Proposition 53K3165

Révision de la Constitution Projet de révision de l'article 67 de la Constitution.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 19, 2012

Official page

Visit

Subjects

Upper House constitutional revision institutional reform composition of parliament linguistic group bicameral system allocation of seats

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. 18, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

M is Van Grootenbrulle, Mrs. Marghem, M. Van Biesen, Mme Gerkens, M. Landuyt, M Van Hecke et M. Dallemagne, rapporteurs, refers to the written reports.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the warm enthusiasm that comes to my turn.

(Mr. Weyts puts a mountain paper on the speech chair.)

The pile of documents contained here only covers half of the state reform. The other half is now in the Senate. The stack is for us also the reason to resolutely go for confederalism.

Let’s stop the current nonsense, which leads us, the Flammers, to always put a lot of money on the table. In exchange we receive such stacks of paper with the transfer of pieces and pieces of powers to the states.

The sixth state reform is a painful highlight and a bitter tone of the classical systematics of the state reform of the past decades. Firefighters always ask for more powers. The French always say no and their demanders say nothing. In the end, the French-speaking parties are still shrinking, in exchange for a large bag of Flemish money. The Flammers receive in exchange pieces and pieces of powers, fixed in such stacks of paper, which simply makes the whole even more complex, even more opaque, even more inefficient and even more expensive. Over time, the Flemish side is again asking for additional steps in the state reform, given the fact that the whole is so inefficient. Again, after some time, the French speakers agree in exchange for additional Flemish money and again give pieces and pieces of powers, which again makes the game more complex, opaque, inefficient and more expensive.

It is always more complex, always more inefficient. We are in a perpetuum mobile. The sixth state reform, of course, responds perfectly to this.

First, it costs the Flamings a handful of money through two tracks. The first is the special funding law. In 2018, the additional funding through the Special Financing Act, the additional money that the Flamings must put on the table, amounted to 1.8 billion euros. By 2030, that will already be 4.6 billion euros. That’s just the bill for the flames. Then there is the second track, which causes the Flamings to pay more, namely, due to the underfinancing of the powers. With the sixth state reform, the government-Di Rupo actually shifts the savings to Flanders. The first policy action that Flanders will have to make with these new powers is savings, thanks to the sixth state reform. That state reform is actually the real and only fundamental austerity operation carried out by the government-Di Rupo. They just shift the invoice.

The Flemish government itself has once overlooked this and has looked at what the sixth state reform will cost it from 2014 to 2019. It is a fairly simple picture. It is clear from the tables that for the Flamings in the next five-year rule period the bill of the state reform will amount to 7.8 billion euros. That money is missing the Flemish government due to the sixth state reform and the new funding law. The next Flemish government, which after the austerity policies of recent years should actually be able to spend money on economic impulses, education, the approach of the waiting lists and to persons with disabilities, will be a savings government rather than a social-spending government, and all with the warm greetings of the tax government-Elio Di Rupo.

What do the firefighters get in exchange for it? We get a serious invoice. What do we get in exchange for all these powers? In exchange, you get something like this. That drawing shows as simply as possible what is happening with the powers that are transferred. (Mr. Weyts shows a drawing with cross-line lines from and to different policy areas and policy levels)

For the fans of the genre, I also have the schematic representation on which with each power is stated to which level it is transferred. It can be to the Regions, to the Communities, or a bit to the Regions or Communities. It is an interesting reading for the lovers. It is the result of the bundle that lies there. It is not a schematic representation of the current situation, but of the increase of the already existing complexity. It actually comes down to making the complexity more complex.

I have not even talked about the Senate yet, but I have limited myself to the material powers. Take the example of telecommunications. The competence in this regard goes to the Communities: the content and technical aspects of audiovisual and audiovisual media services, in fact a re-formulation of the existing system. Nevertheless, a part remains federal, namely the communications of the federal government. There is also a piece going to the Brussels Capital Region, although the federal government remains competent there for audiovisual and audio media services. This competence does not go to the Communities, but remains federal.

Another example is tourism. Tourism is transferred from the Communities to the Regions, but the Communities can still grant subsidies for tourism infrastructure. The question is whether the regions can also provide subsidies for tourist infrastructure. We have not received a response to that. Even Secretary of State Verherstraeten does not know that. It will remain an unanswered question for a long time.

Then I come to the health care and the help to individuals. This is only complicated, because it goes all directions out, back and forth, both to the Regions and to the Communities as well as to the federal level and with intermediate periods. Certain documents go to the Communities and other documents go to the federal level, but there are also pieces going to the Brussels Capital Region, with a separate arrangement. Mr. Moureaux says that 90% of health care and assistance to individuals remains federal. Of the documents that go to the Communities, some subsections remain federal. There are many exceptions to exceptions, to which I will return later.

Through such arrangements, of course, zotternias arise. Thus, the competence regarding the mobility aid for persons with disabilities goes to the Communities, but the rules for the benefits to persons with disabilities themselves remain at the federal level.

The elderly care is another example. Oh triumph, Flanders is competent for the care of the elderly. Although Flanders is competent for elderly persons living at home and receiving home care, if those elderly persons get sick at home and need home care, it is a federal competence. The bed arrangement of that elderly person is thus done by a Flemish nurse, but the measurement of the temperature of that elderly person is done by a federal nurse, because then it is home care. If the elderly then can no longer stay at home, but must go to a rest house, then he becomes the subject of a Flemish jurisdiction, because rest houses are a Flemish jurisdiction. However, if the elderly in that rest house gets sick and has to go to the hospital, then he becomes subject to a federal jurisdiction again, except if one lean against the wall of the hospital. The walls of a hospital are in Flemish jurisdiction, while medical equipment is in federal jurisdiction. Will that imbroglio, all that sotherness in those laws be approved here at the vote?

As a guarantee, the Communities are given federal midwives, namely the Court of Auditors and the RIZIV. In fact, preliminary drafts and proposals of decrees in that sector must first go to the Court of Auditors and are subject to mandatory opinions of the RIZIV. If a decree has a negative impact on the federal budget, then obligatory consultation follows. Either an agreement between the governments follows, or the federal competent minister gives an agreement. Ultimately, this means that a federal veto will continue to exist.

Mr. Weyts, I find your schedule beautiful, with all those colors in it.

Did you also make such a scheme for your proposal to split the NMBS? If I have understood it correctly, then the NMBS should, according to you, fall into six pieces, scattered all over. Could you show us the schedule to explain how efficiently that plan will work?

That is very simple. As stated in the Flemish resolutions, which have been approved by the Flemish parties, the infrastructure is transferred to the regions. I don’t know if you approved those resolutions yourself, but that doesn’t matter.

We are moving forward because you know that in 2018 the market will be liberalized and that all operating companies will then be able to drive on that track.

Mr. Van Hecke, did you know that there are 10 operating companies in the Netherlands? There will also be more than three or maybe even six operating companies. Let us hope. Do you know where the trains drive comfortably and accurately? In the Netherlands, not with us.

Sorry, Mr. Weyts, but it is very clear that you have never taken the train in the Netherlands.

Do you have the courage to claim that the NMBS runs more smoothly here? Let me release you from this illusion. When you have a car with driver, you won’t experience it, but the NMBS is a very uncomfortable, non-stick, and not a good transport mode for the modal Flaming. In the Netherlands, as the official figures prove, one drives more comfortable and steeper.

Maybe you should think about entering the European system. You can, of course, continue to stick to the past, but in 2018 the European Railway will be liberalized. Socialists and Greens, you will have to go with the time. You cannot escape from it.

You must not continue to hold on to the past, Mr. Van Hecke. Think a lot ahead! Come to! Change and progress!

I am still waiting for your schedule of a NMBS in six pieces.

I told you that it is very simple.

You create the illusion that it doesn’t work with a NMBS in three pieces, that it doesn’t work with a NMBS in two pieces, but that if you cut the NMBS in six pieces, it will work.

I have through where you want to go. You, of course, want to make it much easier to liberalize everything. That is your hidden agenda. You want a state reform to enable liberalization, what Europe wants. Here you provide lip service to the liberalization, but that will absolutely not be in the benefit of the service. What will be done in the process of liberalization? The fat pieces will be taken over by private companies, but the costs will be transferred to the government.

That is the image you have for public services in ten years. We fit for that.

Europe will be liberalized. Get over it! So our agenda is so hidden and so secret that it is even included in European directives. So hidden is our agenda.

Let’s talk about your imbroglio. We can read that the labour market policy is going to the West. Much remains federal, such as the standards for work cards and the exemption for professional cards in the context of a specific residence situation, the federal level can continue to make findings of infringements, federal one remains competent for the regulation on the appropriate relationship, active search behaviour, administrative control and sanctions. VDAB and RVA thus remain two collaborating, and sometimes contradictory, organizations. It is a waste of time, money and energy. The federal level also remains competent for structural reductions of employer contributions, for reductions of employee contributions and for reductions of employer contributions depending on the employer’s own characteristics or activity sector. The rule is that the labour market policy goes to the regions, but there are exceptions, as everything I have listed remains federal.

Of course, there are exceptions to the exceptions as well. These include the reduction of the social contributions for the bagger and trawler sector, as far as the West is concerned, as well as the reductions in the context of the social economy sector and the reductions for receptionists, domestic workers and artists. That goes to Flanders, to make it simple and tangible. These are examples of exceptions to exceptions.

However, I must also inform you that there are exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. The rule is, as I said, that the labour market policy is regional. The exception, for example, is that the employer and employee contributions reduction remains federal. The exception to this is that the reduction for social contributions for the bagger and pull shipping sector is regional, but the employee contribution for the bagger and pull shipping sector is federal. That is an exception to the exception to the exception, to keep it all concise so that everyone would understand it well, not only here, but also with the outlook, with the population.

I have said that in terms of the labour market powers go to the Regions and to the federal level, but there are also powers going to the Communities such as, to put it simply, aspects of paid educational paid leave.

This is an incredible imbroglio. Is this why we are so eager for more powers and more autonomy for the Flamings? Is it for this reason that we are so fighting for a step in the state reform, for more efficiency? This leads to inefficiency.

The judiciary remains federal, but the Communities are given the competence of judicial houses, measures against minors who have committed crimes, and first-line legal assistance. Another part of the Judiciary goes to the Communities and the Regions, especially when it comes to the positive injunction right.

Another example, the family allowances – Flemish trophy – go to the Communities, but in the Constitution it is written that the counties can not implement a significant reduction in the right to family allowance, unless for reasons of general interest.

The question then is what is significant, what is public interest. Who knows? In the Senate, Bert Anciaux knew. He said he knew it, but Servais Verherstraeten replied that Anciaux did not know it because no one knows it. The Constitutional Court will know. The Constitutional Court will ultimately decide what is significant and what is in the public interest. Therefore, it was decided not to decide. That was the decision of this federal majority, supplemented by the friends of Green.

Energy and Environment goes to the West. This, of course, should also be very sensitive to the Greens. Emergency funds, waste, net tariffs and public distribution of gas go to the regions. There is also a lot of federal. Radioactive waste remains federal, which is not so important. Animal waste – a health hazard – and explosive substances remain federal.

Then we have the whole imbroglio around the electricity networks and the rates of networks with a transmission function, which are operated by the same administrator as the transmission network. It is also federal.

The largest zotternie, the substitution mechanism for climate targets, remains federal.

I can continue for a long time. Maybe another: mobility and traffic. Flanders is responsible for traffic, except for traffic rules. The things that really happen, the traffic rules, are not transferred. Flanders are competent for the rules for the placement of traffic signs, but not for the rules for the placement of traffic signs on guarded railway and military roads.

Flanders is competent for speed limits, but not on motorways. There are not many people driving there. The only one who runs there is Joëlle Milquet and if she wants to drive from Brussels to the coast, to her outdoors home, then she imagined to stay on some sort of Belgian territory. Hence also that the BIVV is so-called split but that the campaigns of the BIVV may continue to exist along the motorways so that Mrs. Milquet is not confronted with, godbeds, campaigns that would derive from a Flemish institution. This must not happen. This is also very well prevented.

A last point. Procurement and acquisition committees. by Sotternie. The federal level can expropriate itself, can expropriate land and houses on the basis of its own powers, on the basis of its own rules. The regions can also expropriate themselves, also on the basis of their own rules. The Communities may expropriate in Brussels on the basis of Brussels regional rules. For the modal Flaming whose home is expropriated, that actually means that depending on the government that expropriates it, a different regulation applies. One then receives a different price for the property that is expropriated, for the same land. That is total satanism.

I have not talked about the cooperation agreements. There are a total of 27 cooperation agreements. This means that there will still be 27 negotiations before a delegation of an institution or power is made. That, of course, also means that the Flammers will have to pay again just as we have to do for the transfer of the Meise plantation garden. This has taken more than 10 years. This also happened through a cooperation agreement and it would be settled immediately. It took more than 10 years to finally start paying prices and re-negotiating the transfer already paid for. This is done 27 times.

Why all that madness, who is better off now? It makes it more complex, inefficient and more expensive. I even heard yesterday on a study day that Mr. Verherstraeten announced that there would be another state reform. Thus, the greatest supporters of the sixth state reform are already saying that a seventh state reform is coming. In terms of illustration that this is not perfect, that can count.

Colleague Weyts, I do not want to temper the enthusiasm of your presentation, but you have even, when you put the scheme with all those cross-line lines on it, said that you think you can solve this with confederalism.

You must, however, be aware that if you wish to solve the matter with your confederalism tactics, you will need the parties who have provided for your extremely complicated scheme. So it is an illusion to believe that this scheme in a confederate model will be cleaned up. That was my first comment.

My second observation is the following. You just alluded to the next state reform, which apparently was announced by Servais Verherstraeten in his capacity as Secretary of State. However, if I remember correctly, the N-VA was also the party asking to carry out a state reform after the upcoming elections. How do you combine one with the other?

We have done our analysis a long time ago. We also created such a scheme with all sorts of cross-line lines. If there were a Flemish Interested on the floor, he would have torn the paper into two and arranged for the orderly division of the land. The N-VA would also prefer to choose the first point in its party program, which is the independence of Flanders, rather than bringing here the story that your confederalism will be able to expose the shown, complicated scheme.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goyvaerts, you are of course right. One makes a choice. We choose confederalism as well as change and progress. We want it to progress.

We can also choose your alternative, as the Flemish Belang can, and cry that we are for independence, but lie along the side in the high grass on the shore waiting for independence to come. We can do that too.

However, such a way of acting is not as il faut. We have a responsibility for the six million flames. So we want to move forward. We want to anticipate steps. We do not propose anything else.

Mr. Weyts, I would like to supplement the current discussion.

It appears to be a bad state reform, which draws nothing. It is too little, too much, too complicated. Together with the Flemish Interest, we therefore ask you why the N-VA, together with the other parties in the Flemish government, tries to conduct a policy on this subject. Why does the N-VA continue to conduct policies within the Flemish government to implement the state reform?

We do this because we need to work with the instruments provided by the Federal Parliament. I also find it not pleasant that I have to stop for a red light, but some things have been approved here. We must stop for the red light.

Why all that shit? Who is really getting better? This complex thing, why should it be now? (Mr. Weyts shows a sheet full of lines)

We propose something different. We propose this. (Mr. Weyts shows a sheet with a very simple scheme)

This is simpler, cheaper and more efficient. Depending on the state of the sun, we also have a majority on the Flemish side. Give the Flammers and French speakers with that system each the opportunity to take their future into their own hands. Give them the opportunity to address their own problems with their own solutions and their own pennies. Give them the opportunity to decide for themselves how to work together, not because they must, but because they want to, because they get better out of it. Give them the responsibility to carry out their own policies. Then Mrs. Rutten should no longer apologize for all the plague taxes that the government, of which her party is part, has introduced and which she has had to approve because the French speakers demanded it.

We want to pull together to give the Flammers the policy they have voted for for years. They have not chosen hopen paper and an imbroglio, but for change and progress. If you don’t pick up the gloves now — I think you won’t do it now and that’s no problem — do it after May 2014.

Mr. Weyts, I thought you would go to a climax.

It was an anticlimax.

Mr. Weyts, I think, with all respect, that you missed your vocation as a stand-up comedian, but what I remember most is that you tried to show how complex one and the other is. Belgium is indeed a complex country, we must admit that. It is almost as complex as your view on confederalism. I do not see such a big difference.

Mr. Van Hecke, I don’t understand what you don’t understand.

This is what you propose. (Mr. Weyts again shows the paper full of lines) And this is our proposal.

(Mr. Weyts again shows the paper with a very simple scheme)

You have two employees who are paid by the government. If they don’t understand it yet, what are you doing?

Mr. Weyts, I already wondered when you would talk about those two employees; that was so long ago!

We had two employees, but the N-VA had half of the Flemish cabinets at the table during the negotiations for a year. The N-VA has not yet managed to put something defective on paper.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, as politicians, we must all believe in the power of change, especially if change means improvement.

To change something, of course, one must first think about it, then one must gather the political courage to do something and then do it. This was done by the eight parties that negotiated the current state reform and implemented it. It actually took two years. Those two years and the texts that Mr. Weyts had with him prove the greatness of the state reform.

Major changes and especially state reforms are characteristic of being criticized. One can almost say that the heavier the criticism, the greater the change. This was also the case in 1970 with the first major state reform, at the time with Father Eyskens, who was then Prime Minister. In his memoirs Mr. Eyskens says that he was accused of being a traitor and of having sold out the Flemish interests. Ultimately, the state reform of 1970 and the subsequent reforms enabled Flanders to become what it is today, especially one of the richest regions in Europe.

Even now there is criticism and debate about the extent of the state reform: is it large enough? This is a sterile discussion.

I will give two kinds of arguments, which for us were decisive in supporting the state reform.

First, there are some political arguments. The first political argument is that this state reform clearly implements the Octopusnota, which was signed by the Flemish government, together with the N-VA. This is a very clear political argument.

Secondly, the current state reform can be tested on the Flemish resolutions that were adopted in 1999, also by the Flemish Parliament. The current state reform is in line with these Flemish resolutions.

I review the five Flemish resolutions.

The first resolution addresses a number of general principles. It calls for a delegation of powers that provides for coherent powers packages.

At that point, we are not on the same wavelength. We believe this is an important step in making a number of competence packages coherent. Think about the care of the elderly and the child allowance, which makes a family policy possible at the Flemish and Wallish levels. Also consider the housing policy, where the tax deductions of the housing bonus and the rental legislation are combined and a Flemish housing policy can be created.

I think these are two good examples that indicate a coherent composition of competence packages.

The second resolution, adopted by the Flemish Parliament in 1999, calls for greater fiscal autonomy. I think this is happening here. The new funding law will ensure more autonomy and solidarity, but also more responsibility. This is made very clear by the funding law, which was so important for my party to conclude an agreement.

Mr. Terwingen, you mention the titles of the resolutions, but it is good to continue to read the rules under the title. If you talk about the resolutions, you can read about the tax autonomy that the Flemish Parliament then advocated for the full transfer of the personal tax and a partial transfer of the corporate tax.

With the title, you may have met a little bit, but you are still miles away from the content of the resolution.

This shows that you confirm that a big step has already been taken. I also do not say that this is a perfect state reform, but I think that there are very clearly instruments in the fiscal field that actually meet these resolutions.

I, by the way, note that the N-VA within the Flemish government will also again remain in the government to further carry out this state reform. I just suggest that, Mr. Jambon.

The third resolution focused mainly on Brussels, on the call to definitively fix the borders of Brussels. This also happens. There is no corridor.

Mr. Terwingen, I suggest that you consistently penetrate your reasoning and that you immediately resign from the Flemish government. The Flemish government is also working with the instruments provided by the Lambermont Agreement.

If you are consistent, if you think that if one does not agree with some state reform, one in the Flemish government can never conduct a policy, then I would now resign standing from the Flemish government, because you did not approve the Lambermont Agreement.

Mr Jambon, if my one-party party has no lessons to be learned about a consistent attitude within the Flemish government regarding this state reform and about whether or not to resign because of that state reform, then it is of the N-VA.

I continue my argument, although it may irritate you, Mr. Jambon.

The fourth resolution focused mainly on the abolition of family policy, with a coherent distribution of powers in this regard, and an active employment policy. Well, in terms of health policy, the counties are competent for assistance to persons with disabilities, for recognition standards for hospitals, hospital infrastructure, investment costs, aging policy, long-term care rehabilitation, mental health care, prevention, organization of primary health care, recognition of quota of health professions, and so on. This is also a clear expansion of the powers and the coherence of the different powers packages.

The last resolution was about judicial policy. In our opinion, important steps are now being made in the field of justice policy, in particular in the field of prosecution policy, which together with the healthcare policy becomes one coherent package, allowing coordination to take place. Mr Weyts, you mentioned the various aspects in this regard. For you, this is not enough, but we will be able to follow up with the next Flemish government.

We will support this state reform. To that end, I have given political arguments that are sufficient for us, but not for you, members of the N-VA. That is the political debate.

I also have some authority arguments. After all, if one does not reach it with political arguments, then one is better to resort back to authority arguments. The best I can refer to prominent Flemish politicians who have made statements about it.

I would like to quote from an interview in De Standaard of 2 March 2013 with Jan Peumans. Do you know Jan Peumans? In that interview, Jan Peumans says: “After the next state reform, we will have 35 billion own powers. That is more than the federal budget. You can’t deny that great progress has been made.” – Jan Peumans; an authority argument, for what it is worth.

A second authority argument comes from an even higher echelon, in particular colleague Jan Jambon. On October 20, he said in The Seventh Day that a gigantic transfer of power is being realized.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the images of that broadcast to be shown here.

Mr. Terwingen, you should be able to distinguish when something cynical is meant. You pull my words out of their context. (The Romanian)

The [...]

Mr. Van Biesen, if you ask for the word, then you will get it, and then you may be able to say something meaningful.

Mr. Terwingen, I ask for some intellectual honesty. We spoke at that time in a context in which I advocated the reduction of the House from 150 to 100 people’s representatives. Since the majority parties consider it to be such a gigantic transfer of powers, I call for consistency in their own conduct by limiting the Chamber in its composition. That was the ratio. If you take a single sentence out of that context, I find that intellectually unfair.

That argument did not have so much authority.

Mr. Speaker, I note that Mr. Jambon does not nuance his words by saying that it was irony, but cynicism.

Oscar Wilde once said, “A cynic knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.”

Mr. Jambon, I find it very remarkable that you call yourself cynical.

Mr. Jambon, I apologize for using you as an authority argument. I apologize for my cynicism at the moment.

I come to a third argument. You will have to value it yourself and I also don’t know if it was cynical. Minister Bourgeois said it was such a massive transfer that it will not be possible until 1 January 2015. I do not know whether this was cynical, but I also think in this regard that a number of questions can be asked.

Colleagues, on the basis of those elements, it seems to me clear that we can really speak of a historical state reform here. We work for a stronger Flanders and a governable country in which the counties can meet and look forward in a constructive and positive way.

I would like to quote a passage from Gaston Eyskens in February 1970, when it was also about a state reform. He spoke the following words, I quote, “The unitary state, with its structure and method, as they are now regulated by laws, is outdated by events. The Communities and the Regions should take their place in renewed state structures that should be better adapted to their own circumstances.” His final sentences, which may be even more important, were the following, I quote: “Never has such a significant effort been made to give our basic institutions a new perspective with the will to offer every Belgian, every Community, every Region the best opportunities for development in the midst of the country and that of the wider community of Europe.”

I believe that these last criteria are still decisive in the proposed state reform. It is not directed against a language community or against a region. It is there only for the Flamings, the Whales and the Brussels, so that each can take responsibility for himself.

I go around. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Secretaries of State, all their employees and the staff of the House who had to work overtime to accomplish all this, for their enormous work.

Mr. Terwingen, you have quoted “great statesmen” who, among other things, imposed the Grendel Constitution on us and you defended it as a fantastic state reform. I leave it for your account. I will quote another “great statesman”, also a party fellow of you, Yves Leterme. He said before the sixth state reform: “We have reached the limits of our federal order.” When I see what schedule you come to by starting to grumble at those boundaries, I believe it’s time for others and better.

Mrs Gerkens asked me to intervene now, because she must go to Antwerp.

I try to take into account the contingencies of one and the other, the presence and the absence. I do my best to accommodate the agenda and the agenda during the session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak at a conference on health in Antwerp early in the afternoon.

I will be brief because for a long time in this assembly, but especially in all political places in Belgium, this sixth state reform is discussed and analyzed, sometimes raising fears. However, it is also an opportunity – this is how it should be considered – for reorganization, improvement of competence in matters and management by federal and federal entities.

What I want to say today on behalf of my Ecolo group, a member of the Ecolo-Groen group that joined the negotiations to bring about this sixth state reform, is that the main concern that was to preserve the tools of financing solidarity and of organizing this solidarity among citizens has been respected. This was a crucial element in these negotiations.

With this foundation in place, a transfer of skills was effectively organised to enable policy coherence between the materials already transferred today and the new materials transferred. These are consistencies that appear and will appear in a relatively obvious way in employment, notably at the level of enhanced tax autonomy and granted to the Regions but also – and obviously it will need to be ensured that so be – modes of financing for entrepreneurs, mobility aid and the famous APA allocations for older disabled persons.

The other important dimension in our view of the content of this sixth state reform is the granting of constitutive autonomy to the Brussels Region but also to the German-speaking Community, thus ending an inequality between the federated entities.

Beyond these transfers and autonomies granted to federal entities, the Sixth Reform also envisages strengthening and institutionalizing cooperation agreements, joint decrees, tools that will allow the different federal entities to work together on cross-competences, where each can have authority and that at the service of citizens, within the framework of public missions that depend on these different entities.

Finally, there is the Senate Reform that will become an instance representing the different Communities of our country while retaining certain specifics. This reform will be accompanied by a second reading that will ensure consistency and quality in our legislative texts. We will return to it tomorrow during the debate on the texts relating to the “Political Renewal” component, an important component for environmentalists in this sixth reform.

Other elements of political renewal were also discussed and settled here in parliament between the eight parliamentary groups regarding a code of ethics, the hearing of ministers on their guidance notes and initiative reports now allowed in the House. If you want to do so, we will return to them tomorrow at the presentation of these texts.

It is obvious that this reform, organized and presented after all this work, which has involved many collaborators that we must thank and congratulate, can only receive the approval of the Ecolo group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, ⁇ there have been important institutional developments in the history of this country; more often than in our turn, we are putting a certain number of certainties at risk to write new chapters. Today, exactly, we are writing a sixth chapter of our institutional architecture.

But this new reform must above all be brought back to its right dimension. I have never believed and will never believe in the “great evening,” the one in which, by one gesture, one wipes out all evils to plunge into beatitude. I do not believe that today we seal a community peace. I believe that today we are giving ourselves what we think is the best way to progress in the right direction.

Today we need pride as much as humility: the pride of believing in our strengths, in our chances, and the humility of knowing that everything remains to be done.

This reform is primarily a promise. The promise that, if the right choices are made, things will go better for citizens, families and ⁇ . Indeed, the challenge is only here: do we give this time the useful instruments to succeed in the economic recovery of the country and its Regions? We are an institutional majority who think that is the case, serenely, with the constant concern to avoid the logic of the worst of which we have been so close just two years ago.

This reform is effective and fair. These are the only qualities we want to give him. Effective because the distribution of skills ⁇ deserved a redesign, which the empirical constructions had so far denied. There was ⁇ some poetry in the institutional scheme imagined since 1970, but it was time to open the chapter of greater federal maturity.

This maturity, as in personal life, is distinguished by the notion of responsibility. As we said in the debate on the Special Financing Law, through the mechanism of allocation of financial resources, we have reinforced in the structure of the federal state the importance of the notion of responsibility for the various levels of power, in the exercise of the powers of which they are charged.

It is true, until now, it has remained problematic that certain levels of power receive financial means unrelated to the effectiveness of the policies deployed. From now on, everyone will have to take full responsibility: this is the sense of political responsibility.

This same logic is necessarily found in the "Transfer of Skills" section of the reform. Today we want to give the different levels of power leverages to assume their choices. In employment, for example, one will no longer be able to hide behind a sharing of skills to reject or deny responsibility.

This reform is also correct. Indeed, it has not been said enough, during the political crisis of 2010, how much we played with our political fundamentals, how much the political parties were in tension about the role they played to our institutional pillars.

Democracy has, in fact, held by adjustment, by fact accomplished, some will even say. I think, for my part, that the real engine was more the dialogue, not so much the dialogue between the parties that wrote the agreement, but to a certain political dialogue with the citizens. It was a real crisis. It has damaged the image of politics a little more. But, in the end, a broad and profound relief was perceived, in society in general, at the time of its resolution.

The reform became just because it was accepted. Furthermore, it has allowed – it must be repeated, today, even a year after the vote of the first texts – to consecrate, once again, in the texts, the rights of the various minorities of this country. It has been reinforced the idea that the majority is legitimate in its aspirations, but also that the minority has the right to respect, which is necessary when it comes to reform; it is a question of balance.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my colleague, Kattrin Jadin, will discuss the question of the German-speaking Community more specifically, as soon as possible, on behalf of my group.

I would also like to talk about the reform of the Senate. In fact, touching bicameralism is not neutral. Furthermore, everyone here knows that everything related to parliamentary democracy deserves the utmost attention. This reform has direct effects on our assembly. We look at it positively. Parliamentary work, at the level of the House, will surely gain in density. This should contribute to revitalizing our institution.

In my opinion, during the last reforms, the Senate had not been given a place to enable it to dynamize bicameralism. However, the latter only makes sense if it dynamizes democracy. It makes no sense if it is content at best to duplicate and at worst to slow down. Even though photography is not entirely fair – I want to make up for the actual contributions of the Senate in recent years in a number of major debates – it is mostly how the two-headed system is perceived today. In the proposed reform, we are changing.

Bicameralism is used for what is useful in a federal model, a chamber of federal entities, and I form the wish that it can be positive and that this new Senate finds its place in the new institutional architecture.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we will vote on a major reform tomorrow, but we know that this is not what is decisive. What is crucial is to recreate a solid political dialogue, we hope, and on this basis, to succeed in the economic revival of our country and its regions. Political dialogue and economic recovery are what will stabilize our country for a long time. So, no excess enthusiasm today! There is no one at the doors of this parliament to exult on the historical importance of what we decide. The date of the day will not even be written on the fronton above this tribune next to the other major dates in Belgian history. I think we should have that humility.

But one must also have the pride of believing that one can write history, that of people’s daily life. It could be written, while two years ago, many would have doubted it. Many, including in this hemisphere, would have wished that this would not be the case, preferring the abyss of chaos to the horizon of reform.

The Reform Movement – it won’t surprise you – has chosen reform because it opens perspectives and because it builds the future. We will therefore vote on the Sixth State Reform, driven by the sense of responsibility.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, two years have passed since our country in a political crisis was on the brink of break-up and an institutional majority was then drawing up and concluding an institutional agreement, bringing the country out of the longest political crisis it has ever known.

It has only been two years to complete this set of major reforms. The split of the electoral district of Brussels-al-Hal-Vilvorde, the reform of the judicial districts, the reform of the electoral system, the reform of the bicameral system, the reform concerning the royal allocations and so forth, to finally arrive at this pre-last section devoted to the transfer of powers.

For the first time in Belgium’s institutional history, the center of gravity will move from the federal state to the regions and communities.

Communities and Regions are being given new competences to lead policies that are more targeted and tailored to their economic and social realities. These are mainly the following areas: employment, family allowances, health care and assistance to individuals.

This transfer of materials of a social character is very delicate for French speakers because it was not about spoiling social security. This compromise grants both the will to stabilize our country, expressed in Wallonia and Brussels, and the wishes for profound changes expressed in Flanders.

This reform of the state is a compromise between the two major communities.

First of all, in terms of employment, the Socialist Group welcomes the federal maintenance of labour law and social security rules, as well as arrangements for social consultation and wage policy. For example, the instrument of the collective labour agreement remains to the federal. On the other hand, the Regions will be able tomorrow, in order to create jobs, to decide to reduce the cost of labour for certain categories of workers, in companies having their headquarters in their territory. Regions will still be free to decide to increase employment aid for certain categories of unemployed people who are more present on their labour market.

The parties of the institutional majority have strived, in a spirit of consensus, to give Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders the means to conduct a policy closer to the citizens.

The Communities will now be competent for family benefits. In Brussels, and French speakers welcome this, it is the Joint Community Commission (Cocom) that will exercise the competence so that all Brussels citizens benefit from the same regime.

Another satisfaction point for my group: social contributions remain collected from the federal to ensure solidarity between all Belgians. A long transitional period is planned to ensure the continuity of services.

As for health and people support, 90 percent of health-related skills will remain federal. The Socialist Group welcomes the maintenance of interpersonal solidarity. Social contributions are still collected at the national level in order to ensure solidarity among all Belgians.

It is about ⁇ ining this interpersonal solidarity as it currently exists, which implies equal access for all to reimbursed health care by guaranteeing the free choice of the patient, in accordance with the European principle of free movement of persons. The patient will pay the same amount for the same product or service, regardless of the place in Belgium where the treatment is provided.

In other words, nothing will change in terms of reimbursement of consultations with the doctor, medication policy, cost of hospital stay.

Until now, federal entities approved and inspected rest homes, while the federal funded them. For greater coherence, the federated entities will now have full competence in the area of the reception of the elderly. It can be adapted to local realities.

I still note with satisfaction that it is now the federal entities that will grant the mobility aid for persons with disabilities.

Mental health institutions, psychiatric care homes, protected homes will also be federated entities.

Finally, those federated entities that were already partially competent in the field of hospital infrastructure will now become fully competent. It is the buildings housing the hospitals that will be transferred, but the care in the hospitals will continue to be covered entirely by the federal.

I still note with satisfaction the development of a binding regional mobility plan for municipalities and the distribution of cleaning competence between municipalities and regions.

Today we are facing a stage that fundamentally restructures the federal state. The implementation of the Sixth State Reform will be a long-term work. I therefore plead that all the protagonists, including those who would already think of a seventh state reform, give time to the next government to effectively implement its present reform. Otherwise, the country risks experiencing a great instability that will be detrimental to all fellow citizens.

With this third part of the Sixth State Reform, we continue our path towards a stabilized and strengthened State in which the federated entities will become the center of gravity. The federal state will become more compact and more efficient while Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders will be more autonomous and responsible.

For the PS group, the functioning of the Senate deserved to be improved, its composition revised, some mechanisms modified, its competences remodelled and rationalized. The last reform of the Senate, which dates from 1993, was justified by the need to ensure the representativity of the federated entities. The reform subject to vote goes further in this representation of the federated entities; the Senate will truly be a meeting place for the Communities and Regions. Tomorrow, the Senate will no longer be the room of reflection it was, especially on ethical issues. I think in particular of the advances that the Senate has made in the areas of partial decriminalization of abortion, euthanasia, the fight against human trafficking and medical assisted reproduction. In short, there are fundamental laws in everyone’s life that serve as inspiration and models in many other countries. This time it will have to be taken over by our assembly. Tomorrow, the Senate will be composed of 84 percent of elected members from the parliaments of the federal entities. It is about ensuring the participation of the Parliaments of the Communities and Regions in the organization and functioning of the federal state. Our federated entities will thus have the opportunity to weigh on the debate concerning the structure of the state.

This step is important because it means that we are entering a true federalism with a Chamber of Communities and Regions. Today, the compromise on the table has every chance of succeeding, provided that the future Senate effectively uses the skills made available to it. It will become what the senators of tomorrow will do. Senators will retain an opportunity for initiative that will not necessarily lead to a normative outcome but that will address transversal societal problems that impact the Communities and Regions.

I will add that with the transfer of new powers to federal entities, the center of gravity will move for the first time from the federal state to the Regions and Communities.

My group would also like to pay tribute to the quality of the work provided by Senate officials. I think in particular of the services of committees, evaluation of legislation, translation, legal affairs, reporting, etc. They helped fuel discussions, conduct quality debates when reviewing legislative texts and improve and make coherent the formulations used, and I pass.

In the very near future, it will be necessary to consider the impact of this reform on the structure of the Senate and its staff. The Socialist Group will remain ⁇ attentive to the implementation of this reform and its consequences. This Senate reform is part of a set of important reforms resulting from a compromise between the eight parties of the institutional majority that helped to get our country out of the crisis in which it was. The Socialist Party will support it today.

Thank you, Mr Van Grootenbrulle.

I suggest that we interrupt our work here and resume it at 14:15. For the members of the Bureau, it will meet at 12:30.