Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 6 août 1931 établissant des incompatibilités et interdictions concernant les Ministres et Ministres d'État, ainsi que les membres et anciens membres des Chambres législatives, afin d'instaurer une période tampon de 18 mois après la cessation de leurs fonctions politiques pour les anciens ministres, chefs de cabinet ou chefs de cabinet adjoint.
General information ¶
- Authors
-
Ecolo
Gilles
Vanden Burre
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke - Submission date
- July 19, 2016
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- minister incompatibility public administration
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB
- Abstained from voting
- VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
- Dirk Van der Maelen (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
June 21, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Gilles Vanden Burre Ecolo ⚙
Our proposed legislation, which I am coming to defend before you today, aims to avoid conflicts of interest. It is a plague that we all wish to fight in this homecycle and which holds us, ecologists, especially close to the heart.
The specific objective of this text is to avoid conflicts of interest when a minister or cabinet head leaves his functions of minister to exercise in the private in the same sector of activity. For example, today, in Belgium, the Minister of Agriculture who has the tutelage of AFSCA can resign on Monday and Tuesday, start working at VEVIBA. The Minister of Energy or the Minister of Energy can go from day to day as a lobbyist at ENGIE Electrabel. Another example, the head of cabinet of the Minister of Telecommunications, who has the tutelage on Proximus, could from day to day become responsible, administrator or CEO of Orange, the main private competitor of Proximus. In Belgium, nothing prevents this type of fictitious situation that I have just taken as an example of the random skills of one and the other. That is why we want to make proposals.
Specifically, this text provides for a buffer period of eighteen months, in order precisely to avoid this type of conflict of interest. What we want above all, at the level of my group, is to be able to open the debate in the face of this plague of conflict of interests that, beyond the fundamental notions of good governance and ethics in politics, breaks a little more, every day, the gap between our fellow citizens and the political world. We must therefore act. What I really regret is that there was no deep discussion in the committee.
Our proposal was not “to take or to leave.” Dear colleagues of the majority, you refused to organize hearings, you refused a deep debate. This is what I regret and bring me today before you in plenary.
Our proposal is realistic and proportionate. It is inspired by what is happening in many countries, so it is not completely disconnected or out of reality. Australia, Norway, and France have introduced a buffer period. Chile, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal all have buffer periods for the executive. Canada, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, Slovenia and the United States have buffer periods for both the executive and the legislative – which we don’t even ask in our text.
We are entering into a reality. We want to be the pioneers of good governance with this text. I took the example of Canada, from which we are inspired in our text. Ministers and MEPs may not lobby there that could lead to a conflict of interest for five years after leaving their post. They cannot lobby public administrations and cannot arrange meetings between an official and another person.
Dear colleagues, we request that this text be returned to the committee in order to hold a substantial debate, with the organization of hearings, in order to lead to a proposal that allows us to move forward on the subject. Today, in Belgium, there is nothing and for us, environmentalists, this is unacceptable.
Rapporteur Koenraad Degroote ⚙
In fact, the proposal was already discussed in the Working Group on Political Renewal. In the Committee on Internal Affairs, the applicant was repeatedly pointed out that the proposal in question was not held in the working group and that therefore it was in fact pointless to continue the discussion in the committee. The proposal was discussed three times and everyone was able to express their views in a democratic manner. Article 1 of the proposal was rejected by 11 votes against 5 and therefore the whole proposal.