Proposition 50K2208

Projet de loi portant modificiation de la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisations, de la loi du 8 août 1980 relative aux propositions budgétaires 1979-1980 et de la loi du 29 avril 1999 relative à l'organisation du marché de l'électricité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 19, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural gas electrical energy energy supply gas

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

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 ¶

Feb. 26, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There is, of course, an agenda issue. The Public Health Committee is also currently meeting. The people who are interested in product standards — a product of the Public Health committee — are of course in the committee. So it is difficult to work.

Do you think I should suspend the commission? I want to do that.

To be honest, I must also say that hearings are underway. People are invited, which makes it difficult.

Mr. Goutry, I have registered you, I also have an amendment from Mr. Bultinck. Hearing is scheduled in the Congress Hall.

The Public Health Committee is holding hearings.

Mr. Tante, what you were interested in has already been addressed. At the Conference of Presidents you told me that there was no problem and that there were no difficulties in the committee. Otherwise, I would not have dared to do anything in your absence. I will light up my light at the committee.

Ms. Descheemaeker has the word for her report.

This bill was discussed in the Committee on Public Health and is an extension of the Act of 21 December 1998. The draft will become the framework law for all products, in order to maximize the protection of the environment and health through the following provisions. There shall be no conflict with the existing provisions of other laws which pursue a similar objective. The scope is extended to include agricultural products and plant protection products.

Another article includes the introduction of a program for the reduction of hazardous substances in plant protection products and biocides. A cooperation agreement will be concluded with the Regions and the Communities. The powers of the supervisory officers shall be clarified. A warning procedure may be established for minor infringements, but depending on the severity of the findings or their repetition, heavier penalties may be imposed by the court. The following article simplifies the transposition of European directives.

Finally, the financing of certain contracts is governed by contributions and remuneration that must be approved by a royal decree by Parliament within the year. It is intended to update these contributions quickly, both up and down. The revenue goes to a budget fund. The sector is closely involved in its management.

In the general discussion, the following was discussed. Mr. Goutry is opposed to the bill for principled reasons. In addition to the 1998 law, there are already specific regulations. He also opposes the salaries and contributions, which he identifies as new taxes. Mr Hondermarcq expresses his group’s support for promoting sustainable production and consumption. However, the MR group has questions about who should bear the costs associated with the conduct of an inspection at a place other than where the vehicle was stopped.

He also asks how it is with remuneration on packaging that is already subject to ecoboni regulations and environmental taxes. Their

Ms. Descheemaeker specifies the support of the Agalev-Ecolofraction for a law that responds to the expectations of a large part of the population. These expectations are to provide maximum guarantees for public health, food safety and environmental protection. It also asks whether contractual staff members are intended to be in public service when the law grants a certain power to officials. Their

The Minister emphasizes that checks are absolutely in the interests of the companies. They reinforce consumer confidence. The remuneration and contributions for those checks may only be imposed by a decision that has been consulted in the Council of Ministers and must be ratified by Parliament within the year. The Minister declares that contractual staff members do not have the powers of officials. Their

The Minister specifies on the question of Mr Hondermarcq that there is no objection to limiting the movement of a vehicle for inspection to a number of kilometers. If it is a longer distance, the Fund will intervene if no violations are found during the control. Their

Mr. Goutry reiterates his fundamental criticism of this design. Their

In the article-by-article discussion, the Minister proposes, through an amendment, a better wording of paragraph 2 of Article 3. This makes it clearer that in the event of conflicts between laws the specific law applies priority to this framework law. Their

Mrs Avontroodt wondered what the ratio of the expansion to the food and pharmaceutical sector is. The Minister responded that these products were already mentioned in the existing law of 1998. Their

Mr Goutry argues that the reduction programme for biocidal products and plant protection products in Article 7 can be difficult to implement without a cooperation agreement. Mr. Hondermarcq asks who will prepare this inventory. Their

The minister replied that a global program does not prevent each of the governments from taking a number of actions. The inventory is currently being prepared by the Regents. The responsibility lies with the Western governments, but the whole must be coordinated at the federal level and reduction must be carried out after mutual agreement.

Mr Hondermarcq submitted an amendment to Article 9 to make the costs to be borne by the carrier only insofar as the movement for the control is not more than five kilometers.

Article 11 is about sanctions. Mr Goutry is more in favour of a higher package chance than of higher fines. According to him, the margin between the maximum and the minimum amounts is too large. In that regard, the Minister referred to the judgment of the judge and pointed out that the existing law also contains a margin, ranging from one hundred francs to one million francs multiplied by the options.

On Article 16, which regulates contributions and remuneration, there is a longer discussion. Mr Bultinck regarded this article as a blank check and believes that the implementing decisions can still be difficult to complete before the end of the legislature. He was assisted by Mr. Goutry and by Mrs. Van de Casteele who, however, himself shares the concerns concerning the environment.

The Minister reiterated that consultations with the sectors concerned will continue and that the approval by Parliament also provides a guarantee and that the same basis can never be subject to double taxation. This design thus does not include, for example, products already subject to the packaging tax. Their

According to Ms. Avontroodt, the costs of the control imposed by the government should not be borne by the manufacturer or the manufacturer. The Minister responded that the government must serve the public interest. For the financing of controls, there are two options: either the costs are paid from the general resources, i.e. from the tax revenues, or by the sector, i.e. the chain of those involved in the product.

Basic controls are carried out with general resources; for the specific controls, a portion must be paid by the sector, so that those who do not use the product do not contribute.

Mr Hondermarcq, Mrs Avontroodt and Mr Goutry consider that the aspect of the sector’s self-control should also not be forgotten. The Minister emphasizes the value of self-control but points out, given recent events, the need for a complementary control by the government.

Mr. Germeaux gives a detailed overview of all remuneration and contributions currently paid under the existing law. The Minister reiterates that the bill relates to product standards to promote sustainable production and consumption patterns and to protect the environment and public health. The technology used for financing is not new. The contributions will be adjusted up or down according to the established procedure. The fund is divided so that the revenue generated by a particular sector returns to that sector. In the event of a surplus of resources, those resources will remain in the Fund and an adjustment of the contributions will be carried out.

After discussion, the bill is approved with 8 votes for, 1 vote against and 2 abstentions.

I would like to thank you, Mrs. Descheemaeker, for your report. I am pleased that Mr. Goutry has registered as speaker for the general discussion and can now take the floor. Mr. Goutry, you have also been very active in the committee; I have noted that.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, both colleagues, I have often had to wait fairly long to be able to deliver a presentation. I am pleased that this time I am the first speaker in this ⁇ lengthy debate on the bill. The draft law should be important, given the energy spent on the draft in terms of paper volume. We can only conclude, even by a very unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, that almost no one is present at the plenary discussion. I had also announced that there will be a meeting of the Public Health Committee at the same time. The result is that only my dear colleague, Mrs. De Cock, is present here. However, he did not even participate in the discussions in the committee. It is so adorable that she wants to take the effort to come and listen.

Mr. Minister, no one is present here. If this is characteristic of the remaining time until the elections, this says a lot about the parliamentary interest in government work at this time. Mr. Minister, I reiterate that I am actually very upset about the sluggish, legislative work that we do here. This was clearly stated in the committee. If I look at the note made for us by the legal service in the field of legislative technology, I count six full pages in small print with comments on the text. These include all kinds of technical remarks, errors, wrong writing, wrong translations, forgotten sentences, bad paragraph references, and so on. I wonder how such a thing is possible. This is six pages of text. That is almost as much as the bill itself. However, we have already tried to correct a lot in the committee itself through amendments. We also agreed on a number of technical issues. However, the text is filled with mistakes.

That work must be done by a hobbyist, or by someone after his working hours. In any case, that can hardly be called serious legislative technical work. I would also like to express my appreciation for the services of the Chamber, which must devote so much work. But I think that is not their job. The services of the Chamber must primarily make the corrections and the inspection, but nevertheless not rewrite almost a whole draft law. That cannot be the intention of the Chamber’s legal service. For this, you have a cabinet. The government usually has to make its own plans. Parliamentarians can also find it difficult to get a bill written by the legal service of the House of Representatives. It is, I think, already a bad start to have to conduct the discussion based on such a text.

Furthermore, as I also said in the discussion, I completely dismiss the meaning or purpose of that draft law. There is indeed an extension to agricultural products, but especially to many other, derivative products that were supposedly excluded by the Act of 1998, precisely because they are already subject to public health legislation. We also said this during the discussion. What is there to do in this bill? There is already a separate regulation. That is now being postponed, but in the law of 1998 it was not adopted, precisely because there is a specific legislation for it. Understand who can.

I have previously – I repeat those questions – asked questions about the application of the law of 1998. The question is, of course, what has happened with this legislation in the last four to five years. What is the evolution of this law? What implementing decisions were taken? We have come to the conclusion that with the law of 1998 so far almost nothing has happened. If necessary, a new draft law must be drawn up urgently, which, on the one hand, already regulates all kinds of matters that have already been regulated in other legislations, and that, on the other hand, takes back a number of matters from the law of 1998, which has so far remained by way of speech dead letter.

The question here is what the value of this bill is. This has not become clear to us at all during the discussion, unless it represents a kind of dumped taxation. The venin is usually in the tail, and at the end of it can be seen that the articles 16 and 17 are about remuneration and contributions. I have confronted the people in the committee with this. In the end, it is a big tax hike, three months before the elections. I would not do it. It is not wise, but it is up to us, as a democratic opposition, to establish this. We have also seen the reaction of the VLD members in the committee. They were scared. They apparently did not know that it was about that. Hence, Mr. Germeaux has exhausted himself from reading a text which he had probably received the week before, in which he has summarized all possible remuneration and charges. Through this, he either wanted to prove that certain taxes were also levied in the past — which, of course, cannot be denied — or he wanted to say that it is now enough and that there should be no more taxes. It can be seen what he meant with this. This is not clear, because he has not gone deeper into it.

I repeat my question. What is the added value of this bill? The draft law, by the way, stipulates that it must be examined whether there are no contradictions between the legislation. How will this be possible in practice? We talked about this, including in the committee. The likelihood of confusion, both among producers and consumers, is again ⁇ high with this bill, if it already finds an application. If it is scored the same fate as its predecessor, then this will of course lead to not much on the ground.

I come to the key articles 16 and 17, Mr. Speaker, where it is about the salaries and contributions that have yet to be arranged by the King. This is clearly stated by the State Council in its opinion. I also cited it in the committee, Mr. Minister. The State Council clearly points out that this is actually about taxes and when it comes to taxes, the article is not correct because there is no tax rate defined and there are no precise descriptions provided that are normally required by law to be able to collect taxes.

Then it has been realized. We have seen that it was difficult there. The government laid the comment by itself, and a solution was sought and found by asserting that every royal decree must be ratified by a law within the year. This is the technique to avoid it. This is why we use the term tax increase. An increase in taxes is anyway. Ms. Descheemaeker has also stated this in her report. The debate was about who will ultimately pay for this. Will the government pay for it, or will the industry pay for it? However, it is an increase in the remuneration of the taxes, and in addition a bulky increase. Since it cannot legally be included in this draft, a reversal has been sought by regulating this through a royal decree and a ratification law.

That doesn’t seem to be a cushion at all. This does not seem to be a good way of working. We have said this in the committee, Mr. Speaker. By the way, it is also your party colleagues who have begun to doubt by our plausible explanation. They then asked many questions, but in the meantime there was probably a majority consultation, making the tone in the first and second meeting different, especially with the VLD. It was rather a motivating tone. Mr. Germeaux read the entire list to help himself out of the hell. He was, by the way, the one who spoke at that moment, and no longer Mrs. Avontroodt, nor Mrs. Van de Casteele, Kersvers VLD member.

The question is, Mr. Minister, how to give a meaningful explanation. In addition, I even ask myself the following question. It must be through a ratification law and a royal decree. I find it not even feasible due to all the lags in the preparation and publication of implementing decisions of laws adopted years ago. I refer, for example, to the Framework Act of 1998, the predecessor of this draft law, for which many implementing decisions have not yet been taken.

How can we now have the guarantee that the so necessary implementation decision that this remuneration will have to settle within the time you give yourself - within the year - will be taken. Subsequently, unless you succeed yourself, your successor may need to make a correction by again seeking a legal basis to settle the matter through some program law.

I have a final comment on Article 5. There will probably be a lot of speakers after me who will want to speak on this subject. Therefore, I will keep my presentation a bit concise.

The President: That optimism adorns you. It is a lesson for the future.

Mr. Speaker, that is how I am. With great press interest and great parliamentary interest, I am always at my best. Mr. Minister, Article 5 contained, by the way, measures that the King can take for protection. This is something that disturbs me. There was a consensus text from the Consumer Council, the Central Council for Business and a large part of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development. Although that consensus text was there, it was simply not used. You submitted this text next to you. It has not been taken into account. I wonder why such advice is needed. Their

This, in general, is what I had to point out technically on the draft. Politically, I would like to conclude with the conclusion that this debate, the treatment of this bill, does not have much to do at all. It is shocking that we must find that such a thing can pass without asking a lot of critical questions about it. It is therefore much more a symbolic file for the Greens. They have had a lot of such files lately: this file, the drug law, Francorchamps. A lot of files have fallen into the belly of the Greens, which can only lead to a major election victory later, Mr. Minister, after May 18.

For the rest, it is at least unclear to me what the intention may be. I have asked the question of the value added three times. We have discussed some of this, but it remains unclear for everyone., Even our discussion of reduction programmes, reduction standards and supervisors was not immediately a success number. One did not know very well how this would happen through the Wests, and even less how those so necessary cooperation agreements would come about.

In summary, you rightly say that it is a framework law, but it is a framework law that deals with a dead mouse. It does not have much to do with the body and it has no added value for me at least against the law of 1998. That law already provided a number of instruments and many implementing decisions have not yet been taken.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goutry, Mrs. De Cock, Mr. Goutry asks for the added value. I can clearly refer to the explanation attached to the draft law and even to the summary. It identifies the main changes. It is about a new scope of application that is wider than before. In addition, there are clarifications on the legal regime. Article 7 more specifically and explicitly deals with a reduction programme for dangerous active substances, plant protection products and biocides. There are opportunities for supervisory officers. Some sanctions are being changed and made more workable.

It also discusses the warning procedure, the possibility of faster transposition of European directives and changes to the publication, as well as – indeed – the possibility of arranging contributions and remuneration through a budget fund.

Mr. Goutry, I think there is an internal contradiction in what you say. You say, on the one hand, that the design has no added value and, on the other hand, that it has given rise to a lot of discussion and to a lot of objections from certain angles. It is one or the other. If the design was indeed an empty box, it would probably have passed without discussion. If there is a discussion, it is precisely because it is a better tool.

A third point I would like to address — after first, what are the amendments and second, the draft has an added value, and I clearly think so — is what happened to the previous law? Nothing has ever happened, sorry. For example, yesterday in the Belgian Staatsblad was published the decision on the prohibition of phosphate in detergents. This is precisely for the implementation of the law of 1998. Some European directives on dangerous substances have been transposed faster. This is in accordance with the Act of 1998. Certain chemical substances and preparations are prohibited. This is precisely for the implementation of the law of 1998. As a third element of my answer to your question, I therefore say that the law of 1998 has already been used. Of course, it was a kind of framework law, a law that gives the Minister of Public Health and Environment the opportunity to act. Well, with the modification of the law discussed here, we will have an even better tool for the benefit of the living environment. That is ultimately the intention. I hope you support us in this goal.