Proposition 50K1996

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 69 des lois sur le Conseil d'Etat, coordonnées le 12 janvier 1973.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 2, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative court

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Els Van Weert (Vooruit) 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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the Committee for Business has completed its work on the bill concerning the gradual withdrawal from nuclear energy for industrial electricity production. The bill was discussed during the meetings of 9 and 16 July, 24 September, 15 and 23 October and 6,13,19 and 26 November 2002. The draft law aims to regulate the gradual withdrawal of nuclear energy for industrial production on the one hand and to prohibit the authorisation of new nuclear power plants on the other. The draft law also aims to meet the government agreement that states that Belgium will join a scenario in which the deactivation of nuclear power plants begins as soon as they are 40 years old, in other words between 2015 and 2025 or after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

After the introductory presentation of the State Secretary for Energy and Sustainable Development, for which I refer to the written and printed report, and after the explanation of the draft law, it became very clear at the start of the general discussion that the committee had to create the necessary space to be able to sustainably exchange views on the draft law because of the different perspectives that the draft law directly and indirectly covers on a number of areas such as the ecological, economic, social, scientific and safety level. This was also asked by a number of committee members across the boundaries of majority and opposition. Motivated proposals for hearings were formulated by Mrs Creyf, Mr Paque and Mrs De Meyer. Mrs Creyf’s request to hear representatives of the small and large electricity consumers as well as the CREG was not answered.

The committee has organized two series of hearings. In a first series, representatives of the Ampere Commission, the Peer Review Group, Electrabel, the Plan Bureau, the Niras, representatives of the European Commission, Mr Lehman, an expert at the German Bundestag because Germany was ahead of Belgium, were heard. Representatives of the Finnish Energy Administration were also invited to hear the motivations of the Finnish Parliament, which in May 2002 approved the tender for the construction of a fifth nuclear power plant. Representatives from the International Energy Agency were also invited at the request of commission members. They could not be heard because they had other obligations. They could not accept our invitation. As regards the situation in Finland, the committee has been able to argue about the documents submitted in this regard. The report of this first series of hearings and the exchange of views in the committee can be found in the annex to the written and printed report included in the parliamentary document. Their

Based on concerns about the impact on employment and the future prospects of employment and the committee’s attention to the safety aspect of the bill, a second series of hearings was also organized at the request of members of the majority and the opposition. Representatives of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Safety, representatives of the trade unions ABVV, ACV and ACLVB were heard. The report and the exchange of views of this second series of hearings can also be found in full in the parliamentary document.

I think I can say that the hearings and the discussions and exchanges of views in the committee were an incentive to mature the minds and to grow towards a position on the draft law. In this phase, the motives and consequences of the draft law on the ecological, economic, social, scientific and security levels were generally debated. Their

More specifically, the following topics were discussed. I give a summary: the risk of accidents, the risk of proliferation, the problem of nuclear waste, the problem of employment and the prospects for employment, the evolution of the demand for electricity, methods of electricity production, alternative renewable energy sources to replace nuclear production, the price problem of the cost of electricity without nuclear production, the costs for our country due to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. The debate was also held regarding continued investment in safety, the preservation of the know-how and the supply.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the printed text of the report of the committee work on this bill contains a comprehensive and as complete as possible representation of the views of the members on the various topics I have cited and even more. For more detailed reporting, I would like to refer to the parliamentary document. The report was unanimously adopted. On behalf of the Commission and the President, I would like to thank the services for the work done.

I refrain from going deeper into the different views and views on the topics of the colleagues not only because you can find them fully in the report but also because the colleagues themselves will explain their views in the debate.

Thirty amendments were submitted to the draft law, among which one was unanimously adopted regarding employment. The entire bill was adopted with 7 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 1 abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, the original proposal on autopsy in case of unexpected death of a child, which was treated in the Senate, originally aimed to make the autopsy carried out automatically, except in case of parental opposition, but underwent several changes during the course of the discussion in the Senate. The draft, which was then transmitted to the Chamber, stated that parents could request an autopsy in the event of the unexplained death of a child under 1 year. It is the doctor who must inform the parents of this right. The draft was thoroughly discussed by the Public Health Committee during eight meetings. Their

Several members asked questions primarily about the recognised centers for wicked death and about the financial aspects of the bill. The Minister specifies that there are 67 recognised centres that have the necessary expertise and infrastructure, including adequate care for parents. The conduct of a post mortem investigation is fully covered by the RIZIV via a nomenclature number, but there is indeed no arrangement for the transport costs of the child.

Mrs. De Meyer is shocked by the way natural parents are treated in case their child is placed. The Minister repeated the legislative text that specifies that incompetent natural parents should in any case be involved as much as possible in the decision-making process.

Both Mr. Mayeur and Mr. Valkeniers had questions about the need for legislation in this sensitive matter.

But the central question in the discussion remains whether an autopsy should not be better carried out automatically. Therefore, a hearing was decided. The vision to perform an autopsy automatically is also supported by petitions from parents of a deceased child and is also advocated by Professor Devlieger and Van Kerschaver of the Working Group for the Study and Prevention of Infantile Mortality. After all, it is a fact that parents who have just lost a child are so upset that they are unable to decide whether an autopsy should be performed, let alone to take the initiative there themselves to ask. Mr. Germeaux confirms from experience that doctors find it difficult to persuade parents to perform an autopsy immediately after the death of their child. The added value of legislation should therefore be that an autopsy is applied automatically, coupled with the obligation for the doctor to properly inform the parents, as, by the way, also is required by the law on the rights of patients. Such a conversation will always be difficult, especially since there is little time for the decision. A study of parents who lost their child shows that most people consider an autopsy desirable in the hope of finding answers to the many questions they continue to ask later. The autopsy can remove feelings of guilt or provide a potential risk for the next child. Their

In addition, there is also the facet of the general interest of autopsy. Science can make progress in detecting the causes of wig death and in preventing it. At the request of Mr. Goutry, among others, Professor Devlieger describes the serene approach of the child and the parents to an autopsy.

After an extensive but constructive discussion, most members are therefore convinced that the bill should indeed, through amendment, stipulate that autopsy is carried out automatically to find the cause of death, unless the parents oppose it. This, of course, means that special attention and time should be devoted to communication, both before and after the autopsy.

During the article-by-article discussion, several amendments are submitted. For example, Mr. Germeaux proposes to shift the age limit from 12 to 18 months. Another amendment states that the resistance of one of the parents is sufficient to prevent the autopsy. Another amendment states that the doctor must indicate the consent or refusal of the autopsy in the medical record. In no case should parents sign a document. Mr Hondermarcq submitted an amendment aimed at ensuring that parents should not incur costs in the application of that law. Mrs Gilkinet wants to remove the term "absence parents". In this era of telecommunications, people are normally reachable within a short time. Mr. Germeaux argues that the Centre for Wieged Death and not the doctor in the center should establish the standard procedure for post mortem examination. Finally, an amendment is submitted to evaluate that law in the House not after four, but after two years.

The amended bill is adopted with nine votes in favour, one vote against and one abstinence.

I conclude my report.

The Agalev-Ecolo group fully supports the amendments. When parents face the completely unexpected death of their baby, they drown in a pool of sadness. They are not able to think rationally. It is only later that questions arise, questions that a post mortem study might have answered. It is on the shoulders of the doctor that the heavy task rests to point the parents in all serenity to that legally provided investigation. He will have to take the necessary time for that conversation and propose the investigation, but give the rough parents the time to make a decision. In the event of a positive decision, parents can lovefully accompany their baby to the Centre, where a serene reception is provided. As the law now stipulates, an autopsy can always be refused. As was the law when she arrived in the Chamber, an autopsy had to be requested. Psychologically speaking, it is easier for parents to accept an autopsy provided by law than to request an autopsy themselves. Just because they do not want to charge parents in such a painful situation with that initiative, our group supports the present law, which was amended with our cooperation.

Mr Van Overtveldt, in general, I give the floor first to an opposition member but if you are brief, the opposition lets you speak first.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the project that comes to us from the Senate has sparked many debates within the Public Health Committee. The discussions were fruitful, both on the part of the majority and the opposition. Together, we have resulted in a new text, different from the one that was submitted to us by the Senate since our committee decided to take back in part the original text of Senator Destexhe.

Several amendments were introduced. The major change dedicates the automation of the autopsy of an unexpectedly deceased baby and creates the obligation of the doctor to inform the parents of the importance of the autopsy and their right to refuse. Another important change concerns the fact that parents do not incur any costs in the context of applying this law. This is an extremely important contribution that aims not to aggravate the psychological pain of parents.

I would like to recall here other elements that had already been addressed and specified by the Senate. Thus, the autopsy will only be performed in reference centers specialized in sudden death and anatomopathology. There are 67 in Belgium. These centers have special expertise for the reception of parents and experienced family.

In addition, the autopsy will be carried out in respect of the mortal remains. Professor Devlieghe confirmed to us in commission that the autopsy, whose object is very little invasive and is limited to the execution of examinations that allow to exclude by samples certain causes of death.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the various comments that I would like to summarize briefly in the context of this discussion.

The Reform Movement group will therefore support this bill.

I will be brief.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank Mrs. Descheemaeker for her thorough report. I will therefore not repeat the explanation concerning the creation of that draft. Ms. Descheemaeker has clearly stated this.

However, the SP.A group continues to oppose the draft. We cannot find ourselves in this because it is a very profound decision at a ⁇ tragic and emotional moment for parents. The needs of scientific research here appear to prevail over the feelings of the parents, which is unacceptable for us. The specialists speak in this of "useful research material", while the parents face a huge loss.

One of the arguments of the proponents of the proposal is that now that the doctor usually does not dare to offer the parents an autopsy in such a difficult time, and that therefore important medical material is lost. An automatic conduct of autopsy should relieve the doctor from that difficult task. However, we think that it is precisely the task of the doctor to support parents as much as possible in such a difficult time. If he or she is of the opinion that an autopsy can provide clarity about the cause of death, he or she should take the time to explain it to the parents.

Furthermore, we would like to note that this automation and the right to refuse is a flagrant contradiction to the Patient Rights Act, where the right to consent is registered. Finally, the Flemish Patients Platform also considers that the right to refuse in no way corresponds to the right to consent.

The SP.A group will therefore vote against the draft.

Put a lot of energy into this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, in the end, this is a bill in which, in the case of good medicine, the law in fact should not intervene, but the situation in the field leads to the — ⁇ painful — situation that we must yet move to the legal regulation of what could actually be a good medical act, as in other countries it is customary or the plots are to do autopsies in young people, even up to 18 years, and even in any death, starting from the view that the death of a young person is always a suspicious death.

Infant mortality among children under one year decreased significantly between 1993 and 1996. This was the result of a very intense campaign that Child and Family carried out around wheat death. However, it was seen that since 1996 the figures have stagnated and that no real breakthrough could be achieved in an improvement of the figures. Apparently, we are unable to use the data we have to date to further reduce infant mortality in the context of a possible diagnosis of childhood death. Therefore, the objectives of this bill are a systematic autopsy in child mortality and the investigation of the causes of death. In this way, further measures can be taken to prevent wheat death. Their

The death of a baby is, of course, traumatic for parents. However, it is also traumatic for the immediate environment and not least also for the treating doctor. It is therefore evident that the proposal to perform an autopsy on this child is a heavy and emotionally loaded task, not only for the parents, but also for the immediate environment. This emotionality may also explain the rather peculiar history of this bill. Mr Destexhe’s original bill, which provided for an automatic autopsy of children who died as a result of wicked death up to 2 years of age, was converted into an autopsy if parents gave their consent. Their

The committee has returned to its original purpose, but it has made a number of significant adjustments. The bill submitted by the Senate had the great merit that it triggered a new discussion. It obliged the doctor to have an important and in-depth conversation with the parents and to ask the parents for permission to perform the autopsy. The merit of this new bill is that the bill as it was forwarded by the Senate and the original bill have been merged. Their

First, in the spirit of the Patient Rights Act, the emphasis is placed on what we call informed consent. It is of the utmost importance that parents are adequately informed about what an autopsy means. It is important to know that this autopsy must be done – and this is the characteristic of the whole problem – within 48 hours of the child’s death. In addition, one is obliged to answer the questions about where and under what circumstances the autopsy will take place and also what answers this autopsy can provide. In this way, we think, a proper balance is found between, on the one hand, the right of the community to seek out the causes of death in children under 18 months and, on the other hand, the right of parents to refuse an autopsy. Their

Finding a cause of death can also have significant positive consequences for parents. It is of course known that knowledge of the cause of the death of the child is very important within the mourning process. The fact that the parents have signed a petition and the fact that this bill and bill was carried by Child and Family is just based on the painful experiences of many parents who continue to sit with questions about the cause of death weeks after the death of their child and have very large problems in their mourning process. Their

Second, the public health committee raised the age at which the autopsy will happen almost automatically to 18 months. This was done as part of the scientific research that points out the risks of wheat death up to 18 months. This is ultimately a technical adjustment. In order to avoid painful situations, the draft law stipulated that the costs of transferring the child for the autopsy will be borne by the RIZIV. Their

Finally, there has been a discussion in the committee on the role of natural parents when it comes to children raised elsewhere. I continue to defend the solution adopted by the committee. For legal reasons, it has been chosen that when both parents have died, fall under the status of extended minority or have been declared incompetent, the guardian makes the decision on autopsy. However, the committee also recognizes the importance of involving the natural parents in this decision. I think this involvement in making the decision for the processing process with the natural parents is more important than being able to make the formal decision itself.

Mr. Speaker, I think that with this text we are both enabling a legally correct decision and proposing a humanly dignified solution with respect for the feelings of all involved in the death of the child. I thank my colleagues for the thoroughness with which we have been able to deal with this file and for the changes we were able to make. Let us hope that thanks to these autopsies we can take further steps in reducing the number of children who die before they are 18 months old.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, the Socialist Group is obviously convinced that scientific research is an indispensable niche for the evolution of society, indispensable for human progress, and that, especially in the medical field, research must be supported, deepened and conducted in the most appropriate manner possible.

However, we think that, on this bill whose origin is known as coming from a particular sector of a specific hospital that treats sudden infant death, one might have been asked for the opinion of the Minister of Scientific Research. We could have asked the opinion of the Order of Doctors on this matter and we could have asked the opinion of other medical organizations, which was not done at the time of the consideration of this bill in the Senate. We have tried to catch up somewhat in the House but, honestly, this proposal, which was the subject of a unanimous vote in the Senate, has not been, it seems to me, properly examined. Furthermore, the House has made a number of important amendments which, I think, aim to improve the text originally submitted.

A question can be asked: why, today, it is proposed to practice autopsies on children who died of the sudden death of the infant, while in recent years the number of cases of sudden death has been reduced, thanks to an effective prevention policy in this area, carried out ⁇ in our country following the experiments carried out in the Scandinavian countries?

Why propose today this systematic examination of sudden deaths, after a year says the Senate, after eighteen months says the Chamber, which thus further expands the field? Just recently, a colleague told me that it would be necessary, as is the case in other countries for young people under the age of sixteen, to systematically impose an autopsy when the death is not explained. Yes, absolutely absolutely ! Important discussions on this issue need to be held. It does not seem to me that by addressing the question on a very particular point, one achieves what one wants exactly through this bill.

Another point that Mr. Hondermarcq alluded: costs for hospitals where the profits derived from research are not determined. Through an amendment, it was determined that parents should not bear the costs inherent in the recovery of children after autopsy, which was also not planned by the Senate. The house has also done a useful job. Nevertheless, it is worth asking about the general costs for Public Health of this type of operation, about the profits that can be derived from this research and to whom do the profits go? I asked this question in the committee and I did not get an answer.

This project, which affects our sensitivity because it is medical or scientifically unexplained deaths of children under twelve or eighteen months, is a project of course important in itself, but it does not seem to me that, because it affects our sensitivity, it is necessary to adhere to it without conducting a more comprehensive reflection.

I have already said it in a committee: regulating scientific research through a law as it is done here seems to me singular. I am not convinced that it is the responsibility of a parliamentary assembly to say what specific scientific research should be conducted on. This approach seems to me quite special. I think it is the scientists themselves, the medical orders and the researchers who should give opinions on this. I am not sure that a parliamentary assembly should be so precise. We must give guidelines, we must vote on budgets, we must give means so that scientific research evolves. Voting special laws on such specific points seems to me disturbing. Other pathologies also deserve our attention in research, produce human dramas for patients, for families. In a few days, on the occasion of World AIDS Day, we will again face a bunch of information too rarely spread. Then, throughout the year, we will not talk about it anymore. by

I believe that a comprehensive policy of scientific research and medical research should be conducted in the interests of the community. It seems to me that here, the particular interest of a hospital or a doctor was aimed at through this bill. Therefore, despite the improvements that have been made by the House, we will abstain when voting on this draft.

Not too much energy, but a great speed!

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. President. Let me give the word first. We are called to adopt next week a bill aiming at the closure of the Belgian nuclear power plants at the end of 40 years of their operation and this, without derogation and with the prohibition of building new of any type.

Before we talk about energy, I think we need to talk about time and duration. I have the impression that a large part of the mistakes, difficulties in mastering energy policy is a time management problem. The decisions we will make will have a considerable long-term impact. They will engage energy policy choices for our country for several decades, choices that when stopped will be extremely difficult to change.

Large equipment lasts from 30 to 50 years. Transportation networks, be it road transport or electricity transportation, are evolving very slowly, as you know. The housing park, which is an important source of consumption, only renews very slowly. Technological innovation itself has its own rhythms that are quite slow. These rhythms are about ten years to go from the idea to the laboratory, about ten years to go from the laboratory to the prototype, another ten years to go from the prototype to the industrial passage. When we reason and want to talk about projection, that we want to develop systems, we need to reason long-term, not to mention obviously cultural aspects, in so far as mentalities sometimes do not change much faster than systems.

We must therefore consider this long-term concept. The habits of consumers, the needs of our ⁇ and above all the maintenance of economic growth, the evolution of the price of energy sources, the safeguarding of our supplies, the liberalization of our electricity market for all consumers, the date of which is now fixed on July 1, 2007, the share of nuclear power in our global energy consumption, alternative energy sources, our environmental obligations, are all these parameters that must determine the energy policy of our country and therefore our position towards the nuclear sector which constitutes one of the sources of electricity production.

Developed in 1945 by France and the United Kingdom, the electronuclear chain spread to most European countries. Following, remember, the 1973 oil shock, this energy source gained a large scale in Europe. It possesses almost 40% of the world’s electronuclear capacity and nuclear energy provides 35% of its electricity. However, in recent years, the situation has changed with the entry into the European Union of new Member States disappointed with nuclear or frankly hostile to this energy source. A further step was taken in the fall of 1998, with the decision of Germany to abandon nuclear energy while it is currently the second largest producer of nuclear power in Europe. France, which is by far the largest European producer of nuclear power, is not spared by the doubts that have seized its neighbors. Only three Member States have made the choice to produce electricity mostly of nuclear origin: Sweden with 52%, Belgium with 58% and France with 77%.

It is therefore in this European context that the government has looked at the future of the nuclear chain in Belgium. This provides for the moment the majority of our electricity production, representing itself a fifth of our energy consumption, knowing that the energy demand of our country is experiencing a steady growth of 1.5 to 2% per year. This ability guarantees real autonomy. The fuel cycle of the construction of nuclear power plants, the services and equipment of the nuclear industry, the production of electricity and the security agencies provide more than 10,000 jobs in Belgium, jobs and knowledge that must imperatively be preserved. Public authorities must therefore take the necessary incentive measures in order not to break a technological and intellectual chain that Belgium can honour itself. It seems regrettable, for example, that Belgium is not present in the international consortiums working on the evolution of the electronuclear chain, an evolution that would allow to solve in large part the waste issue.

Nuclear power can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for which Belgium has, as you know, made binding international commitments. The European Union undertook in 1997 at the Kyoto International Conference to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions; a protocol determines the share of each European country. Belgium’s goal is to reduce its emissions by 7.5% in 2012 compared to 1990. If Belgium confirms its desire to shut down its nuclear power plants and given the increase in our CO2 emissions compared to 1990, we can ⁇ a reduction of one-third of our CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2012. Knowing that a Kyoto bis will follow the current international standards, I fear that the Belgian effort will be impossible to support, both economically and politically. by

The government relies primarily on energy savings to meet its international commitments. First of all, we need to talk about the energy savings of which the deposit exists and is important. The residential and tertiary sectors will be the first axes of effort. We are aware of the imperative need to reduce our energy consumption but closing the nuclear option would only be reasonable if we took the problem of reducing the consumption by arm the body, which does not seem to be the case today.

The second axis of effort should focus on renewable energy. They are theoretically an essential component of energy policy because they contribute to the national energy “mix” – the energy “mix” of which we voluntarily exclude nuclear – of about 10% by 2020 if we are optimistic. I do not believe that renewable energy should be opposed to other forms of energy production. We need all forms of energy; they contribute to the security of our energy supplies; they open the range of possible energy options by lightening our energy bills. In the field of renewable energy we have degrees of maturity of extremely different technologies, quite different fields of application.

A large-scale development in Europe of these new energy sources does not rely solely on technological advances but requires a re-thinking of both energy production and distribution networks, modes of transport, industrial production structures, architectural and urban planning forms. This observation does not mean that it is futile to promote renewable energy in the current economic and social framework, but it implies that their contribution will not be able to reach a significantly higher threshold only in the long term, as a result of a constant and multi-faceted investment effort. The target of 12% renewable energy for the entire European Union in 2010 seems more realistic.

The new Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable sources requires all Member States to set targets for the consumption of electricity produced from renewable sources. Belgium should go from 1.1 to 6%.

A thorough review of the results achieved by the different countries will be made in 2004. If at that date it becomes apparent that the 2010 target is likely to not be achieved, then the Commission will make proposals on new national targets, including mandatory targets in the appropriate form. In addition, in 2005, the Commission will be able to propose a Community framework for energy to support electricity produced from renewable sources.

Our country, it is true served by an unfavourable geography, seems to be late on this point. Let us hope that the measure contained in Article 407 of the Programme Act, which we are examining, a measure aimed at promoting electricity produced from renewable sources of energy, will have any effect from 1 January 2003. Is our country developing a green energy production industry? Can we compete with countries like Germany or Denmark? Do we have export market shares to defend? No, unlike the Belgian nuclear power supply chain, which comprises about forty companies whose activities cover all spectra of the nuclear power supply chain, from electricity generation to waste management, through facility maintenance, engineering and the provision of equipment or services. by

Very early active in the sector, Belgium was able from the 1950s to acquire a know-how recognized abroad. The example of the implementation of wind turbines in Belgium seems to illustrate the difficulties encountered in order to impose this mode of production of electricity in Belgium. A desirable goal would be to ⁇ a total power of 1,500 mW by 2010, including 1,000 mW in offshore sites. We are far away. Only 100 mW are almost operational at De Haan.

We are putting an end to Belgium, not only to our main source of electricity supply but also to an industrial success. In view of the figures, it must be noted that renewable energy cannot be considered as an alternative to nuclear energy, at least in the medium term. This means that the closure of nuclear power plants will make us dependent on 85% of natural gas suppliers, suppliers whose political stability is questionable. The Chairman of the International Assessment Group of the Ampère Commission report told us, during his hearing, that this dependence presents risks. by

Another solution would be to import this electricity, which would have a cost of buying and transporting through high-voltage lines. This seems regrettable and will also keep us in a situation of dependence on our neighbors.

So we decide to import energy when we are able to produce it by our own means. This is a choice that may leave questionable. As the price of electricity, at the level of its cost of production, the price that would be imposed on consumers seems to have not been sufficiently taken into account, even though the liberalization of the electricity market is considered to be a means of lowering the price level.

One of the also most controversial points of this debate on nuclear energy is the issue of radioactive waste management far more than the risk of accidents or proliferation, two points on which we do not share the opinion of the Secretary of State. In fact, the risk of accidents in a nuclear power plant can be controlled to become minimal. On the other hand, as the electronuclear branch reaches maturity and as the first generations of power plants approach the end of their life, the accumulation of radioactive waste is an inevitable reality. However, the future of these waste is not yet clearly determined. Proponents of the nuclear sector may argue that it produces very limited amounts of waste compared to other industrial activities that generate highly toxic waste in much greater amounts. by

Furthermore, radioactive waste is carefully confined and recorded while chemical waste is not always the same. by

Whether you choose re-treatment, recycling or direct storage, it is in all cases necessary to find solutions for the storage of final nuclear waste. We know that Belgium is conducting studies in an underground laboratory located under the Mol nuclear site. It is in our interest that the Belgian scientific community can engage in international research on this subject, that it can be sufficiently structured and encouraged financially, in order to ⁇ the necessary results in order to reduce the volume and harmfulness of such waste.

In conclusion, Mr. Secretary of State, the MR group will vote, despite some doubts, the bill you present to us but we will be attentive, on the one hand, to the constant maintenance of the safety of nuclear power plants and therefore the material and human investments especially that will be agreed on this point and, on the other hand, to the evolution of our supplies in natural resources that will allow to produce our electricity, of course at an ecological and financial cost for the most important consumers.

Mr. Speaker, (...) but then decide to approve it. That was my spontaneous excitement.

Will you do anything more than a spontaneous scratch? Will you speak too? You are registered. You do not need to talk long.

I will exhaust my speech time. Before starting my speech time, I would like to open my heart and express my dissatisfaction and anger over the way this bill is now being dealt with in Parliament.

At this time at 10 o’clock in the evening, we begin, after the votes. You give this the signal that it may be dealt with in the public meeting, but after the voting everyone may go home and the club may then still remain to talk about this bill.

At the moment, the debate on nuclear energy is a debate that is being held throughout Europe. It is one of the most important issues in Europe. There is a Green Book of the European Commission, which provides a lot of advice. There is the problem in Germany, where the debate has been going on since the 1970s and this through the political parties and through discussion with the population, with the parties, one has finally come to a decision. What we have here is improvisation!

Finland decides to build a fifth nuclear power plant; Sweden decides to withdraw from nuclear power, but what is happening in Sweden? One first decided to step out of nuclear power; then one determined that one actually feared that the light would go out and then one decided to replace the old power plants. The next step is: we will only replace the old power plants and we will not build new ones. This is Sweden!

Also in the Netherlands, the discussion is ongoing with the only remaining Borsele power plant and the debate is now ongoing because it has been established that in the absence of an energy policy one must import more electricity at this time.

Mr. Speaker — and I am still not working on my presentation — what we are still doing here is improvisation. The high urgency has been demanded for this bill, while there is no high urgency at all, except the political one. The Greens wanted to push that draft through in one week in July. Fortunately, thanks to a few colleagues also of the majority, we have finally had a debate “might” about it and now tonight we have to conclude that this is the way this Parliament is dealing with. Their

Mr. Speaker, this late decision comes from you and I truly regret that this way with such an important bill is being overthrown in this House.

Then I come to my speech. Their

Colleagues, it is another bill of this government, intended to make one political family score, in which the other parties, reason at zero, will approve what they are actually against. This design is the price the VLD pays to the Greens to keep Verhofstadt and the coalition in the saddle. In order to remain in power, the VLD is prepared for any sacrifice. Today, the top of the VLD sells the vote of its voters to the Greens: a vote for Blue is a vote for Green, as our group leader recently said. Their

Mr. Speaker, around this bill hangs a swim of blinding hypocrisy. The government and parliament decided to close the power plants. At the same time, members of the government and of the majority around that the nuclear power plants will not be closed, because that a next government will still be able to correct this arrangement, that the government may also be able to invoke the force majeure clause at an appropriate time. We hear this in the walks.

In the meantime, one forgets that policy is forecasting. What this government and this majority cause with this decision is to create the greatest possible uncertainty among producers and investors. No one knows what it will be. Will this decision be revoked? Will she not be revoked?

Colleagues, imagine in the place of those who need to invest right now. What will it be? The great uncertainty is at this moment. Furthermore, the question arises what the legal meaning of the force majeure clause is. Their

Finally, the question arises whether one will be able to reverse this decision at the moment when one would think that one wants to reverse it. Their

Colleagues, what is the intention of the Greens with this design? In several interviews with the Secretary of State, he made this clear. In those interviews, the Secretary of State gently notes that he does not really care whether a next government cancels the shutdown of the nuclear power plants. The Secretary of State says with this draft he wants to give a signal to the investors, to the shareholders of Electrabel, to the pension funds and to the employees of Electrabel.

Mr. Secretary of State, with these words you are sending a signal to destabilize the sector, in particular — and the liberals support that — here creating chaos in the Belgian electricity production. These are the statements we have read in the press, and that is very different from the “green dream” of a nuclear-free society. What we know is that the consumer will pay. The early closure of depreciated nuclear power plants is a huge waste of invested resources already paid by the electricity consumers. Their

The power plants will be closed after 40 years. This deadline has been arbitrarily pushed forward. For this purpose, the Government cannot submit any scientific or technical study that argues what it is for forty years. In 2015, Goal I and Goal II and Tihange I will be closed, together accounting for 30% of the installed nuclear power capacity; in 2022 Goal III and in 2025 the last three power plants will be closed.

Let’s look at the core of the matter and examine the reasons why the government wants to close the power plants early. It is remarkable that the explanation to the bill does not give any reason for a withdrawal from nuclear energy. From the discussions in the Business Committee, State Secretary Deleuze shows three arguments: the risk of accident — explosion —, the risk of proliferation or the dirty bomb, and the problem of nuclear waste. Their

Let us examine these three arguments. Their

The proliferation risk will hardly be reduced by an early departure in Belgium. This is an argument that weighs very lightly. It is also useful to read what the Ampère Commission writes about this on page 83 of its synthesis report: "The manufacture of an atomic bomb requires several kilograms of pure uranium235 or plutonium. The Belgian nuclear industry owns or uses neither one nor the other.”

On the "dirty bomb," the Ampère Commission says that this implies the eclipsing of a large amount of plutonium. The Ampère Commission says that in Belgium a plutonium accounting is kept with great care, which is monitored very closely. If terrorists want to make a dirty bomb, then the chance that this will happen with Belgian material is ⁇ small.

Regarding the problem of storage, page 90 of the Ampère Commission synthesis report states: “The problem of high-radioactive waste, to which the public — rightly — is very sensitive, is not insoluble. Despite the very high density of population in Belgium, there is a solution to isolate and store this waste in a stable geological layer, so that the health of our offspring is in no way affected by the presence for the time necessary until the radioactivity of the waste has fallen below the level of natural radiation.

Furthermore, Mr. Secretary of State, the hearings showed that even the storage problem is hardly alleviated by an early closure and that is because nuclear waste has much to do with the dismantling of the installations, also with the production, but to a lesser extent with the production itself. In other words, the two arguments, and the storage of nuclear waste, and the risk of proliferation, are hardly, not to bless, influenced by an early closure. Their

Thus we come to the third reason of the Secretary of State, safety and the risk of an accident. It is so that if nuclear energy does not have a good reputation among the public opinion, this is partly due to the fear of a nuclear accident. But, even now, the words of the Ampère Commission are opposed to those of the Secretary of State.

As for the “safety” aspect, it should be pointed out that few industrial installations reach the current safety level of the nuclear power plants in the West. Safety has always been a major concern of the nuclear industry, which is fully aware of the fact that its chances of survival depend on it. For the current generation of reactors, the probability of a serious accident is estimated at one incident every one hundred thousand years. We are in the year 2000. So there is a small chance, 1 chance in a hundred thousand years, so there is a chance, but it is ⁇ minimal.

Mr. Secretary of State, I told you that in the committee, but you threw it back with a stupid counterargument. Suppose the risk of an accident and the risk of an explosion are indeed the arguments, and while the other two arguments do not hold hold, why wait 10 years before you close the first plant and wait 20 years before you close the next?

You answered me, “Mrs. Creyf, this is not the case in a democratic society.” You are the competent minister. If you find that there is indeed a risk to the population, then it would be your duty to say that we close now. But you do not.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, suggest that we are now at year zero and that there would still be no nuclear power plants. Then there could be reasons not to start with nuclear energy. However, the power plants are there and the nuclear waste is already there. Let us then ensure that we can deploy those nuclear power plants in the most beneficial way within the framework of a CO2 policy and within the framework of a socio-economic policy. CD&V is neither nucleophile nor nucleophobic. We do not like nuclear energy. For us, there does not necessarily have to be nuclear energy. For us, nuclear energy does not necessarily have to disappear once it is there. We want to look at the concrete circumstances, to look at the real risks, to the alternatives, to the effects on the environment, to the effects on employment, to the effects on wealth formation in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. A government can be expected to be able to answer questions asked by a parliament. A government can be expected to know how we will generate electricity in the future. The government can be expected to have thoroughly examined alternative scenarios and to make an informed decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. Finally, the government can be expected to pursue a flankering policy, to take concrete measures to guide and enable the withdrawal from nuclear energy. The discussion in the business committee was discouraging. On our request for information on the expected effect on the price of electricity, the response of Secretary of State Deleuze was "pas de réponse".

Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, have the opportunity to answer the various speakers. However, I would like to emphasize that it is not because a response from me does not match your opinion that you may conclude that it is not a response.

Mr. Secretary of State, it is not about the fact that I did not agree with your answer. You have answered, you have given us a note with your reflections on the hearings. In the subsequent debate in which we asked questions, you answered me: "Mrs. Creyf, pass the answer." On the question of the impact of the departure on the competitive position of the companies, in particular the energy-intensive companies, the answer was "pas de réponse". To the question of the impact of this decision on employment, no answer. On the question of concrete measures to reduce the demand for electricity and the calculated effect of it, no answer, pass the answer. When asked how Belgium can still conduct a credible climate policy, including in the post-Kyoto era, your answer was also "pas de réponse". Mr. Secretary of State, you are the first Secretary of State against energy and against sustainable development. If a State Secretary for Energy has to worry about something, it is about our security of supply and the strengthening of our independence. Nuclear power plants currently account for almost 60% of our electricity consumption. How will we replace this in the future? How will we produce electricity in the future if nuclear power plants cease to supply electricity? Will we switch to gas? Will we turn on coal again? Will we buy electricity in France, coming from the French nuclear plants? What can be done to reduce the demand for electricity? What is the contribution of renewable energy?

A first aspect of supply security is the spread and reliability of suppliers. There is no problem with uranium. There are many potential suppliers from different parts of the world and also from reliable countries. When it comes to gas, the cards are much more problematic. Letting all the eggs in the hands of the geopolitically unstable Middle East does not seem to us to be the wisest choice. We have already experienced the pericles with OPEC, by the way, before. Another aspect is the promotion of our independence from imports. In this, demand reduction, factors such as the WKK and renewable energy can play a role. However, this does not end the shoe. These three factors can, at best, account for a few dozen percent of the electricity production. In the best case. Then there must be an active policy, and we are still waiting for that. The government today chooses to increase our dependence by targeting more gas or imports of electricity from the French nuclear power plants. I think this is completely irresponsible under the current circumstances.

Let’s take a closer look at the alternatives to nuclear energy. Wind energy could cover a small part of our needs. Let’s be clear, we are for windmills. I am also a fan of windmills at sea. However, this option is expensive and the production price of electricity produced by offshore windmills is 2.35 francs per kilowatt-hour and the production price of electricity produced by offshore windmills is 3.14 francs per kilowatt-hour. For comparison, that is two to three times more expensive than electricity from nuclear power. A second alternative is coal, which today still accounts for 14% of electricity production. Coal is very large stock and not so expensive. In addition, no major price increases are expected in the coming years. Unfortunately, CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants are ten times higher than those of nuclear power plants. Even though this does not rule out that this technology can also improve for the future. Of course, science does not stand still. I have recently heard that people are looking for ways to store CO2 in the soil when burning with coal. In addition to nuclear waste, CO2 is stored in the soil. It seems to be something that we can expect in the future. There are also the STEG power plants, the combined cycle of steam and gas. I have the impression that this is actually in addition to imports the favourite by excellence. The question is, of course, what the environmental costs of the STEG plant are and what the cost of production is. The environmental costs — and we go back to the ampère commission — are estimated by the ampère commission of STEG power plants at 0.42 francs per kilowatt-hour. For nuclear energy, the environmental costs are estimated at 0.04 francs per kilowatt-hour, or up to ten times lower. Therefore, for ecological reasons, we should not switch to gas. As for the price. Let us assume for a moment that we can replace nuclear power plants with STEG power plants. I don’t think it’s such a crazy hypothesis. Many STEG power plants have been added in recent years and most observers automatically think of new STEG power plants to replace the nuclear power plants. Does it affect the price? First, what is the future evolution of gas price? I can also refer here to the ampérera report. The Ampere report is based on data from the International Energy Agency and the European Commission. Secondly, the real choice is not between a new nuclear power plant and a new STEG power plant, the choice we stand for is one between an existing, accounting depreciated nuclear power plant and a new STEG power plant. In 2015, nuclear power plants were depreciated and only operating costs remained. What is the price effect? The technical cost of generating electricity from a depreciated nuclear power plant can be estimated at half that of a STEG power plant, and then on the assumption of a consistent gas price. With rising gas prices — and I emphasize that this is what the Ampere Commission expects — further electricity production from existing nuclear power plants will be three times cheaper than from STEG power plants. There are, of course, a number of factors that play a role in pricing. There is the announcement of the Kyoto Fund, the tax for the municipalities, the so-called free electricity, the green electricity. The Flemish Economic Association says that the switch to gas and the free green electricity will raise the price for a family with two children by 210 euros per year. The average family account will increase by a quarter. Again, this does not take into account a possible rise in the price of gas. Our interim conclusion is that electricity is again threatening to become something for the better goods. In addition, the impact on the competitive position of the industry and very ⁇ on that of the energy-intensive industry will be very large and the impact on employment in the Belgian industry will be very negative. The Secretary of State deals very lightly with supply security and an affordable price for families and ⁇ . The Green Secretary of State likes to swing with his green solution for the withdrawal from nuclear energy. We will consume less electricity or we will slow down the growth of consumption and we will use more renewable energy. In all clarity, we agree with this principled choice, but we need to make a few comments. Historical figures indicate the continued growth of demand in recent years. Over the past five years, demand has increased by about 2.5% per year. The Ampere Committee is also very skeptical about the REG policy of our green secretary of state and the purple-green governments, although I must add that so far no government has a lot of baked. For example, the Commission says that the recent measures taken are largely insufficient, such as the deductibility of environmental investments in the personal tax. As mentioned earlier, when we asked the Secretary of State in the committee meetings for concrete measures to reduce demand, he brought some minimal and nice fiscal honey measures to but serious measures, from those measures that cut in the meat, these measures also dare not take a green Secretary of State. Then there is the renewable energy, whatever we are for, whose technical potential is limited and whose economically feasible potential is even more limited. Everyone is there, but no one does anything about it. In recent years, windmills have not come out of the ground like mushrooms.

The introduction of electricity is another alternative. Germany has also decided to withdraw from nuclear power, although the first nuclear shutdown has already been postponed. Germany buys electricity in France, nuclear electricity, in Slovakia, also nuclear electricity, and in Poland, electricity from coal-fired power plants with high CO2 emissions. Mr. Secretary of State, green colleagues, I am sitting with a question that does not let me go and to which I do not get an answer. Why stop our nuclear power and then have to import nuclear energy from other countries? Can anyone explain to me why nuclear energy in our own country is unacceptable but nuclear energy produced in another country can and is good enough to fill our shortages? We close our power plants, but we rely on the world’s reserves produced by nuclear energy. In France, the 58 French nuclear units have a surplus of electricity they market at dumped prices while Electricité de France is heavily indebted and subsidized by the government. And we will import nuclear power from France. Can someone from the green colleagues explain to me the logic of this, can someone tell me why we should close the nuclear power plants here but count on the fact that we can import nuclear energy from other countries? When it comes to imports, I don’t even talk about the dependence and construction of kilometers of new high-voltage lines.

We were able to conclude during the committee meetings that the mandatory early closure of nuclear power plants as a result of an arbitrary political decision could sometimes lead to damages. After all, this design destroys capital and leads to profit loss. The Secretary of State has not been able to remove the uncertainty in this regard. Who will pay this? The taxpayer or the user?

There is also the security paradox. This blue-red-green government wants to close the nuclear power plants because of the danger of explosion but during the hearing with representatives of the FANC and the trade unions it was revealed that the safety of the power plants will be compromised precisely by the early departure. The unions facing this purely political decision demand a stable social climate. Curiously, the government has done nothing about this.

This is how we come to our decision. This bill is economic madness. On an ecological level, it does not provide any added value, on the contrary. On an ecological level, it is only a minor value. It is a blow to the Belgian people because the production price of electricity will rise sharply and therefore also the price that the consumer will pay. This will affect the competitiveness of our companies. It will endanger employment in our economy and especially in the energy-intensive industry. This decision decomposes well-being and with this decision...

Olivier Deleuze (....) Portugal, Denmark, Italy, all those countries that do not have nuclear energy. That is what you mean.

They have other sources, Mr. Secretary of State. They are better off than us.

Germany has decided to be politically tougher.

At this moment, we are taking an arbitrary political decision to close. This is quite different from a country that can rely on solar energy and that can rely on other forms of energy that we cannot have. What do we do? We will close the power plants. This is a major political and economic decision. Moreover, it is also environmentally irresponsible because this decision will lead to more CO2 emissions anyway, while our emissions must go down. It is ecologically irresponsible because any realistic climate policy is sacrificed to that other green fetish. There is no answer to the key questions of climate policy. We are not hypocritical politicians who approve this law and then go elsewhere around the basebacks that nothing comes from home as this majority does.

This is ⁇ not from your group, but from your colleagues of the majority. I don’t see them here, or maybe. I see the colleagues of mr.

Mr. Van Overtveldt, I repeat that I have listened especially carefully to your speech. I found it very interesting. I think we are essentially on the same line. However, you will approve it. You have criticism from the beginning to the end, but you say you will approve it anyway. Well, we are not so.

Anyone who, by the way, thinks that it will be easy to revoke this decision still makes a small mistake. What worries us most is that the government is taking a decision that is a complete step into the unknown, that this government does not at the same time say in all clarity what the alternatives are, and that this government does not at the same time prepare us in all clarity for a society without nuclear energy. It is a surreal decision with a high Serpent content. It is an act of absolutely inappropriate administration.

What flanking incentives are there for additional scientific research and for research into other ways of generating electricity? What concrete measures have been taken in our climate policy? How will we safeguard the competitive position of our companies? How will we protect the employment of our energy-intensive industry? What investments are made in REG, in WKK, in renewable energy? Pass the answer. We will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, as West-Flaming, I also feel a little called to take the floor in this debate. There is a special reason for this. If we look at the European, meteorological maps, and more specifically the wind maps, then West Flanders is an excellent area to place windmills. On this subject, in the past, the committee has already exchanged extensively of views, among other things, on the placement of windmills along motorways. During several consultation rounds in the region, this idea has been seriously rejected by the population. In addition to the motorways — the notorious A17 route, where windmills were placed — there is, of course, also the problematic location of windmills ...

Mr Deseyn, I apologize, but if you sign up for the debate, I can give you the word. However, I can hardly give the word to two good colleagues from the same group. I change a little. I thought you wanted to make a short comment.

I keep it very short.

Will you keep it short? You know I am a fair president. I don’t want to get rid of young colleagues.

Minister Daems does.

I say what I say.

We do that too.

If you keep it short, it’s okay. I will then give the floor to Mr. Paque. Keep it short, I will appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this kindness. I also immediately learned that I should be registered in the further debate.

I was working on placing those windmills at sea. Of course, these windmills pose great hazards to marine biology and coastal fishing. These are arguments that we and our group have repeatedly challenged. For the sake of our province, however, I wanted to draw further and specific attention to this debate.

The location on the land along the tracé I just talked about also has an impact on the quality of life. Research shows that the increase in decibels and the impact shadow of the rotor sheets can cause significant impediment. This obstacle is not only in the audiovisual field. There is also a form of psychological disability for people who are constantly facing the shadow of rotor leaves. This seems to have a very unpleasant effect. It also has an impact on public health.

I would like to add one last point.

We see the perverse effect of such strategies. Now there is speculation. Municipalities are purchased. There are huge amounts offered for certain grounds. This is not by chance the case in the municipalities where the parties of the majority swing the plaque. Often, neighborhoods are also opposed because scandalously high prices are offered for any installations of these windmills. We would much rather have seen that those cents were spent to support the placement of solar panels and to expand the biothermal energy.

Mr. Paque, if you have the kindness, since you have many amendments, defend them.

Thank you, Mr. President, and reassure yourself, I will not speak until

Mr. Paque, if you speak until 2015, who knows if I will still be president, if I will still be there to listen to you.

I hope you will not be in the Senate, Mr. President.

You know that I have always said that I will remain in the House until I die and I will pass to the Senate afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I believe that today, Mr. Secretary of State, is your glorious day. You will finally be able to put your sticker `'Nuclear no thanks!' on the large blue car of the rainbow. I even saw that the joy was so great within your group that one or another of your parliamentary colleagues came to ask you to dedicate the report. I would like to invite all those who wish to attend Mr. President’s meeting. Deleuze at the end of our work to dedicate the report on the draft law.

Mr. Speaker, I think that our colleague Paque rightly emphasizes the beneficial effects of the present dossier on the mentality of our green colleagues. I think this is important. These people have difficult days behind them. They have a lot of difficult days and weeks ahead.

However, what stands out as much as the enthusiasm in the green banks, although limited, is, of course, the lack of enthusiasm in the Socialist Party, in the SP.A, in the VLD, in the MR. I think this should also be emphasized.

You can see the enthusiasm. Turn off your GSM. I give the word again to Mr. Paque.

It may be your glorious day today, but, as Mr. said. Leterme, we need to put a great bémol to this enthusiasm. I counted and for now we are sixteen in session, that is, less than the equivalent of a committee, since in a committee there are seventeen members, and if I calculate correctly, the majority would not even be in number in this committee. Maybe we could start by moving our meetings to a committee room. This could already pledge in the implementation of your bill since, in order to get out of nuclear power, you will have to make energy savings. We could show the example in this Parliament and gather in a smaller room to consume much less energy. by

I now come to my own speech, and first of all, I would like to fully associate myself with Mrs. Creyf’s remarks on the way we worked. It is an expedient method and also a lack of respect for Parliament. I will not return to the summer leaflet with the deliberate will to finish our work in one session, in one afternoon, on a bill that, in my opinion, is one of the most important of this legislature and also one of the most important in terms of its consequences in the years to come. by

My second observation concerns the flagrant lack of preparation of this project. Indeed, at the beginning of her presentation, the representative of the European Commission had qualified the decision that Belgium was preparing to take as one of the most important decisions in its economy, adding that it was a turning point that requires a deep reflection, not emotional but rational. The conclusion to be made today is that this thorough reflection has unfortunately not been carried out, and it appeared to me even more flagrant when I listened to the representative of the German parliament when he came to explain how, since the 1970s, Germany had long examined, studied and prepared a nuclear exit. I can only be struck by the difference in method between Germany and Belgium. In view of the German approach, scrutinized, systematic and serious, the method of the Belgian government appears rudimentary, improvised and expeditive, although it is true that the option of exit from nuclear power is included in the government declaration of July 1999.

Important bodies such as the Federal Nuclear Control Agency and the Plan Office have not even been consulted. Your project says nothing specific about alternative solutions and accompanying measures to be taken by 2015. We do not yet have knowledge of any draft replacement plan based on a thorough assessment of the impacts of nuclear discontinuation. This lack of plan has also been deplored both by the trade unions and by the SCN and the Vinçotte Nuclear Association.

Now I come to the bottom of the case. Per ⁇ it would be useful to remind our parliamentary colleagues who are about to vote for the end of nuclear electricity production what nuclear power today represents in our country. Before you make a decision, just know. The seven power plants in Belgium provide ⁇ 60% of the electricity consumed in our country against 26.8% for natural gas and 11.5% for coal, the share of electricity produced from renewable energy remains strongly limited. This places Belgium among the countries where the production of greenhouse gases per kilowatt/hour is the most limited. The use of nuclear power at home can undoubtedly reduce our annual gas emissions by 35 million tons. For comparison, coal produces from 990 to 1180 grams of CO2 per kw/h, oil from 760 to 960 grams, natural gas between 350 and 800 and nuclear zero. by

But why then go out of nuclear against the opinion of the Ampère Commission and the Peer Review as well as against the recommendations of the European Commission? In the population, nuclear power and its risks are still a topic that scares many citizens. This is why you proposed in July 2002 a preliminary draft law concerning the shutdown of nuclear power plants as soon as they have reached the age of 40. This is probably a real question of political credibility for your ecologist party since the anti-nuclear struggle was the founding myth of the first hour ecologists.

But curiously, the exposition of the reasons for your bill makes no allusion to your true motivation. It was only during your intervention following the hearings that you discussed the three important issues justifying the abandonment of nuclear power, namely the risk of accidents, radioactive waste and the risk of proliferation. by

In terms of installation safety and accident risk, in the OECD countries, installations meet strict standards and are subject to a set of very strict regulations, so that the power plants have reached a quite remarkable level of safety. Since the mid-1980s, improvements in the design of the facilities and the operating process have continuously reduced the risk of accidents and reduced the environmental consequences of any problems that may arise. For Western reactors, the probability of a major accident is 1 per 100,000 years of operation of a reactor, which means that for Belgium, the likely risk of a major accident is 1 per 14 286 years. by

As for radioactive waste, the Belgian nuclear power plant produces 500 grams of waste per year and per capita, of which only 5 grams are high radioactivity while the industry produces a hundred kilograms of toxic waste. The total amount of nuclear waste represents only small volumes, often less than 1% of all toxic waste. The harmfulness of the latter is constant while the radioactivity decreases exponentially over time. For many years, various solutions have been considered for the storage of radioactive waste and today, great progress is being made every day in the field of nuclear waste management. It is therefore not illusory to believe today that nuclear technologies can evolve and will probably evolve tomorrow toward even more environmentally-friendly production methods, producing less waste and less hazardous waste.

As far as the risk of proliferation is concerned, I will only take a few passages from the Ampère Commission report. The production of an atomic bomb requires a few kilograms of pure uranium 235 or plutonium 239. The Belgian nuclear industry does not own or handle either, with the exception of the Mol nuclear center, which uses for the purposes of research highly enriched uranium as fuel in the BR2 reactor, which is subject to special surveillance. Belgian power reactors use only low-enriched uranium with which the construction of an explosive device is technically impossible. All nuclear installations on the Belgian territory are subject to the control of Euratom, the International Atomic Energy Agency, as regards the accounting of strategic matters. by

Another question, Mr. Secretary of State, why did you set the age limit of 40 years to dismantle the power plants? The first closure is expected to take place in 2015, the last in 2025. This lifetime is at least arbitrary since all components of the power plants could be replaced in the event of a safety imperative. Other countries such as the United States extend the life of their power plants up to 60 years. The Federal Nuclear Control Agency recalls that in the United States, a dozen power plants have already benefited from an extension of their operating life that should allow them to reach 60 years of activity. She adds that a shutdown after 40 years is equivalent to voluntarily giving up 30% of potential electricity production. by

I come to the big question that everybody asks without having an answer. What will replace nuclear power? The question must be asked today, taking into account a new determining date for the future of the planet. Since the anti-nuclear demonstrations of the 1970s, the data has changed a lot. Another energy source danger has emerged, global warming. Belgium has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. To meet these commitments, it is imperative to limit the use of fossil fuels, the main incriminations in the emission of greenhouse gases. At the closure of the last nuclear unit, other more drastic measures will surely have succeeded the Kyoto Protocol. How can we save energy and reduce our CO2 emissions without nuclear power? Between the founding myth and the great environmental problem of the century, between the atom and Kyoto, it is indispensable to make a choice or at least a compromise. Furthermore, all studies now demonstrate that the first commitment is a first step and will be followed by more binding targets to which the most industrialized countries will be compelled. The protocol that will follow, after 2008-2012, is likely to be significantly more stringent than Kyoto 1. Among the alternatives you have proposed to us is the fact that it will be necessary to act on the supply of electricity, i.e. on the modes of production of electricity. You emphasized decentralized production by praising the merits of cogeneration. According to Ampère, cogeneration represents a remaining potential of only 700 to 1500 megawatts and the contribution of combined heat and electricity production to the reduction of CO2 emissions is relatively low. In terms of renewable energy, Ampère estimates the potential of renewable energy sources at 8 terawatt/hour, which corresponds to only 10% of the country's demand. The Government Declaration of July 1999 talked about developing new sources of alternative, massive, renewable and clean energy to replace nuclear energy. These massive alternative energy sources do not yet exist. The alternatives you propose are in no way a solution. To compensate for the production of electricity from nuclear sources, therefore, a massive use of gas or coal will be required. by

When it comes to wind energy, it is enough to follow the news to assess the difficulty of reaching the expected potential. Several of the sea wind turbine projects have been rejected by the competent authorities. Those who have received the approval of these authorities are attacked by the neighbors in the State Council. Flanders decided to reduce their target for renewable energy from 3 to 2% in 2004. by

There is a strong bet that the Walloon Region, which has overestimated its potential, will soon do the same. It should not be forgotten that in 40% of the time, wind turbines produce nothing when the wind is either too weak or too strong.

Finally, in the area of centralized production, you are proposing to replace nuclear power plants with TGV plants, but these plants will produce an additional 16 megatons of CO2 per year, while the use of nuclear power at home will undoubtedly reduce annual gas emissions by 35 million tons. This option makes us significantly distant from the Kyoto objectives.

You also want to act on the demand. Projections and estimates all show an increase in demand even though the figures differ from one estimate to another. The European Union and Belgium in particular are consuming more and more energy products and thus increasing their dependence.

The Ampère report mentions different figures. The forecasts of electricity demand for 2020, made by the European Commission and the Federal Office of the Plan, show an increase in overall electricity demand by 1.8 to 2% per year until 2010. The demand for electricity would then slow down to only increase by 1.2% on average from 2010 to 2020.

At the global level, the International Energy Agency predicts in its latest report that energy demand will increase by two-thirds by 2030, mainly in terms of fossil fuels — oil but especially gas — to operate power plants.

Would we be the first country in the world to succeed in reversing this upward trend? As an example, Sweden, which had decided in 1981 to quit nuclear power, only managed 20 years later to shut down a single reactor, the smallest of the country’s ten, because it has not yet found a way to control demand and produce electricity with the same efficiency as nuclear power. In turn, Finland has decided to invest in the chain, in order to meet the growing consumption of electricity and to meet its Kyoto commitments.

The abandonment of nuclear power will likely result in an increase in the price of electricity for consumption that could be 20 to 30%. This risk of increasing costs for consumers was highlighted by the representative of the European Commission.

At present, the cost of production of the Belgian nuclear power plants is the lowest of all means of production. As I said, nuclear energy currently covers almost 60% of the electricity consumption in Belgium. In the best case, renewable energy will be able, by 2020, to provide 15% of demand. To produce the remaining 45%, one of the solutions envisaged is the construction of gas power plants that have the major disadvantage of releasing much more CO2 than nuclear and which are powered by a large amount of natural gas, non-storageable fuel from countries with an unstable political climate, subject to an increasingly strong demand and therefore likely to see its purchase price increased.

In case of abandonment of the atom, an energy dependence of our country reaching 70% is not excluded. Such a situation would jeopardise price stability and jeopardise supply security as a result of its exposure to risks related to the international economic environment.

Is the Belgian population ready to see their television shut down in the middle of a movie, under the pretext that our supplier does not meet its commitments?

In the middle of the match.

In the middle of the game, it was less difficult than in the full.

The draft law aims to demonstrate that supply security is ensured by the indicative program of means of production of electricity, established under the Electricity Market Act of 1999, taking into account the large number of actors involved. Nothing is less true in so far as, precisely, this program is only indicative and can only define certain scenarios for a period of 10 years that does not include any elements relating to the closure of nuclear power plants since the first closure is planned only in 2004.

As for supply security, you stated that it is unacceptable for any energy minister to be structurally dependent on abroad. Any government, whatever its composition, will fight for installed power at least equivalent to its country’s electricity needs.

With the liberalization of the European electricity market, operators will produce or buy the cheapest electricity and, if necessary, decide not to invest in Belgium or buy nuclear power, for example, in France, where it is cheaper and in overproduction. Consequences: The problem is shifted and Belgium will be at risk of becoming overly dependent on abroad.

Therefore, the import of electricity of nuclear origin would be inevitable in the event of nuclear discontinuation. Currently, electricity networks are overloaded. Therefore, others would need to be built with all the problems that this poses in terms of permits, costs, seats, visual impacts or disturbances of high voltage lines.

The impact on employment is also not insignificant. According to all estimates, the number of people directly or indirectly employed in the nuclear sector in Belgium would range between 7,000 and 9,000. What alternative energy source would be able to generate such a working capacity? While it is true that decentralized electricity production involves a greater number of production units, however, this type of production will generally represent only few additional jobs as the decentralized potential is limited.

Finally, and that is not the slightest of the impacts to consider, the Ampère Commission drew your attention to the security risks posed by the loss of “know-how” and de-investment in the event of abandonment of the nuclear chain.

Belgium is one of the few countries with nations like the United States, Japan and France to dominate this particular technology. Almost all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle are or have been controlled in our country. By leaving nuclear power, it would turn its back on prosperous and secure industrial development. It is difficult to figure out what this waiver will cost in the long run, assuming that one day the know-how in question will have to be imported from abroad.

The long-term strategy of the country’s supply security should aim to ensure, for the well-being of citizens and the proper functioning of the economy, the physical and continuous availability of energy products on the market at an affordable price for all, respecting environmental concerns and the prospect of sustainable development. Supply security is not intended to maximize energy autonomy or minimize dependence, but to reduce the risks associated with it.

One of the main objectives is balancing and diversifying supply sources. Environmental concerns about damage to the energy chain, whether accidental or related to polluting emissions, have highlighted the weaknesses of fossil fuels and the difficulties of nuclear energy.

The fight against climate change is a challenge and a long-term struggle at the international level. The objectives set by the Kyoto Protocol are only a first step, while greenhouse gas emissions in Belgium continue to increase steadily.

Inversing trends is an extremely difficult task. The return to sustained economic growth, the change in the structure of our energy consumption, mainly that of electricity and transport as a result of our lifestyle, contribute to the increase in CO2 emissions. Can we shut our eyes at an increasing dependence on oil and gas from unstable countries? Can we tolerate that rising oil and gas prices disrupt our economies? Can the risks of global warming related to greenhouse gas emissions be accepted? and no. Common sense, concern for the environment and the management of natural resources as a good parent would like the diversity of modes of producing electricity to be preserved, without neglecting any solution; this simply reflects the application of the precautionary principle.

To support this, let me recall the words of Loyola de Palacio in the Vif l’Express of January 18, 2002, I quote, “The problem of the nuclear chain in our country is not so much that of the safety of power plants as that of waste. There is no point in denying this disability. But we have very serious high-speed flight research tracks in Europe to reduce both the amount and harmfulness of this waste.”

At the cost of real technological development, the problem will become controllable. On the other hand, global warming is neither controllable nor controllable in the short term. The natural disasters are causing thousands of lives. I do not rule out the possibility that we can give up nuclear power in 50 years, but today it is not realistic. Furthermore, nuclear power has the advantage of security of supply and price stability.

No consistent argument can justify the abandonment of nuclear power today, and decide it in a hurry.

Before any change in energy policy, it would be wiser to set up a clear, quantified alternative replacement plan, with costs, expected percentages of production from other sources, expected price increases, job expectations, just to know where we are heading. Unfortunately, this plan is missing today.

We believe that we should not give up nuclear power today. But at the same time, we believe that more emphasis should be placed on rational use of energy and that everything must be done to maximize our consumption. We also believe that renewable energy needs to be pushed to its fullest and that significant resources need to be allocated to research and development in this area. We have ideas, proposals, but you do not give us the opportunity to discuss them. There is no real debate, but a seeming debate. However, taking into account the different opinions and conducting a rational, objective and transparent debate are two key things for our future to be truly sustainable. by

In conclusion, we are not at all costs for nuclear, let’s understand! But we require additional guarantees before deciding to abandon this production chain.

The bill does not consider how nuclear power plants will be replaced as they account for two-thirds of the country’s electricity production. The potential of renewable energy, as well as that of demand control, is limited while gas is a viable alternative, but it generates greenhouse gas emissions and increases our country’s energy dependence. There are three major requirements. There are three conditions for nuclear departure. by

1st Comply with the Kyoto Agreements. 2nd Ensure the security of supply. Three Energy supply at a more or less constant price.

This is also the meaning of the amendments I have submitted in the committee and which I am submitting again today in the plenary session. I also add the suggestion that, when establishing its indicative programme, the CREC consults, in addition to the Energy Administration and the Plan Office, the Federal Council for Sustainable Development and the Federal Nuclear Control Agency.

Finally, I urge my colleagues not to support this project on the sole pretext that it is included in the rainbow majority agreement. An eminent socialist said this morning in a newspaper: “It’s a famous nonsense that what we’re going to vote for. But as this is part of the government agreement, we really have no choice.” She added: "And frankly no one wants the government to break the pipe for a project that will only have consequences in a few years. And if at that point, electricity will cost twice as much, well, we’ll say it’s the fault of Ecolos. by

I would have hoped that this eminence could be recognized, but unfortunately... [...] You are right. by

I would have hoped, I said, that this socialist eminence could be recognized, but I am unfortunately obliged to see the great interest that the Socialist Party has in this bill. I have no doubt that this will delight a Mayor of the Mosaic Valley. by

Remember, dear colleagues, in 1999, the Ecolos said: When it is green, you move forward. As the saying goes, when it is green, we close. Today is Tihange. Tomorrow is Francorchamps. Maybe tomorrow it will be FM. Here is the hunting table in the province of Liège where every district unfortunately finds its account. The Liegean voter will be appreciated in due time by saying: Ecolos, no, thank you!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, despite the advanced hour and the fact that we speak almost enough here for empty banks, for the gallery or for the report, I will still make an attempt to make a meaningful presentation.

When the Council of Ministers approximately nine months ago, on 1 March 2002 to be precise, had taken the decision to close the first nuclear power plant from 2015, it was clear to the Flemish Bloc that not only the decision but also the justification to close the nuclear power plants was based on few rational facts. There were previously ideological motives here, and therefore because of the symbolic value, the high fetish content of this dossier for Agalev and Ecolo.

The definitive closure of nuclear power plants, or what I would like to call the nuclear departure in the continuation of my argument, will have not only ecological but also economic consequences for both people, business and society. The social choices will have to be completed differently, choices of which few realize what the consequences will be, choices that today ⁇ have not yet been charted.

With a current production coverage of approximately 55 percent of nuclear power generation, the question remains, of course, how the supply will be guaranteed in 2015.

Therefore, the Flemish Bloc considers it important that the debate can be held even if it is only to know the contribution or contribution of all sorts of relevant bodies and of energy experts and economists because one once, ⁇ with regard to the theme of nuclear energy, there is a certain field of tension between an economic data on the one hand – and with this I mean economic progress and the increasing demand for energy – and ecology or environmental care on the other.

Another element that does not emerge in the entire discussion around the nuclear withdrawal and the related thematic of the Kyoto objectives is the closure of the classical power plants that produce electricity based on the combustion of coal. It is surprising, however, that you, as Secretary of State, and then as a member of the Green Group, do not advocate a program to close it in the short term. From an ecological point of view, this would have been a more logical decision. Especially when we look at the share of energy sources, we find that in 2001 the share of coal is still 14.3 percent and that is not an unfair percentage if you ask me.

Consequently, we continue to find it strange that in your discourse on the replacement of traditional energy sources by alternative or renewable energy sources, you do not anticipate the closure of these often older power plants. If achieving the Kyoto targets is at the heart of the Greens, this leaves them a significant opportunity to replace megatons of CO2 with alternative or renewable energy sources.

In that context, the Flemish Bloc considers that the nuclear departure is a stupidity. After all, nuclear energy is precisely a form of energy that has no impact on the greenhouse effect. Although the Secretary of State claims that the nuclear withdrawal is compatible with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, we still note that greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase every year and that as a result it will become increasingly difficult to reverse the tide.

In terms of time, there is a problem. The Kyoto targets must be achieved by 2012, that is, before the closure of the first nuclear power plant. Additionally, we know that now all of the Kyoto commitments alone will not be sufficient to reduce the greenhouse effect and that therefore from 2012 there will be much stricter reduction targets. The outlook in this regard is ⁇ not of nature to cheer.

If we look at the evolution of CO 2 emissions, we find that this country has an ever-higher emission than the neighboring countries Netherlands, Germany and France. In addition, emissions are much higher than the European average. At that moment, choosing to shut down the nuclear power plants seems to me an illogical decision.

As usual, this government keeps another possibility behind, in particular the purchase of what is called “clean air” in Russia. This is another novelty of this purple-green government. Therefore, the Kyoto Fund was created as an instrument to finance the purchase of clean air.

In any case, the abolition of nuclear production requires credible and reliable alternatives and, above all, conditions relating to supply security. Therefore, there must be an elaborate energy policy, and here we note that this government does not have a elaborate energy policy. Despite all the beautiful statements of the government, there is no long-term planning for our energy supply. For example, a plan for ten years: where are we in 2012, with which energy sources will we work? In our view, the government lacks any strategic insight and shifts the problem of energy supply to the industry. They must only ensure that there is sufficient capacity or installed capacity. The theme of nuclear energy in general and nuclear power plants in particular, Mr. Speaker, has a specific character, since historically it has always faced a debate between pro and opponents, including all the prejudices used mainly by the politically left-oriented environmental movements. The strategy is fairly transparent, in the sense that they choose a sensitive topic — and nuclear energy is one such one — then false or at least incorrect information is spread and it pretends that this information is proven. Some sentimental explanations are then engraved to seduce the bangericks, by way of speech. You also know the general impression that nuclear energy is immediately equal to cancer, according to the analogy of the discussion around food safety, where hormones are immediately equal to cancer. In any case, at such moments you can seduce the bangericks and you also have the perfect cocktail to get the opponents at hand.

On the other hand, I also note that there are still people who wish to engage this debate in a more intellectual way. On June 26, 2002, the European Commission published a Green Paper entitled "A European Strategy for a Continuous Energy Supply". The Green Paper calls for a broad diversification of energy sources. This inevitably demonstrates that nuclear energy is an option that must remain open, and is therefore indispensable to secure Europe’s energy supply in the future, ⁇ in the context of meeting the Kyoto standard. With this Green Paper, the Commission aims to demonstrate that it is almost impossible for Europe to ⁇ the Kyoto objectives without nuclear energy, as nuclear energy can save 300 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. The depreciation of nuclear energy would mean that Europe would have to obtain 35% of its electricity production from conventional and renewable energy sources, and that is, in my opinion, a virtually unattainable map. The Commission also raises more and more questions about foreign dependence – I mean outside the EU – in terms of fossil fuels. The unstable geopolitical situation in the Middle East will undoubtedly be an additional argument there.

In that context, it is a turning point that Finland has used the political courage to give green light for the construction of a fifth nuclear power plant, ending the years-long debate on how Finland should meet its rising energy needs. Two arguments were important or decisive in their decision. First, the smaller dependence on energy imports; they imported to this day a whole portion of their electricity from the old, polluting Russian coal-fired power plants. A second argument is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it is strange that the Greens are in the majority and subsequently it has not been shown that they have left the coalition.

Another important element in the discussion is the economic aspect, in the sense that CO2-free alternatives to nuclear energy are sensibly more expensive. In addition, there is little potential in this country to apply such solutions. So it is not because an island with windmills will be built off the Flemish coast that the problem of the power supply of the track is, on the contrary. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the share of renewable energy sources will increase in the coming decades. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the analysis of the AMPERE committee, which calculated that renewable energy sources will take over 6% to maximum 10% of current electricity production by 2020. For this country, almost only wind energy is eligible as a renewable energy source, ⁇ no solar energy and no hydropower plants.

Is the Flemish Block opposed to wind energy for generating electricity? No, we are only realistic. For this country, with its high population density and rather its limited area and availability of free space, this is not feasible. This also applies to wind turbine parks off the Flemish coast. We have just over 60 kilometers of coastline. If I remember correctly, you have been to Scandinavia to visit local windmills parks. However, they have several thousand kilometers of coastline, and that, of course, makes the big difference. We also believe that the windmills cannot meet the temporary demand for more electricity, and moreover, they do not necessarily turn when there is an increased demand. As we know, windmills, both on land and at sea, do not run 24 hours a day. After all, there must be enough wind power to turn the rotor leaves. That is, if the windmills do not run other power plants must supply electricity, thereby wind energy has the disadvantage that they cannot fill the gap that nuclear energy would leave.

Then we are not even talking about whether wind energy without the financial benefits of the various governments, such as subsidies and extra-fiscal benefits to the companies that make windmills, makes a long-term opportunity at all. We are in full transition towards the liberalization of the energy market. It would not surprise me, therefore, that within a few years the European Commission will intervene in the discussion and require Belgium to close the subsidy chain in order not to jeopardize free European competition. At that point, producers can only do one thing: transfer the additional costs they now have to charge internally externally to the consumer. Therefore, we do not tend to cry blindly with the gospel of the wind, for when we look at the chest, we find that among the preachers of the gospel of the wind there are also false prophets. We must be vigilant at all times.

That government therefore seeks to avoid the liberalization of the electricity market and the lower electricity prices that will result in this, in order to compensate for the higher costs of production of electricity from renewable energy sources. This is of course a fable. Anyone who is currently following the entire discussion on the setting of tariffs for the operators of the high-voltage networks and the municipal electricity networks — and then I refer to the debate that took place yesterday at the KU Leuven Energy Institute — must conclude that the belief in lower electricity prices is falling in sight, and that price increases are already being taken into account.

So what is the solution this government proposes, colleagues? We need to reduce the demand for electricity. How this should be achieved, this government leaves in the middle. The figures show that a decrease in electricity consumption in the last 40 years has come to nothing, and that is true for almost all countries in Europe. This means that all possible efforts to change consumer habits have had little or no effect. Consequently, the Flemish Bloc does not believe that rational energy use, both by the industry and by the households, can even partially compensate for the nuclear supply.

Energy policy, and more specifically the choice for or against nuclear energy in the production of electricity and the development of renewable energy sources, is discussed in several countries in Europe. In any case, we confirm, and the facts speak for themselves, that numerous European countries have chosen to retain nuclear energy to a lesser or more extent. Therefore, it is still useful to look at the situation in some of our neighboring countries.

The country with the highest volume of electricity based on nuclear energy is undoubtedly France. The theoretical duration of the operation of their nuclear power plants currently in operation ends in 2020, which is roughly the same period as in Belgium, with the difference that in France there is no questioning of the nuclear option at all. I also want to know that the French Greens are not currently standing on the barricades to advocate for this. According to a recent study, which examined the possibility of nuclear withdrawal, the decision for the French is quite clear. The best possible decision in 2020 is that the nuclear park will continue to survive.

In Germany, the red-green government reached an agreement with the electricity producers in 2000 on the closure of the German nuclear power plants. On the one hand, these plants are expected to produce another 2,600 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, which at the rate of current use means that these plants will remain operational until 2020. On the other hand, currently Germany’s peak energy needs must be covered by imports of nuclear electricity from the former Eastern bloc countries, or through the highly polluting Polish coal-fired power plants. This is energy from power plants that are not at all safe and technologically light years away from the European safety concept. If it is intended to import electricity from nuclear energy in Belgium from 2015 from, for example, France, because of their overcapacity, then this is in itself not only cynical within the framework of this design, but also to be cataloged under hypocritical nonsense.

It is not at all so unrealistic that such a scenario is present, because the main shareholder of Electrabel is the powerful French group Suez-Lyonnaise-des-Eaux. This French Société Générale is currently looking forward to acquiring as many energy producers as possible in Europe and beyond, in order to strengthen its position, in order not to use the word dominance, in the energy market. How is all this financed? Simply put, by rotating the profits of Electrabel and transferring them to the main shareholder Suez, and further by cutting costs for personnel and technical installations, the current restructuring plan is a good example of that. As a result, the energy sector and its employees become Suez’s milk cow to pay for its foreign expansion plans. This is one of the double bodies of this draft law on the nuclear departure.

In the Netherlands, the government has already closed a nuclear power plant in the long past, in particular that of Doodewaard. A number of very strange findings have already been made. The closure demonstrated in practice that the initial time frame for dismantling was not met. Not because the owner was troubled, but because the government, through the relevant ministry, failed to issue the various permits for the different stages of dismantling in a timely manner. This has, on the one hand, resulted in the price of dismantling being increasingly higher. On the other hand, it is noted that as one comes closer to the dismantling of the nuclear reactor itself, the original staff with the site’s nuclear expertise has long retired.

Consequently, the element of knowledge transfer and nuclear expertise is indeed a problem here. This element is also linked to the present draft law. How can one still motivate technicians and engineers for a nuclear-technology study direction if this government absolutely wants to push through the end of the atomic age. In the Netherlands, it is also noted that the government has not worked on energy plans in recent years, which currently obliges it to import more and more energy, using the Belgian high-voltage network as a carrier. In the spring, the Belgian high-voltage grid was almost shut down when there was suddenly a shortage of electricity in Germany, which required additional electricity from France, via the Belgian high-voltage grid, to be re-ordered. This showed that the high-voltage grid had the greatest difficulty in transferring the extra amount, outside of our own supply.

Consequently, and with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, it must be clear that, on the basis of the plea I have just held, my group does not like the nuclear withdrawal and that I have also put forward sufficient arguments to reject this green symbolic dossier. We are also continuing to be surprised at how the VLD in this file, with Pierre Lano’s small but symbolic abstinence in the committee, as a camouflaged protest voice, once again lets the lesson be played by the progressive coalition partners.

The [...]

This is not a problem, Mr. Lano. I only assume that your group will probably pass this bill next week, and then I wonder how you will defend this decision to your backbone — the dozen entrepreneurs and business leaders involved in this sector. It is for you, as VLD, in any case not a pleasant task, I think, to have to present this. President: Robert Denis, Vice President President: Robert Denis, Vice-President

Is nuclear energy sustainable or not? Ask physicists and they will answer that the sun is the only renewable energy source. Any energy conversion is accompanied by an increase in entropy and is therefore not really sustainable. More importantly, however, no energy source that uses the extraction of natural raw materials can be called sustainable. Nuclear energy cannot exist without uranium. If all the electricity worldwide were to be derived from nuclear power, we would be out of stock within three years. If we — more realistically — take current consumption, then we have a stock of 65 years. So let’s follow the wise advice of the North American Indians, who know what the negative impact of uranium mining means. They say, “Keep the uranium in the ground.”

Nuclear energy would not contribute to the problem of CO2 emissions. But yes, and that is obvious. Agree, the reactor itself is not, but life cycle analysis is no longer a strange word for us, colleagues. This requires us to charge the entire process. It is only after dismantling that environmental costs really increase, but let’s start from the start. In the extraction, in the uranium process, in the energy needed to build the reactor and in the processing of radioactive waste, fossil energy is used. It’s only recently that I came across a study that shows a very surprising table. Unfortunately, I could not use them in the committee, but I just want to show you them. The study shows the following. If you look at it over a period of 24 years and you take CO2 emission 0 for a gas reactor, then the CO2 emission of a nuclear reactor comes up there at some point. Thus, it is lary to state that nuclear energy would not contribute to CO2 emissions. The (...)

What I intended to say is that there is constant argument that nuclear energy would not contribute to the problem of CO 2 emissions, and that I have nevertheless wanted to refute for a moment.

Mrs Laenens, if I can interrupt you for a moment, I agree if you do the life cycle analysis of a nuclear power plant, but you must do so for a gas power plant and for a coal power plant, and I do not think that there the balance is as positive, probably even much more negative. It is not intended to compare apples with lemons, you must be honest. I assume that the people who build windmills also leave material that has been produced somewhere, and they probably also produced CO 2 for that.

I compare CO 2 with CO 2 , and I advise you as a physicist to consult the scientific study of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith. I can send you the website if you are interested.

What is more important is that we build an energy debt with it. It may sound demagogic, but it is not. Energy debt is like ecological debt: we can hardly pay it because money can impress you, but energy can not make you more. Therefore, fossil energy needs to go down very drastically. Nuclear energy does not contribute in any way to this decline. It has been argued that there is a future for a new type of reactor: the "fast particle reactor". I’m not going to extend it, but let’s not forget that a huge amount of plutonium must also be produced for this. Once created, we know that the risk of falling into the wrong hands is not non-existent. We know that the development of nuclear weapons there is eagerly awaiting. We also know that nuclear research and development was originally a spin-off of a large-scale military-scientific project: the development of the atomic bomb, the infamous Manhattan project from World War II.

Let us also not forget that over the last 50 years huge sums have been invested in this program, with no result so far.

Mrs. Loenens, can I ask you the following question? What you say about that atomic bomb, will it be stopped by the closure of the nuclear power plants in Belgium?

There is no direct connection between them. That would be too simple. Because unfortunately...

by [...]

So I said that this also means that huge amounts of research money have not been spent on the much-needed research on the accelerated application of renewable energy. There is currently neither in Belgium nor in Europe a comparable research and promotion center for renewable energy sources that mobilizes as much scientific and public financial capital as for nuclear. The scientific research projects will now focus primarily on the dismantling of power plants and the storage of nuclear waste. Hopefully there will still be room to stop more research in renewable energy.

Is Nuclear Energy Dangerous? Nuclear energy is dangerous. Because the danger lies in every step of the nuclear chain. How is a risk calculated? Simple: the probability of an accident, multiplied by the consequences. In a nuclear accident, the consequences are so irreversible and large-scale that the "small probability" is completely subordinated to it. Chernobyl has taught us that reality was more dramatic than thought. In particular, we should not forget that the International Atomic Energy Agency, just before the accident in 1996, still depicted the Chernobyl plant as reliable.

That the risk is real here too, we learn from a somewhat unexpected angle.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to interrupt you for a moment. I have no problem with your analysis of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. But as far as I know, we have nowhere in Western Europe a structure that resembles a sports hall, in which a reactor was built inside, as was the case in Chernobyl. Consequently, I do not think that you can compare the consequences that occurred there, which are ⁇ disastrous and which have been solved thanks to the Western European capital that was drained there, with the risk that a similar accident would occur in Western Europe, either in the nuclear power plants of Doel or Tihange or in any other country.

Mr. Goyvaerts, I understand that you were preparing your reasoning at the time I read the sentence that the International Atomic Energy Agency had depicted that central as reliable just before that accident.

The risk is real. In a book on nuclear risk liability, Gerrit Van Maanen states: "Whoever has ever studied the small letters of the medical costs or other insurance, will find in it the clause that damage caused by, occurring at or resulting from a nuclear power plant, regardless of how the reaction arose, is excluded from insurance coverage."

In 1989, a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude was prevented at the Gravelines nuclear power plant. It is not just about Eastern Europe.

Let us not forget that Belgium is one of the few countries that use nuclear energy. Since the introduction of the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, that technology never really came from the ground. It was bravely announced in the 1950s as "the solution to the global energy issue", but at the turn of the century it was already above its peak. At the international level, it has never been more than a marginal energy source. But I think it’s important to keep an eye on how the first nuclear power plants came about today. They were ordered in 1968 and a year later the construction of two reactors began. In 1975, the first three nuclear reactors were inaugurated. There has never been a public debate about the introduction of nuclear energy. The electricity producers had a monopoly and set up the equipment plans for the production units on their own. Decisions were made and implemented by technocrats. So simple it was then. However, when the plans for another fifth reactor came out, the public protest really began to grow. In the 1990s that resistance grew, until one at some point came to the conclusion that "le tout nucléaire" was a wrong decision. Meanwhile, as one of the few EU Member States, we already produced half of our electricity from nuclear energy. Then came our government agreement. I will not read this text, because it has been clearly and already quoted enough.

The problem of non-nuclear energy supply was regularly raised. That it can, was already proven in 1995. The study conducted by Study Bureau STEM is disguised and dismissed as unreliable by several people among us, few of whom are still present here. However, I would like to repeat the conclusions of this study here. She stated in 1995: "With a 46% increase in demand for electricity services it is possible" — and the following is important — "through a policy of demand control and a free market for electricity production not to open new nuclear reactors and close all existing nuclear power plants in Belgium by 2010 and reduce the average CO 2 emissions in the electricity sector in the period 1995-2010 by about 20%. This was the Vote Study in 1995.

Then we got the Ampère report. The Ampère report is also not out of discussion and in one aspect ⁇ understated. That is precisely that integrated approach. The peer-review experts demonstrated that the supply-demand ratio had not been drawn up, so they did not fully fulfill their assignment. What do international experts say? They say: “The notion of ‘realistically feasible potential’ is very subjective. If the economic potential is 18%, it is clear that all efforts must be made to ⁇ that, as its additional benefits are of great importance for further policy options. That means that the economic potential is at least the goal that should be pursued through a policy aimed at controlling the demand side.” This is exactly where the shoe runs. Because while the Ampère report states that reducing electricity consumption is necessary, it makes no recommendations to address this in concrete terms. The international peer-review group therefore states: “Contrasting scenarios of electricity demand, the calculation of the efficiency potential on the use side and the analysis of the possibilities of their application, would provide all elements for an electricity enduse efficiency action plan.”

Mrs. Laenens, I do not want to defend the Ampère Commission, but it has received an assignment and it has complied with that assignment. I also think that the question side was not addressed in the investigation, but that was also not in her mandate. I also consider that further investigation should be carried out on the question side, but first of all I would like to point out that this was not the mandate given to the Ampère Commission.

Second, you are talking about the international experts. As far as I know there are three. You cite one of the three. I think, for the sake of honesty: there are three different reports from three different foreign experts. I feel like you only cite one of them. There was indeed a difference between one expert of the peer review and the others. So I ⁇ ’t say that “the experts” have condemned this or that. It is something more nuanced than that, I thought.

I would then want to nuance that a little and talk about an expert from the group of experts of the peer review. Maybe I am more correct.

I also do not want to wipe out the value of the Ampère Commission altogether. I only say that she has worked out this essential aspect very little.

But that was not part of her mission.

Nevertheless, because, in my opinion, we have had an extensive opportunity at the committee meeting to examine not only the Ampère committee’s report, but also the peer review report. I don’t want to go into this now, but I still found it important to prove that, because exactly that is always indicated to say that it would be a wrong decision to quit nuclear power now.

Another important point that I would like to point out is the impact of the nuclear exit on employment. First of all, we must point out the fact that nuclear power plants are not closed from today to tomorrow. It is a gradual exit. Moreover, this does not mean — which has already been cited by several colleagues — that from then on we would no longer need expertise in the nuclear field, because the shutdown power plants will have to be controlled and preserved for many years. They also need to be dismantled.

Furthermore, as I have already mentioned at the meeting of the committee, we must never forget that a displacement of personnel was in the first place a consequence of the liberalization of the electricity market and the way in which Electrabel lost its monopoly position and entered the market for competition and thus partially transformed it. Several studies have also indicated the potential for employment if more renewable energy is used and produced.

Nuclear energy and our neighbors. During the hearings, Mr. Wittebolle of Electrabel has hanged us a doomscenario of other European countries withdrawing from nuclear energy and having no alternatives to a continuous energy supply, a continuous supply that respects the environment. Unfortunately, he did not have the opportunity to hear Mr Lehmann’s presentation from the German Research Commission on Renewable Energy Supply. Because, on the basis of that, we can read on the website of Minister Trittin today that a climate policy without nuclear energy is possible and, moreover, Germany claims that by 2050 it will have reduced its CO2 reduction by 80% compared to 1990. This idea was fully elaborated in a study. Colleagues, I invite you all to take a thorough look at this study. I invite the Secretary of State to provide very quickly for a similar, full-fledged initiative at the Belgian level.

Colleagues, it is indeed a gradual exit, but we cannot afford a gradual entry into renewable energy. This must go faster. And it can, which I will illustrate as soon as possible. Because that gradual exit is not a fetish, not a toy for the Greens. It is not just a closure. It is a balanced decision, a mix of factors that takes into account safety considerations, economic, legal, ecological, social and political arguments. As already stated in the committee meeting, this bill is a first step, but the essential and fundamental step in the realization of the trend break of electricity production without nuclear energy. I hope that we can continue to count on all the players to ⁇ that ultimate goal. Erop counting means being able to count on REG, because everything revolves around REG. Energy only when it is necessary, and then as efficiently as possible. This is not only for the industry, not only for the transport sector, not only for the service sector or for the households. That it can, and more so: that it must – for sustainable development is the only guarantee of development for all – shows the European Commission’s Green Book. Apparently, several people can read the same Green Paper and yet come to different findings. The European Commission proposes that for renewable energy by 2020 for Belgium the technically feasible share will be estimated as high as the average in the European Union, namely 23%. Colleague Creyf, that is not a little. This is what they call the “trend scenario.” A trend should not be confused with a trend break, but the usual trend based on the demand for electricity is an increase of 3% per year. If we take the most energy-efficient scenario, then the demand for electricity will decline by 1% per year and then we can ensure no less than 45,5% of our electricity production by 2020.

During my business internship last year, I was able to find, as a precursor in the REG application, that an office that now needs an average of 30 kilowatt hours of electricity per square meter of floor surface, which can reduce to 6 kilowatt hours per square meter without any impairment of comfort. Why is the market potential estimated by the same Green Committee far less than the average in Europe, while technically feasible is estimated equally high? This, in our opinion, indisputably indicates the fact that there are still a number of major obstacles to the introduction of renewable energy technologies in our country. One of those disadvantages is undoubtedly the fact that more than half of our electricity demand is filled by nuclear energy. Why Why ? Like fossil-fuel power plants, nuclear power plants are energy systems based on large-scale, centralized and supply-oriented mass production. Renewable energy sources now want exactly the opposite. They are not grounded in a climate of large-scale and centralized supply. Therefore, the nuclear departure comes not too early. We are not creating chaos. We have understood what a commitment to “sustainable development,” as solemnly reaffirmed by so many at the Johannesburg summit, means. It means an independent reinforcement of our supply of renewable energy, more rational, therefore with less energy, because we will also reduce our ecological footprint and thus fulfill our common but differentiated responsibility. We need to see this not only on a global level, but also here, federal and regional, we still have a lot to share, including European. Let us not forget the individual contribution of each. Belgium will, hopefully, get a lot of follow-up within Europe.

I would like to conclude with the Secretary of State inviting to prepare the next step quickly. Fortunately, we can occasionally recall approved documents, such as the federal Sustainable Development Plan. It states in point 3.98: "The implementation of these targets" — which are the targets under the item Action Plan, policies to promote sustainable energy development — "should be followed by a set of indicators, such as the distribution of energy consumption by sector and by energy carrier, the intensity and elasticity of energy demand and the production of radioactive waste by type". The responses developed by the government and sectors should also be followed by indicators such as the evolution of energy prices, the level of taxes on the different types of energy, the amounts of subsidies granted by the public sector for social purposes, the development of renewable and less polluting energy, the amount of public subsidies for research by type of energy carrier and the investments made by the private sector for that development.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are taking an important step today. However, several steps will still need to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will try to be nuclear-like. I will not take the scientific tour because I do not pretend to make an evaluation of those who participated in the hearings, whether they were for or against. We must be humble. We have learned a lot and may have become a little wiser. However, let us not forget that we are 150 generalists with the exception of 1 nuclear engineer. With this humility, I would like to start the debate. Their

It is a pity that Mr. Goyvaerts has left the hemisphere otherwise I could have told him that for me politics also means having the courage to tackle difficult and non-evident problems. And that I did it. Before the recess, Ms. Gerkens may not have been happy with my vote against moving immediately to the debate in the committee and that I believed that Parliament should fulfill its role. We did this, even during the recession. In that regard, we have given ourselves the time to go even deeper into the debate and give everyone the opportunity to control the problem even better.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the exit from nuclear energy was agreed during government negotiations and is part of the purple-green project. The VLD will loyally support this draft as it is part of the government agreement. The accusation of other parties that we are only engaged in economic affairs is refuted by this. That is not correct. We also care about the environment and worry about it as much as the other parties. Their

It is evident that the nuclear energy debate raises a number of important questions such as questions about safety, the problem of non-proliferation, the waste problem. All reasons to consider leaving nuclear power at least. Not engaging in the debate would be cowardly. This does not prevent us from making comments. I see Mrs. Creyf thinking I’m going to dance on two legs. No, I remain coherent with what I have always said. The debate must be held and will continue to be held. It is correct that the population is questioning nuclear energy. At the same time, it sends out the signal not so much as being willing to price this form of energy. European — no Belgian — studies prove that the population is fifty-fifty-divided and that there are as many supporters as opponents of nuclear energy. In a democracy, not only a scientific debate is held, but also a political debate in which all the arguments of pro and opponents are best taken into account. Their

The VLD will closely monitor that other targets such as the fight against CO2 and global warming are not endangered. With the closure of the nuclear power plants, we give up a not insignificant element in that struggle. For the VLD, it is unquestionable that supply security must be guaranteed at all times and must not be compromised. We also consider that the closure of nuclear power plants should not lead to higher costs for citizens and ⁇ . In this light, we must make a decision today that can be evaluated later. Their

I myself have attempted to persuade the Secretary of State — you are my witness, Mrs. Creyf — to replace the term "superior force" in Article 9 with the term "necessity". I have settled on the Secretary of State’s explanation that the difficult balance that had to be found between necessity and force majeure was a delicate compromise reached in the nuclear cabinet. For the VLD it is clear that the concept of force majeure must rather be interpreted as a necessity. The need to maintain our security of supply, in our view, primates the need to shut down the nuclear power plants. Even if one is in favor of the nuclear withdrawal one must dare to ask — I was not the only of the majority who asked this question, even among the green group there are people who have intellectually asked that question — why is elected for a closure at 40 years. Scientists say there are no technical reasons to limit the life of power plants to 40 years. Some countries recently decided to extend that life expectancy to 60 years. In the AMPERE committee’s assessment report, a group of international experts states that “Belgian nuclear power plants perform ⁇ well. There is a savetyfactor 90%, among the best in the world. It is improving continuously. The contribution of nuclear power to the limitation of CO2 emissions is also significant.” What does this mean? Safe power plants that significantly contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions. However, it has been decided to stop these power plants after 40 years of production. In my view, this is a strange decision, Mr. Secretary of State. It’s like you’re going to cut down all the trees after 100 years because they’re dangerous. This makes it a little difficult. This is an additional problem. One could have developed a scenario in which nuclear power plants would be shut down at the moment their technical life expires. That would have given us extra time to promote the development of renewable energy sources and to make energy savings. Furthermore, this could have stimulated and made scientific research more attractive by increasing the pressure to develop safer and newer applications. They did not choose this path. I regret that. It is a political choice. Therefore, I believe that 40 years would have been better replaced by a more rational approach. The result would have been the same. The purpose of the draft law would have remained the same, in this case the cessation of electricity production based on nuclear splitting. The transition would have taken place more rationally and ⁇ better accepted. Their

Is this decision therefore a foolishness, Mrs. Creyf?! Who can say today what is stupidity and what is not. It is too early. It is not stupidity in itself. It is too early to speculate on the distant future. There will be a lot to happen between now and 2015, on the ecological level, on the economic level, on the scientific level. I repeat that the nuclear option to keep it open had given us a kind of hustle, ⁇ in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important element. Scientists predict — I submitted a study from Time Magazine to the committee the day before the final decision — that by 2015 no new technology will be able to replace nuclear energy in an economical way. Technologically it becomes difficult. Let us hope that through this decision, scientists here and elsewhere will accelerate the search. That is why I abstained in the vote. It was a bridge too far. The VLD understands that the exit is a symbolic decision, a trend break, a signal to all the actors of the debate. You know, Mr. Secretary of State, that I have a great respect for you. I hope for you that it will not be a Pyrrus victory for which you will be slaughtered by your own backbone within 10 years. The purple paradox is that the liberalization of energy which was thought to lead to a reduction of the price for the consumer has caused the opposite. Their

Let us be clear. For the VLD, the exit is a bridge to???, an incentive to creativity. Therefore, the VLD, faithfully to its word, will approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I will try to be as brief as Mr. Speaker. by Lano. This exit from nuclear power is indeed a political choice but it is also based on analysis and reflection conducted for a very long time. Since then, the day when it was decided to use this form of energy to produce electricity.

Why do we want to get out of electricity production through nuclear power? The risk of an accident exists. Even if it is ⁇ weak; it is enough that there is one for its consequences to be quite catastrophic. The population again showed this yesterday morning when civil protection personnel triggered the alarms of two nuclear power plants. This incident showed how little attention was paid to the safety of citizens or, in any case, was insecure: people did not hear what was being said, they opened the windows and went out on the street, completely panicked. If it had really been an accident, no measures to protect the population were effective at that time. So it is right that we can be afraid and I even think that if all the security measures were taken, there are long-term damages that could not be covered. Why 40 years and not 60? The plants were planned, I think, for a lifetime of 40 years. It is true that it is said that the current techniques can extend their life up to 60 or 65 years. Nevertheless, there is a blind trust in these techniques that allow to extend the life of a power plant. This has not been tested and safety, in my opinion, is not more guaranteed than for 40 years and the risk of accidents remains the same anyway.

The other reason that is ⁇ important to us is, of course, the waste. There is not only their preservation for all the time, but it also has the treatment of these waste that will take hundreds or even thousands of years. How to take on this waste production that will be borne by future generations. Even the burial that is promoted today, nobody is sure of it, and what is advised is an indefinite burial in order to be able, precisely, to take safer measures on the day when it will be discovered that the new burial technique again has gaps.

Opponents of our nuclear-exit project say, “Yes, but how will you respect the Kyoto Protocol? How are you going to do to reduce the production of CO2 and greenhouse gases, while nuclear power plants did not produce these gases?"We are told that we are not ready with new renewable energy sources or alternative energy. It is true that we are not ready because since almost always, we have not asked ourselves the question of how we would do to produce electricity from other forms of energy.

Personally, I am very sorry for the previous majorities who did not want to invest in these energy sources because, ⁇ , we wanted to preserve Electrabel, this monopolistic production through nuclear energy, but we are paying the consequences now. If Germany is more advanced than us in its project of getting out of nuclear power, it is also because they have decided for several years to invest in these forms of energy.

What also amazes me is that those who highlight the non-compliance with the Kyoto Protocol never cite the other sources of production of these greenhouse gases and often refuse to take measures at the level of companies and transport to reduce the emissions of these gases. I find it therefore somewhat disturbing that, when we hear them, only nuclear energy allows us to meet the Kyoto Protocol and ⁇ the targets of reducing gas emissions.

The first closure will only take place in 2015. This means that we have several years to catch up with this delay and develop the sources of production of alternative and non-polluting energies since it is effectively possible to combine the two. The current goal of closure is to allow investors to invest. Investors and producers have plans, projects to develop different production techniques but they do not develop them because they do not have the guarantee that they will be able to profit them. From the moment you decide to give them a long-term perspective, it is clear that they will be able to develop these signals and these new ⁇ . Among other opposition groups, we heard fears about the security that would arise from the dismantling of nuclear power plants. Why are there more concerns about dismantling than about the power plants operating today, since the safety of the power plants is expected to be covered by the UNDRAF until the dismantling is completed?

Ecolos are said to be unconscious because they want, from day to day, to shut down nuclear power plants. I ask myself questions about our unconsciousness and the unconsciousness of the previous majorities.

Until recently, there was no question of whether the provisions provided to allow the dismantling of the power plants would be well used for this task. Is there a risk that these provisions will be used for other investments and therefore cannot be used for what they were intended for? This question must be taken into account. by

It is said that the price was lower for electricity produced by nuclear power plants. The cost of production was actually low. However, at the European level, Belgium is the country where electricity was the most expensive for the consumer. Therefore, I will have to explain why it is feared that the price will rise due to the abandonment of nuclear production, which was the most economical mode of production, while for so many years it has been accepted to pay such a high price, even the highest at European level. This was obviously related to the Electrabel monopoly, a monopoly that was accepted and protected for many years.

We are also told that the staff will be reduced. It is likely, but it has been decreasing for many years. It will decrease mainly due to the liberalization of the electricity market. When we heard Electrabel representatives during the hearings, I was quite disturbed by their arguments as they were constantly confusing between the consequences of liberalization and the alleged shutdown of power plants.

Moreover, job creation is quite possible. Studies show that jobs can be numerous, in particular due to the development of new electricity production lines. It is seen, for example, that heating workers are beginning to take training and develop the use of solar energy for water heating and household consumption. The same goes for companies. The FEB and the Wallon Union of Companies regularly publish articles in their journal to advocate the development of new forms of energy. They present them as the path of the future and advise to invest in this area since it is there where there will be job creation and wealth. I firmly believe in this dynamic that will develop following this decision-making.

Finally, I will insist on the fact that, in the project, there is a permanent evaluation, which I will also call prospective, since a report will be drawn up every year and then every three years. These reports will inform us about the state of production and how we stand in relation to the objectives of the Kyoto Agreement. They will also allow us to position ourselves on this famous security of supply. It is obvious that it is not from day to day that a supply problem must be observed. It must be able to estimate it several years in advance, depending on the consumption and the modes of production established. by

I think this project is complete. It provides for a case of force majeure allowing to waive the implementation of the program. Some of you would have wanted to transform this major force into very concrete elements, but the path chosen was to say that this could not be due to producers or federated entities. Personally, I am satisfied with this formula, even though it lacks clarity, because one can thus say that if we do everything we must do, at all levels of power and at all levels of production, but that it results in a failure, we can re-evaluate our position. In my opinion, this was the smartest way of acting since dynamic development is allowed on the occasion of the shutdown of nuclear power plants. The aim is, of course, to promote the development of other modes of electricity production.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will provide some information in response to what was said tonight about this bill. by

What is the reason for this bill? Why eliminate the production of electricity by nuclear fission? There are three reasons why I will not develop. The first reason is the accident. It is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Iodine pills are currently being distributed around the power plants. The possibility therefore exists. If the accident occurs, it is unpredictable. Proof of this is that insurance companies refuse to cover all potential damages resulting from a nuclear accident. by

The second reason is the proliferation. By 2025, approximately 5,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel will be loaded and unloaded from power plants. Everyone knows that those 5,000 tons are largely enough to manufacture dozens and dozens of clean bombs or dirty bombs. In the current international circumstances, this is probably not the safest way to operate. by

The third reason is that of waste management. I am firmly convinced that the people who take care of this in Belgium are extremely competent. The staff of the National Office of Radioactive Waste is highly competent but must meet a major challenge: to ensure the behavior of these waste for thousands of years. This time scale is obviously not reproducible in the laboratory or in any pilot experiments. by

These are the three reasons why I think the world would be safer without nuclear power plants. by

Regarding the abandonment of nuclear energy, as so many things have been said about the Ampère report, I will make some clarifications on the conclusions and recommendations that appear on page 37. Furthermore, the Commission is of the opinion that the electro-nuclear option should remain open for the future, in a context of increasing hydrocarbon prices and given the absence of greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear exploitation. To do this, it is necessary to preserve national, private and public know-how in the nuclear power sector, as well as to participate in the mainly private research and development of the chains of the future. by

Maintaining the open electro-nuclear option does not imply in any way any obligation to resort to these lines. This is a democracy of the only parliament. It is understood that future technical developments in nuclear power will have to be assessed on the basis of their own merit in various areas, namely operational safety, limitation of the area of contamination in case of accident, control of the power of the nuclear cycle, and in particular packaging and waste management, as well as the level of technical cost of production.

This is exactly what the Ampère report says, neither more nor less. by

With regard to the evolution of demand, different scenarios are on the table. In its chapter "Demand Management", the Ampère report predicts an increase in electricity by 0.5 percent until 2005 and then considers a stabilization. I remind you that the 1995-2005 equipment plan, which was not written by "anti-nuclear" estimates that the evolution of demand would be 0.7% per year. The plan uses the term "homo economicus" to speak of the economically rational scenario. At the time, therefore, a consumption of 79 terawatt/hour was forecast in 2005. In 2001, we were at 83 terawatt/hour. That is to say if this report identified a potential.

Why is this difference between the possibility presented in 1995 by electricians and the scenario that follows? For the simple reason that as long as there was no separation between the profession of electricity producer, electricity carrier and electricity distributor, it was almost impossible to pursue an effective demand management policy since it was the same person who produced electricity and took care of demand management at the customer level. It is very difficult to get a producer to convince his customers to buy him less electricity.

Mr. Secretary of State, you now say that the fact that too little policy has been done has to do with the monopoly position. I would like to believe you, but do you think that in a liberalized market with so many players on the market who will all do their best to sell energy and electricity, it will then be easier to make rational energy use than when one has a monopoly situation? I agree with you that the monopoly position may have been the cause. I wonder, however, whether in the future, in a liberalized market with so many players who all want to sell and be on the market, the climate for a guiding policy will indeed be so much more favourable.

I will tell you why the 19.46 situation is completely different. In a situation where a market is open to consumers, companies will not only sell energy, but also energy services. It will, of course, be a little more complicated for the consumer. After all, now there is no choice, so it is easy. If there is a choice, it becomes a little more complicated. After all, the various companies will not only sell kilowatt-hours but also energy services. In these services, for example, the third-party financing system will also exist, as it already exists in the Netherlands. What does this system involve? An electricity supplier may propose to its customer to intervene in investments that lead to a reduction in electricity consumption. He will not, of course, do so in a mood of spontaneous generosity, but he will, of course, ask for interest on his investment. Thus, it will form a whole and the third-party financing system is only possible if there is no longer a monopoly situation. If there is a monopoly situation, then such a system is of course impossible, since it is after all the same party that produces electricity. The system of demand management and the third-party financing system already known to large companies, by the way, is only possible if there is no monopoly situation and if it is not the same actor who sells, transports and distributes. You are reminded that the evolution of demand and electricity does not pose a problem for the security of supply in our countries. And Belgium where we consume currently approximately 80 terrawatts/hour of electricity, this does not pose the problem in terms of security of supply if we pass to 85 or to 90. It simply needs to pose the question of knowing how many additional power plants should be constructed. In fact, the evolution of the demand poses a problem from a climate point of view, but not on the plan of security of supply. This is not just a big challenge and Belgium de construire des centrales de production d'électricité, TGV ou autres. But this poses a problem concerning the global warming.

But let’s be clear: the issue of global warming is not exclusively related to electricity. This question is related to final energy consumption, whether for electricity generation, for force generation, for displacement or for heating. This is the issue of the Kyoto Agreement. It is not exclusively related to the issue of electricity production. Today, electricity production produces CO2 emissions of 22 million tonnes per year, out of a total of 150 million tonnes per year. The replacement of nuclear power plants with gas plants would generate a surplus of not 35 million tons, but 16 million tons. This figure of 35 million tons is always cited because it is always based on the average produced in Belgium to calculate the amount of CO2 produced per kilowatt/hour. We do not rely on “best available technology”. Now, if you read the Ampère report, you will find the figure of 16 million tons of CO 2 and not that of 35 million tons of CO 2; I return to the central question in terms of global warming, namely the total demand for energy in Belgium. The evolution of this energy demand is very important for whether we can meet the challenge of global warming. Over the past twenty years, the evolution of this global demand for energy in Belgium was 0.9% per year. I’m not talking about 2.5 percent of electricity, but about the total energy, including electricity. The Office of the Plan envisages several scenarios. The Planning Paper No. 88 of the Plan Bureau envisages either a 0.4% increase in this final consumption of global energy, or a 0.3% decrease in the overall consumption of energy. Global energy is the only bill that determines and influences Belgium’s climate policy. This element includes, not only electricity, but also all other factors.

With regard to the climate challenge, you always cite the Commission, and more precisely the DG Transport and Energy. If you quoted the Commission’s DG Environment, you would quoted completely different passages. As the Commission reflects the situation in Europe, there is no unanimity within it on nuclear energy. You cited one Commission, but I could quote another one, namely that of the Environment that does not share the same sensitivity. In fact, in Europe, we agree not to agree. I fully respect your doubts, Mr. Lano, even though I do not share them. It reflects what is happening at the European level. I don’t know if at the Belgian level, we agree to not agree, in any case, we are not.

At European level, the DG Environment has listed measures to reduce CO2 emissions at a maximum price of 20 euros per ton of CO2. This resulted in double the effort required at European level for 2008-2012. I quote the executive summary, page 53 of the Ampère Report: "In Europe, in the period 1990-1997, a significant decrease in per capita electricity consumption has been observed in countries that have adopted voluntary measures in terms of rational use of energy (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden)." I hope that, in some time, we can add other countries, including ours.

What is the situation of decentralized production in Belgium? The last number in my possession is from 1998. I think they have not changed much. The combined production in Belgium equals 4.1% of the total electricity production, while the European average is 10%. In Denmark it is 60%. In Europe, the average was 10.9% in 1998. Belgium is in a strange situation.

In fact, despite our industrial tradition, despite our knowledge, despite our engineers, despite our industrial workers, we are below half the European percentage in terms of electricity production. These are the negative effects of monopoly. by

What are the forecasts? They range from 5,500 to 18,000 gigawatts/hour. I always reason in terms of electricity production and not installed power, which is more accurate because the installed power must also work. So, production ranges, in combined production, from 5,500 to 18,000 gigawatts/hour. We are far away. We were in 1998 at 3,400 gigawatts/hour, which does not even represent two-thirds of the minimum forecast of combined production potential.

Regarding renewable energy, we find the same type of finding. I look at the figures from 1999. The share of green electricity in Belgium is 1.4%. If I abstain from hydraulics, because we will not have mountains either in 2012 or in 2025, Belgium produces less than 1% of non-hydraulic green electricity, while Europe already reaches 2%. In Belgium there is a shortage of renewable energy production. I am not talking to you about the question of the mountains, because our situation is such — you remind me enough — that we are coming out of a situation of monopoly too slowly. As a result, we are disabled from this point of view both at the level of combined production and the production of renewable energy. by

I would like to remind you that the indicative target given by Belgium is 6% for 2010, while the indicative target at European level is 22%. Certainly, we could not have given our level a target of 22%, but Belgium is obviously lagging behind in this view. The potential varies according to the studies. If we refer to the Ampère study, we are at 8,000 gigawatts/hour for these renewable energies, while the Plan Bureau, in its March 2001 study, cites a production of 11,000 gigawatts/hour of renewable energies. By combining the low assumptions, 13,500 gigawatts/hour of renewable energy is achieved. If we combine all the high assumptions, we are at 29,000 gigawatts/hour.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, it may not be the time to have a lot of discussion. However, I find it not quite right that you compare countries where the potential of renewable energy is so different. You keep us here to the ears with figures about this country and that country, so many and so many and with European averages. It is obvious that in the south you have a different potential in terms of solar energy, that you have hydraulic energy in a country with height differences, that you can place kilometers of windmills in a country like Denmark. This is how you can compare everything. I think it is a little too easy to do it this way. Each country has its own potential for renewable energy.

Unfortunately, we do not have so much potential. Per ⁇ wind energy is the only thing we can develop. Bio-mass, and so on can also, but I know that even the greens over biomass are divided. Maybe it is a detail. However, it is all focused on the future. The only renewable energy source for us is actually wind energy. We know how difficult it is to obtain permits. We know how difficult it is on the technical level. What have we done in the meantime?

It is not difficult.

I think that when we talk about the potential of renewable energy, we still need to be a little realistic and take our own situation as a starting point. We should not compare with countries with a completely different renewable energy potential.

The potential for renewable energy in Belgium is not large due to the population density. I have never denied that. That is why I think that 6% green electricity by 2010 is a realistic goal. I do not advocate doubling this goal.

Flanders had to lower their target.

I have not yet completely answered on your underbreking. Let us look at warmtekrachtkoppeling. This is very symbolic for what is happening in Belgium. We have in Belgium of course no enkel natuurlijk nadeel voor warmtekrachtkoppeling. We are below half the European average. Obviously, since these potential exists and can be encrypted, the question arises why the law does not provide for any scenario. At the risk of repeating what I said in the committee, I assume that I will not teach you what the law of April 1999 provides, which implements the European directives of 1996. To do this, I refer you to the excellent report of the House of Representatives 1998-1999 on the bill on the organization of the electricity market on page 6. What is indicated there? "The indicative program will be established by the new regulatory authority and is not intended to be a binding planning instrument." “The programme will serve as an indicative reference framework for the market and the market authority and could in particular lead the market authority to draw the attention of the market on a significant gap between the needs envisaged by the programme and the actual evolution of the production programme.”

Excuse me for giving you such a boring reading, but I wanted this point to be clearly mentioned in the report. Obviously, a fact that you voted, namely a law of April 1999, which implements the 1996 directive, prevents the implementation of a equipment plan. Therefore, do not ask me if there is one, since it is forbidden by the law that others have voted for. by

When it comes to supply security, it is indeed the top priority of any Energy Minister of any party of any European government. That is why, starting in 2015, there will be an annual indicative plan, which will evaluate this security of supply and make recommendations. This is provided for in Article 6 of the bill and explicitly added to the CREG’s tasks under Article 8 of that bill, namely to evaluate, annually this time, the security of supply and formulate recommendations. This is what it is about. Say let me toe om naar naar het vraagstuk over de tewerkstelling te gaan. Vanaf het moment dat de prioriteit van alle ministers van Energie van alle partijen de bevoorradingszekerheid is, has said tot consequence dat het geïnstalleerd vermogen in Belgium zo zal zijn dat het kan beantwoorden aan de piek van ons verbruik. It will be so. Geen enkel land — except Luxembourg — can zich veroorloven om structural afhankelijk te zijn van het buitenland. No single country can say. by

It is independent of nuclear energy. It is not about nuclear energy. It is about the fact that the political integration of Europe is insufficient for a country to say that its electricity comes structurally from Germany, France, the Netherlands or any country. It is not so and it will never be so. It does not depend on the Greens or CD&V. Their

Nogmaals voor het rapport, “Whatever the minister and government, the power installed in Belgium in electricity production will always be sufficient to meet the peak annual consumption by means of means of production located in Belgium.” Therefore, this concept of supply security is foreign to cross-border lines, etc. Therefore, there is no link between the output of nuclear power and the import of electricity. The only link would be possible in two cases: - if Belgium did not have enough installed power in relation to its peak consumption - which I formally challenge - independently of nuclear power. Whether you keep it or not, it will be so. If the cost of production in Belgium was systematically higher than the cost of production abroad.

This would be the case if Belgium set itself absolutely delusional targets for the production of alternative electricity. In this case, if it decided to produce, tomorrow, 15% of green electricity, it would obviously be very expensive. But this is not the case, as the target is 6% by 2010. Nevertheless, to say that the cost of generating electricity by a gas power plant is higher than the cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is contrary to the truth. Vanaf het moment dat er in Belgium genoeg wordt invested om aan eleven behoeften te beantwoorden, means also tewerkstelling in de sector. This was ⁇ not an intention of intent, but it will be the result. This is of course more important.

The second element related to employment is the fact that the first plant will close in 2014 and the last in 2025. This gives time to society and social partners to estimate how this will happen. Therefore, I am, by the way, very pleased with the amendment that was submitted by various groups following initiatives of the SP.A and which was also approved. This amendment relates to Article 10 of the law and states that when the closure of a nuclear power plant is undertaken, in consultation with the social partners, a social guidance plan for the workers concerned should be drawn up. Let me be clear, I do not expect a 50% decrease in electricity consumption in Belgium between now and 2025. I expect there will be employment in the sector that produces electricity. How many jobs it is about does not depend on whether it is about nuclear energy, gas or whatever, it depends on the size of the power plants. The larger the power plant, the fewer jobs per produced kilowatt. It does not matter whether nuclear energy or gas is produced. If you are going to visit new gas plants, you will see that almost no one is working. It is impressive. I’m not saying that this delights me, I’m saying that it’s impressive. Their

Naturally, when men one active rechtspolitiek voert, dan zijn er meer banen per geproduceerd of gespaard kilowattuur. In this case it is the same. When men go to an active warmtekrachtkoppelingpolitiek goes, they are also more jobs, since it is smaller installations are. This should be clear. As it goes over large installations, it is not so much ban per produced kilowatt. I would like to say a few words about global warming. At the Belgian level, as for all Western societies, the challenge of global warming is foreign to electricity production. The main challenge of global warming is transportation. This is the greatest difficulty and it is in this sector that the greatest effort must be made. This business will prove to be the longest and most expensive. Why Why ? Because electricity production is a more or less manageable matter. It is centralized and dependent on government decisions. While in terms of travel, from the moment when the slogan “My car, this is my freedom” prevails, it is difficult for a democratic state – it is also very good – to quickly influence citizens’ choices in terms of travel. The only way to influence in any way is to increase the supply of public transport. Needless to say, the task is going to be difficult. Fortunately, this competence does not belong to my powers and I will not claim it in a next government.

So the question is whether, from an international point of view, it would be consistent to want to tackle global warming by multiplying the number of power plants. This would be consistent from a strictly climate point of view. If you only look at the question from this perspective, the answer is yes. Today, there are 430 power plants internationally. They produce 17% of our electricity. The International Energy Agency, in its latest report on September 21, 2002, predicts that these 17% will decrease to 9% by 2030. The Blok speaker may be energetic revisionism, but the facts are the opposite of what he announces since the amount of nuclear energy in shares of electricity decreases from year to year. I know what is happening in Finland and Sweden. I consider the 190 member countries of the UN together. The International Energy Agency forecasts 9% in 2003, while we are currently at 17%.

Imagine the reasoning that it would be very important to develop nuclear energy for global warming issues. This is a reasoning that, in a narrow way, could hold. At this point, indeed, one could even solve the problems of travel by, for example, moving cars to hydrogen. You know that hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a vector. There are no hydrogen mines. It must be manufactured; it is done by means of electricity. Electricity-hydrogen could be produced through nuclear power plants. This does not pose any technological problems. But we should be prepared for the existence of not 430 power plants internationally, but 2,000 or 3,000. I am very happy that there are no such in Chechnya, nor in the former Yugoslavia, except in the far north, in Slovenia. In the Middle East, there was a power plant in Iraq until 1981. The Vienna International Agency inspected it and declared it in order. The Israeli army bombed it some time later. But if there were 3 to 4,000 nuclear power plants around the world, it would not be possible to guarantee that they would never be located in places free of trouble. I prefer that our children and grandchildren do not live in a world that has 3 to 4,000 nuclear power plants.

In terms of prices, three things should not be confused: the cost of producing electricity with or without nuclear power, the cost for Belgium related to compliance with the 2008-2012 Kyoto commitments and the cost for the latter after 2012. These three points are distinct. They should not be confused because it makes no sense.

The cost of producing electricity, and therefore the price of electricity for the consumer, will be determined by the European market. Whether you like it or not, whether you are in favor or not of the opening of the European market, I speak to you of facts. It will be determined by the fluidity of the market (how will it be organized? Will there be stock exchanges? Will the intermediaries have legislation to control them so as not to fall into a situation at Enron? Will the connections be sufficient to ensure this fluidity?). Furthermore, it will be necessary to be very attentive to the non-formation of oligopolies at European level. This is the subject of the DG of M. and Monty. Indeed, if one came to the situation of oligopolies, one would come to the paradoxical situation briefly described as a possibility by Mr. Lano right away, and after which the opening of the market results in a closure of it to another level. At that point, all European consumers would lose. The cost of producing electricity, and therefore the price of electricity, will be determined by the market.

I agree with you, Mr. Secretary of State, that we are indeed at risk of going from a monopoly to an oligopoly. By the way, this is already happening at this moment. We already see this in the energy market.

Let’s be clear, this has nothing to do with the exit or no exit on nuclear energy.

I agree with this.

I agree with you.

However, we must be careful. It is a very large risk.

Absolutely, i ben het helemaal met u eens. The company has a 4% van of European market. In Belgium it is big. I challenge the comparison of production costs that is included in the Ampère report. I express the deepest doubts regarding the assessment of social costs in this report Why? Because it is impossible, by the method used in the Ampère report, to take into account the risks of accidents. This is also explicitly confirmed in the report of the French parliamentarians, Bataille and Galet, who are not part of the Greens since the latter no longer count but one elected.

The report of the French commission clearly indicates the limits of the external exercise, which is the same method as Ampère in the case of nuclear, I quote: "The estimates are not considered reliable for nuclear accidents, high-activity radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. These gaps could be significant and should be clearly highlighted in any assessment.”

When I read that the social cost of wind power is higher than the cost of nuclear power, I think there must be a fault somewhere. It is well described in the Battle-Galet report. This is the cost of production.

Then there is the cost for Belgium to comply with the Kyoto Protocol for 2012. The estimate for Belgium of this cost is a maximum estimate; the high ceiling is 0.3% of gross domestic product, annually. This is the 2000 Primes study. The cost for Belgium is 0.3% of GDP, taking into account the "Emission trade" directive at European level. I have some experience of three years of budget night marathons. I can tell you that finding, overnight, a sum equal to 0.3% of GDP does not seem to me to be an insurmountable effort.

As for finally the cost for Belgium to fight climate warming after 2012, given the shutdown of power plants and assuming that the target would then be Kyoto less 15%, studies estimate that cost around 2% of gross domestic product but that will be the cost for 2012, without taking into account two things: the Kyoto flexibility systems within Europe — I have never advocated for Russia but, anyway, I do not think that Russia will be a member of Europe after 2012 — and the reduction of tax on work due to a CO2 tax recycling. You know that all the studies of the Plan Office show that if you tax energy and if you lower the cost of labor, it creates jobs.

The [...]

Well, it is not there yet. Why Why ? The 19.60 government is once a coalition and a coalition gives problems, but it is the price to be paid to make this country livable. There are no devils and no angels. We do not have the same views. Finally, and what concerns security...

Sometimes the devils are the angels and the angels are the devils.

of course ! Not everyone has the same opinion on the subject. As for safety...

... or put forward perspectives as a solution, and you immediately say that we live in a coalition and that this is the price we have to pay for it. It is one or the other!

Madame Creyf, we are on November 28 and I think the road is made by walking. And if you have been waiting for the big climbing for three years, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

For three years, you have held the discourse of an energy tax, which will then reduce the tax on labour. You have been speaking this speech for three years, but I haven’t seen anything of it yet. Not the least! Not even an incentive!

It is like nuclear accidents. Before this happens, it does not happen!

This is a great achievement of the Secretary of State. He will carry out a very important project. So give him a next term of reign to finish everything. I wish he would come back. We can be proud of him and what he has achieved. No one has done that before him. I expect him again in the next term of government.

As far as security is concerned, you have probably read page 224 of the Federal Agency report. I remind you that I am not competent for nuclear security, which is a very good thing because I do not think it is positive, in a government, that the minister responsible for Energy is the same as the one responsible for the safety of power plants. I think it is good to separate the two skills.

In the most neutral way possible, you will have read, on page 224 of the report, that the Federal Nuclear Control Agency was consulted by its minister of guardianship. The issue of security is the question of investments in security, in a liberalized market and in installations whose lifetime is limited and predictable.

First, the issue of security investments already arises in an open market and it must be very careful because the market is open.

Second, the July 2001 Act, in its article 22, provides for separate accounts between nuclear and non-nuclear activities, which will allow for more accurate verification of investments made in the nuclear sector and security investments.

Finally, this is explicitly the mission of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. On this issue, I had the opportunity to say in a committee that the Minister of Custody agrees that the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, within the framework of its missions, formally declare each year on the state of safety of nuclear power plants, in the perspective of their deactivation when they have reached the age of 40 years. I would also like to repeat what has been said in the committee. The responsibility of the operator is engaged until the completion of the dismantling. This is the current legislation.

Furthermore, obviously and unfortunately, civil liability in general is not unlimited. Insurance companies do not accept unlimited coverage of nuclear damages — I speak of those “never occurring and controllable” damages — but this government has increased this civil liability by raising, per site, the ceiling of compensation by the operator from 4 to 12 billion Belgian francs and, given the different systems of coverage of these risks, the overall coverage has increased from 15,5 billion to 18,5 billion Belgian francs. I’m not saying it’s the panacea, I’m not saying it’s great, I’m just saying we’ve increased that coverage. Personally, I have no problem increasing it even more.

This is what I wanted to tell you. I think future generations will live better in a world, and at least in a country without nuclear power plants than in a country with nuclear power plants.

I would like to comment on what the Secretary of State has said. I have often had to interrupt myself during his speech. It’s almost half two and I think this is an unfortunate hour to discuss this. I also think that the expectations regarding the staff and the commitment we are currently demanding are beginning to become unreasonable. Therefore, also before the report, I would like to express my indignation. It is a shame that the discussion of this draft, which is ⁇ the most important draft of this entire legislature, which brings intrusive and serious consequences — and one can be for or against it, but it is in any case one of the heaviest and most important drafts of this legislature — is started at 10 o’clock in the evening and continues all night. It was acted in the report. This is really a shame. This is unacceptable.