Proposition 55K0734

Projet 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, en ce qui concerne l'indemnité de sortie des anciens membres du Parlement.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nahima Lanjri
N-VA Valerie Van Peel
Open Vld Patrick Dewael, Egbert Lachaert
VB Barbara Pas

Submission date

Nov. 14, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Member of Parliament multiple office holding overlapping of income elective office Statute for Members of the Parliament Speaker of Parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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. 12, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, some have passed this proposal by making believing that this is a technical amendment of the law.

In my opinion, the real debate is not technical but political. In reality, the question is whether parliamentary leave allowances should be ⁇ ined or whether a few parties are willing to replace them with a more socially just system, such as a system of unemployment like the one that exists for ordinary workers, and that for the few parliamentarians who would not find their job. Indeed, that is the question.

In essence, the exit allowance is supposedly provided for outgoing parliamentarians who would have trouble finding a job after exercising their mandate. It exists, but it concerns a very small minority. Moreover, overall, this does not correspond to the facts since my party has demonstrated that out of 75 parliamentarians leaving the previous legislature, at least 68 had already found a job or were entitled to their pension. (Brouhaha) by

Can you ask for a bit of calm? The subject is important.

If you find a job, how can you justify that you can still benefit from a departure allowance, even if this allowance is limited to 150%. There is still a question of ⁇ 10,000 euros per month for former MPs who don’t really need it.

The PTB therefore submitted a bill aiming to eliminate this system of starting compensation. We regret that all parties, with the exception of the Ecolo-Groen group, voted to remove this bill from the agenda in order to prevent it from being attached to the text that was debated in the committee.

We hope that in the future, there will be a real willingness of the parties to discuss this proposal so that this system of departure compensation, unfortunately parliamentary privilege among others, can be revised.

We will therefore abstain today from this text, not because it goes too far – you will understand it – but because it does not go far enough, because it does not fundamentally re-see things, because it is just a technical adaptation aimed at coping with an aberration. And we regret that the fundamental political debate is apparently not possible at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, of course, the SP-A-Fraktion will support your bill. We hope that there will be a thorough discussion on this later. The withdrawal allowances are absolutely due to reform. There has already been a reform in the past, with the duration being limited since 2014, although a ⁇ gentle transitional arrangement was approved in the House.

The sp.a believes that, just as we have done with the parliamentary pensions that we have aligned with the rights of ordinary workers in terms of construction, payment time and calculation, we should do the same with the retirement benefits. We should not treat parliamentarians differently, neither more, nor better, nor less than ordinary workers.

Mr. Speaker, my statement is very similar to that of Mr. Vandenbroucke. This has already been the case in the committee. The political support for a profound reform is, in my view, greater than some attempt to make it appear.

Our group supports some advances. It is an anomaly, something that has slipped through the mazes of the net. It is not possible that a salary ceiling applies when you are a member of parliament, but not during the period of retirement allowance. It is logical that we get rid of it as soon as it is established. Therefore, we support this proposal.

For us, however, this is not the end of the exercise. Like colleague Vandenbroucke and others, we believe that the status of a member of parliament should be ignored globally. Among other things, the period of withdrawal compensation today is too long and too wide. The social status of parliamentarians should evolve into a status similar to other statutes.

What has not yet been mentioned, colleagues, is the accumulation of fees. There is the accumulation of mandates that is worth a debate. For us, being a representative of the people is a full-time job, an honor that is best exercised full-time. Today there is the decumulation of fees between public functions. There is much to say in order to extend this to decumulate public and private functions. A few examples to make it clear that the debate is ⁇ not over and that our group will like to be a pioneer of it, as in the past.

Thanks to you, colleagues.

I took the initiative to submit this bill because it was an anomaly in which one was indeed charged more than the other. There was no logic there. Most of the groups followed me. If some groups now consider that other issues should also be discussed, one should not interfere. Submit proposals and they will then be put on the order of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on the Constitution, or who knows, colleague Calvo, a new, special committee. I do not advocate this, it is up to the Chamber to judge it.

Does anyone ask for the word in the general discussion?

Mr. Van Hees, you are asking for the word, but you have already had it. Once it is not usual.

I want to answer what you just said.

You just said that if we had proposals, we would have to submit them. And that is what we did. We want to join our bill with yours, Mr. President. This was refused. I do not understand your speech very well.

The committee regulates its work. Each day suffices his punishment. One step has been taken. The President of the Commission must now put the other proposals on the agenda. This is how the Parliament works.