Proposition 55K0591

Proposition de loi relative à l'ouverture du parc du Château de Laeken au public.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Tomas Roggeman

Submission date

Oct. 15, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

green area public property

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD PVDA | PTB VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Yngvild Ingels (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA) 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 ¶

March 30, 2022 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The reporter, Mr Van Langenhove, refers to the written report.

Colleagues, on March 15, this majority voted against our bill on the subject, without any accountability, without any argument or any explanation.

I can hardly believe that. With a few exceptions, everyone is in favour of our bill. So I assume that there is an error in the game. That is why I offer this plenary session – tomorrow it will be voted – the possibility of a reconsideration, namely to accept this bill anyway and not agree with the conclusions of the Committee on Home Affairs.

Everyone knows the park of Laken. That is enormously large, about 186 hectares, comparable to an average Flemish city centre or, for example, the centre of Sint-Niklaas. That large green lungs are now closed to the population. That is a regrettable thing, especially if one knows that it is located close to the densely populated canal zone. There live many people without a garden who are looking for green relaxation and recreation opportunities. However, the gardens of the park remain closed. Our bill would therefore be a fantastic opportunity.

The legal framework regarding the park is unclear and subject to interpretation. Can it be opened or not? Who should decide on this? Who should decide on the property structure? With this bill, we wanted to create clarity so that practical arrangements can be made.

The domain consists of two zones. The first is the property of the Regie der Gebäude, it concerns the castle itself and the affiliates around it. The other plots were in the past the personal property of Leopold II. They were transferred to the Belgian State in the donation act of 1900. This was later anchored in the Donation Act of 1903.

Unlike a number of other domains, the specific provision for the park of Laken does not include a provision stating that the throne successors could share the enjoyment of that property. Consequently, our interpretation is that this domain could actually be opened to the population. Therefore, we are faced with an interpretation that we wish to clarify.

Colleagues, our bill is pragmatic with respect to the royal family. It is a bill that we thought could be supported. The use of the castle and its attachments is for the royal family. The other parts could be opened to the public. That proposal was therefore not adopted. Unfortunately, this bill was rejected.

I think that is a strange thing. The Brussels government agrees. In Brussels there is a majority to allow the proposal to enter into force. In this parliament, all parties – except for the MR, if I am not mistaken – are in favor of opening the park gardens of Laken. It is surprising that this bill has been rejected.

This vivaldicoalition has a mouth full of political renewal, of openness to arguments, of listening to each other, of giving counterarguments, and so on. If I then have to conclude that our bill is rejected in the committee without any argument or any element of refutation, then I find that a regrettable matter. I can only say that political innovation is an empty box.

Mrs. Speaker, I hope that this Parliament will prove tomorrow that I am wrong and that voting against the bill in the committee is rejected, in other words, that this plenary session will not agree with the conclusions of the committee.

No one can take the word anymore.

No other speaker is allowed to speak.

The vote on the proposal to reject this bill will take place later.

The vote on the proposal to reject this bill will take place later.