 2 is deleted in order to simplify administrative procedures. This removal of the reference to the risk groups is, according to Mr. Bone (sp.a+Vl.Pro) is a serious problem. He fears that the position of those who, within the framework of trade union negotiations, advocate efforts for these groups will be weakened. In order to avoid this undesirable effect of Article 87, it deposits a first amendment aimed at its deletion. This amendment will be rejected.

Articles 88 to 91 relate to the diamond sector and aim to amend the law of 12 April 1960 establishing an internal compensation fund for the diamond sector by fixing an annual maximum amount of contribution.

Article 91 also provides for administrative fines applicable to different actors in the diamond industry or trade.

The amendment, issued by Mr. Prevot (cdH) and consorts, the inclusion in Chapter 2 of three new Articles 91.1, 91.2, 91.3 dedicating non-recurring benefits related to results for temporary workers raises in M. Gilkinet (Ecolo-Groen!) dissatisfaction and disapproval of the adopted method of work that he calls inconsistent and undemocratic. The Ministry of Employment underlines that these provisions aim to ensure equal treatment between temporary workers and permanent workers.

by Mr. Bonte (sp.a+Vl.Pro) subsequently deposits a second amendment aimed at inserting new articles 91.1 and 91.2 relating to the exemption of the employment bonus from the natural persons tax and the related modalities.

Article 92, which aims to grant a re-employment premium to all unemployed and no longer exclusively to the elderly unemployed, recalled in Chapter 3, has caused many reactions from the Commissioners. by Mr. Bonte (sp.a+Vl.Pro), Mrs Smeyers (CD&V - N-VA) and Mr. Vercamer (CD&V - N-VA) who talk in turn about the role of confusion, generally ask themselves the question of whether the re-employment premium replaces or overlaps the mobility premium.

Further confusion on the title of the chapter itself mistakenly titled "Childcare Mobility Supplement"; it will be worth reading "Childcare Mobility and Supplement". In this regard, Ms. Reuter (MR) advocates an increase in the number of accommodation places rather than providing a premium for single-parent families. As for Ms. De Maght (LDD), who qualifies the measure under review as ineffective and unthinkable, she submits an amendment aimed at removing the draft article, an amendment which will be rejected. The Minister of Employment reiterates that this premium opens up various perspectives that will be discussed at the Interministerial Conference scheduled for June 14.

by Mr. Bonte (sp.a+Vl.Pro) submits amendment No. 3 to insert a new chapter 4 comprising articles 92.1, 92.2 and 92.3 entitled “Strengthening the employment bonus”, amendment which will be rejected.

A new chapter 4, entitled “Dispositions supplementing the law of 9 May 2008 concerning accompanying measures with regard to the establishment of a special negotiating group, a representative body and a procedural body relating to the involvement of workers in the European Cooperative Society”, covers two new articles – 92.1 and 92.2 – which, through amendments issued by Mr. Prevot (cdH) and consorts, restore the text of this bill. Due to a technical error, it was incomplete.

by Mr. Bonte (sp.a+ Vl.Pro) will submit a final amendment to insert a chapter 5 entitled "Titles-services" which aims to allow single-parent families to receive free of charge two additional titles-services for ten purchased securities. This amendment will be rejected.

All provisions covering both Social Affairs and Employment are adopted by 11 votes and 3 abstentions.

This was the first speech of Ms. Lecomte in the Chamber.

(The applause )

Mr. Speaker, I will stick to the written report, but I would like to speak on behalf of the MR Group in the general discussion.

I would indeed like to speak briefly – once it is not customary – on a few points that we consider important to highlight during this debate on amendments to the draft.

The first point concerns the Impulse Fund for General Medicine.

The amendment aims to rewrite a legal basis for the Impulseo Fund to clarify its purpose and respond to a fundamental comment from the State Council.

Based on the conclusion that general medicine must necessarily be the subject of special attention, many speakers have already expressed themselves in plenary session on this subject.

The Impulseo Fund was created to encourage general practitioners to practice or continue to practice general practitioner. Thus Impulseo I was born and consisted of an intervention to encourage the installation of young general physicians or an intervention for the installation of general physicians in priority areas or low medical density.

Impulseo II is on the rails. It will consist of an intervention to the attention of general practitioners who are grouped and who wish to develop together a logistical support, an administrative assistance.

Finally, Impulseo III could, with this new legal basis, be considered, for example, for the benefit of general practitioners working alone.

We would like to welcome this overall policy objective of supporting general medicine, which is, in our view, indispensable for ⁇ ining accessible and quality proximity medicine. Whether in rural areas, in difficult neighborhoods but also more generally, the attractiveness of general medicine must remain a constant concern.

Secondly, I would like to address the postponement of the entry into force of the law of 21 April 2007 appointing the representatives of nurses at home to the nurses-insurance organizations convention committee.

The MR group is aware of the difficulties associated with the implementation of this law, but is also aware of the fact that, to enforce this law, political will is needed, Mrs. Minister. For more than twenty years, the problem of representativity of nurses, and independent nurses in particular, has been the subject of many discussions. If the question of representativity within the convention committee arises, it is precisely, whatever some say, that the current composition does not correspond sufficiently to the nursing landscape. That is why the Reform Movement pleads for everything to be implemented in order to finally respect the law passed in the previous legislature.

Finally, Mrs. Minister, I would like to draw your attention to a letter we received from the National Council of the Order of Pharmacists on the proposed provision, aimed at guaranteeing the continuity of pharmaceutical care and the obligation to participate in the custody service imposed on all pharmaceutical offices. The National Council of the Order of Pharmacists wishes not to be disengaged from the process of developing the rules relating to the custody service.

Can you, Mrs. Minister, confirm to us that you will associate the Order of Pharmacists with the drafting of this regulation?

The MR Group wants you to take a firm commitment in this regard. You know, as with other subjects in the sector, we give priority attention to the consultation of field actors.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ministers and Secretaries of State, dear colleagues, these are the different elements that the MR Group wanted to highlight during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to nurses and their presence in various boards, we work in relation with representative organizations but also with a number of reference persons in terms of the attractiveness of the profession. We discuss their representation in various councils.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to talk about the work chapter, and more specifically about Article 93, which creates the legal basis for the mobility premiums of Deputy Prime Minister Onkelinx. Over the past few months, there has been a lot of dust, especially in Flanders.

The first question that can be asked is, of course, why this is suddenly so urgent. Next week, on 14 July, an interregional job conference will normally start, with interregional mobility being a major focus. Nevertheless, we must already approve a law here today that actually gives carte blanche to the Minister of Labour, of whom we all know, Flemish colleagues, with what ideas she plays, if she talks about promoting interregional mobility. I refer here to her concrete fulfillment of the mobility premiums she proposed.

I said last week during the questioning hour in the Chamber, even the parties that in the newspapers heavily learnt against this mobility premium – I spoke in particular about the colleagues of CD&V – N-VA – have in the committee, Mr. Vercamer, actually already given their blessing to the minister. With a simple KB, she can make the matter operational, according to her own insights.

Mr. Vercamer, I would have liked to have addressed your colleague of the N-VA, Mrs. Smeyers, too, but she is probably still impressed by the burner she has just received from the group chairman of CD&V, Mr. Verherstraeten, in the context of another file. I would like to address her directly, because last week we spoke here during the questionnaire about the report of the Social and Economic Council of Flanders, which had made a number of recommendations within the framework of the interregional job conference of 14 July. This showed that the SERV was not at all won for a federal-led policy, with premiums of all kinds to increase interregional mobility, which these days has so much to do.

I will not repeat the arguments of the Socio-Economic Council, but it was more specifically about more language training, a better transport offer from and to the business areas and, above all, a better welcome for the Wallish workers in Flemish companies.

Furthermore, colleagues, there is an important socio-economic gap – at least it should be – in the Community negotiations, which are now underway and should be filled within 14 days. The labour market – which is one of your puppets – would be regionalized. That was promised by many parties before the elections, at least to the Flemish voters.

The current draft legislation, which now approves several provisions, including the legislative amendment on mobility premiums, is in fact also an advance on the debate that has yet to be conducted. This should be voiced to reflection.

Colleagues, it would be a sign of good policy and faith in a good outcome, if we were to wait at least fourteen days. After all, at that time it will be clear that all the above-mentioned matters, including the mobility premiums, would eventually become Flemish competences.

However, the law containing various provisions predicts little good in this regard. It is not a sign of regionalization of anything. It is, on the contrary, and with your support, a federal recovery of powers. This is somewhat incomprehensible.

Colleagues of the CD&V and especially of the N-VA, I therefore assume that your “yes” vote in the committee was a mistake, that you were more or less guided around the garden and were misled by the minister by the way of working during the reading of the law holding various provisions.

After all, colleagues, you will have to admit it. The N-VA complains that it abstained during the vote on the policy letter of the Minister of Labour, explicitly for the mobility premium. By the way, members of the N-VA, Ms. Smeyers stated that here even last week during the plenary session. On the other hand, at the same time, you approve the law that empowers the Minister to realize the mobility premiums according to its own insights, which are harmful to Flanders. This leads to at least a credibility problem.

I look forward to your vote later this evening.

By the way, I would like to ask the Minister, who has come in the meantime, how the consultation with the regional colleagues went.

During the meeting of the Social Affairs Committee on 17 June 2008, you announced that you would have talks with your regional colleagues the week after. What was the outcome of the aforementioned discussions? The result would be of particular interest to me.

In any case, we will vote against it with great conviction. For us, the present draft is not merely an advance of the community discussions and discussions that are now ongoing or should be ongoing. Nor do we want to give a blank cheque to a minister who says of himself that he is in the ideal position to stop a regionalization of the labour market.

Colleagues, instead of a regionalization of parts of labour market policy, we will now approve a federal recovery. This is not the ideal path and does not comply with the promises we made to the Flemish voters.

The law containing various provisions that you will undoubtedly approve tonight is a first step in this federal recovery of powers. However, it will not be with our support. Colleagues of CD&V and N-VA, I hope it will not be with yours either. I look forward to your voting behavior.

In the context of these laws containing various provisions, I would like to highlight two aspects.

The first is the establishment of a system of non-recurring performance-related benefits for autonomous public enterprises. This point deserves to be highlighted because it is of paramount importance: it responds to a legitimate expectation of the workers. At a time when attempts to empower managers of public enterprises by linking their wages to the achievement of objectives, a similar measure for workers was needed. It is indeed the workers of our public enterprises who, for decades, have rendered an important service to an entire population. They are often very attached to their profession and feel recognized in the exercise of a function in the service of our fellow citizens. They also participate every day in the good financial health of the heavyweights of our economy such as the SNCB Group, La Poste or Belgacom. Giving them a financial advantage when the company generates profits, as is currently the case, and achieves objective results is only the concrete realization of the gratitude due to them for the efforts they have had to provide, in particular to improve the performance of all these public enterprises.

As a result, my group and myself can only welcome such a provision that will ⁇ allow our public enterprises to remain one of the fundamental elements of our national economy.

A second point that has caught my attention, within the framework of these laws with various provisions, is the creation of the Polar Secretariat. In the context of the International Polar Year 2007-2008, Belgium has mandated the International Polar Foundation (IPF) to design and build the new Belgian Antarctic research station "Princess Elisabeth Antarctica". Technological showcase and emblematic project for promoting a better understanding of climate change, the Princess Elizabeth resort will give unprecedented visibility to the commitment of Belgian citizens and ⁇ .

In 1898 and 1899, the Belgica expedition of Adrian de Gerlache was the first to spend the winter in Antarctica.

Unique in its design and operation, this Princess Elizabeth station will be the first zero-emission scientific station built in Antarctica. This is a major achievement for Belgium and for the international scientific community. The techniques implemented include wastewater recycling as well as the use of sophisticated construction technologies and the exclusive use of renewable energy sources. The goal is to ⁇ energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help protect our environment. This station will allow experiments in various research areas including meteorology, seismography, glaciology, earth magnetism, aerosol concentration.

Global warming is clearly in the news and the recent Bali conference has put countries ahead of their responsibilities, with a timetable to reach consensus on actions to be taken in post-Kyoto.

Climate knowledge, modeling of the impacts of global warming, and defining corrective actions to be implemented are largely based on the results of research and observations in polar regions.

Belgium has a long polar tradition and is one of the founding signatories of the Antarctic Treaty. On March 1st, we have entered the fourth International Polar Year.

The design and construction teams of the station are the very example of the spirit of solidarity that animates the project. There are many examples of exemplary collaboration: public, public/private, military, Belgian regions, and other countries. The public response at the opening of the station exhibition at Tour & Taxis is equally significant.

A large proportion of citizens are aware of the situation and want to get involved in the fight against global warming. Even some sceptics not concerned with the subject recognize a value to this initiative.

The project delivers a message of action and hope, a message of reasoned optimism that demonstrates that it is possible to ⁇ ambitious goals.

The management of a polar station is an ambitious project and the creation of a polar secretariat, which will ensure the financial and scientific management of the station, is a real realization of the Belgian will to move forward in this project, which my political group can only support.

Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to exchange views on the various articles on health within the committee. I will not go back on these different interventions, except on the following point. You know that in bills with different provisions, we still work too quickly and with many articles located in the middle of others. Sometimes, therefore, it is necessary to take a step back to hear what people from the field say to us. Furthermore, we find ourselves in a political context in which separate proposals and bills have little chance of reaching the final phase of parliamentary work. We have seen this for several months already.

After the vote of the articles in the committee, we were arrested by the Order of Pharmacists. I am not ⁇ supportive of formalism with bodies such as orders. However, and Mr. Flahaux has also said a word recently, their argument is the following. Today, it is the National Council of the Order of Pharmacists that manages the organization of the guards of the pharmaceutical offices and establishes the rules and principles thereof. Furthermore, pharmaceutical monitoring, i.e. guards, is mandatory. The choice does not exist. The Order tells us that the wording of the article, in the bill containing various provisions, suggests that there may be no guards in certain places. Furthermore, they wonder why the project completely dismisses the National Council of the Order of Pharmacists, through arrangements made regarding the organization of the guards. Wouldn’t it be interesting that the Order retains at least a role of proposition or, in my opinion, at least a role of opinion?

It is true that pharmacists and doctors do not necessarily organize themselves in the same way. I don’t know if pharmacists have circles, like doctors, to organize guards in the field.

So I wanted to ask you about this point to see if we understood the intentions of the bill. Depending on your response, I will submit an amendment. Votes on projects with different provisions do not always allow to postpone work and introduce amendments, but we know that you have another bill with different provisions in preparation. This exchange could therefore allow these changes to be replicated in the next project.

With regard to the National Council of the Order of Pharmacists and the guards referred to in the law, an enforcement order must be taken. Of course, the Order of Pharmacists will be consulted by the Agency to enable effective dialogue and implementation.

I take note of it. This is the first thing acquired.

Furthermore, since we are working through bills containing various provisions, I had asked you in a committee about the non-affichage and the lack of transparency of the tariffs of doctors and dentists. I indicated that I did not find any obligations and sanctions related to this display in the existing legislative provisions and in the medical-mutuellist agreements. However, I had omitted to insist on conventional and non-conventional.

Contracting parties are actually obliged to display their tariffs as opposed to non-contracting ones. It is known that some doctors are partially convened. It is therefore very difficult for patients to know who they are dealing with and to know what they are going to ask for as a tariff.

Of course, one can always consult mutual sites to see who is conventional or not, but this approach is ⁇ complicated.

As a result of your response, I undertook a review of the texts, in order to see if I was so mistaken or if there was still something to do. I was able to find that non-contractual service providers are not bound by the obligation to display their status and the amount of their fees.

Therefore, I would have wanted to propose an amendment to this bill containing various provisions; if this is not possible now, I will subsequently resubmit it in another form so that this obligation is inscribed in the law, because it is the non-conventional care providers that ignore the tariffs and not vice versa.

Your proposal comes a bit late. It deserves to be explored. If you have a bill proposal or during the review of the Health Act, we might consider this point. I am not able to answer you either affirmative or negative, as this involves discussions with several partners, but I am absolutely not closed to this idea.

I am aware of this, Mrs. Minister. I will turn my amendment into a bill. Prior to its submission, I wanted to ask you the question in order to have more concrete elements. However, the opportunity was presented only after the vote. But we can continue on the subject in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, you know, our group has strongly criticized the very principle of the proposed law containing various provisions, because it includes up to the excess of whole sections of legislation which should have been the subject of very specific examinations. Therefore, we get a text that, by definition, is not very coherent.

Among this set of measures was a chapter relating to copyright, on which it is unnecessary that I speak very long, since it was finally decided in a committee, on a proposal of the majority, to simply remove this chapter in its entirety from the various provisions.

Before this withdrawal, I had insurged in a committee against this practice of extracting a number of measures, very precise points, from a much more comprehensive text – which is currently subject to consultation with the Council of Intellectual Property – especially in the absence of a particular urgency to move forward on these different points. What consistency does it actually have to submit a text by piece for committee vote, when a more comprehensive text is in negotiation? How can the actors understand this and how much confidence can they have in the consultation and in their political interlocutors, especially since the Prime Minister did not have convincing explanations regarding the choice of the selected measures or their degree of urgency?

On the other hand, postponing the text is also problematic. In fact, a text will ⁇ take six months before it comes out. On the other hand, there is urgency on the point relating to private copying, for which nothing was provided in the pieces chosen by the minister and submitted to the examination of the commission. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment on private copying.

The problem is relatively simple. There is a legislation that provides for remuneration of authors in relation to the very principle of private copying, on the basis of sales of material media. The problem lies in the fact that the legislation has not been adapted; the royal decree has not been updated for several years, neither by Minister Verwilghen, nor now by Minister Van Quickenborne.

Several new technology supports have not been integrated and are therefore not covered. This has as a consequence that, compared to the previous year, authors’ remuneration decreased by 25 to 30% during the first quarter of this year. This is an important problem for this sector that is attributed to these copyright and related rights.

We have therefore proposed, through an amendment, a default pricing for new technological media that are not yet covered; I think in particular of MP3, MP4 and external hard drives, etc.

We thought this amendment would be supported by a number of groups. This amendment has also been submitted by the PS and MR. However, unfortunately, during the vote on the amendment, we were forced to find that we were the only ones, with sp.a+Vl.Pro, to vote yes. He was therefore rejected.

In principle, it seems to me quite problematic that an amendment is submitted to a committee so that it is not supported a few dozen minutes later. This kind of practice does not look like anything, Mr. President! This does not contribute to credibility of the work of parliamentarians. This lacks seriousness with regard to the citizen and in particular with regard to the persons affected by the scope of the amendment.

( ... ) : [...]

He is apologized. He was also on the absence list.

He did not submit the amendment.

We have submitted an amendment that has not been adopted. And what was not our surprise, when we learned, through the press, that the PS and MR felt that it would ultimately be desirable to provide legislation on a default taxation for new supports. This is how they announced the filing of new bills that, so far, have not yet been taken into consideration. They are probably in the services, but they have not yet been submitted to our assembly.

I was delighted with this deposit. We return to the initial opinion and despite the vote, ⁇ all hope is not lost. I would like to say to these colleagues that there is a much simpler solution than waiting for the bill to be considered and its return to autumn: it is enough to amend today the text of the various provisions by adopting an amendment completely identical to that submitted in the committee and to the text of your bills that you have announced to submit urgently to Parliament’s vote. Today we re-depose the same text in the form of an amendment and we propose you to adopt it to simply add it to the various provisions, which would constitute an urgent response to this sector facing a significant loss of income.

This does not in any way prejudice a possible future revision of the pricing or the drafting of a text of a global character which, according to Mr. Van Quickenborne will return quite quickly in the autumn. Meanwhile, we will have earned at least six months by adopting this default pricing today. This is what I propose to do, Mr. President. We have submitted an amendment that will be voted soon and proposing this taking into account the default pricing.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, for the second time in this short but confusing legislature of the Leterme government, a proposal is being made to Parliament where the CD&V’ers in the past, to say the least, picked up their nose.

Everything comes back, yes, and the worst unfortunately first. Election promises on social measures have been broken. Half a year of non-government yielded only half a year of poor governance. The budget uses one-off measures and is reduced to a deficit of 1 billion euros.

Even the previous prime minister’s wrecked voluntarism has returned completely, though now in the form of blind optimism. Or what should we think of a prime minister, a prime minister, who believes that by July 15 he can impose both new social and economic measures, obtain an energy contribution from Suez-Electrabel, restore diplomatic relations with Congo, and immediately and for a while solve the community problems? The spectacle that we have seen earlier in the question of asylum within the majority does not suggest too much.

After all these things – that list is not exhaustive at all – today we see again a relic so hated by the former CD&V o return from the past: the rubbish laws. The rubbish-baking laws, on which both Mr. Verherstraeten, who sits here now, and Mr. De Crem, who is now a minister, in the past made so much upheaval. In 2002, Mr. De Crem even submitted a bill obliging the government to stop submitting program laws to Parliament, as they were increasingly polluted by measures that were not within its scope.

I know it, the present bill containing various provisions, part I, is stricto sensu not a program law, but it is a collection of the most diverse measures, ranging from sailors to copyright.

Thus, and I parafrase, these laws hinder the normal functioning of the Chamber and are detrimental to the quality of the legislation. This was stated by Mr. De Crem here in Parliament six years ago. He is not there and I see that within the CD&V there is apparently very much suffering from amnesia and apathy.

Mr. De Crem, by the way, already found in 2004 that this Parliament was laughed and he did so to shoot our previous week still honored ex-chairman, Mr. De Croo, at the time even badly from his crumbs. Mr. De Crem even called the House a joke and marionette parliament in 2005.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Verherstraeten and the few colleagues of the CD&V who are still on the banks, where is that concern for the proper functioning of the Parliament? Where is the concern for the transparency and quality of parliamentary work?

The secretary of state was saying something but he never uses his microphone and I don’t hear him well.

The applause of Mr. Landuyt are really very surprising, following what has just been said at the tribune. I think it’s a bit stronger than mr. Landuyt gives lessons on the functioning of Parliament.

I do not see what the problem is.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Landuyt doesn’t see the problem, neither do I. I want to follow the ongoing intervention, we need to let this Parliament work. The work should not be disturbed by comments or other suggestions. It is more interesting to have a debate on the subject.

Indeed indeed .

Dear colleagues, what I wanted to show is that the reasoning used by the CVP at the time perfectly matches the law with various provisions, the first part, which is presented here today. This time not urgent provisions, but like with the program law an amalgam of measures. An amalgam of measures in which the State Council has issued an opinion for several of them, literally to extract them from the Waste Bake Act. In this way, they could be housed in a separate draft law with a headline corresponding to its content. This makes it possible to properly discuss the laws themselves and to meet the principle of good governance and respect for democracy, so that a clear, clear and transparent parliamentary debate can be conducted.

The criticism of the State Council concerns, among other things, the provisions of Chapter 5 on the sleeping accounts. In the committee we therefore requested the removal of that law from the various provisions, so that it could be treated separately and could be discussed. I will give you for the record literally quoted the opinion of the Council of State. You can check this on page 241 of the bundle of various provisions. Apart from the other difficulties that arise when working with laws which have many subjects, the fact that in such a type of law an entirely normative whole is incorporated, contrary to the amendment provisions that one usually encounters therein, offers the disadvantage that it becomes impossible to determine that subject through the title of the law in which these new rules will be contained. Given the above, the recommendation deserves to include Articles 21 to 50, i.e., in other words, the chapter on the sleeping accounts, “in a standalone bill with a heading corresponding to its subject matter”.

Dear colleagues, it cannot be clearer. I will comprehensively translate the technical description, however, by stating that the use of such waste-baking laws should be avoided. In summary, in this rubbish box law, a cat will not find her boy back. Small adjustments to laws, so far, but new legislation, completely autonomous whole, must also be treated as such. However, do not misunderstand me; the intentions of the law on the sleeping accounts are good, but as far as we are concerned, it would have been safe to take some more time to properly discuss this law, as the State Council advised. Well, despite the large protest scenes of several members of the current CD&V group, in the past, they did not shrink in the committee, even when I explicitly answered them about it. The measure is therefore, you already suggest, remained in the package.

Furthermore, we would have also wanted to again seek the opinion of the State Council and the Privacy Committee, but since there seems to be no extra time for non-urgent measures – the reverse world in this Parliament – we had already submitted an amendment to defend privacy in the exchange of data. This amendment was also rejected in the committee. In the meantime, there has been a period of time. Hopefully you all took the time to read it so that it can soon be approved in this Parliament.

In another committee, dear colleagues, the message was thankfully understood. The component on the eHealth platform has disappeared from the package, and rightly. This platform for the storage of patient data uses the Rijksregisternummer and there remained a lot of questions about the guarantee of the protection of the privacy of citizens. In addition, neither the doctors nor the patient associations were consulted. As far as we are concerned, it is unacceptable that such a text, with such an impact on the lives of citizens and with such extensive ethical consequences, is at all in a law containing various provisions.

A government is there to govern and the opposition is there to lead the opposition. This is the basic principle of parliamentary democracy. This government has apparently decided that governance is no longer important. What else should we think of the whole saga about copyright? For years, the industry has been demanding a clarification of the rules and a better and more comprehensive regulation, including the home copy fee. The government is even working with the industry to come up with a new legislation on copyright and management companies in the autumn. Nevertheless, in its draft law containing various provisions, part I, it enters a chapter on copyright, which has not been discussed with the interested parties, which is not carried out by the sector and which does not deal with the home copy. However, the industry strongly opposes this proposal.

We consider it as Greens to guard our duty over the scarce legislative work of this paralyzed government. We didn’t even need much discussion to see the majority parties in the committee again fighting against each other. Since the urgent demand for a better system for home copying was not included in the chapter, we have submitted an amendment that could help the sector out of need. But, as my predecessor, Mr. Henry, has just pointed out, that amendment was not accepted by the majority.

What do we see? The PS and MR adopted the text and submitted it as a bill. It must be done! The conclusion is: there are proposed measures that no one wants and the measures that one wants are not accepted. For us, that is the reverse world. We will therefore submit our amendment again later.

To conclude, dear colleagues, I would like to give you the following. Our group today will not approve or reject the first part of the legislation. We will remember. We will abstain, not because we believe there are no good things in it, nor because we believe there are too many bad things in it. No, we will abstain for the same reasons that the largest majority parties in the past themselves continuously charged. What worries me today, dear colleagues, is that CD&V has foolishly forgotten its criticism of the past rubbish-baking laws and is proposing a law to the Parliament containing several provisions that would be better treated separately.

In some cases, the committee was involved, in other cases not. I find it very important that you present yourself with what you have previously criticized. Dear CD&V, what is your party doing? Who can bear the sincerity of your criticism? You have become a champion in recycling bad examples.

It is time for some more good practices in Parliament. With the approach and presentation of this law on the various provisions, the government has already given a chance. Again and again and again! Let us give them a clear signal today. I see that you are not interested in it, and we have seen that in the committees. I know how much you suffer from memory loss. But believe me freely: on July 15, the cat will be very large, dear members of CD&V. The past will really pursue you in this area.

First and foremost, I would like to comment on the “Employment” section of the various provisions. In this case, Ms. Lecomte very well recalled in her report that I wanted to introduce an amendment – I thank my colleagues for following me in this approach – to respond to a request from the Central Council of Economy and the National Council of Labour. They had wished that the necessary measures could be taken in consultation with the organisations represented in the Joint Commission on Temporary Work, to ensure a similar treatment of temporary workers and “permanent” workers in terms of non-recurring benefits related to results. It was a request as legitimate as a long-standing request, to which it was important that this assembly could answer. The opportunity to do so was found in the various provisions.

Non-recurring benefits are related to the collective results of an enterprise established on the basis of objective criteria. They are granted by the employer for a maximum amount of 2,200 euros per year on which only an employer's contribution of 33% of the amount is due, which is important to emphasize. The worker receiving these non-recurring benefits must not pay the slightest social security contribution on them.

As soon as this assembly has adopted these provisions proposed by amendment, temporary workers will be on an equal footing with the "permanent" workers of the company wishing to resort to their services in terms of non-recurring benefits related to results. The latter shall inform the interim company of the practical arrangements for the granting of these benefits and, as soon as they meet the conditions for the granting of equivalent benefits, the interim workers shall benefit from them in the same extent and on the same basis as an ordinary worker. This is a significant improvement desired by the industry. This is a sign that interim contracts are more than just a step-by-step, as we sometimes tend to present them. On the contrary, the political class should pay more attention to this sector and support it.

Finally, there remains an important challenge to address, that of improving the work of the temporary workers.

One of the most important issues is safety at work. However, dramatically, statistics still show that temporary workers are more likely to be victims of work accidents than any other category of workers. The number of their accidents is three times higher: 6 workers died in 2007 and 939 will have a lifelong disability. These figures alone should mobilise our energy to work seriously to improve the safety of the working conditions of these temporary workers.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to go deeper into the article-by-article discussion of the bill that is put to the vote today. Through Article 88, formerly Article 92, mobility allowance and childcare allowance, it is now apparently the government’s intention to promote geographical mobility. A budget of €5 million will be allocated to increase the mobility of job seekers, including in the context of activation and reform.

The two reasons held, namely activation and reform, are very important. In fact, today it is apparent that the current system for awarding these premiums has little success. In practice, 28 mobility allowances and 273 childcare allowances were paid in 2007. The proposal on the table today is a conversion of the annual one-time premium to a monthly allowance.

Understand who can understand, because childcare is a regional matter. Is it not also up to the Regions to provide a premium if it is so necessary?

The regionalization of the labour market. What will it be now? Regionalization of the labour market. This proposal implies federalization.

However, the Minister himself has proposed to organize a consultation with the Regions on 14 July next with regard to the issues within the framework of the mobility premium. I then ask myself the question to which this consultation serves if the minister immediately leaves in the committee to see that this is in fact a federal matter, that she can and will decide for these premiums through a KB, that she will therefore do the consultation of the regions without any value and that she apparently will not take this into account in implementation of the law that is today put to the vote.

Furthermore, the Minister points out that the mobility of unemployed job seekers must be improved both intraregional and interregional. The explanation shows that the present article has nothing to do with the return to work but all with the rewarding of certain work situations within defined criteria. We can therefore argue that the proposed measure of the government is unconscious and inefficient and, in addition, discriminatory. The proposed objective, in particular to promote the flexibility of unemployed job seekers through mobility and childcare, should, in our opinion, be achieved by introducing other measures, especially in the field of taxation. We therefore assume that our colleagues of the N-VA will ⁇ follow our proposal to delete this article. This includes the mobility allowance and the childcare allowance.

As regards child allowance, Article 92, formerly Article 94, opens the door to social fraud. There is insufficient guarantee that if for now it would prove that the identity of the contributing mother cannot be proven because it is a fraudulent application for child allowance the deposited amounts could be recovered from the rightholder that it could receive in application of the amendment proposed today. It also poses a risk for the supporting mother. It is not unthinkable that when a mother can prove her identity for family, social or cultural reasons, she is no longer able, willing or even daring to sign this application in writing. In other words, there is a risk that the financial dependence of a mother-newcomer – for this is the ultimate purpose of the proposal – will be reinforced by the proposed amendment.

The Minister thus argues today that the administrative services – which she has also confirmed in the committee – cannot address this problem. Therefore, the proposal must be amended through this law containing several provisions. We advocate for the proper use of public funds. Colleague Van de Velde has also often hammered on this. This is very important, even necessary. I think it would be more appropriate here if there is a reorganization of the service. With all respect for the efforts these people make today but if the minister today confirms that there is a problem in addressing those issues for people who cannot prove their identity, then it makes very little sense to amend that law today. It is then, in fact, the administration that needs to guide a little where it can address this problem. This article is also superfluous. We therefore advocate for the removal of both Article 88 and Article 92 in the draft law that is put to the vote.