Proposition 53K2961

Projet de loi attribuant une dotation annuelle et viagère à Sa Majesté le Roi Albert II.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Raf Terwingen
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen
PS | SP Christophe Lacroix
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

July 21, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

head of State

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

Oct. 8, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I present to you the report of the Constitution Committee of 23 and 24 September, where the following legislative proposals were discussed.

The Bill No. 2960 was explained by Mr. Lacroix and the strengths of this proposal are as follows.

First, in the future, only one dotation will be granted to the presumed successor to the throne, the resigned prince, the surviving husband of the king or queen, the surviving husband of the resigned prince and the surviving husband of the presumed successor. Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent have a transitional regime.

From now on, each allowance will also be divided into part operating costs and personnel expenses, on the one hand, and part wages, on the other. The salary is then subject to taxation. For the functional and personnel part, an obligation to ensure transparency and a control of expenditure by the Court of Auditors is introduced. There are also rules of conduct for members of the royal family. In case of infringement, the allowance may be withdrawn if necessary.

The gift of Queen Fabiola was sharply reduced to half what Prince Philip received, and the gifts of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent remained the same.

I also have a comment on the written report, Mr. Speaker. In Article 16, which deals with the rules of conduct, there is a difference between the Dutch-language and the French-language text. We propose to use the Franstalie version and adjust the last sentence of the Dutch-language text as follows – I quote: “... participation does not impair the dignity and honorability of their functions, and does not threaten to compromise their neutrality.”

Mr Terwingen has as the chief speaker in the committee the Bill No. It is 2961. That proposal granted King Albert an annual and lifetime grant for the same amount as Prince Philip received as Crown Prince. The principles of the previous bill also apply.

Subsequently, the Council adopted the Bill No. 1124 is explained. This proposal aims to abolish all subsidies.

Finally, Mr Francken has also submitted his Bill No. 1382 was announced. The proposal aims to clearly state which members of the royal family have representative duties and commit to transparency and accountability in spending. The proposal also aims to extend the dotations for Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent.

In the general discussion, Mr. Lacroix, Ms. Fonck and Ms. Gerkens emphasized that this bill represents a strong progress in modernisation, transparency and accountability, but that measures still need to be taken against past practices, such as the establishment of a foundation, merely to do succession planning.

Mr Francken is then satisfied that from now on taxes will have to be paid, but he raised questions regarding the provision in Article 2 that each grant is fixed by law on a proposal from the government. He also called the donations for Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent a missed opportunity and asked questions about the staff.

Ms. Pas clarified that she disagrees with the bills and expressed criticism especially on the fact that Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent are still given a dotation, that the code of conduct does not apply to the King and that the supervision by the Court of Auditors is too limited.

In response to Mr Francken’s question, the Secretary of State for State Reform, Mr Wathelet, clarified that it is normal for allocations to be established on a proposal from the Government, since it is budgetary standards, but that the bill does not in any way affect the constitutional rights of parliamentarians to take legislative initiatives. As a reason why the Civil List is not subject to the Court of Audit, the Secretary of State referred to Article 89 of the Constitution which stipulates that the Civil List is established for the duration of the government of each king. The Code of Conduct does not apply to the King, and that finds its origin in Article 88 of the Constitution which stipulates that the King is inviolable and his ministers are responsible.

Mr Francken disagreed with the arguments of the Secretary of State and therefore does not understand why the grant of King Albert II must be EUR 923 000.

This is where the report goes.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that I briefly explain, on behalf of the sp.a. group, the appreciation of the current legislative proposals.

The question is whether our country is going badly. Well, unfortunately for those who envy it, not really. Is the monarchy going bad? Maybe to the regret of even more people who would envy it, not really. We were here in the summer for an impeccable throne succession.

However, we find it good news that members of the royal house, like most other countrymen, need to tighten the trousers a little. Is that sufficient? Of course, everything can always be better. It is a good start, or – in the words of some – a trend break or a beginning of recovery.

Why do we judge that the present proposals are the beginning of a trend break?

First, colleagues, for the first time in history, a government has succeeded in reducing and reducing the total allocation for the royal house. The reduction is associated with the drastic reduction of the dotation of the queen-widow, the reduction or zeroing of the number of staff members for the queen-widow, and the abolition of the right of dotation, which is the most common thing in the world for all members of the royal house not first in line for the throne succession. One million euros will be saved.

Colleagues, why are the above proposals the beginning of a trend break?

For the first time in history – it may be a little late, but better late than never – transparency in spending is finally provided.

First, it will be easier in the future, for example for Mr Francken, to do half of his parliamentary work. After all, the government has opted to group in one section all budget expenditure related to the monarchy, which is a good thing. Mr Francken, also expenses incurred by Defence, police and the Directorate of Buildings will facilitate your work. Everything will be found in Section 01 of the Expenditure Budget of this country.

Second, the legality and regularity checks, which the Court of Auditors will carry out, will ensure transparency in the expenditure, at least in terms of operation and in terms of staff attached to the royal house.

Third, the maximum number of staff members is also determined, which is a good thing. Until now, the number of staff members has been somewhat hidden. Today it is very clearly stipulated that there are 35 staff members for the King, 10 staff members for the former King or Queen in the future, two staff members for the Princess and one staff member for the Prince. This is a clear and transparent regulation.

Finally, the Parliament and the Chamber – we will, of course, do this with great attention and interest – will also be able to publish the annual report.

A third element that should delight us – I suppose this should delight everyone in the Chamber – is that for the first time the members of the royal house will also pay taxes. Such a regulation is obvious. I congratulate them on behalf of SP.A.

The grants consist in part of wages, which of course will be due income taxes. Indirect taxes, such as VAT and excise duties, will of course also be levied, both on the Civil List and on the grants.

Last but not least, there are also rules of conduct. We are interested in the fact that the members of the Royal House also in their functioning with the gift and in their public performance adhere to a number of very correct rules of conduct, of course with a certain respect for their basic privacy.

You could say that you are actually in favor of a protocol-layer kingdom, colleagues. Well, we are that too. In fact, we are actually evolving towards it. When you say that the King is no longer allowed to sign the laws, you have a point. When you say that the King should not appoint ministers, I am the best proof that he does not actually do that anymore. When you say that the King is not allowed to lead the army, I hope only that we will not immediately go into battle. When you say that the King is not allowed to beat the coin, that is the authority of another government when it comes to the euro and that the King still has the right to choose his own picture, but nothing more.

Whoever claims that the texts do not go sufficiently far, must, upon the dissolution of the Chambers, request that the articles concerned, namely Articles 104 to 114, be declared subject to revision. We can talk about it, but the debate about it must then be carried out and has nothing to do with the discussion that is being discussed today.

Conclusion, colleagues, the morality of the story: we are cautiously optimistic. That reflects a little better the reality of our country and the state of our royal house. The new kingdom must give people opportunities. We therefore think that it is better today not to deny the light of the bright sun, and yet to be satisfied with what brings forth.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are here today to discuss the bill on the approach to the dotations of the royal family. It is already going wrong there. In my opinion, what is proposed is entirely invalid, since the first articles of the bill say that the dotations can only be changed on the proposal of the government. In fact, it had to be a bill. Here a mistake was made and I assume that it happened in the work on ministerial cabinets.

I also think that the first intention was to pour the provisions into a bill and let them pass through the government, then there would have been no problem. Mrs Gennez, I have proposed several times in the committee to remove that article, because it adds nothing.

Why should the Parliament not be allowed to decide on the adjustment of allocations? Why should we vote on a bill stating that only the government can adjust the grants? Why should we do that in hell? Why should we deprive ourselves of this possibility?

It was argued that the Constitution is above what we will vote on here, and the dotations therefore can always be adjusted through a bill. But what is the use of this article? Take it out! However, this has not happened. I think there was no response from honest shame. I have never seen a response to my comment.

What we do today is invalid. You write yourself that the grants can only be changed on the proposal of the government, but what do you do? You have a bill to be submitted by the leaders of the majority groups, i.e. by the Parliament. What is it now? It’s really very weird, it’s just wrong. I think what we are discussing here is invalid. If not, I would like to hear about it.

I still have not received an answer from the applicants to my frequently asked question how exactly it is. Why do you state in your bill that allocations can only be changed on the proposal of the government, while you then do so with the proposal of the majority? What is it now? It is really prutswork.

Dear colleagues, I come to my comments at the core.

I had hoped that at least one amendment would be submitted out of honest shame to decorate something at least legally. However, this has not occurred.

First, the N-VA, under the leadership of Jan Jambon, Karl Vanlouwe and myself, organized a study day on 10 July last year to examine how to fit the monarchy in a new garment, how to plug the monarchy into the twenty-first century, and how to actually bring the monarchy in line with the seven or eight other monarchies in Europe. We have made suggestions there and some of them we see back here. Some of these proposals were at least partially met. I have said that in the committee.

I am glad that taxes are finally paid, though indirect taxes, Mrs. Gennez. For direct taxes, we will probably have to wait for three or four legislatures. Indirect taxes will now have to be paid. That is correct. By the way, no one knew that no indirect taxes were paid. I think we have some merit of the fact that the government is finally doing something, after there was a lot of dissatisfaction and protest in the public opinion following the rise to light of the pump defiscalisée in Laken, the red diesel of the King and the royal family.

Basically, we have said that three things need to change: first, there should be more transparency; second, the tax should be fair and thus explainable to the population; and, third, the political role of the King must be reduced to zero or near zero, as in many other monarchies.

I can conclude that with the proposed proposal one is a little bit on the right path. However, we are still far from where we should be. There are still missed opportunities, as I said in the committee, not only in terms of grants, but ⁇ also the Civil List. However, I will return to that later. I explain myself more closely.

First, the decision to give Prince Laurent and Princess Astrid a grant of €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000 per year until the end of the days is a wrong decision. The law states that it is a transitional provision. That the transitional provision runs until their death, I honestly find a bit of a strange transitional provision. I wonder what the transition is. It is indeed a transition. It is a transition, I can tell you. I therefore find it quite cynical to propose the provision as a transitional provision if it remains applicable until their death.

We are the only country in the world that gives brothers and sisters to a king. No monarchy in Europe, let alone in the world, teaches brothers and sisters of a king. Only Belgium does that. Why Why ? Because the majority does not have the courage to act against it.

What is Prince Laurent’s contribution to our society? He has made one or two official appearances on behalf of the royal family in the last three years. Should he receive a subsidy of 20 000, 25 000, 30 000 euros per month? What is the contribution? How can you justify this? That I ask myself.

The second is fiscal optimization. You say you will ensure that the royal family pays taxes for the first time, that for the first time VAT taxes are paid on the King’s purchases and his consequences. I understood that that fiscal optimization was also a concern of the PS and cdH.

About fiscal optimization, as Queen Fabiola, the Queen-Widow, still does, nothing is said. It is said that one must maintain neutrality, that one must be politically neutral, that one must be worthy in holding his office and office. Nevertheless, there is fiscal optimization, the avoidance of succession rights, through the establishment of a foundation, a foundation that, though, after a lot of protest in Parliament, has been dissolved. That money just goes to the Astrida Foundation, a public law foundation that was approved by the government after the death of King Boudewin. That is exactly the same system of evading the succession rights of the Brussels Capital Region, where one is, I understand, in difficult papers.

With the passing of the special financing law soon, that problem is of course out of work and then it can apparently be calmly solved. The tax rate for succession rights is 80 % in the Brussels Capital Region.

The little man, the little Flaming, the little Brusseler, pays taxes and succession fees, while he has always paid taxes. He pays up to 80% of succession fees on the death of a family member. That is not true of Queen Fabiola. It seems to be a little more equal than the ordinary citizen. She should not do that. It does so simply through a foundation established with the approval of the federal government.

If the PS says that this is not fair and if Ms. Fonck claims that this is not proper, that there should be an arrangement here, where is that arrangement then? I do not see them here. Ladies and gentlemen, you have submitted this. You have negotiated this. I unfortunately not. Where is the regulation on that foundation?

Tax evasion continues, the capital of the Saxon-Coburgs – estimated at half a billion to 1 billion euros – remains largely out of the vizier of the Belgian tax authority.

Second, it is said that the royal family will now have to pay VAT and excise taxes. I can hope. I am very curious whether this will happen effectively now. However, it is in a memory of explanation and not in the legal provisions. On my comment to include this in the legal provisions because it is much more powerful, it is said to me that the committee has confirmed it again, and that therefore it actually means the same thing. Then simply record it in the legal articles and not only in the memory. Everyone knows that this is legally much stronger to have VAT and excise duties, indirect taxes, paid by the royal family. This does not happen. It is a missed opportunity.

Third, Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent are not allowed to have any other income. However, the scheme is described quite bluntly. Renewal Energy Construct Arlon 67 was founded by Prince Laurent. He is a shareholder of this real estate company active in Brussels and Wallonia. Prince Laurent has now appointed his wife, Princess Claire, as CEO of his real estate company.

That’s a new idea from Laurent – from time to time he has to come up with an idea – and as always he drives the edges off. According to the interpretation of the present bill, Mr. Terwingen, this is possible. Prince Laurent can start real estate companies in Belgium, in Congo, in Rwanda, in North Korea, anywhere. He may invest in it and appoint his wife as CEO of that company, as long as he leaves the shares in the real estate company and does not sell shares, because that would mean an income. However, he can charge all his expenses and manage everything within the contours of his Renewal Energy Construct Arlon 67. There is nothing wrong with this. In this way, he continues to receive his gift every month.

That arrangement will form the new conflict harbor for the coming years on the stage of the Chamber. I will be there with pleasure. After all, you have issued an arrangement which, in my opinion, is not entirely conclusive and which – as it will be approved on Thursday – sows the germs for future quarrels, interpellations and discussions between opposition and majority about what exactly is the carcan in which Prince Laurent must move.

With regard to Princess Astrid, it is also unclear what she can and cannot do. The difference, however, is that Princess Astrid is a little less world stranger and just a little better understands that she must adhere to certain rules.

Fourth, when it comes to travel abroad, I do not understand some things well. Furthermore, I just heard from Mrs. Gennez that something apparently went wrong with the translation. It was not “or”, but “and”. In French there was “and” in the text, but in Dutch there was “or”. This will still be adjusted. I assume there will be an amendment, but I would have liked to know exactly how this will be technically adjusted. Will there be any changes to our banks? Can we take a look at that?

Correct me if I misunderstood it, but it comes down to the fact that if Prince Laurent goes abroad, outside the European Union, and possibly has contacts that are of a political nature, he must seek approval from Minister Reynders for this. That is how I understand it.

I wonder, however, who makes the estimate of this trip? If Prince Laurent goes to Israel tomorrow to plant a tree, as he recently did, should he report that to Minister Reynders or should he ask him for permission to do so? I think Prince Laurent thinks he should just report that to Minister Reynders. In this regard, I would like to receive some explanation from the applicants of this bill, because for me the matters remain ⁇ unclear. Unfortunately, I left a quote from Minister Reynders from last year on my bench, but I will read that quote, which shows total uncertainty on the subject, with pleasure during the debate.

Fifth, I also asked how it is with the diplomats? There seems to be something wrong with the translation. In Dutch it is stipulated that Princess Astrid gets the equivalent of two diplomats available for her new mission, the foreign missions.

I fancy for a moment, but does this mean that she recruits two nobles, without having passed a diplomatic exam, but that they are recruited at the expense of the federal government and thus of the Belgian taxpayers? Or does she really hire two diplomats to accompany her on foreign missions, knowing that there is a Foreign Trade Agency, which also includes diplomats, which does nothing but prepare those foreign missions? As a double work, it can count!

I still have no answer to that question, and would like to finally be clear. Will an equivalent service be established and can she pay a few friends who advise her, or is it really two people who have passed a diplomatic exam and a diplomatic passport in their pocket?

Sixth, I would like to talk about the Court of Auditors. The report says for the first time that the Court of Auditors will now carry out an audit. I re-read the report, in preparation for today, and I wonder what will Parliament get from that check? What will Parliament see about the royal family’s spending over the coming years? I think we will see nothing.

The Chairman of the Court of Auditors, if I have understood it correctly, has the task of controlling the royal family’s allocations and expenses. WOW ! This was applauded by all banks. What I want to know is why the General Meeting or the Board of Directors of the Court of Auditors do not get to see them? Why are they not published on the Court’s website? Is the Court of Auditors one of the controlling bodies of this democracy?

Why not go to Parliament? Everyone knows that I have a special interest in the Belgian royal family. Why can’t I check this? I thought it was intended that the Court of Auditors would check the appropriations and that Parliament could have access to them in order to see how the appropriations were properly spent. Apparently it is not so.

Ms. Gennez just said that there will finally be an audit, that there will be a budget listing all the posts, which will ease my parliamentary work as I no longer have to ask all those questions. They will make sure I know exactly how everything is. Well, I don’t read that anywhere. Where is it? Where is it approved? I would like to know.

We have discussed these issues with Minister Geens. At one point, Minister Geens, apparently a bit upset, said that because of my constant criticism and comments about the royal family, the oak is now completely empty. That’s beautifully said, but I don’t think the egg is completely empty. Today’s proposal is bombarding! It ensures a full hour, day in, day out, until the death of Prince Laurent and Princess Astrid. The onion is full of bombs, and the government fills it. Minister Geens fills the onion, but comes to Parliament to say to me, “The onion is empty.”No, the onion is bomb-filled and is filled with fresh milk every day by this government.

Finally, dear colleagues, gentlemen secretaries of state, as regards the protocolary role, Mrs. Gennez asked exactly what I am still concerned about, because step by step the role of the king is transitioned to a minimal role of the king. “That protocol role may not have been approved yet, but we still see that it is coming.”Well, that man is the head of the military force, a four-star general of the Belgian army. “Isn’t it two months ago that Pieter De Crem made himself disappointed that since 9/11 the King in a high-rise person is invited to NATO meetings and is also present? I have read that. He has confirmed this in the committee.

It is also said: “The King is the head of the diplomatic corps, but that is only constitutional, technically that is not.” The King appointed each ambassador. It accredits every Belgian ambassador. The King receives every Belgian ambassador. That man is indeed in practice – which is, by the way, one of his biggest daily tasks – the head of the diplomatic corps in Belgium. This is not simply stated somewhere in an illustrious law of 1830 or 1831. This has been the case every day since the founding of Belgium. We are therefore still a mile away from the protocolary role of the King.

The King signs the laws. Moreover, sometimes we have to install military aircraft, in which there is no cat, only someone with a bag, to have the King sign. I suggested allowing the electronic signature. It has long been stated in a law that this is possible, but the government does not give home. Mrs. Turtelboom does not even answer my questions on this subject. They had forgotten that.

Regarding the protocolary role of the King in the formation of government, it is also said that he no longer has a role in it. Well, the role of the King in the political order in this country is immense when it comes to federal government formation. We have seen this well again. The king does politics, we have a king of politics. Let us do what is always said here on the floor, and let us move on to a protocol role.

Mr Jambon, it was agreed to establish a working group within the Committee on Institutional Reforms on the preparation of the protocol role. We have no longer heard anything about this. We had to submit proposals. We, together with the Flemish Interest, were the only ones who effectively submitted proposals. We have submitted more than 50 proposals, Mr Van Biesen. Nothing will come from home again. In the last seven months, every month again, on the Seventh Day, in Terzake, in the newspapers and here in Parliament, we have had to hear a hypocritical, hypocritical Mass. There would be a protocol role. Fuck it out! Nothing comes from home, not now, and not in the coming years. That is the harsh truth!

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. For reformers, this seems natural. Thus, in the announcement of the abdication of the King at this tribune, we had marked that it was necessary for us to inscribe the monarchical institution in a spirit of modernization. The reforms that are presented today are going in this direction. Everyone can obviously judge by their conscience whether these reforms go or not far enough or if they go too far. Everyone has a freedom of judgment in relation to this. However, I find that today we are in a real reform, a modernization of the monarchical institution with a triple logic: the reduction of the number of recipients of grants, greater transparency and greater control over the resources and the use of these resources and the submission of grants to the payment of taxes on the amounts received. These are three developments that are not negligible and which indicate sufficiently, I think, the meeting of this need for reforms.

Let us clarify some things. The number of recipients of the grants will therefore actually decrease and each grants of the members of the royal family will include two parts: one part of the type "treatment" and another part related to operational and personnel expenses. In addition, the allocations of members of the royal family will be transparent, it is said. I do not think that transparency and voyeurism should be confused. Voyeurism has something unhealthy; transparency is a positive notion and it is in that spirit that we indicate this necessity of transparency. Each year, the amounts of the main sub-rubriques of allocations, excluded from processing, will be published and all expenses related to the monarchy will be grouped into one budget chapter, including the Civil List.

The members of the royal family will be checked. The part of the allocation relating to operational and personnel expenses, which is not always processed, will be controlled by the First President and the President of the Court of Auditors.

A code of ethics will apply to all members of the royal family who receive a grant. Some may think that this code of ethics would be a constraint, proof of some mistrust. This is not the case in our mind and in our head. I think that the code of ethics, precisely, will no longer allow for displaced or malicious suspicions. Here it is actually about benefiting from a code of ethics rather than being compelled by it.

An annual report on the activities of general interest of the members of the royal family will also be published.

The members of the royal family who receive a donation will now pay taxes. This, in my opinion, results from a spirit of modernization that gives value to the tax. Taxation is the participation in the common good and, somewhere, everyone must participate in it. It is only when the tax becomes excessive that it creates problems. We are used to it. But when the tax is reasonable, it constitutes a share in the common good on the part of each citizen, and the royal family will participate in it in the same spirit.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we are delighted that we have been able to quickly reform the mechanism of allocations by giving it a clear philosophy. The means necessary for the members of the royal family to assume the public functions arising for them from our constitutional monarchy are ⁇ ined, but transparency and therefore control over the use of these means are guaranteed.

In the future, it will be appropriate to verify whether the resources allocated are properly related to the actual needs. This reform thus allows in some way to stabilize the monarchical institution, and thus even our institutional system and our country.

A word, Mr. President, if you wish, on the Civil List. I’m not going to go back to the tribune right now. We are in favour of the Civil List. Some consider that the mechanism for allocations is not applicable to the Civil List and that this might be a problem.

In our mind, the Civil List has a peculiarity. First, it is of a constitutional type: it falls under the Constitution, which also assigns, in exchange, I would say, to the head of state a series of tasks involving charges to be assumed financially. We believe that the amount retained is, as the government’s draft says, fair and fair. We therefore express our support for this bill establishing the Civil List and for the proposed laws dealing with allocations. I thank you for your attention.

Dear colleagues, I remind you that we agreed, at the Conference of Presidents, to work today until maximum 19:00. You can organize your evening.

The word is for mr. Van Hecke

With the text presented today, we are taking a big step forward. In fact, a number of agreements are made on a number of general principles applicable to the grants and benefits granted to members of the royal family.

Today we can say that we are implementing a number of fundamental reforms, which I have also indicated in the committee. If we look back on the current period later, we will easily be able to distinguish between the period before 2013 and the period after it.

Colleagues, as already cited by other speakers, from now on, the allocation will consist of two parts, in particular one part remuneration and one part that serves for employment and personnel expenses. Such a division is new.

The salary part is subject to income taxes, although other things are sometimes claimed here. However, it is very clear. The salary part is subject to income taxes. The grant received shall not be combined with other taxable income. Everyone will also be subject to indirect taxes and will therefore have to pay VAT and excise duties.

The part of the allocation that serves for operation and staff shall be subject to audit by the First President of the Court of Auditors. Therefore, it is not possible that this part of the funds will be used for private reasons.

A number of deontological rules are also added to the scheme. Transparency will also be achieved by clearly pushing the main headings forward in the budget.

One can make some ridicule about the arrangement; one can also discuss how detailed it should be. In the explanatory memorandum, the relevant sections are listed. For some, however, it will never be enough. If I understand it correctly, Mr. Francken would actually want to know for whom each box of pralines purchased is intended. He would like to go to such details. Mr Francken, such details are not arranged, which gives you the opportunity to ask questions about the matter every week. Thus, you are continuing to do so.

However, transparency is quite clearly promoted in the present proposals. It will be possible to check which part of the allocation is used, for example, for personnel costs, transportation or travel. All such posts will be listed.

I think there is a clear cessation with what happened before and that this is clearly a positive evolution.

If one looks at the amounts, we still notice a huge delivery for Fabiola. It once reached an amount of 1.4 million euros. This amount has been reduced to approximately 900 000 and will now fall to 461 000 EUR. Astrid and Laurent will continue to receive the same amount, but they will have to pay taxes.

We will support this text.

As for the text relating to Albert II, I must admit that this text evokes mixed feelings among us. The positive is that the same rules will apply here too. Part of the fee will have to be paid taxes. There is also control and transparency. The amount of EUR 923 000 and the number of staff members made available to Albert II is too much for our group. We will therefore be reminded of this.

Much has already been said about the protocol function. The monarchy is an instrument that continues through inheritance, a remnant from the time when countries and people were in possession of despots.

Democracy cannot accept that a family is given political power through inheritance. Whoever exercises political power in a democracy must be accountable to the people’s representation, to the voter.

We are in favor of a republic in which the president is democratically elected. One should have taken the change of throne to evolve into such a system, to conduct the debate about the protocol role – if you ask us, no longer any role for the royal house. However, this has not been encouraged. This is postponed to the next throne succession.

Here we count three queens, two kings, a princess, a prince, all with a generous donation from 307 000 euros to 11,5 million euros. Unlike the average citizen, the financial situation of the Saxon-Coburgs is already very good.

The decision of the nuclear cabinet to continue to compensate Albert and Paola for life with an annual pension of 923 000 euros is simply revenge. For comparison, that is 76 times the guaranteed minimum pension. That’s three times the salary of President Obama. While almost all economic indicators are red, the government throws the money for the Saxon-Coburgs through windows and doors.

On top of that, apart from all those cents, they get another ten permanent employees, free housing, permanent security agents and a few extra items, such as free flights to holiday destinations. This, however, testifies to an unprecedented world alienation towards the population, which today finds it increasingly difficult to bind the ends together.

The Flemish Belang has already submitted a bill at the beginning of this legislature to simply abolish the additional royal dotations. Despite the parallel protests of other opposition parties, our proposal, strangely enough, could not count on any support.

Following a resolution proposal from our N-VA colleagues calling for greater transparency – whatever that might mean – and for an examination of how the tax statute of the royal dotations can be regulated – whatever that might mean –, Prime Minister Di Rupo was there to announce the prevailing arrangement with much courage.

Colleague Van Hecke, the system actually consists of two parts. The coins received by the members of the royal house are divided into a taxed and a non-taxed portion. Only 20% of the subsidies received will be taxed. That was not worth the muscle ball gear of Di Rupo. I think a lot of citizens would be grateful to you for such a preferential rate. There was, however, a lot of muscle ball roles with you and with the prime minister, and it was presented as a great step forward. The main argument was that the text went even further than the unanimous recommendations of the Senate. This is also not at all difficult. If one follows those recommendations, then there is hardly anything proposed in it. Certain schemes are even more advantageous and more flexible than the current scheme.

Basically, there is simply nothing changing. Financial malversations were not included in that acclaimed code of conduct. There are, however, enough precedents, think of Mrs. de Mora y Aragón with her Fons Pereos, who after nine months was finally discharged, but whose assets were simply stopped in another foundation.

Completely incomprehensible is that for Astrid and Laurent a lifelong exception was made. None of the applicants was able to explain to me during the discussions in the committee why they need such a transitional arrangement. Everyone was supposed to agree with the principle that princes and princesses should work for the meal. I have cited quotes from 2008 and 2009 of colleagues Almaci and Van der Maelen, who suggested that one should take the change of throne to abolish the dotations of Astrid and Laurent. Apparently, however, a lifetime exception is now accepted and no explanation can be given for it.

Nor did I get an answer to the question of why, for the sake of transparency, not everything is checked by the Court of Auditors. It is just about sharing. The Court of Auditors controls the part of the grant that does not constitute compensation. To the question why the other part is not checked, there was no single answer. Also on the question why the Civil List is not checked, I have not received a single answer.

The amounts of the main categories are published. Why are not all headings published? Neither of the applicants could give me an answer to that.

Finally, there is still the future arrangement for the future brothers and sisters. They will no longer receive a grant, but a remuneration for performance of public interest. I would have liked to know – I have also repeatedly insisted on this in the committee – what the correct description of the performance of general interest is. How is that aligned? Is an act of presence at a local sausage table a performance of public interest? I still do not know today.

I do not know what the remuneration is, or the amount of the remuneration. Why are these performance fees not under the control of the Court of Auditors so that everything becomes transparent? No one could tell me.

There are no answers, there is no clarity, there is no so-called transparency. There is only a scarf to bleed for public opinion and fundamental changes remain out.

We are ready and clear. We will not submit amendments, like some colleagues who want to give Fabiola another half the minister’s salary.

Not only at the beginning of this legislature, but at the beginning of each legislature, the Flemish Interest has already submitted a bill with a view to removing the additional royal dotations, because it is clear that the royal family, through the Royal Donation, the Civil List and the fortune generated through the Belgian State, has more than sufficient resources to continue to fulfill its role.

As a convinced Republican party, we question that role itself and they don’t even have to play any role for us, but even if they continue to do so, they have enough resources to do so.

We are therefore convinced that Di Rupo’s proposals can at most be reduced to an acid scourge, following Fabiola de Mora y Aragón’s tax evasion caprioles, without affecting the roots of that funding system.

Please stop calling for more transparency. Stop rubbing on some tax statutes, but also let the members of the royal family work to pay taxes on the bread and, as a logical consequence, on everything they receive.

Removing the grants to Astrid and Laurent could be a first, very meaningful step, but even that was too much.

For all the reasons I have mentioned, it is no more than logical for the Flemish Interest that, in addition to the Civil List, which will soon be discussed, the additional dotations to the royal family are simply deleted. We have re-presented our amendments from the committee today; we call for your common sense for the second time and ask for your support for our amendments.

Whether the regulation presented today is a bill or a bill, does not matter: the content is rejectable. We will therefore vote against it with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, despite the words and positions that some have wanted to prevail, the advances made through the text that we are going to vote are strong elements for making our monarchy evolve into a monarchy of the 21st century.

The first principle that guided our choices is that of the link between a dotation and the obligations it entails.

The first is that of financial transparency through the control of the Court of Auditors: it is healthy that the Parliament knows the allocation of allocated appropriations. The purpose of public money is not to constitute a treasure in favor of the head of state, but rather to allow him to fulfill his role. The subsidies will be subject to tax on the same basis as each citizen.

The second principle is the reduction of the amount of allocations.

The third principle is the abolition of automatic allocations in favor of members of the royal family, except for the King – or the Queen – and the Prince – or princess – heir.

Governance, ethics, transparency and modernity are therefore the principles that have guided this reform.

This is the most important thing I wanted to remind you of this day for our discussions. Nevertheless, during our discussions, in the committee or in this tribune, some have taken advantage of this to call for a detriction of the monarchy for the benefit of a republic.

To do this, they used the argument of the cost of the monarchy. That is why, dear colleagues, I found it interesting to make a comparison between the cost of our monarchy and that of a republic.

Take the French Republic for example. Some figures: 103 483 252 euros, this is the amount of the operation of the Elysée in 2013, to which it is worth adding the salary of President François Hollande.

by [...]

I would also add, Mr. Mayeur, that the operating budget of the Elysée has increased in parallel.

But I find it unnecessary to open here a debate that should be held in the National Assembly.

Note, however, that this budget is more than 103 million euros, not counting the salaries of the President of the French Republic and his ministers. You will therefore agree that a republic may have a way of life otherwise more monarchical than our monarchy.

Dear colleagues, I will not be longer. Everyone will have the opportunity to position themselves.

I would love to hear you talk about the comparison you always make with the republic. You choose France, of course. We know, of course, that the French and the French speakers can let it hang wide.

However, there are other examples in the world, which you do not refer to. I will give you the example of a country that has a long way away from the Belgian structure, with four population groups and 23 cantons. How was it resolved there? Switzerland has no king, but a protocol-based president. There are eight ministers and every two years one of those ministers is appointed to fill the presidency. How much does it cost? and nothing. That only costs the ministerial bet, and maybe a pot of tea and a thick cigar if Putin comes to visit. For the rest it costs nothing. The cost of the kingdom versus that of the republic is a nepargument that is repeatedly used.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I exempt you from the description of the content of the bill under consideration because many colleagues have already done so. We have participated in its drafting and we support it.

However, I find it important to clarify here that, in this year 2013, the House decided to install a system to ensure transparency in the allocation of members of the royal family. It decided to impose on them a participation in the solidarity of the state. From now on, they will have to submit to tax and pay social contributions. Control shall be exercised by an independent body under the supervision of the Chamber. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Court of Auditors shall bear the operating expenses and personnel expenses. Furthermore, operating expenses will have to be included in specific categories that will also be seriously controlled.

This bill has the merit, in my opinion, of resuming the royal function, but also the members of the royal family who, in the future, will no longer be entitled to dotations. Tomorrow, they will be citizens who will have to provide services eventually against remuneration.

So there was a before and there will be a after 2013 in which we are proud and pleased to have participated.

That said, the reduction of allocations is also an important element. It is time for these funds to be reasonable and respectful to the citizens.

In addition, I would like to add that we did not take the opportunity to review the functions, the role of the royal family, or the royal function as such. This is another debate that will take place at another time. If it is important, it was not the object of our work.

In addition, I would like to say that during these discussions we highlighted elements that remain disturbing. Among them was the use of private public-interest foundations and foundations that, unfortunately, Queen Fabiola uses to place her money in order to guarantee security to members of her family and, ⁇ , to evade part of the tax.

The bill that is on the table does not resolve this difficulty of both ethical order and moral order in the head of Queen Fabiola. This ethical question, we must settle it through the law with regard to the so-called foundations of utility and public interest. It must interpell us in our capacity as parliamentarians, because it also goes beyond the scope of this bill.

Ecolo-Groen will support the draft law on royal family grants and Ecolo will also support the draft Civil List relating to the King.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I call this bill, in fact, the bill of the missed opportunity. At the beginning of this meeting — we were all waiting for the State of the Union, but it did not come, of course; the government is shaking and the Parliament is disposing — there was applause for our Nobel Prize winner. A Nobel Prize is given on the basis of merit, the meritocracy; one must earn something in life. In fact, the debate we are currently holding should be about whether or not we should have a royal house.

Being king is not difficult. One makes sure that one wins the ratrace of the birth right and then one becomes the boss of a country. We still accept this medieval use. We not only accept it, we still attach political power to it. Everywhere has been learned that this has come to an end.

This hereditary kingdom was introduced in the Middle Ages for a reason: every time a king died, there was a great quarrel and they beat each other in the head. Then it was decided not to do so anymore and therefore to move to the principle of inheritance. For a large part they continued to strike each other’s heads, but in the meantime we have elections here in this country. That was what this debate should have been about.

Colleagues, remember, all parties are talking about a ceremonial royal house. Mr. Van Biesen, in 2003 I took part in an Open Vld congress — instead of the king outside I was then thrown out — where Vincent Van Quickenborne played the role of a great instigator and it didn’t matter much if we had proclaimed the republic on the spot. At the end of the congress, however, a motion was fully approved in which Open Vld spoke in favour of the ceremonial kingdom. Just as Open Vld then changed from west in relation to confederalism, they now change from west in this regard. Open Vld sings the Flemish Lion in the morning and falls on her knees in Laken in the afternoon to ask forgiveness for the noise damage. This on the side.

This debate should have been about whether or not the ceremonial kingdom. A similar situation has recently been experienced in the Netherlands. The Queen resigns and Prince Willem-Alexander becomes King. And his kingdom is reduced to a ceremonial kingdom. The Parliament itself voted on whether the King should still designate the formator or not.

We are not. We do not dare to do this. This is the shame of our democracy and we continue to do so. The Swedes, the Norwegians, the British, the Dutch, everyone understood it. Not because we are afraid of our own community problems. Everyone hides behind it.

Meanwhile, we have an inflation of kings and queens, five in total. Do you know of a country in the world that has three queens and two kings? And all of them must continue to pass through the state rubbish. It was a missed opportunity to debate a ceremonial royal house. For me, it can be abolished.

I just gave the beautiful example of how the Swiss solved it without costing a penny, instead of always referring to France and other countries. Switzerland, a federal country with four population groups, has solved it, while we are still going on.

A second missed opportunity concerns the subsidies. I have seen the whole circus about the dotations. It is sometimes an advantage to sit here for a while and get gray hair or lose hair. For me, it was about 15 kilograms ago, in early 2000. Then the inflation of subsidies arose. Among them was Princess Astrid. Thanks to Verhofstadt, Prince Laurent also received a dotation. The reason for this was that there should be no discrimination between the king's children. It would be abolished at the next throne ascension. Read the minutes of 2000 and 2001.

One would abolish those dotations at the next throne ascension, which is logical, because then those involved are no longer royal children, but a brother and a sister of the King. That is something completely different. We are the only country in the world where those people should not go to work, get a subsidy to stay at home and absolutely not have to prove their skills, on the contrary.

I will not talk about the other measures, about those cosmetics. There are things that are good. I told Prime Minister Di Rupo here two months ago that the subsidies were going down once. Now they are not going down anymore, because there is another inflation, in particular a pension of 923 000 euros. I also calculated it. That is 62 times the normal family pension and 105 times the income guarantee for the elderly. We also have aunt Fabiola who receives 461 500 euros, 30 times the normal widow pension and 60 times the income guarantee for the elderly.

Astrid will receive 320,000 euros and two diplomats, probably one to read and another to write. Laurent gets as much as the same with his 307 000 euros. Colleagues, I repeat it: it is a missed opportunity to finally conduct the debate about the modern monarchy and it is a missed opportunity to get rid of the hassle and the spending of tax money. We have a seventh king: seven is a biblical number with which we could have stopped, but we just did the opposite. We have institutionalized even more princes and princesses. It’s likely waiting for Princess Elizabeth’s eighteenth birthday before the fence opens again.

I misunderstood the agenda. Apparently, the proposal for the donation to King Albert and Queen Paola is also now being discussed. I would like to say something about it briefly. I appreciate the attitude of the Greens in these, who announced that they could not support this and would refrain from it. Green was involved in the negotiations, but I understand that the amount of the grant is considered irresponsible high. King Albert has conducted a very good PR campaign from the announcement of his resignation until the day it was recorded what he would get. He welcomed everyone with great brio at the royal palace and left everyone beautifully in the oil: all members of the government were enormously charmed. Of course, he got his money: 923 000 euros, please, with another ten staff members on top.

Aside from the fact that we absolutely disagree with this, I would like to dismiss that this amount is far too high. It is irresponsible in this budgetary barrier time that King Albert and Queen Paola still get almost one million a year. I quote Minister Reynders, always good to make the right tone with some humor and cynicism when it comes to the royal family or other files. Minister Reynders said about those ten full-time staff members on television: “If you have been accustomed to that all your life, you can’t suddenly start living without staff. That is not possible, dear people, that must be understood by everyone.” When Minister Reynders is asked what those ten staff members will do, he says, “The King receives many letters.” Thus, ten staff members are hired to answer the letters of the retired king. An employee could answer a few letters a day. Thus, tens of thousands of letters would flow into the castle every year, even in Châteauneuf-Grasse.

I predicted it and it turns out: King Albert and Queen Paola will barely remain in this country, do not make illusions about it. They will retreat in France and will barely remain in Belgium.

Of all the princes of the world, King Albert at the end of his term of office was the least in his own country, with the exception of the kings who live in exile, for they are of course even fewer in their own country. King Albert and Queen Paola were almost no longer in their own country. Since the king is retired, he has never been in the country again. Since then he has only been here a few days. However, he receives a big thank you in the form of 923 000 euros per year, and also another ten staff members because he has always been so ordinary and to answer some letters.

I must honestly tell you that this of the good is much too much and I think that Green shows at least a bit of courage there by not participating in it because this is out of proportion.

Of course, the N-VA will vote against. This is a pension scheme that is not responsible in these times.

Mr. Van Biesen, you were not registered, but I give you the word.

Mr. Speaker, for several years there have been debates on an adjustment of the Civil List and the dotations to the royal family.

Today we are taking an extraordinary step towards greater clarity and transparency. We limit the number of people who receive a donation and, above all, go to tax and parafiscal equality of all Belgians, including the royal family. For the first time, concepts such as personal tax, property advance tax and VAT are concepts that also apply to the royal family.

Today we establish the Civil List for the new King. This is the seventh time in the history of our country that we vote on such a law.

Mr Jambon, you have the word.

Mr. Van Biesen, do I hear you correctly say that all Belgians are equal before the law thanks to this reform? Then we can expect a relance policy next week that generalizes the tax pressure on the royal family for the entire population, just as everyone will receive the pension benefits that now apply to the royal family.

I would like to congratulate the government on its recovery policy, which it will announce next week. (The applause)

Thank you for understanding, Mr Jambon. They will be treated like all Belgians.

I have a small problem.

Mr. Van Biesen, Mr. Lacroix, you were registered for the discussion on the bill establishing the Civil List. Here we are discussing proposals on allocations.

(...): It was said that the two points would be discussed together.

No, that is not accurate! (The Protests )

You give the word, Mr. Van Biesen, but you do not intervene more during the other discussion.

Mr. Speaker, in particular for Mr. Jambon, I would like to point out that, when a prince here before us, Members of Parliament, swears faithfulness to the Constitution and, by the way, only from that moment officially ascends to the throne, we make available to him or her the means to fulfill the office of head of state.

This is the financing of an institution of our state. Mr Jambon, therefore, as in your simple model, it is not about a salary or compensation. This is a fundamental principle. The financing of the institution of the head of state applies both in all monarchies and in all republics. This principle remains also the starting point of the present draft law.

However, today’s momentum is also ⁇ important and unique to our country, as for the first time a comprehensive arrangement for the financing of the other members of the royal family is on the table. This arrangement has been established on the basis of extensive discussions, including in the Senate, which has formulated clear recommendations on the subject. The recommendations in question have now led to a system that can at least be called revolutionary.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Biesen, this is not about the dotations of the royal family.

You are talking about the position of the head of state as an institution, which would be the reason why he should not pay taxes. It is above the taxes. In the aforementioned sense, everyone is equal before the law according to your reasoning. I have at least understood your reasoning in the committee.

You must therefore keep your presentation with the appropriate draft law, and therefore not with the present draft law, which is about grants. It has nothing to do with the role of head of state. On the contrary, the brothers and sisters of the King do not perform any head of state function. Prince Laurent is now the 22nd in line for the succession of the King. It has nothing to do with the head of state. You are totally mistaken.

Mr. President, Mr. Francken, you did a good job. I just understood your first sentence. Please write them down so that you never forget them again. The head of state is an institution and an institution receives a dotation, point on the line.

We are not dealing with the Civil List.

Mr. Jambon, I note for a moment that in 1993 still extensive dotations for Queen Fabiola and Prince Philip were approved here, in the emotion of the moment after the death of King Buddha.

Now Parliament wants to seize the momentum of the change of throne to arrange a fundamental and rational reform of allocations.

The Open Vld is satisfied with the regulations in the existing laws. We will defend and approve the legislation.

The current discussion, however, does not finalise the role of the monarchy in political decision-making. The path to a clearly protocol-based position for the head of state should be further pursued and should also be the subject of constitutional revisions at the beginning of the next legislature. Parliamentary preparatory work will continue.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Biesen, how long is your party in government?

How long have you been in Parliament thanks to us?

You have been in government for 17 years. I have just noted that you and your party, at a congress, approved a proposal for a protocolary function for the monarchy.

I added that it did not matter much if Mr. Van Quickenborne, who in the meantime has been minister and even adviser to Prince Philip for years, had then proclaimed the republic. After the government-Verhofstadt at the time extended the dotations for Princess Astrid, you come here today with unshamed cheeks back on this speech stand to say that the evolution to the protocolary monarchy must be continued.

That is indeed true, Mr. Dedecker, and you also know that the constitutional articles, which need to be adjusted for this purpose, will have to be declared subject to revision at the end of this legislature.

I watched the work in the Senate. I also once raised my light at a colloquium organized by a number of colleagues here in the Chamber in July 2012 under the roaring title “Modernization of the Monarchy”.

They came to a number of conclusions.

The first conclusion was the demand for a transparent, transparent and all-encompassing royal budget. This first conclusion is achieved. Article 12 stipulates that all expenses related to the royal family must be listed in a common budget program. This goes even further, as all expenditure is recorded in the main expenditure headings that must also be published.

A second conclusion of that colloquium was the demand for control over spending. This is also being realized. The Court of Auditors shall check the legality and regularity of the operating expenses of the grants. This, of course, does not apply to the Civil List, but I would like to come back to that later.

Third, the royal family must pay taxes and the use of the so-called red diesel is abolished. This too has been realized.

The explanation of our bill leaves no doubt that the King and the royal family must pay indirect taxes, VAT, property tax and various taxes. The Minister of Finance has confirmed this in the committee. Those who receive a grant of which part is remuneration, pay personal tax on this part in addition.

Mr Van Biesen, you refer to our colloquium and its conclusions. You must be intellectually honest. I was present at that colloquium, not you.

I read the conclusions.

That is very good.

You say that the transparency was achieved through an audit by the Court of Auditors. I have already asked whether Parliament will be given access to the audit of the Court of Auditors.

Mr. Francken, the answer to that question is very simple. Every member of Parliament will be entitled to control those expenditure.

The Court of Audit will therefore be submitted here.

Both the first chairman’s report and the chairman’s report. You always speak only of the first chairman, but it is two members of the Court of Auditors who will carry out the checks.

We will see. I believe nothing of it. That is not true.

My speech was not yet finished.

I have another fourth conclusion, namely the limitation of the dotations to the throne successor, the widow, and possibly the king who has made the throne distance. This principle is also implemented, though with a transitional arrangement, which has already been taken into account in the recommendations of the Senate. No one else will receive a subsidy.

We have not commented on the fifth conclusion or the fifth recommendation of the colloquium. The N-VA wants to put the Chief of Cabinet of the King under political supervision. I do not understand the politicization of that function when it is simultaneously called for a ceremonial head of state. We have not implemented that recommendation. We have set a limit on the number of staff members that can be dispatched. All personnel attracted beyond that border should be reimbursed from allocated resources.

Finally, there was the question, as a sixth conclusion, of a protocolary monarchy. This cannot be done today. Several articles of the Constitution for this purpose are not subject to revision. We will request its revision at the end of this legislature. You know that our party has been working on this for many years, and it is always interesting to see that more and more parties are joining us in the idea of a protocol-based monarchy. From the moment we stand strong enough and have a clear majority, we will be able to effectively realize that, in the next government.

In other words, colleagues from the N-VA, I can say that, after your colloquium, the majority of the recommendations of the Senate Committee have been met.

Colleagues of the N-VA, however, I must say that I am surprised by the way you intervene in the debate, including in the committee, as well as by the nature of the amendments you have submitted. I will tell you what I find strange. There are today two bills on the agenda, a bill submitted by a number of colleagues and a bill submitted by a number of N-VA’ers. After a comparison of both bills, I must say that some elements of your proposal seem to me ⁇ peculiar. In summary, your proposal means that the entire funding of the members of the royal family will be removed from the Civil List. At first glance, this sounds good, but it would not be wise.

In fact, the resources that we grant to the King fall under his inviolability. You have drafted a bill on this. They can only be used for him and his function. Only the government is responsible for this. However, the opposition creates one large pot, which does not benefit the transparency. In this perspective, a crown prince, a crown princess, or a retired head of state that makes it too fury, could in the future hide behind the inviolability of the King.

This is explicitly what we do not want. Only the King is inviolable. For all other members of the royal family, we want to include clear rules in the law itself. Moreover, we even embrace the principle that anyone who does not behave according to those rules may lose his or her gift. We therefore have all interest in separating the Civil List and the dotations from each other in this discussion.

What kind of nails on low water are that now, Mr. Van Biesen? In every royal house, and I will take the Netherlands as an example, it is the king and the queen who take care of their children. The King's betoelaging is the Civil List. So it is normal, I think, that the King also uses this money, which is basically the only money he gets, to maintain his children.

In short, King Philip must use the income of the Civil List to provide for the upbringing of his children. This is meant by this, not that there should be an inflation of dotations afterwards. I have said twenty times that subsidies afterwards are in principle illegal. It was through your government that a donation was given to Astrid and Laurent. In fact, they should not exist. The king must take care of his children. In addition, it is not a shame that they start working when they are old enough.

Mr. Van Biesen, you are not only witnessing a ⁇ one-sided reading of the conclusions of our colloquium...

I am talking about your own bill.

You also give a ⁇ one-sided reading of our bill.

First, our bill stipulates that Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent would no longer receive grants. What do you do? You give them a grant and call it a transitional provision. But you do not say when that transitional provision will cease. In this case, it will be on the day they die. That is a fundamental difference between your proposal and our proposal.

I have not yet completed my discussion of your proposal.

Second, you talked about the Civil List. Indeed, we put the dotation to the Crown Prince on the Civil List. That is where he pays taxes. All the taxes.

The Civil List falls under the inviolability and is therefore uncontrollable.

If it’s about the right topic, I’ll get involved. Your regulation is manifestly unconstitutional. The fact that the King does not pay taxes is manifestly unconstitutional. If you quote from our colloquium and our bill, please do it correctly.

I had not yet done. I will be pleased to continue for a moment and will also respond to Mr. Dedecker’s comment.

By working with donations, control can be arranged. For the first time, the Court of Auditors will explicitly audit the expenditures. There is nothing in the opposition’s proposal about it, no letter.

The opposition’s proposal also does not contain any code of conduct or other rules that beneficiaries of a grant must abide by. According to that bill, a crown prince or a retired head of state can thus engage in politics without disturbance. We explicitly attach this to links. Anyone who receives a grant or remuneration must comply with the rules of the game.

I would like to point out a few clear misconceptions in your proposal. According to the N-VA proposal, the entire royal family can enjoy the goods of the Royal Gift without any restrictions. In our proposal, on the other hand, we explicitly state that any disposal of a Royal Donation building requires the prior approval of the Minister of Finance. The N-VA also makes no distinction between salaries and operating expenses.

I think people in Laken actually would have preferred that your bill had been approved instead of the broadly supported bill of the majority. That should be a painful conclusion for you, in sharp contrast to your approach and actions in the committee. I am even of the opinion that the proposers of this bill, including Mr. Lacroix and Mrs. Temmerman, will not be eligible for a noble title, but for the bill submitted by a trit N-VA’ers, the baron titles will already be in the royal boxes.

Mr. Van Biesen, you make yourself incredibly ridiculous by even insinuating...

If you say that, that makes me very happy!

...in Laken for a noble title. Well, when you exaggerate things, of course, they are always funny.

The unilateral reading of our bill goes a long way. We propose to reduce the donations of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent by 20% per year in five years. You give that donation until the end of time. That is an important difference. So I think that your bill can count on more applause, even in Tervuren and Brussels, than that of us.

Second, when we talk about taxes, we make sure they pay taxes on everything. You give a full exemption for the Civil List and you speak for the rest but about a small piece of the fee. I find that strange. You are actually not at all proud of your bill and so you are beginning to crack down the bill from the opposition, an old tactic.

We are ⁇ proud of the balanced legislative proposal that is now being presented.

Mr. Van Biesen, I look forward to the first report of the Court of Auditors. For you declare here today that we will see that. I look forward to. I will confront you on that day with your words, the day when it will not lie here!

I would like to talk about the gifts of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent.

This is, of course, a deviation from the general principle that we want to apply in the future. However, I would like to point out that this proposal also gives them a clear choice. The code of conduct that is imposed constitutes a strict line of control, such as the prohibition of obtaining professional income and the restriction of free travel. This should not be pleasant, but we will ensure that these rules are strictly applied.

Colleagues, it is not excluded that Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent will decide, in the relatively short term, whether or not forced by the circumstances, to step out of the system of dotations in order to regain their freedom. Without pretending to give them advice from this hemisphere, I would still, in the place of Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent, seriously consider whether it would not be better to step out of the gift system in order to regain their freedom and happiness in this way.

Mr. Van Biesen, I think that is a very high degree of hypocrisy.

I will give you an example. A normal person, a spouse with a family, is taxed in our society. Astrid is married to a very wealthy banker with an annual income of two to three million euros. Prince Lorenz works at the bank Gutzwiller, where he is also co-owner and where he also sits in the board of directors and even in the board of directors. They will not die of hunger.

What a hypocrisy to say that Prince Laurent should not have any other income. He says to his wife: We have another company here that is also richly subsidized. I have a whole dossier on that. He also has a villa, which is also in a company. He makes his wife CEO. This is the income of the family.

Stop saying that the family has no income and that she can do nothing else. That is hypocritical, Mr Van Biesen.

Mr. Van Biesen, do I understand that you, on behalf of your group, say that Prince Laurent should resign from the real estate consortium Renewable Energy Construct Arlon 67? Do I understand correctly that you say that this is actually about writing and that it can no longer be?

You say there is no other income. So you say: can’t that be for us, for the interpretation of the bill, which you sign with and put to the vote today? Is it about the writing? Do I understand this well? Can it not for you? This is of course a political fact. If it is not possible for Open Vld that Prince Laurent establishes real estate companies and is the main shareholder of them, then that is interesting. I would like to hear that from you. Is this a step too far for you or not?

There are many forms of hypocrisy. In your group there is a whole set of people who, if they write pens or anything else, set up separate management companies or something else for that.

What does that have to do with it now? Per ⁇ it is prohibited?

In the bill, it is clear: “no professional income”. Does it mean that he cannot hold shares of a company? That he cannot buy shares on the stock exchange? Can it not? Would you please? Is he not an ordinary Belgian? Have we not just asked for them to be tried like ordinary Belgians? Didn’t we all ask for this together? (Protest by Mr Francken)

I think the dossier is clear.

Don’t talk about tax constructions if you have enough specialists within your ranks.

Friends, we will approve the bill with clear conviction. We are pleased that we are taking such a big step toward greater transparency and clarity, fewer grants and above all equal rights for all Belgians, including the royal family.

We have understood. You are three enthusiasts in this room. I give the floor to Mr. Francken, but there will be no replica of Mr. by Van Biesen. It becomes monotonous.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy, it is now very clear that it is no problem for Open Vld that Prince Laurent, regardless of his dotation, regardless of all the benefits he receives, regardless of the villa he receives from the State and so on, is active in real estate and has a real estate business. I find it very good that this is clear. Do not complain in a few months.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked that the Minister of Finance, who is present here, would answer the following question: does the current legislation really mean that Prince Laurent is not allowed to earn, but his wife does? Is it a family income?

A ban is easy to bypass: if one gives all functions to the spouse, the problem is solved and then one can keep putting the dotation on the pocket. Is it about the family itself? Is it about man and woman on their own? Or is it about the prince alone? After all, I foresee within this and three months already again the first incidents in that area. The Minister of Finance is present here, I would like to know his answer. Or do I not receive a response from the Minister?

The Minister of Finance will listen to the questions and will answer them at the end of the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I will explain what I have to say because a lot of things have already been said, good, not good and very bad. I will not insist on this in order not to recreate the cacophonie we have just known.

We wanted to ensure greater transparency, greater modernity, lower costs, and more responsibility for the monarchy. For the first time, the Court of Auditors will control, unlikely to some, the cost of this monarchy whose amounts and appropriations will be entered into a single transparent item in the annual budget, with a first check already carried out by the members of the House when voting the budget. Subsequently, the Court of Auditors will conduct an ex post review of the legality and regularity of the expenditures. As far as I am concerned, I have confidence in the institutions of my country and I do not think that the first President of the Court of Auditors would make a report that would not be consistent with the good rules, laws and customs that are those of the Court.

I would like to emphasize a new and essential element that is, however, controversial. This is probably not perfect, but from now on, the treatment granted to members of the royal family will be subject to taxes and indirect taxes, thus restoring some equality with the population.

I would like to return to one point that Mr. Francken and Mrs Gerkens: The Misuse of the Public Utility Foundation. I hear one and the other outraged for totally different reasons. I am actually closer to Ms. Gerkens’s thesis and I would like to remind you that there is, in the Senate, a bill submitted by my colleague Ahmed Laaouej aiming to change the object of a public utility foundation so that it is no longer a means of tax evasion. It will be that the public utility foundation aims at a general interest and not a lucrative interest. I invite all those who today are outraged by the misuse of the public utility foundation to support my colleague in the Senate’s proposal. We will at least have the privilege to move forward rather than to be egosed here.

Rules of ethics and good conduct are established with respect to members of the royal family in order to ensure the dignity, respect and neutrality of the office and our country.

There has been a lot of talk about a monarchy, a republic. You know the socialists we are. We are, of course, and above all, Republicans of heart, but in Belgium we are royalists of reason. And we are because we hold to our country and that, even today, the monarchy, as it is, finally modernized, is an important link between the three Regions and the inhabitants that make up this country.

I remind those who defend the protocol monarchy that, whether it is to make a protocol monarchy of the English type or the Dutch type, with hermine coats, chariots, sumptuous crowns, which have an exorbitant cost and remind the old regime, you will find us on your way! As I pointed out in the committee, it was time to put an end to the practices inherited from the past. The new regulation must be respected in the letter and in the spirit. All this, dear colleagues, was absolutely necessary in order to meet the legitimate expectations of the majority of our population to adapt the functioning of the monarchy to the needs and realities of our time.

Mr Lacroix, I thank you very much. Since there are no more speakers for the four proposals submitted, I close the general discussion.