Proposition 52K2424

Projet de loi modifiant la loi-cadre relative aux professions intellectuelles prestataires de services codifiée par l'arrêté royal du 3 août 2007.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Feb. 11, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative court organisation of professions professional association provision of services outline law appeal access to a profession election self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 25, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The reporters are the ladies Claes, De Block, De Bue and della Faille de Leverghem and the ladies George, Arens, Thiébaut, Clarinval.

Can I assume that all journalists refer to their written report?

The [...]

I rise up, Mr. Annemans, and you protest.

I am referring to my written report, which is very detailed.

This also applies to other rapporteurs.

The following speakers have been registered for the Employment section: Ms Yalçin, Mr Vercamer, and Ms Fonck.

I see that Ms. Milquet, Minister of Employment, is not yet there. Mr Turtelboom, Minister of the Interior, is present. I suggest you start with the inner part.

Can you live with it?

I notice that Mr. Doomst is already wearing his vest and is ready to speak. You are registered, Mr. Doomst, together with Mr. Thiébaut, who is also present, and Mrs. De Maght. We will address the internal affairs first.

For the Asylum and Migration section, Mrs Dierick and Mrs Smeyers were registered, but they have been removed.

We will begin with the section Internal Affairs and I will first give the floor to Mr Michel Doomst. Therefore, I ask the attention of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is immediately present.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, the draft for the Internal Affairs section provides for the filtering of the fire alarm systems, as is already the case for the intrusion alarm systems. It is indeed true that only a small percentage of the calls are effectively the result of a fire or a robbery and therefore are false calls — fortunately.

During the discussion in the committee, we have already warned about the delay in the deployment of the emergency services, which may be the result of such filtration by alarm centers. In the weeks following the discussion of the draft in the committee, we have, by the way, received many responses, especially from the firefighting association, to warn us of this provision.

According to the association, the obligation could cost people lives if it ends badly. It is, of course, undeniable that, even more in the case of fire alarm installations than in the case of break-in alarm installations, the difference between reporting and pressing the fire services should be as small as possible. According to experts at the fire department, a 15-minute expression time in the event of an outbreak of fire is already an unresolvable situation.

We therefore ask you to pay extra attention to these comments, and to take measures to ensure that the filtration does not result in any or only very minimal delays in the extraction.

On the arrangement concerning the transfer of staff from the 100 power plants, we are not furious wild, because it leaves too much uncertainty for the staff transferred from the municipal service. There is no clear vision of their future status, the municipalities do not know whether they will have to take these people back, or how many will make the choice to stay with the 112 Agency. The proposed scheme therefore provides insufficient assurance for the provision of emergency call services for the coming year.

Therefore I ask how many persons will remain and who will take over the task of those who return during the year of the dispatch or deployment?

I have the same concerns as my colleague. Doomst, but I will mention other elements.

Currently, there is a clear difference between a fire alarm and an intrusion alarm. When an intrusion alarm is triggered, the police are not automatically alerted. There is, indeed, an additional filter, the central of a surveillance company that checks the authenticity of the call. This procedure is intended to minimize the risk of false alert and unnecessary dispatch of police officers. When a fire alert occurs, the same is not the case and the fire services are directly contacted.

In the bill containing various provisions that we are discussing today, one article changes this state of affairs. It would put on an equal footing fire and intrusion alerts. With this new provision, from now on, private alarm centers should filter alarm signals, in order to eliminate false alarms; the actual alarms would therefore be more easily channeled to the unique emergency number 112.

I would like to have some clarification in this regard, as there are still doubts as to the effectiveness of this new provision.

Indeed, according to some information, due to an additional link to the chain, the intervention time would reach 25 minutes with the new provision – which would be contrary to the expected effects – whereas at present, a call is processed in 10 or even 15 minutes. Therefore, I would have liked to know whether an evaluation has already been carried out or is ongoing in order to determine the time to intervene with this new provision.

Then, Mrs. Minister, the establishment of this new system must still be discussed in the Council of Ministers and must pass, through a royal decree, but do you already have indications as to the practical functioning of this "filtration" of fire alarms? Specifically, how will private alarm centers technically control the alerts? At a distance? Will they send someone on the spot to see if a fire has actually occurred?

Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, thank you for answering my questions, in the event that there may be.

During the discussion of the draft law various provisions in the committee for internal affairs concerning the transposition of Article 4, §§ 4 and 5 of the European Directive 2004/83 EC, it turned out that there is an opinion of the Council of State stating that at least two of the paragraphs included in Article 4 should be transposed into the law. I repeat it again: at least. That word “at least” is a very important data.

We find that the amendment to the Foreigners Act, as contained in Articles 29 and 30 of the Act, various provisions and which will be discussed and voted here today, is only a fragmentary, flawed and unbalanced transposition of what Article 4 of the Directive aims at.

Only the last two paragraphs are translated, which are the criteria for applying the benefit of the doubt and taking into account previous persecution. We, LDD, therefore wonder why not the entire Article 4 of the Directive is incorporated into the amended legislation, since this is possible after the opinion of the Council of State.

We therefore considered it necessary and useful to bring to the attention of our colleagues today again the amendment that we have also submitted in the committee.

In the first three paragraphs of Article 4 of the Directive, the obligations of the asylum seeker are set out in detail at the time of filing of his application. It was also discussed during the oral questions in the plenary session. It is a very important data when applying for an asylum seeker. The asylum seeker shall be alerted to the urgency and to the obligation to present all documents in his possession. Particular attention is attached to identity, through the presentation of, if available, identity documents. These provisions are ⁇ useful in the practical processing of asylum applications by the General Commissariat.

We see in this evidence that the government practices selective shopping in this Directive, since only two of those paragraphs are incorporated into the legislation. Due to a deliberately faulty transposition of the European regulation, the Belgian government seats Belgium with the most flexible asylum legislation in Europe. We will therefore become Europe’s attraction pool for asylum seekers.

In consultation with the Commissariat-General, we learn that there is often faced with a lack of cooperation of asylum seekers in proving their identity and their journey path.

The holding of international passports and identity cards is a scourge. Because proof of identity is apparently not a condition – it is also not included – asylum seekers can more easily register under a false identity and many have already been recognized under a false name and later also naturalized. As a result, many recognised refugees have two different identities: a false identity provided by the Belgian government and their hidden true identity.

It is obvious that this practice poses a serious danger to public order and security. The fact that this practice is common was recently ⁇ and discussed in detail through the VRT documentary series “In the name of God”, in which an Algerian asylum seeker admitted to the service Foreign Affairs to have provided false identity data. It is therefore of particular importance that asylum seekers provide all the elements proving their identity, route and nationality as described in the full Article 4 of the European Directive. For this purpose, we submitted an amendment in the committee to incorporate and apply the entire article of this Directive into our legislation, in particular to prevent or counter identity fraud of asylum seekers.

The question why the Belgian government does not include the European law obligation for asylum seekers to present all documents proving their identity, route and nationality in the Foreigners Act is still unanswered today. I did not get an answer to that. Nevertheless, it is useful and necessary to know that the de facto application of Article 4 of the European Directive already exists today through the “conform interpretation” directive, which is already applied today by the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes, and this in anticipation of the transposition of this directive by our government.

It is important to know that the Directive should have been transposed in its entirety at the latest on 10 October 2006. Today is March 25, 2010, which is four years after the date. Nearly four years later, nothing has happened: not half, not completely. There is a discussion about a future transposition of the paragraphs that are not included today in the legislation of the aforementioned article 4. That would be included in a KB whose implementation modalities will be determined later by the King. Today we have seen nothing of that KB, let alone we know that it is effective in formatting.

Article 4 has an internal, coherent logic, where each paragraph is important. Therefore, it is also included in one article in that European regulation. Therefore, we do not understand why you deliberately fragment a clear provision by incorporating only half of it in the Foreign Affairs Act and referring the other half to a so far hypothetical KB.

Respect the European legislation, and translate the entire article 4 into the Foreigners Act. We have submitted an amendment for this and we hope to get the support of all colleagues, because it is indeed very important. Today, we can conclude from the fact that only two paragraphs of the article of the European directive are being transposed, that the government does not intend to address identity fraud by asylum seekers.

I have some concerns about the speech of the previous speaker. I think she is completely out of the curve. This was also the content of the committee discussions on the respective two paragraphs.

This is the transposition of two paragraphs of the European Directive on the legal protection of asylum seekers. The European Directive states that if an asylum seeker does not have identity documents, his relay is still considered credible if the conditions listed in the directive are met.

What has the Belgian legislature done? As Belgium often does, the directive was transposed creatively. For example, the law stipulates that the asylum application “can” be considered credible, which is a misconversion! It is a restrictive transposition of the Directive, as it provides for an automation. If the conditions listed in the Directive are met, even if you do not possess identity documents, the asylum application is considered credible.

When it comes to legal protection, we must have a good procedure. It was one of the puzzle pieces that had long been missing. I am pleased that the Directive is still being transposed today, but I believe that this is not being done in a correct way, but in a very restrictive way. After all, even if the conditions are met, the Commissioner-General may judge that the application is not credible. In fact, therefore, it will be much more difficult for asylum seekers without documents but with a credible asylum application to be recognized. I regret that this is a selective conversion and I regret that it is a strict solution. Ms. De Maght is not right on any of the points she cited.

I have to contradict you. In Article 4, the provisions that we will now draw apart are combined and there was a logic in it, if you read the text correctly. In addition, a part of the burden of proof is placed on the applicant, which is not important in itself, as the protection remains guaranteed by the other paragraphs.

I do not see at all what your objection is to implement the entire article, as it is included in the European regulation today, in our Foreign Affairs Act. You are partially right. One draws provisions apart, allowing one, separate from the other, to be interpreted in a different way.

However, I would like to inform you that the Directive had to be implemented since October 2006. Today is March 2010. The government has still done nothing. It will now remove the provisions, but they are actually already being applied, namely by decisions of the Council of State and of the Council of Foreign Disputes. So I do not understand exactly why the government would pull those paragraphs apart to apply one through a KB and the other through legislation. Our proposal to fully incorporate the provisions into the legislation is perfectly possible.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate in the committee, it was interesting to confirm the agreement of a large number of commissioners with my argument that the transposition of the Directive leaves a lot of room and leads to the fact that when candidate asylum seekers make a somewhat coherent story, their dossier must be approved anyway.

I say that a little lapidary, but it is essential that colleagues from CD&V and Open Vld – I remember that Mr. Somers also emphasized this – find it a bad directive with which they actually do not agree. In this regard, it may be useful to ask the Government what initiatives it will take in order to revise the Directive in the future and what initiatives it will take at European level on behalf of Belgium in order to amend the Directive.

I find this a rather striking lapidary summary by colleague Weyts.

Colleague De Maght, of course the entire directive must be transposed, we have indeed waited a very long time since the new Foreigners Act, before a number of crucial provisions are implemented. In itself I have no problem with this.

However, I am worsened by the fact – this was also very clear in the committee – that one always assumes that by definition the asylum seeker is of bad will. We must at all times have a clear and transparent procedure that guarantees the legal protection of the data subjects. This does not imply that the door is opened for Jan and Alleman. It is only when our procedure is clear and transparent that we will come to a large support for the procedures.

My problem is not so much that a piece is removed, but that the government simply takes the transposition to transpose the directive incorrectly. While the directive provides for automation, the government provides for selectivity. Even if the provisions of the Directive are in fact satisfied, the Commissioner-General may derogate from them. This is caused by the use of language in the articles that are being voted today. I oppose it with all my strength.

We have had a fairly good debate in the committee on the transposition of the European Directive. CD&V has also questioned the conversion because we believe it does not comply with the current asylum policy. The conversion allows the burden of proof to be reversed and a file can be opened on the basis of a subjective feeling that all necessary elements are present. However, we understand that the Directive needs to be transposed.

However, we have clearly requested that action be taken so that the point is put again on the European agenda and that our ministers take our concerns with them.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to repeat this once again, in the light of Mrs Dierick’s rightful argument that I share the same concern. The question is concrete what the government will do to interpret that position at European level.

Mr. Courard, you have the word for the replica.

I have no reaction.

Mrs. Speaker, however, one could expect from members of the executive power, even if they are just secretaries of state, that there is a minimum of respect for Parliament. When questions are asked here, it is not possible – I also look at the parties of the majority – that a secretary of state ends up with “no replica”.

The least one can expect is that one responds, even if it is a response that, as we are accustomed to Mr. Courard, is little-selling. That would then at least be a testimony of some politeness, not of knowledge of matters, but yet of some politeness. I call on the Parliament and the President to encourage the Government to at least begin to answer questions raised by members of Parliament, the majority and the opposition.

First and foremost, I will answer the questions concerning my powers, namely the questions of colleague Thiébaut and colleague Doomst.

As regards the filter for the fire alarm installations, it is indeed true that the various provisions containing the law contain a framework article that gives the possibility to install a filter subsequently, in order thus to remove false fire alarm calls. At present, this possibility is provided by a framework law and a framework decision. Then it can happen in an IKW.

In breaches, we find that 90 to 95 percent, or even more, of the calls are fake calls. That costs a lot of time. The filter works very well. Of course, fire is a completely different issue. We must ensure that no precious time is wasted. We will continue to conduct extensive consultations with the firefighters federations, as well as with the fire alarm installers, the call centers and many different actors, so that the filter that we set up is minimal, but works maximum. The fixed line is that we do not touch security. I can impress the members on the heart that we will work very carefully in this regard.

As for the transfer of staff from the emergency numbers 100 and 101 to 112, everyone knows that the European directive stipulates that people who have different statutes cannot cooperate in the call system 112, the European emergency number, which we are also introducing in Belgium. Therefore, people who have the status of federal official and people who have the status of municipal official cannot cooperate there. Therefore, in this law, which contains various provisions, we provide the possibility that the people who now work at the municipal power stations will have one year to decide whether or not they want to become federal officials. This is regulated in this decision. In this way, we give confidence to the people themselves, so that they can see if they function in the new structure and so that we do not bruise them, and we ensure that the integration on the workplace goes very well. I think the emergency number 112 is crucial, but it is also crucial that people at the workplace feel well, do their work well and thus can function optimally.

Mrs. Speaker, I will have to repeat my question because I think it may not have been clear to Secretary of State Courard. Per ⁇ Minister Turtelboom, given her history in this government, can answer more about that. The Secretary of State has a cabinet of only 20 people. Therefore, it is difficult to expect him to know his own powers.

For all clarity, there is criticism, even from the majority, on that directive. It is said that we will have to transform that node. From this conclusion, I wonder what initiative the government will take.

Mrs. Turtelboom, I notice that you are not paying attention.

Women can do multitasking.

What initiative will the government take at European level in order to change the directive we are now transposing? That was, after all, the express concern and the express question of several members of the committee, both from the majority and from the opposition. What initiative will this government, which will be able to observe the Presidency of the European Union, take to respect the will of the Parliament by developing a new directive that is much better aligned with the views and desires of this Parliament?

Mrs. Speaker, all colleagues have come to the Joint Advisory Committee on European Affairs where we have come to present our programme. At the moment, no program has been finalised, but I suspect that this debate is ⁇ not exhausted. You will undoubtedly have the opportunity to see what initiatives State Secretary Wathelet and his guardians will take and what the content of the European programme will be during the Belgian Presidency in the second half of this year.

What about the request for the revision of the Directive?

I referred to the way of drafting the European Directive. Nice try I would say.

You have no opinion?

I say that everyone is fully engaged in the drafting of the European programmes.

There are already two government members who have no opinion. Maybe I can try a third, I’ll see.

Mr. Weyts, the Minister has answered.

The Minister has indeed responded. I understand the Minister’s response, because after all, it is no longer her competence. Here is a secretary of state whose competence it belongs, but who says he cannot answer. Then I would like the Minister responsible for this matter to be summoned so that he can answer Parliament’s questions. What kind of government is that if it doesn’t even answer the questions of Parliament? That is not a way to do.

Mr. Jambon, I think the Minister has answered. The question was what attitude the government would take to change European directives. I think the competent ministers at the European level are currently at the European summit, but you have heard the response from the Minister of Home Affairs.

That was not an answer.

Can I close the chapter?

Then we now move to the chapter on public health or employment, but we suspend the meeting until one of the competent ministers is present.

My discussion is about the Acceptance Act, Articles 31 to 39. I think my speech on public health is actually directed to Secretary of State Courard.

Do you propose to continue the meeting for your question?

If you can, unless you want to wait for Mrs. Onkelinx.

very well . You have the word.

Recently, in the Committee on Public Health, we discussed various provisions of the law, in particular the section on the reception law, Articles 31 to 39.

Several amendments are proposed to the Acceptance Act of 12 January 2007 regarding the access to the labour market for asylum seekers. Articles 32, 33 and 35, as proposed in the draft law containing various provisions, aim to ensure that asylum seekers can continue to enjoy their right to material assistance, including asylum accommodation, if they also have an income from professional activities.

The articles proposed in the committee are primarily technical adjustments, with the exception of the articles relating to access to the labour market and income from professional activities. Access to the labour market and possible employment for asylum seekers is a rather positive feature in itself, as they will no longer depend on our social security and our material assistance. However, this cannot and should not be an argument that in any way influences the course of the asylum dossier. Employment, therefore, will not necessarily lead to regularization, nor should it give rise to the false hope that it could result in a transition to regularization.

The Secretary of State states that, depending on the income and the duration of their contract, asylum seekers who have an employment contract will contribute financially to the material assistance. The legislation needs to be urgently adapted for income other than from professional activities. You will do that, but there are still questions raised about the fact that asylum seekers can also earn income from the mandatory fines paid to them by the government, namely 500 euros per day. This is also an income, however not generated from professional activity, but from compulsory sums. A month ago it was about an amount of approximately 200 000 euros paid out, and that can be used, because these people are still being picked up by us today.

Furthermore, the draft law containing various provisions does not indicate how the acquisition of an income will be controlled, nor is it very specific when, in what manner, and in what order size a contribution is expected from the asylum seeker. The government must urgently respond to this.

The transposition allows to claim a financial contribution to those and those who will exercise a function. This seems to me quite legitimate.

What will this contribution be? This is still under discussion with the government and the answer will be given in the coming weeks. I proposed that this be proportionate to the income of the asylum seeker. It seems to me quite legitimate that he participates in the material aid he receives in the center.

I recall that obtaining this job is not synonymous with regularization, it has nothing to do with it.

As for the penalty, I have already had the opportunity to say that I did not understand the amount claimed. However, it is normal for asylum seekers and the court to feel that we are not fulfilling our obligations, including finding housing for everyone. This is obvious and we have never hidden it. But the fact of demanding compulsory penalties with such high amounts seems to me completely disproportionate. This is useless, it is a public spending that we could avoid, and that it would be better to devote to the opening of centers.

I understand what Ms. De Maght said. I find it surprising that those who blame us for the compulsory penalties do not want to open new centers either. It is not easy, on the one hand, to fulfill its obligations and find a solution for everyone and, on the other, to systematically oppose the opening of new centres, as required by European legislation transposed into Belgian law.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary of State, for your response. I am very sorry that you answer me in French, but I understood it in any case.

You are going in a completely different direction. However, I would very much like to engage in this debate, although I think it is not relevant here. That you will create additional places for asylum reception is in itself a negative signal because you have no control over the number of people coming here. I want to emphasize that. For how many people will you continue to provide accommodation? Today you create 2,000 more shelters, tomorrow maybe 3000, and the next day maybe another 1,000. You have no control over it.

You should work to ensure that there is a regulation for paying for that receipt, from which fines are paid or from which an income can be established, from whatever source it may come. Per ⁇ there would then be much less use of the reception centers that today need to be upgraded if necessary.

We close this chapter. There was another comment from the Rapporteur on Public Health, Mrs De Block.

No, Mrs. Speaker, I would like to intervene on the report on the pension section of the Committee on Social Affairs. At the request of the Secretary of the Commission, I would like to make a technical correction. Article 106 states “dépenses” and “expenses” and that must become “charges” and “charges” in the respective texts, because there was no agreement between the French and Dutch texts. If this is noted, that is in order for the report.

This is noted in the acts of the plenary session. We now suspend the meeting until Mrs. Milquet is present. She is currently answering the last question in the Senate.

We are resuming our work. Minister Magnette has arrived. I hear that Minister Milquet is ready for her last question in the Senate. Mrs Van der Straeten wishes to intervene in connection with the powers of Minister Magnette, and I therefore give her the word.

Mr. Speaker, I intervene briefly about two small articles of the law various provisions, which in themselves I have no problem with, namely the articles on the Canvek or the Commission for Advice on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I take this opportunity to speak in general about the legislation that exists today on Canvek, because there has been a missed opportunity to make some improvements in the law and remove some uncertainties.

What is it about? The export of sensitive material in the nuclear sector, so nuclear material or dual-use material that can be used for both military and civil applications, requires in our country twice the green light. On the one hand, a license from the Regions is required since the regionalization of the powers relating to the arms trade and on the other hand, if it is specifically about nuclear material, an authorization from the federal minister is required, which is granted after advice from the Canvek. That is a double authorization, with that nuance that the opinion of the Canvek and the authorization of the minister that follows it is a prerequisite in the procedure. The Countries may at any time deviate in negative terms and have a broader appreciation power. The assessment powers of the regional and federal level do not necessarily interrelate. For example, the federal government must also take a stand on the dangers to public health.

The regionalization of our legislation has made everything more nuanced and no longer as straightforward as originally provided in the royal decrees and laws concerning Canvek. It is regrettable that until today our legislation has not been adapted to the changing institutional context. For example, the composition of the Canvek has not been adjusted to the amended allocation of powers since 1989. We talked in the committee about the fact that since 2004 the Regions have been allowed to attend meetings with observer status.

In practice, there is an adjustment to this. I think it would be good if this was also explained in the legislation.

In the current situation, the Canvek has still assigned itself wider powers. That sounds negative, but it definitely does not have to be. The Canvek does more things than it is legally authorized to do. The legal basis provides for a technical review, the final use of the material and the physical safety of the material. There is also a legal review, namely on whether the obligations of the International Energy Agency have been fulfilled. In practice, however, the Canvek also works for a wider political appreciation. Therefore, self-sufficiency sounds somewhat negative, while it is absolutely not. There may be very good reasons for making a political appreciation. Just think of the problems that have been in the files concerning Iran. In the committee, we have also exchanged views on certain export files to Iran. In this sense, a political appreciation of the Canvek is appropriate. I have absolutely no indication to assume that the Canvek would do that badly or that they would abuse it. In my opinion, this practice was born and inspired by the political context and also by the international actuality, for example in Iran, but probably also in Pakistan. I think it would be good to adapt our legislation to that growing practice. This will ultimately only benefit the legal basis, clarity and transparency.

The Canvek website and forms have not been updated for a very long time. However, it is a very important organ. There is little political attention. I really think these people are doing their job well. I absolutely do not hold any explanation about the possible malfunction of the Canvek, because I have absolutely no reason to think so.

I see that our legislation today lags behind compared to practice and is not involved in a number of developments, internally in Belgium, but also internationally. In fact, there is an important EC regulation that makes the scope of application much wider. This is also not in accordance with our legislation. The EC Regulation is much broader in terms of the list of countries to be checked, the goods to be checked and the countries of destination. This has not yet been included in our legislation. It is actually regrettable, at the time when a legislative initiative is taken with two small articles in order to be in accordance with international law, that the possibility is not exploited to yet organize the Canvek legislation in itself a little more, cleanse and adapt to a number of changed contexts, both internationally and nationally for our own division of competence. I hope this will happen for a long time, given the sensitivity of the files we are dealing with.

Secondly, I would like to point out a point that is very important for our group, especially everything that has to do with transparency. There is still a federal law on arms trade, which generally provides for a transparency obligation, namely an annual reporting obligation to the federal legislative chambers, which explains how many licenses have been delivered, what is imported, and so on. It is a whole laundry list. This is done strictly, and my colleague Wouter De Vriendt follows that closely.

A similar reporting obligation should also be introduced with regard to everything related to the Canvek, i.e. sensitive nuclear material. Such a provision increases the impact of Parliament, and the clarity surrounding this problem. In Flanders there are good experiences with the Flemish Peace Institute and with regard to the decrees made on it. This issue is regularly debated in the Parliament and there are also broader civil society debates on arms export and licensing. There is no reason why the same scheme cannot be introduced with regard to the Canvek.

With the two articles, as they are today, there is no problem at all, as it is an implementation of international provisions. The Minister must take initiatives to modernise and adapt Canvek legislation to a changing Belgian context, as well as to a sensitive international context.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Van der Straeten, I am pleased to hear that the opposition has no problem with these two articles that allow us to strengthen the controls of non-proliferation. Indeed, we will control both products that are in principle not intended for nuclear weapons, but may be, and exports to countries that already have nuclear weapons, obtaining the guarantee that they will not reexport them to a third country. Here are the principles.

It is true that we do not review the functioning of this Commission. As you have said, this Commission works well in practice. When it works well, there is no reason to revise the rules of operation or change the law.

In this matter, there is no problem of competence since this form of control adds to the controls that otherwise are exercised by the Regions on the export of weapons. It is therefore a supplementary control and not an exclusive or alternative control to the controls of the Regions.

For the rest, like you, I am a supporter of maximum transparency. Parliamentarians are obviously free to ask any questions they wish to ask about the functioning of this Commission in such a way as to create a large social debate on this important issue.

Mr. Minister, I do not think that we should avoid saying that today there are no indications of a malfunction of the Canvek. We must ask ourselves why the legislation itself has not been adjusted. It is not a responsibility to allow Canvek to operate in a legal grey context, in other words, purely legal technically not in accordance with the EC regulations and not in accordance with the changed distribution of powers in our country. This should be clarified. This would only improve the functioning of the Canvek.

The fact that there are no problems today is not an excuse for not carrying out the changes. I do not think they would encounter any opposition in Parliament.

We are currently dealing with the Employment Chapter. The following are registered: Mr Vercamer and Mrs Yalçin. Mrs. Fonck, do you insist? Then Mr. Vercamer begins.

Mr. Speaker, I have three small remarks on the Chapter Employment.

First, the flexibility of working hours in the construction sector is a good thing for employers, who can organize themselves better in periods of high-concentration. At the same time, however, we urge that electronic registration on the farms be introduced as soon as possible, so that social fraud is less likely. After all, the sector continues to struggle with social fraud, as the figures released by Secretary of State Devlies show today.

Second, I note the positive of the measures that benefit the non-profit sector. This sector should continue to be our priority focus, even in the future. Not only because of its significant social added value, but especially because the non-profit sector has become and will remain an important job engine, including given the aging problem.

The rules on the operating costs of the social maritime funds impose a strict limit, allowing the financial resources of these funds to be used optimally for the creation of jobs. We can only welcome this.

Third and last, there is a gap in removing the gaps in the legislation on the crisis premium for workers. These gaps are removed, allowing more workers to be entitled to this premium. That is a very good thing.

I also have a concern that I made to the Minister at the plenary session last week. The crisis premium is a temporary measure. That is, a sustainable solution must come out of the bus to protect workers and employees from dismissal.

The government has given the social partners time for this until the beginning of next year. It is good to take as much time as possible in order for the social partners to come to an agreement. We insist that the file will be finally seized in 2011, preferably in agreement with the social partners, but if that is not the case then we must take our responsibility here.

I fully agree with what colleague Vercamer explained on behalf of our group.

We are surprised at so much unanimity.

Collega Vercamer referred to the recent publications related to black work, on the one hand in the hospitality industry but on the other hand still in the construction sector, and then mainly with foreign workers.

Mrs. Minister, you know that we have faced you for the oatmeal, on the one hand with pure exploitation in that sector to the detriment of foreign workers, on the other hand with a long list of broken competitive family enterprises, because this has become a structural problem in certain regions of this country.

In the media, the Secretary of State responsible for fraud prevention outlines this problem. I read that this fraud prevention would generate 1 billion euros during this legislature. I would like to receive confirmation of this amount. I have examined the budgets of previous years, as well as the multiannual budget for next year.

Is the figure of 1 billion euros of revenue that the Secretary of State is talking about correct?

Should we expect anything more from an effective fight against the exploitation of foreign workers in the construction sector?

What about the file of the main liability?

We have insisted on this several times. We have submitted legislative proposals. You have made statements and made promises. Your predecessor, Minister Piette, has said in the plenary session that the CDH will not enter the government until this file passes through it. Faced with the data of the Secretary of State, you, ⁇ also in the government, have new arguments to move the majority to settle this.

I therefore ask clearly to what extent we can still hope that there will be another breakthrough in this.

Mr. Bonte, I always support the action and the views of the Secretary of State. He distributed a press release about it yesterday.

Regarding the general liability, I will submit new proposals to the Government after Easter. I hope to get the support of the majority.

The Government is one and indivisible. Sometimes it is difficult to believe that. You also confirm the amount of 1 billion euros, income from the fight against social fraud?

I hope you come with this this year after Easter, and not years after Easter. I hope the Secretary of State will set up the enlargement glass again. I would like you to use those increased numbers to make a new forcing in the government.

However, my first question remains the most important one. Can you confirm that 1 billion euro revenue?

I support the information in the data published yesterday by the Secretary of State.

So far, no agreement has been reached with regard to liability. This was also the case when the SP was in the government. Together with the Secretary of State, I will submit new proposals. We will do everything we can to reach an agreement.