Proposition 50K1129

Projet de loi instaurant une cotisation unique à la charge du secteur pétrolier.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 2, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

petroleum quasi-fiscal charge social policy welfare

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

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

Oct. 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is good to recall the main information concerning this bill establishing a single contribution for the oil sector.

This bill establishing a single contribution for the oil sector, adopted by your Economy Committee, is the result of the Government’s decision to grant a single allowance to low-income persons at the approximation of the heating period 2000-2001, which was implemented by the Royal Decree of 20 September 2000.

The Council of Ministers of 22 September 2000 confirmed that the oil sector was to intervene for one billion francs in the cost of the measure.

The principle held in the bill is that the establishment of a single fee on the storage of petroleum products cannot be postponed on the price of sale to the final consumer. The imperative nature of the measure results from the failure of negotiations, with the representatives of the sector, regarding a voluntary contribution from the oil owners.

With the sector offering only 300 million francs, the government has decided to take a legislative initiative, this measure should not be renewed later.

Several hearings were held in the committee. First, we heard an official from the Energy Administration reporting the inappropriate nature of the current storage system called “strategic”. The second person hearing was a representative of the oil sector; the latter specified that the decision to grant aid to the most disadvantaged belonged exclusively to the responsibility of the State — which must therefore finance the cost of this measure from its own budget. The third person being heard was a official of the European Commission, who considered that there was no credible or convincing justification in the statement of reasons as to the relevance of the single contribution.

The discussions also focused on the creation of a solidarity fund, which was already the subject of discussion between the Cabinet of the Minister and the oil sector during the review of the bill in committee.

Each of the articles received individual unanimous vote, while the entire text was adopted by eight votes and five abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I actually wanted to invite the press to continue listening to the comments we want to make regarding the draft law. We are convinced that the substitute shame is not yet over. However, the press banks are empty and the cameras are packed, which I regret.

Mrs. Pieters, I had yet to light the lights for the members of the Chamber.

So that we know what to say.

Colleagues, on 15 September 2000, three weeks before the municipal and provincial council elections, the federal government decided to grant a one-off allowance for fuel factories from 31 July to 31 December 2000. The allowance amounted to 5 francs per liter with a maximum of 1,000 liters and was only applicable to certain persons, in particular support recipients, low-income workers and persons with WIGW status. Their

At that moment we could not get rid of the impression that this was a pure electoral stunt carried by certain parties. The draft law was submitted on 2 March 2001. We then immediately requested in the committee hearings with the industry and other stakeholders in order to gain more knowledge of the agreements made on inventory management and the control thereof and to gain a better view of the market situation in the country. These hearings have produced a lot of interesting data. One thing was very soon clear, namely that this was a purely populist measure taken by Minister Vande Lanotte just before the elections. The oil industry was very clear. They felt blackmailed by the government because initially there was a subsidy of 250 million francs due to the oil sector. Later, the federal government unilaterally imposed a subsidy of 1 billion francs. The sector rightly judged that if the government wants to carry out a social policy, it must see that it costs itself. In particular, they consider that it is not possible to unilaterally set up an amount at the expense of the sector. The representative of the European Commission confirmed the poujadism of purple-green. This has already been said by the reporter. During the hearing, he concluded: "Dans l'exposé des motifs tel qu'il est rédigé, il n'y a pas de justification crédible et convaincante de la pertinence de la cotisation unique".

I think that is clear language. In addition, the sale of home combustion oil was not encouraged, contrary to what the government claimed. The companies operating in Belgium, mainly distribution companies, have not obtained additional margin as a result of the price increases. The profit margins of the Belgian companies are in any case limited because they are regulated by the program contract. The argument that the storage obligation was not met was not accepted by the industry. The European Commission, on behalf of Mrs. de Palacio, had to conclude that there was something wrong with the obligation to store only with regard to kerosene, i.e. only with regard to Sabena. Sabena requested immediately at the hearing to be waived from the obligation to participate in the one-off contribution, in particular due to the precarious situation of the company. Immediately, amendments were submitted by all Parties to provide for exceptions for companies that import or store petroleum products for their own use. We will discuss these amendments a little later in the article-by-article discussion.

Due to the higher prices of home fuel oil last year, the government has acquired no less than 6 billion Belgian francs in additional VAT revenues.

Last but not least, when we asked the competent minister for the final cost price, it turned out that the Minister of Budget could not initially give it. Only weeks later it turned out that the cost was much lower than estimated. On 29 May, the total cost price amounted to 1.055.307.442 Belgian francs. The note, which was handed over to us by the Minister of Budget after a lot of pressures, clarified that the operation had not yet been completed and that it would take until 30 June 2001 before all accounting statements would be in place. At present, we do not know of additional costs for the OCMWs. We only know of a cost price of 1.055.307.442 francs.

Last but not least, there has been a ⁇ peculiar discussion about the interventions of the government and the sector. The government communicated in terms of a cost of 2 billion francs. Everyone still sees the pictures of the Minister of Budget on television in front of them. Half of this cost would be borne by the government, while the other half would be borne by the sector. This is not only black on white in the government press release; the industry had also understood it. I quote from the hearing on 8 May: “...where the government has repeatedly stated that the sector must contribute half of the total cost. Per ⁇ this is why the cost of this social measure was not communicated to Parliament by Minister Vande Lanotte. Clearly to the irritation of Minister Picqué who was bored by his colleague’s non-collegial behavior.”

This greedy government now denies that it was intended to divide the costs of the social measure between the sector and the government. The Minister of Economic Affairs had to admit that the sector that 1 billion francs must pay in full, even though the government itself has earned more than 6 billion francs from the rising prices of fuel oil and even though the total cost according to the last ⁇ figures is just over 1 billion francs. The image of a reliable government is not served by it and the major foreign and domestic investors now know that the Belgian government is capable of anything.

The CD&V group has therefore concluded that this measure, as outlined in this draft law, is purely populist and deontologically irrelevant. This measure was taken three weeks before the municipal and provincial council elections. In addition, this measure imposes a one-off contribution to solve a seemingly one-off problem. In addition, we also note that ministers who repeatedly hit the media with this measure did not do so badly in the municipal council elections. Among them is Minister Vande Lanotte. We are currently facing a letter from the same Vande Lanotte and his colleague from the Flemish government, Landuyt, to the military of Sijsele. Landuyt was then returned to the Flemish Parliament. Until now, we have not heard in this Parliament the address of Minister Vande Lanotte. Later we will be faced with the same communication in connection with the prisons of Ieper and Ruiselede.

They will also receive a letter from Minister Vande Lanotte!

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the enthusiastic and supported speech of Mrs. Pieters, I just want to provide some supplementation. Today, for example, we have received a letter from Mr. Cortois, former mayor of Vilvoorde, former leader of the VLD group in the Chamber and current colleague from the VLD group. In that letter he says that people have obtained naturalization thanks to him. There could be more examples of this new political culture.

Mr. Leterme, I will address Mr. Cortois on this subject. I saw the letter. Mr. Cortois wrote on 24 July 2001, after we approved the law on naturalization here on 17 or 19 July 2001. No matter who in this Chamber, no matter what citizen, no matter what spectator can know when we have approved a feuilleton of naturalizations. I say that only because I received the letter right, nothing more than that.

We could add such matters. This is not really a service. It is not difficult as a mayor to do this, from a municipality like Vilvoorde. I am mistaken, he was no longer a mayor or ships. I just wanted to say that scoring and winning elections at that time were more important than creating good legislation. It was more important for purple-green and Vande Lanotte to realize this in the context of the elections. I want to go further and point out that campaigning at the expense of a private sector is scandalous, especially because we have to pass the law a year later, when no one in this country is still awake. It is good to repeat this and put the facts in line. Their

This bill only regulates the financing of a one-off situation, as if the problem could only occur once. There is no real, sustainable solution for the people. A structural solution is the only solution. Last year’s crisis in the oil markets was not an exceptional or one-off situation. As well as or better than we do, you know that oil prices are ⁇ rugged and depend on international markets and political situations. We advocate sustainable measures. I know you agree with us, but you must follow slave minister Vande Lanotte. A few weeks ago, by the way, it looked like this: the price rose again to fifteen or sixteen francs, and nothing says that tomorrow the price will not be pushed up again. We live in bizarre times and at this moment nothing is predictable. Therefore, the CD&Vfractie has submitted amendments to maintain its sustainable character through the establishment of a petroleum fund. This must be done under the same conditions as those that were included in the original bill, namely for people with low incomes. As for funding, I am. Each for half. Importantly, we believe that the sector’s contribution is completed, fixed in a royal decree and ratified by Parliament. These amendments were submitted after mature consultation and consider a lasting solution rather than a populist action by the government just before the elections. Now it turns out that it unilaterally drives the sector itself for a social measure; remember 1.55 billion francs. We advocate a structural approach that places everyone on their own responsibilities. I think I have understood that several members of the majority agreed with this view during the months-long discussion we have held. There are even those who have no longer been challenged and we know very well that this was because they no longer agreed with the bill as submitted by the majority.

We – as well as some members of the majority – felt uncomfortable with this bill.

The issue is now 13 months old. Let us take the opportunity today to work out a good and sustainable solution for our people. Let us be reasonable in that too.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we probably made a mistake when we talked about this single contribution: that of estimating that amount to half what would cost to pay aid to people with low incomes. The billion planned for this operation does not even represent half of the amount actually paid. by

When this project was presented to us, the references were different. The principle of granting aid to low-income persons was ⁇ ined but the criterion for raising a contribution to the oil sector was whether or not the storage obligation was met. It was on the basis of the stored quantities that this contribution was retained. by

It is true that the figures of the administration and those of representatives of the oil sector allowing to know whether there has been compliance with storage or not are different. There is no more solidarity among the representatives of the oil sector. They all stated that if stocks were not respected, it was because of kerosene, Sabena. In other circumstances, solidarity will ⁇ manifest more strongly. by

It is still that we pay 26 cents/liter for companies to store. If one is based on the quantities not stored, one reaches an amount equivalent to that which is requested from them, i.e. one billion. by

Of course, the industry would prefer that the targeted actors be those who pay. Unfortunately, the current storage system does not clearly identify the total amount reserved only for strategic storage since there is no distinction between strategic storage and traditional consumption.

In the face of this situation, it was considered interesting to establish a European storage structure, so that every company in each state is not required to comply with this obligation. I hope that this project will continue at European level, especially since there is also an injustice between the different oil producers and importers. Indeed, some have multinational companies and structures that allow them to store while others have to pay crazy sums to store their products.

This is the context. If we made the mistake of mentioning a sum of half less than the cost of aid, I think that the representatives of the oil sector who came to meet us also committed one, fundamental, in any case for us, ecologists: they showed a great cynicism. by

In the face of this fact, I wonder whether we can allow managers who generate enormous profits by causing damage to the environment, by supporting dictatorships in certain countries, and by putting people in horrendous living conditions in some countries where they exploit oil resources, without worrying about annoyances for which they do not consider themselves responsible.

Furthermore, their cynicism goes as far as to say that the state has obtained additional revenues thanks to the increase in oil products, revenues which they number to 6 billion. They say they have invested in Belgium for 153 billion. In my opinion, when companies of this kind invest, it is because they are some of the profits. by

We are ⁇ happy that a company invests in us.

But, at the same time, what they forget to say is that they generally benefit, in any case those belonging to multinational companies, from the benefits related to the coordination center, that is, the reduction of their taxation We therefore also give them gifts. by

Furthermore, they claim that it is not the distributors who make profits, but only the refineries. When one wants to know these profits they claim not to know it because they are entities in a vertical hierarchy and the accounts therefore do not mix. Nevertheless, between parent and subsidiary companies, they agree on different and advantageous services and prices.

I think this sector has benefited from a number of advantages. The additional tax revenues earned and the investments made in Belgium do not remove it at all from the moral obligation to participate in the aid for everyone to ensure its supplies of heating diesel.

They recognize the usefulness of setting up a social fund for the poorest, but again, they do not want to participate. It is the client, the only one who has to finance this fund. Unlike all other sectors that produce and supply energy, this sector does not show any solidarity with its customers and the population. by

This bill, in addition to the effective imposition of a contribution, was designed in such a way that consumption continues to be encouraged and in such a way that competition is respected.

Regarding competition, a report was requested regarding the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the program contract. It is true that price fixation has no influence and is not at the origin of this bill. Nevertheless, when one finds that, through the way prices are fixed, these pure commercials do not compete with each other in the distribution of rolling gasoline, one can frankly ask questions also about how honestly, commercially speaking, to manage a market and provide the best product at the best price to those who need it.

I am speaking on behalf of my group after making the report. The measure that this bill aims to impose on the oil sector has been qualified as exceptional by the Minister of Economy given the exceptional circumstances of the time which have been recalled by other interlocutors just recently and on which I will not delay.

The bill is even more precise. He speaks, and I think it is very important, of a single contribution. Who says single assumes that such a measure will not be repeated. In my view, this is of course, but it is necessary to clarify it and I really wish, Mr. Minister of Economy, to hear in your answers and in a very clear way, the unique character of this contribution.

The various hearings we held as part of the review of the bill allowed us to once again highlight some fundamental issues. The first is to know what it is about the reputed exceptional profits made by the oil industry. According to the European Commissioner for Competition, the profits were generated mainly at the production stage, i.e. outside Belgium. The argument that tends to justify the contribution imposed on the oil sector in exchange for those profits made in the producing countries is therefore, in our view, unfounded.

My second question is: what about Belgium’s compliance with the strategic storage obligation? According to the same official of the Energy Administration, the current storage system is completely inappropriate. Consequently, the information that such stocks would have been discharged by taking advantage of rising oil prices that are not based on any infringement findings should also be considered unfounded. by

The third question concerns the cost of oil products higher in Belgium than in neighboring countries. The response was given by the representatives of the sector. The number of distribution points is too large and investment costs must therefore be offset by higher distribution margins. This situation, which was already known in the banking sector, is not on the way to a regression. Unlike banks that reduce the number of agencies, we find that the number of service stations is increasing. Beyond the legislative exercise requested by the government, this bill will have a merit, that of publicly revealing certain functions related to the market of petroleum products. by

We count on you, Mr. Minister, to draw the lessons from these findings in order to rationalize the strategic storage regime. The rationalization could be done, for example, following the system of a central agency considered by the European Commission as the best due to the neutrality of its impact on the market.