The deputy Open VLD Vincent Van Quickenborne complained on Tuesday not to have enough time to discuss the project to tax capital gains in committee. What do you answer?
Mr. Van Quickenborne often asks to apply the regulations with flexibility when he is not to his advantage and strictly when he is. We were in a sort of gray area. The capital gains taxation project is still only a government agreement. Not yet a bill. The deputies could therefore not yet debate on the basis of an official text deposited by the government. The regulation of the Chamber provides, in this case, the possibility of organizing a topical debate. Each parliamentary group then in principle has 2 minutes to express themselves and ask questions to the Minister. Their speech time had been extended to 4 minutes. I understand the impatience of Mr. Van Quickenborne because the taxation of capital gains is an important point in the government’s program. But we should sometimes compress the debates a little to gain in efficiency. The investiture debate of the new government lasted 40 hours. It was a good debate. But far too long. And at one point, it is the same arguments that return to an endless loop. We must ask this question: how can we give enough space to the commitment of parliamentarians without it drifting towards an indigestible pâté of words?
Understand everything about the taxation of capital gains, in 20 questions
Are you not afraid of stifling the parliamentary debate?
Democracy is based on the coexistence of three powers: legislative power, executive power and judicial power. Legislative power is in principle the the first one in pairs (The first among its equals, editor’s note). But this is no longer the case. However, the voice of citizens must be heard in the political debate. On the other hand, I understand that the members of the government who have already spent whole nights to complete an agreement no longer wanted to go to Parliament locking itself up in debates carried out in total freedom. We are therefore in a fight between the efficiency of management and the exercise of counter-power.
How to reduce the duration of debates?
It is a difficult exercise. There are 150 parliamentarians. If each of them speaks only one minute in the same debate, it will already take 2 and a half hours. And I don’t like to prevent someone from speaking. What this person will say may be without interest. But we can only determine it after. What I try to do is agree on a timing before the debates. I can then cut the microphones in case of overtaking. I am strict, but I make sure to be coherent and just with everyone. Many deputies beg me not to cut the microphone after the time allocated by saying that they have an important thing to say. The problem is that there are sentences that have no end point. During the debate on the budgetary implications of the-program law, there was a lot of discussions between parliamentary groups. It took a long time. The ministers were finally little involved. However, it is important that deputies have time to ask them questions and hear their answers.
KERN agreement on the Program Law, the unemployment reform will be spread over time
During this debate, you had to remind the order of the president of MR Georges-Louis Bouchez who launched invective …
We must not exaggerate what happened. Georges-Louis Bouchez is an energetic man. In the hemicycle, he is also very close to the benches of Ecolo, the PS and the PTB. When he speaks, this often causes a debate between deputies who do not have their microphone on. It quickly becomes inaudible. At one point, I had to restore order. But having live debates from time to time is not an evil in itself. It is a balance to find.
During the same session, MP Mathieu Michel (MR) supported the presence button in place of another deputy. It was scandalous …
It is contrary to the regulations. So it’s unacceptable. But either should not be exaggerated. Mr. Ducarme was in the room, two meters from his office. He was therefore present. If it had been the vote of a law, then there, yes, it would have been completely unacceptable. For me, his gesture also has such an impact because it is very exceptional. But I do not believe that Mr. Michel is a repeat offender in the matter. As a parliamentarian, he knows the procedures.
Doesn’t that illustrate a recurring problem of absences in Parliament?
This is an important question. You cannot ask 150 people to stay without discontinuing a 40 -hour debate. But there are never debates that really last 40 hours. What you have are 4 debates of 10 hours or even 10 4 -hour debates around more specific themes – Taxation, justice, budget, etc. I think the deputies are well paid enough to represent the people and be present in Parliament when they must be. There are only two valid reasons for absences: the disease and the representation of parliament abroad. It’s already a lot. The majority have only 81 deputies. So that means that it cannot miss more than 4 otherwise there is no quorum and the vote cannot take place. In committee, the problem is even more acute because the majority only has 9 seats out of 17. A parliamentarian who is absent for no valid reason can therefore put all the parliament in embarrassment.
During this same debate, the opposition prevented a vote on the law-law by a vote sending him to the Council of State. What do you think?
It was not pleasant for the majority, but the opposition has the right to request the advice of the Council of State. But it would be a mistake to abuse it. The primary objective of referral to the Council of State is to assess the quality of legislation and amendments. There is a concern if, on several occasions, it is used for other purposes. As president of the Chamber, my duty is to balance between the right of opposition to oppose the policy of the majority and that of the majority resulting from the elections to implement its program. It is a balance exercise. But these two rights are pillars of democracy.
Do you feel that the opposition abused it?
I’m not saying that. But the agreement between the Vlaams Belang and the French -speaking left (which have united their voices to allow this dismissal of the text to the Council of State, editor’s note) surprised me. If I have good memories, the Vlaams Belang has never been drawn by other parties in order to block significant legislative work. It is an unprecedented moment. In Flanders, we would have been a little more vigilant, I think.
The Senate will in principle be deleted. What do you think?
In a unitary country, I will personally choose a bicameral system. But in Belgium, which has become a federal state, there are a large number of parliaments. And as the skills are shared between the levels of powers and the federalty, there is no truly dominant assembly. There are therefore counterpowers. This removes a good part of the reason for the Senate. And then, the Senate as it has transformed has a too low cost and added value. For me, the Senate today has more drawbacks than advantages. And that, in a desire to clean up the institutional landscape, it is better to remove it.
Arizona confirms: the Senate will be deleted (but everything is not settled)
In many federal states, the Senate has become the assembly of federated entities …
You can find meeting spaces between deputies of regional and community parliaments. I am for example favorable to the fact that federated entities can be consulted when it is, for example, the revision of the Constitution. But we can predict this without having to maintain a permanent institution like the Senate.
How, you, the former president of the Flemish movement, do you feel like president of the Chamber, the first citizen of Belgium?
It was not a dream of youth. I never said to myself: “I want to become the president of the room.” But it is not contrary to my nationalist fights either. Life offers us possibilities. I seized them. This institution deals with significant skills and 60 % of people who are part of it are Flemish. So if you ensure good management, it’s good for the Flemish. But it’s not a zero game. It is not because it is good for the Flemings that it is bad for French speakers. On the contrary. The Flemish movement does not lead a fight against the south of the country. Francophones will always remain our first neighbors.
The budget of the House of Representatives is subject to constant adjustments. Budgetary rigor remains a major objective. Are you not afraid of an increase in expenses due to not expected expenses?
Yes, this is a difficult exercise. We face challenges that did not exist and which today require investments. Especially in terms of security. We switch carelessness in an uncertain world. For example, what precautions should parliamentarians take for the use of their smartphone. With the security of the state and other bodies, I put these security aspects at the agenda. We have initiated a security and computer advisor. I would like the citizen to be able to more easily follow the work of parliamentarians, in particular via our website. The Internet user must be able, in one click, to access the Livestream (plenary session and commissions) displayed on the Homepage (www.lachambre.beEditor’s note). I find that our website is too bureaucratic. He could be a little more flash, we will give him a facelift. We will work there in September.
Do you have the financial means necessary to make these investments?
This is a challenge. Adjustments will have to be made. This means that we will have to comb all of our services to fine. You will have to be very critical and ask the question: what should be preserved and in which areas can we make substantial savings. A tool for the future is undoubtedly artificial intelligence (AI): it offers multiple possibilities to optimize our work, especially in terms of communication which, of course, is done in both national languages.
Trust the AI
No Copernican Revolution in the House?
No. I am a curator and I am not one of those who pass the chainsaw to break everything. I will do it with respect for what has existed for a long time. I’m not going to make a clean sweep of the past. But we will have to learn to work otherwise. Adjustments will be made in consultation with our services. But let’s go with caution and discernment. The room employs around 600 people, with occasional employees. Some have been working here for twenty or thirty years. I don’t want to trigger a revolution. We avoid putting our employees in a defensive attitude.
How are you going to celebrate on July 11?
I will go to the reception given in the Town Hall of Brussels. After that, I will go to Antwerp. Besides, last year I also went to Namur, in the town of the bourgmestre Maxime Prevot, to participate in Walloon festivals. We are always well received in Wallonia.
