Proposition 50K1363

Projet de loi modifiant la loi ordinaire du 16 juillet 1993 visant à achever la structure fédérale de l'Etat.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Hugo Coveliers

Submission date

July 17, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax regionalisation environmental protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN

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 ¶

Feb. 28, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Can we get an accurate reading of the report? Every word is clearly weighed and weighed.

Mr Borginon, I am pleased to report on the discussion in the committee of Mr Coveliers’ bill. We discussed this bill in the committee on 23 and 29 March of this year, or — I am mistaken — on 23 and 29 January of this year.

You know the famous verse in Latin: festina lente.

We discussed the bill on 23 and 29 January. Mr. Coveliers’s bill was signed in some extreme by Mr. Van Campenhout, who, of course, wanted to emphasize his attachment to this proposal. The applicant argued that the bill was intended to remove the legal uncertainty existing today for both the citizen and the administration of the taxes related to the application of the environmental tax on beverage packaging. Furthermore, it was intended to create a legal basis that should allow the Ministry of Finance to monitor the continuity of the services provided in that regard, in particular because the succession committee established by law of 16 July 1993 has in fact ceased to meet since 1998. In the general discussion, on the one hand, your reporter and, on the other hand, the Minister of Finance and also Mr. Leterme took the floor. This legislative proposal was "adjusted" in the entire issue of packaging waste and the environmental tax on that waste. It was emphasized that this fits into a new approach in which we actually evolve into a new system. Instead of the previously developed system of ecotaxs, we get a new system on the one hand, ecoboni and on the other, a packaging tax in which the follow-up committee, which has not met since several years, is removed from its powers. Their

The Ministry of Finance will exercise these powers. At the same time, of course, the question was raised about the current state of affairs in the file of the political agreement regarding the new system of ecoboni and packaging tax. This was explained by the Minister of Finance. He confirmed that there is an agreement within the government on the issue of ecofiscality, which has been sent to the State Council.

In addition, after a first summary opinion from the European Commission, a more substantive opinion was given. This opinion will also be forwarded to the State Council so that the draft can soon be discussed in the Council of Ministers and submitted to Parliament.

Mr Leterme noted in this regard that his concern was about the legal certainty of consumers and ⁇ . He also asked questions about the state of affairs in this case.

The Minister responded that the European Commission had decided that the procedure could be continued without waiting for the formal opinion of the Commission. In the meantime, this advice has arrived. The Minister also said that the European Commission had no fundamental criticism of the draft.

One point of discussion was whether or not to introduce a limit date. Mr. Leterme, your rapporteur has addressed this point and the committee, after consultation with the minister, has agreed that this was not desirable at the time.

In addition, there were also amendments submitted by Mr Leterme, who proposed to lower the VAT and excise duty rates on mineral waters and soda drinks. He referred to a bill that he had submitted at the beginning of this legislature together with the gentlemen Stefaan De Clerck and Dirk Pieters. The Minister responded that these proposals would be discussed during the discussion of the final draft law. At this time, however, it seemed to him somewhat premature to include this already in this transitional draft. The Minister also stated very clearly that it was intended to reduce the VAT rate from 21 to 6%.

Following this discussion, the various articles were adopted with 9 votes for and 1 abstinence. The amendments submitted by Mr Leterme were rejected. An amendment by Mr Coveliers, in order to improve the text, was adopted. The entire bill was unanimously adopted by all the members present at the final vote in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the reporter for the effort he has made to finally, though with some delay — I will be quick to recall that — deliver the report for which he was also appointed. I would like to emphasize that I disagree with the description of the reporter, colleague Tavernier, who reduced the eminent proposal of colleague Coveliers to — I try to quote him — a transitional bill. I find this denigrating, colleague Coveliers, and I would like to emphasize to you in full clarity and on behalf of my group, my party and my movement, who elected me, that I distance myself from this very denigrating comment of Mr. Tavernier. Their

Colleagues, the fundamental debate on the ecotox, the ecotox, the ecotox, we will be able to conduct within a few weeks or months, ⁇ even during this legislature, I can assume — I will return to that later. Hence I permitted myself to limit myself today to a few concerns and, later, to a few precise questions to the applicant. I will also submit proposals for amendments to what is anticipated.

Colleagues, this bill covers part of the whole of the guiding taxes, the indirect taxation, which aims to regulate the behavior of the people. The government agreement may also have there, I suppose, from the other ranks of the majority...

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is trying to distract my attention by swinging with coins. The Minister of Finance has thus yesterday created some animosity in this House, or at least in a number of floating parcels of this House. I ask the Minister of Finance not to distract my attention further with money, though it is almost referred to money. It is 22nd February, so it is still common. He tries to distract my attention or maybe buy me out.

That is better than burning it.

Mr. Speaker, I try not to let myself be distracted, but that is difficult when one swings with money and colleagues from my group try to interrupt me. At the time of the formation of the government, the government agreement included a passage concerning direct taxes on consumer behaviour, in particular ecofiscality, ecotaxes and ecotaxes. For some reason, the great unanimity around this, which apparently was the basis of the government agreement and also of the government declaration, was at certain times countered by problems, disagreements, differences in interpretation or technical difficulties. In any case, in the first half of the legislature, purple-green failed to address elements of ecofiscality in an orderly manner in accordance with the objectives contained in the government agreement. Therefore — a legal novum, although it has already happened in the 1990s — on 22 December 2000 in the Belgian Staatsblad appears a message saying: there is a law, but I, Minister of Finance, say to you, dear citizens and companies, we will not apply that law for the time being.

Tax legislation and the ius fisci, which dates back to the late Middle Ages, form an important part of the Parliament’s powers. The right to collect a tax is an essential element of the parliamentary function. On 22 December 2000, we found that, despite the touching unanimity and the good cooperation within the coalition, it appears to be unsuccessful to fulfill the promises made to the Greens. The Greens said after the publication of the report in the State Gazette that there was no problem. I note that in the past there was a murder and fire scream from the green group when something similar had to happen around ecofiscality, despite the fact that there was a preliminary bill at the time, while now there was only a political agreement, as Mr. Tavernier said earlier. At the end of 2000, it was no problem for the Greens, in any case, to say that there was no new eco-tax scheme and that it was transitioned to the agenda with the intention, however, to very soon, in the spring of 2001, a final text of a preliminary draft law, that the normal procedure would continue until the Parliament.

In the year 2001 we have witnessed all sorts of insinuations, threats, distortions of reality and words and suspicions from the Greens against the Minister of Finance. One even started by quoting from texts that, according to the then group leader of the Greens, were not notified to the European Commission or not forwarded to the State Council for further follow-up, as the agreement was noted in the Council of Ministers. The atmosphere related to the design surrounding this problem was apparently ruined. It was therefore not surprising to me that in the past few months the animosity about this dossier has increased within the purple-green majority — and then especially within the green group. Mr. Tavernier’s report will not be able to hide this. Because it is a bad habit and because it must be avoided in the future, I repeat that one from the Green group has not even taken the weight to use and abuse the position of reporter, in the person of Mr. Jef Tavernier. The abuse of confidence granted by the Committee on Finance and Budget to Mr. Tavernier to report on the committee’s work on Mr. Coveliers’ eminent proposal. Mr Tavernier has no reason to abuse this position to postpone the discussion in Parliament, not only to upset Mr Coveliers. The [...]

Mr Coveliers is more eminent than his proposal.

I ask you, Mr. Minister, to put aside the qualification of political and other merits of Mr. Coveliers here.

In any case, you are not there for health, Mr. Tavernier, to abuse your position as a reporter to thus make the debate here impossible. Apparently it is an expression of good understanding within the purple-green coalition. I am pertinently confident that the report was already completed and scheduled four or five weeks ago and was ready for the services of our secretariat. The report was, by the way, compiled by the eminent employees who always do an excellent job in the editing of reports. You abused your position to get out of the discussion here. You have attempted, in an idle hope, to extend the time for the examination of the bill until the preliminary draft law on the definitive eco-tax scheme was returned from the State Council.

The examination of Mr. Coveliers’ eminent bill had to be suspended until there was clarity, including political, about the global bill on the ecotox.

Colleagues, Mr. Coveliers will undoubtedly repeat it in his presentation, but the present bill is primarily aimed at creating legal certainty around the position of the Succession Committee. Note, it is not the first responsibility of the previous majority that the succession committee was not set up on time and did not function. It is also largely the responsibility of the current government. Okay, I will not extend this.

Mr. Speaker, two small comments. Since Mr. Leterme appears to have problems with dates and intervals, I have intentionally mentioned in my report that this was discussed on 22 and 29 January 2002. Between today and January 29 there are just four weeks, so nothing can be left behind for four to five weeks. A report is never ready before the end of the work. There was a week of vacation between. Furthermore, if a committee no longer meets and is no longer reassembled in 1998, does this not fall under the previous majority?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to open the debate with Mr. Tavernier on the follow-up committee, on whom the members should designate, where the submissions should come from. However, I see that Mr. Tavernier would rather close that debate. Let us agree that in the discussion of the draft law we are essentially engaged in the responsibilities, to the extent that this would make sense. After all, it is primarily the future that concerns us. In any case, the truth has its rights. It is a little too easy to point the finger on the previous majority in the succession committee, which, of course, has become a bit of a system for you, namely, the dismissal of your own responsibility. I hope that the Minister has not left us, because I am now coming to my questions. First you swing with money, now you are trying to attack in your back.

The Minister is listening to you.

To the Minister and colleagues, I have four questions or comments. The first question has to do with...

This is called monkey money in another language.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for some further explanation. The people who will be doing heuristic in 500 years and our debates will flourish, without image, will not understand why you are starting about monkey money now. Unless I may consider this as a personal fact, I would like to ask you to give a little more explanation now.

We have the same things in our hands, we got those of the same minister and we can do nothing about it.

This is often the case with this government. The first problem I want to address is that the Ecotaks Act has been amended several times. If you look at the successive amendments, you can see that the amendment of 7 March 1996 is important. It was another in the row, but as far as I know it was never notified to the European Commission. This is de facto a violation of what the treaty stipulates. In such cases, it is obvious that a notification is made to the European Commission. I admit, Mr. Tavernier, that this infringement dates from the previous legislature. In order to remedy this and regularise the situation, the previous government had decided to edit a royal decree coordinating the legal decisions on ecofiscality and to notify the European institutions.

According to my information, this happened on December 18, 1997. The problem is that the draft royal decree, which was notified to the European Commission, was never approved.

Mr. Minister, the documents indicate that you notified the European Commission in writing on 22 May 2000 that you will submit the draft royal decree to the King for approval after consultation in the Council of Ministers. However, I believe to know that the draft royal decree was never discussed in the Council of Ministers. However, the draft royal decree was sent to the Council of State fairly soon after the missive to the European Commission — on 31 July 2000.

Mr. Minister, how far is it now with the draft royal decree that you say was discussed in the Council of Ministers? This has not been discussed in the Council of Ministers. Has the State Council already given its opinion or is there still no opinion? It is true that the European Commission intended to initiate a procedure against the Belgian government for the delay in the ratification of the royal decree that was in question in 1997. What is the real purpose of this file? Infringement proceedings against our country are nothing. A second set of questions and concerns relates to the problem of the retroactive exemption granted to a number of beverage producers, including the introduction of a fictitious retroactive attachment to FOST Plus. We already talked about this on 3 July 2001 in the Committee on Finance and on 12 July 2001 in the plenary session. I asked a few questions about a Luiks company and the minister played an open card in his response. He said that he would allow against the law in a fictitious retroactive connection to FOST Plus in a number of companies to escape the normal decision making within the framework of the procedure for infringement of the ecotox legislation. I did not agree with the Minister on this.

Based on the eminent bill proposed by Mr. Coveliers, I have three questions about these facts of July 2001. I assume that by voting on Mr Coveliers’ bill, the legal basis for a number of taxes will disappear. I will explain what my doubts are about.

Assuming that the legal basis would disappear and that the file would be handled in the manner of speech, I have a few questions to ask.

Before submitting my questions, I would like to quote from the Acts of 12 July 2001, the date on which Mr. Tavernier, following the vote on the motion for resolution of my interpellation of 3 July 2001 in the Committee on Finance, said: "In addition, I note that the Minister in the Committee and subsequently undertook to compensate those companies who paid fines on the basis of the situation in 1996".

Mr. Minister, although it is sometimes difficult, I try to remain faithful to all attempts to remain among those who take Mr. Tavenier’s words fully seriously.

In the Acts of 12 July 2001 — ⁇ the improved version, Mr. Tavernier, because both in your capacity as rapporteur and speaker you receive documents that you can improve or modify; those documents were thus supposed to have been transmitted to you for correction — I read that you said, without being contradicted by the government: "In addition, I note that the minister in the committee and afterwards" — ⁇ in the walks or at the occasion of a personal interview — "engaged to compensate those companies who paid fines based on the situation in 1996".

With the implementation of the ecotox legislation sanctioned by criminal law, Mr. Tavernier can here only mean fines imposed after a criminal procedure. There can be no taxes; there are no taxes, but fines.

Are companies really reimbursed? Have you engaged in the committee, with respect to Mr. Tavernier, to repay fines based on the situation in 1996, namely the non-membering, the non-membering by a number of companies contra lege and the non-membering of FOST Plus? Due to non-payment of taxes, judgments are issued which impose fines on companies. In my dossier there are a few judgments as examples, relating to the period that applies.

Mr. Minister, I explicitly ask you whether your services actually refunded fines to companies who were sentenced to pay fines on the basis of the situation in 1996? If so, did this happen in cases in which the judge made a judgment?

In the affirmative case, a ⁇ pregnant problem occurs, since you are not entitled to commit such acts. In the case of denial there is also a problem because then the companies that were convicted and paid the fines were not compensated, but the other companies did.

For my second question, I must again quote the words of Mr. Tavernier from the second reading. I drink your words, colleague Tavernier. On 12 July 2001, in the voting statement on the motion to resolve the interpellation, held in the Committee on Finance of 3 July 2001, you say the following. The [...]

Mr. Minister, your non-verbal communication gives the impression that you do not care about the words of Mr. Tavernier. Their

I quote: "A general measure was adopted which one thirty companies benefit from for a very limited period, more specifically before 1996, when there was uncertainty about the application of the legislation in question."

As far as the citation of colleague Tavernier, eminent member of the majority, who is in power to stop an eminent bill of colleague Coveliers.

Mr Coveliers wishes to intervene.

You are provocative. Mr. Coveliers makes movements, but does not speak. Mr. Leterme, I do not want to chase you, but you are gradually approaching the maximum of your speech time.

Mr. Speaker, I have annoying questions.

There is also a regulation.

Mr. Minister, is it true that Mr. Tavernier was able to take note of a list of thirty companies, on the basis of which he approved the simple motion, as opposed to not signing the simple motion in the committee? Has this list been communicated to Mr. Tavernier? I dare assume yes, if I can believe the statements of Mr. Tavernier. Please share this list with the other members. I dare at least ask you — if the words of colleague Tavernier are correct — to deal with your swing of professional secrecy, which you regularly use in tax matters, a little more selectively. I have a final question on the debates that took place in July and the retroactive exemptions that were then implemented on the basis of an effective accession to FOST Plus. Mr. Minister, I refer to pending lawsuits, which are mainly related to companies active in the production of batteries. You have admitted in the commission that you have granted retroactive exemptions to beverage companies for the eco-tax duties, based on effective adherence to FOST Plus. Mr. Minister, why has this not occurred with regard to companies in the battery sector, which are not affiliated with B-BAT — an authorised body in the battery sector comparable to FOST Plus — and now claim before the courts that no retroactive exemption is granted to B-BAT. Their

For my preliminary last observation, I refer to Article 2 of the bill proposed by Mr Coveliers. Mr. Coveliers, I will try to summarize your bill, as regards that aspect. In article 373, §1 — I must check it — you propose to add to the epithheton for the colon the recycling rates "2000 and subsequent".

You say that 2000 was the last year for which recycling rates were dismissed. You propose adding "and next" so that the recycling rates predetermined for 2000 also apply for the following years and the exemption from ecotax would continue to apply and there would be legal certainty for the business sector.

I gave a problem with this. I have no problem approving your bill with its philosophy and its intention. Coveliers, you are an eminent lawyer. Their

As far as I know, data on recycling is not produced by the regions for this purpose. Therefore, the regions do not provide data on recycling. Then arises the problem of the good intentions of colleague Coveliers regarding the supplement "2000 and following", subject, however, to paragraph 5 of Article 373. It stipulates that if, on the basis of information produced by the regions, the recycling rate does not appear to be achieved, one must pay a certain tax, namely the ecotox tax.

Collega Coveliers, how is today the legal certainty provided to the companies, as you intended, being that they do not have to pay that ecotox tax in the absence of a legal basis? How can you make this hard by adding the words "and next" when you leave section 5 of article 373 unadapted? I personally believe that another text amendment or text supplementation should be made, in the sense expressed in the amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to do so, I am approving the amendment so that we will not have to spend more time on it later.

I suggest starting from the data of the Interregional Packaging Commission, which can produce this data. These data are not produced by the regions and will not be produced a fortiori anymore, in particular because the Special Financing Act provides that ecotaxes – unless I am mistaken – will again become a federal competence. Therefore, we propose to insert an article 2bis into the bill of colleague Coveliers. I am deeply convinced that if we do not do so, the bill we were yet willing to support in order to consider legal certainty, at least on that level, is a blow in the water — in the drinking water.

The amendment reads as follows: "In the absence of the communication of the regions on the aforementioned recycling rates for the year 2000" — and it is not there so far — "there is nevertheless exemption for the aforementioned calendar year, if from the information of the Packaging Committee — committee referred to in Article 22 of the Cooperation Agreement on the Prevention and Management of Packaging Waste, it appears that the recycling rate for household waste meets the minimum global percentages imposed in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Cooperation Agreement, percentages corresponding to those included in the Ecotac Act."

Colleague Coveliers, therefore, I ask you how you can make it hard that there is legal certainty. I don’t think it will come, unless we add that. If we do not do them — I see that colleague Taverniers glimpses — then it is my inner conviction that your well-intentioned bill, at least in this limited but important aspect, is a blow in the water. I have already heard echoes from the sector that it is also perceived there. Their

Therefore, I propose that this amendment be approved, which may mean that we will need to vote again next week. Then, however, we can speak of closing legal certainty. The current text is inadequate in this regard. I admit that the text also took away my approval, but after thorough investigation thereafter it turned out that it did not satisfy. Finally, Mr. Minister, I ask you if you can inform us about the status of timing and the exercise we are currently doing with regard to the global design. Has it already been returned by the State Council? When will it be submitted to the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have not been able to follow the discussions on this bill in the Committee on Finance. My speech will be limited to a number of concerns. I do not want to open the debate to the whole issue of ecofiscality. This issue is too important to be dealt with on a draft.

I will return to the present proposal. We are pleased that, on the one hand, there is legal certainty for the taxpayer and, on the other hand, clear guidelines for the administration. Both are late, too late. The proposal will enter into force with retroactive effect on 1 January 2001. I am less satisfied with the way it happens, ⁇ because some things will be pushed over the long run.

More than a year ago, the Council of Ministers decided to limit the transitional period as provided for in the Saint Michel Agreement to the year 2000, so that the new arrangement should have entered into force in 2001. That new scheme would introduce the ecoboni and the tax on disposable packaging.

From Mr. Tavernier’s report, I cannot determine whether he only provided a report of the discussions or also already explained the current state of affairs with regard to the new draft. He mentioned a number of elements that I cannot find in the report. I hope the Minister will explain the exact state of affairs.

About a month ago the discussion was held in the committee. I am convinced that the government has been working on the new draft since then. The Minister stated that the Council of Ministers could not approve the draft in January and referred it again to working groups because a number of government members had formulated comments. He added that the draft may also need to be adapted to the opinion of the European Commission. Has the Council of Ministers already approved a basic agreement on this subject? The draft has already been sent to the State Council for advice.

Within what period has the advice been requested? What exactly are the comments of the European Commission? Will these comments lead to fundamental changes to the design? What changes will be made and within what time will you submit the draft to the Chamber, Mr. Minister?

The comment I just made was mainly related to your decision in the committee following a question from the rapporteur on the determination of a possible end date of the transition period. However, I am concerned that you have responded to it in the familiar way, in particular that there can always be unforeseen circumstances that make it impossible to carry on with the design or make it impossible to approve quickly. This suggests that you do not have much confidence in the rapid implementation of a definitive design. Therefore, today I have submitted several amendments that should provide a solution to this issue.

Please allow me to explain my amendments. In both Article 2 and Article 3, I propose to reduce the transitional period to 2001 and 2002. Recycling conditions should be increased in the course of this year. Good results have been achieved in the previous years. Doing better should be the challenge. Therefore, I am convinced that I will surely get the support of the Greens, because they are expressly concerned about not allowing the transition period to run forever days. Furthermore, the environmental movement also urges this.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will receive very concrete information about the new proposals. I think he looks astonished. However, it is very important that Parliament, at a time when it agrees on a transitional period, has a concrete vision of what will be discussed in the Parliament in the future.

I will be very concise. I submitted a proposal based on the conclusion that the lawfully established Succession Committee had been absent for three years and would rather be abolished, quid that it may have done useful work in the past. Since the committee has not been meeting for three years, I think it is better — I repeat it — to abolish it and entrust the task to the one who has been performing it for three years, in particular the eminent Minister of Finance.

I now notice that our eminent colleague Leterme spreads all sorts of other points there, which is of course his right. In order to gain time, I think it is better to give the Minister of Finance the opportunity to answer all questions immediately, in order to avoid duplication of work.

Can I remind you that the proposal, which I have formulated in all modesty, was unanimously approved in the committee? Even colleague Leterme calls it an eminent proposal, which I am incredibly enthralled with. I assume that there will be no problem at the vote and that the Minister will answer a number of questions that actually have nothing to do with the proposal following the discussion of the proposal. I know nothing about it. The Minister will respond to this.

I would like to thank all my colleagues for their ⁇ praiseful words for that proposal. I hope this was not the last time.

The President, Mr. Coveliers have already given some indication. A bill was submitted to resolve problems that seemed obvious, to guarantee legal certainty, to grant functional competences to the Minister of Finance.

I would like to thank the author of the proposal, but also the members of the committee who adopted this text unanimously. I think it is time to put an end to a number of elements of legal uncertainty and I hope that this vote will enable us to conclude a procedure for the benefit of the state and the taxpayers that may be affected. This is the main background element.

So I have not much to add about the proposal, the debate took place in a committee and I have expressed myself on this subject. I repeat, it is time that legal certainty prevails over questions that may arise.

Furthermore, on the occasion of the consideration of a bill proposal, one can attempt to rethink the point on a whole series of debates. I would like to clarify, but, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me not to do it in detail. As the government has committed to it, I will have the opportunity to present a bill to parliament to, as I have said a few times, recycle ecotaxes into ecobonis or ecoreductions. At that time, all issues will have the opportunity to be discussed.

Mr. Leterme asked a few questions. I will first address the coordination of the Royal Decree.

Now we have a draft royal decree and an opinion from the State Council. The procedure is very formal. We have the choice between two options. Either we publish the royal decree, or we take some articles from the royal decree into our new draft. We can add two or three new articles to the law or publish the full coordination text of the royal decree. Their

This method was very important in order to obtain an opinion from the European Commission. The European Commission requires a coordination text — royal decree or law — before giving a formal opinion.

So we now have the opinion of the State Council and the first opinion of the European Commission. We are still waiting for an opinion from the State Council on our new bill. The Government has given the State Council a month to do so. After that month, we could get advice within three days. I hope that we will receive that opinion from the State Council on that new draft at the beginning of March 2002, i.e. in the coming days.

Therefore, there is no problem with the coordination text: we have the opinion of the State Council and can choose to publish the Royal Decree ourselves or to include some of its articles in the new bill.

Regarding the FOST Plus procedure and the retroactive exemption and some statements made by Mr Tavernier, I can say the following. The questions of Mr. Tavernier are, in my opinion, not questions for the Minister of Finance, although I can say something about this problem.

We must provide a retroactive exemption for FOST Plus for 1996. For all companies, this is already behind. There is a procedure for tax penalties and the Minister of Finance is responsible. However, this does not apply to fines imposed by a court. I have not made a decision in this regard, but I am not currently aware of any disputes. The retroactive exemption for 1996 was thus possible, but I am not aware of disputes about fines versus my department.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the specific situations of taxpayers, as I have often said in committees and in plenary sessions, not only in the head of officers of my department but also in my head, the professional secret does not authorize us to provide further information on individual cases.

Regardless of the location of the company, the same rules apply under the same conditions. I specify that the retroactivity of affiliation to FOST Plus is not contrary to the law. The law says that you must be affiliated. Can a situation be regulated with retroactive effect or not? Nothing is specified and opinions may differ. I made a very clear decision and, so far, the Parliament has followed me on this subject, Mr. Leterme has recalled it himself. There is a procedure to show confidence in such decisions. The situation is therefore very clear and affiliation with retroactive effect has been confirmed.

I repeat, as far as possible refunds are concerned, the only thing that is possible is the abandonment of a number of tax fines by the Minister of Finance. I have had the opportunity to do so, along with my predecessor, over a year, in application of the tax legislation. As for judicial decisions, this is another problem.

I would not want to be longer. The text recycling ecotaxes is expected in the coming weeks by Parliament. Of course, we will return to all these discussions on this occasion. Tonight, however, I would like to say that what I think is fundamental is that the commission has been able to speak unanimously on a proposal that guarantees legal certainty and that will cover an exceptional fact. by Mr. Leterme recently referred to a notice published in the Moniteur belge in December 2000. This notice gave rise to a somewhat special procedure since 3 associations ⁇ concerned by the problem of the environment have introduced a referral procedure before the Brussels Court of First Instance to demand that taxpayers pay the tax despite all. This is quite exceptional. I'm doing research in the department's annals and it's very rare for taxpayers to enter legal proceedings in order to pay the tax. There is a very large litigation coming from taxpayers who do not wish to pay the tax in whole or in part. Despite this, the Department of Finance has gained cause of cause. The Brussels Court of First Instance ruled in reference that there was no need to give right to these requests. I have no news of any procedures at the bottom. But, I repeat, the proposal that should be voted today would put an end to any doubt on this subject. On a more economical level, I continue to repeat what I said since the end of 2000, when I published this notice in Moniteur: it would be grotesque to put into force articles of a legislation that provides for 15 Belgian francs of tax increase on drinks, sold for example in schools in amounts of 25 or 33 cl, or 37 cents of euros on the same containers. It would be absurd to impose a taxation of 20, 30, 40 or 50% depending on the price of the products, simply because the legislation contains a gap, i.e. a break in the continuity of texts.

I am pleased that the committee voted unanimously on this text. I hope that the House will go the same path, or in any case will vote for it with a very large majority because it is time to close this file that guarantees legal certainty and to open, in the very coming weeks, the background file that will implement the legislation on eco-reductions.

This is what I wanted to tell you. I intervene almost from the outside, since this is not the first time that a bill comes from the Finance Committee, with the unanimous support of the majority and the opposition, to result in a plenary session.

I have a few questions in the general discussion. If I think correctly, the Minister denies what Mr. Tavernier said. I quote from page 46 of the document P151: “On the basis of the information provided to me by the Minister” — says Mr Tavernier on 12 July 2001 — “on the one hand, a general measure has been taken for thirty companies and the Minister undertakes to reimburse fines retroactively”. The Minister has rightly made a distinction between tax and other fines. I will return to that later.

Mr. Minister, did you provide Mr. Tavernier with data or not? That is a very simple question. In the course of this, has Mr. Tavernier acquired knowledge of the thirty companies? He said that he found in the committee that there was insufficient clarity, which for him was a reason not to sign the simple motion. Based on the data that the minister has provided him, he says that it is okay for him now.

Finally, I will come to my last question in the general discussion. The Minister has also not responded to something that is crucial for a number of issues that are underway. What justifies the distinction between the retroactive exemption based on a fictitious connection for the year 1996 in the present case and the fact that this possibility is not opened to the battery sector? There are three precise questions.

First, did you provide Mr Tavernier with data on the basis of which he could say that it was not a single company in Liège but that there were thirty companies that could benefit from the measure? Does he know about those 30 companies?

Second, why can one do for the beverage sector what apparently cannot for the battery sector?

I think I have already answered this issue, including during last year’s debates. The same rules apply to all taxpayers. Regarding affiliation retroactivity, it is obvious that affiliation is really real, even though retroactivity is a legal fiction. This is an affiliation for a previous year. This affiliation has been valid for all companies that have applied for it. I obviously did not look at which companies would not have been affiliated during the year. Everyone who wanted it, did. by Mr. Tavernier may have highlighted a significant number of companies in this case, but, anyway, everyone has been treated in the same way. I can’t tell you if these companies were more or less the number of thirty. In any case, I have never given any indications on the series of companies involved.

As for differentiations, I asked my administration to treat all taxpayers exactly the same way, regardless of the sector. Wherever retroactive affiliation was possible, it was done. However, the conditions should be the same. Recycling is not the same for all products. I always try to understand the fairly complicated legislation that was put in place a few years ago. Sectors are sometimes treated differently depending on the recycling techniques used. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I am quite open to the fact that on the occasion of the examination of the project that will be submitted, my departments review the whole procedure, as long as it is understandable for everyone given the legislation in place. In the past, we have experienced a number of errors in ecotaxes. We will try to put order in this matter, but this is not always possible.

I repeat that the basic principle is that all taxpayers, in this matter as in other, are treated exactly the same way.

If a taxpayer has escaped the procedure, there are still procedures. I am not aware of any disputes on this subject. If a dispute should intervene, I would of course gladly answer. But I suggest that we discuss this again when the project will be discussed in the session.

Mr. Minister, I challenge you to deny that at some point you have answered to a written question of the politically absent colleague Jean-Pierre Viseur that retroactive joining could not be possible in the present case.

Second, as regards the problem of fines, you rightly make a distinction between tax fines and fines included in court decisions. The judgments that I have at my disposal and around which there may be more and more to be done in the coming weeks and months, include companies that have gone bankrupt. This bankruptcy was caused by fines imposed by judicial decisions. You have just confirmed that any company that calls you and that wishes to be exempted retroactively from the tax due to not being affiliated with FOST Plus, is welcome. There are companies that have gone bankrupt. The bankruptcy, which is detrimental to private persons, is caused by judicial decisions. So you have actually carried out a discrimination that we could have discussed in the discussion of the bill that we can expect in a very short time.

Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any ambiguity or insinuations from Mr. Leterme, I would like to point out that I have never requested or received individual data from the Minister, because it is not judgable that they are requested. It is a general principle and a general explanation and confirmation by the Minister. I followed that explanation.