Proposition 51K1845

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 7, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Brussels region EC Directive supplementary pension administrative sanction maintenance obligation civil servant work work contract bank deposit seizure of goods bio-ethics electrical energy municipality family benefit information society nuclear energy armed forces foodstuffs legislation air transport environmental protection nuclear safety teaching development aid public administration civil service public sector pension scheme postal and telecommunications services experiment on humans radioactive waste broadcasting social policy social-security contribution welfare social security aid to undertakings fuel oil criminal law use of languages telecommunications television survivor's benefit confiscation of property regulation (EU) rail transport public health publication of a law maritime shipping sea fishing self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Carl Devlies (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Charles Michel (MR) abstained from voting.
• Tony Van Parys (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The report is included in item 016. It is a short report and I will therefore refer to the written report as delivered to the colleagues. I thank you.

Before I speak to Mr. Deseyn and Mr. Lenssen, I would like to say the following. Mr. Devlies, I see that you are registered with the reference Finance which of course is your specialty in this discussion.

Are you intervening on the proposal or are you holding a global discussion on the whole? Can you tell me before I give the word to Mr. Deseyn?

I would prefer to intervene in the global discussion, as early as possible in the course of the meeting.

Then I will propose another solution. I will bring these discussions together.

This is a matter for which Minister Demotte is responsible. These have been discussed in the Finance Committee, but it is in fact a competence of Minister Demotte.

I consult the room. We can’t make a “capped stroke” of that. The bill, which were ex-amendments, Mr. Devlies, is scheduled with a separate report from Mrs. Roppe — I know that she usually keeps out her report — and Mrs. van Gool. I would like it to be a separate discussion, but that goes through, right?

My argument concerns only one article. These are only a few of the issues discussed in the Finance Committee. It is coincidentally a piece that also relates to the RSZ, so I think I can safely intervene in the general discussion.

Then I will have two separate discussions, otherwise we will not get out of it. I will immediately give the floor to Mr Deseyn for his part of the report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Infrastructure Committee discussed, in two ordinary meetings and an additional meeting after being returned by the plenary session, the articles of the draft law falling within its competence. For the section BIAC, Belgocontrol and Infrabel, under the auspices of Minister Vande Lanotte, it concerned Articles 36 to 38. They involved the transfer of the Pension Fund from BIAC and the restructuring of the pension obligations of Belgocontrol. The royal decrees for their implementation shall be ratified. Articles 39 to 40 of the draft refer to the deconsolidation of Infrabel following an observation from the Institute for National Accounts. There were amendments for refinement. Collega Van den Bergh asked whether the State Council’s opinion had been obtained on the first amendment, to which the Minister answered affirmatively.

For the rail and air transport section under the responsibility of Minister Landuyt, as regards Articles 41 to 48, the Minister stated that the regulatory authority for rail transport is Infrabel. For air traffic, that is BIAC on the economic level and Belgocontrol — as we knew — on the technical level. By enabling these entities to receive remuneration, it shall provide for the financing of the control of compliance with the regulations concerned. I then raised questions regarding the articles relating to aviation, about the tasks that would be assigned to the entities, especially also about the relationship between the entities, about how the Minister would guarantee the independence of the regulators, about the planned budget and staff and about the comments of the State Council. Collega Lavaux of the CDH wanted to know under which public service the regulators specified in the articles would fall, how the members would be recruited, what the planned budget was, how their independence would be guaranteed and whether the agency could or could not verbalize violations. The Minister responded that the independence of the regulatory authorities would be guaranteed by the way they are financed by the users. He disagreed with the analysis that it would be a tax, given that the tax would be proportionate to a particular use.

I disagree with this, supported by the comments of the State Council. The Minister also referred to the Fund for Universal Service and stated that the operating costs and any additional tasks should be the subject of the management contract with the Belgian State. Finally, he pointed out that the amount set out in the memorandum of 175,000 euros was calculated on the basis of what the economic regulation at the Brussels National Airport will cost. This will have to be recovered from the sector. Then there is the section BIPT, under the responsibility of Minister Verwilghen. Articles 65 and 66 of the draft. There has been a judgment of 14 July 2004 of the Arbitration Court, which states that in the field of electronic communications there is a technological convergence between telecommunications, a federal jurisdiction, on the one hand and on the other, media, a community jurisdiction. Therefore, consultation with the participating entities is urgent. The new completion of Article 14 of the Regulator Act will take place through the draft, which states that the BIPT can perform its tasks regarding the overlapping powers only after the conclusion of a cooperation agreement. Now, until 31 December 2005, the BIPT may exercise its powers without a cooperation agreement. Then it is a necessity.

Collega Bellot of the MR wondered if the cooperation agreement with the Flemish government was already a fact. I myself then pointed out Flanders’ demand to link the approval of the cooperation agreement to the BIPT’s ability to act effectively as an ether police against the transmitters. The Minister pointed out that there is an agreement with all the Communities on the text of the cooperation agreement and that it is necessary that the Communities reach an agreement on the coordination of the frequency plans in order for the BIPT to be able to effectively perform its role as an ether-police agent. The Minister says that the BIPT can already act against transmitters on the basis of the telecommunications law, without however making a ruling on the licenses granted. It is also necessary to investigate who can take on the role of Ombudsman for cable broadcasting activities, which has always been one of my concerns.

As regards the updating of the Electronic Communications Act regarding the part of Minister Van den Bossche, it is about Article 68 of the draft. It is a supplement to Article 107 of the so-called Telecom Law. This law should be supplemented with a member that allows to combat emergency calls to emergency services whose numbers are free access. These include the telephone call centers, Child Focus, the Antigue Center and the Suicide Prevention. These songs receive a large percentage of malicious calls from children, perverted, joke makers who overload the lines and demotivate the volunteers.

In the committee, I stated that the ministry’s objectives were ⁇ to be supported, but I asked questions when choosing a law change rather than a royal decree as previously announced. I wondered if there was a new opinion from the Privacy Commission on this subject as this body in the past had given a negative opinion, with the exception of the Antigue Centre for the identification of the calling line by the aforementioned services. I also asked why the Children’s Telephone Service was not included in the list since it had been mentioned in the past. I also wondered what the added value of this new member is compared to the already existing procedures to block bullying phones through the court and the Ombudsman’s service. I also asked a series of information technology questions and questions of a social nature. How will anonymity be guaranteed or abuse excluded? Why not automatically switch from the bullying phones to the emergency services that can do identification? How will all these numbers be made accessible to everyone without distinguishing between bullies that may occur in certain family settings and abuse without the knowledge of other family members if the same telephone line is used within a family.

On the whole series of questions, the Minister replied that it had never been intended to anchor the scheme through KB. However, a KB will be issued regarding the identification of the callers. Minister Van den Bossche stated that the opinion of the Privacy Commission has never been focused on the problem of malicious calls. The Minister agreed to the addition of the Child Telephone Services to the list in the draft law.

The Minister considered the transfer of the emergency calls to the already existing emergency numbers that have an identification capability not appropriate due to the fear of overloading them.

Therefore, I submitted an amendment concerning the addition of child telephone services. That was accepted.

Finally, our committee discussed several articles on the communications network ASTRID. This is the radio communication system of the emergency and security services. This is the case in Articles 69 to 71. The discussion was mainly about the role of ASTRID in relation to the new telecommunications law and to which articles ASTRID should or should not be subject to in order to be efficiently operational.

The Telecommunications Act also puts ASTRID on the list of organizations that should be given priority in repairs. During the discussion in the committee, I asked a few questions about ASTRID’s sui generis character. The scope and significance of this is unclear to me. So I had the following questions. I think those questions proved very relevant when we now see what the recent evaluation of the communications network ASTRID has delivered. There has already been an enormous amount of investment, but there are still questions that are becoming more and more current.

So I asked already in the committee what is meant by the fact that a certain network is neither public nor non-public. What should we imagine here? What is the applicable legislation on this subject?

Why is the ASTRID network also withdrawn from the principle of site sharing? Why can’t it compare the infrastructure to that of other operators? Why do doctors who wish to make use of the semaphone services not be able to go to ASTRID?

Collega Bellot of the MR wondered where the semaphony users will be able to go after the termination of the service by Belgacom. He also asked whether ASTRID could also be partly commercial. The Minister pointed out that the present articles are the result of discussions between ASTRID, the BIPT and various policy cells. ASTRID is excluded from universal service obligations.

Not all the articles listed are applicable to the ASTRID network. The latter is targeted at a specific target group — the emergency and security services — and therefore is not discriminatory, the minister said.

The Minister also pointed out that no infrastructure is shared with ordinary operators for security reasons, due to the so-called detection danger. For a part, it also has to do with business security in panes.

The doctors would eventually be able to use ASTRID’s semaphone services in the future, which is not irrelevant if Belgacom stops using them.

All articles — in some cases amended through approved amendments — were adopted by the committee. The whole was also adopted.

I would like to ask Ms. Gullant to give us a brief report. The ear of the Chamber is all the more favorable to the speaker or the speaker as the speech is concise and not too long!

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, 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, Another session was held on July 7 after the report was submitted.

At the first meeting, Mr. Patrick Dewael, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, commented on Article 9 in the draft. In this context, it is recalled that Article 486 of the Program Law of 27 December 2004 was intended to group in the appropriate organic law the various budgetary funds of the federal police which found their origin in various legal regulations.

Due to an administrative error, however, the date of entry into force of this article has been "forgotten". Article 9 in draft corrects this error and sets the date of entry into force of the regulation on 30 April 2002 for the fund for benefits against payment and on 31 December 2004, the date of publication for the two other funds.

Next, the Minister reviews Articles 10 to 13 in the draft.

These articles amend the law of 15 April 1994 on the protection of the population and the environment against the dangers resulting from ionizing radiation and on the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (AFCN).

Violations of this legislation and its enforcement orders are now punishable in peacetime with a fine of 1,000 to 1,000,000 and imprisonment from three months to two years or only one of these sentences. However, criminal sanctions alone quickly appeared to be insufficient for the implementation of an effective criminal policy whose ultimate goal is to drive the operator to improve safety and protection against ionizing radiation within its enterprise.

In order to remedy these deficiencies, the possibility of giving the offender a warning was first introduced. But the effectiveness of the warning also depends on the consequences that will be given to its non-compliance. It is therefore proposed to introduce a system of administrative fines as is already the case in other legislations. The system proposed by the Agency is a sui generis system for which I refer to my written report.

The amounts of administrative fines are significantly lower than those of criminal fines. The minimum threshold is divided by 10. These amounts appear to be more appropriate to punish minor offences.

During the meeting, an exchange of views was held between Mr. Willy Cortois and Mr. Patrick Dewael, for whom I refer to my written report.

Furthermore, Articles 9 to 13 did not give rise to any discussion within the framework of the article-by-article discussion.

At the second meeting, the Government submitted amendments No. 3 and No. 4 to replace Article 10 of the Civil Protection Act of 31 December 1963.

by Mr. Patrick Dewael, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, briefly outlines the content of the regulation.

Pursuant to article 10 of the aforementioned law of 31 December 1963, the provincial governor shall fix the quota-part that the group-center communes must pay in order to participate in the costs of fire services, in accordance with the standards determined by the minister.

Under the same article, protected communes must pay an annual fee to group-center communes, which is also fixed by the provincial governor in accordance with the standards determined by the minister. This fee is calculated in accordance with the formula laid down in Article 8 of the Royal Decree of 10 October 1997 amending a Ministerial Decree of 10 October 1977. by

However, this system of distribution of the costs of fire services has led to several complaints. For the government, the legislator must therefore anchor the existing system in order to avoid any damage to the fire service financing system.

That is why the bill aims to confirm, except of course with regard to ongoing proceedings, the power of provincial governors for all decisions they have made in the past and, for the future, to establish a system that can no longer be challenged. The recommended system therefore provides, except for proceedings pending before the entry into force of the new law, for retroactivity on 1 January 1977. by Mr. Dirk Claes and I have been asked about the reasons for submitting this amendment at this particular time.

Mrs Annick Saudoyer wishes to have confirmation that the amendment was filed due to the filing of a number of appeals with the Council of State and that it reads, without modifying it, the text of the Ministerial Decree of 10 October 1977.

by Mr. Patrick Dewael specifies that the amendment tends to confirm the current system of distribution of costs for fire services. This system implies that delegation is given to provincial governors, pursuant to the Ministerial Decree of 10 October 1977, in order to fix the annual quota of communes.

Since 1997, the state has been obliged to pay compensation. At that time, it was estimated that the ministerial decree concerned had no legal basis, so that the decisions taken on that basis were illegal and had, as such, caused damage to the municipalities.

This situation was regularized by the modification of article 10 of the law of 31 December 1963 brought, with retroactive effect, by the law of 15 January 1999 concerning budgetary and various provisions. by

This system is now contested by the communes of Andenne, Dinant, Harelbeke and Peer.

In their appeal before the Council of State, they argue that the delegation contained in the aforementioned ministerial decree is too broad and, by doing so, contrary to the Law of 31 December 1963 on Civil Protection.

The cancellation of this ministerial decree by the State Council would have the effect of allowing the municipalities to recover, before an ordinary court, their share of the last five years with all the budgetary consequences that would follow. The amendment takes back the text of the ministerial decree by adding to it the control of the Minister who has the Interior in his attributions.

Articles 14 to 16 of the draft law. Christian Dupont, Minister of Public Service, Social Integration, Politics of Large Cities and Equal Opportunities, recalls that this is a technical adaptation of Articles 43 and 43ter of the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters coordinated on 18 July 1966, according to the observations issued by the Permanent Commission for Language Control.

This modification is necessary to adapt the linguistic framework from the staff plans established on the basis of the staff envelopes.

Subsequently, the Minister stresses that Articles 17 and 18 of the bill aim to improve the provisions relating to administrative sanctions, following the first findings arising from the application of the law of 7 May 2004 amending the law of 8 April 1965 and the new municipal law, as well as the law of 17 June 2004 amending the new municipal law that had reformed the system of municipal administrative sanctions.

In general, these improvements are practical or procedural. Some concern the application of the system to minor offenders.

As for practical and procedural improvements, I refer to my written report.

Regarding improvements in the application of the system to minor offenders, the minister specifies that the current law has gaps when the offender is a minor over the age of sixteen. Thus, there were no provisions on civil liability since the parents were not called to the case. The bill proposes to involve parents at all stages of the proceedings and to allow them, as for minors, to appeal against a judgment of the youth court imposing a protection measure other than a fine.

Furthermore, in the case of minors under the age of sixteen, the abrogation by law of four offences of Title X of Book II of the Criminal Code resulted in minors enjoying total impunity in the absence of a criminal law and to the extent that administrative sanctions cannot be imposed on this age group.

These violations are therefore re-established in the draft text. These include cases of damage to the life of animals, noise or nocturnal taping, voluntary degradation of fences and factual roads.

These articles are also included in the list of offences subject to administrative sanctions by the municipalities for those over 16 years of age and the major, in case of two-month inertia of the prosecutor's office.

During the general discussion, Mr. Jean-Claude Maene (PS) says approving the measures in the project. It is ⁇ concerned with administrative sanctions.

by Mr. Charles Michel (MR) says he believes in the interest of an effective system that allows communes to fight adequately against incivilities.

However, the speaker points out that when the system of municipal administrative sanctions came into force a few months ago, the municipalities were very quickly confronted with such a number of practical problems that a compensation law proved indispensable.

by Mr. Michel emphasizes, in particular, the importance of the measures in project with regard to minors. This encompasses a number of legal gaps.

However, some questions remain unanswered for the speaker and in particular the case of graffiti. Is the subject re-examined or not? In the negative, are minors still in impunity? In the affirmative, are the major still liable for administrative sanctions?

There will be a long exchange of views. Michael and Mr. Twist around these questions. I refer to my written report for the details of this exchange.

In essence, the Minister’s response is that the repenalized articles are sufficient to cover the subject of the tags and that being included in the list of subjects subject to administrative sanctions, they can be seized by the municipalities to sanction major and minors over 16 years.

The answer does not convince Mr. Michel for whom tags on public buildings as well as on private buildings, except for fences, committed by minors under the age of 16 will remain unpunished.

by Mr. Joseph Arens (cdH) draws attention to the many – sometimes insurmountable – difficulties that small municipalities face in applying the system of administrative sanctions.

Ms. Katrien Schryvers (CD&V) regrets, first, that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior were not involved in the discussion, on the one hand, and that the opinion of the Justice Committee was not sought in this matter, on the other.

It also subscribes to the ratio legis of administrative sanctions as such.

For the speaker, however, the implementation of this initiative has been so chaotic that a recovery law is already needed, just two months after the implementation of the system.

Given the number of difficulties posed by the initial legislation, Schryvers fears that the proposed amendments cannot save the system.

It wants municipalities to have an instrument that enables them to act energetically.

In this context, she believes that hearings would evaluate existing problems and that improved legislation would thus optimally address real needs that arise on the ground.

This proposal was submitted by Mr. Claes which further details a number of precise issues of applicability for municipal administrations.

by Mr. Willy Cortois (VLD) proposes that in January 2006 the Minister provide a report of the municipalities that have integrated the system. In June 2006, the government would then submit an assessment report describing the results of both its efforts and those of the municipalities in this area.

by Mr. Christian Dupont recalls that the original law and its modifications have always been the result of consensus. He also indicates that it is evident from practice that the prosecutors no longer pursue a certain number of offences, which does not fail to generate a sense of impunity.

Desiring to respond to this situation, a number of municipalities, mostly small, have insisted that the amendments to the review be made in order to be able to dispose of the necessary means for their fight against the harm.

The Minister then reviews the measures the government will take in this context: - The latter will develop a model of regulation that can be uniformized at the level of the police zone. This document will include, in particular, a list of infringements subject to administrative sanctions. Officials in charge of establishing the facts will be trained in police schools. The various police schools will start providing these training courses in the course of September 2005.

In response to Mr. Charles Michel extended his questions regarding tags and the general economy of the law, in particular as it deals with the accumulation of qualifications.

I wanted, for my part, to know whether a Calog staff member of level 1 can be designated as an official entitled to impose the penalty.

by Mr. Joseph Arens asks, in relation to graffiti, that attention be paid also to the damage to private houses.

Ms. Katrien Schryvers (CD&V) notes that, for the civil treatment, the action for damages for an offence that, on the criminal level, has been the subject of a municipal administrative sanction, the ball is in the victim’s camp.

Since this situation does not correspond to the sense of citizen’s justice, it would ⁇ be better not to allow an administrative sanction until after the damage has been repaired.

by Mr. Christian Dupont believes that there is too little distance between the police officer who will find the fact and the Calog staff who should act as the official responsible for the sanction. In any case, this issue will be settled by royal decree, so that there is room for reflection.

It adds that the proposed Article 17, 6° regulates the issue of the contribution of a non-administrative offence which can be punished by a criminal sanction and for which an administrative sanction is also provided under a municipal regulation.

by Mr. Joseph Arens draws attention to the fact that under the aforementioned law of 17 June 2004, the Decree-Law of 29 December 1945 prohibiting inscriptions on the public road was also repealed. According to the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia, this decree-law constituted the only legal basis for effectively pursuing tags on private homes. This would mean that from now on, graffiti can only give rise to a municipal administrative penalty. If this is the case, the interviewer insists that this decree-law be restored in one or another form.

The collaborator of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice specifies that the decree-law of 29 December 1945 concerns only the inscriptions pointing to the public road.

It reaffirms, on the other hand, the restored articles of the Criminal Code allowing to prosecute all forms of graffiti. Articles 545 and 563, 2° of the Criminal Code, respectively, deal with the voluntary destruction and the voluntary degradation of urban and rural fencing. This is a broad notion that can perfectly apply to graffiti on buildings. Article 559, 1° of the same Code deals with the voluntary damage to buildings.

by Mr. Charles Michel confirms that these provisions may, in his sense, be used, but do not address all cases. For example, they do not target cases of tags on public or private buildings outside doors and fences.

Filip Anthuenis (VLD) points out that there is currently no way to resolve the problem of public annoyance. It therefore proposes, in any case, to adopt the measures under consideration and to supplement them, if necessary, if practice shows that this is necessary.

Minister Dupont confirms that not all problems can be solved at the same time and calls on members to take at least this step in the right direction.

In the context of the discussion of articles, articles 14 to 16 do not give rise to any discussion.

by Mr. Mohammed Boukourna and his co-workers present an amendment that tends to replace in the French text of article 17, 6° in project the words "criminal offence" with the words "criminal offence". by Mr. Christian Dupont considers that the amendment is relevant.

Articles 9 and 10 are successively adopted unanimously.

Article 11 as well as Articles 49 to 64 of the new Chapter VII of the Law of 15 April 1994 on the protection of the population and the environment against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation and on the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control are successively adopted unanimously.

Articles 12 and 13 shall be adopted unanimously.

In Articles 13bis (new) and 13ter (new), the amendments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Government are successively adopted by 13 votes and 3 abstentions.

Articles 14 and 15 are adopted by 11 votes and 1 abstinence.

Article 16 was adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstinence. by

In Article 17, the amendment No. 2 of Charles Michel and of myself is rejected by 8 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions. Amendment No. 1 of Mr. Mohammed Boukourna and consorts is adopted unanimously. This article thus amended and corrected is then adopted by 8 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions.

Article 18 is adopted by 8 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions.

All articles submitted to the committee as amended and corrected are adopted by 10 votes and 4 abstentions.

An amendment submitted by Ms Magda De Meyer and consorts after the submission of the report was unanimously approved by the committee at its meeting of 7 July 2005. It aims to reintroduce in the Criminal Code the title of Title 10 of the Criminal Code to which the original draft referred several times.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is my report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, I will bring the report from my bank, because we with the Committee for Finance and Budget had little work on this law containing various provisions, since there are in principle no financial implications.

We have only had to address one article, in particular Article 105, which stipulates that the RSZ is not bound by the agreements concluded in the field of income taxes or the decisions taken concerning the own costs of the employer and the qualification of the income. There was a comment from Mr. Carl Devlies. He referred to the principle of a single wage concept, which is applied by the Dutch administrations. We held a vote. Article 105 was approved by eight votes for and one against.

I notice that there is applause, both for the content and for the concise. Mr Lenssen has the word for his report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, I will also put the report on my bench, because I will keep it very short. The first part of the draft law containing various provisions dealt with economics and energy.

There were four parts. The first concerned problems related to disability benefits, disability and the construction of pension for non-self-employed persons. The second was the sale of tickets via the Internet. The third part concerned the implementation of the decisions of the Gembloux Council of Ministers on the promotion of wind energy, the small electricity producers and for the placement of underwater cable and transmission networks. A fourth element concerned the provision concerning the distribution networks for broadcasting and the exercise of broadcasting activities. During the discussions, Ms. Creyf, Ms. Pieters and Mr. Depoortere gave the floor. Two amendments were accepted: one by Mrs Lalieux and one by Mr Lano.

The second aspect concerned the middle level. This was about the problem of the collection of social security contributions. It was decided that the same instruments would be given to the RSZ as to the RSVZ, in order to improve the collection of the social contributions for self-employed. This is primarily about the legal mortgage and the compulsory order. This amendment was accepted by Ms. Van Gool.

The vote was unanimous.

I have heard five reports.

I have heard five rapporteurs. I suppose that the other rapporteurs refer to their written report.

I cannot let journalists speak when they are not there. Their

I ask for the understanding of the members of the House. Several ministers are present because this is the law that I call "mosaic". Several skills are at stake. by Mr. DeMotte and Mr. Verwilghen are present as well as Mrs. Laruelle who will also replace Mr. and Reynders.

Mr. Devlies, I could start with Mrs. Creyf and Mrs. Gerkens, both of whom would like to talk about the part of energy, unless you speak very briefly now.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly hold my speech.

Mr. Devlies has the word, then I will move on to the chapter of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

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, Mr. Speaker. It is about the old article 105, the new article 113, which stipulates that agreements, concluded between Finance and the taxpayers, concerning expenses own to the employer or the qualification of income and the decisions of Finance concerning the qualification of income, are only binding in terms of income tax.

According to the memorandum of explanations, that provision is intended to ensure that the RSZ is not bound by the agreements concluded in the field of income tax or the decisions taken concerning the own expenses of the employer or the qualification of the income.

The term “decision” has a very broad scope. It can be both a preliminary decision, a ruling, and a decision taken by the taxation officer in the final stage of the taxation. It can also involve a position of the administration as shown in a circular.

When I read that provision, I find that the coverage remains limited to the discussion of the costs of the employer and the qualification of the income.

The discussions on the costs of the employer relate, for example, to flat-rate cost remuneration of which it is not immediately clear whether it is indeed a cost of the employer, or whether it is a gross remuneration.

It is not clear to me which minister is the requesting party to no longer consider decisions concerning costs owned by the employer as contradictory to the RSZ. These costs are not taxable on the part of the employee and are not considered as wages for the calculation of social security contributions.

How will the government explain that the same concept for taxation as well as for social security should be applied differently? Mr. President, maybe you can make some clarification about this immediately.

Discussions about the qualification of income can be found in the personal tax in several areas. However, it is more common for taxpayers to qualify income as diversified income, while the tax authority considers the profits from a lucrative activity.

There may also be discussion whether an income should be considered as immovable, movable or occupational income. Article 37 of the Income Tax Code.

We must ask serious questions about the possible perverse effects of such a provision. Article 113 of the draft law is limited to the agreement between administration and taxpayers and unilateral decisions due to the taxation officers. This is not about judicial decisions. Will Article 113 of this bill not lead to more disputes in Finance to ultimately trigger a court decision? After all, in the event that a taxable person objects to a decision of the taxation officer and the case eventually goes to the civil court, the decision of the taxation officer can be annulled. Suppose that in the meantime a lawsuit is initiated before the Labour Court. Will the judge sitting in the Labour Court have to hold the case until the tax case is finally settled? How else can the Labour Court know whether the decision of the taxation officer survives the court decision? Is this the case with the phrase “le criminel tient le civil en état”?

It is therefore regrettable that the memory of explanation is so difficult with explanation. The circular attached in the annex to the report says even less than the memory of explanation. For the sake of legal certainty, it is unhealthy that both the legal subordinates and the administration are left to their imagination. I assume that Minister Demotte will answer those questions.

You have subsequently announced yourself that your questions "à cheval" about Finance and about the powers of Minister Demotte are distributed. Is that right, Mr. Devlies?

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Demotte can perfectly answer the questions.

It’s hard to figure out what the government’s intentions are. Probably the reason is the tax rulings. If, for example, an agreement is made that a flat-rate amount may be paid to employees of a company as a remuneration owned by the employer and therefore exempt from tax, the question arises whether the same amount is also exempt from social security contributions. According to the historical viewpoint of the RSZ, the company itself had to prove that the flat-rate cost compensation is also not a salary in the social sphere, but an exempt cost compensation owned by the employer.

However, the Court of Cassation determined by judgment of 2 February 2004 that the burden of proof lies not on the employer, but on the RSZ. In those circumstances, the RSZ is absolutely not reluctant to face tax rulings in which certain fees in the field of taxation are interpreted as a “reimbursement of costs owned by the employer”. The article will allow the RSZ in its proof-making to reject any reference to tax agreements without hesitation. The question, however, is whether the judge will settle on this.

The silence with which the provision is introduced once again shows how great the mistrust is in the second purple government. The mistrust that exists now in the government will in the future be embedded, among other things, by that legislative provision in the administrations themselves, while precisely the fight against social and fiscal fraud requires good cooperation between the two departments.

With Article 113 of the draft, the government creates more legal uncertainty for employers and workers. Such a provision therefore leads to more proceedings before the courts.

It can also be different. Per ⁇ the excellences present here, take a look at our northern neighbors. In the Netherlands, on 24 June 2004, a law was adopted, the law on administrative burden relief and the simplification in social insurance laws. That law is defined as the law-WALVIS. This law only applies a wage concept for the tax and social security. This is a huge simplification for both employers and employees and for the government. In the Netherlands, it is estimated that the law-WALVIS will reduce the administrative burden for employers in the field of premium taxation and wage tax by 196 million euros per year. It shall apply from 1 January 2005.

In response to my oral question of 14 July 2004 in the Social Affairs Committee, Minister of Social Affairs Demotte recalled three decisions taken by the Council of Ministers in Gembloers on the problem of wages and social legislation. I quote Minister Demotte: "First, there is a revision of the law of 12 April 1965 on the protection of wages. The revision relates to the change in the situation since the drafting of the aforementioned law. The law dates back almost 40 years ago and is designed to cope with the engineering being developed to avoid social security contributions. The review will be carried out in consultation with the social partners.

Secondly, in social security, the concept of ‘wage’ needs to be clarified in order to eliminate the differences of opinion that have at times been established between, on the one hand, the social security collection bodies and, on the other hand, the inspection services.

This situation causes harm to everyone. By the end of 2004, a consultative body should be established to gather all relevant services. Third, the concepts in tax legislation and social security legislation must be harmonised." Minister Demotte continues: "As you can see, the government has not waited for the approval of a law by the Dutch Parliament to resolve the problem. The FOD’s Social Security and Labour were charged with a preparatory survey, which is done in collaboration with the social partners. At the moment, I cannot announce a concrete timing within which the preparatory work will be completed. If necessary, this issue can be addressed later.”

In my replica, I pointed out to the Minister that, on the one hand, I am convinced of his good intentions but, on the other hand, I also have my doubts about his effectiveness as he in fact only refers to a future investigation. I have therefore referred to the study that Professor Van Istendael already published in 1998 in the liber amicorum for Professor Roger Blanpain, published at the Keure. From page 589 there are the results of a study on social and fiscal wages. Professor Van Istendael came to the clear conclusion that it is principally and practically possible to reach a common understanding of wages, which would allow the tax base for that insurance contribution to be identified in tax law and in social security. This would be a huge simplification, both for the social contributions for workers and for the personal tax. In the discussion on the reform of the financing of social security, it is good to know that this possibility is in principle and practically within reach.

Less than a year after Minister Demotte’s statements in the committee, we find that Parliament is invited to approve a provision that goes in the opposite direction. The administrative burden on companies is not reduced, on the contrary. It also does not create a legal framework for entrepreneurs and workers. Therefore, it should not be surprising that corporate confidence is declining month after month and that this government in the head of the entrepreneurs is clearly insufficient. For a government that made job creation an absolute priority when it started in 2003, this is clearly another example of a counterproductive measure. Thank you for your attention, colleagues.

I will not change the order of the speakers too much. I asked Mr. Dupont to come to the Chamber. Mr Willy Cortois is also included in the speaker list.

Also registered as speaker on this subject is Mr. Dirk Claes.

by Mr. Charles Michel and Ms. Galant are registered: therefore I have at least three, or even four speakers on GAS, gemeentelijke administrative sancties. But I also have two speakers who are interested in energy: Mrs. Gerkens and Mrs. Creyf.

I would now like to ask Ms. Gerkens to give her presentation in order to exchange the languages. If you agree, I would let Mrs. Creyf speak about the part of energy, in which Mr. Minister Verwilghen is present. Then there is another piece about telecommunications. This is what the Minister has told me. We are trying to address those points. As soon as Mr. Dupont is here, we will then give the word to the other speakers.

Mr Cortois, the Minister of Internal Affairs is present at the five-country dialogue on the fight against terrorism, which continues here in Brussels today. This is of course an unexpected circumstance. The discussion was convened by the British colleagues.

I would have preferred the Minister of the Interior to be here. But this time he has a good excuse.

You have had your pleasure now. I would like to point out that there will also be a meeting of the House of Representatives. I would like to know the progress of the work. It is good for me that Mr. Dupont comes. He is also Minister of Urban Policy.

Mr. Cortois, I know that you, as chairman of the College of Questors, must come to the meeting of the Bureau of the Chamber.

Mrs. Creyf, can I ask you before the course of the work, how much time do you think you will need for your presentation later?

Mr. Speaker, my presentation is quite extensive and thorough.

What is “free extended”, expressed in minutes?

Madame Gerkens, can I ask you how long do you plan to express yourself about energy?

Mr. Speaker, this can vary: it will depend on whether my colleagues interrupt me or not. It will be between ten and fifteen minutes.

If I let you both speak, it would lead us around noon. Then I can bring Mr. by Dupont.

Mr. Claes, are you thinking of holding a long speech?

It will last ten minutes.

Mr. Cortois also spoke for ten minutes.

by Mr. Michael, I do not know. Madame Galant, we will see. by

I will begin with the "Energy" section, giving the floor first to Mrs Gerkens, a member of the opposition, and then to Mrs Creyf. Minister Dupont will be present around noon, which will allow Mr. Cortois to speak first and attend the meeting of the Bureau.

We start the discussion of the title "Energy". We introduce the discussion of the title "Energy".

My intervention will be relatively targeted.

Among the various provisions of this bill, some aim to encourage and support electricity generation from offshore wind turbines. I agree with this objective. Nevertheless, I believe — the actors in the production of renewable energy share this view — that the bill, as it is formulated, introduces a discrimination between offshore wind power and other renewable energy sources, in particular onshore wind power.

I introduced an amendment that was rejected in the committee. I introduce it again in the plenary session, arguing in a more comprehensive way.

My amendment aims to make the provisions of Article 54, § 3 applicable to all renewable energy installations. As a committee, I was opposed to the argument that renewable energies were part of the regional competence, while the offshore was part of the federal competence. According to this argument, we should limit ourselves to this energy sector. However, this seems to me wrong since today’s debate is about a tariff provision.

What exactly is it? The project that is submitted to us establishes a mechanism to compensate for the unpredictability of electricity production from offshore wind energy. If the producer cannot meet the quantity he had planned to power the grid, the project provides a tolerance margin of 30% before penalizing it. This provision is not regional; it is federal. It is part of the electricity tariff structure. There is therefore no reason why this tolerance margin granted to electricity produced by offshore wind turbines is not applicable to other equally unpredictable modes of electricity production. On 19 November 2004, the renewable energy sector — EDORA for Wallon and Brussels producers, ODE Vlaanderen for Flemish producers — sent a note to the federal government ministers asking them to apply this tolerance mechanism to the entire sector, due to the difficulty of correctly predicting the amount of electricity to be supplied.

In December 2004, this note was presented to Mr. Vertessen, adviser to Minister Verwilghen who acknowledged the existence of the problem, without providing a response, at the time.

In its opinion of 27 April 2004, the CREG General Council also acknowledged this problem and its negative impact on the functioning of the electricity market. He called for measures to be taken.

This issue has been on the table for over a year now. So far, no provisions have been taken. The bill that is submitted to us today provides an answer only for wind power produced from offshore wind turbines.

I just removed the argument that this is a regional competence.

The minister also advanced as an argument that these are much more efficient new technologies. However, their innovative nature makes production prediction more difficult, which could lead to profitability problems.

In this regard, I consulted with the producers. It appears that the profitability of a wind turbine is directly dependent on production, which itself depends on the dimensioning of the machines, the speed and the quality of the wind. Only wind currents flowing laminarily can be converted into useful energy by a wind turbine. Therefore, any rough surface that brakes the wind or causes turbulence decreases its quality. This is why it is interesting to place wind turbines at sea since the wind is more regular and of a more constant quality. This tends toward greater stability and greater predictability of offshore production.

The large distance of the wind turbines from the coast complicates maintenance and reduces the availability of wind turbines, resulting in reduced yield but, in any case, this does not affect the predictability of production. However, the margin of tolerance concerns predictability and not quantity of production. Predictability does not depend on the type of turbine or its location but on the performance of wind prediction tools. These existing tools, used for both onshore and offshore production, are the same.

The main technological differences between onshore and offshore wind turbines concern the foundations and materials used to withstand currents and salt corrosion – which has nothing to do with how to produce, capture the wind and convert this energy into electricity – the ventilation and cooling of the wind turbine and the need to provide, inside the wind turbine, with equipment to protect workers who ensure the maintenance of offshore wind turbines. On the principle of operation, there is no difference. Nothing can justify this difference in treatment.

In addition to onshore and offshore wind turbines, it is clear that this measure should also concern electricity produced from photovoltaic solar panels and micro-hydroelectric power plants, which, too, experience greater unpredictability in terms of the amount of electricity they will be able to send into the grid.

My amendment on this margin of tolerance, if it recognises the positive character of it, aims to allow a 30% difference between what is announced and what is produced before there is a penalty, but this must apply to all renewable energy sources.

I do not know if there is any doubt about the regional or federal competence in this matter. However, if the federal arrangement is taken, Article 5 of the Royal Decree of 11 October 2002 on public service obligations in the context of the electricity market and Article 317 of the Royal Decree of 19 December 2002 establishing a technical regulation for the management of the electricity transmission network and access to it provide for a range of tolerance relating to the balance, the benefit of renewable energies and cogeneration units.

In the same order of ideas, Article 5, §7 of the Royal Decree of 4 April 2001 establishing the tariff structure of the national transmission system operator provides that: "In respect of electricity production units using renewable energies of limited predictability", the tariffs for auxiliary services "contain a reduction coefficient allowing to reflect the characteristics of the total parc of these units grouped by type of energy".

All of these elements indicate that the draft under consideration introduces a discrimination against Belgian and European legislation.

I would also like to make a comment on the increase in the amount and duration of the purchase of offshore wind power by Elia which is envisaged in the draft decision and which is motivated by the need to better reflect the production costs of these installations.

It is curious that the federal government refuses to adapt in the same way and for the same reasons the repurchase amounts of electricity produced by onshore installations as it does for other modes of production of electricity, this is all the more curious that there is a demand from the Regions, in particular the Brussels Region and the Walloon Region which are ⁇ targeted by the other modes of production of electricity.

Again, the fact of providing for a minimum purchase price for the production of green electricity falls within the federal and not regional competence. My amendment aims to correct this situation.

Green electricity producers fear a market imbalance.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter They fear that a massive influx of green certificates, favoured by the provisions of this draft in a discriminatory manner, will disturb the balance of the three markets, Brussels, Flemish and Walloon. At least, cooperation, coordination between the federal and the regions should be established in order to anticipate and predict the quantity that will be placed on the market.

Apparently, there has been no analysis of the potential negative impact of the provisions of this project. Based on the information at my disposal, the meeting of the Consultation Committee between the Federal and the Regions agreed at the maximum on the need for a prior cooperation agreement to the harmonisation of green certificate mechanisms.

Therefore, we are facing necessary provisions to support offshore. Basically, I don’t have any problems with channeling. However, this was accomplished without taking into account other producers, ⁇ to please some audiences, ⁇ by trusting only the Flemish Region and the coastal region, in the head of Mr. In the midst, and ⁇ in the midst. by Lanotte. In any case, this draft is discriminatory: I would really like Parliament to take the effort to carefully re-examine this article and the amendment that I am currently re-deposing.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, I speak on the Energy chapter in the draft law containing various provisions. I have a few comments in advance. It is remarkable that the Electricity Act has just been approved in the House and there are already important additions and amendments to the law. In addition, there has been no consultation with the West, again not, Mr. Minister. The minister is apparently not so affectionate to the regions. Finally, it is regrettable that such important decisions are drowned in a law with various provisions.

The draft law addresses three key issues, the regime for offshore windmills, the degressive electricity tariff for large and energy-intensive companies and the possibility of appeal against the decisions of the CREG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out in advance that during the energy-related discussions in the committee, no one, but no one of the majority, said anything. None of the majority found it useful or necessary to participate in the debate. Energy records are technical, but they affect people’s wallets and the competitive position of companies. What energy is included in the law will not make our electricity cheaper again, but on the contrary.

In the bill, what I call the Gembloux deal gets its legal basis. I call it the Gembloux deal because at that time three files were linked together, first the Gas and Electricity Act, in the meantime already approved, and second the financial arrangement for the offshore wind farm C-Power. Meanwhile, we know that a second consortium is asking for a domain concession. Third, the degressive electricity tariff for large and energy-intensive companies. Minister Vande Lanotte did not want to approve the gas and electricity law if the C-Power file was not arranged together. Minister Verwilghen admitted and received as a reward the degressive rate for companies. Per ⁇ that is one of the reasons for the passivity of the majority during the discussions in committees. The construction is balanced: everyone is served.

First, as regards offshore windmills parks, sea windmills need to be heavily subsidized to be profitable. What is determined? A first important provision is that the sea cable that connects the Thorntonbank with the mainland will be paid for a third by the electricity consumers with a maximum of 25 million euros spread over five years. There will be a scheme for green power certificates, to be developed by royal decree, giving for 20 years the guarantee that the minimum value of green power certificates will be 107 euros per megawatt hour. The financial penalty that normal electricity producers must pay for differences between what they announce they will produce and what they actually produce is greatly eased for the sea windmills. In fact, it means that the balance between announced production and effective production is abandoned.

In this way, the quest for balance between production and decrease is also broken. Mr. Minister, I also said this in the committee: I find this a ⁇ dangerous track. Their

This production deviation, by the way, also applies to new producers, regardless of the nature of the energy, if they represent less than 10% on the market. I would like to say that for wind energy a production deviation may still be defended, but ⁇ not for any new energy production, whatever the nature of the energy. I think this is a ⁇ important point, because it really touches an existing balance. The new system of production deviation can lead to disturbances in the energy supply. Both overproduction as a result of the decrease or underproduction as a result of the decrease can result in power outages, of which consumers and ⁇ can be the culprit. Both situations have already occurred and could have been avoided more often. I think the track of production deviation is a ⁇ risky track. The risk of power disruption is installed in this way; it is installed through a law. Their

Also the State Council has, by the way, made a comment on this subject and states in its opinion that, I quote, "It is recommended first to include the rule of the balance to be sought between the injections and deductions of electrical power in the control zone in the law, after which provisions concerning the tolerance margin may be included and in which the King is given the possibility to provide for deviations on that margin". Their

Here those production deviations are regulated in the law, here the risk of power outages with all associated risks for users, for families, for companies, is installed in the law. Their

I also have some concerns. and one . Anyone who invests or wants to invest in sea wind energy demands certainty. This security must be provided. One will not invest in wind energy if there is no certain legal framework, alongside a certain political framework. Mr. Minister, we cannot leave the cost of sea windmills parks aside, because everyone pays in the end. If we ignore the cable and do not take into account the balancing cost and therefore only take into account the cost of the green power certificates, a small calculation teaches us the following. The subsidy of 107 euros per megawatt hour through the green electricity certificates is equivalent to a subsidy of 0,1 euros per kilowatt hour. For comparison, a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a nuclear power plant or from a Steg power plant costs about 0.04 euros. Their

It is clear that efforts need to be made to sustain our electricity production. We are also in favor of renewable energy, we are also in favor of wind energy. The point is whether this project is a cost-effective response. Their

In other words. Can the environmental objectives not be achieved in a cheaper way? This is, in my opinion, the question that we should be able and dare to ask. Are the sea windmills a too expensive prestige project?

Second, I believe that there is uncertainty regarding the financial arrangement when the project is withdrawn or discontinued after its entry into force. The fact that provisions are included in the law on possible discontinuation suggests that this risk is not non-existent and one wants to cover itself. The high social costs could soon, as some fear, lead to discouragement.

Through this bill and through the system of green electricity certificates, the sea windmills are granted a preferential scheme over windmills on land. Ms. Gerkens has discussed this in detail. Will this not lead to unfair competition? Sea windmills are a federal matter. Windmills to land are a district competence. There was no discussion, Mr. Minister. This is even more unfortunate, now that it turns out that this matter is clearly a mixed matter and the federal legislation presents the risk of discriminatory action with regard to the policy that can introduce the rules on land windmills. I give a few examples. The preferential scheme for sea windmills may affect the regional green power policy and the regional certification policy. This was also said by Mrs. Gerkens. The production deviation and the tolerance margin apply only to sea windmills, not to windmills on land. However, it is not possible that such extensive provisions are not consulted with the Regions. This is looking for difficulties in the long run.

Fourth, the incentives for sea windmills must be paid by everyone, including the companies. For all companies, an additional electricity tax will be added. Without additional measures, the benefit of the degressive rates for companies — which I will return to later — will largely be lost again to the extent that the Thorntonbank becomes operational, which is not until tomorrow but probably from 2007.

The draft explicitly stipulates that the surplus price resulting from the subsidisation of the sea windmills should not be greater than the reduction that the undertakings benefit from the degressive rates. In the explanatory note, the Government indicates that from 2008 a budgetary reinforcement of the degressive rate will be necessary to compensate for the surplus cost of the wind farm.

With this, the Government acknowledges that the cost of subsidizing the sea windmills is rising high and will rise even higher in the future.

Finally, I have another idea, Mr. Minister, a suggestion. The question can be raised whether the Thorntonbank and other non-named maritime banks can also be used for other energy production or storage. There is a study by the KU Leuven of 1975, which then proposed to make or create from the Thorntonbank, because of its location in the sea and far from the coast, a versatile energy island, for example with LNG facilities, for example a nuclear power plant — which was then said in that study — and with windmills. That versatile energy island can also be useful in spreading and depreciating the costs associated with offshore activities. I think it’s an idea to re-examine the possibilities of a polyvalent energy island on the Thorntonbank, as well as on other maritime banks.

I will return to a second point from the draft, in particular the degressive rate for large and energy-intensive companies. That measure was already promised at the superminister council of Gembloux in January 2004. The date of introduction would be 1 July 2004.

The problem for the companies is the federal contribution on the kilowatt-hour charged to finance other funds, such as the Social Fund, the Kyoto Fund, the CREG, the OCMW measures on fuel oil, the nuclear passive and so on. That federal contribution raises the price of electricity for the individual consumer, but also for the companies.

The companies were promised in January 2004 that their federal contribution would be plafoned from 1 July 2004. But at the Council of Ministers in March 2004 in Raversijde it became clear that the implementation and application of that system was not as simple as thought. The application of the mechanism was therefore postponed until 1 July 2005. Now, through an amendment submitted by the government to the draft, the application is once again postponed until 1 October, to great dissatisfaction of course of the companies, who are glad that it will eventually come, but who have yet to wait long for the implementation of the promise.

The ceiling itself of the federal contribution for companies consuming more than 20 megawatts and the degressive rate is positive. It is promised and it must be carried out. For energy-intensive companies, energy has become a serious and important cost factor.

However, the reduced income, as a result of the introduction of the degressive rate, is compensated by, I quote: "an increase in the excise on diesel in the amount of 7 euros per 1,000 liters in 2005, 14 euros per 1,000 liters in 2006 and 21 euros per 1,000 liters from 2007." If that is not enough, then a part of the corporate tax will be redefined.

Mr. Minister, we have already said it and I repeat it again, for us it is unacceptable that the ordinary diesel driver pays the invoice for the big companies. The liberalization of the electricity market is completely offset to the ordinary man or woman. He or she must pay the federal energy contribution, because we pay them all, and in addition we pay a second time at the moment we refuel at the gas station. It is also not the professional diesel driver who will pay, it is the ordinary man or woman, who uses the car to go to work, to shop, to make weekend trips, to bring children to school, and so on. A degressive rate for energy-intensive companies: yes. Financing by diesel drivers: no.

I would like to emphasize this even more now that a study by the VAB shows that nowhere in Europe the fuel prices at the pump have increased so sharply in the past year as in Belgium. This is a direct consequence of the excise tax increases introduced since 2003. Belgium is the most expensive country of all the countries surveyed in terms of diesel prices. In the words of Luk Van der Kelen on the opinion page of Het Laatste Nieuws van vanmorgen: “Belgium can be considered today as the country with the highest pressure in terms of personal tax, the highest VAT, the highest energy invoice, the highest telephone costs, the highest social burden, now also the highest diesel price and at the top in terms of gasoline.”

In order to introduce the degressive rate, the method of collecting the federal contribution was changed. From now on, the federal contribution will be paid directly by the end customers — consumers, households and ⁇ — to the suppliers, for every kilowatt-hour they take from the grid for their own use. This is a simplification that we can support, Mr. Minister, but the further procedure is still hopelessly complicated, because this federal contribution, which everyone pays, is deposited in a fund.

That fund must then, in turn, finance the other funds: the CREG Fund, the Nuclear Passive Fund, the Kyoto Fund, and so on. Each year, the needs and needs of each of these funds should be identified. For example, the need for the CREG is re-established annually. These needs should then be transferred to that fund. Only then can be determined what the federal contribution will be. Mr. Minister, I am afraid that they will be stuck. The timing will be hopelessly confused. And we will, as we have repeatedly had to do, have to make decisions with retroactive force.

Another point that I am referring to more often, I regret that there is no more consultation in the sector. In the past, decisions on tariffs, for example, were made by the control committee. In the control committee, the various actors were present. In the control committee, on the basis of a social consensus and with a concern for employment, the rates for individuals and companies were fixed. There was criticism of the control committee. However, there is no longer any consultation. It is the Minister or the Council of Ministers who decides. We urgently need an intersectoral energy consultation again.

I will come to my third point, the prospects against the CREG. Mr. Minister, we are in favour of the introduction of appeals against the CREG, but the way they were completed does not have our approval. The purpose of the draft law is to establish fast, operable, clear and legal appeal procedures. The question is whether this will be the case in practice. We have our questions to this.

First, the introduction of a specific procedure in the sector actually also indicates the malfunctioning of the classic general procedure, which is registered in our legislation, namely the procedure through the Council of State. Instead of improving the overall functioning of our legal system, we are now introducing an exemption procedure for a particular sector. If the preference for the Court of Appeal is motivated by the long duration of the ordinary proceedings at the State Council — which you have said in the committee — it could not be sufficient to introduce in the draft law on appeal proceedings a provision which obliges the State Council to deal with the case according to the short-term procedure and which subjects the procedure to the same deadlines.

Second, in certain cases, the draft law provides for an intervention by the Competition Council, namely for the measures in which decisions of the CREG may be market distortions or obstacles. I also have several questions and concerns.

The procedure before the Competition Board is an ex post procedure. This authority does not, in principle, act preventively but only after one or more undertakings have actually committed anti-competition practices. Do the Ministry and the Council have the necessary expertise to act in this specific field of energy? I am afraid of not. I am almost sure that this is not the case.

The question is how you will solve this. One possibility could be, for example, that CREG staff is transferred to the Competition service. Why not ? The CREG is deprived of the powers and the CREG could thus be accomplished with fewer staff and fewer budgets. Could this be a way to strengthen the Competition Service with energy expertise? After all, we must not forget that this is a very specific matter for which the Service and the Council are not currently equipped. I would therefore like to hear from you how you will solve this problem of people and resources at the Competition Council.

The question is also whether the procedure before the Competition Board will lead to a faster handling of the files. I have every reason to seriously doubt this. You remember the Coca-Cola dossier that we have thoroughly questioned you in the committee. What are we fixing? The legislation does not even impose a deadline on the Competition Council. How can you now claim that this would be a faster and more efficient procedure than it is now?

Is there no discrimination in the draft law to the detriment of the CREG? In our view, there is indeed discrimination between, on the one hand, the CREG and, on the other hand, the network operators, transport companies and market operators. However, while the latter could remedy any unlawful decisions of the CREG through an accelerated appeal procedure, the draft law on the appeal procedure does not provide the CREG with the possibility to appeal through an accelerated appeal procedure against any unlawful decisions, agreements or behaviors of network operators, transport companies and market operators. However, network operators, transport companies and market operators, as well as the CREG, can make decisions that can have a significant impact on the liberalization of the gas and electricity market. Therefore, there is no reason to grant an accelerated appeal procedure to the network operators, transport companies and market operators and not to the CREG.

So I come to the lawyer’s fees. The network operators may include all actual costs in their electricity price.

Mr. Minister, we discussed this during the discussion of the Gas and Electricity Act. This law was recently voted. We then pointed out that the fact that you reintroduced the concept of real costs would lead to an explosion of costs for which consumers and ⁇ would have to pay the fee. We were then of the opinion that the opening to being allowed to account for in the rates of all real costs would work cost-price-increasing. No one who understood it or wanted to understand or supported our argument.

We already have the first evidence. All fees for lawyers can be included in the actual costs. The processes can begin. You and I will pay for this.

I come to my conclusion, Mr. Minister. The appeal procedures against the CREG, we fear, will not lead to faster and more efficient procedures. They will be cost-increasing and thus ⁇ increase the cost of our energy.

I come to my decision on the whole of the provisions on energy. CD&V will abstain from the provisions on energy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, here is my presentation.

Thank you, Mrs Creyf. Do you ask for the word now? After the colleagues’ arguments regarding your powers, you may be able to give us answers or give your comments.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will briefly respond to the interventions that were held. I will begin with a point that was discussed jointly and by Mrs. Gerkens and Mrs. Creyf.

This is especially the problem of the difference in approach between offshore and onshore wind turbines.

The reasons are quite obvious and I will start with predictability, which involves talking at the same time about tolerance ranges. Wind fluctuations are known to be much more common at sea than on land and how to manage this renewable energy is much more difficult at sea. This partly explains the difference in approach.

There is a second difference, which you pointed out, Mrs. Gerkens. In terms of green certificates, we held a period of twenty years while we had originally spoken of ten years. This should be linked to the installation and maintenance of this installation at sea, which is much more expensive than on land.

But you have omitted to say that, in the law, we also provided that any new producer will have access to the market and that, at the beginning of the works, a range of tolerance will also be granted to him for any installation, therefore also for renewable installations.

In these conditions, you believe that the government can easily explain the reason for which there is a difference between the two systems. You know that green power certificates have recently been increased by the regions, without any consultation with the federal government. It is claimed that I am not an amateur of the regions. Sometimes I have the impression that the regions are also not a big amateur of the federal government. This is unfortunate, because both should be able to act in consultation. This is all the more pressing here, because the tariff provisions — you know it better than anyone else — belong to the competence of the federal government.

I come to Mrs. Creyf’s comments, which largely reflect the discussions we conducted in the committee. We have discussed quite extensively about many aspects, such as the three conversions that were decided in Gembloux and here we see the daylight in the bill containing various provisions.

You have been struck with a question that a lot of people continue to ask themselves to this day, regarding the cost of energy recovered from windmills.

We must keep in mind that we do not have 101 possibilities in Belgium to cut off alternative forms of energy. Furthermore, we have committed ourselves to the Kyoto Protocol to make an effort in this regard.

One of the choices we have made is to extract energy from windmills at sea. Of course, this has a price. That price requires effort and involves a risk. You have rightly argued that, without a legal basis to cover the risk, ⁇ no company on Belgian territory, even not internationally, is willing to take the step.

This also explains in part the difference in approach. I have just explained why there is a difference in tolerance margin, why there is a difference in support, in particular in the portion of the price of the sea cable that will be paid, and why guarantees should also be incorporated if one wants to make the effort.

You have also been quite generally and quite long stuck on the cost of energy. I agree with you that energy is a part of everyday life. Whether it is about the private consumer or about the large enterprise, the large consumer, we note in every circumstance that energy in Belgium has a fairly high price.

You said later that it is regrettable that there is not enough consultation. To be honest, I have tried it three times. Now we finally succeed in involving the regions in the activity. I wanted to involve them in the file from the beginning, but now they would also be willing to indicate the consequence. We need to discuss what burden we can put on energy. Energy is a basic product that we need in everyday life. How far are we going?

I have said more than once that there are a total of thirteen energy taxes. They are taken through the different levels. I only see a difference in approach. I see, for example, the federal interventions on energy. These are either guiding measures which she tries to obtain—think of removing the nuclear passive or of the benefits for the social passive—or are measures which have a temporary and degressive character—think, for example, of the Elia tax.

I see, for example, the federal interventions on energy. These are either guiding measures — I think of the removal of the nuclear passive or of the benefits of the social passive — or measures of a temporary and degressive nature — I think, for example, of the Elia tax.

On the contrary, there are more charges that are introduced at the level of the regions but for which no justification is given. They do not have that guiding character, nor do they have that temporary and degressive character. I believe that it is therefore absolutely necessary that the consultation can lead to a ceiling of energy tax in Belgium.

I would also like to return for a moment to your suggestion that it would not be bad, if one makes efforts in terms of the development of for example the Thorntonbank, to check whether one can not give it a polyvalent function. This is undoubtedly something that needs to be taken over. But be sure that after the study of 1975 by the University of Leuven, one has yet to realize that the construction of such a versatile energy island naturally involves additional costs, including for the maintenance of the installations. The investments that need to be made for this purpose are often heavy, as, by the way, has been explained in the case of wind farm parks at sea or on land. There are identical problems.

For example, I think of the energy supply through liquefied gas. There is a clear problem there that arises if one would build such an installation in the open sea. Not that such installations do not exist, because there are a number of countries where this already happens. However, with the existing installations on the ground and the expansions that may occur there, a cost-benefit analysis must be made, which does not always result in the benefit of such projects.

As for the regressive rate, I can only say that this is ⁇ welcomed by the entrepreneurial world. I know from experience that the VBO was ⁇ the requesting party for the implementation of that measure.

You are, of course, right when you say that at some point, after 2008, additional measures will have to be taken. Otherwise, the advantage of the degressive rate would be lost. Anyone who has seen the notification of the decision of the Council of Ministers knows that this has not escaped our attention and that an effective intervention has been requested and in principle also promised.

Finally, you say that there is insufficient consultation with the sector. I would like to contradict that. First, that sector comes with the regularity of a clock to the minister and to the cabinet to know in what direction certain measures are going. The sector, by the way, also reads the government agreement and knows which direction it is taking.

In addition, you should also remember that there are forums where meetings can take place and wherever they take place. In that regard, I think that the fear expressed by you, however, should not be fulfilled in the way you think.

Finally, I would like to refer to the section on the procedure against the decisions of the CREG.

First, as regards the Competition Council, I take note of that observation. I am following some of those comments. If one will allow the Competition Council in the future to make a judgment against the decisions of the CREG, then it will of course have to have the necessary expertise. This is one of the reasons why the law on the new competition authorities explicitly stipulates that not only magistrates, but also non-legal experts are included, precisely in order to address such possible shortcomings. In this regard, I think we are already a step forward.

A second step forward is the deadline within which decisions must be taken. I will take the example of the CREG tariffs. A number of procedures have been instituted against CREG tariffs before the Court of Appeal in Brussels. There are about seventy, but no judgment has yet been made in any of those cases. One will then rise up to remind us of what happened to the Competition Council in the Coca-Cola affair. It should be noted that the Competition Council is facing a ⁇ difficult period. I am especially grateful to him for his efforts to keep the case running, and I now see that in the files submitted to him, he is able to make decisions in a relatively short term. I think, for example, of the football dossier, as well as of other files recently submitted to which a direction has already been given and which may also be followed by a judgment in the coming days or weeks. That shows, in my opinion, yet again clearly that an authority which does not have to perform specific legal work — market mechanisms and anti-competition measures do not have to do with pure legal approaches — still has the power to deliver a decision within a few months, which unfortunately cannot be said of the courts of appeal.

One thing I would also want to contradict formally. You say that, for example, the network operators are perfectly able to provide for a degree of appeal against provisions of the CREG and that the CREG itself is not able to intervene.

This is formally incorrect. The CREG, with the current legislation as it already exists and applies, has the effective possibility to intervene telkenmale in matters falling within its competence and where a decision has been made by a network operator or another actor at a given moment. In that regard, I think that the danger signaled by you does not correspond to the truth and is therefore non-existent.

I think this is how I responded to the main comments of the two interviewees.

I wish the

Thank the Minister for his response.

We have already had the opportunity to discuss this at the committee meeting. On a number of points, which I have also mentioned here, we have been able to discuss more often.

I am pleased that the minister has to give me the right in a number of files and that he is willing to look for solutions to a number of problems. There may be a number of points, Mr. Minister, on which we will continue to differ.

I would like to remember, as a positive, that you say that there is an urgent need for a debate with the regions to examine what the maximum burden can be in terms of energy. What a burden can still be laid on the kilowatt-hour, because the limit is slowly reached for the individual consumer and for the companies. I find your words very positive.

As for the consultation, Mr. Minister, in the committee you told me that you want to reactivate the National Energy Committee. It is not because the actors visit the Minister that there is a global consultation in the sector. In particular, I would like to return to this global consultation in the sector and the feedback to Parliament. I think we should have much more opportunities to make our voice heard in those important energy records.

Regarding the degressive rate, companies are of course the demanding party. This was promised to them a lot earlier. They have had to wait for more than a year. You must have admitted that from 2008 new funds will have to be sought in order to be able to finance the degressive rate. At that moment that problem will arise and you will have to solve it at that moment.

I would like to speak briefly on three points.

First, the consultation between the Federal and the Regions. In the course of the discussions that we have already had in the committee, you have repeatedly told us of your will, of your attempts to coordinate but that the Regions did not embrace in order to continue the work and result in coordinated, even common decisions.

Of course, I do not assume the full responsibility for nonconcertation. The regional ministers are responsible for this. On the other hand, I seriously think that there has not been sufficient consultation with all the actors in the world of electricity production, and in particular renewable electricity.

In the technical studies I examined, I did not see any differences in predictability between offshore and onshore, despite taking into account fluctuations of larger winds at sea. It is quite surprising to have different studies and conclusions. Moreover, although onshore and other actors have tried to contact you and negotiate with you these tolerance ranges since November 2004, you have made a decision only for one of the actors, not for the others and that, without these being taken into account.

You also change the market conditions. In such a case, a concertation, a joint action must be carried out with the Regions and market participants, even if only so that each of the actors can survive and develop properly.

I am therefore not at all satisfied with your answers and I strongly invite you to meet with the renewable actors other than the offshore, so that they are heard and so that corrections and corrections can be made to what is likely to be adopted today.

The agenda now calls for the debate on the part concerning the competences of Mr. Minister Christian Dupont will join us in a few minutes.

I can’t tell you exactly at what time; you’ll have noticed it, he presides over an important meeting this morning. He will come to us as soon as possible, they told me.

Five speakers are registered: by Mr Cortois, Mr. Charles Michel, Maene, by Mr. Claes and Mrs. Galant. Among these five speakers, who are those who want to intervene now? by Mr. Verwilghen, who represents the Government, may take note of questions and forward them to the Minister upon his arrival. I know that mr. Cortois must join the Conference of Presidents and the Bureau. Mijnheer Cortois, wenst u nu het woord te nemen in het bijzijn van minister Verwilghen of wilt u wachten?

Mr. Speaker, I thought the agreement was that at least the Minister of Urban Policy would be present.

He is coming. Do you want to wait?

I would like to wait or take the floor later. I am expected to be in the office of the Chamber. I cannot cut myself in two.

Mr Cortois, either you wait, or you get the word now. You can choose. I can only say that the Minister has not yet arrived.

Some may want to intervene now. The other registered speakers are MM. Maene and Michel, Mrs. Galant and Mr. by Claes. Minister Verwilghen may eventually take note of the questions as Minister Dupont will join us in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have no obligation in terms of timetable: I can intervene subsequently without any problems.

July 13, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I will allow myself to return to a topic discussed this morning, apologizing for not being able to intervene earlier.

I would like to return to the part concerning offshore wind turbines and more specifically the use of CREG decisions, two points that have already been the subject of a lot of discussions this morning. Indeed, this bill on which we are to speak today contains several important measures: the implementation of the degressive rate on the federal contribution for large electricity consumers, which I will discuss in the second point, the establishment of a favorable framework for wind farm investment projects, which I will start with, and finally, the establishment of the appeal procedure against the CREG decisions.

It may be necessary to return to the fact that despite a fairly rapid adoption of these provisions in committees, they were not the subject of a separate bill from this mosaic law: this was done quickly with, it seems to me, a lack of coordination, a lack of opinion, in particular from the CREG or the European Commission. Such opinions would have helped us to produce a more proportionate and better text than the one presented to us today. I will explain in which parts of this text I think the shortcomings lie.

First, as I announced, the degressivity and the new offshore wind farm. I think the CDH group should no longer demonstrate its commitment to green energy, especially wind energy. It is enough to traverse the Walloon Region to realize that the action of André Antoine as Minister of Energy of the Walloon Region has allowed a clear advance in the production of wind energy. Therefore, we cannot be taxed as opponents of this type of energy.

Secondly, I would like to recall the lack of information made available to us in the context of this file.

I would like to come back to the green certificates. The exact status of these green certificates is not yet known. It is simply known the amount of the repurchase to the producers, namely 107 euros. It is also known that these green certificates — I do not know how they will be called — will invade the market and cause a decrease in amounts. They would disrupt this market while the latter should be created by the Regions, we thought.

Furthermore, we find that these provisions were expressly and exclusively intended for a particular investment project, the C-Power consortium project. This specificity seems to us questionable, in so far as it creates a discrimination between wind energy sources and at the level of environmental incentives implemented in all of our Regions.

What are the four specific subsidies of this offshore project?

1 of 1. Co-financing of the connection cable via the transmission network tariff, at a rate of one-third of the cost of the cable, with a maximum of EUR 25 million. 2 of 2. The introduction of a 30% tolerance for production differences while it is 10% for any other type of production. This is a good example of discrimination. 3 of 3. The increase in the purchase price of green certificates by Elia to 107 euros. The price is different. I explained the problem of green certificates and their status in relation to regional or federal competences. 4 of 4. The establishment of a guarantee of profitability in the event of project interruption equivalent to that of long-term investments with similar risks.

The first discrimination concerns, in my opinion, other offshore installations. These provisions concern only one type of offshore wind power generation plant, C-Power. Any other type of offshore installation could not benefit from these measures.

The second discrimination in these provisions relates to other wind turbines, onshore wind turbines, which produce the same type of electricity, electricity equally green as that of offshore wind turbines. However, they are neither benefiting from the connection aid, nor from the full investment guarantee through green certificates, nor especially from the extension of the tolerance margin, to which I referred recently.

The bill also introduces the degressivity of the federal contribution for companies, major energy consumers. We have repeatedly highlighted this deficiency and urged the government to act on this issue. Finally, this measure decided about a year and a half ago, at the Council of Ministers of Gembloux, is coming to light. However, we note that this measure clearly introduces a problem of discrimination, one more! Indeed, the degressivity is granted to Brussels companies while this reduction was promised only to companies that engaged in this environmental agreement better known as the term "branch agreement". However, there is absolutely no branch agreement at the Brussels level. Nevertheless, the government has decided to grant degressivity to Brussels companies as well.

This discrimination — I would like to recall — has not escaped the State Council which notes in this regard: "It is necessary to ask whether this difference in treatment, which results in the reduction of contributions in two Regions and not in the third, can be justified in the light of the constitutional rule of legality of non-discrimination." Indeed, this particular condition is not favourable to support initiatives aimed at energy efficiency and clearly constitutes a source of discrimination towards companies from other Regions which, they, have committed to make environmental efforts and are obliged to comply with a number of environmental commitments, while they can obviously benefit from the incentive of other companies, which, they, are not engaged in even this political environment and even receive this incentive. There is a problem of discrimination.

Articles 55 and 56 concerning the federal contribution also call for some remarks.

In fact, we note first of all that this contribution must be clearly identified as a tax. It is the State Council that makes this observation. Therefore, it does not appear to us constitutional to specify the modalities of taxation by royal decree, as provided for in Article 21bis, §6.

Next, Article 55 provides that the federal contribution remains subject to VAT. This supplementary taxation is challenged in so far as this taxation resembles a tax. We do not understand the reason for this double taxation. This is a tax. It is the state council itself that clarifies this. Furthermore, the bill also stipulates that it will be electricity suppliers and not other transport managers who will be responsible for collecting the federal contribution. We also contest this decision. Providers are closer to the consumer. Therefore, they are better able to identify the characteristics of it.

However, by transferring this administrative burden to smaller entities, the bill creates a new entry barrier for new entrants in the context of an emerging liberalization. This barrier will obviously not facilitate the entry of these new enthusiasts into the market. Suppliers evolve in a competitive framework, which is not the case for the transmission system operator.

As a result, only the most important suppliers will be able to better withstand this burden. We remind, in this context, that the General Council of the CREG issued a ⁇ interesting opinion on the study of the "London Economics" which it would be wise to study closely.

In conclusion on this point, on the offshore aspect and on degressivity, we note that while the government’s willingness to create a framework ensuring deep legal certainty for this wind power project is praiseful – I would say even more necessary, or even indispensable – we are significantly less convinced of the perverse effects that this text may create. Because, it risks to create this discrimination against onshore wind energy producers, an anti-environmental discrimination against Wallon and Flemish companies compared to Brussels companies, a cost for the consumer that could have been mitigated, in particular by the abolition of VAT or by a more extensive amortization in the time of the cost of the cable and the creation of new barriers to entry for electricity suppliers and a chronic disengagement of the regulator.

I now come to the second part of my speech concerning appeals against the decisions of the CREG. First of all, I would like to remind you that the CREG is a regulatory office. This is not a network manager, it is not a network user. He is a regulator. by

I am surprised to find that the decisions of the CREG can be appealed to the Competition Council. Indeed, it seems to me that, in its capacity as a regulator, and not as an operator or user, its decisions should not be subject to appeal before the Competition Council. Neither the IBPT nor the CBFA can see their decisions susceptible to appeal with the Competition Council.

Today, we will create a system in which some decisions can be appealed to the Competition Council and others to the Brussels Court of Appeal. I would like to remind you that we voted last week on the distribution of competition between the Competition Council and the Brussels Court of Appeal. However, each can be the subject of a decision of the Council of Ministers, which can seize files, decisions of the CREG, and suspend them. This suspensive part competes with the other appeals on the merits, whether before the Competition Council or the Court of Appeal. In this sense, the system introduced today, which replaces the system under which the decisions of the CREG could be appealed to the State Council, does not meet the objectives that the law itself had assigned itself.

Let me review the objectives of this amendment.

1 of 1. The specialization of the Court of Appeal in relation to the CREG. I am tempted to say that the State Council already had this specialization. He was the only competent. The specialization of the Court of Appeal will have to be done while it already exists at the level of the State Council. The argument is therefore not valid, in my opinion.

2 of 2. and the unification. Here, I clearly think that is not the case. Previously, only the State Council was competent. Now there is the Court of Appeal and the Competition Council. You will probably tell me that they are dealing with different subjects. It is true. However, the Council of Ministers can always seize files and suspend measures. In addition, the decisions of the Council of Ministers themselves may be subject to appeal. In other words, the objective of simplification or unification does not appear to be achieved.

3 of 3. The speed. It is true that the Council of State has at least, willise tried to say, a certain backwardness. No decision has yet been made by the latter.

4 of 4. It is surprising to observe that due to a delay in the Council of State, its powers are changed and transferred to other courts, such as the Brussels Court of Appeal, which is not the ordinary type court with the lowest delay in Belgium. This is a bizarre reasoning: one withdraws competencies from the State Council because it doesn’t go fast enough. Per ⁇ it would have been necessary to take the matter in the opposite direction and consider a reform within the State Council in order to allow it to make its decisions in more correct timeframes.

I add that the Competition Council also records a backwardness; annually, a number of parliamentary questions submitted to the Chamber highlight the delay of the Competition Council in the pronouncement of its decisions.

5 of 5. The legal security. It does not seem to be demonstrated in this case. It was difficult to correctly assess the legal certainty of the State Council decisions because there were no such decisions, but here, I repeat, legal certainty must be demonstrated. By diversifying the types of measures that can be taken and the types of remedies that can be initiated (court of appeal, Competition Council and possible suspension before the State Council), the legal certainty is diminished.

6 of 6. Individual rights and freedoms in order to give these courts their full competence. This goal, which was ⁇ the only one that could be achieved, was removed.

These are the reasons that led me to intervene on this issue. I think they are important enough given the existence of discrimination and downward and offshore components. Furthermore, there are also the objectives that I do not seem to be met by these new provisions in the Mosaic Law concerning appeals against decisions of the CREG which sees its competence diminish. It’s recurring, we start to get used to it, but it’s not going in the right direction.

I will speak on the draft law.

I am a little disappointed, because we can only experience the discussion with so many colleagues. I may have been a little squeezed by the chairman of the House to organize split discussions. Per ⁇ we could have approached it differently for the sake of public attention in the Chamber. Well, that is a determination.

As a result of the adjustment of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber, the treatment of the program laws has been adjusted. We have now come to a clear situation. The situation is that program laws with budget-related measures are separated from program laws with measures that are not budget-related, this contrary to the previous program laws of purple and purple-green, which included almost everything, up to and with complete bills, which led to more and sharp protest in the Council of State. Until then a positive conclusion. The Government has closely followed the amendment to the Rules of Procedure and that is a positive approach. This adjustment is a step forward. The government’s approach is a step forward.

However, that does not mean that all the problems with this would be out of the job. The Government has also requested urgent advice from the State Council for the draft law containing various provisions and the urgent treatment in accordance with that famous article 80 of the Rules of the Chamber. The few colleagues there, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the 150, will agree on one thing.

You forget the speaker and the speaker.

Indeed, I forget the president, who should be politically assexual, and the speaker. Together they are 9 members. That means that not even 1/15 is present at the time we have such an important discussion. It would, of course, be better if the government had requested a counsel from the State Council that is delivered in thirty days, and had not used the notorious procedure involving the emergency counsel. This is also the opinion of the State Council. That position is not formalism at all, because the State Council’s reasoning is that a normal parliamentary treatment is much better.

It, by the way, gives the government itself – Mr. Minister, you know, too – at regular times the time to better motivate. The government is always calling for this high urgency. We now know why this is the case. It is, and I quote, "to be able to correct some anomalies revealed from the application of the relevant regulation" as soon as possible. I think those anomalies have something to do with the Bernissart iguanadons. Unfortunately, we cannot correct these anomalies as quickly as the iguanadons of Bernissart for the very simple reason that our legislation has so much more and so much longer effect and also remains much more vivid. It is about corrections in program laws, including the program law that was approved at the end of last year. I have to say this for empty banks, but again this is repair legislation. This is ⁇ regrettable, of course. Their

The bill is being discussed at a time when many citizens are already on a well-deserved holiday. They are citizens who have forgotten their worries for a few weeks. However, they know that the economic condition of the country is bad. Unemployment is increasing. There are reports of restructuring from day to day. I dare no longer open my newspaper and no longer turn on my radio in the morning to find out which sectors and which companies are under pressure. Our employment rate is too low. The number of bankruptcies has reached record levels. You know that much better than me. Their

The Belgian fuel payer is the main net payer of the fuel price. It is then about what he pays to the pump, both for diesel and for gasoline. This is, of course, a painful fact. I see this also with the cliquets system that was implemented. I repeat again that I said here two years ago: "Fientje comes to her tenth." Now the whole government with that famous cliquets system has recorded this case once again. Their

The federal government, which was in office yesterday for two years, has the impression that the economy of our country is going well, with employment, with the budget, and that the people do not have to worry too much. That is, of course, an incredibly hollow message to bring to all those who are losing their jobs, who see the big impact of a shrinking economy. In addition, I must tell you that the budget control last week was apparently completed without too much trouble. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, whether you like to hear it or not, you are the only elected representatives. Mr. Speaker, you are the elected representative and the Minister was subsequently elected at the executive level of the French-speaking colleagues and of Wallonia in the Parliament. Without the assistance of Flanders, namely without the payment of advanced fees in the Aquafindossier, the picture would have looked completely different. Again, new revenues have been raised. The government makes it important by assuming a growth of 1.5%, while we know that growth is only 1% and de facto a zero growth.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the coming months will be crucial for the government and for the economic condition of our country. It is strange that we can count on so little interest in this discussion. Everyone knows, however, that knots will need to be cut through in the end-to-end employment debate and in the employment debate.

I have a déjà vu feeling. I remember the New Year letter written by colleagues Vande Lanotte and Vandenbroucke on 1 January 2004. In it, they wrote that important nodes had to be cut through. The result is that Minister Vandenbroucke has become Minister in the Flemish government and that Minister Vande Lanotte will leave the government in September 2005 to become chairman of sp.a.

For the first time, I give PS President Di Rupo the right. Following the failure of the DHL file and the failure of the B-H-V file, the current government cannot afford a third failure. I honestly hope, together with my party, that it will fail. This will not harm us. There is a high probability that the government will also fail in this case. So I give you a rendez-vous at the end of September-beginning of October 2005.

Mr. Speaker, the House has not yet reached out when the government will come to Parliament with its statement. I am very pleased that Mrs. Vautmans is here among us. In 2004, she called for a change in the Constitution and the right-wing meetings of the Chambers in September. We should not take too many holidays. I have only determined that the government, and first of all its own party, is not at all happy to come here on the date it has predetermined.

Mrs. Vautmans, Mr. Daems put you in the wind at the Conference of Presidents. He has, by the way, made me realize that your proposal no longer gives you a chance to be approved.

To be honest, I would rather have it. I want a re-release of September 21, 2004. It was a ⁇ nice day. In fact, the Minister announced that he would come to Parliament with a solution for B-H-V, for DHL and for the end-to-end debate. The only problem was that he had no solution for the successors of the ministers of Parliament, who were all afraid for their post.

So I give you a rendez-vous. I could stay here for a long time.

Mr. De Crem, I am very pleased that you refer once again to the bill that we here unanimously approved to start the Chamber earlier. You know that is my horse. We don’t just have to start early to hear the government. Many legislative proposals can also be discussed. We do not have to wait for the government. The committees will start in September, as we approved here. We can work perfectly in the committees. If we respect ourselves, our bills are very important to start with in September. Mr. De Crem, I think this is very important and I hope that your group will cooperate in this.

Mrs. Vautmans, I need you

Unfortunately, I say the following. Even without your proposal, we have already met very often in Parliament, even in the month of August. I remember the beautiful Nepaldossier. Per ⁇ a new kind of democracy will emerge in the world, on our beautiful globe, so that we can meet again at the end of August or early September. That was after the end of the government-Verhofstadt I. Unfortunately, the Greens did not have the courage to drop the government. They would have done it better. Maybe they were still in parliament today.

Second, calling the committees together in September is like saying that the VLD wants there to be twenty-four hours in a day, twelve months in a year, and that a horror year counts a day more every four years. This is a truth like a cow. The committees meet each year. I can tell you just one thing, namely that the parliamentary majority in the Parliament to which you belong, right this morning in the Conference of Presidents, said that the Chamber will not meet before the second Tuesday of October, for the very simple reason that the political hangers are so large and there is total disagreement in the government to decide on it. Let us be honest...

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being so impatient to interrupt Mr. De Crem.

Mr. De Crem, you say that with a smile on your face from here to Tokyo. However, your party has approved the bill. It was unanimously approved here. If the Conference of Presidents has indeed decided this morning to convene the House only in October, I can only regret that. If you were a well-known MP who I thought you were, you would take that smile from your face and fight for us to resume work in September.

Mrs. Vautmans, you experience in the Chamber some projection feelings, which are all related to the atmosphere in the VLD party office, where you distinguish between good and bad colleagues. I can understand that. I have no ambition to belong to that group. I can only tell you that you are there for your trouble. Your proposal will not be approved in the Senate and Parliament, despite your beautiful proposal, will meet for the first time on the second Tuesday of October.

Mrs Vautmans, look in the eyes of your group chairman and ask him what he has proposed.

We have proposed to meet on September 28 and he has proposed to do so on the second Tuesday of October. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

Well, so we give rendez-vous to the government, preferably at the end of September if it can, or at the beginning of October. You should not be so surprised. He’s only one phone call away. Call him a call. He will know what has been said. I will even tell you the following, Mrs. Did you know that the group days of the VLD Chamber Group have been moved to absolutely not have to hold State of the Union at the end of September? Really true ! This was stated by your group leader, who speaks on behalf of your group. Ask colleague Tant, a lover of parliamentary democracy and the Rules of the Chamber.

Ms. Turtelboom wants to intervene.

Mr. De Crem, I do not want to bother myself with the substantially strong argument that you are giving right now, but our group days always fall during the weekend. They start on Friday, when there is no parliamentary work, and they stop on Saturday afternoon. We will therefore not hinder the proper functioning of the committees with our group days.

I just want to say, Mrs. Turtelboom and good colleague, that in the window of the long-term career problem, the VLD has extended the weekend from Wednesday 27 September to Monday 1 October. Let it also be a lesson for you to know what vision the VLD has on the action-related career problem. Their

That being said, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is a pity that we are not currently able to conduct a thorough debate on all the important issues that are underway here.

It is, by the way, unreleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister no longer appears in the House to talk about his important options. I would therefore like to give you a rendez-vous in September, and as far as we are concerned, Mrs. Vautmans and colleagues of the VLD, as soon as possible. I only hope that then we will not encounter each other in the many gardens and orchards that this country is rich to place signs there.

As the last speaker is by Mr. Bogaert ingeschreven. If there are no other requests for intervention in the general discussion, I can close the list.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to make another brief explanation on the excise duties on coal, cocks and brown coal.

By the Program Law of 27 December 2004, Directive 2003/96/EC was transposed into Belgian legislation. The Directive allows Member States to grant reduced rates for excise duties on energy products and electricity. This possibility is now to be excluded for coal, coke and brown coal, while, within the framework of the ecological objectives, a differentiation of tariffs was provided by the Programme Act of 27 December 2004. For example, lower rates were provided in relation to the special excise taxes on coal, cocks and brown coal for commercial use in the context of business activities. Agriculture and free professions were also eligible for this.

First, the measure applied to energy-intensive companies, i.e. companies with an energy invoice greater than or equal to 3% of the production value or with a total energy tax of at least 0.5% of the added value, with an agreement or permit "environmental objective". Secondly, for other companies with an agreement or license, it was a “environmental objective”. The special excise duty amounted to 4,3263 euros per 1,000 kilograms and 6,4895 euros per 1,000 kilograms, respectively. For the companies that did not enjoy the lower rate, the rate was 8,6526 euros per 1,000 kilograms. What is being done with the present bill is to eliminate that reduced rate in relation to the lower special excise, so to speak, in order to conduct a coherent environmental policy.

This leads to a highly disturbing conclusion. The implementation of a coherent environmental policy leads to the re-effect of the differentiation of tariffs in favor of undertakings that have committed to achieving environmental objectives. Therefore, colleagues, it is again a tax increase that is initiated by the Parliament at eleven o’clock. It can be hoped that this time will succeed in bringing the bill through Parliament in time – I assume it is still happening today – and publishing it, so that the application of unpublished laws can be avoided. This has happened more often in the past. So the government succeeds, if it is a tax increase, to have the pump be applied faster than it appears in the Official Gazette. It’s a bit like the Daltons who shoot faster than their shadow. So the government succeeds, when it comes to an increase in taxes or an increase in excise taxes, the best technicians I see there on the first floor, which apply to the pump faster than it appears in the state newspaper. If it comes to a tax reduction, best technicians, then people have to wait two years until they get what they are entitled to. I think that bookshelf speaks.

Therefore, I wonder, dear technicians, how is it accountable that, for the purpose of conducting a coherent environmental policy, the differentiation of tariffs in favor of undertakings committed to achieving environmental objectives is first imported and then re-exported.

Where is the legal certainty and good governance if companies are notified that measure X entitles to a reduction, but if six months later — ⁇ companies have undertaken certain investments or commitments in the meantime — the measure is reversed? The principle of good governance has been repeatedly undermined. From January, a reduction in special excise duties will be introduced and companies will be pretended to be eligible if they contribute to the achievement of environmental protection objectives, whether approved or not, but announced. The result in reality is total confusion. How is it possible that this government misleads companies to be eligible if they contribute to the achievement of environmental protection objectives or greater energy efficiency to subsequently double the special excise duties in the case of energy-intensive enterprises or increase by 25% for the other enterprises. How many companies does the bill cover? This is an important question, in my opinion. How many sectors are in question? Have there been consultations with the companies? What was the outcome of the consultation? What is the estimated surplus income of this scheme?

Here I touch a hallucinating point. In every first candidacy in Economics at the university, one learns that every proposal requires a budget so that one knows what one is talking about. Are you talking about 5 million euros, Mr. Minister, or about 10,15,20 or 30 million? How many million euros is it? We discussed this in the committee. Nobody, not even the competent state secretary, knew approximately how many million euros it was. I call my colleague who rightly took the word on this subject as a witness. No one knew the answer. What is the definition of good governance? In the committee, a highly regarded professor of economics makes a proposal, but he must remain guilty of the answer to the question of how much money it is about. The Secretary of State does not know. No one knows about how much money it’s going on even though it’s an urgent and – I suppose – important proposal.

The next question, Mr. Minister. I expect concrete answers, otherwise I will have to come back to them. How many companies have already submitted a application for obtaining a permit for energy products and electricity by the Administration of Customs and Accises in application of the KB of 3 July 2005 concerning measures for the application of certain reduced rates on excise duty in order to obtain the reduced rate of article 419 J of the Program Act of 27 December 2004.

How many companies have submitted an application for this? I repeat this question because I see you take notes.

The second question is what the budget is for this measure. How many million euros are we talking about? How many companies is this concerned? Has there been consultation with the companies? How many sectors are in question?

Now, I am going to the commercial vehicles. I refer to the article which provides for the reversal of the burden of proof for the collection of the solidarity contribution on commercial vehicles used for private transport. The regulation comes into effect from 1 July.

If a particular contribution exists, it should, of course, not be discarded. The basis of the case, however, is that at the beginning of this year a new burden for the companies was introduced under the auspices of an environmental measure, but with the intention of getting the budget around. The provision in the present proposal does not even mention the environmental objective. It is only a financial measure. If it was only an environmental objective, it would have also been necessary to provide for an equivalent reduction in the burden of labour. This has not happened, Mr. Minister. That link has never been made. Also this measure will de facto cause the burden for companies again, dear VLD’s, to rise globally.

Although it is fair that everyone is treated equally, this measure has not ⁇ supported the competitiveness of our companies from the beginning, to say very euphemistically. Even in this budgetary control, which is the reflection of this bill, we again see no measures to strengthen employment, to force economic growth or to invest in the future. This can also be measured by the entrepreneurs’ confidence in this federal government. Only 8.6 percent of polling participants, top VLDs and MRs — insofar as you are present — believe that the federal government is performing better now than it was six months ago. An overwhelming 59.5 percent think they are doing worse.

It is again a measure that is not positive for business and again de facto imposes an additional burden on business. The question is where this will end. Should we first have an employment rate of 55 percent — also in Flanders — before anything happens to the companies or would it be interesting to change the rate in advance? Again, the companies, and in particular, colleagues, the SMEs, are in the tribulation.

Again, they are those who still provide employment and those who still invest in commercial vehicles that are being fished. It is a street without end. The VLD stood there and looked at it. Even today there is a silent silence. The banks are empty with the VLD.

Mr. Bogert, you rightly emphasize a very serious problem. We were faced with a new tax on commercial vehicles, which had to raise €155 million. That tax is only half. This means that most companies, in accordance with the legislation, already paid social contributions and taxes. What does the government, the VLD, do? She installs a new social inspection round in the companies to inspect each vehicle. Well, VLD coalition partners, congratulations on what you are doing to our companies!

Thank you, Mrs Peterson. I think this is a very justified comment. There is, of course, no reaction from our liberal friends. They are traditionally not present in the debate. I mean by this that they do not focus on the policy of this government. It is the Socialists who have the word in this coalition. Both the MR and the VLD are added again and again for speck and beans. You too, Madame the Minister. You are also involved for speck and beans in this coalition. Socialists in this country have to say it. The liberals look at it and do nothing at all, and that at the expense of the business and the people who make jobs in this country. I think this is a very sad situation.

Having no more requests for intervention, I turn to the government for reactions on the interventions that have already taken place today.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly answer a few questions posed in relation to my competence. Then, my colleague Mrs. Laruelle will answer instead of Mr. Laruelle. and Reynders.

With regard to public vehicles, I see that we are entering into a caricatural debate. The concern was obviously not to study the issue from a strictly economic perspective but to place it in a perspective of balancing the financing of social security.

What is the situation? We hear some of our excellent CD&V colleagues — I emphasize the word "excellent" because I think so — say that we need to diversify the sources of social security financing. Why Why ? To prevent that the only factor of production that now feeds social security is the factor of production “labour”. I think we all agree that we need to think about other factors of production or consumption in order to diversify the financing basket of social security.

In this context, we are talking about alternative financing in general. This includes the reform of labour costs. It is planned to use substitution factors such as a VAT levy — which has already existed in the past and which is now perennial —; it is imagined a supply through excise duties, through other modes of consumption or even linked to air pollution. These examples are regularly given, not only by members of the CD&V but also by other parliamentarians, all confused parties.

At the same time, we see shortcomings. One of the obvious shortcomings in the method of financing social security is that components of income are not, as such, identified as, for example, the vehicles made available. These constitute an assimilable advantage — by the way, the employer’s bank does not contest it — to wages in different forms. So far, we are not disagreeing.

Some warn me, repeating tirelessly the classical couplet of the socialists who would dominate the liberals, about the fact that liberals are not heard in this government. When I hear them, I hold my screams. Today, I want to say it publicly: Let’s be serious! The problem arises in terms of recruiting certain social contributions that are not easily identifiable.

Let’s take the case of car companies. We now have evidence that some companies did not report all the vehicles subject to the legislation. From the checks carried out, it appears that some companies had only ⁇ one vehicle, while 60 vehicles should have been!

It is the demonstration of the existence of a problem, also recognized on the employer’s bank at a given time. When we crossed their information (the DIV) with ours (in secu), we recognized that there were corrections to be made. The aim is that which I gave in the preliminary note: a diversification of the sources of financing of the secu to not initiate the cost of labour and make it so dissuasive, knowing that in our society, we have no other alternative than an action on a structural and recurrent financing of the secu that does not crush the only factor of labour production by contributions assigned to the worker.

That is why this measure was initially justified and had to be corrected – by the proposal you are commenting today in this assembly – but not to bring a speculative product that would have been determined by the government. It was the automotive and automotive industry specialists who provided us with the figures that served as the basis for the calculations. It was because the yield did not correspond to the figures provided by the sector that parliamentarians were forced to take an initiative to allow the planned recruitment ab initio. This correction will not result in a surcharge but will bring the floater back to its original level.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the question that has just been asked, and then I will give an element of answer to the question that Mr. Speaker asked. Devlies put up this morning.

It must first be recalled that in the program law of 2004, in article 429 § 1 e), there was already a arrangement that provided for a reduction of excise duties with the exception of coal, coal and lignite for the production of electricity. This proposal is in fact aimed at supplementing the device and repairing a forgetting to aim in all cases at the use of coal, coal and lignite. There is obviously no need to be reminded before this assembly that coal is the most polluting source of energy and that therefore it is absolutely necessary to put in place measures aimed at deterring coal users. This supplements the system for these three products.

It is very difficult to estimate the number of companies targeted. On the other hand, I can inform you that since the implementation of the loiprogram, only one large energy consumer company has requested to obtain a reduction in coal excise duty on the basis of an environmental agreement. But the analysis of the latter shows that the application of this company is not admissible. This means that the adoption of this proposal will not harm any company, since only one application has been submitted to benefit from this reduction and it is not admissible.

In the case of Mr. Declining this morning on Article 115, it must be said that taking care of this arrangement at the level of the Ministry of Finance in connection with the ONSS was a request of the social partners.

Good cooperation between administrations is in place and works very well. The objective of the project is to ensure that a decision of one of the two administrations does not affect the other. by Mr. Devlies himself stated that it was not relevant, in the case of legal action based on a decision, that another action be delayed while waiting for the first decision.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister Demotte, I would like to speak a little about the explanation you gave in relation to the commercial vehicles. I understand very well that the government is looking for an alternative funding for social security.

You have introduced a new system through, among other things, solidarity contributions, CO 2 tax on environmentally polluting cars. As a result, you have changed a system accepted by both Finance and Social Security on benefits in nature by a new contribution, or better a new tax, a CO 2 tax on commercial vehicles.

For those who apply that system – which were ⁇ few – you have informed in the committee that this means an increase for most commercial cars of 3 to 4 euros, no more than that. I asked you how you would reach the 155 million euros. Now we see the results. Most companies worked properly at the time and are now facing a new tax.

There are very few people present here. Our small company has a serious fleet because we employ many representatives. Our company has 10 cars that were tax-correctly taxed and invoiced to our representatives through invoices. As a result of your action, our company will face a new tax in the amount of 400,000 francs. That is ⁇ more than 4 to 5 euros per car. You claim, Mr. Minister, that the DIV will let you know that this tax is not collected correctly. I am therefore afraid of a new wave of social inspection in companies. That is my statement.

Second, we have cited in the committee that the non-profit sector must also pay CO2 contributions. In short, the non-profit sector should be taxed in the same way. I wonder if the non-profit sector is able to pay these CO 2 contributions. They live from government subsidies. Do all the cars of the Red Cross and all possible agencies that provide help at home pay such a CO 2 tax? Please note, I am not a requesting party for this. The question is whether these agencies pay a CO 2 tax. How much does this cost this sector?

I would like to thank Ms. Peters for initiating the dialogue. Even if we do not share the same opinions, we always dialogue in a cordial spirit.

I would like to give you some other figures. If your company plays the game properly — which I do not doubt — this is not necessarily the case for all companies.

Can I give you an example that has been commented on? If a company declares 8 vehicles for 500 employees, we know, based on statistics and averages, that there is an anomaly. When we see that 10% of companies have made statements, we know that there are anomalies. What makes us trouble is that the good pay for the bad because the plate is not wide enough. My wish — I am also sensitive to economic development — is not to go to punctuate the good ones but to broaden the way in which we can effectively make the contributions of societies, on a fair basis and as many as possible. Until now, we are only talking about private companies. Can I also stop for a moment with the public companies and tell you that I have observed, ladies, ladies and gentlemen of Parliament, dear colleagues, that the public companies had also been taken in the absence of non-declaration.

Of all those who are subject to regulation, we have actually noticed that there were major shortcomings in the various federal and federal entities. At the moment, we are also getting legitimate revenues. This applies to everyone, and first of all to the ministers.

I do not want to extend the debate.

It is very important, always.

I know my limitations. Mr. Minister, I follow your reasoning. I disagree with the principle of taxation. Of course, we differ in opinions on this. I hope, however, that you will correctly inspect the companies – out of 500 there were only 8 ⁇ – and that you will not again squeeze the SMEs, where still employment is created and initiative is taken, with innumerable numbers of controls. I hope that not all those other commercial vehicles – I mean trucks and trucks – will be the subject of new checks.

Rudy Demotte: That is ⁇ not our intention. We want to identify the outliers and start with the big companies that organize fraud. That is our goal.