Proposition 50K0212

Projet de loi relatif à des mesures d'aide en faveur d'entreprises agricoles touchées par la crise de la dioxine.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 29, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

agricultural holding aid to agriculture animal feedingstuffs public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V

Abstained from voting

LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 17, 1999 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The Committee on Economy, Scientific Policy, Education, National Scientific and Cultural Institutions, Middle Class and Agriculture met on November 3, 4 and 9 to analyze the draft law on aid measures for agricultural enterprises affected by the dioxin crisis. In his introductory presentation, Minister Gabriels presented the latest numerical data demonstrating that the dioxin crisis is now under control. The previous government has taken a number of measures to compensate beef, pork and poultry producers in the form of recoverable advances. By decision of 13 October 1999, the European Commission authorised the conversion of these advances into definitive compensation. These compensation amounts to a total amount of between 5 and 6 billion and do not prejudice supplementary compensation granted following the introduction of individual applications based in particular on economic damage incurred by agricultural undertakings. The grant of federal aid shall be based on the average real prices of the products concerned, practiced by neighboring countries at the time of the crisis. The State Council did not raise any objections to the project and the regions approved it. The royal decrees taken in execution of the bill will be communicated to Parliament. The Commissioner of the Government, Mr. Willockx, told us in his presentation that the bill was notified to the European Commission on 25 October last year. Decisions of enforcement of the law will be the subject of a consultation between the government and the regions and will be communicated to the European authorities. Since the European Commission has admitted that the dioxin crisis was assimilated to an extraordinary event within the meaning of Article 87, 3C of the Treaty of Rome, compensation to the economic operators injured is likely to amount to 100% of the damage incurred. The overall federal budgetary impact of the crisis is currently estimated at 25 billion francs. This amount will be revalued on the basis of stocks locked within the borders and the macroeconomic effects on state revenues. The National Bank estimates the latter to about 0.6% of the gross domestic product. This impact will be attributed to the 1999 budget. The bill reinforces the legal basis of the repurchase regime and the State Council has recognized the competence of federal authorities in this matter. In the general discussion, several speakers insisted on the need for a rapid review of the bill, given the difficult circumstances experienced by agro-food companies. Some emphasized the need to allocate full compensation to all operators injured by dioxin contamination. The problem of mixed enterprises, the need to arrange a consultation with the regions to ensure that aid is equally distributed, the criteria imposed on economic and financial independence, the solidary contribution in the food chain, the risks of cumulative compensation are all important points raised in the discussion. Several commissioners also requested that the protocol concluded between the State and the Belgian Association of Banks be attached to the project. Attention was paid to the fact that proving a direct causal link between the dioxin crisis and the damage incurred is relatively complex. Other speakers justified the working method applied by the government and the need for some solidarity. Problems in the dairy sector, the subrogation of the state in corporate rights, the granting of compensation related to the damage actually suffered and the powers granted to the King by the project, were also addressed. Finally, it was stressed that companies should not cumulate compensation and interventions and that the entire compensation scheme was submitted to the European Commission. To the many technical questions raised, the Minister of Agriculture provided the following clarifications. The bill regulates the legislative framework for the granting of compensation but the methodology will have to be concretized by royal decrees. The aim of the project remains the complete repair of the damages suffered. The first compensation will probably be paid before the end of this year, but all cases (approximately 20,000 at the moment) will not be able to be fully processed by that date. If it is not obvious to specify who will be compensated, it should be ensured that, when examining the files, undue compensation is not paid. The full compensation for damage cannot therefore be applied in a linear manner. He would prefer a gradual compensation. The law shall enter into force as soon as possible and the powers conferred on the King shall be conferred upon him by law. The Parliament shall be kept permanently informed of the state of progress and the content of the execution orders. The Minister also stressed that in principle, compensation will be taxable. The National Bank is willing to provide the necessary funds and, if necessary, it could be applied to the BIRB, which has a long experience in this area. It is currently an amount of 1.8 billion francs but the exact figures have been attached in the report’s annex. The Front Agro will have to inform its members of the modes of payment of aid. The government commissioner explained that the solidarity contribution was aimed at lightening the burden on taxpayers by putting the sector itself to contribute. The government hopes that the system will be able to operate on a voluntary basis but does not exclude making it mandatory if necessary. It should also be noted that it is the sector itself that has requested to compensate only autonomous companies. Advances paid to farmers will not be refunded. They will be deducted from the amounts due under the bill. Furthermore, it is no longer necessary to conclude a cooperation agreement with the regions since the governments concerned have given their consent to the project. Finally, the government commissioner indicated that the total damage is estimated to be approximately 25 billion francs in charge of the 1999 federal budget. The economic damage, with the abstraction of the commercial damage resulting from the lack of profit, can be estimated at 5 billion francs. The redemption measures amount to 12 to 15 billion and the destruction costs to 5 billion francs. All these amounts obviously do not take into account a loss of revenue of about 18 billion francs. If we add this sum to the planned amount of 25 billion, we arrive roughly at the figures quoted by the crisis manager, Mr. by Chaffart. It is also appropriate to provide for an information obligation on the part of the regions in order to ensure maximum transparency. To conclude, Mr. Willockx added that the rate of welding credits was 1% lower than the market rates, that the project is obviously linked to the Food Safety Bill and that the certification system will no longer be mandatory. In this regard, however, feed manufacturers will have to undergo PCB testing. The committee then, Mr. Speaker, Dear colleagues, heard several representatives of the sectors concerned who had requested to be heard to explain to us their specific problems. It was Mr. Devisch du Boerenbond, by Mr. Member of the Belgian Agricultural Alliance. Champagne of the UPA. Adrians of the Algemeen Boerensyndicaat, by Mr. Van Bosch of NCMV, by M. Bracke du VEVA, by Mr. Bossuyt, by Mr. For organic farmers and farmers. Van de Walle of the Vlaams Agrarisch Centrum. These hearings were followed by a brief exchange of views. Given the large number of amendments submitted during the discussion of the articles, please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to my written report. However, I would like to focus more specifically the attention of our colleagues on the amendments that have been adopted by the committee. In this case it is: - from amendment no. 38 to article 4 submitted by Mr. Van Aperen and other members of the majority parties aimed at abolishing interest bonification as a possible form of aid; - Amendment No. 39 to Article 6 of M. Van Aperen and his associates aimed at ensuring that undertakings that only partly work under contract can introduce a combined compensation file; - from Amendment No. 20 to Article 7 of Mrs. Brepoels providing that the beneficiary eventually waives the aid offered when he is fully aware of the amount of this aid; - from Amendment No. 37 to Article 7 of Mr. Brepoels Michel aiming to guarantee the same treatment for companies that have not yet brought action against the State to those that have already undertaken such a procedure; - Amendments No. 40 and 41 to Articles 10 and 11 of M. Van Aperen and co-workers concerning the Fund's feeding and certain deductibilities. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Willockx once again sent us, today, a few clarifications which I would like to tell you. I quote it: Mr. Rapporteur, following the review of the report, precipitated by the force of things, I would like to share with you two inaccuracies that have slipped into my remarks. First, in the passage Contribution de solida-rite, during the general discussion, page 19, it is erroneously stated that the feed sector should contribute in the amount of 120 million francs. This is, on the contrary, 400 million francs, which the sector has already promised 120 million. The remaining 280 million will have to be provided by the feed industry and their suppliers over a three-year period. This passage of the general discussion is also contradictory to what I said later in the report during the discussion of the articles. Second, on page 19, under the Assessment of Total Damage, it is stated that this amount actually has an impact on overall public spending and on the Stability Pact. This last statement concerns the implementation of the pact by the Belgian stability program. The provisions of this draft, as amended, were adopted by the committee by 10 votes against 4 and 3 abstentions. If you allow me to do so again, Mr. Speaker, and in order not to aggravate our debate, I would like to leave my role as a rapporteur now to express the full satisfaction of my group for this important project. As I recalled during the general discussion, we all know that it is eagerly awaited by an agricultural sector heavily affected by the dioxin crisis. I look forward to this effect of the speed but also of the seriousness and sense of responsibility that prevailed during our committee debates. Certainly, the present draft must serve as the legal basis for a whole series of rulings that will constitute the effective basis for future compensation. Many remaining questions, due to the very nature of the project and given the urgency, will only find a definitive solution in the upcoming negotiations with the European Commission. But already, the socialist group pledges that these will be able to bring to our farmers all the expected reassurance. In any case, we will be vigilantly monitoring the development of this delicate case and will be attentive to ensure that all affected companies can access the promised aid, in full legitimacy and social justice.

I welcome the Government Commissioner on the tribune. Mr. Yves Leterme has the word.

We also greet all the staff of the Minister. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mr. Chabot for his report, which was published on the basis of an excellent written representation of our rather complex debates, prepared by the services. These debates were quite technical and it is not obvious to make a good written representation of them every time. Our sincere thanks for this. I will not overlook the substantive debate in the Committee on Business. After all, that would add nothing to the discussion of this important bill in parliament. I will limit myself to a few political remarks and a couple of substantive elements with which we are completely dissatisfied. Collega Trees Pieters will later discuss a number of other important elements. Of course, we will explain our amendments, which we will continue to keep until you wipe them out again without much argument, during the article-by-article discussion. Here, we can address some of the shortcomings of this law. First and foremost, I would like to make three essential conclusions with political implications. After all, it is important that the stakeholders, farmers and ⁇ , know well what the people’s representation in Parliament thinks, says and does in connection with this matter. First of all, we cannot blame the Christian Democrats and the other opposition parties for not having contributed constructively to the processing of this bill. The bill was submitted on 29 October. We used the All Saints Holiday to study a number of things. We immediately started the debate in the committee. It was our intention to continue working and finish this. That is why we remained sitting, even when the majority was not in number. Only when the government itself asked for a week's delay, the debates were delayed. Therefore, the opposition parties cannot be blamed for carrying out delaying manoeuvres. We adopted this attitude because of our great concern for the individual farmers who were affected. In this way, a good legislation could be quickly adopted. We wanted to do that together with the majority, but we failed. My first observation is the positive attitude of the opposition. Mr. Minister, it is great that you acknowledge this. The second conclusion is demonstrated in the written report. In fact, I am referring to the total lack of meaningful contribution of the majority factions in the implementation of this draft. I will briefly refer to the groups. At the SP, the only explanation was that of the group leader who asked for clarification on a problem related to the re-calculation of prices in the milk sector. That was their only substantial contribution in the whole discussion in the Committee on Business. For the rest, nothing came from them. Apparently there is no interest in the SP at all for the small, weak farmer. As regards the Greens, we must have noted that the interventions of Mrs Gerkens and Mr Vanhoutte remained limited to a number of questions. These questions, however, sounded so blaming to the industry and the people involved that apparently hardly a response was expected. It was argued that it was the fault of the sector itself and everything was generalized. As far as the Greens are concerned, this is apparently the only perspective from which the serious damage to farmers was viewed. Mr. Chabot, I am sorry, but on a number of generalities after which you could deduce from the arguments of others at the end of the ride, the PS actually did not have any contribution. Per ⁇ this had to do with the fact that the problem is slightly sharper in one particular area than in the other. As for the PRL, there has been almost no contribution after a number of legal pivotal findings. I here, of course, abstraction from the in limine litis - at the end - with the signing of a number of amendments by Mr. Van Aperen that should come to help the government. There have been several interventions from Mr. Lano. But the spirit with which the VLD approached this bill was best interpreted at the moment when the hearings were closed. At one point Mr. Lano held a presentation in which he used the word janken. The presentations of representatives of the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector, who were invited to the hearing on Thursday morning only on Wednesday, were initiated with good courage, but the appreciation for this was described by Mr. Lano with the word janken. This is below all levels. For the transparency of our work, I would like to make this clear. There is apparently no interest in the majority in agriculture and related sectors, only in the votes of farmers. The government did not make a strong impression. Furthermore, she was not willing to change anything for the better of her text. When it became clear that this design showed some weaknesses, two tactical manoeuvres were used. First of all, there is a reference to possible objections from Europe. In the discussion of the committee, I referred to the late notification of the draft. This has hampered the serenity of the debate. When we were facing a difficulty, sometimes together with Mrs. Pieters or Mrs. Brepoels, we were replicated that Europe would not accept this, without this being supported by notes or jurisprudence. Mr. Minister, on 3 and especially 4 November, when we pointed out weaknesses and you and your employees, including Mr. Willockx, had to acknowledge that we had a point, you agreed to re-examine certain articles and to incorporate some amendments into the text in order thus to address – as stated in the report – some of our legitimate objections. Eventually, it turned out that almost nothing was changed. As far as we are concerned, because of the government there was no willingness to conduct this debate beyond party boundaries. Despite the prehistory and despite the severity of the problems in the sector, there was no willingness in your government to try together to find a good arrangement and make a good law. I had a sense of substitute shame at the moment that this lack of willingness became evident, especially in the face of the sectors concerned. It was not intended that morning to go into debate with the sectors, but after the hearing, during the afternoon meeting of the committee and also afterwards, it was in no way addressed the very often well-founded and prepared views and comments that came from the sectors. Worse yet, when Mr. Fournaux at some point interpreted a number of justified objections from the sector, your key associate came as the ultimate argument to reverse these remarks with a slang word on the props. At least I understood the title Calimero as such. When Mr. Fournaux presented a number of arguments that were difficult to refute, the government commissioner found it no better than to accuse Mr. Fournaux as the ultimate argument of being a Calimero. In the place of Mr. Fournaux, I would like to remind you of this, and to protest against it again and again. This indicates that the hearing was a measure for nothing. The conclusion of my three findings is that the whole parliamentary debate on this bill, due to the prejudice of the government and the total indifference to the majority, has actually been a measure for nothing. Of course, sympathy comes over when in the media it is pledged for a new relationship between parliament and government. Of course, sympathy comes when a number of young colleagues, for whom I have great respect, advocate for a new functioning for a parliament to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, this is only promoted in words, but in the discussion of the first major draft, we are already missing the opportunity to try together to do beyond all the boundaries for which we have been elected, namely to help solve the problems of the people and bring about good legislation. Finally, I have two more comments on the basis. In the discussion of the amendments and in the discourse of Mr. Pieters later on the day, other points will be discussed, but I will now limit myself to two. The key point is that by the formulation of Article 4 that will be apparently patiently approved here tomorrow – in the back of it may be held a carwats ready – and by rejecting any amendment, the explicit promise with which the farmers were seeded for months is undermined. I mean the full compensation, for 100%. Mr. Minister, I repeat your words of 30 August 1999 in the Boudewijnpark in Bruges: farmers should be able to continue working as if there had never been a dioxin crisis. In the law you actually say nothing, but you talk about the government can do something, that it has the ability to provide support, in whole or in part. You refuse to engage in the law for a 100% compensation. This cannot be underlined enough, it cannot be underlined enough that this has been crossing your promises for months. In fact, this is neither more nor less than popular deception. When I reminded you of your promise of a 100% subsidy and pointed out that there is a contradiction between Article 4 and the promises you made in Bruges, in Lokeren and elsewhere, Mr. Willockx used the image that you had wanted to outline your neck somewhat compensatory. I think this is a beautiful picture. I call on Parliament and the majority to want to shake their neck today and tomorrow. Against the government’s speech breaking, I hope that at least the People’s Representation will acknowledge its honour to the sector and will approve a 100% compensation, including by approving the amendment held. In this context, I would like to ask you a small question, Mr. Minister. At some point you answered a question from Mr. Ansoms to me. You then entered into a dispute regarding the deadline for submitting applications for obtaining overbridge credits under the Protocol of 25 August 1999 and that was very positive. Also, in your opinion, the deadline should be extended so that more farms could benefit from this measure. I hear that there is uncertainty in the sector, and that expression is applicable here. Although it has already been published in the newspaper, it is still uncertain whether the discussions with the banks, nor with the European Commission, have been successfully concluded and whether the deadline of 1 December was effectively extended by a number of months. If so, the most pressing problems could be solved through overbridge loans. We would like to see, and I ask you in all openness, that you commit to this. I would like to close to the problem of the budget fund, which is created through this bill. The CVP group has never opposed the idea of a solidarity contribution, which would also be paid by the sector. We wish, as counterpart, full compensation and the correct application of the measures. The impression exists that the budget fund has become an ideological fetish, carried by party politics. During the discussion in the committee, the rapporteur pointed out that the budget fund is designed to allow the sector to compensate for the damage caused by the dioxin crisis, which is pushed on the back of the taxpayer. I would like to point out that the budget fund will be established with 1 billion francs, while the final compensation will amount to several billion. We also note that all sorts of statements have been made about this budget fund, which a colleague from our group has quoted outright. That sounded a bit hard then, but if we look at the corrections that the government commissioner calls for in his report, we know that we were at the right end. You said – this is also included in the bill – that the budget fund will be financed, among other things, by voluntary and mandatory contributions. For the voluntary contributions, it is intended to apply Article 104 of the Income Tax Code, which, among other things, allows donations for Doctors Without Borders to be deducted from the taxable income. How can this be translated in an Orthodox manner in accordance with the budgetary powers of the Parliament and the laws on the National Accounting? During the discussion in the committee Mr. Willockx said, I summarize it unnuanced here: I went around with the scale and after a first round I saw that there was not much in cases, with the exception made for 1 sector . Mr Willockx subsequently emphasized that he wanted to encourage people to make voluntary contributions with the threat against the background that if they would give up, they would be forced to make mandatory contributions, thereby eliminating tax deductibility. Here immediately arises the problem of the Parliament’s power to introduce new taxes. Mr. Willockx then stated that he would get the people across the bridge by making them commitments about the use of their contribution. The question here is whether such a contribution is voluntary. Mr Willockx thus proposes to require certain sectors to deposit budget funds. If one is not inclined to do so, then it will be swung with the promise to reserve 400 million francs in the 2000 budget through an adjustment sheet for a target determined by the sector, for example marketing. In this way it will be sought to meet the party-political agreements within the majority; in this way it will be sought to push the law through it. Colleague Tavernier, I see you concerned and listening attentively. Nevertheless, your main tricks in the past were the budgetary authority of the Parliament and the correct flow of cash flows to and from the government. We will return extensively to this budget fund in the coming months. In all clarity I say that we put great questions behind the orthodoxy of the drafted plans. We will make sure or try in every way to make sure – with this majority this becomes ⁇ difficult – that everything goes right. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, for us this is a legalisticly defective bill. I will return to this in the discussion of the amendments. Moreover, this bill contradicts the promises made to the sector. It is not a good design. Consequently, we will not approve it unless you are still in extreme repentance and accept our amendments.

The word is for mr. by Richard Fournaux.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to discuss the bill in three parts: 1. Consider three priorities; 2. There are five main issues that we want to draw the attention of the government once again. to highlight four contradictions between certain elements made public and the reality of the bill. The preliminary: like everyone else, I would like, on behalf of my group, to rejoice that this bill finally sees out and, like Mr. Leterme said it, confirming that we wanted to work essentially constructively. The minister and the dioxin commissioner present at the tribune can testify: in the committee, we have sometimes worked in such a way as to ensure the quorum so that the deadlines we had set for ourselves to study this bill in a few days can be kept. I want to insist on this element, it changes us from the history sometimes known in this parliament, here a few months ago. On behalf of my group, but also more personally, I regret that none of our amendments were adopted. This is quite strange especially since some of them are compatible with the statements of the Minister or some of his colleagues. I think in particular of the amendment on the principle of total compensation. Mr. Minister, I confirm you that we wanted to reintroduce in plenary session, for the principle, an amendment that dealt with this subject. I was able to discover in the press in the meantime that, again, you confirm your willingness to compensate or attempt to compensate 100% companies victims of dioxin. So, our amendment submitted to the committee and resubmitted today is in perfect accordance with your statements, those of Mr. The Prime Minister and Mr. Commissioner of the Government. We would therefore find it very intelligent and very constructive on the part of this homicide that supports the members of the opposition who submit amendments that are also compatible with the policy of the government. Mr. Minister, I will not tell you that if you do not follow me, it is too unfair; it would be to accredit the thesis that you and your commissioner have presented in a committee, a thesis that judged the members of the opposition of this committee. I would therefore summarize my three prerequisites: to rejoice that this project is achieved within the scheduled time, to insist on the positive collaboration of our opposition group and finally to regret that none of our amendments have been followed. I come to the five fundamental elements that my group would like to emphasize. First, I will mention the principle of aid limited to 80% or 100%. Fatally, the previous government had to provide for a series of emergency arrangements to help a sector or more generally companies that had suffered from this problem. It was therefore quite normal that, in an emergency arrangement, the amount of compensation was limited to 80% in relation to the damage caused by ⁇ , agricultural or other. We regretted and continue to regret that, as demanded by the whole sector, especially agriculture, we do not take advantage of the deposit of the bill to confirm the 100% compensation. I do not hide from you, Mr. Minister, that it is difficult for us to understand the dichotomy found between the public interventions of members of the government - a newspaper like statements announcing 100% compensation - and the text that does not contain any clear information about this. As Mr. Leterme said it well, one could eventually believe that this is an ideological subject. Some members of the majority, notably the SP and Ecolo-Agalev, disagreed with the principle of 100% compensation because some sort of responsibility of the sectors concerned would have been confirmed to the population. They prefer partial compensation rather than total compensation. Second element: at the beginning of the discussions, we were concerned about the problem of mixed enterprises. By reading the text, one could have thought that these companies would be prevented from introducing a compensation file, because of their mixed nature. We are pleased that you have accepted the amendment submitted by the colleagues of the majority. Third element: the coordination with the Regions. Unfortunately, it still seems to be a deficit. I found this again by reading the press which, a few days ago, published a given response to an interpellation of Mr. Happart concerning the Walloon Region. So far, we still do not have the certainty that all companies – and not just agricultural companies – that have been affected by the dioxin crisis, will be well compensated. In the committee and in our contacts with the relevant sector, we have often discussed the problem of first-processing companies. But the only answer we have received is that we should pay attention to the reaction of the European Commission because it would not accept that the federal parliament takes out these powers to decide to help ⁇ . But it must be noted that to date, the Walloon Region is still not able to indicate which companies victims of dioxin will not be assisted by the federal parliament, but could be by the Region. There is therefore clearly a problem of clarity on this subject and a lack of coordination with the Regions. The fourth element is the solidarity contribution. As much as we understand the fact that it was desirable for the sector to participate in the society’s effort to cover the expenses related to the dioxin crisis, as much we are surprised that your solutions for financing this damage are realised not only by the voluntary contribution, which we find praised, but also by the mandatory solidarity contribution. This would be due in the event that the contribution established on a voluntary basis would not bear its fruits. Furthermore, I am surprised to find that a bill of such importance can, on the one hand, explicitly provide, through several articles, for a solidarity contribution interpreted correctly by the Council of State as a tax, and, on the other hand, give rise to a doubt as to its entry into force. This is truly deceiving the Parliament, the public opinion and the sectors concerned. This is the Belgian tax tradition. Once you have been offered the opportunity to raise a tax, especially given what I have already mentioned in relation to some ideological conception of this law seen by your SP partners, Ecolo and Agalev, how can you resist their will to raise this solidarity contribution? We have repeatedly stated in a committee that for us, this solidarity contribution is inadmissible, primarily because it will cumulate with other forms of tax that the sector already pays. I recalled the contribution on food control, developed by the previous government and targeting all companies or ⁇ that manufacture, export, import, distribute, market food and which are already affected, today, by this form of tax. It is the same sector that, in one way or another, may have to contribute financially once again. In my opinion, it is possible to simply and clearly integrate the dioxin problem into the general problem of food control. Therefore, you will be paid twice the same people for virtually the same object. Secondly, both in the project and in the explanation of the reasons, we talk about the payment of this solidarity contribution. Of course, there is no mention of agricultural enterprises or the sector in general. We are talking about food chain companies. If one intends to include among them all the enterprises that manufacture, market, export, import, etc. The number of ⁇ and ⁇ that will have to pay this form of tax will be excessively large. In addition to the concerns about the application of this disguised tax, some companies may not be covered, as if a claim for compensation is introduced, they face a problem of competence between the region and the federal state. Under these conditions, therefore, it is to be feared that some companies victims of the dioxin crisis will have to pay this mandatory tax, while being - I repeat it - in the legal inability to introduce a claim for compensation. This leads to the absurdity of the system, in which companies could not benefit from any aid while they would be obliged to pay a solidarity contribution. This is the principle of non-deductibility. Likewise, Mr. Minister, we would find scandalous that companies in the sector that would naturally accept the principle of a voluntary contribution, can deduct these donations - or then, this is no longer called a donation - so we do not understand that the mandatory contribution, can not, itself, be deducted from the fiscal plane. If it was a tax, as the State Council says, one could understand your logic, which does not allow deductibility. But in this case, it must be acknowledged that this contribution is indeed a tax. Fifth, we sometimes wonder whether the will you often express publicly – and which is perfectly praiseworthy – to help the sector and relieve the affected companies, is really realised in the policy that is being conducted, more specifically in this bill. I will not return to the problem of the proportions of compensation, but rather to the principle of the guarantee of compensation for companies. You know, we had submitted an amendment that was written very simply. It was about changing a word in an article. We asked not to talk about companies that could be compensated, but about companies that should be compensated. The government has systematically rejected the principle that we wanted to defend from the quasi-moral obligation of parliament to assert to the affected sector: compensate you. We take the commitment. This sounds a bit false compared to the government’s statements that shouted loudly that it would be so. Regarding the aspect of the speed in the handling of the case, you, Mr. Minister, have repeatedly pointed out that the aim was to try to compensate certain persons during this year. You spoke several times about the month of December. I do not believe anything. Of course, we do not yet know all royal arrests, but we are used to working in such conditions. Furthermore, it appears, in the light of the law, that the compensation would not occur before the months of May and June 2000. It is therefore contradictory to the statements I mentioned a few moments ago and that there would be an immediate compensation. Here is the bottom. The third and last part of my speech is about contradictions. This will not be a technical discourse, but rather a political intervention. In a debate like this one cannot escape this dimension. Through the friendly caricatures made by the government commissioner and after what Mr. Leterme to this tribune, it gives the impression that the opposition parties, especially the PSC, weep a little about the fate of poor companies affected by this unfortunate dioxin crisis. Again, these are on the bedside of sick agriculture. Finally, we are described as demagogues who have forgotten certain fiscal realities and who have decided once and for all to shave for free and distribute the taxpayer’s money a little at the top. Mr. Minister, speaking like this or letting it sound like this is offending the work that some officials of the previous majority - in which some partners of the current majority were located - have done for our country. If we allow ourselves to express ourselves in this way today, it may be less to insist upon you on the obligation to correct the text as we would have wanted, than to insist on the important contradictions that exist between the discourses that were spoken before, during and immediately after the elections by some of your friends of the majority and which are still held today by some members of the government. The first contradiction, and be assured, there are only four, is what you call administrative simplification. There is even a Commissioner for the simplification of administrative fiction! What do you hear about this project? What about the information promised to the victims of the dioxin crisis today? Shouldn’t the administrative simplification start with good information to all companies affected by this crisis? The bill as presented confirms that federal aid will come after a whole series of other aid has been triggered or confirmed. And it is the farmer or the agricultural entrepreneur who will have to manage the entire dossier himself. I suppose you know what it can sometimes mean for a company to have to manage this type of file itself, especially in this way that, I insist, federal aid comes after the realisation of all other forms of aid. I also wonder how this principle can be made compatible with the speed of implementation of the bill. In this regard, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues parliamentarians and members of the government on what has been done. As I told you, Mr. Minister, that we would try to be constructive, I admit that it was the previous government that put in place the emergency aid. My view of this situation can therefore also be regarded as a criticism, ⁇ positive, of what has been undertaken in the past and which probably needs to be corrected. There is sometimes a tendency, in mechanisms of aid to enterprises, agricultural or other, to impose a whole series of conditions on the admissibility of the application of the enterprise. By analyzing these conditions, one eventually comes to believe that they are only addressed to companies perfectly in order on a whole series of plans, whether in terms of social contributions, tax contributions, etc. The perverse effect of this practice could be to help only companies that have fewer problems than others. It is during the preparation of the royal decrees that attention must be paid to this derivative. I draw your attention to this factor, Mr. Minister, which is likely to be a perverse effect of some sometimes a little too rigid provisions. I am not afraid to say that this was ⁇ the case with the emergency measures proposed by the previous government. Second contradiction – and I address here to my colleagues and friends of the PRL – it must be acknowledged that it is at least quite contradictory – the term seems to me weak – to find a kind of tax disguised in a bill aimed at helping an important sector of our economy that is experiencing excessively serious difficulties. The term but of the Council of State. If this is what you call the tax stop, I come to believe that it is no longer the return of the heart but the return of the taxative rage. You can react today, Mr. Michel, but I allow myself to remind you that in the commission, when we have repeatedly emphasized this contradiction, I have not heard the slightest reaction from you or from your friends. The third contradiction lies in the budgetary aspect of this matter. I have said this several times before, but I would like to emphasize this point here. We have had to undergo, no one can deny, an electoral campaign for the least difficult with the consequences we know. I remember some tracks, including from Ecolo friends – I’m sure it was the same thing in the north of the country and in Brussels with regard to Agalev – that announced the dramatic financial bleeding for the future of the Belgian state, the ruin of all the efforts of the government and the taxpayer for 15 years to correct the state finances, and this because of this famous dioxin crisis. Today, in terms of budgetary impact, we are talking about 15 to 25%. As well as Mr. Chabot said, when extrapolating, it is said that there will be budgetary consequences. I want well. But this distances us very far from what we dared to brand as threats on the back of the population during the election campaign. For us, it is almost overwhelming. When we combine this with the fact that we do not want to write in the law that we will compensate companies at 100%, when we combine this with the fact that we create a disguised tax, it is even more scary for us. Add to this that the government itself acknowledges that the preparation of the 2000 budget has not been so difficult. He says to himself: let us take advantage of the efforts made in the past few years by the population and the work of previous governments. In addition, we are now enjoying an economic embellishment. We do not understand the logic defended by this bill, which does not want to compensate as the government has pledged. To believe that, for some members of the rainbow coalition, it is not technical or substantive elements that justify this position, it is simply ideological arguments. The last contradiction: the urgency. Everyone says there is an urgent need to compensate. We were asked to work on this issue, including during the weekend in Toussaint. This did not stop me from worrying. It is quite paradoxical to have had to wait until the end of October, the date of submission of the project, to have to work urgently on a bill considered a framework law, or even the return of special powers. If the aim was to come up with such a simple law, why did it take so long for it to come to the agenda? If it was really urgent, why did it have to rely on the opposition to ensure the quorum of presence in committees in order to be able to meet the deadlines? Again, as far as the urgency is concerned, I have pointed out another contradiction. It is quite difficult for us to see some of your partners of the majority – I know that it was not your habit, Mr. Minister – sitting on the left of this homicide (Ecolo and Agalev), who denounced in this homicide and in other places the difficult laws that we had to adopt to accelerate in particular the entry of Belgium into the famous Monetary Union, do not hesitate today to approve what I call special powers. The only argument that we should act in this way in the context of difficult relations with Europe does not suit us, does not convince us. I am quite surprised that this kind of argument can now convince some partners of the majority. Mr. Minister, I would like to confirm that we wanted to work constructively on this project. We truly regret what happened. This is not specifically addressed to you because we are putting ourselves in your place. By reading your statements, we understand that you share many of our amendments. In the end, it is probably chained by your majority and especially by some of your partners, ⁇ a little weak and who panic with the idea of having to swallow some bottles like for example the aid to the agricultural sector or the help to the business, that you could not do what you wanted. As Mr. Mr. said. Leterme, maybe it is still time, in the hours to come, to correct the shot. I also address my VLD and PRL friends so that they avoid the irreparable being committed, especially by this disguised tax, and that it can be confirmed to the agricultural sector and to the companies affected by dioxin that there is a real will to compensate them, as you said in the press, at 100%.

Mr Arnold Van Aperen has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I was of the opinion that the committee worked constructively, that all amendments were completed and that certain amendments from the opposition were adopted. I can understand a certain disappointment of the opposition, but I regret that Mr. Leterme is actually minimizing such voluminous work, for which even Europe had to give its fiat. Although this is about 25 billion francs, it seems like nothing has been done. Is that your way of approaching, judging and condemning a law that has been worked on for weeks, months? We negotiated, weighed and tested. Mr. Leterme, you disappoint me and I cannot appreciate your approach, even late that you may be cold. Nevertheless, much, good and thoughtful work has been done and effort or time has been saved with a lot of attention to the affected farmers families and ⁇ . Actually, today we must be satisfied with what is ahead. Maybe tomorrow, after the vote, we can start finishing those 20 000 files, but first another 57 people need to be hired to perform this work and equipment. In my opinion, the minister, the commissioner and all staff deserve our appreciation rather than the criticism I have heard here. To Mr. Fournaux I would like to say – he has left the hemisphere – that excitement is bad for health. Moreover, it is not our fault that the previous government did not intervene earlier. Until then my word in advance. The dioxin crisis is under control these days. However, the economic consequences still apply to the affected companies. This will also be the case in the coming months. The federal government can mitigate these effects and work on the economic recovery of the affected ⁇ , but it cannot do so alone. There is also a role for the sub-area and the other actors in the field. Among these other actors, I include agricultural organizations. From them we may expect a muscular language, but also a sense of responsibility. After all, it is their role to defend their members and exclusively their interests. However, it may not be the intention of taking statements in which one wishes to profile himself more holy than the Pope, let alone taking official statements that are not in accordance with informal views. In particular, with regard to the solidarity contribution, they can either open their umbrella and completely transfer responsibility to others, or they can seek a responsible solution where each actor assumes at least a part of the responsibility. If I say part of responsibility, I mean that the solidarity contribution proposed by the government is already quite relative in comparison with the part that the government itself bears. Depending on the figures of the competent government commissioner, the amount of such a solidarity contribution will also be far from insurmountable for the individual payer. Of course, paying nothing, as certain parties want it, is even much more advantageous than a contribution, as now proposed, but I must say that I would have expected a little more solidarity from the opposition, or rather, from certain parties of the opposition.

Mr Jos Ansoms has the word.

Mr. President, can I ask about which opposition parties Mr. Van Aperen has it?

You have a healthy curiosity, Mr. Ansoms.

Colleague Ansoms, there are a few parties that may be able to deal with this case in order to be able to profile themselves through agricultural journals.

You talked about certain parties in the committee.

I think of CVP and PSC.

Then I have to justify you. You can read Mr Chabot’s report. In the article, which deals with the contribution, my group did not vote against. We have abstained because of how the contribution should be made, but we have not opposed any form of solidarity, not even from the sector. Rest assured of the votes. There are opposition parties that have rejected this article, but not our group.

We will wait to see what the newspapers will write and what information you will give them.

We are not here for the magazines.

The only newspaper we have here is the Belgian Staatsblad.

I take note of this, Mr. President. Colleague Ansoms, we will see what the future brings us and what will be told after my presentation in this hemisphere. The measures in question demonstrate that the Government, however, intends to act promptly on its ambition to compensate as fully as possible the small self-employed undertakings and the undertakings which have become victims of third parties through the price guarantee contract. With regard to the full compensation, the VLD faction stands behind the challenge of achieving this ambition optimally. In this regard, I can quote colleague Pierre Lano, who declared during committee discussions that a full compensation in the broadest sense of the word is an impossible assignment. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that one has never responded so quickly and efficiently to get a crisis under control as it is now. In the early stages of the crisis, the previous government had intended to compensate 60% of the damage suffered, while now it is intended to go to 100%, if justified, but in any case to 80% compensation. I have heard from some discussions and statements, although this is sometimes minimized. However, I understand that, as we previously experienced it as an opposition party, there are sometimes differences in opinion and interpretation. Collega Ansoms, Mr Leterme subsequently asked questions regarding overbridge loans. I know that negotiations are being held to obtain the extension of the terms of overbridge loans. They work on it. This government would rather see it realised yesterday than today. It can be said that in this area neither effort nor time is saved. A number of factors, such as personal suffering and anxiety, cannot be charged. We also know that. I repeat that it should be the ambition to compensate for the damage as fully as possible. However, this should not be interpreted in reverse, so that some can get better out of the crisis. Therefore, the government’s option to weld into a control mechanism and to verify that any cumulation of federal and regional support does not lead to overcompensation is a necessity. It is of fundamental importance that the federal and northern governments engage in adequate consultations, as also stated during the committee meeting, in order to coordinate their actions. Regarding compensation, I would like to make a few observations, first of all, on the terminology and the discussion that was held on this subject. In the committee there was quite a bit of shock over the sentence that the State can grant aid to companies. Some parties would have preferred the word will see inscribed in the law. Knowing that the European Commission must first give its fiat to the implementation of the proposed measures, the choice of the word is responsible. Furthermore, this term does not diminish the ambition of the law to effectively compensate for the damage. However, the government must still be given some room for manoeuvre in the concrete implementation of this law, which will undoubtedly take place in consultation with the relevant sectors. In addition, I would like to pay some attention to the integrated companies. Could it be intended to shave companies that operate according to the formula of integration over the same chest? A clear distinction between companies that have acted correctly and in good faith, on the one hand, and those that have acted less correctly, on the other, is urgently needed. It seems to us plausible that the first category is considered for some form of compensation. In this regard, we seem to play a role for the subregions. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, a quick resolution of the dioxin crisis is a conditio sine qua non. Therefore, we can understand the delegation that parliament must give to the government, despite the criticism. However, this can only be done on the condition that the government agrees to a permanent flow of information and follow-up in parliament, which we have been promised. The fact that the Minister already wants to make the implementing decisions available to us is a little seen but in all a very positive step. Finally, I would like to break a lance for the speed of handling and the effective payment of damages to the companies. Mr. Minister, you have stated that the first payments will be made by the end of the year. I would like to encourage you to make an additional effort so that this can be implemented effectively. I would like to ask you to consider a scheme in which certain companies would benefit from an advance scheme, or quickly become clear about the amount they will actually receive. Colleagues, many companies are in liquidity problems and are virtually bankrupt. Bridging loans are not always available, in the absence of sufficient or additional guarantees. Therefore, I make a call to act quickly. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, no law on damages will be perfect, not even this one, but the challenge and the ambition are there. Therefore, the VLD group will support this bill.

The floor is yielded to Ms. Muriel Gerkens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will speak here on behalf of Ecolo and Agalev since my colleague, Peter Vanhoutte, is held in the Dioxine Investigation Committee of which he is the rapporteur. This bill is, in fact, a reparative act and can therefore not be regarded as a tool for reforming the Belgian agricultural policy. Nevertheless, it is important that the measures taken following these events are consistent with the government’s political agenda, so that such events cannot be repeated. An act of repair must also be an ethical commitment. This means that he must make choices and not limit himself to repairing the consequences of an accident that is not entirely due to chance. The type of agriculture that is encouraged in certain environments can only cause this kind of accident. Today we are facing the problem of dioxin. It was preceded by the Mad Cow. And other accidents are still likely to occur if certain measures are not taken in a radical way, one of the most urgent measures to clearly separate the waste chain from the feed chain. In reality, this bill satisfies the EcoloAgalev group even though a series of measures still need to be specified through royal decrees. Why Why ? This project expresses the desire to cover 100% of the losses suffered as a result of the dioxin crisis, even though it must be known that this percentage will never be reached. Indeed, whatever one does, there is, as my predecessor told this tribune, a series of damages, losses that cannot be reimbursed. As a result, claiming that we will reimburse 100% of the losses suffered is a lie. It is much more honest to say that it is planned to reimburse in whole or in part depending on the reality of the damage. In our opinion, the measures envisaged in the project are likely to be accepted by Europe. This will avoid a series of turns and returns due to contradictory decisions sometimes taken by Belgium and Europe. This project also takes into account the responsibility of certain actors. Thus, it is provided that the aid will be granted only if it can be highlighted that there is no responsible or only after the intervention of the insurance companies or those who are responsible for the facts. The project still takes into account the factors that favor the occurrence of such accidents. And in our opinion, to say that it is independent companies, providing an interesting definition of these companies, who will benefit from the aid is for us a measure that will allow to grant the aid to those who have the least responsibility - some even have no one - in the emergence of this crisis. Finally, this project involves all actors, in particular through the solidarity contribution that is requested. It is true that the restriction of aid to independent enterprises and the introduction of a solidarity contribution has caused many reactions in commission from the PSC and the CVP. Some of them testified to a rather obvious evil will. In fact, it appeared that these mandatory contributions would be only from 1000 to 2000 francs per company. These contributions have a symbolic value. The principle of co-responsibility and therefore of solidarity is important. On the other hand, we have sometimes had the impression that some reactions, among others, were due to the fact that it was necessary to show his loyalty, his loyalty to certain sectors. I think here more specifically about the various attitudes or reactions of the CVP towards the more powerful corporate environments in the North of the country. Giving unlimited trust and support to an agriculture primarily based on the development of lobbying practices where livestock feed producers themselves become livestock retrievers constitutes an escape to the concern of respect for food quality and the environment: it is opening the door to market and power imperatives. In our sense, the practice of the integrated enterprise pushed to the extreme implies the requirements of fast production and the least expensive possible. In such conditions, how to maintain time control, how to maintain the necessary vigilance for quality criteria? For us, this is a favorable ground for accidents and malversations. It is true that at the time of the dioxin crisis, urgent measures had to be taken. It was then realized that the number of chickens to be destroyed was significantly higher than the number of chickens listed. This example becomes very logical from the moment when one refuses to play a role of responsible, controller, setting of quality criteria and modes of production. On the other hand, when reading the report of the Ministry of the Middle Class and Agriculture on the evolution of the agricultural and horticultural economy, while Flanders practice more this mode of business and agriculture, one can realize that food purchases account for 50% of the production costs of livestock production. However, this part of the cost is constantly decreasing. Such a finding can only worry us: how does it happen that a livestock feed is continuously declining? That said, the gap between the sum received by the producer and the final selling price of the animal to be consumed increases continuously. In fact, this continuous decrease in cost should worry us: ⁇ this food consists of elements ever cheaper or, why not, diluted with products for which the manufacturer is paid to incorporate them into its flour; this can occur especially in the case of collusion between the waste chain and the food chain. With regard to compensation, I would like to draw your attention to one point. It was about independent companies.

Yves Leterme has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, in respect, I let Mrs. Gerkens develop the first part of her speech. Mrs Gerkens, you made a number of statements with regard to our group and more specifically with regard to Mrs Pieters, Mr Ansoms and myself. I ask you to make it clear exactly what you accuse us of. You talked about lobbyists and you alluded to integrators.

I will simply repeat the facts that took place during the crisis. When, on your request to meet them, we have rec...

You fear that there is no confusion. Mr Yves Leterme has the word.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to immediately correct Mrs. Gerkens for this, appealing to the Government and to the members of the Commission, as witnesses – by asserting that it was the sectors that requested in writing the Chairman of the Commission and the Chairman of the Chamber to be heard.

That is right.

At the proposal of the Minister, the attention was – rightly – sought for a number of other sectors that had not asked the questions.

Mr. Leterme, I have, by the way, responded in that sense to others who had requested an audience a little late. I passed them the list and indicated the procedure.

It was a good thing to hear them. That’s what I’d say if you let me finish my sentence. When we recovered them, I was struck by the way these people presented themselves and whose representatives of the Boerenbond used arguments reaching back elements discussed the previous afternoon. Normally, all these people had been notified of their appointment in the course of the afternoon; so I found it curious that they had been able to prepare the debates and use the stained elements just the day before, between us. On the other hand, I think that the way a certain form of agriculture is encouraged can induce the dramatic events we have experienced. This is also a form of support. This is a kind of agriculture that you want to defend. We advocate another agriculture, a responsible agriculture. In relation to this compensation, I heard representatives of traditional agriculture declare that they were already intervening through health funds. So why should we continue to intervene? Why not use some of that money? But it is again a logic of repair applied, for example, in cases of swine fever, diseases. For us, it is important to adopt a logic of solidarity and prevention by proposing a voluntary or mandatory contribution.

Madam Mr. Leterme is very attached to your exhibition and wants to interrupt you. Yves Leterme has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I do this with the greater emphasis because Mrs. Gerkens’s argument is full of untruths. Mrs Gerkens, it is ⁇ regrettable that you blame the representative of the Belgian Boerenbond for intervening on Thursday morning, well informed about our work. Did you know that committee meetings are public? On Wednesday, a representative of the Belgian Boerenbond was present in the tribune. In doing so, this organization only made use of its democratic right; after all, it has the right to know what we do, what we say, and above all to look with great interest at the attitude and commitment of your group in this regard. What you just said, Mrs. Gerkens, will clearly be reflected in the acts and it is the right, including representatives of the Belgian Boerenbond, to see what you think about the farmers. Well, the content of your speech confirms once again that in the agricultural sector it is up to the Greens – apart from some general slogans – to point with a guilty finger to the organizations and to all family farms currently in penalty. Our mission is not limited to organizing taxes; we must above all work together to solve the problems of those involved.

by Mr. Leterme has had the pleasure of interrupting you, he will now stop, if he wants to. Mr. Hugo Coveliers has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Belgian Boerenbond sends another extra-representative to note everything.

Our meetings are public and may be attended by anyone who respects the Rules of this House. La parole est à Mme Muriel Gerkens.

The words guilt and responsibility should not be confused. As a consumer, I assume a share of responsibility for everything that happened. As such, we also participate in certain drifts: at some times we are interested in paying cheaper for a chicken without worrying about how it was produced. Some have more responsibilities than others, but it’s different when it comes to one’s or the other’s guilt. Guilt intervenes in a specific fact which is a deviation from a norm and it is not mine to judge it. As far as responsibility is concerned, I confirm my statements. I will conclude by saying that this project envisages a whole series of royal decrees that have yet to be finalised. When it comes to us, we tend to give our trust because the intentions seem clear to us. However, we will remain vigilant in the presentation. The Minister also confirmed that these arrests will be submitted to us before their publication. It is important that these orders clearly ensure that undertakings combining livestock food and livestock farming are clearly regarded as agricultural undertakings eligible for aid. We will also be vigilant on the board that will be responsible for managing the fund. Indeed, it is important that its composition, structure and mode of operation allow to respect what is in the project, protected from conflicts of interest. We will also be vigilant to ensure that the voluntary efforts of organic enterprises to self-control are also taken into account in enforcement measures.

Mr Koen Bultinck has the word.

Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago, I and three other colleagues spoke during a mini-debate on the fees to be paid in the context of the dioxin crisis. In an initial response to those interpellations, the Prime Minister responded rather crudely. He found it strange that four parliamentarians had so dared to question him at that moment about those fees. He then made himself strong that all uncertainties would be eliminated when discussing the draft law in the committee. Therefore, the expectations were high. At a first reading of the bill and during the discussion in the business committee, it quickly turned out that the high-tension expectations would not be fulfilled. In fact, we are proposed a kind of framework law in which a lot of matters must be settled by royal decree later. The government asks the parliament for a blanco cheque. In our view, the executive power is still given too much power to clarify some very vague general principles by royal decree. In a favorable mood in front of parliament, Minister Gabriels promised that he would come to parliament with any draft royal decree. However, we have not yet received a single text. Everyone will understand that the Flemish Bloc, from a healthy suspicion against any Belgian government, is not enthusiastic about such a law of full power. We are not going to give the government blanco cheques, not even in the dioxin file. So fundamentally we have problems with the fact that the government is asking us today to discuss a bill that is generally too vague. The uncertainty that I, together with other colleagues, accused three weeks ago already exists in large part today. If we take a more concrete approach to some aspects of the present draft law, the following comments are imperative. Regarding the filings of the damages, we note, on the one hand, and that is positive, that particular attention will be paid to the independent farms. They will initially be eligible. On the other hand, we also note that the order of the amounts of the fees has not yet been established. To our satisfaction, all colleagues from the opposition parties have joined the Flemish Bloc’s demand for full compensation during the committee discussions. Only Agalev, by the mouth of colleague Vanhoutte, spoke unambiguously as a member of a majority party for not paying 100% of the damages. Three weeks ago we held a plea for the full payment of damages. I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture once again that he also made this promise at the time. During the discussion of the bill in the committee, we had to conclude that, as he himself expressed it, he remains with his ambition to pay 100% of the fees. However, let us be clear. For us, ambition is a good thing, but it is not enough. The Vlaams Blok does not waive its original claim for full payment of damages. Only that is acceptable for us. Also in the case of the overbridge credits already agreed on 25 August between the government and the banking sector, there are still some comments to be made. First, after some insistence, during the discussions in the committee, we finally got a look at the rates for these credits. In the end, it turned out that these rates are 1% lower than the market rates. We can assume that the banking sector does not do charity, but really generous this gesture is not to be called. Basically, these overbridge loans offer only a temporary solution. The debt must be paid off sooner or later. Secondly, we notice the very strict requirements for the proofing of the decline in sales. It is not always easy for the persons concerned to provide such evidence. The financial demands are ⁇ heavy. The Protocol stipulates that a company must be intrinsically financially sound by 27 May 1999. The Flemish Bloc fears that these financial requirements for a lot of agricultural farms put the latte too high. Young farmers have often made huge investments and feel the water on their lips right now. In addition, the prices of some agricultural products have dropped sharply in recent months. The conditions for financial compensation are, in our opinion, so strict that it is best possible that the government will never have to resort to its national security. The companies that will resort to this remedy may not have financial problems and can easily repay the loans. The Flemish Blok fears that a lot of young farmers, who at this time can hardly prove that their farm is financially sound due to heavy investments, will not be able to resort to the overbridge credits. The dioxin fund remains unclear. It is said that part of the European support will flow to this fund. However, we note that the present draft provides for not only voluntary but also mandatory solidarity contributions. This means that Article 12 may impose a new type of tax. The hearings showed that the sectors concerned were not too enthusiastic about this proposal. The Flemish Bloc can understand that there is little animo among farmers for such a solidarity contribution. In particular, this would mean that the victim, the farmer, would have to recover again for the mistakes of other sectors. This may, in our opinion, not be the intention. The government commissioner informed the committee that the feed sector has already committed 120 of the requested 400 million francs. Asking for a contribution to the livestock feed sector seems quite logical to us. After all, everyone can conclude that this sector is co-responsible for the dioxin crisis. However, if one knows something about economic laws, then one knows that the livestock feed sector will account for this extra cost on the farmers. This means that farmers will have to pay for the additional costs of the feed sector. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, let it be clear that the Flemish Bloc does not see grades in forms of solidarity in dealing with the dioxin crisis. However, the great uncertainty about the dioxin fund is a thorn in our eye. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I use the discussion of the present bill to address the core of the problem. In my opinion, it makes little sense to continue fighting about legal hair cloveries. We must dare to draw political conclusions from the dioxin crisis. Although in the coming weeks, following the discussion of the draft law establishing a federal agency for the safety of the food chain, we will have plenty of opportunity to go deeper into the non-functioning of the Belgian public apparatus, I would like to resort to the discussion of this draft to address this problem. The dioxin crisis made it clear to even the smallest child that Belgium has not carried out any policy on food security and agriculture in recent years. The Flemish Block was not surprised at this. An efficient and fast policy cannot be achieved at the Belgian level. The dioxin crisis made this clear to everyone. The services that have to control the quality of our food did not work together but against each other. The food crisis is not only a matter of food security and public health but also a matter of political failure of a government apparatus that is unable to carry out effective controls on the ground. The Belgian policy on agriculture and public health has in the past tortured every imagination. There is no shortage of laws and royal decrees. They do not appear to be applicable or they are not complied with. Also the external audits of the inspection services regarding the quality of the meat product, conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers, once again exposed the pain points of the Belgian system for the control of the food chain. According to the old Belgian custom, all kinds of ministries and services are involved: Agriculture, Public Health and Economic Affairs. Likewise, according to local custom, there is little or no cooperation. Everyone does their thing, without delimiting responsibilities and without taking into account each other. Effective control on the ground can of course not be possible under these circumstances. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, in this sense it is clear to the Flemish Bloc that the dioxin crisis is in the first order a political crisis and only in the second order a crisis of public health. Therefore, we continue to point with an accusing finger towards the Belgian government. A major responsibility for this crisis lies with the government. Mr Gabriels, I can understand you. You personally do not assume any responsibility, but one should at least dare say that the Belgian system and the governments of the past are responsible for this. I know that, and this has already been shown in the discussions in the committee, we are not happy to hear this. The Vlaams Blok elected members do not sit here to get sympathy, on the contrary. We have the damn duty to accuse every day the poor functioning of the Belgian public apparatus. Minister Gabriels, during the committee discussions you had to admit that a more alert government might have been able to deal with the crisis better. This clearly proves that our political stance is not wrong. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, with this position, I ⁇ do not have the pretense today to definitively indicate responsibilities in the dioxin crisis. Let this be the task of the investigative committee dealing with the dioxin crisis. The Flemish Bloc will continue to cooperate constructively in the investigation committee, because of course we are honestly looking for the real responsible for this crisis. The dioxin crisis is also a political crisis for other reasons. First, through the slashing of the previous government led by Jean-Luc Dehaene, Minister of Agriculture Pinxten and Minister of Public Health Colla were clearly unable to get the signaled problems under control. The way in which the European institutions were informed very recently caused the foreign country to lose all confidence in the Belgian food products. Second, when it became clear to a number of people that the outbreaking dioxin crisis was no longer a matter of dying chickens and began to take on larger proportions, so when it became clear that it was not a million- but a billion-dollar affair, a number of people played the joker into politics. In this sense, however, it is worth noting that IVK official and insurance expert Destickere was paid by his insurance company for the report he prepared for then Minister Colla. As if he implicitly wanted to make it clear that he was proving a service to his insurance company by bringing out the dioxin crisis. Third, this food crisis became, of course, a political crisis at the moment that VLD member Destickere informed then VLD opposition leader Verhofstadt of the dioxin crisis. The question remains unanswered for the time being whether Destickere wanted to give his VLD friend Verhofstadt a push in the back in view of the upcoming elections. The fact is that within the dioxin commission there is growing doubt about the time when Mr Verhofstadt was informed by Destickere about the dioxin crisis. For all these reasons, the Flemish Bloc considers the dioxin crisis initially as a political crisis. Above all, that one does not do hypocrisy by pointing evil to the messenger who says right-to-right what he thinks he should say. For all these reasons, it is also not possible that the ordinary farmer of this history would be the victim. Therefore, the politics in this file must take responsibility and therefore also the Flemish Bloc takes a responsible attitude in this file. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in conclusion, I would like to make some clarity about the position of the Flemish Bloc with regard to the dioxin law in question. The Flemish Blok has always taken on the defense of the Flemish family agricultural enterprise. We have always done this out of our honest belief that Flanders should take care of the preservation of this sector. We never did this because some lobby, in this case for example the Boerenbond, would have given us a march order for this. In our political action we allow ourselves to be guided only by our consistent conviction. From the recent note of the Social and Economic Council of Flanders it is clear again that agriculture and the food industry are primarily Flemish sectors. The fact that agriculture itself plays a less important role does not mean that the related sectors and activities – initially the food industry – would no longer play an important role. The opposite is more true, especially in Flanders. With 62,400 employees in Flanders, the food industry is the most important industrial sector, for the chemical and automotive industries. In the Belgian context, Flemish figures account for 73% of employment in agriculture and 71% of employment in the food industry. Within Flemish employment, both activities together still account for 6.4% of employment compared to 4.7% in Wallonia. In terms of realised gross added value and exports, the figures are roughly the same. In addition, we note that the activities involved account for 11% of the total Flemish exports. These figures make agriculture and food industry especially Flemish sectors. As a result, problems in these sectors, such as now the dioxin crisis, can also have a greater impact in Flanders. This, of course, determines the attitude that the Flemish Bloc will take in this dossier. Mr. Minister, already three weeks ago I announced to you the attitude of the Flemish Bloc. In the response to the Prime Minister’s response to our interpellation, we then made clear that our attitude would be dual. On the one hand, we would be vigilant about the plans of the government and on the other hand we would be constructive. We also assume that we should not wait for the results of the dioxin investigation committee before concrete steps can be taken on the ground. We are also demanding a quick and full compensation for the severely affected agricultural sector. For us, it remains disturbing that so many concrete measures are still unclear and will be arranged by royal decree. For us, the current bill is going in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough. Therefore, I can also announce that the Flemish Bloc will abstain at the final vote on this bill.

Please note that there is a dressing room in this room. However, it is not in this hemisphere. Style is also important in life. The word is to M. by Charles Michel.

At the end of May 1999, the press revealed the existence of a significant contamination of the food chain. In June 1999, the decline in exports in the sectors concerned was very significant, as there was a decline of more than 20% in the agro-food sector and more than 40% in the case of living animals. The entire agro-food sector has been severely affected by this crisis. We have witnessed a sharp breakdown in the confidence of foreign markets towards our companies. Mr. Minister, it seems to me that this debate is not that of the responsibilities or possible culpabilities of either or the other intervener. That debate will have to take place: a parliamentary commission of inquiry will examine this problem and will forward to that assembly a number of recommendations. What is important here are the objective facts and the consequences of managing or not managing this crisis. What is also important is that the government has decided to make this matter an absolute priority because it was very important to restore the confidence that had been considerably shaken due to the poor management of this crisis. I will not mention here all the measures taken in the context of this crisis. They appear in an exhaustive manner in the exposition of the reasons of this law. However, it is important to emphasize that in this case, we are extremely dependent on European regulations and permits that must be given by Europe regarding a number of measures. In June and July, many difficulties occurred because the confidence of the European institutions in our government was shaken as a result of deficiencies in crisis management. Our country has endured the consequences. The current government has paid for the fact that this crisis was not taken over when it should have been.

Mr. Michel, shouldn’t the Minister of Foreign Affairs have intensified relations with the European Commission to resolve the problem and accelerate the procedures, instead of going to visit the European Commission?

The word is for mr. by Charles Michel.

I am not surprised by this kind of funny intervention. It should be noted that since July, the new government has demonstrated its difference from the previous government. You know very well, Mr. Fournaux – and the reports of European experts testify – that the way the Belgian government defended the case before the European Commission was quite deficient and catastrophic. If a number of difficulties arose in the weeks that followed, it is precisely because the men you supported did not assume their responsibilities at that time. And today, we still pay for the deficiencies of those you supported, Mr. Fournaux. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize for my part the coordinated way in which the government wanted to take this matter into its hands. The appointment of a government commissioner specifically responsible for this coordination, these relations with the European Commission was quite important. It is ⁇ this will, displayed in a very determined manner, that has allowed that very quickly, in the months that followed, one may be able to finally present to Parliament a text that constitutes a strong gesture, a gesture capable of restoring confidence. I would like to briefly address a number of points in this bill which I think is important to emphasize. First of all, this project, of course, constitutes the legal framework for providing aid measures to these companies. It also provides a legal framework for legitimating measures and initiatives that have been taken. I think of this protocol that was concluded in August with the Belgian Association of Banks. The second point I would like to emphasize is the establishment of this compensation fund. The PRL group welcomes that the orientation given is that of a compensation fund and not of a parastatals as mentioned. I see in the establishment of a compensation fund a desire for efficiency and flexibility. Furthermore, the possibility of entrusting payments to a specialized institution reflects a desire for flexibility and efficiency in managing the consequences of this crisis. by Mr. Fournaux and other speakers talked about the tax mechanism. Every tax is a form of solidarity. Yes, we have a political will. And yes, we take a political choice that is that of the solidarity of the sectors concerned. You may not like it. This is, in any case, a choice that has been displayed within this legislation. Another point also mentioned by various speakers concerns the compensation, which may not be total. Personally, I appreciate the frank and responsible approach of the Minister, who very serenely affirms his willingness to do the maximum and as much as possible. It was very clear. We will see, to the extent of the means, what will be possible to implement. In any case, the will is to repair the consequences of your crisis as much as possible. One or the other point can still be emphasized, because they express a responsible and reasonable attitude: the fact of having provided in this legislation that in exchange for compensation, a waiver of any action against the State is provided. It was important to think about this element. The issue of joint ventures has been discussed. The original text already provided for the possibility of compensating also mixed undertakings, i.e. undertakings that perform partial agricultural activities. This point has been clarified in full in an amendment. I will conclude by delighting the dynamic taking of this dossier, the speed and efficiency in managing it. The vote on this law will be an important step in restoring confidence at the level of the sectors concerned. It is known, in economic terms, to what extent the element of trust, which is a psychological element, is capital. It was important to make this strong gesture. I am pleased with the direction given in this bill. That is why my trust will be granted unreserved.

Mrs Frieda Brepoels has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank Mr. Chabot and all staff for presenting the report and for the accurate follow-up of the extensive discussion in the committee. I will not resume the discussion, but I would like to make a few comments, which have remained unchanged after the discussion. During the committee discussions, especially during the autumn holidays, I made a fair effort on behalf of the VU group to substantially review the draft law on aid measures in favour of farms actually affected by the dioxin crisis, on the one hand, the government’s promises and the sector’s expectations on the other. I have tried to add some points where necessary, but I have also processed the comments of the State Council. Given the complex situation created by the dioxin crisis, I have sought to understand the frequent, confusing and vague measures in this draft. Here and there, the government gave us a look at its real plans and then quickly returned to its original proposals. The Minister, and especially the Government Commissioner, have exhausted themselves to convince us of the good intentions of the government. This has so far failed because many promises related to access to draft royal decrees such as presented today have provided little clarification. However, the Minister had promised us texts that he said would determine our voting behavior. It makes a poor impression on me. I see only one decision that was approved. In addition, we had already received this during the discussion. There are only five decisions in preparation. One decision concerns the conditions for aid and the procedures. This is an important given. Two decisions exist in the form of a draft, the texts of which we did not receive today. These must be transferred to the Minister of Budget and to the Council of Ministers. I continue to emphasize that this is a mandate law, which has nothing to do with high urgency, nor with the limited time to work out solutions, but all with the fact that the government is not on the same line. There are still many conditions to be fulfilled before we learn anything. It is the task of parliament to clarify this because the government too often takes the place of the legislator. We have already said that roughly every article provides for an arrangement, in whole or in part, through a royal decree. I have already pointed out in the committee that this in itself does not have to be a problem if it falls within the normal regulatory authority of the King, even if it is made wider, but then surrounded by the traditional safeguards. For more than half of the royal decisions to be taken, this is clearly not the case, and I would therefore like to continue to make the necessary comments. Nevertheless, despite the question of urgent treatment, the Government had explicitly requested not to vote on the articles, so that before the final meeting a number of fundamental comments or amendments that were introduced in the discussion could be taken into account. In the end, they didn’t really come, and we actually have to address it with a few small adjustments or clarifications that were introduced through four majority amendments. I find that disappointing. This is a missed opportunity. Meanwhile, of course, it is still about the promised support measures for affected farms that have already been waiting with great tension since the summer and, above all, wait patiently. During the discussion in the committee, I have already said that the protocol with the banks was approved three months ago. At the moment, forty dossiers have been approved in the amount of approximately 80 million francs; 25 billion francs therefore appear to be far away. During the discussion, the Minister expressly requested and promised to postpone the deadline for submission, namely 1 December 1999. The consultation with the regions led to the actual approval of the draft on 22 October 1999, but the regions are still urged to discuss the implementing decisions as well. From your documents I have drawn up that you also wish to do so before the official issue. Therefore, not only I, but also the Council of State, urge to conclude a cooperation agreement, as provided for in the Special Act of 8 August 1980, with the regions. All legislative assemblies can, in turn, approve this. I am therefore proposing amendment no. 26 for approval. From the discussions we have understood that the Minister does not want to go beyond informal consultation. Then there is the communication of this draft to the European Commission. For us, it is clear that the government is taking a serious risk. The European Commission may still submit comments, which may require amendments to the draft. Meanwhile, we are approaching the end of the year with racial steps. Will the government still be able to fulfill its promise to make the first payments before Christmas? Will it be paid out at all and fully as the Minister has promised repeatedly in Article 4, allowing this in principle – before there is clarity about the size of the solidarity contribution? All damage files, including those already submitted, must be supplemented with a lot of evidence and a number of conditions must be determined by royal decree before an initial calculation of the suffered damage can be made. Will one determine, in a rather rudimentary manner, a flat-rate compensation that is then to be taken or to be left? The various implementing decisions also require European approval. The budget fund has yet to be launched and its structure, operation and management have yet to be regulated. The bill on the one-off loan, to be counted on the 1999 budget, has yet to be approved by Parliament. There is still a lot of work on the shelf. Finally, there is the mandatory solidarity contribution, ⁇ not insignificant. This has been discussed a lot, and sometimes in a rather demagogic way. The VU faction has no problem with the fact that it will not only be the taxpayer who will have to cough out these funds. The government wanted to provide this principle in this bill, but did not provide any data for accountability. Only gross amounts are mentioned, for example 10 to 15% of the total turnover. Can you tell us what the total amount to be funded will be? At the moment, no one can raise this amount, not even the government. Nevertheless, she mentions, in the words of the government commissioner, an amount of 1 billion francs. There will be no mandatory contribution if 1 billion francs are collected with voluntary contributions, which are then tax deductible. This was confirmed by equally many words during the discussion. To whom will the mandatory contribution be imposed in the worst case? Is it imposed on the sectors responsible for the crisis, on ⁇ polluting farms, on agricultural farms, on non-agricultural farms? If the government is serious, it submits a separate and solid draft law on this subject, where all criteria can be discussed. It seems like people are being prompted by threats to cross the bridge voluntarily enough. The power of the legislator is at stake here, and I therefore find it not appropriate to grant any authorisation to the government in the present case and at the present moment. For all of these reasons, I have returned some of my amendments in support of the critical comments I would like to make here in the plenary session. These points will be discussed further in the article-by-article discussion. Based on the results of this discussion, we will determine our voting behavior tomorrow.

Ms Trees Pieters has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as the latter on the list, it is a little easier to come up with concerns from colleagues. Collega Leterme has already responded to the concerns of Mrs. Gerkens. I would like to answer a few comments from Mr Van Aperen and Mr Michel. The majority still can’t afford to point out an accusing finger to the previous government that was thought to respond efficiently to the bomb that had exploded in three weeks. How, when and why the bomb exploded will be determined later. Three or four weeks later, too, was said to be inefficient work. I myself have repeatedly said that that government was obliged to work within a transitional structure with limited powers and I will not repeat that again. Nevertheless, it disturbs me that you — four months after you are in power and have everything to say — still refer to what the previous government would have done wrong. You blame the organizations – and Mr. Coveliers had to put another line behind it – that they report in their magazines about what has been said in the committee and at press conferences. Well, the Chairman has rightly noted that the dioxin committee’s meetings were all public, so that everyone could spread everything anywhere. You, by the way, have your own channels and you freely express your opinion. As for the budget fund, you point accusatively to the CVP. Article 10 in the report of the article-by-article discussion states that we abstained. The accusation against our party has been verified by colleague Ansoms and I would like to repeat it here. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to emphasize, in the first place, that the bill on measures in favour of farms affected by the dioxin crisis is the first bill to be submitted to the members of the Chamber after four months. We have had to find that it is vague and little closing and dependent on decisions to be made at other levels. I refer to the notification of Europe still to be approved, as well as to the final talks still to be conducted with the regions. In addition, it must be completed by no less than 13 royal decrees to be taken. In the committee, we correctly pointed out that this is a mandatory law. Like colleague Leterme, I emphasized that we have gone from a constructive setting and tried to amend the texts for uncertainties or for what was unacceptable for the sector. During the many hearings, we have heard this often. I want to make it clear that we both strongly sympathize with this sector. In West Flanders, where the crisis has hit the hardest, we have had repeated contacts with the highly affected companies. We want full compensation. These companies have already been heavily affected by other crises in recent years, and some have the water on their lips. We must enable them to continue their activities in a decent manner. We therefore wish that a full compensation be paid so that those companies, which have been severely affected by other crises in recent years and who themselves say the water is on their lips, would be able to continue their activities in a decent manner. The government, which initially and publicly claimed... Mr. Coveliers, you can’t let it go. Your government has been in power for four months. Do something, but do not grin constantly.

That’s my right and I’ve seen the CVP grey for 50 years.

You should not exaggerate, the CVP has only been in power for 40 years.

I don’t have to ask you how I can react.

No, you must not ask me, but I see it, for you are sitting before me and I look right into your face.

Mrs. Pieters, here, so far, only the words are included and not the facial expressions.

The government had initially and publicly stated that this bill had to be dealt with swiftly in order to be able to pay out as soon as possible, and preferably before the end of 1999. After a number of discussions in the committee, the Minister himself asked us to have time to further examine the proposed amendments and even after the article-by-article discussion with the vote to wait. He gave us, like the government commissioner, the impression of ending up with us in our questions. We would be informed during the weekend and will be summoned next Monday to discuss what could and what could not. An updated text will be discussed. But, none of that, we were sent with a clock in the pipe and we were polite asked – no matter how urgent this bill was – to wait four days with the vote. The liberal members of the majority, including Mr. Lano, were asked to withdraw his amendments. As compensation, other members of the majority were asked to submit smaller amendments that do nothing but remedy the difficulties we have proposed. Mr. Minister, for us there are four essential difficulties, namely the principle of full compensation, the definition of the agricultural business, the budget fund and the burden of proof on the part of the injured party. On these points, our group wanted to make corrections, but the government has failed to take into account our positively inspired comments and justified objections. We have not approved the draft in the committee. Today, after an ultimate attempt at this plenary session to clearly formulate the legitimate demands of so many affected, we will not approve this first bill of the Government of Verhofstadt, if the Government remains on its position. We believe that poor legal work was delivered and that, even with a crowd of employees and employees of employees, the government failed to formulate a solid answer to many questions for explanation. I give a few examples. First, we still guess what damage will eventually be reimbursed. Will it be the economic damage or the market damage? For which months will be reimbursed? For June and July, or also for the damage, suffered in the following months. What is meant in whole and in part? The uncertainty in Article 4, namely: covering damages , persists. I remember in this regard that the minister said that he has entered this into the law because he must be able to recover unlawful benefits. He thus means that the files already handled were drawn up incorrectly, i.e. with too high numbers. Secondly, a clear answer also remained in respect of Article 12, the composition of the budget fund. The uncertainty regarding the voluntary and mandatory contributions and the tax treatment of the contributions, to be introduced by the sector and by direct suppliers and customers of these companies, has remained. The whole has even become more diffuse. The Minister acknowledged during the committee discussions that with regard to Article 12, which stipulates that objectively determined categories of solidarity contributions will be requested, it will be very difficult to prove the guilt. These are his words. Third, this government and you, Mr. Minister, advocate for administrative simplification at every opportunity. It is stated in many words in your government agreement. However, you are unable to create a new law that is transparent, simple and clear to the consumer. As regards overbridge loans, there is widespread confusion in the sector. Because you said during the committee discussions that the payments would be made before the end of the year and you also indicated that the overbridge credits will be extended, the sector is no longer interested in these overbridge credits. Why would they still borrow from banks at an interest rate of 4% when you promise that they will be paid out before the end of the year? The confusion about this remains. The same applies to mixed companies. Although an amendment stating that mixed companies will also be able to be compensated was approved, we remain skeptical. We fear that in the royal decrees could be deviated from this. Mr. Minister, the promised synthesenota with the 13 royal decrees has come. We are satisfied with this. However, the content of those two sheets of paper could also be formed from the texts. The royal decrees you display in the synthesenota actually bring nothing new. The sector is facing a huge crisis. During the previous campaign you have been able to use it. You went to the farmers to tell them how badly the government did it and how well the next government would do it. We have agreed, even after what we heard in the hearings, including that everything was conditional, that the sector will no longer support this government draft. Mr. Minister, we look forward to what promises you will get the relevant sector over the bridge in the coming period. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we wanted to do something about it. The majority asked us to work constructively. In the first bill, we showed that we wanted to do this. We have requested and received hearings, though in a much broader framework than originally requested. Now, however, we come to the realization that almost nothing, after a few details, can be completed. Therefore, we have submitted our amendments again. If they are rejected again, we will not approve this bill.

Mr. Henk Verlinde has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, developing a long discourse, but saying the same thing five times, does not imply doing constructive work. It is not because a false statement is repeated many times by different speakers that it becomes incorrect. Since I can then join with the demonstrations of Mr. Van Aperen and Michel, I will limit my speech time and my intervention will be concise. I would like to make a small comment.

Yves Leterme has the floor.

Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Verlinde when he says that it ⁇ does not contribute to the debate to repeat the same thing every time. Therefore, we do not wish to repeat the discussions in the committee. Nevertheless, you will have to admit, Mr Verlinde, that nothing is said about the position of your group in the committee, nor does it contribute to the clarity of the debate. Colleagues, I invite you to read the report from the committee and you will find that, except for Mr Van der Maelen’s intervention on the price of milk and the price increase, the SP did not participate in the discussion. This is different than repeating the same thing.

Mr. Leterme, I took part in the discussion, because I responded to your statements and to those of Mr. Fournaux. Do you not remember that Mr. Fournaux later said that I reacted too emotionally? We have always pledged that the affected sectors would be compensated at 100%, but overcompensation should absolutely be avoided. Furthermore, the European Commission also expressly stipulates that no more than 100% of the damage may be compensated and that is of vital importance. After all, overcompensation leads to distortion of competition, which would ⁇ not benefit the sector. You have to admit that, Mr. Leterme. In addition, this would be a waste of tax money, which the Flemish Bloc continually alludes to. The directives of the European Commission very clearly stipulate that all forms of support from the federal government, the regions, the insurance companies and possibly from private sources must be cumulative and must not exceed 100%. Well, the explicit provision in the dioxin law that the government would reimburse 100% in all cases may, in our opinion, have a wrong effect. Indeed, among other things, insurance companies could rely on this law in order not to pay damages, although they are contractually obliged to do so in certain cases. In a publication of Actualitas – to which Ms. Brepoels also referred in the committee – the BVBO itself writes: Despite all those possible coverages, it has been shown that relatively little appeal has been made to the insurers. In other words, it is not conceivable that insurance companies or other parties, for convenience, shift their responsibility to pay damages to the government. Well, that would not be correct and would, above all, be a waste of tax money. Our statement is clear: the compensation is 100%, but this percentage should not be exceeded. It should be linked to the fact that the persons, companies and bodies who are required to pay damages should be reminded of their responsibility. In addition, the money must come from those who are responsible and who have contractual obligations, and it must go to those who need it. In order to have a good view of this, we advocate – by the mouth of Mr. Van der Maelen – for a central reporting point and for a possible reporting obligation, both under those who grant money and under those who receive money and in this context I think of federal and regional government aid, fees granted under insurance policies and damages due to contractual or non-contractual liability of third parties. The Minister was able to follow us. On behalf of the SP, I would like to emphasize that the SP has fully supported the bill in the committee and that it will also approve it in the plenary session.

The word is to the Minister.

Monsieur le président, chers collègues, vos voudrais d'abord féliciter M. Chabot for its excellent report, which perfectly reflects the discussions that have taken place and commission. The dioxin law is indeed the conclusion of this government’s approach to the dioxin crisis. I will no longer talk about the origin or the responsibilities in these. Other agencies will take that out. This dioxin law is important because it provides a legal basis for compensation for the economic damage caused by the dioxin crisis to farms, primarily in the animal sector. This is, as some speakers have emphasized, a framework law. The execution will take place with a set of royal decrees and practical rules for the payment. The economic damage will be paid, on the one hand, with loans from the federal government and, on the other hand, with funds from a fund. The dioxin law also provides for the establishment of a fund for compensation of farms affected by the dioxin crisis. The revenue of that fund, as is often stated in the committee, consists mainly of voluntary or imposed contributions from the enterprises in the food chain. The law also includes the necessary provisions to allow compensation for the destruction of animal products and the state guarantee for overbridge credits. Le Conseil d'Etat n'a formulé aucune objection de principe à l'égard du projet de loi qui fait l'objet des discussions. Regions are not opposed. The Council has recognised, as regards the compensation of agricultural farms and the purchase made in the context of the dioxine crisis, the competence of the federal authority for reasons of public health. The project was notified to the European Commission on 25 October 1999, without any rejection of its part being attendu. The same, the future arrests will be subject to the aforementioned instances and function of the necessity. The European Commission has accepted that the dioxin crisis is considered as an extraordinary event allowing compensation up to 100% in accordance with the European Treaty, in particular Article 87. The cost of the dioxin crisis is estimated at 25 billion francs for the federal government and this outside of the less tax revenues. During the discussion, three important discussion points were discussed. The first was the large number of decisions to make the Framework Act operational, the second was whether or not 100% reimbursement and finally the speed with which the files will be handled. The choice of a framework law with a number of implementing decisions allows to work quickly and flexibly. Several decisions are indeed needed, but it should be pointed out that only three decisions are needed to launch the payment system. These three concern mixed undertakings that may be eligible, the conditions to be met by the undertakings and the definition of economic independence. The version of the latter has already been approved in the Council of Ministers and made available to the members of the committee. My ambition is to compensate for agricultural damage as fully as possible, but within the limits permitted by the European Commission. In any case, we must ensure that the total compensation is not greater than the suffered damage. The remuneration eligible and charged for this may take the form of state aid in the form of cash, state guarantee expressed in subsidy equivalents, remuneration based on insurance policies and damages due to third-party liability. It will be chosen for a flat-rate scheme that can reduce the administrative formalities to a minimum. As Minister of Agriculture and the Middle East, I will ensure that these fees will be paid as soon as possible. We must be aware that the files will require a thorough and correct handling. I am, however, convinced that with the dedication of the necessary people and resources – also here I would like to emphasize that this part alone will cost more than 200 million – the payment will start very quickly. I think at the end of this year, at the beginning of next year. I will then answer some concrete questions that were asked today. Mr Leterme stated, among other things, that there is little listening readiness in relation to the sectors. On this I would like to replicate that we have repeatedly consulted with the sectors, including on the implementation of this law. Each week the cabinet services consult with the sectors on the evolution of the crisis. In addition, the agrofront of the four major organizations is kept informed and involved in the policy. As regards Mr. Leterme’s observation on the 100% compensation, I repeat what I have already said in the committee. The government can but should not pay 100% compensation. The present draft law does not contain provisions in this regard that are in conflict with this principle. Mr. Leterme, you want to compel this. However, the future will show that the procedure chosen by the government is the best way to grant maximum compensation to farmers.

Yves Leterme has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Minister proclaims his first falsehood. The first Royal Decree of the Synthesenota on the definition of mixed undertakings stipulates that, I quote, the conditions will stipulate that only companies whose damage exceeds a certain threshold will be taken into account. The threshold was set at 10%. This means that mixed farms that depend on livestock for less than 10% of their income will not be compensated. Mr. Minister, I call for clarity. You claim to pay the highest possible compensation, 100% as it can.

The Minister has the word.

Mr. Leterme, I draw your attention to the fact that the Government, at the request of a number of Commissioners, will interpret the concept of mixed companies as broadly as possible so that a solution can also be found for these companies. Before answering M. Fournaux, you commencerai par dire que j'ai beaucoup apprécié l'attitude constructive de tous les membres de la commission. You emphasize it once more. You deplore the rejection of these amendments. You have already explained me in this regard. We can compensate but we are not obliged to do it. C’est là que nos points de vue divergent. You have to repeat here that all during the discussion of this law, there has never been a question of a culpability whatever of the sector. Je l'ai fermement souligné en commission. I have established an interministerial consultation with the regions and, after several contacts, they have all approved this project of law. On a voluntary or mandatory basis, we have already discussed and commissioned. I consider that it is absolutely necessary to ask also in the sector of making a gesture. Si nous demandons 200 millions au secteur de l'agriculture, according to the calculations of M. Willockx, cela signifie seulement 1/125ème de l'aide totale accordée au secteur touché. I repeat that at 125 francs the government requires only 1 frank from the sector. It should not be said that the government wants to brand the sector. The European Agricultural Council has concluded that the actual crisis is over. However, this does not mean that the damage to the sector has already been corrected. The proposed bill will allow the government to come to the aid of the sector. We hope to be able to do this in the maximum way. To answer a question of Ms. Gerkens, we have already stressed that the participation of the sector is only a small part of this law. You have already this, it s'agit the 1/125th of the total aid. If one requests the company to be solidary with the farmers, their quota-part to them represents only 1/125th of the whole. Mr. Bultinck, the government does not ask for a blank check. The government has no doubt about its purpose. There will be 7 royal decrees and 1 ministerial decree. The royal decrees will be ⁇ short and will only guarantee the operationality of the legislation in question. You said that the government is responsible for the food crisis. You must not distort my words. I have said that a more alert government could have prevented some of the crisis. You should not argue that the government caused the crisis. You know very well where the mocking began. A more alert government could have reduced the damage to a minimum. You understand the souci expressed by M. Michel au sujet de la culpabilité. You already have this, it is not the guilt but rather the responsibility. M is Michel a souligné le fait que la Belgique avait oublié, pendant plus d'un mois, d'informer les responsables européens, ce qui nous a fait perdre une bonne partie de notre crédibilité. It has made us lose incredibly much credibility and time. Mrs Brepoels, your question on the decisions has already been answered. We have, of course, taken into account some adjustments. We have even taken over one of your amendments, an important amendment that stipulates that one must only give up any procedure if one knows exactly what one gets paid out. Mr Leterme asked whether the date of submission would be extended. With the banks, the agreement was reached that the period of submission will be extended until the end of November. We have repeatedly insisted on the sector, through the large organizations, that it could be resorted to bridging loans. Bridging credits are funds that are borrowed for a shorter period and on which you pay a maximum of 4% interest and at the final settlement of the file in the economic damage files only 1.97% is charged as a subsidy equivalent. This means that a sum of, for example, 100 000 francs as a subsidy equivalent is to be deducted by 2 000 francs and a sum of, for example, 1 million francs by 20 000 francs. Nothing more. I have therefore always urged from the very beginning to make proper use of it and not to delay it until the full calculation of the economic damage records had been made.

My question was put differently. I know what a bridge loan is. The industry has heard from you that the payment will follow before the end of the year. The sector calls for overbridge loans. I have put this point in the context of five points of confusion. The farmers tell me not to take on expensive overbridge loans if they get the promise to be paid out before the end of the year. That is the problem.

Mr. Peters, we are not talking about expensive overbridge loans. The interest rates are more than 1% lower than the usual interest rates. It can destroy the farmers. In addition, the settlement of what has been obtained as overbridge credit in the final files of compensation is very minimal if one would take this credit for two years, for example. It proves that one does not have to be afraid to take such a bridge loan.

Mr. Minister, you have always encouraged the sector to make use of it. The protocol with the banks does not yet have a legal basis before this bill is approved. However, you can understand that the sector is suspiciously facing this as long as there is no legal basis. Therefore, we should not expect mass requests.

Mrs. Brepoels, the number of applications evolves weekly. Last week there were 70 cases. Today, there are 132 records. The records are on average over 2 million, so in total it is about 266 million. We expect 1,500 files in total. I advise the industry to use it. The consequences and conditions are so minimal that for those who need it it can probably be a major overbridge. With an expected number of 1,500 files, we will ⁇ never reach the exhaustion of the expected total of 25 billion. You can hardly blame us for this. The possibilities exist at the lowest possible interest rate and with the least possible accounting for subsidy equivalent in the economic damage file. First, we immediately began to have Europe approve the measures already taken by the previous government. It cost blood, sweat and tears. At first, they did not want to know about any accommodation. That was at the end of July. We have then begun to pour this into concrete proposals to be able to use it immediately. Second, in the month of August, the government commissioner began negotiating with the banks to unleash the overbridge loans. In the end, he also succeeded. Third, once Europe had regained confidence in Belgium and the openness with which the policy was conducted, it was prepared to have Article 87 on exceptional circumstances applied. It was only from that moment that we could begin to draft such a bill. That is obvious. When it was done, we sent it to the State Council and asked for an urgent advice. We received the opinion of the State Council and processed it within a week and brought it to the Council of Ministers. A few days later, the bill was submitted to the House. Please tell me how this could happen faster. That is impossible, we have done everything we can to get the entire file around as quickly as possible. Additionally, I can tell you that on 23 November we will begin to appeal to the Permanent Veterinary Committee to also remove the pig and poultry sector from the mandatory certification measures. Meanwhile, we and the department have established the so-called Consumer System. On the one hand, this gives the industry a great responsibility to control the feeders themselves and, on the other hand, the department will continue to carry out 12 000 tests per year according to a statistically established schedule to ensure that especially the base is properly controlled. Of course, intermediate sectors will also be subject to controls. Based on the information we have already received from Europe, I think that on 23 November we will respond positively to our proposals. By the way, I heard the European Commissioner for Consumer Affairs declaring at the last Agriculture Council that Belgium is actually an example in addressing and handling this crisis. He hopes that Europe will follow the same standards as Belgium. In the course of December, he will also submit proposals to systematically subject the other countries of the European Union to the same control. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I find it difficult when I have to hear from certain sides that one considers that what is presently stated is not sufficient. Mrs. Pieters and Mr. Leterme, I inherited a file in which only one case was settled, namely a compensation of 60% for the poultry sector. The 80% for the pork sector consisted of recoverable advances that we converted into fees. If we now succeed in submitting a bill that allows even 100% compensation, then I find it wrong to hear such comments from those who were unable to give more than 60% for one sector. That is the reality.

Yves Leterme has the floor.

The latter is grotesque and does not decorate the minister. Mr. Minister, the debate is about the draft of your government, from your hand. Don’t understand that we have a problem in believing you. You tell the farmers at meetings where you try to win sympathy, that they can continue to work as if the dioxin crisis had never existed. Now when the act is to be attached to the word, the promises are turned into ambitions. At the time of the plenary hearing of your bill, it is stated in the synthesenota, the first royal decree to be quoted, that a number of mixed companies will receive zero franc compensation.

Leterme, you persist in the anger. I said that we will use the broadest possible interpretation for the mixed companies. In addition, we will do everything we can to make our ambition hard. I would point out that the budget was set at 25 billion, of which 5 billion for economic damages, without taking into account the cleaning of stocks, nor the costs of the destruction of the cattle, nor the steel names. This means a huge effort. There is a great solidarity from the ordinary citizen. This solidarity goes beyond anything that has ever been shown in the past. Two things should not be confused. In Brussels, a general malaise was signaled in connection with the low price of pork. This is a general European problem. A conjunctual European data should not be generalized to the dioxin crisis. In this context, the dioxin crisis had to be addressed. This is extra heavy and costs a lot of money. With this solidarity and with our ambition, we are armed to respond to those who have suffered harm. We will do everything we can to repair this damage as soon as possible.