Proposition 53K2457

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 décembre 1963 sur la protection civile.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 22, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fire protection civil defence local authority finances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, generally insisting and in your favor, I will say something on this subject, because this draft is of course somewhat illustrative for this government. I read that this is “le gouvernement du faisable”. Apparently, what is on the table is the only possible and feasible. Following the discussion in the committee, no one is satisfied with the content of this bill. I have even the impression that you yourself are not, Mrs. Minister. This is cracking legislation, but apparently it is no longer possible.

I have no doubt that this draft will be approved by the House, but you immediately put this law in the shooting of the Constitutional Court. In fact, you know, based on the opinion of the State Council, that this law will not pass the test of the Constitution. The State Council has clearly pointed out the problems that arise in its opinion. It gives too many powers to the Governor.

Let me briefly outline the problem. You know that municipalities are part of a particular fire protection zone, called a municipality group center. These municipalities are served by one municipality that provides a fire service. The other municipalities pay the organizing municipality for these firefighting services. They do so on the basis of two criteria, namely population and cadastral income. These are two objective criteria, but in addition there are subjective assessment criteria that this law fully imposes on the governor.

The governor will therefore ultimately decide which municipality will pay how much for the fire service. He can do so on the basis of objective criteria, namely the population and the cadastral income, and with the rest he makes his sense. The State Council correctly notes that a governor, a civil servant, is not competent in this matter. In fact, you delegate a power to an official, to the governor. This is contrary to the Constitution.

You must take your own responsibility. Either you, as Minister of Home Affairs, take that decision yourself and determine for each zone which municipality should pay how much, or you use strictly defined criteria without the very broad appreciation power you now create for the governor and let him do so on the basis of very strict criteria.

I refer to the opinion of the State Council. I quote: “The legal provision set out in these terms does not contain the essential data that would allow to determine objectively and in a sufficiently predictable manner how the share that the municipality-group center will have to be calculated, which is even more regrettable since just the determination of that share has given rise to the numerous disputes.” The State Council goes on: “All criteria that serve to determine the share of the municipality-group center must be listed in the law. The law itself or the King, if authorised by law, shall also indicate the essential principles according to which those criteria must be balanced against each other so that the power entrusted to the authority responsible for applying the law, namely the provincial governor, is sufficiently delimited.”

This criticism of the State Council is in no way accepted. Other comments of the State Council, on the other hand. However, not to this fundamental criticism, and with it you put this law in the shooter: it is obvious that this has involved a lot of financial interests. Finally, the financial distribution of 2006 still applies today. Some municipalities are doing this very well. When there would be a new distribution that the governor will issue on the basis of this law, of course, there will be municipalities who will be disadvantaged. They will then be able to simply go to the Constitutional Court or follow another legal procedure by requesting a preliminary opinion from the Constitutional Court through the court they are addressing.

Finally, it is very strange that you continue with this. This is also stated in the report. Mr. Doomst of CD&V acknowledges that what is provided is insufficient to meet all legal objections. Therefore, it is recognized that this is a wiggle wagon regulation or bric-à-brac. Ms. Galant says that this law does not provide a solution to the protected municipalities.

She also points out that the whole regulation is so complex that the municipalities and even the governor’s departments responsible for it are absolutely ignorant. These are the comments of the majority.

However, the finding that this draft is unlawful has not prevented the majority parties from approving it. That is strange, because there has been Kamerbreed pointed out that this legislation is kaduuk and unconstitutional.

Why do we continue with this regulation? You might think that it is a lack of political courage: the responsibility is transferred to the governor, an official, because one does not dare to make the decision itself. That could be a reason. I think that a minister should bear responsibility in good and bad days, and make the necessary decisions, whether they please the municipalities or not. However, you are now passing a chilling, questionable authority onto the Governor.

Regionalise the power over the fire department! I thought there was an agreement on this. We sat at the table with Comrade Di Rupo for a year. In that year, there was no problem with the transfer of fire and civil protection powers to the provinces.

So it was a bad surprise when we were finally confronted with the government agreement, which showed that the powers on fire and civil protection had been removed from the list of powers to be transferred.

Now, apparently, one is trying to follow a third path. You know Anthony Giddens’ book, The Third Way. Several parties have relied on it. Per ⁇ this is a variant of it. There is federalism and confederalism, but this government paves the way of provincialism, giving more powers to the provinces rather than to the provinces. That will be her solution.

What surprises me is that this cracking regulation is only temporary, pending the installation of the new emergency zones. But also for those new aid zones, agreements on the distribution of contributions will need to be made. Why don’t you do it now? I have asked you this several times. You could not answer it. I ask the question again.

As early as 2014, you want to install the new rescue zones. Then, agreements will need to be made on the financial contributions provided by the municipalities and on the criteria that will serve as the basis for this.

So why are you now proposing that legislation, which you actually put in the shell of the Constitutional Court? After all, there will ⁇ be disadvantaged congregations, and you know that they will challenge that law. Why do you not immediately develop a fulfillment agreement or at least an arrangement that passes the constitutionality test and which can count on a positive opinion from the State Council?

I would like to point out that the present bill, like the government, is on the crumbling. Within the foreseeable time we will undoubtedly face the suspension or destruction of the law.

Mrs. Minister, there is indeed some uncertainty in the field about how the distribution key between central municipalities and protected municipalities is actually calculated and what is ultimately passed on to the municipalities.

At provincial level, the governor still has a little too much of the role of arbitrator and until today he determines the distribution by the provincial wet finger. That finger becomes a little dryer with the legislative change that presents, but it remains, of course, a gentle and humid place in the sense that the provincial governor still has certain arbitration freedoms depending on the environment.

So I think it is good that we have already taken a step forward with the present law. A lot of municipalities, and ⁇ the municipalities that have to take over the majority, are really in trouble with the bills. We have been behind for six years and we really need to do something about it.

Only I fear that the current system will still give room to provincial creativity. I have already admitted at the committee meeting that governors are usually very wise people, but wisdom must ultimately always lead to clarity.

Therefore, we urge the final reform to be implemented as soon as possible.

Now the municipalities in some places still threaten to remain the dupe of the system. We would like to remind you once again that the appointment was fifty-fifty, each half. I hope that agreement will be honored in the final system.

I think we are indeed taking a step forward today, but we must especially prepare for the big leap. Hopefully it won’t last too long.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, no one can deny that it was imperative to fill the legal void existing since the cancellation by the State Council of the Royal Decree of 2006. Legislation was even more indispensable as the cancellation of the Royal Decree of 2006 had a serious impact on the budget of local authorities and put many municipal centers in financial difficulties.

We note that the project received the approval of the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia and the Vereniging van Vlaamse Steden in Gemeenten as well as governors. We also support this text. Despite the authority of the Minister of the Interior, the powers of the Governor remain broad. Certainly, the text does not respond point by point to all the remarks made by the State Council, but it has the merit, not the least, of clarifying certain aspects of the situation.

In our view, this bill is a necessary step in anticipation of the continued implementation of the civil security reform that we firmly expect.

That being said, I would like to make a small comment not about group-center communes but about protected communes. Currently paid fees vary significantly from one municipality to another without the reason for this difference being always clear. As a committee, I had alluded to the fact that, although my colleague Éric Thiébaut and I are in the same district, there is a difference of more than 30 euros in the cost of fire services per citizen.

Despite the adoption of this text, protected municipalities will most likely continue to not understand the complexity of the calculation formula used to calculate their fee. I also let myself say that the same was true for the governor’s services, who find it difficult to explain this magical formula. I therefore hope that in the future, with the reform, the method of calculation will be more transparent and that it will be fixed by rescue zone.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It is to restore equity and it is also to fill a legal void left by the State Council, which has annulled the royal decree on the basis of which was founded the distribution between the communes-centre and the communes serving the charges of the regional fire services.

The reason for the cancellation must be remembered. It intervenes because, in the previous legal arrangement, the task of this distribution belonged to the government and that, by royal decree, this task had been delegated to the governors.

It was therefore because of an unauthorized subdelegation that the State Council cancelled the royal decree.

In the device you set up, there is no longer subdelegation. Indeed, the Governor himself has the authority to carry out this distribution. It was great time.

It was time because the current legal void could not be filled in ordinary affairs and since 2010, many municipal centers were waiting to be reimbursed for the actual expenses they had incurred for the benefit of the municipalities they had served. Certainly, they still received accounts, but, on the last approved account, that is, often that of 2006, in some provinces, that of 2004.

But these advances were insufficient, as you have excellently stated in the commission, in view of the increases in the actual costs, even in the charges of personnel, operation and equipment. It was necessary to fill the void resulting from this cancellation.

I hear some comments and some criticism. I would like to recall that, in the arrangement put in place, provincial governors have an obligation to motivate their administrative acts. Not as in the old disposition where they limited themselves to notifying by a circular letter, sometimes partially pre-printed, the amount through a simple calculation of which nobody ⁇ understood the relevance.

This obligation exists: it is contained in the law. As well as that of referring to at least two objective criteria: cadastral income and population figure. Two objective elements that are the essential elements, while it is possible for governors to take into account additional criteria, related to realities of the field.

Because, in the current state of our legislation, the organization of emergency services is of course of the greatest diversity. They are not at all in the same number, they are classified in emergency services X, Y and Z, with services rendered quite differently. It is therefore impossible, within the framework of current legislation, to rely on future criteria set up for future rescue zones since all rescue zones will have to have a minimum of services, a minimum of management, a minimum of equipment, a minimum of efficiency.

Therefore, it was time to catch up with this delay, especially since it actually accumulated due to the effects of the decision of the State Council.

I add – an important element – that, within the framework of the arrangement you have set up, you have also compelled the governors to decide within a certain period of time in relation to the position that will be taken by the central municipality that is notified of the draft distribution. This did not exist in the previous legislation.

We are very pleased to see this bill succeed. We will vote in favour.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, we are not opposed to the spirit of this project which has the merit of clarifying a situation that was relatively blurred in terms of the distribution of the costs of fire services between the communes-centers and the protected communes. The municipalities concerned can now enjoy a little more certainty as to the amounts to be received or paid in connection with fire services. This should facilitate their budget work.

However, and I will not surprise you, we will not support this project as it is. We support the implementation of the principle of the fastest adequate assistance and the rationalization of the organization of the fire services, but municipal or even provincial or regional boundaries must not be obstacles to the intervention of the emergency services. It must be acknowledged that in the periphery, we are very pleased to be able to enjoy this possibility of being troubled, if necessary, by relatively close positions, located in the Brussels Region.

Nevertheless, we cannot endorse the fact that the services of the Brussels Region are excluded from federal funding because they already function as a rescue zone as a result of globalization, mutualization and coordination of means.

Mr. Minister, you have explicitly confirmed this to me as part of an answer to a written question: "The law of 15 May 2007 does not provide for the integration of the Brussels Fire Service into a rescue zone. In fact, in Brussels, the fire service, which already functions as a rescue zone, is a pararegional and not a municipal service. This is why the nineteen municipalities of the Brussels Region cannot claim to receive federal subsidies.”

You confirmed this situation in the commission a few months ago: “Given the peculiarity of this Region, which has already been functioning as a zone for some time, some aspects of the reform will not apply to it.”

I am afraid that the government will continue on this launch. This means that Brussels will have to finance the fire services of their Region through regional taxes and the percentage of agglomeration. On the other hand, for the fire services of the other Regions, this will pass through a federal dotation. In a way, it is two weights, two measures!

Brussels will not receive a federal grant. The fact of continuing this reform without taking into account the specificity of Brussels is therefore equivalent to accepting a kind of inequality, which is contrary to the Constitution.

On the one hand, we are told that Brussels refinancing is among the priorities of the government and will be an integral part of state reforms, but on the other hand, nothing is done to repair this kind of inequality.

I am surprised, Madam the Minister. What is behind this logic? Is there a real political will to revive the Brussels Region? Can we say that the Brussels Region is a full-fledged Region? I would like to hear it from your mouth.

Thank you for this proposal, but as I said, it does not satisfy us entirely.

I would like to give a few answers to the interventions expressed.

First, as has been said, this bill aims at a provisional period of one year since the goal is to reach, within the framework of the reform, a structural project. That is why this project is based on current practices that have not created problems so far. It provides them with a legal basis to avoid the legal vacuum regarding financing.

It is only a provisional legislation for twelve months. The government has pledged that in 2014, after negotiations with the municipalities and the various partners, a new law will be drafted.

Mr. Weyts, you talked about various elements, but if you read the State Council opinion, you can find that we have added, for example, the guardianship of the Minister of Home Affairs. That was an important element against the so-called subjectivity of the governors, who, according to Mr. Doomst, are wise men.

The two main criteria, population and cadastral income, are objective criteria, but the other criteria are the same. We talked about this during the discussions in the committee. For example, we are talking about the presence of an airport, ports, Sevesosites, prisons or industrial zones. I will prepare a circulation letter with a clear framework and a list of additional criteria.

There is also an obligation to motivate, very important for the governor, with prior advice from the relevant municipal council, which is also an important element. We have also obtained the agreement of the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities.

It is a small autonomy with a clear framework. In certain circumstances, it is necessary that the governor has a small form of autonomy.

I think we have followed the various comments of the State Council.

As I said, for the sake of precision, I will send a circular clearly explaining what marginal objective criteria are, the two essential criteria being cadastral income and population. These are criteria of such importance that, as I said in the committee, some parties – or even all the parties – demand that they be taken into account, in particular in the KUL standard. These are objective criteria other than the major basic criteria. By giving the governors a small margin of autonomy plus a capacity of custody and, whatever happens, always the possibility of an appeal, one does not increase their power.

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the Minister’s argument which is still the same as in the committee. It is flagrantly contrary to what the State Council advises. Despite my immeasurable sympathy, I am still more inclined to believe the Council of State. I think you clearly suggest that this legislation should be abolished by the Constitutional Court. I have not heard any argument that could argue the opposite.