51K1221 | Demobel

Projet de loi spéciale modifiant l'article 6, § 1er, VIII, de la loi spéciale du 8 août 1980 de réformes institutionnelles.

General information ¶

Submitted by: The Senate
Submission date: April 28, 2004
Official page: Visit
Status: Adopted
Requirement: Qualified
Subjects: electricity supply electrical energy municipality regions and communities of Belgium local authority finances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt: Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR
Voted to reject: CD&V Ecolo FN VB
Abstained from voting: LE

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.

I'd like you to validate the translations on this page.
I'd like you to add the missing translations on this page.
There is an error in the information on this page.
I have another question or remark that's not listed here.

Your e-mail address
Bot check: Enter the name of any Belgian province in one of the three Belgian languages:
Province

Discussion ¶

July 15, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, with all respect for State Secretary Van Brempt, but before the suspension, Minister Moerman was present, responsible for...

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Minister Moerman is in the Senate.

Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙

This issue has to do with energy. A special law seems somewhat more abstract than an ordinary law. It is about liberating the electricity market.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I would like to ask if Mrs. Moerman is available.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

I think I just saw the minister.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Do you have a special feeding technique, Mr. Annemans?

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Not less than two minutes ago, she handed you a document, Mr. President.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mrs. Van Brempt, try to reach Mrs. Moerman.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

[...] I hope that it will later reflect its report.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Colleagues, if you keep talking like this, we can’t start.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

The title of this item of the agenda seems to be carefully concealed. We are dealing here with a very important and profound matter, which some people may have discovered now. This is actually about the Elia tax. I am also a little surprised that there is no more interest.

In any case, from 1 July 2003 every Flemish user is free to buy electricity and gas wherever he wants. As a result of this liberalization, municipalities should no longer bear the burden of selling electricity or gas, and they should ⁇ not make the combination between the two. This has also put an end to the monopoly of municipalities in the sale of gas and electricity. Intercommunales, as distribution network operators, should no longer supply energy to customers who are free to buy where they want. The sale of electricity and gas, after it ceased to be carried out by the intercommunales — once the customers were released — is subject to corporate tax. For the federal government, this means a new, not insignificant source of income.

This story also has a community aspect. Liberalization in the Flemish Region is going much faster than in Wallonia and Brussels. The additional income from corporate tax will therefore come initially from Flanders. The whole reform also has a huge impact on the municipalities, although the municipalities have never or never been a party asking for this liberation. It is an impact on the structural level, through changes within the intercommunals, but also and above all an impact on the financial level. Until the liberalization, the Flemish municipalities generated an average of eight to nine percent of their ordinary revenues annually from dividends from gas and electricity intercommunals, the so-called intangible dividend. For all Flemish municipalities together, this is about a sum of 520 million euros. The estimates for the loss that municipalities will suffer as a result of liberalization are more than 65%. There is therefore an annual amount of around and around the 350 million euros on the slope.

I also had the trouble to take a moment to grassduin what that concrete means for certain municipalities and cities. If we take an average municipality with 15,000 inhabitants, then the income reduction is about 600,000 euros. For the city of Antwerp, the loss of income amounts to 37.2 million euros or 1.5 billion Belgian francs and this year after year. Their

No need, it was said. On 8 October 2002, Prime Minister Verhofstadt announced in his policy statement that through Elia, the transmission network operator of electricity, a compensation would be granted to the municipalities which should be sufficient to compensate for the reduced income from the energy distributors. On 23 October 2002, the Council of Ministers approved the preliminary draft program law containing an article that allows the federal government to impose a tax via Elia. The State Council expressed a negative opinion on this article in the Program Law. The State Council was correctly of the opinion that such a measure would constitute a general financing of the municipalities and that is still a regional competence. Their

Meanwhile, the federal government agreement of July last year repeats the promise of the prime minister: "In order to secure the incomes of the municipalities, in consultation with the regions, a solution will be developed to implement Article 431 of the law of 24 December 2002."

These are two steel-hard promises that the Flemish municipalities in general should not pay for the art and flight work of their regional government. What presents here as it is now to be voted on is broken promises, no less and no more. The song of the fooled municipal governments and the cheated taxpayers is apparently still not sung. We ⁇ do not participate in this hold-up on the scarce finances. Their

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the draft presented here is intended to amend the Finance Act in order to impose a new tax on the use of electricity at the federal level, namely the Eliataks, and to transfer the proceeds thereof to the municipalities. What is the promise made to the municipalities? Nothing, because it is too late and too little.

I save you the extensive relay of the entire blundersaga about that accelerated release. Accelerated, but ⁇ hasty. I make the comparison with, for example, the Netherlands, which has started earlier, and there comes to that the Netherlands has also delayed the liberation because it is too complex and that can not be arranged in that short time. But the stubborn, now leaving, Flemish government was the first to make a mistake. At the time Flemish Minister of Energy, Steve Stevaert, wanted to liberalize quickly because "it is good for the people." But the facts give us right: it has become a costly and especially ineffective mistake of which the people — and especially the individuals and the SMEs — become the victims. The decree concerning the liberalization of the energy market was quickly chased by the Flemish Parliament on 9 May 2000 and then Minister Stevaert announced major price cuts. He has mentioned figures up to 30% price decrease due to the release.

In the September 2000 issue of the VVSG-magazine "Lokaal" — thus well-known one month before the municipal council elections — he proclaimed under the speaking title "Liberalizing and thus impoverishing the municipalities is antisocial" the following: "It is of course not intended that the municipalities would impoverish because then they can no longer fulfill their social function." You see it, that is hard language. But we know what ultimately came out of it and we find it double painful that all this happened.

Had there been today, colleagues, a belfort museum or a belfort observatory, we would come to other, very painful conclusions. We all know it: Stevaert went or actually sought compensation for the municipalities. At one point we were heard of the road tax — a kind of discomfort in the use of public-domain beams by utilities — but again and again he returned from a painful, bald journey. He got stuck and eventually he did not give home. And suddenly again. He changed the gun from shoulder to shoulder and started a free energy policy. 100 kilowatt hours free per family member, free savings lamps, free budget meter. Today we know better, colleagues. Free simply means that the invoice is moulded away and in this case, I think, even forwarded to the municipalities.

Also the CREG unmasked that free policy as a kind of vest-pocket pants operation that is paid by the consumers themselves. In fact, calculations show that free is actually more expensive, especially for the modal family that is billed on a consumption of about 3,500 kilowatt-hours. That family receives an average final invoice of 30 euros per year more charged than before.

Colleagues, who troubles the trouble of thoroughly cleaning out their electricity bill, scares a hat.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

That is right, not true, Mr. President.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

If you look at your electricity bill carefully, you will find that you will refund the free electricity to the tax authorities ten times. In the past, we were talking about Reddy Kilowatt. I will now call it Reddy Fiscowatt. There was unconscious, hasty, and rude action.

The director of the VVSG writes in the preface of the last edition of "Lokaal", so very recently: "The Elia tax is only necessary because Flanders has decided to be the first Region to quickly liberalize energy, without making a serious municipal value report. The danger remains great that municipalities will eventually get the black foot of the public opinion, because the employers’ organisations blame the municipalities for high tax rates, while the main causes of this lie in the policies of the central government.”

In order to stop this negative spiral, the Flemish Parliament — which is the last gunfire — unanimously adopted a resolution on 17 December 2003, i.e. even before the New Year 2004, calling on the federal government to fulfill its promises and to fully compensate the municipalities for the reduced incomes resulting from the liberalization of the energy market, also for the year 2003. 2003 is a forgotten year. This is reflected in the pieces I found on the table. In particular, a similar system for gas should be developed for the years to come. It is also being silenced, but ultimately there is also the liberation of the gas market, from which a third of our dividends came. Apparently this was also forgotten. I have therefore asked the Minister of Energy, who unfortunately is not present, whether this is taken into account. She replied to me that the government does not plan any measures for the time being to compensate for the losses of the municipalities caused by the liberalization of the natural gas sector.

Colleagues, the word "provisional" could actually give the Flemish municipalities happiness and a little hope. However, the past makes the worst assumptions. Who still believes that? The people in general, and the communities in particular, are tired of being repeatedly thrown into the roof with a clock and repeatedly ridiculed. Stop with that.

On 16 March 2004, I again asked some questions to the Minister of Energy on the consequences of the liberalization of the energy market. I emphasized that the Flemish municipalities and cities have fallen into a financial turmoil and that they must undergo unprecedented burden shifts from the local to the federal administration level.

Ms. Moerman replied to me that already three months before the aforementioned Flemish resolution the decision had been taken within the framework of the so-called Overlegkomité. So the Flemish government also agreed to that decision, with the amount of 172 million euros. Everyone agreed to a speech break under the municipalities of 176 million euros per year, including Flemish Minister for Local Governments Van Grembergen who nevertheless declared a year earlier in the Flemish Parliament that non-compliance with the commitment of the federal government would mean a bomb under the federal loyalty to the Flemish government, to the Flemish government, to the local government. What do those Flemish parliamentarians actually do to prepare a resolution, to unanimously approve that resolution, and to use even harsher language, while the calf had drowned three months earlier? In what kind of country do we actually live? Colleagues, the threshold must now be reversed, before it is too late.

First of all, let us not forget, colleagues, that the federal government is the big winner in this story. It charges 21% VAT on every component of energy consumption, ranging from production through transmission to delivery and even taxes and charges. It also collects corporate taxes and that is nothing. For instance, this government has already in 2003 — I have spoken correctly about the forgotten year 2003 — spent about one hundred million euros on new revenues from corporate tax as a result of the liberalization of the energy market. This solution does not cost the federal government a penny, but brings it a fortune. However, the electricity price for a fashionable Flemish family will increase by an average of 25 euros annually. Not only do families buy more expensive energy, the municipalities are caught here for the second time. Their

Colleagues sitting on the other side of this hemisphere, the mayor of Sint-Niklaas stated in the press that his city recently after a public procurement of public lighting as much as 80%, I repeat 80%, must pay more than for the liberation of the energy market. The Flemish flood of new taxes will also benefit Wallonia. We must not forget that, my colleagues. There is also a new transfer to Wallonia. We have not forgotten that the newly formed federal government last year, around this time, before the parliamentary recess, in a matter of time, passed some laws for the Wallon region, regarding the machine guns, the regionalization of the conscience of the weapons law, you know, and also about the Francorchamps cigarettes. Now the Flemish municipalities demand justice and the promised full compensation for the gas and electricity dividends, and in that regard, Walese colleagues, we hope for understanding.

It cannot be stressed enough that the liberalization of the energy market in our country was very poorly addressed. Through the explosion of taxes and charges on energy consumption, liberalization has caused prices to rise rather than fall, and this is at the disadvantage of the consumer. The federal government allows the consumer to pay a series of new electricity taxes, a kind of pre-tariff tax in which the alleged positive effect of the release is anticipated through the government with a whole series of new fees, charges and charges. These are transferred to the user for the financing of, among other things, the nuclear liability, the financing of the regulator — the CREG — of the Social Fund and of the Kyoto Fund. If we do not pay attention now, we will soon receive additional funding, especially for the loss related to the intangible dividend.

Of course, the Flemish policies also drive the price of electricity. The customers of Electrabel and Luminus pay contributions to the green electricity policy of the Flemish government, for REG actions, for green electricity certificates, for thermal power coupling certificates, social tariffs, budget meters, free distribution of green electricity, free delivery of 100 kilowatt hours per family member. I think there is ever greater support for the analysis that our House Chairman, Mr. De Croo, has done in the public science magazine P-magazine. Our chairman tells P-magazine: “I have decided that some green initiatives have absolutely not fallen in the taste. We must get away with the green extremism of the green mushrooms. Withdrawal from nuclear energy is an example. We have no alternatives and we must re-register to use nuclear energy. It is a democratic duty to reverse some green projects.” (Applause of Applause)

Colleagues, I can ⁇ follow the Speaker of the Chamber in the sense that the early closure of nuclear power plants indeed often happens on the basis of ideological motives and far too little on the basis of rational facts. That is very clear. In my opinion, it will not be “or” but “and”; nuclear energy and environmentally friendly techniques. This way we can survive in terms of electricity production. Only the waterfall of pest allowances, in the interest of everyone’s wallet, must be able to be embedded. The price of energy has increased rather than decreased. Let us finally stop this downward spiral and go the other way.

In the article entitled "Market Operation Stopping" in Trends of 4 February 2004, it is stated that the tension field between standard prices and rates offered by competition is virtually null and that families are better off if they do not change supplier. Who is responsible for this painful situation? The promised price drop has not occurred and the dividend revenues for the municipalities have been melted away. Their

What is the explanation for that disappearance? Where has the people’s money gone? I think there will be fewer parliamentary investigation committees. It is therefore regrettable, colleagues, that the government does not address the problem fundamentally and globally. We are the party asking for this.

CD&V has been asking for some time and again and again for a strategic plan that should be implemented with all the actors from the economic sector. There is a need for an energy supply equipment plan for the coming years. Why not follow the French model and make some sort of orientation law? In that orientation law, we can define the energy policy for the coming decades, a policy with a broad consultation of the population. Also, we have long been asking that the taxes in the electricity sector are not always rolled down on ordinary people and municipalities. For now, our plea falls in dovemansors.

Colleagues, no one, not even the VLD, can get around: the Elia tax is a new tax, which will raise the price for the consumer. We follow here the criticism of the Consumer Union Test Buy, when it emphasizes that the tax is not neutral. The tax is also discriminatory, as only consumers connected to the low-voltage network are obliged to pay. High-voltage customers are exempt. It was decided to apply a degressive tax for 145,000 professional users with a consumption of more than 20 megawatts per year. In this way, the competitive position of large companies can be liberated. We have absolutely nothing against this in itself, but this will result in a net income of approximately 27 million euros. These charges will eventually be offset, either directly or through taxes, on those who consume less than 20 megawatts per year. The Elia tax is therefore a form of subsidy for large enterprises at the expense of small consumers and SMEs.

Another point of criticism, colleagues, which I would like to raise, has already been cited in the mention of the State Council opinion. The CD&V Group cannot agree on the division of powers between, on the one hand, the federal level and, on the other hand, the community and regional levels.

In fact, the draft aims at a partial herfederalization of the financing of the municipalities. A power entrusted to the West more than a decade ago is thus partially curtailed. CD&V is opposed to a federalization of powers to resolve specific problems à la carte. The powers conferred on the Regions cannot be deprived of them by such legislation of opportunity. This is contrary to our confederate vision and is contrary to an orderly and serious state structure.

We want full compensation for the municipalities. It will not come with this design. The municipalities hold half of the dividend loss created by Flanders and collected by the State. For those municipalities — in the example of those two municipalities that I mentioned earlier — with 15,000 inhabitants, that means a redemption of 300,000 euros, year after year. The city of Antwerp is robbed for about 18.6 million euros, each year, with half the compensation of our dividend.

Furthermore, no one can clearly say what the concrete distribution of those revenues between the various municipalities will look like. We begin with a difficult story. This ⁇ disturbs us.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

Mr. Speaker, the CD&V group definitely wants me to say something about this. The applicant referred to Antwerp. As you probably know, I am from Antwerp. All municipalities have suffered for their income under the liberalization of the energy market, but Antwerp has not increased its taxes at any level. It is the autonomy of local policy to seek or not compensation in spending or in income. In any case, your story is not true for the city of Antwerp.

Per ⁇ it makes sense to discuss this topic. In addition, I have heard a whole series of criticisms on the Flemish energy policy. With all respect, but this is the Federal Chamber. The Flemish negotiations are still underway. You may still be able to contribute to the Flemish negotiations very soon to get your concerns in the Flemish government agreement, both in relation to the municipal finances, as well as in relation to... (The Tumult)

David Geerts Vooruit ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that not all municipalities, not all municipalities with a CD&V administration, have raised their taxes. With us this is the case. I think these municipalities should also be cited.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

There are exceptions that are eating their reserves. I am also in the board of a municipality and ultimately one cannot keep eating his reserves. We have eaten everything and are now working on tax increases, just because our reserves are out. This is actually an image. If you say that Antwerp has not raised the taxes, this is an even more eloquent picture, because Antwerp plays a heavy role in that statistics, which applies to the whole of Flanders. If you see that taxes go up arrows, there is indeed a serious problem, a fortiori as Antwerp has not raised its taxes.

So is it. They have other channels.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Your party leader asks me to interrupt you.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

It will be a very interesting exercise for Ms. Van Brempt to include her future mandate in the Flemish government. She knows that she is a little bit driving her last round here and that she will be able to keep that matter much better than we are. Congratulations on your future appointment in the Flemish Government.

It is, of course, very painful that, as we always thought, the socialists remain only the guardians of the institutions. I have never heard Mrs. Van Brempt say anything about the user, because that is what it is about. The user pays more through all measures. Jan with the hat, Jef with the hat, the inhabitant of the Seefhoek, the user, pays more. That is the painful conclusion, Mrs. Van Brempt in the federal government or Mrs. Van Brempt in the Flemish government. Jan with the hat, about which we should all talk, pays more. Mrs. Van Brempt has no answer.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Your party leader asks me to interrupt you.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I was saying the following. It is very clear, I have already demonstrated it. How it will be resolved locally is another matter. Colleagues, it is no longer possible for higher governments to roll out their own budget problems without any form of consultation on the municipalities as if these problems would then suddenly disappear. The VVSG also has very strong criticism on this. We ⁇ want to give our communities instead of the strap they have today to the neck a strap to the neck. This must be very clear. We want again governing communities with satisfied and motivated mandators at that level — among the people — where people still trust.

I have the following feeling today. Wetstraat and Dorpsstraat will drink a glass together. When the waiter comes with the bill, the father suddenly goes to the toilet. Suddenly, the father does not see himself anymore. This is what we experience today from our governments and then especially from the federal government. We want to counter that. In this context, we must not forget that even to the individual consumer – which is also very important – the invoice should not be presented as it is presented. Therefore, we have a positive alternative. We see the only fair solution in establishing a VAT compensation fund. We have submitted a bill in that regard. It is necessary to have a thorough discussion on this before a different direction can be taken.

Our proposal is not a proposal that goes ice over a night. No, from contacts with the VVSG and with the municipalities, it was evident that there are hidden opportunities in this. A VAT exemption for local governments is difficult to ⁇ because the VAT scheme is largely from Europe and is controlled there. However, from our experience with local governments who pay a package of VAT annually on their purchases, their investments, the idea arose to establish a kind of compensation fund from which local governments can draw to recover paid VAT in whole or in part. With the CD&V alternative, municipalities get the paid investment for VAT back and the energy invoice is turned away from the ordinary user. This would allow the level of municipal investment to remain at a level and should not delay investments, thus avoiding job loss. According to NACEBO, more than 7,000 workers lost their jobs last year. This trend must be reversed.

Our proposal also contributes significantly to the revival of construction through municipal resources. This will also create a much more transparent response for our municipalities. A similar scheme has already produced positive results in other European countries.

Our positive alternative to a VAT compensation fund has several advantages. Our proposal does not affect the division of powers between the federal and regional levels. It is also a neutral proposal for the consumer and no new tax is imposed. The municipalities could be fully compensated for the loss of the intangible dividend and also recover the resources where the surplus income goes. It is logical, however, if those funds go to the federal level, that they flow back to the municipalities and, of course, also to the people.

Because CD&V does not want a new tax for the people, because we are opposed to a federalization of the Flemish powers, because we only accept a full compensation for the municipalities, for all these reasons the CD&V group will not approve this draft.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Valérie De Bue MR ⚙

Mrs. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I will not come back here on the fact that the draft text falls backwards from the Belgian institutional logic, since the federal authority is recognized as a competence, though limited, within the framework of the general financing of municipalities, whereas this area of competence now falls within the Regions.

Let us simply state that we would have preferred the desired outcome to be achieved by means more in line with the logic of our institutions. That said, the MR will support this special bill.

In my speech, I will return to some aspects of the draft text that I think should pay special attention. This relatively technical text requires clarification. Several of them were presented to the committee. It is therefore important to read the text in the light of what is agreed to be called "the spirit of the legislator".

The first element to be clarified concerns the badges to the federal intervention. The federal financial intervention for the benefit of the municipalities will be limited by a double tag:

The amount granted to the municipalities of the same Region may not exceed the amount of the product of the contribution collected in that Region;

The financing of this financial intervention can only be ensured by a contribution on electricity.

Only these two tags can be considered objective. Certainly, the text also provides that the proceeds of the federal contribution are "destined to compensate for the loss of incomes of municipalities resulting from the liberalization of the electricity market".

However, a number of questions remain suspended. Indeed, how will it be possible, in the coming years, to ensure that the output of the federal tax corresponds to the amount of the shortage to be earned by the municipalities? There is a lack of comparative elements or objective benchmarks to ensure the correspondence between the amount of federal intervention and the lack to gain. A dividend is, by definition, uncertain and evolving. How do you know the amount of dividends that would have been paid in 2005, 2006, 2007, etc.? How can it be assured that the Arbitration Court, if it were to be referred to the question, will not cancel the federal budget fixing the amount paid to the municipalities, on the grounds that this amount exceeds the presumed lack to gain of the latter?

For similar reasons, we would have preferred that the draft special law contained clear labels to federal intervention. This is why, in our opinion, the special law should have specified the basis of the federal tax, the rate – or at least a rate range – and the persons receiving the tax, in so far as these elements constitute limits imposed on the exercise of federal jurisdiction and must be considered as rules for the distribution of powers.

On these various points, the text submitted to vote is inaccurate. Hence, the importance of referring to the proposals of the minister in commission, who claimed that this partial “refederalization” of the general financing of the communes did not, however, give competence to the federal authority to grasp over the years the regional competence in matters of general financing of the communes. In other words, the amount of the amounts paid by the federal authority to the municipalities in the coming years should remain limited to the amount of the current lack of earnings incurred by the municipalities.

According to the Minister present in the committee, this does not prevent, however, that this budget envelope is distributed to the different municipalities of the same Region according to criteria evolving over time. The key for the distribution between communes of the amounts paid by the federal authority may change. The minister suggested that, according to him, the criterion of the lack to win should gradually leave the place to that of consumption. This accuracy is interesting, but nevertheless suggests that the criterion of the lack of winning communes is neither objective nor immutable, and that the federal jurisdiction does not receive clear marks from the mere reading of the bill in draft.

The second element is the exemption from federal tax by the Regions.

The Regions may exempt, in whole or in part, from the federal tax distributors serving their territory. It is imagined that the Regions, in this case the Brussels Region and the Walloon Region, will do so, which are already organising a compensation for the lack of earnings of the municipalities.

This exemption will avoid double taxation for distributors, but also for consumers, insofar as the tax will incur in a cascade on their electricity note. However, this exemption is neither automatic nor total. Therefore, if the Region does not organize exemption, distributors may therefore be required to pay two similar taxes, one to the federal authority and the other to the Region. Note also that under the draft law, the exemption is fixed by a government decree that must be confirmed by decree or decree in the year.

Five questions are raised regarding the exemption, and the first on the implementation level. A legitimate question can be raised as to the feasibility of the procedure of confirmation by decree or order of the government decree providing for an exemption from federal tax. What happens if the legislative confirmation does not come within the time limit? Therefore, the tax should be raised a posteriori. How can this operation be considered concrete? Are the methods of implementation of this retrieval not likely to result in disproportionate costs?

The second question concerns the legal validity. A tax exemption must in principle be provided for by a legislative norm. Only in the name of urgency can an exemption be provided by decree confirmed by legislative means. In addition to the fact that, this year, the urgency is relative since it comes from the fact that Minister Van Grembergen authorized the Flemish municipalities to register two-thirds of the income of the future federal tax in the 2004 budget, the bill in draft perpetuates this exemption system for the years to come.

The third question concerns the institutional logic. Article 170 of the Constitution gives the Regions and Communities the power to raise taxes, subject to the exceptions which shall be provided by the ordinary federal legislator. Using this faculty that was left to him, the latter prohibited federal communities from collecting tax on matters already taxed by the federal authority according to the principle "non bis in idem". In practice, this rule severely limits the tax competence of the Regions. In the present case, can the federal tax be identical to the road tax already levied by the Regions? If so, should it be considered that the proposed law is an exception to the "non bis in idem" principle imposed under Article 170 of the Constitution? In other words, should the text be interpreted as allowing the Regions to continue to raise the road tax despite the concomitant intervention of the federal authority?

Fourth important element, since the Wallon and Brussels Regions continue to collect the road tax, the federal tax should not logically apply and make its effects felt only in Flanders, at least in the event that the two Regions exempt distributors from the federal tax. Distributors serving the three Regions cannot therefore distribute the economic weight of the tax on all customers in the three Regions, in order to avoid an excessive increase in their prices. Otherwise, Walloon and Brussels end-consumers would pay twice: the first time by paying the tax directly to their Region, and the second time by paying their electricity bill which would include a part of the cost of the federal tax.

The Minister’s response on this point left no room for ambiguity: according to him, the law prohibits weighing the economic weight of the federal tax on the final consumers of the Regions that are exempt from this tax. Subsequently, distributors should – without legal obligation, however – distinguish in the electricity bill the amount related to consumption itself and the amount intended to cover the cost of the tax.

Finally, there is a risk of increasing fiscal pressure. We fear that these texts may lead to increased tax pressure in the Walloon and Brussels Regions. Indeed, instead of compensating each other, the federal authority intervening only to the extent that the Region would not have intervened, the two taxes could add to each other. The Walloon and Brussels Regions may not exempt or completely exempt the federal tax in such a way as to increase the revenues of their municipalities. It is not the text as such that is in question here but its application.

We hope that the Regions that collect these road taxes will completely exempt distributors from the payment of the federal tax.

With regard to the consultation, two questions were asked in this regard. First, the scope of the draft special law provides that the Regions can decide on total or partial exemptions from the federal tax. Such exemptions may be decided only after prior consultation with the federal authority. In the committee, the Minister clearly specified the scope of this consultation. It is not equivalent to a veto right. Regions and federal authorities are required to consult with each other in a consultation committee, i.e. to have an exchange of views on the issue, but in no case does the failure of the discussions mean that the Region concerned is unable to implement the exemption. Furthermore, we were answered that the consultation concerned the whole dossier, thus the rate, the base and the taxable persons.

Finally, the last element concerns an imprecision of the text or, rather, a precision of the legal order that is nevertheless imperative, in order to ensure consistency with the Constitution. The last paragraph of Article 6 refers to the decree or to a rule referred to in Article 134 of the Constitution. Since the adoption, a few months ago, by our assembly of the amendment to Article 41 of the Constitution, it is now well established that it is necessary to make a distinction between decrees and rules referred to in Article 134 of the Constitution.

Decrees are intended exclusively for community decrees and the rule referred to in Article 134 of the Constitution is intended exclusively for regional decrees. Formally, the text in the formulation here proposed thus gives the legislature of the Regions and Communities the power to confirm the resolutions of the regional government deciding on an exemption. This makes no sense, of course we are only targeting the Regions. If it goes without saying, it goes even better by saying it. It would have been better to mention only one rule referred to in Article 134 of the Constitution.

Here are a few points that I would like to highlight.

Let us simply state that we would have preferred the desired outcome to be achieved by means more in line with the logic of our institutions. That said, the MR will support this special bill.

The first element to be clarified concerns the badges to the federal intervention. The federal financial intervention for the benefit of the municipalities will be limited by a double tag:

The amount granted to the municipalities of the same Region may not exceed the amount of the product of the contribution collected in that Region;

The financing of this financial intervention can only be ensured by a contribution on electricity.

The second element is the exemption from federal tax by the Regions.

We hope that the Regions that collect these road taxes will completely exempt distributors from the payment of the federal tax.

Here are a few points that I would like to highlight.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I await to know what will be the attitude of the MR group at the final vote of this bill, after the reply of Mrs. Secretary of State. Our colleague, Ms. De Bue, raised many questions. If she doesn’t get a response, I can’t imagine that the MR can approve this project. In any case, I would like to say to our colleague that she has all our support! (Applause on the banks of the CD&V)

Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. State Secretary of Energy, colleagues, it is not my intention to provide even more electricity in the Chamber after the interesting statements of the previous speaker and of colleague Verhaegen.

On the liberalization of the energy market and more specifically on the liberalization of the electricity market, much has been said and written in recent years and much more has been promised. Every mayor, ship or municipal council member in the hemisphere knows better than anyone else that the incomes of a municipality, in addition to those from property tax and personal tax, for a significant part come from the sale of gas and electricity.

It was the Prime Minister himself who, in the run-up to the whole debate on the liberation of the energy market, declared very clearly in the House that the net price for consumers must drop. That was the first condition. The loss of income resulting from the liberalization of the energy market would be fully compensated for the cities and municipalities and therefore there would be no net loss for them either.

Even in the government agreement of the previous purple-green government Verhofstadt I was a reference to the liberation of the energy market. “The accelerated liberalization of the energy market will enable all consumers to enjoy lower tariffs and better services.” We all know that there will be no compensation for cities and municipalities before 2003. For 2004 there will also be no full compensation, but something in the order of two-thirds in terms of electricity. However, there is no regulation on gas. That promise was not ⁇ ined at all.

Furthermore, we must already refer to the Program Law of 24 December 2002, which in Article 431 speaks about the possibility of introducing a fee on the transmission system operator. This tax was intended to compensate the municipalities for the loss of income they suffered as a result of the liberalization of the energy sector. The so-called Elia tax is therefore a tax on the transport of electricity through the high-voltage network.

In order to determine the size of the income loss suffered, the Minister of Energy has asked the CREG to make an estimate of the loss of dividends for the municipalities, both for electricity and for gas. Colleagues, I give some figures to draw attention. For 2003 the revenue loss for the electricity market is estimated at 195 million euros, of which 179 million for the Flemish Region and only 15 million euros for the Wallish Region. The remaining balance relates to the Brussels Capital Region, which is not abnormal, as liberalization in the Walloon Region and in the Brussels Region is still only partially applicable and this for large consumers. As for gas distribution, we see roughly the same picture. Income loss is estimated at 27 million euros, of which 25 million euros for the Flemish Region, 1,3 million euros for the Wallish Region and the remaining part for the Brussels Capital Region. This shows a huge loss of income for Flanders. The figures clearly show that many Flemish municipalities and municipal governments are slowly losing the north when it comes to their energy income.

Whatever market we are in, liberated or not, the final invoice for the supply of electricity is largely determined by the level of the various taxes and contributions. I cannot get rid of the impression that this and the previous federal government have taken advantage of the liberalization of the energy market to introduce a number of taxes. These taxes go above the electricity prices. In this case, the loss of income is compensated by the higher tax on the sale of electricity.

First, the concept of federal contribution was introduced. That is a contribution that is charged linearly to all consumers, with the exception of those who obtain electricity from renewable energy or cogeneration. This exemption applies, but for all others the contribution is charged linearly. The federal contribution consists of a number of components. I will summarize the most important of them: the well-known Kyoto Fund for a sum of 25 million euros; also the regulator, the CREG, must be financed — operating assets in the amount of 8 million euros —; the nuclear liability must be financed for 38 million euros and the social fund for 25 million euros. That is already a huge amount. On top of that comes now what we easily call the Elijah tax. The ultimate purpose of the exemption is that the consumer can choose between different suppliers and that the prices for that consumer become more competitive and thus lower.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I do not limit myself to the federal level because the file of the liberation of the energy market for the man in the street is one whole. At the level of the Flemish Region, the "free story" was linked to this. I think of 100 kilowatt-hours of free electricity per consumer. We had the entire campaign over the free savings lamp, the free budget meter and as a blow to the fire arrow, a few weeks before the elections, the night tariffs for electricity during the weekend. Your party fellow, Mr. Robert Stevaert, found this nice things for the people.

The 100 kilowatt-hour free is undoubtedly a gift of about 100 million euros for customers who consume between 500 and 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year. This is about 5 to 10% of Flemish electricity consumers. This gift is paid by the remaining 90% which subsidizes the cheaper invoice of the smaller consumers. In itself there is nothing against it, but then the communication about it must be clear and one should not use the word for free. Then people are deceived and, in addition, it shows that the politics of free energy is a vest-sack-broek-sack operation, as we have known several times in this federal government.

Consequently, also pronouncing the word free becomes synonymous with becoming more expensive. A fashion family with a consumption of 3,500 kilowatt-hours per year will, after the introduction of this special law and after the regions have made the distribution, be charged 25 to 30 euros more on its final invoice than before. You may later be able to say in what way the Regents can organize it. The argument of your party fellow Robert Stevaert that the rich pay the current of the poor is a lie. In parliamentary terms, that is an argument in which the truth is seriously violated.

The same goes for the proposal to charge the night tariff for electricity during the weekend. It is a noble initiative. Only, in your city, Mrs. Secretary of State, only 24% of users have a day/night table and who would decide to install such a day/night table must pay an additional 300 euros, regardless of whether the electricity grid of his home is suitable for that.

As regards the special law at issue, it is therefore intended to adapt the special law to the institutions, in order to introduce a new federal tax, as I have already said, easily referred to as the Elia tax, and that, in addition, with a retroactive entry into force from 1 May 2004.

Curiously, the federal government is now intervening in a matter that has become a competence of the Communities and Regions since a number of state reforms, namely the competence over the cities and municipalities. With this draft, we are once again on the opposite path: again to the federal level in terms of financing the cities and municipalities. The cities and municipalities are therefore again — they have struggled so long to get away — a Belgian mother-in-law on their roof. Long live the federalism, I would say, and long live the decent administration. Those who thought that with the liberalization of the energy market everything would become simpler and more transparent, naturally come home from a cold cold. This is really a la carte. Where we under the previous government had to deal with "consumption de-deralism" - for then it was always about money - we now have a new kind of federalism. I would like to call it “opportunity federalism.” We knew in the beginning of this legislature the weapons law, the Francorchamps law – which was of course intended for Wallonia – and now there is the Eliataks which, by the previous liberation of the electricity market in Flanders, will have its first application in the amount of 170 million euros, at the expense of the users of course. Therefore, the question will also arise how those 170 million will be distributed.

The least that can be said, Mrs. Secretary of State, Mr. President, is that the introduction of the liberalized electricity market is by no means a school example of a well-prepared implementation. There has been a lot of stunt and knot work accompanied, but ⁇ not in favor of the consumer.

The strange thing about the amendment of the special law is that it will be the federal government that will come out of the bus as the big winner. This is contradictory at first sight, but it will be proved in the facts. It is the federal government that through the VAT tax on the one hand, and through the corporate tax on the other, will receive mass money from Flanders because the electricity sellers are no longer the intercommunals who, through their tax exemption, do not contribute to the corporate tax. It will be companies such as Luminus, Electrabel, Nuon, which will provide more receipts through the sale of electricity. Exactly because of these facts and the facts cited earlier in my speech, Mrs. Secretary of State, you will not be surprised that my group is not really fond of that bill and that we will therefore not approve that special law. On the contrary, we vote against.

Éric Massin PS | SP ⚙

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, when the directive was translated into our legislation, a choice was presented: either of the Regions and Communities had choices to make. At the level of the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region, a certain choice was made, given the fact that intercommunals fall within the framework of regional policy, that the supervision of communes falls within the framework of regional policy, as well as a number of other elements. Therefore, it was decided to create a taxation, a road fee.

At another time, in another place, other choices are made. At some point, despite all the difficulties experienced by the cities and communes, a decision must be made in order to see how, not within the framework of a whole but rather of a certain proportion, it would be possible to help these cities and communes.

This choice is presented to us today. The question is whether we leave these communes in the face of a nihil, in the face of a no man’s land, in the face of a completely irreparable loss, or whether we set up, through compensation, a mechanism allowing them to bear this loss, this lost intangible fee.

This is the choice we make today. It is up to us to decide. This is a political choice: we do not necessarily encounter total coverage, we do not necessarily encounter the loss as it results from a political will emerged at a time at the European level and in the implementation of the directive, but we try to meet these needs through a coverage, ⁇ incomplete. The political choice belongs to us: we decide to meet him or not to meet him.

In the committee, I heard the arguments of each other; I just heard them again. I can understand that it is said that it is a refederalization, a new tax levy, that it is totally illogical, that it is a choice that has not been made in one Region while another Region or another Community has made a different decision. The problem is here now. This problem arises in a determined Region, in a determined Community of our country, while others have made a different choice that also does not fully meet the expectations of one and the other.

Do we have to know what we want? As I said earlier, it will be either partially filled, or fully filled, or remain in the state. If we remain in the state, who will be harmed? These will be the cities and municipalities of a Community of our country. I don’t want it, I don’t want it, my group doesn’t want it and doesn’t want it.

That is why we will support the project and vote for it. We will go in that direction. Per ⁇ not to meet the demands and concerns of everyone, but at least to allow compensation to be made for the fact that at one point, a political choice was probably not made, could still be or not, but that in any case, a certain determination of political choice was made.

I am not asking questions. I have no objectives or demands. I do not have an opinion or an opinion. I say that a solution is encouraged and that its political responsibilities must be taken. That is what we will do, we will support this bill. But you also have to take yours. It is also your responsibility to support or not support this project. It’s your political choice, it’s your decision.

Furthermore, it seems to me that questions could also have arisen in the other linguistic part or the other Regions of the country – I think of the Brussels Region and the Walloon Region – regarding the possibility of granting exemptions from this contribution that will be set up. Traffic fees were installed in the Walloon Region and in the Brussels Region. Those exemptions — I can understand it if I consider the principle of non bis in idem that must be applied — could therefore be granted. The problem arises from the prior consultation that should have taken place.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Vande Lanotte, as part of the discussion of the project in the committee, provided answers, in this regard, which satisfy me fully. He stated that as soon as the issue of the exemption would arise in the Conciliation Committee and, therefore, as soon as the latter has been addressed, the Region concerned, the applicant of the exemptions, will be able to apply them, even in the event of opposition from the federal government. This is an important point that had to be acquired and on which I am reassured.

Another problem could also arise. I think of the possibility of obtaining or not obtaining partial territorial exemptions. The Minister responded in the same way, saying that the exemption cannot target a group of municipalities, a determined municipality, a part of a Region, but that it must target the whole of a Region. On this point, I have my calms again.

Furthermore, on the principle of "non bis in idem" and, therefore, on the question of whether two taxes were not likely to meet, the minister replied in the same way: on the one hand, there is the road fee and, on the other, the contribution. The latter concerns the consumption while the fee concerns the use of the road. In my opinion, the problem will not arise at the level of the Brussels Region and the Walloon Region. A political decision should ⁇ be made in this regard, in order to avoid double taxation.

Finally, one last element was raised by one of the speakers, namely, how the distribution will be done. The answer is in the bill. This will depend on the place of consumption. There is therefore no problem between the Walloon Region, the Brussels Region or the Flemish Community in this regard. The distribution between the various municipalities is also shown in the exhibition of the reasons and in the answers that have been provided. Therefore, we have no concern to have: not a Brussels franc or a Wallon franc will come from the Flemish Community.

It is therefore with confidence that we can vote on this bill. This is in the interest of a community that I hope will understand it.

Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙

Éric Massin PS | SP ⚙

It is therefore with confidence that we can vote on this bill. This is in the interest of a community that I hope will understand it.

Simonne Creyf CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, colleagues and colleagues,

Mr. Secretary of State, I will be very brief. I would like to get from the representative of the government in this debate — I assume that Mrs. Secretary of State is and will answer us too — a few answers to some very concrete questions. The questions are addressed to you very specifically.

First, I have always taken the consumer’s point of view throughout the debate. At the moment, with the Elia tax, we must determine that more than 30% of the energy price per kilowatt-hour consists of taxes. I would like to ask the Secretary of State if she considers it reasonable, given the actions and position of her party in the past, that a basic product such as electricity consists of taxes for more than 30%.

Second, Mrs. Secretary of State, who will bear the Elijah tax? That will be the families and the SMEs. At this point, I also want to ask you something. Is that true with the philosophy of not only its party, but also of the government, in particular not increasing the burden and reducing the burden for ⁇ and families? How can one combine that with the fact that the Elia tax will be borne by families, households and SMEs?

My third question concerns the distribution of the proceeds of the Elijah tax. I just heard a PS colleague say that that distribution will not be a problem. Our question concerns not so much the distribution of the Elia tax across the regions, but within Flanders, for example. Based on what criteria will the Elijah tax flow back to the congregations? Will this be done on the basis of consumption or the length of the grid, criteria that have already been used in the past? So I would like to ask the Secretary of State in this very important debate very explicitly on what basis the distribution will take place. What criteria will be used in the context of the distribution of the proceeds of the Elijah tax to the congregations?

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the answer that the Secretary of State will give, we will examine how we can align our voting behavior with that.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Secretary of State asks us to sign a blank check.

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the answer that the Secretary of State will give, we will examine how we can align our voting behavior with that.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

First, the VAT compensation fund we have introduced is a 100% compensation fund. The municipalities will be reimbursed 100%. Second, we will ⁇ not charge additional taxes to the population. In the end, I think that the core of the matter is – I have also wanted to say it in many words later – that through that blundersaga of the Flemish government that is leaving the State receives revenues from the Flemish municipalities, which they had before and which they must now lack. They pay VAT and corporate tax. Therefore, the dividends will also be much lower.

In this case, the State is not willing to return the excess money it received from the municipalities. In addition to the sale, the taxes for the Flames will then be increased again. That disturbs us. I think the Flaming therefore remembers that the municipalities are given less and that they must pay even more for it.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I understand part of the debate, frankly not, part was about Europe, another part was about the powers of the regions. What is proposed here for voting is actually simply the institutional arrangement that should give the possibility to introduce an Elia Tax. That Elia tax is not to be voted today – unless I am deeply mistaken – it has yet to be submitted to Parliament and then the discussion on it has to be carried out. That’s not here, I don’t know what criteria and such more will be. This will be part of the legislation that will regulate the Elijah tax. Today only an institutional methodology will be voted that will allow for an Elia tax in the future. I would like to point out what is also in the proposal: the regions have the possibility to grant a global or partial exemption from that Elia tax in the future. For example, if the Flemish Region does not wish to apply the Elia tax in the future, it can do it perfectly. I repeat what I just said, your concerns may still be taken into account in the ongoing Flemish negotiations on this subject. Per ⁇ not all of them need.

Simonne Creyf CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Secretary of State asks us to sign a blank check.

Jos Ansoms CD&V ⚙

Secretary of State, that is the core of the debate. Thro ⁇ the entire liberalization process, parafiscal incomes from the municipalities were removed. Where have they gone? To a significant extent, they have gone to the federal government, due to increased income from VAT and increased income from corporate taxes.

CD&V proposes that municipalities should be compensated by a VAT compensation fund. This means that federal funds are returned to the municipalities. The government says: no, the surplus income we have received, we do not return to the municipalities; we will impose a supplementary tax on the consumer. We do not agree with this principled choice. By proposing this bill, the government makes the choice that the municipalities are compensated, not by a redistribution of taxes, but by an additional additional tax on the consumer. We do not agree with this.

Carl Devlies CD&V ⚙

Mr. President, Mr. Verhaegen asked a number of interesting questions, most of which have not been answered.

One of his questions was to give an explanation for the fact that, on the one hand, the price drop has not occurred and, on the other hand, that the dividend revenues for the municipalities have disappeared. Somewhere resources have disappeared. He talked about a disappearance.

Mrs. Secretary of State, what is your response to this? However, what Mr. Verhaegen says is very strange.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

That is a methodology. In addition, it makes this tax possible. CD&V’s proposal to introduce a VAT compensation fund requires a similar methodology, a similar adjustment. Compensation requires an adaptation of the special law because the financing of the municipalities is a regional competence. The bill of CD&V should be regulated at least through a similar methodology. Just like a white cheque.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Let the lady speak. Wait a little, and listen a little first.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

This is a non-debate.

Mr. Secretary of State, I do not blame you for this. I blame this government for not sending anyone to Parliament who can answer questions at least. I understand that this subject is not your specialty. Therefore, I do not blame you.

Questions about such an important issue that imposes significant tax burdens on all citizens of this country should be able to be answered. Quod no, in this case. You say that you do not understand everything well. If so, someone must come to Parliament who understands everything and can answer our questions!

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

I repeat that this debate should be carried out in the discussion of the Elia tax itself.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. President, I would like to reinforce Mr. Tant’s argument.

Following the questioning hour, we received a response from the fourth minister to whom the question had been postponed. The question was addressed to the Prime Minister. In the end, we got the Minister of Social Affairs of a different language role. We have held a debate on the further degradation of this Parliament, whether or not under your auspices, at least under your tolerant and patient patience.

I do not blame Mrs. Van Brempt. What she says is correct. She sits here only because Minister Vande Lanotte has submitted a special law. She should not be asked for an explanation about the Elia tax. Mrs. Moerman is in the country. If Minister Vande Lanotte is in the country, you must call him to this hemisphere. I even suspect that you should only call Mr. Vande Lanotte. Their

This is Parliament. You must make sure it remains a parliament. I wish Mrs. Van Brempt all success. In the Flemish Parliament, it may be easier. It is only the Flemish Parliament, isn’t it? However, those who come to the Chamber must be competent.

Jos Ansoms CD&V ⚙

Carl Devlies CD&V ⚙

Mr. President, Mr. Verhaegen asked a number of interesting questions, most of which have not been answered.

Mrs. Secretary of State, what is your response to this? However, what Mr. Verhaegen says is very strange.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, in this Parliament, the members of the government present are presumed to be competent. I can understand that someone who is competent for well-being at work is not immediately aware of this problem.

It is about consumer data. This is the reduction of the entire file. Consumers—whether they need to pay insurance, obtain a driving license, or be members of a health fund—are users of a government offer, whether privatized or not.

On the one hand, Minister Van den Bossche must be present because of her part-time job as Minister of Consumer Affairs and, on the other hand, Minister Moerman. I had to pick up a magnet— ⁇ put in your pocket—to soak in this afternoon Mrs. Moerman, who may have been present in the other hemisphere a fifty meters from here, in order to give an answer regarding the problem of the closing hours, which Mrs. Pieters had cited.

Now we are faced with a representative of the government who says that it is not actually competent in this matter.

You cannot answer. In terms of executive power, you may be incompetent, impotent, aseksual, or whatever.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

I am not a specialist in energy. I am here to replace Minister Johan Vande Lanotte, who is responsible for that special law change, but not for the Elia tax. I repeat that.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Not the latter.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

The [...]

But that is nonsense.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

In any case, within a few moments, a vote will take place that is ⁇ important for the consumer, in particular the vote on the amendment of Article 6 of the Special Act.

The consumer must be at your heart. I know that this is only important in election campaigns, and no longer. You see the municipalities and cities as clusters against acidification. I do not want to refer to the Gingelom recombinant that your chairman has said is unable to understand that 70% of the population of Gingelom voted for the Flemish Block. I know how that comes. It comes by telling people that municipal governments suddenly have to pay more for their electricity, causing people to turn against their mayor because you want to liberalize everything.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Let the lady speak. Wait a little, and listen a little first.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

That capstone doesn’t work, because then you could discuss everything with anyone. I am here in replacement to discuss the modification of that special law.

Opinions about prices and the determination of electricity price are ⁇ divided. However, some have resulted in a fall in prices and some have likely resulted in the increase in the profits of certain electricity producers.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Finally, here we have a data in which the competent ministers and the competent government remain aside from having to answer the questions why citizens pay more, the municipalities get less and the government collects more. That is the fundamental question. There is a minister who cannot answer. Meanwhile, he has sworn the oath with the King and is therefore not a royal commissioner who simply comes to distribute the posts. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you should suspend the session and ask a competent minister. Their

( ... ...

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

This is a non-debate.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mrs, you have heard three more questions and you answer on behalf of the government. You are the only representative of the government.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. President, I would like to reinforce Mr. Tant’s argument.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

That answer on behalf of the government is good for me, but then you must first know what it is about and secondly you should not say that you cannot answer on certain matters.

Now we are faced with a representative of the government who says that it is not actually competent in this matter.

... and that in November 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall it was definitively dead. Marx is alive and has disguised himself as the Secretary of State of the Family who responds here today on behalf of the Government of Verhofstadt II. This is unpublished. I hope that, after the presentation of the colleagues of the MR, with their support, I can ask either Mrs. Van den Bossche, or Mrs. Moerman, or both here tonight to answer our questions because with this we do not agree.

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

The [...]

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to recommend the suspension. A suspension was requested by the party.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

You cannot answer. In terms of executive power, you may be incompetent, impotent, aseksual, or whatever.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I never refuse a suspension, Mr Annemans.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Not the latter.

Mr. Speaker, is it correct that various excellencies, on the occasion of parliamentary statements and answers to parliamentary questions, but also in the text of the government statement, have expressly promised that there would be a full compensation for the lower incomes of the municipalities?

So many ministers, Mrs. Secretary of State, have confirmed this here. Well, then answer us to that and do not say that it will be the Wests! This federal government, to which you belong, has committed itself to this point. Then answer us to our question! We want to know where we are.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

In any case, within a few moments, a vote will take place that is ⁇ important for the consumer, in particular the vote on the amendment of Article 6 of the Special Act.

There must come a member of the government to answer, who is competent for the department!

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Colleagues, I tried to reach Mrs. Moerman, who was on his way to Gent. She stayed all afternoon. I have tried to reach Mr. Vande Lanotte and he can only be here at 22:30.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

We are interested in the outcome.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

( ... ...

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

What is this here?

President Herman De Croo ⚙

No matter who responds on behalf of the government.

Mrs, you have heard three more questions and you answer on behalf of the government. You are the only representative of the government.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Yes for you!

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

That answer on behalf of the government is good for me, but then you must first know what it is about and secondly you should not say that you cannot answer on certain matters.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

If you give a response to the Secretary of State, it is on behalf of the Government.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

What do you think about the conference of the Eastern Flemish mayors?

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

I remember my first appearance in this Parliament and then you also tried to diminish me, you ⁇ still remember that. Their

First, I have not answered any questions relating to the amendment of Article 6. I have answered and I would like to repeat again that what is stated here means that there is a possibility of taxation in the future. How can I answer questions for which there are no answers today because the Elijah tax is not yet there. The details are not yet known, it has not yet been submitted to Parliament. You will be able to discuss this at a suitable time. I cannot answer this today because that legislation has not yet been submitted to Parliament. Their

Second, I repeat that each Region can decide not to apply that tax in its Region, that you agree today. This is good news, isn’t it?

President Herman De Croo ⚙

The secretary of state government sits and gives a response, if it is done on behalf of the government. We all understood what we needed to understand. Can I close the general discussion?

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to recommend the suspension. A suspension was requested by the party.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

No, no, we are waiting for an answer. I want a competent minister.

Servais Verherstraeten CD&V ⚙

This is about the reform of the special law. Then I think that the questions that were specifically asked by some colleagues, of course, have to do with the application, the consequences and the consequences of the special law. These are relevant questions. I respect the Secretary of State, who acknowledges that she is not a specialist in the matter. This is very fideel of harentway. Based on the words of the Secretary of State himself, which we respect because they are honest words, I think that this Parliament deserves to be answered on the concrete applications and consequences that the amendment of the Special Act could bring. I therefore think that it is a correct question from our group chairman to get a suspension to get a representative of the government who is specialized in this matter and knows something about it, and who can answer us.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I never refuse a suspension, Mr Annemans.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, apparently we are those who do not understand it and the Secretary of State understands everything.

We are constantly faced with these questions, you too, as a local driver. Collega Creyf, colleague Verhaegen and the MR need answers to questions they have asked. I ask a competent minister.

Who is competent? The Minister of Institutional Reforms, the Minister of Budget, the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Economic Affairs. I ask you one of those four ministers, one of which is located further than the other, expressed in kilometers: between 150, 50 and 2 kilometers. They come here today, in the Chamber, to explain this special law. This is not a resolution. This is not a soft law. It is not a weak law, it is about changing a special law. I want someone from the government who is responsible for this.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Kathleen Van Brempt Vooruit ⚙

In the advisory committee it was agreed to accept compensation for the Flemish Region, for example, of 172 million euros. The Elia tax, I repeat again, has not yet been submitted to Parliament and will have to address it. At least that is the commitment.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Ladies and gentlemen, there are two possibilities. Or I will not close the discussion and find what you ask. I will begin with another point, but I will not close this point. Or ...

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, who will you reach?

There must come a member of the government to answer, who is competent for the department!

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Colleagues, I tried to reach Mrs. Moerman, who was on his way to Gent. She stayed all afternoon. I have tried to reach Mr. Vande Lanotte and he can only be here at 22:30.

I am busy.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

We are interested in the outcome.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

We are all busy.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I try to reach Deputy Prime Minister Vande Lanotte.

No matter who responds on behalf of the government.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, we are here to decide whether the cities and municipalities can keep their heads above water. Budgetary neutrality has begun with the reform of the police, with the reform of the corporate tax and with the ending of all sorts of initiatives taken by the federal government. Can we go home tonight and say to the mayors, the directors and our citizens, the only guarantees against acidification, "Can we compensate or not?"

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Yes for you!

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I will continue the discussion, so I will not close it. I am not closing the general discussion, I am looking into whether Deputy Prime Minister Vande Lanotte can be here in a few moments and I will then return to the same topic. It was promised to move forward today, but I understand your question. I keep the design forever.

If you give a response to the Secretary of State, it is on behalf of the Government.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

What do you think about the conference of the Eastern Flemish mayors?

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be very unreasonable, but I would like the last meeting to be a little serious. I assume that Minister Demotte, who is competent for this file, does pass and that we should not discuss here with a secretary of state, who will also not know what it is about in that file.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

The secretary of state government sits and gives a response, if it is done on behalf of the government. We all understood what we needed to understand. Can I close the general discussion?

I have asked for a minister, Mr. Bultinck, but you allow me to find him. You still have enough time. The evening is long. Do not chase.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, without becoming ⁇ cynical, I assume that the federal government still has a number of ministers until further order.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

No, no, we are waiting for an answer. I want a competent minister.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Until next order. I come back to it.

Servais Verherstraeten CD&V ⚙

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, it is not blatant. If there is someone who will acknowledge that the office of secretary of state is not the same as the office of minister, then it will be Mrs. Van Brempt herself.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, apparently we are those who do not understand it and the Secretary of State understands everything.

We are constantly faced with these questions, you too, as a local driver. Collega Creyf, colleague Verhaegen and the MR need answers to questions they have asked. I ask a competent minister.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I made a proposal. She will know whom to ask.

I see no one, except Mrs. Avontroodt, who is the rapporteur.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are two possibilities. Or I will not close the discussion and find what you ask. I will begin with another point, but I will not close this point. Or ...

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, who will you reach?

With regard to the previous draft, we request the presence of the Minister of Public Health. However, if the Secretary of State can give an explanation on that draft, we will be happy to listen.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I am busy.

Mr. De Crem, we are still dealing with another point.

Mrs Avontroodt, do you make a report or have you reached an agreement with Mrs Burgeon?

Rapporteur Yolande Avontroodt ⚙

I refer to the written report.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

We are all busy.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I try to reach Deputy Prime Minister Vande Lanotte.

As speakers are registered Mr Verhaegen and Mrs Avontroodt.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Mr. Secretary of State, I also have some concrete questions.

Colleagues, five years after the dioxin crisis and four years after the establishment of the FAVV, the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, here is finally a draft hunted by the Public Health Committee. It was actually a diesel that suddenly came on high-speed train and surprised us all in speed. There were several preparatory documents available to the government, but they were not transmitted to the members. Last week it was voted suddenly and today it is already on the agenda of the plenary session. So it could already be a first question, Mrs. Secretary of State, why these documents did not reach the commissioners on time. It included important documents, such as the opinion, the discussions in the advisory committee and the like.

We also regret that this matter, which is yet very important — so important even that it was taken from the 2003 Programme Act and sent to Parliament for a separate discussion — is regulated by the Framework Act. Most measures will be imposed by implementing decisions, which actually escape Parliament’s control. Partly therefore I feel obliged here, however, to make some pertinent comments in quite circumstantial manner.

For such an important funding, putting the Parliament out of play and ⁇ asking for new increased efforts from the sectors testifies to us of a misunderstood form of distrust and is below all levels. Therefore, we would also like to ask a few questions to Minister Reynders, who is also absent here.

In particular, I would like to make it clear that we find it good that all sectors are integrated together within the FAVV’s consultative bodies, with all layers of the food chain. We are also pleased that the contribution of science has been strengthened. We also believe that the FAVV has a strong and competent staff. Let there be no misunderstanding about this.

On my comment during the committee meeting, that the legislative power has insufficient control over the efficiency of the FAVV, the minister simply replied that there will be an analytical accounting. Of course, it is quite difficult to work with an open and transparent accounting. Therefore, I would like to repeat the question. Why is Parliament out of play in such an important matter as the funding of the Federal Food Safety Agency? Their

It was my main task in the committee to insist on this regular evaluation based on reasonable figures, which should result in a progressive adjustment of the system and also to pay the necessary attention to safeguarding Belgian competitive and export position. This is very important because there are many resources in the game.

When we talk about the funding of the FAVV, we must also examine in advance the tasks that the Agency must carry out. Neither the government nor the companies are allowed to pay too high bills. This can only be done if the FAVV works efficiently and effectively. Therefore, it is essential that the government has objective and neutral instruments to ensure that the FAVV performs efficiently and effectively.

Cost control is a conditio sine qua non, ⁇ in the precarious financial situation in which the governments in this country have arrived. However, there is also the little brilliant state of agriculture, of the food ⁇ , the precarious situation of the hospitality industry and the like. There is also an urgent need for a clear and well-balanced business plan. As more self-control comes, the costs of the FAVV should of course decrease.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to wait until Mrs. Secretary of State is present.

My next question is how far it is with the implementation of the business plan. As more self-control comes, the cost of the FAVV must also decrease. So it is very important that we have a business plan there, that we have a long-term vision in which we see that the sectors will actually pay less.

I also continue to advocate a sort of benchmark situation, ⁇ in relation to the other EU countries because there is ⁇ a large single market in this sector. Only if this condition is fulfilled and only then can the operators, i.e. the companies, be asked to take on their budgetary responsibilities, in this case covering the control activities of the FAVV.

The costs to be charged for an inspection visit are composed of three components: personnel costs, direct costs and overhead costs. All costs are, therefore, calculated — which seems to me also a puzzle — on the basis of 400 persons. You may also be able to immediately answer the question of why it should be exactly 400 persons, and there is no distinction between staff performing effective field work — the inspectors — and the staff at the office.

I hear from the sectors—which is very annoying to them—that the incurred costs are also calculated on the highest old age, as if the people of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain are all officials who soon go to rest. This is counted on the sectors. In addition, the social burden of civil servants is taken into account. Mr. Secretary of State, I have a fourth question. The social burden, which is not relevant, shall be taken into account in the control activities of the veterinarians and the inspectors on the ground. We find this aberrant.

Then there is the distribution of taxes among the sectors. Of course, that is the most difficult exercise. The initial proposals to make an initial, provisional classification by value added were corrected with a number of new elements, mainly from the non-agricultural sectors. I also understand that there must be a balance. Subsequently, however, the transport sector was added to the list, so that approximately EUR 31.3 million will now have to be distributed across six lines: agricultural supply, primary production, processing, distribution, hospitality and transport. I also find it important to find out why these three parameters are used in this way. The government now says that the three parameters each counts for a third. It is crucial for sectors to know why exactly one third is charged for added value, one third for gross operating salary — which is actually just the difference between added value and paid wages — and one third for the number of checkpoints. Each of these three parameters is counted for a third. We want to know what is behind it. Why should this be done in this way? This calculation means that the agricultural sector of the three sectors would have to pay more than 26%.

We found the first idea, namely a system based on added value, a fair system. After all, only value added is a correct parameter, as it gives the best approach to purchasing power between different sectors. Taking into account the gross operating balance is less meaningful. After all, by deducting from the value added only the paid wages, the agricultural sector, where much family labour is employed, is severely disadvantaged.

In this case, there is less employee in wage service.

The number of control points is also counted as a third. That is completely aberrant. However, this depends on the choices made by the FAVV itself. Control over the entire food chain must be considered. If you control one link more, you will be able to control the other links less. Then you get a scratch. My crucial question remains why one takes a third over the three parameters? All sectors and actors in the food chain are in difficulty. That is why we have also called for – the opposition has pulled a seam here – to provide additional resources through the FOD Volksgezondheid, so that the competitive position of the Belgian food industry can remain liberated as much as possible. We must not forget that these sectors are already making significant efforts on self-control and so on.

Another pain point for us is the operational reserve. The Minister wants to create an occasional reserve. I think history repeats itself here. When the government paid the full bill for the African Swine Fever in 1985, the foundation was laid for the establishment of the Sanitary Fund with the aim of financing the compensation through solidarity among livestock farmers. The initiative was then, almost 20 years ago, from the then Minister of Finance, Guy Verhofstadt, who is now in the fall of his political career. I understood that he was going to bike. I think he will eventually find work as a journalist in sports competitions.

After the crisis of avian influenza, the problem of operational costs was put on the table. This draft includes an article providing the possibility to partly solidarise the operating costs associated with the management of unforeseen incidents, so that they can be transferred to the sectors. Thanks to the creation of a special reserve, the unexpected operating expenditure can be financed without compromising the normal functioning of the Agency or the federal budget. The reserve for operational costs in the event of disasters is half financed by the government and half by the sector. This is difficult to defend for companies. Many companies have no control over operating costs during the crisis and can therefore not be held accountable for them. We have seen this in the dioxin crisis. Furthermore, the sector has no participation in the approach in the event of an epidemic and therefore cannot be held responsible for its financing.

Therefore, we do not want to cause the hard-working people in the sectors concerned to be put to death. Therefore, we also submitted an amendment in the committee to remove Article 9. We will submit it again. Well, it has already arrived, I thought.

Within the framework of the Self-Control Directive, Belgium has pledged for a European harmonisation of the costs charged to the operators of the food chain. However, we were alone with this. Europe provides for minimum remuneration for the inspection of products, but self-control may lead to reduction of those remunerations. That is important. This is also permitted if a Member State notifies it if it can, for example, submit calculations of how it gets those lower wages. However, it is crucial for the competitive position of Belgium that, in terms of the level of fees and remuneration, the same level is taken into account in the other EU Member States. Any distortion on that level automatically means a distortion in the relations of competition.

In analogy with what is established as a federal wage standard for the socio-economic sector — which you may know — it seems to us equally necessary to come up with a federal tax and remuneration standard in the field of FAVV taxes and remunerations under the influence of the level in question in the other EU Member States because we are thus having a large common market. It is, of course, an important point to know whether work has been done on that benchmark and that comparison and if so, how far it can be worked on and when we can reach that federal tax and remuneration standard. This standardization is fully in line with the concerns of the sectors, but they oppose automatic adjustment to indexation because it takes away the dynamic towards a cost-effective and efficient policy. Therefore, it seems to us that the imposition of a tax and remuneration standard is a complementary and possibly effective instrument for this purpose.

There must also be — I have already talked about it, later in connection with Elijah — a kind of observatory, an observatory that is a kind of arguso eye for the international but a fortiori for the European developments. This is crucial in this. That there is an urgent need for this in the meat sector is illustrated by the recent increase in control duties which translated the budgetary imbalance of the IVK into an increase in those duties without any reflection based on the need for efficient and efficient management.

You understand, colleagues, President, Mrs. Secretary of State, that we continue to follow this issue closely and want to continue to make positive proposals for improvement, in the interest of everyone who carries our companies a warm heart.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I hope you can answer my questions. I will repeat them again. The following points are crucial. Through this system there are too few control capabilities...

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Verhaegen, I think Mr. Goutry wishes to supplement or interrupt you.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, colleague, I would like to remind you that during the discussion in the committee – which was quite essential – you clearly asked for an overview of the status of financing in the different Member States, in order to avoid all possible distortions and distortions of competition. Have you received this information from the Minister?

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

I have to ask the question to the Secretary of State. I have not received these data yet. It was about the benchmark between the different EU countries. The competition in these different sectors is very sharp.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I have asked for a minister, Mr. Bultinck, but you allow me to find him. You still have enough time. The evening is long. Do not chase.

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that we have had a thorough and lengthy debate on this issue in the committee. One of the most essential questions – he has asked many – that Mr. Verhaegen asked was: “Can you give us a comparison between the different European Member States so that we know whether our system can really withstand the competition with the other Member States?”

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, without becoming ⁇ cynical, I assume that the federal government still has a number of ministers until further order.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

I can see that the competent minister is still not here.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Until next order. I come back to it.

The room is looking.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, it is not blatant. If there is someone who will acknowledge that the office of secretary of state is not the same as the office of minister, then it will be Mrs. Van Brempt herself.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I made a proposal. She will know whom to ask.

I see no one, except Mrs. Avontroodt, who is the rapporteur.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Secretary of State, I listened with great interest to the speech of Mr. Verhaegen. I must say that I am surprised by the study work he has done. This is meant as a compliment. He has done a lot of study work since he was treated in the committee. If I read the report — Mrs. Burgeon and I were the rapporteurs — it was actually quite positive. A number of questions were asked, but you abstained because you realized — I think this was also in a large part Mr Vanthemsche’s work — that it had worked very well and that consultation was undertaken with the sector. Mr Verhaegen, the report also states that most sectors agree with this framework law, except indeed the agricultural sector.

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

What I hear here is something strange. I have never experienced a member of parliament referring to the report of a committee meeting to state that something that was not asked in a committee meeting should not be asked in the plenary session either. This means that the plenary session is a copy of the committee and that no more can be asked.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

With regard to the previous draft, we request the presence of the Minister of Public Health. However, if the Secretary of State can give an explanation on that draft, we will be happy to listen.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Mr. Goutry, you didn’t listen well. I said that Mr. Verhaegen has studied a lot of new elements. That is very good. I can only say that he largely agreed with the content and in the discussion with the minister it was not so bad.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. De Crem, we are still dealing with another point.

Mrs Avontroodt, do you make a report or have you reached an agreement with Mrs Burgeon?

Rapporteur Yolande Avontroodt ⚙

I refer to the written report.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Just a moment, Mrs. I would like to remind the Chamber that the committee is doing preparatory work. A number of subjects are discussed and a report is prepared for the plenary session. If this is just a repeat of the committee, there should be no plenary session, that is clear. Therefore, other points may be added.

As speakers are registered Mr Verhaegen and Mrs Avontroodt.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, can I make some corrections to my colleague Avontroodt? Without wanting to be pretentious, but what Mrs. Avontroodt comes here to say is technically incorrect. Both colleague Verhaegen and myself have opposed us in the committee against the fact that this is a framework law. The Minister’s response to this was, Mrs Avontroodt, that the consultation with the sectors had yet to begin.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Mr. Secretary of State, I also have some concrete questions.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to wait until Mrs. Secretary of State is present.

In this case, there is less employee in wage service.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I hope you can answer my questions. I will repeat them again. The following points are crucial. Through this system there are too few control capabilities...

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

and no.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Verhaegen, I think Mr. Goutry wishes to supplement or interrupt you.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

You will come here tonight at the tribune to say that there is a result, that there has been consultation with the sector. I strongly deny this. The minister’s excuse for holding a plea to ask us as parliamentarians to sign another blank check and swallow a framework law was that the consultation with the sector had yet to be fully started.

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

I would like to hear the opinion of the speaker...

President Herman De Croo ⚙

The problem is that Mrs. Avontroodt is also a rapporteur. Mr. De Crem, I can hardly...

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

I can quote from the report.

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, maybe Mrs. Avontroodt can tell me here tonight the outcome of that consultation. Of course, it could be that she knows more from her other functions within the respective bodies than the ordinary members of parliament.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

I can see that the competent minister is still not here.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Absolutely not !

President Herman De Croo ⚙

The room is looking.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Could she already be able to communicate the outcome of the consultation? I will be very reasonable, Mr. Speaker. In the event that Mrs. Avontroodt could not answer, I would even like to satisfy myself with the answer of the Secretary of State.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Luc Goutry CD&V ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

You are ⁇ friendly.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Therefore, I will once again set up my fox of rapporteur. It was said, first of all...

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, however, I feel attracted by what Ms. Avontroodt said in the introduction. The problem is the following. In the end, I have already said in the committee, I have already said that afterwards, that we did not have the necessary documents, that we did not have any information. They wanted to catch us in speed. In the end, we had no information, so I had to find out for myself. If you give me a compliment by saying that I did better, does that mean that I should start searching for my information myself? As a member of Parliament, I find it very sad that you do not get the necessary information to make important decisions.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

I do not understand this whole incident, colleagues. I only say that a lot of new elements have been addressed and, as the President says, that is the task of the plenary session. It is therefore informative. In fact, you were quickly frightened by what I said. I have listened carefully to Mr. Verhaegen’s presentation, which has brought new elements to the point. However, it is a fact that, despite what colleague Bultinck says, I still know a different type of voice behavior than abstinence to show that one does not agree with something.

As for our position, we have held two major lines in the committee, Mrs. Secretary of State. The Minister has responded to this in part and this is therefore so notted. Our two biggest concerns were, on the one hand, the transparency and efficiency of the system, and, on the other hand, the way companies investing in self-control would be charged a tailored, reduced contribution.

I think that is the essence, which can also be found in the framework law. I admit that this is a framework law. The provisions were too important to be included in the program law; they had to be included in a separate draft law. I think that was a positive signal. However, the framework law still needs to be completed. The Minister has effectively promised that consultations with the sector will take place. He is not there, but his commitment is in the report. I think the Secretary of State will ⁇ confirm that the consultation on this issue with the entire sector will need to be carried out with attention. The legal basis of the advisory committee, which regulates representation, is also included in the draft.

There is also the discussion of setting up a commission in order not to re-tax the sector in case of incidents or crises. For such sectors, which faced crises year after year, it is not evident that they must always take care of the cleaning and bear the costs. There is responsibility and at the same time there is a contribution from the government, but not only from the government. Therefore, a provisional fund is installed. I think it guarantees a sustainable solution.

Mr. Tant, we have had the pleasure of sharing the chairmanship of the committee together for a few months. The existence of a provision fund provides greater security for the sector. They have rightly asked for it. Only fair, mixed financing can provide a sustainable solution.

Mr. Speaker, we will approve the draft, of course with the guarantee of a thorough consultation with the sector.

and no.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the interview I had this morning with Mrs. De Prins, following the activities of today.

Two ministers on mission abroad and with permission from the King, namely the Minister of Lands Defense, as always in the weather for our country, and State Secretary Van Quickenborne, as always in the weather for themselves. All other ministers and excellences are supposed to be in the country.

Mr. Speaker, it is not worthy of the Parliament to have the oatmeal — in fact we, members of the opposition, are idiots — add points to the agenda for which you ask our permission, without the competent minister being present in this hemisphere.

With my and our sympathy, you are always praising your long status of merit in this Parliament. You are far from the nestor. You became a member of this assembly in the revolutionary year 1968. Imagine the opposite. Imagine that we would sit there and you here. Well, and in all sincerity, then it is clear that this meeting would not find a passage until the moment that for each of the drafts added to the agenda, the competent minister would be present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you again. I will not exceed the Rules of Procedure. If you desire, they will not, but we will take care of the after-have. On behalf of my group, I address to you the supplication to request the competent ministers for all drafts not yet concluded and to be dealt with. Who can do it? Herman De Croo, Chairman of this Chamber, the Nestor. You will advance them.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. De Crem, I am not happy with this situation. Laugh at me, colleagues.

For an hour I have been looking at where some ministers are located. Mrs. Onkelinx is in the area. Mr. Vande Lanotte is coming, as is Mr. Demotte.

I say loudly and clearly that those who are replaced must make sure that there are on the tribune employees who can help the replacement! It was so before. You have heard it!

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Your majority is there!

I would like to hear the opinion of the speaker...

President Herman De Croo ⚙

I tell it to everyone.

The progress of the ministers has been ongoing for a while.

The problem is that Mrs. Avontroodt is also a rapporteur. Mr. De Crem, I can hardly...

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, the logic requires that you set a time when the members of the Government must be present. If this is not the case, the points they have added to the agenda are removed.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

I can quote from the report.

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Tante, I told them this. However, we must also take into account the duration of the relocation.

Mr. Tant, I think that the members of the government who have requested to put some additional bills on the agenda — which I have no objection to — of the last plenary session of the summer holiday should ensure that they are available to Parliament. That is clear.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Absolutely not !

Bart Laeremans VB ⚙

Did I see the reporter or was he incompetent?

Koen Bultinck VB ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr Marinower is a very loyal member of Parliament. I also saw him in the surroundings. The report is very short. If the reporter is not present, he is presumed to refer to his report. We have read it all.

You are ⁇ friendly.

Bart Laeremans VB ⚙

I really cannot understand that behavior. The way the rapporteurs are designated sometimes goes beyond all boundaries. Sometimes Chinese volunteers are used who do not even read the reports they are supposed to bring. From their place, they say that they refer to their written report. They often do not even make the effort to read that report. Mr. Speaker, you know that our party almost never gets the opportunity to make a report. Therefore, we do not accept that people throw their butt at it and neglect their report. They must assume their responsibility. Otherwise, they no longer need to be a candidate to make a report.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

This is not the first time a rapporteur refers to his report.

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Therefore, I will once again set up my fox of rapporteur. It was said, first of all...

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

I ask for the application of the Rules of Procedure. I take it up. If the rapporteur is not present and has not explicitly requested to refer to his report, the discussion will not start. I once experienced it on the liver. I sat in the file and the discussion did not start. Therefore, the discussion of this draft does not start.

Mark Verhaegen CD&V ⚙

Yolande Avontroodt Open Vld ⚙

Mr. Speaker, we will approve the draft, of course with the guarantee of a thorough consultation with the sector.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Daems, I want to find him. He comes here. Mr De Crem, I will wait for the rapporteur. It begins to work on my hips.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the interview I had this morning with Mrs. De Prins, following the activities of today.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, if he returns later, you should ask Mr. Langendries once, and later Mr. Nothomb, if you meet him, how many hours the Conference of Presidents and the Bureau of the House spent revaluing the Parliament in the 1990s.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. De Crem, I am not happy with this situation. Laugh at me, colleagues.

For an hour I have been looking at where some ministers are located. Mrs. Onkelinx is in the area. Mr. Vande Lanotte is coming, as is Mr. Demotte.

I say loudly and clearly that those who are replaced must make sure that there are on the tribune employees who can help the replacement! It was so before. You have heard it!

The floor is yielded to Mr Marinower for his report.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

Your majority is there!

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, you interrupt me.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

No, you had asked for Mr. Marinower and he is there. Their

Mr. Marinower, do you submit a verbal report or do you refer to your report? It is about the draft law to abolish legal incapacity.

I tell it to everyone.

The progress of the ministers has been ongoing for a while.

Paul Tant CD&V ⚙

Mr. Speaker, the logic requires that you set a time when the members of the Government must be present. If this is not the case, the points they have added to the agenda are removed.

Rapporteur Claude Marinower ⚙

I refer to my written report.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Tante, I told them this. However, we must also take into account the duration of the relocation.

Bart Laeremans VB ⚙

Did I see the reporter or was he incompetent?

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Bart Laeremans VB ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

This is not the first time a rapporteur refers to his report.

Pieter De Crem CD&V ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr. Daems, I want to find him. He comes here. Mr De Crem, I will wait for the rapporteur. It begins to work on my hips.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

President Herman De Croo ⚙

The floor is yielded to Mr Marinower for his report.

Gerolf Annemans VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, you interrupt me.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

No, you had asked for Mr. Marinower and he is there. Their

Mr. Marinower, do you submit a verbal report or do you refer to your report? It is about the draft law to abolish legal incapacity.

Rapporteur Claude Marinower ⚙

I refer to my written report.