Proposition 50K1912

Projet de loi portant diverses dispositions fiscales en matière d'écotaxes et d'écoréductions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 8, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax environmental protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) abstained from voting.
• Jo Vandeurzen (CD&V) 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 ¶

Dec. 10, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, allow me to pay tribute in advance to those who owe it, in particular to the secretaries of the committee, who, as always, held the pen of that report, for which I thank you. I would offend their work if I simply read that report. Therefore, I will only give a verbal summary. For the rest, I refer to the written version.

The Committee for Finance and Budget received the draft law submitted shortly before the summer holiday containing fiscal provisions on the part of environmental taxes and ecobonuses. The discussion is divided into three parts: the introduction, the hearings and the discussion.

In July 2002, the draft, as mentioned, was already proposed by the Minister of Finance. He outlined it in the context of the law of 13 July 1993, which imposed an eco-tax of EUR 0.37 for beverage packaging and which provided for a transitional system that actually ended at the end of 2000. Without legislative changes, according to the minister, the prices of beverages would automatically double.

In addition, there were problems with the administrative application of the law, in particular with the figures of the exemption system.

The June 2002 law has already adapted the old legislation in a number of points, but it did not really concern a substantial renewal of the texts. The basic idea of the draft law is a combination of, on the one hand, general reductions of excise duty for all beverages and VAT reduction on non-alcoholic beverages and, on the other hand, the introduction of a packaging tax in the amount of 11.62 euros per hectoliter. Practically, the consumer would pay an 11 eurocent tax per environmentally damaging litre bottle he buys in the trade. That tax shall not apply to reuse systems, to milk packaging and to packaging in which a substantial part of raw materials is recycled.

The Committee on Finance held a series of hearings during the month of October 2002. The VBO, the Food Industry Federation, Fedis, the Water and Soft Drinks Industry, Tetrapack Belgium, the fruit soup sector, Stalupack, the independent food trade, the Bond Better Living Environment, Fost plus, the beer dealers, the brewers, the importers, the wine sector and Federauto were heard. The outcome of these hearings can be found in the report. This showed a wide range of criticisms, comments and also some positive sounds, of course depending on the importance of the sectors concerned.

In the general discussion, the criticism was formulated mainly by the CD&V group, at the mouth of Mr. Leterme. In his speech, he made an eighth commentary and asked a number of questions, which I will briefly cover here.

The speaker complained of legislative negligence. He also raised questions on the ratification of the coordination decision, the opinion of the Finance Inspectorate, the position of the government regarding complaints to the European Commission on this matter and the impact on the index figure. He noted that the new measures threaten Belgium’s leadership position on recycling and that the European Parliament is also taking a different direction on packaging.

Leterme submitted his eight points of criticism, which he considered important, to the draft. I covered them briefly.

First, the government is throwing the wheel completely in the direction of reuse. This will undermine the beverage sector.

Second, one chooses — says Mr. Leterme — in a dogmatic way to promote reusable packaging, without having a scientific basis for this.

Third, he doubts whether this design is desired by the consumer and whether it will adjust his behavior.

Fourth, he suspects the government of having budgetary rather than environmental goals with this draft.

Fifth, he considers that the differentiated tax system for packaging is outdated by recent European legislation.

Sixth, he believes that the impact of that packaging tax on border trade will be detrimental.

Seventh, it considers that the combination of green point, packaging tax and municipal and regional waste tax leads to a triple form of taxation.

Eighth, he considers this tax as unaccountable.

Ninth, he thinks that retail stores are stacked with storage problems.

Finally, Mr Leterme considers that milk vendors and dairy traders are placed in an impossible competitive position by providing for milk an exemption which is not bound by the type of packaging.

Mr Vanhoutte replied on behalf of the Greens group, among other things, that consumers are seeing an increasing interest in the return system. He also said that this tax is not intended at all to break down the recycling sector. Its objective is to promote the use of reusable materials and to limit recycling.

Still, according to Mr Vanhoutte, scientific studies on the life cycle do not show at all that recycling would be superior to reuse. This allows for policy decisions taking into account other elements that are important for the environment. Therefore, it was chosen for as long circuits as possible. Raw materials should be reused for as long as possible and only come out of the system when it can not otherwise. In such a long-term policy, according to Mr Vanhoutte, systems of reuse are to be preferred over recycling where raw materials already after one transformation definitively disappear from the cycle. In addition, colleague Vanhoutte responded to several other comments by Mr. Leterme.

Collega Goyvaerts had mainly comments on the concrete functioning of the exemption system, the problem of border trade, the compatibility with European legislation and the impact on the existing recycling system.

Your reporter talked about the principle of ecofiscality, the importance of the Royal Decree of Implementation and the discussion around preferring reuse versus recycling. He was critical of the approach of the beverage boxes for which, unfortunately, there was no political space to better regulate it.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Maingain, emphasized the difference between the environment of this legislation and the legislation of 1993. However, he has doubts about the compatibility with European regulations that impose bottling at the source of source and mineral waters.

The Minister of Finance overlooked the various comments submitted by Parliament. He also announced that the Royal Implementation Order is almost complete and that the eco-tax exemption is likely obtained for all materials of which at least 50% is recycled in the packaging itself. This does not apply to colored glass.

Finally, Mr Frédéric, on behalf of the PS group, submitted two questions relating to the entry into force of that royal decree. Amendments were submitted by the government and by Leterme, Pieters, Frédéric, Giet, Bacquelaine and van Weddingen. At the suggestion of the legislative services, some technical improvements were made. The entire amended draft was approved by nine votes against one against one abstentions. The written report was unanimously approved at a separate committee meeting.

Speaker, in anticipation of the presentations of our group both in the general discussion and in the article-by-article discussion of this eco-tax draft, the draft that introduces the tax-Reynders, we think that it is good to request, referring to Article 56 of our Rules of Procedure, that two amendments, the amendments 28 and 30, be submitted to the Council of State for advice. Their

I would like to briefly explain what it is about. It is in responsibility. On the one hand, it has to do with the ratification of royal decrees for which the law itself does not specify a deadline. It is an article of the draft law that has not been submitted to the Council of State and that is "shaken" in the draft. It is also about the introduction of a new article 36 which reveals what I would call the vicious circle that occurs if one delays the text of the law so much, also in relation to what should be done for the European Commission in this regard. We would like to see our understanding of the relevant article and the circular reasoning contained in the draft law submitted to the Council of State for advice.

Mr Leterme, you would like to ask the State Council’s opinion on amendment no. 28 on Article 31 and amendment no. 30 which intends to insert a new Article 36. The State Council will also review Article 1 that you know.

When applying our Rules of Procedure, I must first check whether this question is supported by 30 members. More than 30 members are right. The 30 members rise up.

The request is correctly supported.

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that you support our question since you also stood up.

I will now have to check with a count or 50 members ask for the advice of the State Council. Those who support Mr Leterme’s request to request the State Council’s opinion on the amendments I have just cited press the yes button. We are moving to the electronic counting. It is the process of electronic accounting. The proposal for consultation is supported by 51 members.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the discussion of the relevant articles will also be suspended? These articles are crucial to us.

Indeed, the discussion of your article 36 new and of number 31 is suspended.

Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly that the advice in case of extreme urgency was requested on three days, so that we could vote on it on Friday?

It is not in my hands.

I think your addition is important. Mr. Wauters, there are a number of other things that you can’t have under control to make your cow trade stand in your majority. The State Council is not guided by the statements of Mr. Wauters. I think the interpretation of the Chairman is correct: the amendments refer to the State Council and “qui vivra, verra,” the Chairman would say.

Mr. Leterme, you are the first speaker in the general discussion of the well-known bill on environmental taxes and ecobonuses.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing here is of course important because of its content but also because it is part of a cow trade. The only method to maintain purple-green for the coming hours and days is apparently linking different files. We learn through Mr. Van Peel that the Weapons Act, the Ecotax Act or the Reynders Tax Act, the Francorchamps Act and the Law on the Reform of the Corporate Tax are now actually part of a large cow trade, a giving and taking, where the uneven balance and the centralized forces within the coalition must be kept under control through mutual concessions.

In the Ecotax Act, those relating to the so-called recycled content have the share of recycled material that must be found in the non-reusable bottles. The Arms Act aims at easing the conditions for granting export licenses.

The Francorchamps Act will not be approved, but the colleagues from the Liège will be able to say that even though they have not caught Francorchamps — and Francorchamps would, by the way, only be temporarily saved — they have yet obtained a knotfall on FN-Herstal from the green faction, Ecolo-Agalev, and from colleague Van der Maelen.

As for the ecotax law — also important for the electoral district of Mr. Bacquelaine’s Liège, with Chaudfontaine, Spadel and other companies — one can say: the Greens can swing with an ecotax law, with a law on the Reynders tax, but ultimately it has become meaningless by weakening the condition on recycled content to 50% for a piece. Only, it will work market distortion, it will help nothing to the competitive position of the sector. I will return to that later. In any case, it will be a blow in the mineral water. Collega Vanhoutte spoke in the committee on the principle of the closed cycle. Well, Mr. Vanhoutte, in a negotiation.

Colleagues, in all banks I hear much more noise than the group leader here makes. Therefore, I would like to ask that these adverse sounds be dampened.

Mr. Speaker, as a compensatory measure within the framework of the compromise concluded here, I will raise my own vote a little.

In any case – you can see that also because of the lack of attention of the colleagues – what stands out here is seen by the Greens as a big trophy of green government participation, in addition to the nonsensical decision on nuclear power plants. Well, that green achievement has actually become meaningless. Unfortunately, there is hardly any interest in all banks.

I would therefore very strongly, on behalf of my group, which has carefully studied the draft law — together with colleague Pieters I have very explicitly participated in the debate — present a six or seven fundamental criticisms of that draft law.

A first important criticism is that for that design that may be approved by a majority — unfortunately for you not today, colleagues of the Green group, but one of the next days or weeks — here the wheel is going to turn in the direction of reuse. This will completely destroy the drinking industry in our country.

Colleagues, the law of 16 July 1993 provided for an exemption from the environmental tax for non-reusable packaging, provided that two conditions were met. The first condition was to ⁇ an increasing percentage of reuse, varying depending on the type of beverage, on the total volume of beverage placed on the market. That was the first condition.

The second condition is the achievement of a recycling rate for the non-reusable packaging that appears on the market. It is a separate percentage depending on the packaging, glass, plastic, metal or cardboard, but no definitive percentage of recycled content was pushed forward. The proof of this could be provided by joining an organization recognised by the Regions that would itself globally meet the conditions.

The law of 7 March 1996 modified the law of 6 July 1993 and provided Article 373 in a paragraph 4, which, in fact, contradicted paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article as outlined below. By law of 7 March 1996, the exemption from ecotax was introduced for reusable packaging under the same conditions as before and for other packaging, including single-use plastic bottle packaging, if for the different packaging materials increasing recycling targets — which were set until 2000 — would be achieved over time. The realization of rising rates of reuse in relation to the total volume of beverages offered on the market was therefore no longer necessary since the Act of 1996.

This legislative change — and I am now coming to the first point of criticism towards the industry or towards the consumer — makes the emphasis much more on recycling rather than on reuse. Nevertheless, through FOST Plus, which was established in 1994, recycling results were achieved in the field of beverage packaging, which placed Belgium among the leaders in the European Union and even worldwide. Last week, we read in the press that our country — the consumer population — is among the world’s top with a 92% recycling rate.

Although the proportion of non-recycled beverage packaging waste now represents only 1% of household waste going to final disposal, it is the beverage packaging that is affected by the eco-tax.

Although our country is the world record holder in recycling after having worked for seven or eight years to do so, after awareness, information and organization of the selective collection that ultimately only 1% of residual waste is destined for final disposal, that system is put on the slope.

Because the beverage packaging represents 2/3 of the flow of glass and PMD, they play a locomotive function in the whole of the recycling efforts. The heavier taxation of single-use beverage packaging immediately threatens collective collection, awareness and behavioral change in that area and selective collection through glass containers and PMD bags.

In our view, the exemption based on the recycled content cannot be preferred over the exemption based on achieved recycling rates, as it is less easily measured and verified. Moreover, the recycled content leads to discrimination. In fact, according to a draft text of the European Council, the use of recycled paper and carton fibers from households could be prohibited for beverage cartons, so that those packaging, by definition, when using that kind of material, are condemned to packaging creation without evasion, without a behavioral influence that leads to positive environmental results.

The re-use of renewable raw materials and the higher recycling rate with re-processing in other packaging and packaging systems are undoubtedly overlooked. Furthermore, producers of source water and beverages with a designation of origin are also discriminated against. For the sake of clarity: their discrimination is based on the fact that they cannot be transported unpacked or packaged to close to the border to be packed there in reusable packaging. This means that the reusable packaging must be repatriated, which is not economically feasible. In that regard, I refer, inter alia, to the question — the objection in fact — submitted to the European Commission by a Mexican brewery. After all, according to the letter of the eco-tax law that is currently being discussed and which will be voted on, it will have to re-export the bottles with the Mexican Coronabier, to Mexico to re-fill them there. From an economic point of view, this is unreasonable and impossible.

The result is that one is appropriate for packaging that is not reusable. Therefore, it is almost impossible to avoid the packaging tax, especially since in a number of European countries — including France and Belgium — the use of recycled material for PET bottles and source water is prohibited.

This is our first major criticism. The introduction of the Ecotax Act puts the entire FOST Plus system on the slope. The whole awareness exercise — the information exercise that has taken place in recent years — to the change in behavior of the Belgian citizen is put on the slope and confronts the whole economic sector of recycling with a new problem. A lot of investments from the past are simply wiped aside.

I come to our second fundamental criticism. We discussed this at the committee meeting. It is dogmatically preferred to promote reusable packaging, since neither in the hearings nor during the committee discussions, on an objective, scientific basis, an analysis has been presented showing that the life cycle of a reusable packaging would be more advantageous on a macroeconomic and macroecological level than that of a non-usable beverage packaging.

We have drawn for our argument from documents of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu. Brochures of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu — including the brochure "Retour of disposal" — have included a number of life cycle analyses from which one can actually draw no unambiguous conclusion. I quote a conclusion from a 1994 study by OVAM: “The study decides that there is no reason to choose one of the three alternative packaging methods.” In the conclusion of a 1993 Swiss study — referred to in the Bond Better Living Environment brochure — I read the following, and I quote: “For cola, limonade and water, the refuelable PET bottle is the best choice. The result of the refuelable glass bottle compared to the single-use PET bottle depends on the recycling rate of the single-use PET bottle." The conclusion of a 1995 Finnish study — referred to in the BBL brochure and comparing single-use glass bottles with other packaging — states the following. I cite the conclusion of a Belgian study from 1997, including a comparison of the life cycle of different packaging materials: "In all cases, the differences between the packaging options are relatively small so that a substantial improvement in the quality of the environment cannot be achieved by switching from one system to another."

I quote from the conclusion of a German study from 1999: “The unambiguous and for all criteria forward-shifting of a packaging system for fresh milk, either returned or one-time, cannot be deduced from the above-mentioned results in terms of the separate work categories.” Finally, there is the conclusion of a German study which is also referred to in the brochure of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu, the so-called UBA2 study. I quote: “The research method used does not indicate significant environmental benefits or disadvantages for both existing refuelable glass packaging systems and the beverage cartons, and this for mineral water, and so on.” This is, by the way, a quote from a press conference of the German Green Minister for the Environment on 9 August 2000. The second fundamental criticism is, therefore, that without reliable scientific support, one chooses to favour the reusable packaging in a dogmatic manner, and without many arguments at the same time, although no life cycle analysis can prove that this would be the most advantageous option on a macroeconomic and macroecological level.

Another element of criticism is the fact that the consumer is not the requesting party, and a study shows that he will not change his behavior. That study by Mr. Patteson, which was conducted on behalf of FEVIA and FEDIS in February and March 2001, shows that glass bottles are undoubtedly considered dangerous by two-thirds of families, including when it comes to bringing drinks with children to school or bringing drinks to work. A filled glass cola bottle weighs 2 kilograms per liter, a filled plastic bottle weighs 1 kilogram per liter. The consumer perceives this as a disadvantage to the reusable packaging. Consumers today think that an effective system for the management of beverage packaging has been introduced and that they can meet their needs in the knowledge that “there is someone behind them who takes care of things” so that the impact on the environment remains limited.

A further element of the study is the fact that 75.3% think that it does not show in the sense of reality that one wants to impose reusable glass, 64% is negative to a tax difference between recyclable plastic and reusable glass for beverages, 85% does not understand the ecological basis of the plan, 74.7% of the buyers of plastic bottles will continue to buy these bottles.

This is the undisputed basis of our third statement, namely that consumers are not mature for this complete policy change with regard to beverage packaging and do not intend to link any incentives provided to a change in behavior.

A fourth important criticism is that the bill is also budgetarily conditioned, and therefore not only pursues environmental objectives, but also budgetary objectives. An initial version of the draft law provided for a packaging tax that varied depending on the type of beverage, and there was much to say about it because the intended behavioral influence must be able to be adjusted for effectiveness depending on the type of beverage. Both the European Commission and the Council of State have pointed out that this would be incompatible with the environmental objective so-called in the draft. The European Commission even pointed out that the choice of the rate appeared to be based on budgetary considerations rather than environmental considerations.

It therefore revised the whole logic and now provides for a single tariff on packaging tax. Therefore, it is unclear, if one still points out that environmental objectives would be primary, why there is no distinction between the different types of packaging. However, it is clear that a glimpse has a different impact than a non-reusable glass bottle. It would therefore be logical that the rate of the Reynders tax would be adjusted according to the material from which the packaging is manufactured.

The introduction of a packaging tax on non-reusable packaging is only intended to counter the budgetary impact of the VAT and excise duty reductions. Budgetarily, the Reynders tax is intended solely to collect the minor income for the sake of the reduction of VAT and the excise duties. The environmental objective — which is also stated in the memorandum of explanation to which I will return later — is subordinate to the objective of budgetary neutrality. Mr. Speaker, I am opening a footnote. That is why we have very explicitly requested legal certainty in the text clause concerning budgetary neutrality and have obtained the opinion of the State Council. In fact, the environmental objective is subordinate to the budgetary objective of budgetary neutrality. In the commentary to the articles, the Minister mentioned this without much scorn. I quote his passage regarding the possible impact of the exemption for recycled content — the amount at which the share has been reduced to 50%-: "The introduction of that derogatory scheme should not have a negative impact on public finances. The amounts and rates of the excise duties, the VAT and the packaging tax shall be adjusted at the time when the conditions for the exemption are met.” This means that to the extent that the exemption condition is fulfilled, the Reynders amount tax will be adjusted to the budgetary impact of the reduction of VAT and excise duties due to the achievement of the conditions for recycled content. The Reynders tax will be reversed smoothly. Taking into account the reputation of the Minister and once the draft has been approved, it can be expected to increase that Reynders tax in order thus to capture the budgetary impact of the reduction of VAT and excise duties.

Article 35 of the draft allows, by royal decree, to revise the rates of VAT, excise duties and packaging tax if the Minister, following the annual review, finds that the system introduced has a negative impact on the budget. That is stated with so many words in the Memory of Explanation. The Minister may explain to me how he will make his tariff decision independently of the change in consumer behavior which, however, is the determining factor for the budgetary impact. The industry is already rightly wondering what legal certainty is ultimately achieved when these types of procedures for the adjustment of tariffs, excise duties and VAT, which are fundamental to the competitive position and economic vitality, are applied.

I have a fifth element of criticism. The proposed regulation in the draft law has a pronounced associative character. Consumer surveys show that especially older people, poor families, single persons and the lower income classes — groups to which the promoters of this design and especially the Greens seem to not pay attention — rely on single-use packaging to store their beverages. 80% of families share our view and believe that the different taxes between plastic packaging and reusable glass are an associal measure that punishes the least prosperous families, families with children and the elderly. These packaging are not only more expensive due to the Reynders tax. The perversity of the ecotax and ecoboni makes the impact of the Reynders tax — hold hold — weigh more heavily as the product becomes cheaper.

Indeed, a study shows that a cheap brand of water in a single-use container will experience a price increase of as much as 26.9%. So 27% increase for a cheap brand water, a white product water, a single-use container, while a brand product of higher price class will only experience a price increase of 1.9%. In other words, by applying the Reynders tax to the different brands, the different containers or, in the present case, to the single packaging, we find that a more expensive trade mark has a price increase equal to a fourteenth of the price increase of a cheap trade mark. As an associal measure, as a reverse redistribution — and this is a matter of daily consumption, of a product used daily — this can count.

Moreover, 73.5% of households consider that it is not realistic to impose reusable glass as drink packaging. It is perceived as a punishment because, as I have already mentioned at the beginning of my speech, in the last ten years, under the impetus of the decisions of 1993, a lot of effort has been made to integrate recycling into the daily life of the consumer. For the modal Belgian, for the modal compatriot, it has almost become a matter of conscience. When one is going to sort his waste in the garage or in the mountain town and it would dare not to deposit a recipient of water, for example a non-reusable packaging, in the right recipient, in this case the blue bag, then the Flaming or the Belgian almost a question of conscience arises. Well, the success and the outcome of that sensitization will put you on the slope, in addition to the fact that it is a very associal measure.

My sixth element of fundamental criticism of the draft that precedes is, of course, the following. The bill, which I had submitted together with Stefaan De Clerck, Dirk Pieters and a number of other colleagues, was precisely intended to remove discrimination against that group of people, but I note that with the introduction of the Reynders tax the competitive position of the border trade, of the merchants, of the self-employed entrepreneurs in the border region, which thousands of merchants and self-employed entrepreneurs, will still be adversely affected. The border trade, including that with France in South-West Flanders, along the entire border region and the purchase flight from our border areas to, among other things, France, is due to the fact that the tax on drinks in general and water and soda drinks in particular in Belgium is much higher than in our neighboring countries. I want to admit that this has grown historically. There has been little work done on this in the past. Why Why ? This was due to the fact that the budget restructuring had to be carried out. In any case, today the tax tax on the average shopping price of mineral water in Belgium is 49,7%, so 49,7% tax on the average shopping price of mineral water, expensive brands and cheap brands mixed. In France, this is not 49.7% but 7.7%. The result is, of course, that the consumer in Belgium for a so-called 6-pack-pet-one-way, the package per 6 bottles that is most commonly used, pays about 49% more than in neighboring France. Naturally, the introduction of the euro in this regard has resulted in even greater price transparency, so that the difference is even more painted. In Belgium, the aforementioned 6-pack-pet-one-way mineral water in bottles of one and a half liters costs 3.33 euros, while in France it costs 2.40 euros. A consequence of this is the purchase flight, the fact that many Belgians are going to buy their water and soft drinks in grocery stores just across the border and where one as a consumer, attracted by those lower prices, does not hesitate to spend on average up to 70 km away and back because one knows that the fuel and transportation costs that one has additionally are more than covered by only the lower price of the water, of the beverage, which one buys in Northern France.

This is very much in itself, but the problems do not only concern the water. The water performs a locomotive function. When people go to buy their water at Auchan or in other merchandise houses across the border, they also look around at that occasion, as the good Belgian fits. As they are buying water, they see this and that product, food, but also hips and other things. People benefit from being in those hypermarkets in France to buy other things as well. The water acts as a motor, as a locomotive for that border trade. The shoppers and the companies, including in South-West Flanders, are watching with sad eyes how the Belgian consumer returns from France, his car filled with goods other than drinks. 59% of cross-border purchases, colleagues, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, relate to beverages, among others. In 95% of cases where people from our country go to France to shop there, there is also drink in the shopping cart.

I don’t want to annoy you, but you’ve been talking for over half an hour now. I understand you, but I want to keep it a little.

I hope you keep the right things in your hand, Mr. President. Collega Detremmerie was unfortunately forced to leave us, but in the hypermarket of Moeskroen — Belgian side — the water turnover is half that in Gosselies and Bruges.

Our bill was intended to address this competitive disadvantage by reducing the VAT and excise duty rates on mineral water and soda. The proposal provided for a VAT reduction of up to 6% on water, soda and fruit and vegetable juices. In addition, a reduction in excise duties was proposed for the same types of beverages. In our view, this would lead to revenue effects that would limit their budgetary impact.

The government, colleagues, now wants to eliminate the indirect taxation on beverages in reusable packaging, but this only allows to finally approach the level of neighboring countries. The indirect taxation on beverages in single packages will be boosted through the introduction of the Reynders tax, a packaging tax that does not eliminate the competitive disadvantage, but is even imposed on certain packaging.

My final element of criticism, Mr. Speaker, is that the Reynders tax will actually tax the consumer three times, against the “non bis in idem” principle in – or ⁇ better “non ter in idem” or “non quater in idem”. The consumer is affected at least three times. He will be taxed three times for the purchase of a non-reusable beverage packaging: once through the contribution to the green point scheme, once through the new Reynders-belasing, the packaging tax, and finally also once through the municipal or regional waste tax. Nevertheless — I repeat — there is no scientific consensus on the more advantageous environmental profile of reusable packaging on a macroeconomic level.

Especially the transport of reusable glass bottles is problematic. The transport of reusable bottles to a company that will pack its products in it takes 26 times more cargo space in comparison with a situation where a company uses PET bottles. These PET bottles can, of course, be supplied in small pre-forms, this in addition to the fact that, of course, the reusable glass bottles still require a lot of detergents to eventually be cleaned and hygienically responsible to be put on the market. Mr. Speaker, the last point should be taken to the heart of the VLD colleagues, even if it is not so. After all, they have simply put aside the calls of, among other things, Unizo, while this is still a point of attention. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the retail business is very explicitly injured by this bill, as retail stores, stores, on average, have less storage space to store reusable bottles, although there will be much more need to do so. There will be much more space to be found, but the modal self-employed shopkeeper does not have that space.

It is also more difficult for stakeholders to provide in that space. This means that the small self-employed and the retail business are discriminated against by this bill. Also the SMEs, the modal small brewer, the modal small bottler in our country are, by the way, discriminated. There are still dozens of companies. The financial capacity of a small and medium-sized enterprise to invest in a second line of packaging is much lower than that of larger enterprises. This will also be detrimental to these SMEs. If we continue with this draft law, which we will vote against, we would like to call for fiscal measures – possibly as a transitional measure – to catch up some of the adverse position of the merchants and the SMEs.

In summary, I decide that we will vote against the draft. What is being done here is destroying eight to ten years of awareness-raising work. However, the awareness-raising work has yielded results. After all, our country, our consumers, our people, our compatriots are leaders in recycling and sorting waste. 92% of the recyclable material is actually selectively collected and recycled. The industry is facing new challenges. Border trade is not eliminated. The competitive position of our stores in the border region is not strengthened. There is no scientific argument for choosing reusable packaging at the detriment of non-reusable packaging. The consumer will not interfere with the incentives provided to him.

Finally, this is an associal measure. The lower income categories will contribute more. In particular, income categories and people who have somewhat more difficulties with mobility will suffer somewhat more from the measures proposed here in practice.

Thank you Mr Leterme. Mr Van Parys, you had submitted amendments to the general budget of expenditure for the financial year 2003. I see that these still need to be discussed and approved. You have been advised in the Justice Committee. However, they still have to go to the Committee on Finance and Budget. I will send them to that committee and let them be discussed in the committee tomorrow.

No objection, Mr Minister?

Is there a committee meeting tomorrow? We will see.

I am therefore sending those amendments to the general budget of expenditure for the financial year 2003. This is No. The 2081/10. You will find them back. Thus is decided.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will tell you from the beginning that we will support the project that introduces ecobonis. Indeed, we must remember where we come from to appreciate in what this project represents a considerable progress. The starting point was the law, described by some as calamitous, which was voted on 18 July 1993 by another majority. This law, fortunately, was never implemented so long as it was, dare the word, unbearable.

I acknowledge that those who, in a moment of error, voted this law which consisted, let us recall, in applying indistinguishably an ecotax of 15 Belgian francs on all packaging of non-reusable beverages, I acknowledge that they quickly realized their mistake. In particular, the amendment to the law of March 1996 mentioned by Mr. Letters just recently. However, it was on 1 January 2001 that the 15 Belgian francs per package would have been applied if a proposal for a liberal initiative, to which the parliament has joined very widely and massively — the Coveliers Act — had not in extremis extended the transitional exemption from the ecotax, in anticipation of a new, more coherent legislation.

This more coherent legislation is the project that is submitted to us. First of all, it is obviously the introduction of an incentive, and not a penalty, addressed to consumers and economic stakeholders that constitute the happiest innovation of this legal device. by

The introduction of ecobonis, i.e. a significant reduction in the taxes on beverages, both excise taxes and VAT, constitutes the implementation of a very old claim of the sectors concerned. It is here encountered for the first time by the abolition of excise duties and a 21% to 6% reduction in VAT on non-alcoholic beverages and by a reduction in excise duties on alcoholic beverages. For example, the effect of this tax reduction on the purchase price of a liter of mineral water will be about 25%, which is a valuable measure.

Then, the opposition between reusable packaging and recyclable packaging ends. These packages are now placed on the same foot as they have access to the same tax reduction. This is the end of the priority, which we have always considered arbitrary, of the reusable over the recyclable, provided that the packaging contains at least 50% of recycled materials. This also means, regardless of practical problems, which I do not deny, that the initiative is left to the consumer. The latter will have the choice of obtaining or not the benefit of the discount by purchasing a product that benefits entirely from the ecoboni. As for the producer, he can also choose to produce reusable or recyclable at more than 50%. by

It is understood that the royal decree fixing the rate of 50% must enter into force at the same time as the law. This is a formal promise that has been made to us by the representative of the government and which obviously conditiones our support.

Finally, I note that an assessment of the effects of the law will take place in September 2003. This will be an opportunity to carefully review, in the light of the precautionary principle, the environmental and public health performance of the reusable and recyclable. One year of experience will also allow to assess the budgetary impact of the law, its effect on both consumer habits and behavior and production modes, but also on competition. by

A last word about precisely competition: I remain quite septic about the welcome that the project will meet at the European level, but this is another story. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, on the margins of the political developments of the last days — and also those of the last hours — it must be clear to everyone without doubt that the upcoming dossier of ecofiscality is one of the symbolic files. A symbolic file from which the growing obsession of blue and green comes to the forefront of giving each other no political success anymore. If we look at the history of the legislation on the ecotax, we can only conclude that in the nine years of its existence — the first introduction dates from 1993 — it is already at its eighth amendment. From the entire story of this present draft, it is clear that the current intersection between ecotax and ecoboni does not make the whole easier. On the contrary, the system of VAT and excise tax reductions and taxes is becoming increasingly complex. On the other hand, we wonder which citizen — and this in the light of the much more current and much more important social problems that are now emerging — is waiting for the introduction of a new tax on the consumption of basic food products such as flat water. This is then done independently of the discussion whether the citizen with this law will adjust his consumption behavior. Their

However, there are some elements in this draft that require our attention. The first element is the conscious Article 11, which states that the packaging of beverages is exempt from the packaging tax if it consists of a minimum amount of recycled raw materials per type of raw material. The percentage of this shall be determined by ministerial consultation and subsequently by a royal decree ratified by law. We can still ask a few questions about this. How much should this minimum amount be? Is it 10%, 20%, 50% or 70%? On what basis will the percentage be determined? Which beverage packaging can meet this standard? Who will permanently monitor this? How will this be controlled? It is undoubtedly so that with this article the Trojan horse sneaks into this law. This will completely eliminate the introduction of packaging duties. However, I would like to point out that at European level there is no regulation for the use of recycled materials and more specifically for the reincorporation of recycled materials into plastic packaging that comes into contact with foods. Consequently, one can ask whether a tax exemption on this basis by the European Commission cannot be considered as a technical barrier and possibly sanctioned by European legislation. This is then separate from the fact that, for example, in Italy and France — these are two major producers of mineral water — it is not permitted to use recycled material in plastic packaging that comes into contact with foods. Their

A second element is the impact of the introduction of packaging duties on the industry and more specifically the food sector. I would then refer to the adverse impact of the packaging tax on border trade. Given the current significant differences in VAT rates and excise duties with our neighbors, mainly France, but also the Netherlands — and this is ⁇ the case for soda and water — the proposed draft has resulted in the differences being even greater and in the domestic and border shops there will be even fewer drinks such as water and limonades sold. Consequently, distribution and retail will lose a significant amount of revenue. In addition, calculations have also shown that the Belgian State thus directly earns annually approximately 2.4 billion francs or 62 million euros of income from VAT excise duties and —taxes. Their

The French and Dutch distributors will ⁇ not fail to play this out in their tailored advertising campaigns to attract customers in the border region to the French or Dutch stores. Consequently, the introduction of eco-taxes will result in market distortion.

A third element is the impact that this law will have on the recycling and selective collection of beverage packaging. We must not forget that two-thirds of the selectively collected packaging flows consist of beverage packaging and that this country has grown to the top of recycling in Europe over a period of several years. More than 92% of selectively collected packaging — including both returned bottles and single-use packaging — will get a new life after recycling. By taxing the single-use beverage packaging, the existing recycling system as we currently know it is placed on the slope. In recent years, the cities and municipalities have made significant efforts to give citizens an environmental awareness by concluding contracts with, among other things, FOST Plus and numerous intercommunals for the selective collection of PMD in order to reduce what is called the residual fraction. Many compatriots sort themselves almost day-to-day nonsense, even if it was only because the price of the treatment of the residual waste or what one can deposit in the brown waste bag has increased spectacularly. How with the present law the regional recycling targets will be achieved permanently in the long term is far from clear.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I would like to say something about the possible introduction of a discrimination — in order not to use the word protectionism — for the importation of natural mineral waters. When the present draft was published, the European Commission reminded that natural waters must be bottled at the source itself. This, of course, has its reason. Natural mineral water and source water should be protected from any risk of contamination or pollution and should not be subjected to disinfecting treatment. Therefore, this is subject to strict international and European legislation. Therefore, they should not be transported in bulk because this bulk transport could be a source of contamination. From the point of view of food safety, this is, in my opinion, a legitimate concern and – in addition to the various food crises that have also occurred with the Greens at the wheel of Public Health – an important argument. What is the solution to this issue in Belgium? Very simply, the suggestion is to change the sales name of the product. Simply convert mineral water or spring water into drinking water and the problem of bulk transport is solved. It enables bottling on a local market and also avoids the return of empty reusable bottles to the original source, completely ignoring that drinking water is water that does not have a specific origin and is subject to disinfection rules, whereas for source and mineral water this is not possible given the strict regulation. Consequently, the possible regime surrounding the name change is a complete disregard of the rules and obligations as applicable to source and mineral water, but also a disregard of the rules and royal decrees on labelling. Consequently, Mr. Speaker — and therefore I am around — I can only conclude that in this whole dossier concerning the ecotax and the ecoboni party political dogmas have proven to be more important than an objective approach, both ecological and socio-economic. The Flemish Blok group is convinced that the present draft is therefore an empty box, so we cannot approve this law.

As promised, I now give the word to Mr. Vanhoutte, because he wants to intervene in the committee. You will do it with the shortness that you adorn.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I note that there is a need for some recycling among the colleagues of the opposition, because there are very few present.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the ecoboni are a ⁇ important dossier for us. I would like to refer to the language adviser of the VRT who advocates the use of eco-taxes and ecological discounts. In this way, it would become more clear to the modal citizen in this country.

What is the essence? We want to make reuse cheaper. This is a first important objective in relation to disposable packaging. I think that we have clearly succeeded with this bill by reducing the VAT rates to 6% on the one hand, and by interfering with the excise duties on the other hand, while the counter-motion is made with what colleague Leterme — in my opinion a little wrongly — labeled as the Reynders tax. I would rather have to talk about the Reynders discounts because that is also a very important chapter but that seems to be sometimes forgotten.

The Green Boni!

This is what I want to do, colleague Wauters.

Mr. Reynders, I am very grateful to you that you want to change your camp right away and that your color is even beginning to change.

It is already good.

This seems to us a huge step forward.

Why we find this measure important and why we choose reuse despite the stories about life cycle analyses that are claimed to be none of them. Colleagues, the life cycle analysis is not convincing. They do not in any case demonstrate that reuse would be less good than recycling and ⁇ not than disposal.

In addition, there is another principle that is extremely important, namely the principle of the waste hierarchy. That is to say, reuse is preferred over recycling and recycling is preferred over waste. This is the normal hierarchy, which we have not invented, but which is included in the European Waste Framework Directive of the early 1990s. This principle is also embodied in this law.

Opposition colleagues who say that the modal consumer of this bill will not be awake, I want to say the following. The user organizations — yet a critical spectator in this whole debate — conducted a comprehensive survey over the past year. They come to the conclusion that consumers and no one else is the first party asking for more reusable packaging in the stores. 75% of the users are requesting party. I think these are figures that speak for themselves.

As for the rest, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you in any case. I would also like to thank the VLD and MR groups for the constructive way in which they helped to bring this dossier to a good end. I think this is an important bill. I agree with you when you say that there are some details that are subject to further improvement. This is also the reason why a follow-up, an evaluation, is provided in the middle of the following year. This seems to me, by the way, extremely important because the basic principle of an eco-tax consists precisely in guiding the behavior of the citizen. If one wants to send, one must also carefully watch that what one does also shows the intended effect. I think we have taken an important step here to finally redirect that environmental behavior in an environmentally positive sense. We look forward to the further implementation of this law with full confidence.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us today follows the government’s commitments to make taxation ecological. It provides for tax provisions for beverage containers but also for batteries, industrial containers and disposable cameras. With regard to beverage packaging, the aim is to ⁇ a sufficiently large difference between reusable containers and disposable containers in order to limit the increasing production of waste.

Ecoreductions or ecobonis are established in the form of a reduction, or even an abolition, of excise duties and a reduction of VAT. Thus, a general reduction in excise taxes on drinks is introduced. The excise duties are even abolished for mineral waters — an old commitment dating back to a few years —, fruit juices and vegetable juices. In addition, the VAT rate is reduced from 21 to 6% on non-alcoholic beverages, regardless of the packaging.

In addition to the reductions, a packaging fee is introduced on all beverages packaged in a non-reusable packaging. However, exemptions from the application of this packaging fee are provided by the legislator. The first one is valid for containers subject to a consignment system. Thus, the bottles ordered will not be subject to the contribution. The second exemption is provided for containers containing milk or its derivatives.

Finally, the most important thing in my view, and for which I look forward, Mr. Minister, concerns the exemption established for containers partially made of materials obtained from the recycling of materials already used before.

The Council of Ministers on Friday, December 6, decided to exempt packaging containing at least 50% of recycled materials. This rate is increased to 70% for colored glass containers. In my opinion, this decision is in accordance with the wishes we had expressed and which is in line with the amendment we had submitted. Indeed, it was crucial not to penalize the leading companies in the field of packaging from recycled materials and to allow them to continue their efforts.

The 50% rate is an ambitious goal, of course, but I think it will be feasible for companies that have already invested in recycling-related technologies. This had to take into account the efforts of the water and limonade sector for several years to produce bottles composed, in large part, of recycled products. This necessity was also imposed by the fact that, without the exemption scheme, a negative impact on employment could occur.

Therefore, I believe that the provisions provided for in this bill, together with the provisions of the Royal Decree, tend to safeguard sustainable development, both in terms of employment, environment and economy.

Mr. Minister, to conclude, I will briefly speak of the fear of a possible complaint that this tax arrangement could generate to the European authorities. Indeed, during the hearings, some speakers expressed to us their feelings that this project generates discrimination. As I am not a specialist in European legislation, I think that in this area we must trust the Minister of Finance and his administration who have drafted this project in order, I am convinced, to ensure the greatest possible legal certainty. Your opinion in this regard would interest us. Thank you Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, following some other members of this House, I will subdivide my presentation into one previous note and five concerns or questions.

I would like to conclude with my previous comment on what colleague Vanhoutte said. The bottom line of this was that it is strange that the various liberal factions in this house have eventually joined in this design to realize something. He was grateful for that and we appreciate that, of course. However, I also think that in principle the situation is completely different. Why should the VLD be against ecofiscality? I even dare to predict that, as it becomes clear to a greater part of the public opinion that the only way to structurally solve unemployment and inactivity is to reduce the transaction costs of labour exchange, the interest in ecofiscality as an alternative public financing in a context of global burdens will only increase. That is a whole nonsense to simply say that our society, from its industrial past, has made an ever-increasing part of public financing into labour in all forms: social contributions, VAT on services, personal tax and corporate tax on SMEs. The simple application of the law of supply and demand inevitably leads to a much lower balance point in labour exchange than without all these burdens. In an economy that is evolving mainly toward the tertiary and quaternary sectors, that means cutting off the branch on which one sits. Therefore, the trend will remain to reduce the burden on labour. One can hopefully do so for a while without introducing new charges, but sooner or later the demand for alternative government financing will also return.

Then, just as in the Middle Ages the consumption of salt was taxed — by the way, if you look at a Tuscany bread, you know that it is also sometimes avoided — one will look for products and then especially consumer goods that can serve as the basis of burdens. It would be a very good thing if at that time the distinction between environmentally friendly and environmentally harmful goods was made even more accurately. This is only to say that I am convinced that the big debate on ecofiscality is far from over. Also from a vision of a reduction in the burden in general and a reduction in the burden on labor in particular, this should be considered.

So I come to my first question: will the consumer become the asshole of this reform? In fact, I didn’t have to ask that question because the answer is simple: no. Without this law — and the law of 26 July 2002 which forms a political unity with it — the mechanism of the law of 1993 came into effect without government measures. Then one received a high environmental tax that inevitably increased the costs for the consumer heavily. But even if this is not taken into account, there is still the substantial reduction of excise duties and the reduction of the VAT to 6% for non-alcoholic beverages, which are opposed to the ecotax of a maximum of 11 cents per environmentally polluting litre bottle. Of course, 11 cents or 4 francs is not the end of the world. Therefore, financially, it does not seem that the average consumer will pay more than it is today. However, its behavior will be driven by the fact that products in reusable packaging will be cheaper than those in non-reusable packaging or in packaging that does not contain at least a sufficient percentage of recycled fiber. Thus, the question arises whether that positive incentive to show environmentally friendly behavior should be treated as if the consumer was the fool of it. I think this would be a heavily overwhelmed reasoning.

A second question that can be asked is whether the manufacturer’s freedom to choose a type of packaging is unnecessarily exposed to tyres? Indeed, the hearings showed that the industry is deeply concerned about being coerced to a particular packaging as little as possible by government interventions. As a general principle, I can ⁇ endorse that. But I want to relieve that at the same time, especially when it comes to food. If there is one sector where there are numerous standards that regulate the packaging, it is precisely the food sector, even if it is for reasons of public health. However, this has not prevented the industry from organizing an accurate marketing and production policy, so that one can still earn the cost by producing food products.

I even think it is more important for business, on average, that regulation remains stable than what the content of the standard is. This design, through the balances contained in it, creates the stable framework that the business rightly demands. That does not mean that there would be no problems that deserve our attention. The situation of the beverage cartons, and that of the importers of beverages, deserves to be discussed more closely. Overall, I think, considering the standards provided for in the implementing decision, that only for white glass which is not in a reuse system and for beverage cartons will be a real problem to obtain an eco-tax exemption.

Of course, it is difficult for a foreign company to organize a system of reuse. Furthermore, it is very questionable whether the combination with the European obligation to bottle springwater at the source does not make it de facto insurmountable for them to set up a station money system. Since precisely a part of those producers use white glass, it is likely that the ecotax will be levied precisely on those products. Although, in my opinion, it is possible under EU law to introduce stricter national environmental standards, there is still a small amount of market coverage. It would be good if the sector sought realistic and ecologically equivalent solutions that would give it more opportunities.

As for the beverage boxes, I think that the design does not treat it completely fair. Due to the very nature of these cartons, it is difficult to recycle them into the same type of packaging. That does not mean that sustainable forms of recycling from those beverage cartons to other products would not be possible. Initially, we wanted from the VLD to submit an amendment to address this problem by providing an exemption for beverage packaging whose materials are recycled for a high percentage to other products that exceed the lifetime of beverage cartons.

I continue to regret that there was no room to talk about it with the majority, but I feel that sooner or later this element will come back.

The third question, which, by the way, has already been debated today, is whether the choice for re-use is an irrational, non-scientifically-founded dogma. In the committee we were beaten to the ears with various life cycle analyses of packaging products: one to prove that recycling is ⁇ as good as reuse and the other to prove that reuse is at least as good as recycling.

The core of the question is what all these analyses show.

Scientificity consists in the fact that the studies are prone to objective criticism and falsification. And so are they too. What is ⁇ evident is that the question of which packaging system is ecologically superior cannot be demonstrated unambiguously. In other words, that this depends on the chosen parameters.

A lifecycle analysis is different depending on the area description to which it is applied, the time at which it is held and the changes that occur in a number of parameters and in the evolution of technology, as well as the allocation of factors such as environmental impact from washing processes or the impact of traffic and air pollution. In those circumstances, all these studies can only be attributed the value which is clearly demonstrated. Re-use systems are a valuable possibility of packaging systems. Extensive recycling systems are absolutely not ecological madness.

Can it be inferred from this that this bill would not take into account that science? No, not at all. On the contrary, the bill follows the statement that reuse systems and certain recycling systems deserve preference. This is perfectly consistent with the results of scientific research. Indeed, one goes a little further in favouring reuse systems, but that is actually more an application of the precautionary principle than of pure scientificity.

When it is impossible to scientifically prove that something is good or bad with hard evidence, the policy is indeed not dismissed in an effort to prevent problems. Although this precautionary principle should be used with some caution — I ⁇ do not believe in fundamentalist applications of it — I think common sense says that a policy that tries to keep scarce raw materials unchanged for as long as possible is a good policy. An ecotax of 11 euro cents per liter bottle, with numerous exceptions and nuances, does not seem to me to be a fundamentalist application of that precautionary principle.

It would be fascinating to test all the successive increases of excise duties ever made by all possible governments on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline, on the criterion of scientificity, though at that time it was always argued for all sorts of serious reasons of public health and the like.

The choice of an eco-tax of 11 euro cents, combined with various reductions in the burden on those products and the exemption provisions for milk and recycled packaging, is, in my opinion, not an expression of extremism, consistent with common sense and is not unscientific.

Will the recycling industry get stuck by this design? Until now, there was a system in which producers could transfer their recycling obligation to FOST Plus in exchange for paying the green point. Some argue that the disappearance of that formal reference in the law to that way of acting will result in the recycling machine collapsing. I do not see it so. Companies that do not wish to switch to reuse systems continue to have an interest in organizing the recycling, in accordance with the rules of the law. To the extent that they cannot do so on their own, there will be room on the market for organizations and companies to help them do so.

There is, of course, a difference, in the sense that it will become a less monopolistic situation. This is also a general trend across the entire environmental sector, where we are evolving from monopolistic, often semi-governmental companies to a more market-compliant approach. While it really requires a transformation of the sector, I am convinced that the faster we can organize our environmental sector in a market-compliant manner, the more relevant that sector will prove to be in the European economy. Converting early enough will prevent later accidents.

Moreover, this bill does not, of course, alter the Flemish waste policy. Packaging that is not reused or recycled in new packaging will have to be disposed of in accordance with the Flemish decrees — and their Wallish counterpart — on waste. As far as I know, there are also mechanisms that promote recycling. Their

I come to my conclusion. Yes, the recycling sector is undergoing a transformation process, but this does not seem to me to lead to its collapse.

I will shorten my argument a little and finally try to answer the question of whether the environment is actually getting better. Does anyone get better? Will this design solve a problem or not? I think so. It is ⁇ true that during this legislature a legislative intervention in the sector of the ecotaxes was necessary, unless the rather draconian ecotax was to be applied unshortedly. This draft, together with the law which bears the name law-Coveliers — at least in the committee — regulates this matter in a satisfactory way, namely by choosing to positively direct the buying behavior rather than using only the stick. The combination of excise duty and VAT reductions on beverages, the abolition of a number of ecological taxes on various products and the introduction of a packaging tax on environmentally unfriendly packaging of beverages seems to me to be a reasonable solution to a concrete problem that existed. That alone justifies this proposal. The fact that the ecoboni system develops new pistes on ecofiscality seems to me to be only a positive development in the environmental sector.

Much has already been said. I will only come back on a few points. First of all, all this needs to be put back in the context of ecofiscality. It is not an isolated measure aimed at encouraging consumers to make environmentally friendly choices, it is a measure that is part of other measures of the same type. For example, we can note tax cuts for citizens who decide to make investments to save energy at home. We can also note the increase in excise duties on high-sulphur fuels as well as the reduction of the circulation tax on LPG vehicles.

On the high sulphur content, there is no...

They reduced the sulphur content, that was the goal.

There has been a decrease in the tax on (...).

In fact, thanks to the incentive, we were able to reduce sulfur. The objective is achieved.

You have also taken measures in terms of mobility where, there too, other types of mobility than all in the car are encouraged. We’ve heard a lot of discussions here about whether the reusable container is less polluting. I will not go into a comparison of the different studies showing, from the point of view of the ecobalances, that non-reusable containers are significantly less environmentally friendly. The debate is not closed, but I think that at the moment, if the European Parliament revises its position on this subject, it is mainly under the influence of different lobbies.

Another myth that circulates: Belgium is extraordinary in terms of recycling. We must pay attention to the numbers used; we have heard about 70% recycling of bottles, etc. The numbers must be relativized according to the areas used. For example, Brussels is often forgotten, one can say that it still poses a problem. It is also forgotten that huge amounts of bottles come from outside, from cross-border countries and so on. So, here too, let’s not myth the numbers that come to us about recycling.

Here, thanks to the ecobonis, we will try to stop the current erosion in relation to the use of reserved bottles. What is happening? For years, producers have promised us that they will arrange to stop the decrease in ordered bottles. We can see that the trend is quite the opposite. Increasingly, even in horeca, one of the sectors that used reusable containers a lot, there is lobbying from a number of industries to try to get them migrated to single-use containers. Therefore, it was urgent to intervene.

A lot has been said: “But you want to go back to the glass age, heavy, dangerous and rotten bottles.” Let us be clear! In neighboring countries, with an ecotax and/or quota system, we observe a large use of modern, reusable plastic bottles. I really don’t understand why Belgium can’t be in the same range as Germany, Holland, Sweden, Finland, etc. Moreover, many companies that are active in our territory do this effort when they go to our neighbors. I am very pleased that we will soon be able to find this type of products at our home. I reassure all those who were worried about old ladies and children, there is no need to be. Not to mention that when you argue with the old ladies, they say to you, “In my time, coffee bags were kept and reused, while now they are wasted.”

I am afraid that these fears are not really the concerns of old ladies but a mere pretext. Of course, we do not mean that we should put the glass in the rancart. Glass still has beautiful days ahead of it and it is so much better since we have a glass industry in our regions and that glass is still a noble material that allows to embellish the tables. This is the one that is used in the room. This will therefore continue, not to mention that many environmentally concerned companies have invested in reusable glass chains and therefore deserve to be rewarded. We have heard little about them in the media, but I think they are significantly more numerous than one could believe from the media echoes.

Another criticism is that Ecobonis are antisocial. I do not think. Indeed, if people want to save money, they will switch to reusable containers. Will these measures encourage us to go more to our neighbors? and no. What has happened so far? The man who cared about his wallet was going to the neighboring country. From now on, those who care about their wallet will buy reusable bottles. A goal can also be achieved. by

Another sector that will fully benefit from ecobonis is horeca. It has been calculated that at present, the horeca could reach approximately €21 million by continuing to use mainly reusable barrels and bottles. I think this sector needed a little bit of oxygen, this has often been heard here in parliament. She will be welcome. Other actors who will benefit from these ecobonis, schools and communities who work with this type of containers.

It will also be important to ensure legal certainty. I know that the Cabinet of the Minister is already working on labelling and the various practical arrangements. It is important to secure the bill very quickly so that companies can fully utilize its positive effects as soon as possible.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik geef eerst nog wat comment in verband met de algemene context. We go dus naar naar een nieuwe vermindering van de belastingen, accijnzen in BTW, na een vermindering van de personenbelasting in vandaag misschien een goedkeuring van een vermindering van van vennootschapsbelasting. There are still other reductions since the beginning of this legislature. I think, for example, of labour intensive affairs with regard to BTW. In first place will I, however, also of the committee bedanken voor de hoorzittingen. It was very useful to organize, to organize, to give various advice, to comment in opmerkingen van de verschillende sectoren en ook van de VZW's belast met deze problematiek. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to not only rejoice that hearings have been held, but that they have been taken into account. I am essentially thinking of two elements. First, the exemption for motor vehicle batteries — lead batteries in the automotive sector and in the industrial sector — was made during the hearing. An amendment has led to this. I regret that mr. Leterme left the session because I was virtually going to return the ball to him. Furthermore, I am also very pleased that in terms of medical devices, the exemptions have also been extended. Not only devices related to vital functions are exempt, but also other types of devices. Take, for example, the hearing equipment. It is quite important that we do not get this type of batteries from a tax.

I think we had a very useful discussion in the committee. I would like to make the following comment in response to Mr. Frédéric on legal certainty and the position of the European Commission. We are currently checking the circumstantial opinions of the European Commission on the project. What essentially poses problem is the whole system of distinctive signs. The question arises of the extent to which the distinctive signs placed on a number of products can be considered as barriers to free movement — these are other terminologies but I simplify the debate. We will therefore respond to the Commission on these different points and maybe, in the future, adapt the regulation, if necessary, to take these observations into account. But we are moving on that path.

Your voudrais then évoquer la nécessaire évolution dans les prochaines années en matière d'écofiscalité. This was stated by Mr. Borginon. I think this is very useful because we need to come to a further reduction of the fiscal pressure on labor, not only of the fiscal pressure but also of the social pressure in the companies. At the same time, however, it is necessary to look for other sources of taxation, ⁇ first through eco-taxation and then also, it was said in the committee, on other products. Why was there in 1993 a design and a law for some products, and for others not? This may be a question for the next legislature. There is an evolution, but it is not yet over. You voudrais me limit dès lors à quatre remarques concernant l'évolution de notre législation en matière de fiscalité sur ce type de produits.

First, after ten years, I thank the various groups that have been able to evolve in the matter and who have been able to abandon, with us, with the proposal of the government, the ecotaxes on beverages. I believe that it is useful, after ten years of non-application — as has also been recalled — to find that all groups have, it seems, evolved in this matter and that there is no longer any consideration to go in this direction. The ecotax system as such for beverages is abandoned and replaced by another system. If I simplify, it is carrots instead of stick, it is trying to encourage the consumption or production of a number of types of packaging rather than discouraging another. In fact, taxation is already so high in these matters in Belgium that we have been able to work mainly through reductions, bonuses and not by increases in taxation.

And then the reduction of taxes. I recall that the first measure taken during this legislature was to eliminate this somewhat absurd tax that would have represented the ecological tax on beverages.

These fifteen francs or 37 cents in euros, as it has been recalled, should have been applied as early as January 1, 2001, but, fortunately, we have abolished this ecological tax. This could have represented, it must still be realized, sometimes up to more than 2 euros of the liter of increase on common beverages since containers of 25 cl or even 15 cl would have been hit by this ecotax.

The second measure consists in the suppression or the reduction of excise duties. For some products the excise duties are abolished; for other products the excise duties are reduced. This is a second positive evolution in taxation.

A third evolution is the reduction of VAT. This is not a draft, but a royal decision on reducing VAT from 21 to 6% for various products. Mineral water may be the first to benefit from this reduction. This is an old debate. Mr. Tante is currently absent. It’s a pity because it’s a very important story for him.

Met dit ontwerp worden drie belastingen verminderd of afgeschaft: ecofiscaliteit, accijnzen in BTW. This has been mentioned. For most products, we are aiming at a price reduction compared to the current price; price increases will be quite marginal, from 1 to 2% for the majority of the products concerned.

On the other hand, I take the example I gave in the commission: for a liter of mineral water in bottles that can be reused or recycled in recycled products, we will go towards reductions that can go up to 25% of the price. Some speak of provisions that could be antisocial, which could have very painful relents for certain categories; a 25% decrease in the price of a liter of water, I do not think that one can consider that this measure does not have a positive impact on the social level!

Third and foremost note, one of the merits of this project, is to abandon the myth of a system or a branch ⁇ favourable compared to another system or another branch. The reusable system is placed on the same foot as the recyclable; conditions are simply set. I am very pleased to have been able to announce in committee that the Royal Decree will be taken and will enter into force on the same date as the law, decree that allows to result in the same reductions of taxes, excise duties and VAT for products placed in containers made from recycled materials, provided that the percentage of recycling is at least 50%, 70% for colored glass.

Whether you choose reusable or recyclable, both can lead to a sharp reduction in the tax pressure on beverages, and especially on non-alcoholic beverages. This means that the recycling chain established in our country is not at all brakes. On the contrary, it is encouraged; the role of Fost+ in this matter has been recalled.

I would just like to clarify — and mr. Frédéric mentioned this in a committee — that if the control systems provided for the Ministry of Economic Affairs should not be in place immediately, a simple declaration will suffice. Control will take place later. We will not delay the exemption or the reduction of taxes because the control would be put in place with delay. Declarations will have to be made by the producers and we will act on them.

Last, I believe that this project is also characterized by the free choice of the consumer and the producer. If the consumer chooses to consume a product packaged in a reusable container or in a container containing at least 50% of recycled materials, he benefits from all the tax reductions programmed in the project. This is a choice of the consumer. Furthermore, the producer can go in the same direction. If the producer decides to market containers containing, I repeat, at least 50% of recycled materials, it is the same thing. Therefore, we are on the way to a sharp reduction in the tax on all these products. I herhaal that it is a beginning of a new process can be about over you stappen to other fiscaliteit on other products. Het is, mijns inziens, zeer nuttig door te gaan met de verlaging van de fiscale druk op arbeid. This is very important. We must for a new deal choose for other types of fiscaliteit om verdere stappen te kunnen zetten in de richting van een verlaging van de fiscale druk op arbeid. In conclusion, I would like to really thank all the groups. I do not ignore that for some, the journey has been long and painful — ten years of journey — to abandon what, today, is recognized as a system that would have resulted in disastrous effects, that of ecotaxes on 1 January 2001, and to resolutely engage in the path of a tax reduction regardless of the chosen sector, provided that the criteria are met, whether it is the reusable or recyclable sector.