Proposition 50K0583

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 30 juillet 1979 relative aux radiocommunications et la loi du 21 mars 1991 portant réforme de certaines entreprises publiques économiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 17, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive means of communication communications systems public sector postal service telecommunications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

May 25, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that Minister Daems is not present.

Minister Daems is currently in the Senate. He asked Ms. Durant to replace him.

Will she therefore replace him during the discussion of the draft law transposing the Radio Broadcasting Directive?

Indeed indeed . This bill was unanimously approved. It was agreed that Ms. Lalieux would present an oral report.

In my opinion, it would be interesting if the competent minister was present to create more clarity regarding the retroactive operation. In this regard, I think it is important to hear the government’s position. This Directive is being transposed too late. Normally, this conversion should have taken place as early as April 8. Meanwhile, the BIPT may have established violations of this legislation. It is very important to know what the legal status of these findings is.

This is a relevant question. Article 26 bepaalt clear dat this law in werking treedt met ingang van 8 april 2000. We will first hear the report of Mrs. Lalieux and see if the problem of the retroactivity of the enforcement of the law has been raised in commission.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Committee on Infrastructure, Communications and Public Enterprises has devoted three meetings to the examination of this project, for which the urgency was requested, namely the last 10, 17 and 23 May. The bill contains provisions aiming to translate two European directives into Belgian law. Directive 1999/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 concerning the conditions for the approval of telecommunication terminal devices and the mutual recognition of their conformity. The approval scheme shall be replaced by a manufacturer’s declaration procedure, by which the manufacturer asserts that the devices it places on the market comply with certain basic requirements, in particular safety requirements. The second directive of 23 June 1999 aims to impose in Belgian law the legal separation of an operator, which operates both a telecommunications network and a cable television network. This Directive aims to further stimulate competition in this rapidly evolving sector. Thirdly, the project incorporates provisions on universal service in the field of postal services, creating a compensation fund based on what already existed in the field of telecommunications. These provisions had already been the subject of a royal decree of 9 June 1999. The Council of State had, however, annulled that decree by considering that the establishment of a compensation fund to finance the universal service in the field of postal services was equivalent to taxing operators in some way. No tax can be imposed unless it is by law. Some members of the majority welcomed the government’s efforts to catch up with the delay in transcribing directives, even though, in this case, the 1991 Public Enterprises Act is used to do so, which may not be the most suitable tool for legislation that organizes competition between telecommunications operators. by Mr. Yves Leterme of the CVP group, several amendments of which were adopted unanimously, which also demonstrates a common willingness to work effectively and constructively in the committee, criticizes the Minister’s statements on transcription. In fact, Belgium is not the model student of Europe. The law shall enter into force after the date fixed by the directives. In addition, this member regrets that provisions relating to posts have been inserted into a law of inscription, of which nothing is stated in the statement of reasons. In the end, Mr. Leterme wants to make recognition of the idea of coregulation of the sector of Telecom operators in the texts, specifically charging the IBPT and not the justice to sanction offenses. The Minister of Telecommunications does not oppose, a priori, this idea, but specified that it would be the subject of a subsequent bill. Government amendments, most of the amendments of Mr. Leterme, all articles of the project as well as the project itself were adopted unanimously.

Dear colleagues, we would like to welcome the performance of Mrs. Lalieux, of whom this is the maidenspeech.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the reporter for her maiden speech, which she prepared in very difficult circumstances. The text was only discussed yesterday and then had to be summarized in a report. I am also grateful to the services and the Cabinet, who have worked hard or have had to work hard to make the text a coherent whole. I will give you a few concerns, to then briefly go into the content of the draft law. First, this is a very important bill. This is not evident from the attention paid to it during the work in the committee and ⁇ not even in the plenary session. This is a very important bill for at least two reasons. The first reason is that it concerns access to the market of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment. This is a sector with a growing billion-dollar turnover that affects virtually all consumers in our country. A second reason is that we actually introduce in the Telecommunications Public Companies Act through this law that operators who own both telecommunications infrastructure and cable infrastructure should in the future be divided into legally separate units. This means that operators such as Belgacom who would find themselves in this situation would have to legally split themselves. Fortunately, yesterday, an amendment from our hand was adopted to fix this. So a first important element is that this is a very important bill, but the attention to it because of the parliament is rather disappointing. Second, this case was poorly addressed by the government, or at least not properly addressed. This applies both in terms of procedure and in terms of form. The Minister of Telecommunications has announced in the course of other statements by the government that he would make Belgium the best pupil in the European class, more specifically the European telecom class. This is the first bill to be discussed, which was submitted on behalf of the government by Minister Daems of Telecommunications. However, there are significant shortcomings immediately. One of the first major shortcomings is that the transposition of the RNTTE equipment directive will be too late. Normally, this regulation had to enter into force in our country on 8 April 2000. In practice, this will happen with a lot of delay and this government is responsible for it. After all, the choice to be converted by a royal decree was her choice, but that was blocked by the Council of State in November/December. Since then, many weeks have passed before a draft law was finally submitted in early April 2000. A footnote here. This week we have been able to conclude that the European Commission has drawn up a current status on the evolution of the percentage of European directives not transposed in time. It showed that in the spring of 1998 we had a downturn of 7.1%. That downturn had almost halved in the spring of 1999 and was slightly more than 3%. Since then, the collection operation has stopped, and this despite rumbling statements, despite the appointment of a government commissioner who was specifically paid for it after the dioxin crisis, or who has at least been commissioned. It is important to emphasize this. There is a great contradiction between, on the one hand, the statements that we would make our country the best pupil of the European classroom and, on the other hand, the practice. Furthermore, Mr. Minister, it should be said that the texts you submitted – I have already told you in the committee, I have told you before in all openness and repeat it from the tribune – at least proved susceptible to a lot of improvement. I remember that at the beginning of the discussions at the end of April 2000 you emphasized with much applause that you asked for the urgency for this bill, but that at the end of the committee meeting you were actually happy to be able to ask for a postponement until a week later. The week after, we then left with the meeting of a working group and it eventually took place this week. Yesterday you had to ask that we would agree to a verbal report in order to be able to deal with it within a reasonable time. The fact that this conversion takes place so late is annoying to our work and to the prestige of the government. That prestige, as far as this leak is concerned, has a serious deceit. It is also very annoying for the market. This is a very important consumer market. Since April 8, there has been de facto legal uncertainty in our country. I asked you yesterday what will now happen to the findings that the BIPT makes in case of non-compliance with elements contained in these guidelines or in our legislation. These findings have been taking place since April 8. What is its legal status? Is or is there a retroactive effect of the provisions of this draft applicable to those cases? Yesterday you said this was not the case. I wonder if it is possible that a parliamentary report proposes a derogation from the law. This was rightly underlined by the President. There is an article in fine that deals with the entry into force, with the exception of three articles, with retroactive effect until 8 April. We found that there were some articles coming around the postal services, but that they were forgotten in the explanatory memory and that you, with regard to the emergency services, yesterday in extremis took the happy initiative to remove this article from your original design. First, this is about a very important matter. There is too little attention. Second, this is legistically half-work because the government itself says that, in terms of transposing European regulations, it wants to make our country the model learner in the European class. A third note is addressed to this Room. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I have the impression that our parliamentary procedure, the way our work is organized, is not well adapted to the high technical level of regulation concerning ICT. The Minister has rightly emphasized it during the course of the work and has taken a good initiative to eventually sit together in a working group. Often the Chamber lacks technical preparation to properly assess the effects of the present texts and amendments. In my opinion, we need to reflect on adapting our work to this type of legislative fields. The fact that there is little attention to this is in sharp contrast for most political groups with the statements made at elections, in all kinds of free tribunes, that the telecommunications sector and the information society are of crucial importance. The Minister has a lot of attention to this, but I have noted that in the committee, and probably later here in the plenary session, the other groups have not spoken a word about it. About this important bill, the majority of the groups did not say a word. This allows us to estimate the great statements about the importance of the information society, the great statements made by the representatives of those groups, whether or not at the time of the election, by their proper value. With regard to the parliamentary procedure, we may be able to make an exception to the inadaptation. I think the introduction of legislative notes is a good innovation. In addition to these three general comments, I would like to briefly address the content. I will not exaggerate the discussion in the committee, which has been excellently summarized by the reporter. As a CVP group, we are pleased to conclude that ten amendments from our group were unanimously accepted. It honors the government and more in particular the Minister of Telecommunications, Mr. Daems, that he has also made room for this. Other government members can take an example. Mr. Minister, I know that by saying this, I do not make you more popular within the government, but it is the truth and your merit. However, there are a number of points where our opinions remain clearly divergent. I am speaking in particular about the crucial point of market surveillance. With this bill, we will move from a priori control to a posteriori control in the market of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment. This means that products will come on our market without being previously checked by the BIPT for compliance with the regulations. Consequently, in order to protect the position of the consumer, it will be necessary to ensure that that protection remains equally strong. As regards the enforcement of the regulation, we believe that the bill contains a status quo. The prosecution of regulatory violations is still entrusted to justice. We believe that is not the right choice. Taking into account the evolution of the sector, there should be a transition to co-regulation and a rolling back of regulation. At least more emphasis should be placed on the smooth response to reality. Enforcement of regulations should be based on administrative fines, rather than references to the prosecutor’s office, which is no longer adapted to the evolution of the market and the sector. The fact that you in your draft permanently appeal to the prosecutor’s office to prosecute a number of violations is contrary to our view that we should end the overload of justice. Instead, we need to have confidence in business sectors. More emphasis should be placed on good enforcement from the BIPT. This should ensure that Justice is relieved of the burden of monitoring and enforcement of these regulations. We regret that you did not want to accept our amendment to Article 109quater of the Act of 1991 on Public Companies. However, we have also taken note of your commitment – we hope you will repeat it here in the plenary session – that although you do not accept this amendment at the moment, you are willing to incorporate the idea that is the basis of the amendment on Article 109quater in a subsequent program law. Taking into account your commitment and the fact that we have had the opportunity to improve this bill in a profound way through our amendment, the CVP group is prepared to approve your first bill.

This is a rather complicated legislation. Mr. Minister, I would like you to answer the questions of Mr. Leterme. I also have an additional question. The law would enter into force with retroactive effect on 8 April for some articles.

Your interpretation is correct, Mr. President. This problem is immediately out of the job. I will answer quite briefly because we have discussed this bill extensively in the committee. I will explain some elements of a general nature. First of all, I would like to admit that we are transposing this Directive with more than a month of delay. However, I have made a list of the directives which were late to transpose, but which have been updated in the meantime. It consists of ten different directives with a total of eleven provisions. If we approve this bill today, ten of those eleven provisions will be finally settled. I will list them for a moment. These are Directives 95/62, 97/33, 97/51, 90/388, 98/61, 90/388, 97/66, 99/64, 99/50 — the latter two are concerned by this draft law — and the Royal Decree of 10 January 1992 on broadcasting, which had to be ratified by law. The first digit represents the year in which the Directive was issued. There were two directives from 1990. Since we have now translated things through royal decrees or through a law – as in this case – ten of the eleven directives were handled. The eleventh directive concerns the regularization of special tariffs for the press, around which there was much to do, and which I wanted to settle through a royal decree, but this was not accepted by the Council of State. Nevertheless, this matter will soon be dealt with by the Chamber and it can therefore be assumed that the staff members of the department concerned have done their best. However, the deadline was exceeded by approximately one and a half months. The only change – though that does not affect the delay – is that I have indeed transposed this directive through a royal decree, but that the Council of State did not accept it and demanded the submission of a draft law. I am also grateful to all the members, both of the committee responsible and of this plenary session, for agreeing to limit the subject to an oral report, which allowed us to maintain the timing. Indeed, the treatment of the matter was delayed by a week, but the end point remained unchanged as everyone agreed to a verbal report. Mr. Speaker of the Committee, as regards the parliamentary procedure in the examination of these drafts, an attempt was made to distinguish between the technical and the political aspects, and in this we have been quite successful. Per ⁇ it would be appropriate to refine the affairs a little more, in consultation with the chairman of the Chamber, who is sensitive to deviations from the traditional method of handling bills. This, however, allowed us to maintain the required quick timing and to continue working on policy aspects. The application of the parliamentary procedure, which allows for a separate treatment, is very important; otherwise, there might have been hours of purely procedural work, such as voting, article-based discussions, examination of amendments, which is unproductive. In the committee report, many elements have already been discussed in detail, which I will not repeat here. However, I would like to say another word about the concept of regulation, self-regulation or co-regulation. In the committee, I made a commitment, in particular the famous amendment 109 quater, which was submitted in this regard and relates, among other things, to this leak, to deal with the program law that will be discussed before the summer break, of course, except for unpredictable events. The current position of Britain and Belgium on regulation in the telecommunications sector, goes to the co-regulation which is defined as the market to let the regulation develop itself. Where the market objectives are in conflict with the general interest or the specific interest of a public authority, it is transitioned to co-regulation which brings together operators, consumers and government in a triangle. I intend to amend this then effectively through a royal decree or possibly a law. I think that is the path that must be followed. That is why I made this commitment and why I remove the amendment from the package. In other words, this amendment was not accepted because I may add a few additional elements to it. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the work on the directives is almost completed. Of course, there are still a number of shuttles to be arranged, but from now on we will be able to focus more on new policy elements regarding third-generation GSMs and the bundling of the local loop in which context a market research is currently being carried out. These are especially important elements for the liberalization of the telecommunications market. And, on the edge of that, the translation of coregulation as a concept in legislation seems to me a good evolution. I am pleased that the draft law was unanimously approved in the committee; that, by the way, makes it immediately clear that everyone agrees on the direction to be followed in this matter, in particular the following of the European directives. This is also the direction the government, as well as the entire opposition, is taking in regards to the regulation of the telecommunications market. After all, the liberation of the market can only benefit the price and quality for the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the commitment to Article 109quater. I would like to make a comment. The Minister provided a list of non-transposed directives. He referred to the first two digit items in the reference of the directives. He stated that these figures relate to the year. A directive from, for example, 1995 does not necessarily have to be transposed a year later. You can read that in manual books on European law. The directive usually specifies the transposition deadline itself, which differs from directive to directive. A 1990 directive should not be automatically transposed in 1991, and that it has not yet been transposed does not have to be a shame.

This is obvious, Mr Leterme. I did this to test your alertness. This has now happened.