Proposition 50K1159

Projet de loi confirmant les dispositions relatives aux cotisations obligatoires de l'arrêté royal du 15 octobre 2000 relatif aux cotisations obligatoires et contributions volontaires dues par le secteur de l'alimentation animale au Fonds pour l'indemnisation 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

March 19, 2001

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 LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.

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 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to refer to the written report, in which the work in the committee is described in detail. The draft law, by the way, means only a small adjustment that should enable everything to be carried out within the normal deadline.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Aperen refers to the written report and states that this is a small adjustment. However, we have taken a different opinion and I will explain why.

The draft law aims to confirm the provision concerning the mandatory contribution in the Royal Decree of 15 October 2000 concerning the voluntary and mandatory contribution due by the feed sector to the Dioxine Fund. Let me first outline the contents of the draft law. The Dioxine Fund established by the Dioxine Act can primarily be founded with voluntary and mandatory contributions. Article 12 authorizes the King to impose contributions on objectively determined categories of undertakings in the agricultural sector and direct and indirect suppliers and customers of such undertakings. These mandatory contributions are not deductible as professional costs, while the voluntary contributions are gifts.

Article 12 also provides for ratification within six months from the date of entry into force, i.e. no later than 20 April 2001. That means we are 27 days late today. The Royal Decree of 15 October 2000 on the Dioxin Fund, published on 20 October 2000, establishes an obligatory contribution of 6 francs per 1000 francs of turnover, or a voluntary contribution of 4 francs per 1000 francs of turnover. The mandatory contribution is due only by the companies that do not deposit voluntary contributions. We will not approve this ratification for the following reasons.

First, the royal decree has a very strange construction with a high newspeak content. In fact, it imposes a higher mandatory contribution insofar as no lower voluntary contribution is paid. The voluntary contribution is a contribution with a stick behind the door. Such arrangements perfectly illustrate the new communication method of the government of Verhofstadt.

Second, 500 million francs are expected in the dioxin fund, 200 million from farmers — which has gone smoothly — and 300 million from the feed sector. We still remember perfectly the discussions on the dioxin law in the House, where the then government, by the mouth of Mr. Willockx, declared that 1 billion francs should be added to the fund, of which 400 million from the food sector. Nothing of this has, however, been achieved. Other sectors — we remember very well that was referred to the automotive industry and to Sidmar — also remained out of shoot. Thus, those responsible for the high presence of PCBs and dioxins in the food chain remained completely out of control. Their lobby is powerful.

Third, the royal decree had to be ratified by 20 April 2001. Today is May 17, 2001. The text can still be submitted by the Senate. The royal decree, or at least the provisions which must be ratified by law, have been void since 20 April 2001 because they were not handled in time by parliament. This ratification is now retroactive. In the committee, an amendment was submitted to postpone the case by six months, and the majority endorsed it without hesitation. Not really a nice way of working!

The royal decree, the ratification of which is sought, is therefore at least questionable and due to several reasons: a high level of new-speak content, an arbitrary approach of the government and discrimination of the feed and agriculture sector against other sectors — which, as stated in the beginning, also bear responsibility in this issue — and the total negligence of the government to submit this draft to Parliament in time. We will reject this draft.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.