Proposition 53K3159

Proposition modifiant le Règlement en ce qui concerne le rapport introductif d'initiative parlementaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Raf Terwingen
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Patrick Dewael
PS | SP André Frédéric
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Nov. 28, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

information legislative initiative institutional reform parliamentary rules of procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 19, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The respective rapporteurs refer to their written reports.

The respective rapporteurs shall refer to their written reports.

Mr. Speaker, the government agreement had formulated certain ambitions a long time ago, including a reduction in the number of special functions, a deontological code, a ministerial examination and the introductory report.

All the bills presented today are actually the implementation of most of the provisions mentioned in the government agreement. Only a government agreement sets ambitions for the realization of certain matters and goals within the governing period. It seems to me quite obvious that in a government agreement a majority decides on certain matters that are applicable initially for the current majority.

What does the current government do? As she does in other areas, she decides nothing in the current term of government, except tax increases as a structural measure. For the rest, it is always about the next governing period. A tax increase is for the current rule period, while a burden reduction is for the next rule period.

The same logic is, unfortunately, also contained in what is present here today. Everything we will vote on today applies not to the current Parliament, not to the current government, not to the current majority, but to the next government, the next majority, and the next Parliament.

The first proposal is the proposal for the introductory report, in which a committee may decide to organise hearings with experts on a particular issue or to take other initiatives.

It is a meritorious idea. It is only regrettable that this can only be done on the basis of a majority in the committee. De facto, therefore, it is an instrument that will only exist for the majority sitting at that time. It is therefore strange that the Greens make the proposal in question. However, other initiatives can be taken in Parliament on the basis of the approval of one-third of the committee members. It therefore appeared to me appropriate that the opposition could also make use of the instrument in question. Quod not. It can only be applied in the case of a majority.

Even more strange is that the proposal does not apply to the current Parliament but only to the next Parliament. Like other points, this proposal is not currently applicable.

Mrs Gerkens responded to the question of why it does not apply now and why it could not be applied immediately, that such an initiative should only be taken when serious parliamentary work can be done. I suppose that Ms. Gerkens spoke only for herself or for her own group. After all, I was of the opinion that we were and are engaged in serious parliamentary work, even during the months before the elections.

The second proposal concerns the deontological code. There are meritorious elements in it. We support that, but also that deontological code is not applicable to this Parliament and this majority, but to the next Parliament and the next majority. Deontology is not for the current Parliament, but for the next. We also regret this somewhat.

Another proposal concerns the organization of a ministerial examination, in which a minister should come to explain his policy for the coming period. The Greens demanded this for a long time, but of course we could have introduced it immediately, or even later, even at the beginning of the government. For example, we could have questioned Koen Geens, when he joyfully entered this government, about his relations with Eubelius. He had to answer for it afterwards, which was uncomfortable for him. If we could do that in the committee, everything would be open and open. We could have introduced the ministerial exam alleszins yet and cours de route during this legislature, but also the ministerial exam will therefore not apply to this Parliament, this majority and this government, but to the next. This seems to me a bit strange.

Finally, as regards the reduction of the number of special functions, you know that at the beginning of the parliamentary year we said in this regard ourselves that we wanted a reduction thereof and that we ourselves would not fulfill some functions to which we were entitled. Others would follow, but we continued to wait. Nothing has happened. The number of special functions is limited. That is fine, but this limitation does not apply to this majority and this Parliament, but to the next. However, we reaffirm these special functions every year. We have, therefore, been given the opportunity, every year again, for a correction in this matter for a long time. This opportunity has also been exploited. It will be for the next Parliament, for the next majority. The government, in all areas, always uses the same system.

In addition, I have a few concrete questions about the completion. For example, we go to three Vice-Presidents and two other special functions, which have not been filled and have not received a title. It be so. That is at least a progress.

Several interesting comments were made during the discussion, but I remembered two of them. They come from two eminent members, one member of the Quest Board and one member of the Parliament’s Bureau. One member pointed out, quite meaningfully, that all the proposals presented regarding the limitation of the Agency and the special functions were actually aimed at saving, rationalization.

If we really want to rationalize and save, there is much more to be done than what is now predicted. This is correct and based on his experience and expertise, he drew some concrete cases. Today, for example, there is a restaurant director for the Chamber and a restaurant director for the Senate. Can we not cooperate there? There is a fire safety expert for the House and one for the Senate. Ultimately, one of their tasks is to press a button in case of fire. There are also optimization possibilities for grabbing if one wants to collaborate and consult.

There was another prominent member of the Bureau who said that these measures are only a first step. According to him, one should look at how the Senate can be further saved and rationalized.

On the basis of these statements, we would like to propose to amend the latter proposal and immediately add that the Governing Committee is also responsible for preparing, in close consultation with the Staff Council, the cooperation between and the possible merger of certain departments of the House and the Senate. In this way, all work can be done from a merger of services. There is no need to go on ice overnight. The merger and cooperation may be discussed and prepared in the governing committee that is part of the Agency. In the end, the Bureau will still make the decisions.

In close consultation with the staff board, a merger of services can then be done. The statement made recently was motivated by the lack of consultation. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us involve the staff board in this work. I think there will be no contradiction in this regard. I think that in this way we can strive for rationalization, optimization and greater cooperation by combining the services of the Chamber and the Senate as much as possible.

That is why we have submitted this constructive amendment. Ultimately, this amendment, by the way, was motivated by the statements of eminent members of the majority. For what thank you!

Mr. Speaker, in a sense, your introduction was the most important of what is being voted for. We had not heard this in the committee. For the staff of this assembly and ⁇ also for the staff of the Senate, it is indeed important to stipulate that they will also be heard.

It is good that you have made a statement, but I suggest that you consult with the representatives of the workers of both assemblies, at least of the House, and that you make them very clear that these reforms have no or at least no impact on them.

Apparently there is something causing trouble. Mr. Speaker, I call on you to step down from your throne and start talking with the people who have been doing useful work here for so many years.

There are five reforms. I will also discuss them in one package.

Our biggest objection is that the Senate will not be abolished. Therefore, you will have to use a number of measures to ensure that the non-abolition of the Senate and the continued existence of this Chamber as it exists will not affect the staff and will allow a very effective operation of what remains, namely the Senate, which still exists, and this Chamber, which continues to maintain its full function. This is very important, but I do not know whether the proposals presented really address this.

Colleague Weyts already referred to members of the majority. Honourable, it was colleague Kindermans who cited a number of pain points in connection with the operation between the Chamber and the Senate. The ping-pong game that we have been used to for decades, in fact, as since the existence of the Belgian State, now seems to be slowly coming to an end, but the last plugs weigh the heaviest. And then there is the fact that the Senate, as a log institute, still exists, not with its own elected but with its own representatives and with its own function. This, of course, ⁇ ins a device that may be too logged according to the weight that it will still imagine or will still be able to imagine in the future.

The Senate should serve as a cleavage for a Belgian State that is still so-called effective, which still finds its reason for existence in the fact that there are a few Communities and the like. In the end, however, we must conclude that the Senate, like Belgium itself in fact, is on its last legs. The Senate costs a lot of money and is useless.

So I understand that the people who are currently working in the Senate may feel stuck. It is thus up to the Chamber and also to you, Mr. Speaker, to engage in the consultation with them and to reassure the interested parties, especially for a next legislature, which hopefully can be seen as a transitional legislation until the end of Belgium, although I have my doubts.

In the committee, I have made a number of comments, more specifically with regard to the substantive aspect of these five proposals.

Second reading of the Rules of Procedure. I understand, ⁇ unlike Mr. Weyts, that the Senate must indeed be less of count. When a draft law comes from the Senate, a third of the members will now be able to request a second reading of it, when a proposal is amended. If that could be requested by a member, it would indeed be possible that the legislation is stuck at the federal level.

The Vlaams Belang would actually prefer nothing, Mr. Speaker, but we also understand that, if urgent and very urgent measures need to be taken, the remaining Belgikske must indeed still make a number of quick decisions. In that regard, we realize that we should not allow a bill coming from the Senate to be completely blocked in the House by the fact that one member asks to restart the whole discussion. If it is one-third of the members, so far.

It could be abused by evil spirits, who are affectionate to this Belgian State, to extend a procedure so vigorously and so far that Belgium again gets a certain meaning. Let it then be done soon and let a second reading of what comes from the Senate then soon be behind. Then we will see how useless this Belgian State has become.

The fact that the Rules of Procedure regarding the policy statement is amended on behalf of a member of the government, so that a member of the government is placed on the grid, we can take this into account. Unfortunately, it will not be an examination of ministers, but it will still be a sort of statement of a member of the government that must show what he or she would like to do in the next four years. So it is no longer only the Prime Minister who makes a government statement, but every minister. In a sense, this gives the members of the Parliament the opportunity to put the ministers thoroughly on the grid and to ask about their intentions. It is a pity that there is no motion of distrust. A minister who appears to be absolutely incompetent in a first policy proposal cannot be justified. I think that is a manco. In this regard, the change is not going far enough.

This was the introductory report on the parliamentary initiative.

I now come to the reduction of the number of special functions, about which a word has already been said. Colleague Kindermans made a good contribution, for which I thank you. He pointed out the fact that Chamber and Senate are still treated equally, but that one body has long since no longer represented what it was before and that it should in fact be reduced to zero. So far, however, colleague Kindermans did not want to go. We, however, believe that the Senate has in fact become absolutely superfluous and that it must only prove that the Belgian State would have some sort of reason for existence, quod non.

Finally, I come to the proposal for the introduction of a deontological code for Chamber Members. Of course, we can only be happy. As Chamber Members, we must adhere to certain stick codes. However, I have noticed that there has been little upheaval about House members in recent years, even since I sat in Parliament. I have been a member here for almost fifteen years and during that period Chamber Members have only occasionally come into agreement, due to certain cases.

Recently, some ministers have agreed. Mr. Speaker, I know that you were allergic to that given during the discussions in the committee, but that is the case. Ministers have come to an agreement, for example in the Dexia case, in the case-Fortis, in the case-Electrawinds and others. It would ⁇ be good if the Chamber, which must control the government, proposed that not only Chambers members, but also ministers can be called to order.

The weak point of the whole is that there is no sanction for calling House members to order or whispering back. However, the Rules mention the unworthy behavior of Chamber Members, which allows them to lose their bets for up to three months. Well, for the preparation of a deontological code, it would be a wonderful rule that Chamber Members could indeed lose some of their bet if they do not adhere to the deontological code. It’s like spitting to the moon, you’ll never touch them. The current deontological code has little effect on the ground.

With our control right, we should also involve ministers from the Chamber in that deontological code. In what has happened in the last few months, we would possess a much more powerful weapon in order to bring order to certain ministers who claim to obey the law, but who in fact deceive the people and everyone. This is what is missing in the present proposals. That is the weak point. No matter how many posts you remove, that is a weak offer. Hopefully the public will count all those who vote for these proposals.

When voting on the largest number of these proposals, we will abstain, as they are not going far enough. After all, the population, through the people’s representatives, gets too little grip on what politics mistakes all, not only in perception, but also in reality. What all politicians do and unfortunately also do wrong, cannot be borne by the people. Therefore, we will abstain in the majority of votes on these proposals.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, since I do not have the advantage of sitting in a committee on the Rules of Procedure, it is after his work that I get acquainted with these texts.

First of all, I do not explain to myself why, in a little week, it becomes necessary to address such important and interesting topics without our assembly giving itself time to organize a deeper debate. Indeed, here we touch on the exercise of the prerogatives of the members of this assembly, ⁇ even the balances to be preserved between the freedom due to the representation of the universal suffrage and the constraints that are sought to be imposed through the adaptation of the regulations of the House.

First of all, I ask the question of the constitutionality of some of these projects. Article 60 of the Constitution states that “Each Chamber determines, by its Rules, the manner in which it exercises its powers.” I insist on the "she": it is not "according to which members exercise their attributions" or their mandates or functions.

The Rules cannot therefore, by themselves, impose too restrictive constraints on the prerogatives of the sovereignty of the members of this assembly. The legislative power is sovereign and the members of the assembly cannot be subject to more constraints than those imposed by the Constitution.

The Constitution regulates the status of parliamentarians. The Constitution, in particular through the system of parliamentary immunity (Articles 58 and 59), specifies under what circumstances a parliamentary may eventually see his or her freedom of expression or opinion limited when he or she is not in the exercise of his or her duties.

I am therefore always very reserved when, by regulatory means, it is sought to impose more than the Constitution imposes on the members of our assemblies.

First, the whole quintessence of a code of deontology is the search for exemplarity in everything. Honestly, I never hid myself behind a code of ethics to know what as a parliamentary I was obliged to exercise ethically. I never waited for a code of ethics to know that certain acts should not be performed, especially those that could undermine the separation of powers.

By reading the code of deontology, one falls, if not into the ridicule, into the mesquin.

Let me take a few examples. Article 8: "It belongs to the essential tasks of the members of the Chamber to receive and transmit information or to refer to the competent services or institutions." If I do not want to receive and transmit information, it is still my complete freedom as a parliamentary! “He has important tasks.” We don’t even talk about college. We do not even have to argue, Mr. Frédéric! "He takes on essential tasks": so you are asked to execute yourself. The regulation is clear.

You read the following page, article 12: "Any intervention that tends to influence the decision-making process of administrative or judicial bodies is prohibited." I can consider that the transmission of information to a competent department is the beginning of an attempt to influence the decision-making process.

This regulation is full of contradictions. I could read several examples. It is a real charabia. I do not know who held the pen.

No one else, of course.

I read: "House members can inform job seekers of job offers in the private sector and in the public sector." One might wonder why it comes in a member's code of ethics to know if he can inform about a job in the private sector! “They can initiatively inform employers of the situation of these persons.” And it is specified "without any compensation that can result." Personally, I’m not sure that it is my role, as a member of Parliament, to inform private employers of the situation of certain people. Therefore, I do not understand exactly what this means in a code of ethics.

I could multiply the examples. We have worked in the precipitation to give ourselves a good conscience because we simply believe that, these days, we must in everything have the cult of the exemplary of false fool! I allow myself to say it.

We have a code of ethics and we are happy. We go before the public opinion by branding the code of ethics that we have voted for! No one obviously bother to read it, except the conscientious ones, before voting anything and find that we are imposing on members of Parliament rules that either are not, or relate to aspects that do not fall within the exercise of their mandate.

I could, of course, continue like this with other examples. I did not wait for a code of ethics to know that members cannot accept any financial or material benefit of any kind whatsoever in exchange for acts performed in the exercise of their mandate. By the way, no definition of what is an act accomplished in the exercise of a mandate is given: this can give rise to many interpretations. In short, it is approximate work, blunt, done quickly and, as I said, to give yourself good confidence.

On important issues, however, we do not speak out. That is why I submitted an amendment. For example, since 1999, a law prohibits the cumulation of mandates in charge of parliamentarians. We never gave ourselves the means to verify the effectiveness of the law. The information is transmitted, of course, to the chairman of the House, but there is no control body. However, specific situations would have deserved real control. But about this, we are silent. You are less attentive and less scrupulous when it comes to enforcing the law.

The first part of this Regulation. So, to do a serious job, of course, it takes a code of ethics to prevent conflicts of interest and the search for unacceptable financial interests in the head of the members. But as for the rest, I would say: everything else, leave the parliamentarians still the care to appreciate how to exercise their mandate. Parliamentary representation and respect for universal suffrage.

I address the administration to which I want to address in compliance with the law if I want to; and I am not yet obliged to do so if I do not want to. I don’t have to speak to the mediator if I don’t want to. I do not have to address another body of any kind whatsoever if I do not have the desire to address it or if I consider that it is not competent or not apt, that its mode of functioning does not suit me.

As a parliamentary, I am still free to hold to my only constitutional oath, which says that I am obliged to respect the Constitution, point – since precisely, we are there to eventually change the laws.

Therefore, the article 163bis that we are proposing to introduce in our Rules, according to which "Every member of the Chamber undertakes to respect the code of ethics of the members of the Chamber of Representatives annexed to this Rules", has no constitutional basis! I do not swear to comply with the rules of the House. No member of this Assembly swears to comply with the Rules of the Chamber. This provision is therefore deeply unconstitutional.

At the same time, since it is necessary to do the big laundry – it is fashionable, it is the end of the year – the House of Representatives Questure is removed. I’m not going to make a pro-domo plea. I was the president. I have been a member for a long time. I was able to appreciate and the advantages and weaknesses. However, I am warning. The modest experience that I have had, like other members, has demonstrated that this body could manage, in the interest of the functioning of the House, the whole of the services, generally by separating itself from any party interest.

It was a wise way of working. It preserved the equal treatment of all members in the functioning of this assembly and ensured that the services remain, above all, above the mixture and at the service of the whole assembly, without distinction of the ideological belongings of its members.

We want to make an evolution, bringing the decision-making power of the Bureau’s services closer. I do not judge the office in its functioning. I have only been a temporary member of it, but we are busy removing very quickly an internal instance in the House, which had been proven for a long time, and this, ⁇ , because it is a good tone, today, to want to change everything.

I will end with this. It was necessary to give the big blow in the departure or departure compensation, according to the terminology, of parliamentarians. All this, because of a particular circumstance that we have experienced recently! Our former colleague, Mr. De Clerck became president of Belgacom. I do not judge, but I do not approve. I still don’t know what predestined him to become Chairman of the Board of Directors of Belgacom. Maybe he needed a telephone subscription! He was offered the presidency of Belgacom! This is part of those political agreements that are known in the life of this country.

It cannot be said that in the meantime, those who put him in this place were rewarded. Just read his recent statements in Le Vif/L'Express and various newspapers! An old tradition of some on CD&V! But it does not matter! Because he’s busy arrogating an exceptional situation by accumulating departure allowances and a position of president, all here present now have to self-flagellate by saying, “What a shame!

You are entitled to a calculation of a starting compensation. It’s scandalous!”No, what’s scandalous is that Mr. De Clerck cumulates his presidency and his starting allowances. This is scandalous, but not that all those who have sitted in this assembly would not be entitled to maintain an honorable status at the end of their term. Indeed, we all have known, in the history of this Parliament – I am addressing here to those who have memory –, parliamentarians who, at a certain age, have never been able to return to a professional activity. and never. When one leaves Parliament, unless one is one of those who have the privilege of being close to financial lobbies or certain economic powers, it is rare that one can resume working life at an advanced age, without first – excuse me the term – suffering for several years, if not more.

Because we have not dared to say the limits correctly in a particular case, we will, today, once in a time, decide to shamefully shatter the status of the parliamentary while, fundamentally, it was only a modest protection, in view of what is the permanent danger of the exercise of a mandate subject to universal suffrage, and therefore to the constant uncertainty of that mandate.

It is a comfortable facility that is given to yourself. We give it to ourselves because we want to give ourselves a good conscience, under the pressure of these events. But you will see that this choice will have heavy consequences on the future composition of our assemblies, but also on how the mandates will be exercised.

All of this is ultimately just a step-by-step because we did not really want to make the real choices. These are decisions that are detrimental to the autonomy and independence of the legislative power. I cannot subscribe to it because I simply believe that we are not preserving the essential, that is, the value of parliamentary democracy that is damaged by all these changes.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to take five minutes to recapture the proposals for amendments to the Rules that have come and are coming to complement the texts of institutional reform on which the eight parties, the six majority parties plus Ecolo and Groen, have worked together and which you will vote soon.

I wanted to clarify this because, among these texts, a text introduces the possibility of making a second reading of the texts in the work of the committee but also in the plenary session, from the moment when the texts deposited are modified through parliamentary work. It is a way to ensure that the drafting, the legal character of the texts, is correct so that we do not have to correct, through successive laws-programmes, texts that have been worked after long discussions and that sometimes lack coherence or correctness. It is about improving the way of working, especially since the Senate reform will, somewhere, prevent this second reading through a second assembly.

Another device that changes our way of operating is the hearing of ministers after they are installed, after the government statement. This allows each minister to make a presentation of the political orientation of the policies he intends to carry out in compliance with the government declaration but in a long-term option, for the entire duration of his term as a minister. It is not about initiating a dialogue between the ad hoc committee and a minister about his personality or characteristics, but about how he intends to conduct his policy. What are its objectives? How will they implement their skills? The committee will have the opportunity to issue recommendations after this exchange and this hearing.

It is not expected that there will be a motion of confidence or suspicion at the end of this exchange because we consider that it is the result of discussions and exchanges with the government and that it is to it that a motion is handed over.

We introduce a third arrangement through these amendments to the Rules: the Introductory Report. It aims to stimulate and enable the initiative within this Chamber and to be able to decide to work on an important topic that appears in society and to charge one or more members of the committees concerned to investigate, to meet people resources to submit a draft work and recommendations. These processes exist in other parliamentary assemblies and they allow to bring about a already mature work in order to lead to legislative proposals.

Then there is the code of ethics and the establishment of an ethics committee. The purpose of this code, on which we have been focused for several months, is not to change the obligations of parliamentarians on the basis of the Constitution, but rather to translate how the parliamentary interacts with citizens, ⁇ , associations, administrations, in order to respect ethical codes and avoid conflicts of interests and influences, while retaining the mission of the parliamentary’s relay to enforce laws and citizens’ rights.

The ethics committee, which will be set up on the basis of this code, will be at the service of parliamentarians who will be able to contact them to receive a confidential assessment of their situation, in case they consider that they may be in a situation of conflict of interest. This committee will also have the opportunity to make recommendations to the House to improve certain behaviors or certain types of relationships or cumulations of functions that could be interpreted as conflicts of interest.

After today’s speeches, I found it interesting to recapture the amendments to the Rules that we propose to you.