Proposition 51K2099

Projet de loi spéciale modifiant la matière imposable visée à l'article 94, 1°, du Code des Taxes assimilées aux impôts sur les revenus en ce qui concerne la taxe de mise en circulation.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 22, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Qualified

Subjects

tax vehicle tax stamp duty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 21, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I have questions to Secretary of State Van Quickenborne.

You want to simplify it again.

( ... ...

In this country one can only simplify from a complex approach.

I will examine which speakers, after Mr. Lavaux, would like to speak to the two excellences present here.

Then I will call the other ministers to move forward at the pace we agreed yesterday.

( ... ...

of course . If you did not speak for the Social Affairs section, who would do it?

When will the Social Affairs section be addressed?

One follows after the other. Everything will come as soon as possible

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Dear colleagues, allow me to speak at this tribune on the amendments submitted by the Government concerning The Post. by

While the government is already very pleased with the idea of La Poste’s marriage with the Danish Post and CVC Partners, it has not provided any precise information on the reforms of the framework law necessary to realize this union. Nevertheless, this issue is of paramount importance because, for us, this partnership cannot result in a decrease in the quality standards imposed on La Poste, or a change in the manner of fixing the maximum prices of postal services, nor a weakening of the tasks of the regulator of the postal sector. by

As of December, while the draft law with various provisions was already under consideration in the Infrastructure Committee, the government filed three amendments to profoundly change the regulation of the postal sector. These amendments seem to contain in germ everything we fear and cannot admit. The emergency deposit would have been justified by the fact that, I quote: "These adaptations are very urgent, given the partnership that La Poste has concluded with foreign partners. Indeed, the promulgation of a number of enforcement orders conditions the finalisation of the agreement with the new partners of La Poste.”

The Government’s first amendment introduces an article 25bis that profoundly changes the method of fixing the maximum prices for services reserved for La Poste, i.e. all services that cannot be offered by other postal operators.

Instead of the current mechanism, which provides that any price increase can only be obtained at the end of a procedure requiring the prior notice of the Minister of custody, you hear, I quote: "implement a tariff formula that allows the tariffs of the postal services reserved to La Poste, as well as the tariffs of other frequently used services, the terms of which are retrieved in the management contract of La Poste".

It should be emphasized here that the Parliament has not yet been officially informed of this management contract!

You claim that this new tariff formula guarantees that these services will be affordable for everyone. What do you mean by “accessible price”? This concept is very vague and we seriously doubt that it presupposes a stable price of postal products.

What is most shocking for our group is the fact that the terms of this tariff formula will be fixed in a royal decree whose content has not been communicated to this assembly. It follows that we do not have sufficient information to vote on the proposed provisions. We see there the hidden hand of the new shareholders of La Poste who wish to obtain a tariff revaluation of the products of the small user basket, i.e. of all products purchased at the box by ordinary customers — stamps, recommendations, postal transfers —, excluding conventional or preferential rates granted to large customers such as banks or insurance. In February 2006, some postal tariffs could be raised by more than 25%.

Our fear is that with the new mechanism, La Poste will have even more hands-free to change the postal tariffs upwards, without real control a priori. This will inevitably lead to a widespread increase in tariffs, which we cannot guarantee. Currently, compared to the 25 countries of the European Community, Belgium is in the ninth place for the price of stamp. Denmark is in the first place.

The second amendment proposed by the government aims to introduce an article 25ter, which imposes the obligation of La Poste to contribute to the compensation fund for universal service services. In the face of this change, the Council of State has made reservations as to the conformity of this mechanism with Article 9, §4 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997. However, the proposed text does not appear to meet this criticism. The commentary on the article is limited to saying that the State Council fears are unfounded, which is a bit short, you will agree.

Given the technical nature of the text, it is not possible for us to assess whether the comment of the State Council is reasonable. However, we cannot support such a provision in the urgency because no satisfactory explanation has been provided to Parliament both on the actual scope of the provision and on its compliance with EU law.

The Third Amendment introduces an article 25quater that changes the role of the IBPT in the process of calculating the cost of universal service. The task of calculating the cost of universal service by the IBPT is replaced by a competence of control of this calculation, which is carried out by the operator himself: The Post.

Therefore, we move from a system where the IBPT calculated the costs of universal service itself each year to a system in which this calculation will be carried out by the universal service provider, charged to the IBPT to control it a posteriori.

Nowhere, you justify the reasons for this modification which, you will agree, results in a weakening of the regulator, which thus becomes dependent on the calculation made by La Poste. In case of contestation of the calculation by the IBPT, no provision exists to correct the said calculation made by La Poste.

The Post has a direct monetary interest in the activation of the compensation fund for universal service services. It is therefore strong to fear that it will not demonstrate real objectivity in demonstrating in its calculation that the compensation fund must be activated because universal service obligations involve a disproportionate financial burden on its head.

There is concern that companies in the sector that will be called to contribute to the compensation fund will challenge the calculation presented by La Poste, as it will not have been established by an independent body. The proposed change results in a change in the balances between the dominant operator and the regulator, which we cannot admit without a satisfactory explanation.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, if we keep a positive look at the partnership with the Danish Post, which is part of the necessary evolution of the public enterprise, the CDH group cannot support the government amendments that open the door to all the deviations, including tariff, which we might fear and which, today, are clarifying.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, this discussion relates exclusively to the bill containing various provisions and is addressed to the entire government. I have no specific questions for the ministers present here, but a few general remarks. At the same time, this is a vote statement on behalf of the CD&V.

During the debate this morning, the method in which Parliament has done legislative work in the last few weeks has already been challenged. The Chairman of the Chamber has joined this criticism and has committed to take a number of measures for the future so that this type of practice does not repeat itself again.

The present draft law containing various provisions shows the consequences of this method of legislative work. The draft law mainly includes amendments to previous program laws. These include dozens of small amendments to program laws previously approved by Parliament. Of course, this contributes once again to increasing the legal uncertainty that has already developed strongly in many branches of law.

I will limit myself to two points: on the one hand, the growing separation of concepts in tax and social law and, on the other hand, the changes in the housing bonus.

As regards the first, I refer in particular to Article 164, the former Article 154. The words ‘in the company’ shall be replaced by ‘at the employer’. During the discussion of the original provisions on 12 March 2003, our colleagues Greta D'hondt and Danny Pieters had already pointed out — but in vain — that the Supplementary Pensions Act would not apply to workers employed in the VZW sector, in particular hospitals, rest homes and the like. This is now addressed by speaking no longer of ‘company’, but of ‘employee’.

After all, it is true that the Minister of Finance wanted to stick to the fiscal and not to the social conceptual framework. We have noted this recently, following another bill containing various provisions in which the innocent but unfavorable for the legal certainty article was included that the tax qualification of income is no longer opposable to the RSZ.

The clash between the social and fiscal ministers is getting deeper. However, we as Parliament must be careful that the meaning of the words between the two branches of law does not spread so far that the two excellences no longer understand each other in the future. It can also be different. I refer to the model country of the Netherlands, where one works with one wage concept that applies in all sectors of law, and which is known as the law-Walvis.

There are also several changes to the housing bonus. The impact of this on those who took out a loan in 2005 and are now facing other conditions to be eligible for the housing bonus will have to be revealed over the coming months.

During the discussion of last year’s program law, I made several comments on the use of words in, but also on the inflexibility of the new scheme. After all, the residential bonus does not take over the smooth application condition of the additional interest withdrawal. Consequently, builders, builders or new owners of a home threaten to lose the right to the home bonus forever if they do not sell the old home in time or engage the new home. Under the additional interest deduction, they would only have lost the tax year itself if they did not meet the conditions laid down. The term is now extended from 31 December of the year in which the loan contract is concluded to the following year.

We also rejected the transitional provisions, in which the old and the new systems remain side-by-side. It is practically impossible for officials, bank officials and taxpayers to still have to know and correctly apply all systems of building pairs, long-term savings and additional interest deduction in 20 years. Nowadays it is not easy to apply those deductions and reductions correctly.

The provisions that were applicable until last year will no longer be listed in extension in the Code of Income Tax because they were abolished. Due to the numerous references to those repealed provisions in the transitional provisions, they will continue to apply to existing or new loan contracts for at least 20 years.

One can expect that it will become even more difficult to control and properly apply the entire system of tax deductions and reductions in relation to loans made for the purchase of a property. The fact that some gaps are now being filled in this transitional arrangement does not change anything to our fundamental criticism of the entire transitional arrangement.

Finally, as regards the conditions which life insurance must meet in order to be tax deductible, I would like to point out the following. This is the third time that the tax authority changes the conditions relating to the preferential clause, as the tax administration taxes people who are taxed as beneficiaries under a debt balance insurance, even though they have not obtained actual income. This time, the tax administration requires the preferential clause of all life insurance policies to be revised to solve this problem. Those affected by such taxation rightly perceive the view of the tax officer as very unfair. It is only about a few dozen cases per year. It is therefore excessive to require that all policies must now be amended to meet the new conditions relating to the preferential clause. This does not take into account insurance law. After the beneficiary has accepted it, the insurer can no longer change the preferential clause without his consent.

The problem of unfair pricing can, in my opinion, also be attributed to insurance law. As long as the tax authorities do not take this into account, unfair assessments will continue to occur.

For these reasons, our group will abstain from voting on this bill.

Colleagues still want to intervene in the more specific chapter "Infrastructure" and "Public Enterprises" with MM. Landuyt and Tuybens?

Mr. Tuybens, would you like to briefly answer the questions asked to you and to Minister Landuyt?

Mijnheer de voorzitter, sommige vragen zijn eigenlijk bedoeld voor minister Verwilghen, specifiek de vragen over de reglementering van de postsector in het BIPT. I would like to say to Mr. Lavaux said that the partnership between La Poste and the consortium will improve services without changing the cost policy. Certainly, as you said, a price rise will occur on February 1, 2006, but this is a result of inflation. In other words, the improvement of services will be “free”. It is important to emphasize this. by

In addition, the management contract has been discussed in the Infrastructure Committee. The text of this contract was published in the Belgian Moniteur yesterday. You can find all the details you want.

Mr. Landuyt, would you like to explain one of the comments you have heard?

I have no specific comments on Article 49.

I close this chapter. I ask my colleagues to stay. I am looking forward to Minister Tobback.

The list of speakers now includes the names of Mrs. Gerkens and Mr. Verhaegen who want to address Minister Tobback. I have called the Minister, but the Mobility sector does not belong to his competence.

Madame Gerkens, do you want to intervene now, knowing that Mr. Will Tobback come from one moment to the next? Then it will be the turn of Mr. by Verhaegen. Otherwise, the discussions will slow down. I have prepared a scheme: you respect it, just as I respect it, and I would like it to be respected elsewhere too. by

It’s starting to work seriously on my hips, but I’m not going to hurt myself every week.

Minister Tobback is present.

We do not come to the parliament on an appointment, everyone at their convenience!

Tobback, however, is a step higher because he has the relative relationship with his father. This is something that Mr. Landuyt lacks.

The older the party, the more relative.

My speech concerns three or four ministers. by Mr. Tobback is probably best placed to focus the answers as it is essentially about energy and the environment, with some taxation related to these matters. by

Through the program law we are discussing today, the federal government creates a “Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund.” This designation is to be taken at the foot of the letter because it is a custom-made suit to make believing that this fund falls within the federal competence, hoping that the suit will make the monk.

Before we go on, let things be clear: the idea of a federal fund designed to help the poorest people ⁇ energy savings while encouraging CO2 emissions reduction is positive. This is what Olivier Deleuze tried to do during the previous legislature by establishing the Kyoto Fund funded by contributions on electricity consumption. Among the objectives of this fund was the establishment of a third-party investment tool allowing public and parapublic bodies to invest in materials and equipment resulting in reduced CO2 emissions and energy savings. This fund has been fed by 25 million per year since 2003 and will thus reach 100 million. It is important but it is not used, in any case not to fulfill its primary mission since only 2 million were used to finance an anonymous company called Fedesco to whom this function of third-party investor was entrusted. The rest will actually be used to finance the purchase of CO2 emission allowances because Belgium does not intend to reduce CO2 emissions on its territory or to take the necessary steps to ⁇ this. The money used to reduce CO2 emissions must be used to pay the CO2 emission allowances. Measures to control consumption and energy savings in SPFs through audits aimed at assessing the potential for energy savings in the buildings of the Régie des Bâtiments also had to wait June 2005 to become mandatory and to be used in principle. Nowadays, there is no assessment of the energy savings and energy savings capabilities in public buildings.

We have here a tool, with significant financial resources, which is not used in the field of federal competence.

If I focus on Fedesco, the new fund used, it is absolutely an interesting structure, since it allows public-private partnership in the financing of third-party investment. Ecolo has also repeatedly proposed that the missions of this fund be expanded and that it may serve, through a cooperation agreement with the federated entities, as a third-party investor for these federated entities and for the entities that depend on them, including schools, nurseries, hospitals and homes. There was no follow-up, and we are now witnessing the forced establishment of systems for the return of tax revenues from oil excise taxes, in particular to help these organizations to finance their oil bills.

Energy-saving investments would result in 40% energy savings and would be depreciated over a period of 5 to 10 years. These are the opportunities we have missed over the last few years.

Also regarding Fedesco, Ecolo had also proposed that this fund could serve as a guarantee body for investments that companies could pre-finance in individuals, thus allowing them to equip themselves on the energy level. Again, there is no reaction. On the other hand, today comes a new fund to which the precious title of “Fond for the Reduction of the Global Cost of Energy” has been attached to make it seem to be within the federal competence, while it is regional competence for rational use of energy and clean energy.

It is refused to incorporate this fund into a cooperation agreement that would allow the Federal and the Regions to jointly feed a fund with significant financial resources, as well as easy and inexpensive access to the capital market and thus organize its distribution among the federated entities on the basis of objective criteria.

It is said that it is addressed to people with low incomes, through CPAS, but it is said, at the same time, that the target audience is not only the one that meets the CPAS criteria. They also say they want to rely on energy audits that will be carried out by the Regions and then grant the third investment or the interest-free loan, but they refuse a cooperation agreement.

It is therefore important today that the government gives us sufficient guarantees to deny the analysis I have just made of the proposal that is on the table. I will confess that we consider it to be a subtle and intelligent campaign manoeuvre by sp.a in Flanders and Brussels, in regions where it does not have the energy skills. It is well played, but it is not correct compared to the use of funds and cooperation between federal and federal entities! Since the majority has decided that it would only be a consultation between the federal and the Regions, and not a cooperation agreement, guarantees are needed that a real consultation will take place in respect of the agendas and mutual competences. The allocation of resources between the Regions should therefore be objective and equitable, without counterproductive effects for regional policies that serve to facilitate financially investments in energy savings, as they clearly fall within the regional competence.

It is important to know the criteria chosen in such a way as to respond to the different socio-economic realities in Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels. For the latter, it is known that there are essentially tenants; in Flanders, there are more owners with higher incomes compared to Wallonia. In addition, the relationship between owners and tenants differs from region to region.

Guarantees must be given regarding the distribution of resources to the citizens. Will it be carried out through the Regions, in order to take advantage of existing energy audits and regional tools for the most appropriate responses to reduce energy consumption?

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I do not understand why the government makes so much effort to raise funds that it never uses, while the goals are good and the partners to ⁇ them do exist. A true national plan aimed at reducing energy consumption, promoting clean and renewable energies, and thus reducing CO2 emissions, also enabling the creation of jobs and improving the quality of life, was possible through fair and respectful agreements with Regions, Communities, trade unions and economic actors.

This plan would also have incorporated other measures contained in this program law, such as the increase of the ceiling of deductions and tax reductions for spending, in order to save energy. Certainly, for this latter point, it would have been better to rely on audits that would have determined feasible savings from the necessary investments and to grant, therefore, a tax aid calculated on that basis, rather than an arbitrary ceiling.

In addition, it would have allowed with the Regions to resort to interest-free loans or social loans, as they were organized in the Walloon Region by Minister Detienne.

It would also have allowed to identify local partners, intermediaries between the fund, owners and tenants.

It would have integrated and supplemented regional support for the creation and development of companies active in the field of energy efficiency.

Similarly, it would also have taken into account the need to encourage the production of electricity from renewable energies, and would therefore have removed the discrimination introduced in the October program law between "onshore" and "offshore" wind turbines - which has not yet been corrected.

This plan would ensure the development of a balanced and cost-effective market for green certificates in all the Regions.

This plan would also encourage the development of biofuels, with a positive environmental balance, i.e. meeting the criteria for sustainable cultivation and promoting the use of plant waste. This plan would have encouraged them in proportion to the CO2 savings they generate. A national plan of this kind, combining these different components, would have been possible. It is difficult for me to understand why the government has preferred the path it has chosen. At the same time, it is difficult to understand the extent of the restrictions contained in the program law against, for example, colza oil producers, and to understand why the tax provisions for biofuels have disappeared from the provisions on fuel excise. This does not give a very positive signal to all producers looking to invest in this sector.

Finally, it is difficult to accept the extent of the impact of the reverse clicket system, approved through the law-programme we are discussing today. The increase in excise duty provided for in the June 2005 loiprogram goes from 62 to 28 euros per 1,000 litres for gasoline and from 43 to 35 euros for diesel. It can therefore be concluded that diesel has benefited the most from the cliquet mechanism without the slightest environmental justification given, in particular, the emission of fine particles and the eco-score of cars.

As I have repeatedly recalled, a new opportunity was presented for the federal government, through a true cooperation agreement with the Regions and Communities, to establish a plan that enables energy savings and coherent measures for both individuals, public sectors, parapublic and associations dependent on different levels of power. Here we come to federal proposals that undermine the competence of the Regions and that do not allow the whole to be interactive or ⁇ effective.

There are money that fall asleep and goals that are not achieved, simply because we refuse to work together.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will talk about the Energy Savings Fund, later called the Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund.

Let there be no doubt about this: it is also a very noble goal for us to curb the energy use in the families. This can be done by saving lamps, insulation, rational energy use and other measures. They all benefit the environment and the portfolio.

We know today that there is still little to notice of sustainability in household consumption. The environmental pressure per person increases as families become smaller. Families are the cause of increased consumption. There are even more addresses; each should have its own PC. This is good for the knowledge society, but detrimental to energy consumption. Domotics and other energy locks also increase energy consumption. Moreover, household energy consumption has increased by 26% since 1990 — in 15 years — to a total of 16% of gross domestic energy consumption. The reversal of that evolution is a noble goal.

The establishment of an energy saving fund could provide a solace. I, like my colleague Gerkens, give criticism. The way it is addressed is typical for purple again. As with the liberalization of the energy market, it was rushed, quickly and poorly done. Here it has also been clungering, artwork and flying, in one word, inappropriate management.

At the end of the 18th century, the British philosopher Edmund Burke wrote: “Poor laws are the worst kind of tyranny.”

It all started with the removal of the State Council. The State Council’s opinion on the program law was requested within a period of five working days. He had only five working days to struggle with such a valve. Therefore, the State Council had to limit its investigation. Despite the use of all resources, he was unable to pay sufficient attention to the draft, nor to deliver the quality that the government and Parliament can expect from the Law Department. However, its legal contribution is a factor that should promote the harmonious functioning of the rule of law.

The State Council is our ally; it helps us make good laws. I have the impression that it is sometimes viewed by the government as a necessary evil. The Government has also not provided sufficient reasons for invoking the high urgency and the request for urgent treatment. Some advice would not have been obtained. Nor does it appear anywhere that, in this regard, the urgency of the matter in question was invoked in order not to obtain such advice. In this way we can continue for a while. Telkenmale says the government: feeds, that is not necessary, feeds and again feeds.

Under Chapter 8, sustainable development, the first was the establishment of an energy saving fund. That is, of course, a name that sounds quite like rational energy use and thus to the regional authority. The State Council has therefore stated very clearly that this is also not a federal competence. It even went so far that the State Council withdrew from the article-by-article discussion. He also concluded, by the way, that the Energy Savings Fund and not the OCMWs were charged with the granting of the financial contribution. That was in the beginning.

If the State Council clearly indicates in its opinion that certain articles do not fall within the federal jurisdiction, the draft opinion should also be submitted to the Consultation Committee on the basis of the Coordinated Law on the State Council. That has not happened. We know that. We also know how it went. Their

In the meantime, it was November 29th, the discussion in the Public Health Committee. I found it bizarre, Mr. Minister, that you mentioned the Council of State in the content explanation, but that you did not discuss it in the content. You really knew what the purpose of the fund was. You said that it was another nuance, the social assistance, and that there would have been contact with the Communities. Certainly, there was once a question asked to the Communities, at the beginning of September, but then nothing more.

I do not want to polemize further on this, I want to bury the pen struggle on this, even in the knowledge that colleague Gerkens swiftly doubted whether the federal government does not exceed its competence here. She went even further and said that this is a socialist propaganda moment for her. Well, it could be so, the municipal elections are coming in the vizier.

You have then finally also – I admit that – the name of the preliminary design adjusted in the sense of promoting financial savings on the entire energy cost in the private home of the most needy people and thus no longer in the sphere of rational energy use. From now on, we can no longer speak of the energy saving fund, but of the fund to reduce global energy costs.

It was also remarkable that we found, when we saw the opinion of the State Council — this was discussed by colleague Luc Goutry — that the government representatives explained the draft within the framework of social assistance, while the minister had yet said that everything was in order and that this was clearly a federal matter. Only structural measures would be taken within the federal jurisdiction. The savings on total energy costs, as set out in Article 31, would be fully included therein. So we wondered why suddenly this curve was made to explain something under the name of social assistance. We don’t read anywhere about additional tasks for the OCMWs as if the fund would actually take those measures itself and not the OCMWs.

The Minister declares that the measure is indeed aimed at the target group of the OCMWs, but cannot say who are the most needy persons. Per ⁇ such a response can be given. Are these the living ones? Who will determine it? The concept is here – and I also regret that – separate from the OCMW legislation. For whom are the cheaper loans that can be closed? Only for the poor, as the Secretary of State, I think, ever said on television? All those questions remained unanswered.

As always, we wanted to make a positive contribution and we pointed out that the principle of structurally helping the poor, the most needy, is a good thing. This is in line with our long-term policy vision. After all, we don’t have to perform one shots all the time; we don’t want to cause fireworks with a blow, a little light, but all smoke at the end of the game. No, we want sustainable development and satisfaction of needs, also for these people.

This draft is weak, not to say bad legislative work. It could also cause a lot of complaints. For this reason, we have advocated for a good alternative, in particular the establishment of such a fund in a separate bill that could be thoroughly discussed in a broad social debate with the various sub-regions, with the OCMWs and with all actors. We would even like to approve such a widespread design. A little confused by so much constructive criticism and by its own legislative stunt, a member of the PS suddenly requested the suspension of the committee. Finally, on December 6th, Sinterklaas day, we met again in the committee. This leads us to suspect, first, that poor legislative work has been carried out and, secondly, that the consultation of the regions was still necessary.

On December 6, we received a summary explanation from the Secretary of State who, if I am not mistaken, said that the target audience will be specified by a KB. First of all, therefore, it will be the people who will find it difficult to pay their energy bill, which is logical. However, granting such cheap loans, for example, would go to a wider public. In the end, you or I might be thrown out to be able to adapt our home. If we are with the candidates, we would like to use it, but I don’t think that’s the intention.

Another important element of criticism remains. There was no answer. Therefore, I repeat the question. The two ministers concerned are present now and therefore I ask them once again the question of the reachability of the target group of the poor. The vast majority of people in that target group, the most needy, are usually people who rent their home. However, these energy saving measures would benefit owners. How can the government prevent this? Do not be afraid that the owners, under the auspices of work to reduce the global energy cost - according to the new definition of the Energy Savings Fund - perform a number of improvement works, for example on the boiler, insulation, windows or doors, causing the tenants to pay even more because they live in an adapted home at that time.

How can we exclude such abuses? Their

I also had a budgetary problem. The €2.5 million start-up capital would be financed through the federal holding company or the federal investment company. Mr. Minister, you said that. We logically do not find this back in the budget. It is a kind of debudgeting. They are trying to keep spending artificially low. For us, that is an old truck box that is picked up. This is a financing through the subsidiary of the federal investment company. Their

According to Article 2b of the Act of 2 April 1962 on this company and the regional investment companies, the financing modalities relating to fixed and variable costs and any required pre-financing shall be established in a protocol between the subsidiary and the ministers or secretaries of state concerned. Therefore, my question is whether such protocols have already been concluded. Their

Another aspect is the operating costs. These can be placed directly in charge of the relevant ministerial departments. Mr. Minister, Mrs. Secretary of State, can you tell which operating costs are borne by which departments and which basic allocations are placed? These are some of the crucial questions I have. Their

Colleagues, we note, it was also already cited by the previous speaker, that telkenmale becomes colder, if the energy prices expose the pan, one should once again add a fund. Their

There is the Federal Fuel Funds. That is a subsidy in the heating bill for a wider group of low-income people. This is done through the OCMW. Their

There is the Federal Energy Fund to guide people with energy debt, including through the OCMW. Their

At the Flemish level there is still the decree holding the minimum supply of gas and electricity. The OCMW is here chairman of a kind of local advisory committee that judges about any fraud or apparent reluctance to pay invoices, a kind of filter before one allows the delivery. Their

There is now another fund available to reduce global energy costs. Their

I have also heard that there may soon be another fund for gas and coal. Who knows which funds will follow. There are already at least five funds and five different allocation criteria. We would almost say that a cat can no longer find its young boy in all this clutches. I also think that they are not seriously concerned. The OCMWs say that too. The OCMWs demand a single large energy fund. Instead of having to work with fragmented resources and different allocation criteria, they are calling for a single large energy fund. Their

This should also give the OCMWs, which are the first partners, the opportunity to pursue a long-term policy and also the opportunity and the space to provide tailor-made assistance also here. Their

A careful local advisory committee, which can be further expanded into a kind of proactive tool with care also for sufficient energy in all households, from one hand and a fair remuneration for the efforts made, we find much better. Now it is like in the greenhouse oil fund. I think this is a perverse system. One receives an alms of 10 euros for a social research. If it turns out that the application is not accepted, nothing will be given to the OCMWs. It must, of course, also be done with care for the housing policy, which indeed should pay sufficient attention to energy quality. You can see that we are for principles. We only reject the method. Their

Measures that encourage energy-friendly investments and rational energy use must indeed be encouraged. We believe that the OCMWs should be the pillar in ensuring sufficient energy in all households. Their

Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State or the Minister whether they can find themselves in such a successful approach, i.e. on a local scale?

Ultimately, this is fundamentally contrary to the present draft. It is here — no matter how we turn it or turn it — about a cunning denial of the powers of the Wests.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I find it a bit bizarre for someone who comes from a Flemish-nationalist nest to overrule the regional powers here.

In the Committee on Public Health we have learned — some colleagues from that committee are present here — that whenever there are bills, we must oppose the federal recovery machine. We are almost hopeless.

Then I saw our laughing Minister of Public Health. He is a great advocate of prevention. In his zeal, he often neglects even his own powers due to lack of time. But suddenly, when the calf is almost drowned, he asks for powers. Impotence is impotence according to us. At the same time, he asks for a number of measures to be implemented by destroying traditional consultation and implementing unfair, linear decisions.

Some examples of his zeal for fishing in the Flemish or Wallish pond include the federal prevention campaigns with funds from the Tobaksfonds and the hearing test in the borrels. There are many examples, but I will not list them all.

If we do not pay attention, then the Minister of Health will soon also write the policy letter of Flemish Minister Vervotte. Of course, that is not the intention.

Therefore, I would like to pause a moment on this subject. After the re-federalization of healthcare, we believe that there is now an attempt to withdraw energy policy from the regions. The actors of the service, the State Secretary for Sustainable Development and the Minister of Environment, are present here.

What I read in the newspaper today gives me the worst suspicion. You said in the interview that you will open another kind of website related to rational energy use. These are all wonderful measures, but in my opinion they are not the measures that are expected from the federal government.

Mr. Verhaegen, you apparently only read what you want to read. I have not seen in any newspaper that I would open a website about rational energy use. I never used those words. They are not in any newspaper. This initiative has not been announced in any way. You make a story of that fit into your discourse, while it is not correct at all.

I will open a website that will include information on individual products within the framework of product policy and in relation to the financial and tax benefits that exist within the framework of federal taxation.

Even if I open a website that informs about the federal government initiatives that perfectly fit within our jurisdiction, would I go beyond my jurisdiction? I no longer understand you.

Should I understand from your point of view, if the NMBS decides to invest in less energy consumption or to jump more efficiently with energy, that the State Secretary for Public Companies thus enters into the regional policy area and thus must not implement those measures? In this way, everything can be framed into regional competences.

For the rest, I have full respect for the regions, given my history in this regard. I may not come from a nationalist nest. By the way, I protest, by the way, against you calling the People's Union and Spirit a nest. In this regard, I fully agree with my colleague, Mrs. Van Weert.

We can use resources to ⁇ things that benefit people. So I don’t understand why you want to put that under regional jurisdiction necessarily, wringing you in all sorts of curves. Apparently only to prevent us from doing something that is useful to the people.

This is what you are doing, while we are even discussing it with the regions. We have already discussed this in the Interministerial Conference on the Environment and we are discussing it again. Again, I do not understand your absolute inclination to say that the government is not allowed to spend this money and that, in other words, the people are not allowed to get this money.

Mr. Minister, you know well — I have repeated it five times — that we are very strongly in favour of a sustainable, structural solution for people in difficulty. We would even like to support a bill. We have even made a suggestion to submit a bill that is carried out by the Regions and the OCMWs and thus by the people who will have to do the work on the ground. As for the website, [...]

I thought the minister wanted to say something. These are, of course, matters that have to do with Flemish matter and that you will probably put on the website later. Everyone can spread this information. They can also be posted on municipal websites. I understand that, but I think that policy must come from where it belongs. So we have questions here. You talked about reducing energy waste, but I think that is very closely related to rational energy consumption. I agree that there is a jurisdiction in the game. I will leave it in the middle. I said I would no longer polemize about it. However, in any case, we will remain vigilant and continue to fight, if necessary, to prevent a new wave of Belgian recovery coming, while the Communities and the Regions have already done a lot of work.

We can learn two lessons from this vaudeville.

First, I think that federalism, as we now know it, is hanging on a much too complex state structure. If one sees that there are nine Ministers of Public Health, I wonder how we can function. I just heard from the colleague that she proposes to make cooperation agreements, but if you have to make cooperation agreements with six governments, I think we are wasting a lot of time and energy. This is very difficult. I therefore here resolutely follow the Flemish government agreement, which advocates, among other things, the division of health care and coherent and homogeneous powers packages, so that both the North and the South of the country can conduct a more efficient policy.

Second, I come back to what you said, Mr. Minister. You said that we are against that principle. We are in favor of it. We also support structural measures. We would also like to support them if it had been done in a decent way. The way it happened — it has happened quite often — reminds me of a kind of self-destruction. We are constantly putting on wicked constructions, and we are constantly flown back by judicial authorities, in this case by the Council of State. I can take a few other examples for the mind. I remember that the one-time release declaration had to be modified four times. Now comes a second one-time liberation. Understand who can understand. The Vlaams-Brabant electoral reform was destroyed by the Arbitration Court. The traffic law was destroyed.

The benefit of green electricity was suspended by the State Council. The drug abuse policy, which we are entirely against, was also destroyed by the Arbitration Court. How can we ask the people to respect the law, if the federal government itself does not? How can we expect politics to be taken seriously, if prutwork is the trademark of purple?

So I would like to conclude by saying: Give us a responsible and decent administration. and applause.

Mr. Verhaegen, you have exhausted yourself exceedingly.

I will ask the ministers to answer. You can replicate afterwards.

Mr. President, Mrs. Van Weert will respond as soon as possible. In the end, she followed the decision-making in the committee most.

Mr. Verhaegen, however, I would like to ask you another question.

According to you, there is a better way to do what the federal government is doing to help the underprivileged save on their energy costs in the long run. At the same time, you say that all measures we take to help people reduce their energy costs necessarily affect rational energy use. On that point you are completely right. In your view, this is a regional competence that we should never touch. Then explain how you think we should help these people.

Mr Verhaegen, even your proposal — in so far as it is a proposal, because it remains vague on some points, such as the ruling that we must respect the OCMW legislation — does not help them, after all.

Ms. Gerkens also has a question on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an answer on a specific point, just like my colleague, I think.

Mr. Minister, I do not understand why you did not conclude a cooperation agreement with the Regions in a way that respects the sharing of competences and aims to create a fund fed by the federal and, possibly, by the Regions, each using it in compliance with its competences.

In the draft under consideration, you agreed, through an amendment, to add "after consultation with the Regions". I really don’t understand why you don’t try to set up a national plan that allows all levels of power to participate through a cooperation agreement.

Mr. Goutry, do you want the word on the same point?

I listened carefully to my colleague. He is absolutely right. Of course, he did not discuss this in the committee, and we did not. Of course, we are in favor of rational energy use and we are in favor of fiscal measures that can favor this, and so on. The point he makes is that the government has come up with a very inaccurate text. The proof is that she herself made an amendment, which, as it were, occurred between half and half.

It is always the same technique. It was not clear who would put the plumes on his hat. In fact, Mrs. Van Weert had announced it, but Mr. Tobback has been away from her too quickly and he then put the plumes on his hat. He has already been in the news, where he came to announce that the measure would benefit all people. It was almost a free story again. This is our “genance.” We say: make measures but make good, deliberate measures; take a little time for it; let a serious advice be made by the Council of State; do not adjust your texts in a hurry. Therefore, we have proposed to make a separate design of it if necessary, as you could then make a good vehicle to solve the problems. That is basically our criticism of that part of the policy.

Mr. Verhaegen has the word again and then the government will replicate.

Mr. Minister, you asked me the question: how can we remain within the federal authority? Well, if we remain at the federal level and do not want to end up in the suburban domains, you must apply the law as it is. That is to say, the starting point should be: help to the needy. This can be done within the federal order of civil society services of the OCMWs. But then the OCMW is the vehicle that also allocates the resources. You could register the accommodation as a structural measure in the organic law on the OCMWs, which we have, by the way, proposed, and it has been resolved. You can easily stop that in the OCMW Act, without any problems.

But now the government is looking at the matter much and much more broadly. It will not only help the needy, but also allow cheap loans. It even wants to familiarize the construction sector with new financing measures. In the end, you go so wide that you are actually on a domain that is actually no longer within the competence of the federal government. You will find only one vehicle in the order of social services of the OCMWs.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, er is geen moment discussie over de vraag of de toekenning van goedkope leningen via FIM, in wiens opdracht dat uitdrukkelijk staat, volledig binnen de bevoegdheid van de federale overheid valt. There is even at the Raad van State no moment discussion over. Zeg mij eens hoe ik de toekenning van goedkope leningen via de opdracht van de FIM, in het kader van de beperking van energiekosten in dergelijke meer, in de organieke wet op het OCMW moet inschrijven? This is not just about OCMW-clients. Dat funds is meer dan alleen de steun, rechtstreeks, aan mindergegoeden om op hun energierekening te kunnen besparen. It goes also over of goedkope leningen, die perfect — there is no discussion over — within eleven bevoegdheid vallen. There is no second doubt of discussion over! So men can dat niet in de organieke wet op het OCMW schrijven! Madame Gerkens, this can be done within the framework of the Dat is naturally possible in het federal competences. There is no doubt about this. Would you have preferred that we prepare, for several years, a large national plan while we have the means necessary to give citizens the opportunity to invest in order to limit their energy spending? Would you have preferred that we discussed a few more years rather than already taking positive ecological measures to help citizens limit their spending? For my part, I prefer that we use, from now on, the means that we have at our disposal to adopt measures in this area.

In addition, discussions specifically on direct aid must now be organised with the Regions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we will not agree. That turns out to be impossible.

I have a few more points to which I had hoped that Mrs. Secretary of State would answer.

Mr. Verhaegen, the Minister and the Secretary of State will both answer.

I am in a hurry too. The federal government had the means to act, within the limits of its competence, through the various existing funds! I always come back and I will always come back to the Kyoto Fund, which finally became this Fedesco Anonymous Company! Since January 2003, no energy savings have been achieved in buildings dependent on the federal government! Yes, I am in a hurry and I am harassing you!

I support the existence of a fund and the idea of combining different approaches, such as interest rate or the use of third-party investors. As proof I mean the interpellations and questions I have asked you both about how the federal could also support the federated entities through common tools made available and by measures to be taken. I am in favour of it, and you know it.

I think your behavior is dishonest. You know well that the three regions are also in the process of implementing devices. You know that the third-party investor solution you offer for individuals will compete, at some times, with regional skills.

I would have preferred the use of the same fund by the three Regions and the federal. I would have preferred that each entity could use it to ⁇ the objectives, that the resources were equally distributed among the French-speaking citizens of Brussels, those of Wallonia, the Dutch-speaking citizens of Brussels and those of Flanders. I fear that this is not the case, and the fact that you did not want a cooperation agreement leads me to think that the proposed measures will not be respected.

Everyone has their opinion on the subject.

I would like to respond very briefly to

How far are you going with that discussion? Was there or not an incentive? I would like to be comfortable with the flamingate language of my Christian Democratic colleagues, but there remains a spicy detail: the minister concerned at the Flemish level, Mr Kris Peeters, has their party colour. I do not want to fall into a game of hanging out the big flamingos in the Federal Chamber, and then letting them quietly operate at the Flemish level — where it must happen. So I want a concrete answer to the question of what is right, to what extent there is consultation with the relevant regional ministers. Have you initiated or not initiated a consultation?

As for the powers, my colleague Tobback has already responded broadly.

Following Mr. Bultinck’s presentation, I would like to say again, especially with regard to the CD&V, that we have indeed conducted both formal and informal consultations with all regions. This happened at the interministerial conference Environment, where we announced this initiative and at the same time we agreed that consultations would be conducted. This has also been done, following a number of comments from the State Council and the CD&V group, in the preparation of this program law. In addition, this was also done in the consultation committee, where a formal procedure for the manner of consultation was agreed.

I therefore find that Minister Peeters in the Flemish government does indeed better understand that we must cooperate and that we should work quickly and efficiently, rather than performing delaying manoeuvres that are not necessary. After all, we have common goals. He has, if I have understood you well, endorsed you. We want to address this in an efficient way and you know that, even without any opposition or discussion, establishing a cooperation agreement in a formal way takes at least two years. Well, we do not want this file to rest for two years. We all look in the same direction, but there is still a lot of work to do in the store. You will answer to Ms. Gerkens that the objectives are not contested and that we know how to conduct the concertation. In this regard, the comments made can be answered.

Mr. Verhaegen also asked questions regarding the target group. In the committee I answered that it will be determined in a royal decree that will be discussed in the Council of Ministers. It will also depend on the consultation that we will resume with the regions next day. As clearly defined in the law, it is intended to provide cheap loans and to work clearly with those who have financial difficulties. There is no discussion on this.

You are also asking for concrete modalities. How, for example, will it be ensured that the owners will not immediately account for it if they can resort to this fund? At this point, agreements can be made. It should be clearly stated in the provisions that one who applies to the Fund will not be able to immediately account for the improvement of the comfort of his home to the residents, who are ultimately the most needy. We will take your comment into account. It was a concern that we had made ourselves, of course. We will look for formulas that meet that question.

You also asked if there was already a protocol with the FIM. There is no protocol yet. We need a legal basis before we can negotiate a protocol, which is obvious.

You also asked where that can be found in the budget. For the Sustainable Development budget, you can find that back on the basic allocation 58.02.31.01. You will get 1 million back. Also for colleague Tobback you will find 1 million for the operating costs there. It is indeed included in our budget. Furthermore, your group also approved the budget for the Environment component. I can conclude that you have no objections to this. Madame Gerkens, you can you say that we have concluded the first phase of the discussion on the national strategy for sustainable development in which energy is one of the primary axes. Through this platform, we can discuss a long-term plan with the Regions and the Communities and measures will be taken in energy matters.

A very short response, because so you can of course continue.

I will be very short.

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for her answers. I found the basic allocations in your policy letter Sustainable Development but not in Environment. I hope that they will still be taken care of.

The crucial question for me was about the approach to this problem. You say that this must be done from the bottom, a kind of bottom-up approach that goes from the OCMWs to the different structures. With respect for the OCMWs, this fund can therefore work very well. This question has not yet been answered. What is the role of the OCMWs? How will the OCMWs be enabled in this system?

This will indeed be further determined but I can already say that our administration has made a survey with the OCMWs in the various provinces. The responses related to this fund are very positive. They are definitely willing to work together. The questions raised will be taken into account in the specification and elaboration of how this fund should be operated. In this regard, I can therefore reassure you; this concern will ⁇ be taken into account. The basic position of the OCMWs is positive.

You are here for a while so you can see this again together?

I just want to admit that I have heard other sounds. I know we can continue to discuss this. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for her response.

Although there is no cooperation agreement, a concertation is planned between the Federal and the Regions. by

Regarding the use of the fund and the determination of the criteria for the use of the funds, I would have wanted to know if you are considering targeting populations and whether the way the most disadvantaged will be helped will vary by Region, taking into account socio-economic realities. For example, in Brussels, these are essentially tenants; in other Regions, owners. But the percentage of low-income owners or those entering the CPAS criteria varies from region to region.

Since the fund is federal and the use will be done with the Regions, can we imagine a fair distribution, but possibly using different criteria depending on the socio-economic realities of each Region?

The consultation with the Regions will tell us how we can make the best use of the available resources.

Cardinal de Retz said that equality consists in treating different situations differently.

Mrs. Pieters, you would like to address to Secretary of State Van Quickenborne. He is present.

Then I come to the social chapters and Public Health. Ministers Vanvelthoven and Tobback are present and Minister Demotte is in the area. Their

May I ask Mr. Goutry and the Ladies Lahaye and Cahay to prepare for the section on Public Health and Social Affairs.

Mr Peterson, you have the word.

Mr. President, Mr. De

Secretary of State, gentlemen ministers, colleagues, although the various provisions containing the law contain very little information on administrative simplification, I would like to intervene for a moment. I took a moment to browse through the long-announced study that appeared yesterday or yesterday. Per ⁇ this is the right time to formulate my concerns about this.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have launched under the motto “Simplicity makes power” — here it says “Unity makes power”, but you do there “Simplicity makes power” of — the reduction of the administrative burden pressure by 25 percent. We read yesterday in the newspaper that whoever now dares to visit your kafka.be and can solve nine questions there, wins a trip to Prague. We saw your TV spot.

( ... ) : [...]

I don’t know, but he’s going to pay it out of his own pocket. I also do not dare.

You could simplify your life.

( ... ...

I was lucky to have you as a companion.

Greta would rather have De Croo with her, right?

Mrs D'Hondt and I have been on a trip once. I have good memories of that.

We have seen on TV spots behind which kafka.be stood. I have had a lot of difficulty understanding this, but it will probably be up to me. There are still those who have not understood the loose arm with the suggestive movements. Behind it is Kafka.

Meanwhile, there have been approximately 5,000 indications for administrative simplification, which, of course, is not a little and which is a reflection of what is living in the population. The study’s predecessor, the press conference of early October, says that the administrative burden has decreased by 25 percent between 2002 and 2004.

At the beginning of October, you, together with the Prime Minister, said: "I am pleased with the results of the survey of the Planning Bureau. Kafka is working. The administrative burden has decreased by a quarter in two years. Thanks to our approach, we have achieved a fundamental trend break. Therefore, we continue on the established path. Simplicity makes power."This all comes from you and the Prime Minister.

The results of the survey were viewed yesterday. A thorough survey shows that that survey decreased between June 2005 and August 2005.

19.4% of companies responded, or 4% less than in 2002. 12.3% of self-employed responded or 4.3% less than in 2002. This survey does not give any indication of the administrative burden that lives with the citizens: it is limited to the companies and the self-employed.

In general, the administrative burden on companies in 2004 is estimated at EUR 4.9 billion or 1.7% of gross domestic product. For the self-employed, it is estimated at 2.4 billion euros or 0.8% of the gross domestic product. That is 2.5 percent. Compared to the survey of 2 years ago, the results for 2004 show that the total costs of the administrative burden are decreasing, both for the undertakings and for the self-employed, which can only be attributed to the reduction of the internal costs of the burdens, i.e. the costs of the internal administration of the company or of the self-employed. Their

"But," the study continues, and that is likely inherent to a survey, "there should be suggested that it is an estimate, which reflects an order of size and not an exact figure of the weight of the administrative burden, as the size of the confidence intervals of the results illustrates." So there is an interval for all calculated numbers of 90%. This means that there is 90% reliability and that is therefore also shown in figures in the statistically collected material of the Plan Bureau. Their

The study also says that of the three regulatory areas from the survey were thoroughly studied. Mr Vanvelthoven, the employment regulation shows that, in the first instance, there lies the majority of the total administrative burden. This has decreased and even dropped sharply between 2002 and 2004. As for tax legislation, with also a very important share of the administrative burden: that would be identical to what was observed two years ago. There is no improvement in the fiscal regulation. Their

Environmental legislation — I didn’t expect that — with the smallest share of costs, would therefore also experience a decrease. Their

When I speak of environmental legislation, then the study – I have nothing to say here, I only repeat what is stated in the study – it is about emissions, discharge, radiation, ionisation, noise impediment, water consumption, the placing on the market of dangerous substances, waste treatment, environmental products, environmental permits and environmental taxes. You will therefore immediately understand that, when there is a reduction in the administrative burden on those points, it is primarily attributable to the Regions.

In terms of employment, it mainly covers hiring and dismissal of employees, social documents and obligations related to working conditions, declaration of social contributions and social risks covered by social security, and mandatory reporting of employment statistics.

What is perceived by companies and self-employed as the most time-consuming occupation? This is in the tax regulation very specifically the VAT. The formalities relating to personal tax, corporate and corporate tax are second.

As in previous surveys — 2000-2002 and 2002-2004 — small enterprises appear to be more affected by the administrative burden. Small enterprises record the largest decrease in the relative weight of the administrative burden. The average costs, which also show a declining trend for self-employed persons, remain below the average costs per employee.

However, there is a very specific paragraph. Contrary to the figures, which indeed concern the two aforementioned target groups and mainly the part of employment, the three consecutive surveys show that the overwhelming majority of self-employed and the enterprises agree that the administrative burden has increased significantly in each regulatory area over the past two years. While in the course of the previous surveys the companies that believed that was applicable to the fiscal aspect were much less numerous, the self-employed now more retain their previous attitude on this. In fact, the perception among companies and self-employed is therefore that the regulation is increasing.

Whatever the study has brought – this is very important – is that it has also examined an important, qualitative aspect in addition to the quantitative aspect. To this end, the opinions of companies and self-employed persons on the problem of the administrative burden and on the simplification processes were examined.

There is more satisfaction with the contacts with the administration than with the regulation itself. This is a very important decision. Therefore, the contacts with the administration appear to be more smooth than before.

There is a lot of criticism about the lack of regulatory flexibility that makes them unable to adapt in all circumstances. An exception to this is corporate taxation. The self-employed also highlighted the difficulty of tax regulation.

It also seems to me important that the knowledge of the simplification dossiers submitted to the undertakings and self-employed depends on the size of the undertakings. Small enterprises know the files less well than large enterprises and self-employed. Especially those in the agricultural sector know the dossiers less well than the companies. That seems logical to me. The best-known file among companies and self-employed persons is the file on the generalized use of the company number and the KBO. With the companies Dimona is the best known file and with the farmers is that Tax-on-web.

With regard to the reform projects submitted for evaluation, the companies and self-employed persons, and not the farmers’ groups, preferably support the project that reduces statistics. Therefore, an attempt has been made to reduce statistical material. The planning agency also carried out a sensitivity analysis. I think a very important comment has been made. The tables show the total cost of the administrative burden in 2004 if the number of undertakings and self-employed persons were unchanged with the population in 2000 and then with the population in 2002. Extrapolated with the population of 2000 and 2002, this means that the administrative costs in 2004 are higher than in 2000, but lower than in 2002.

Mr. Secretary of State, you say that Kafka works. I do not question that. That ⁇ works. I would like to add that the first policy note of the Secretary of State was submitted to the House at the end of 2003, namely the bill of the twelve works. The first draft of administrative simplification was submitted to the Chamber on 17 November 2004 and approved on 20 January 2005. The second draft law on administrative simplification was recently discussed on 3 November 2005 and adopted on 17 November 2005. This is to demonstrate that the work of the Secretary of State, namely the signing and execution of the twelve works, dates from 20 January 2005.

This is primarily a matter of administrative simplification in terms of employment. Dimona is the most important partner here. I must point out that Dimona is the work of the Dehaene government. Then Dimona was put on the tracks. The survey also shows the good results of KBO. This is the result of this government, of Moerman and of Daems.

Even in this program law, we have made an adjustment for the corporate lockets that appear to have to do with too few financial resources. These will, subject to a qualitative audit, receive more working resources. The difficulty remains, in terms of administrative simplification, in terms of taxation. There is no clarity here. Here it needs to be simplified.

Environmental measures are also simplified. I repeat that this is to be written on the conto of the regions, but also on the conto of the local governments. Their

The perception is that the regulation has increased in the last two years. I wonder how it is possible that this government, so set on the perception, fails to correct it. Your joke, Mr. Secretary of State, may not be able to make people feel that there is a clear administrative simplification.

I decide . I am the first to argue that the administrative simplification is yielding its fruits. There is still a lot of work to be done in the store. One triumphed on 5 October 2005 in a press campaign for something too premature and too optimistic. After all, I did not find anywhere the reduction of 25% of administrative burden. There was something about 22%. As for the latest study of the Planning Bureau of 2004, this is largely due to the efforts made by your predecessors and only partially written on your account. Their

I repeat here for a part what I said in the Committee on Internal Affairs following the draft law administrative simplification II, but without the study. Now I have had the opportunity to look into the study and dissolve it. It only confirms my suspicion.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: Mr. President, Mrs. Pieters, it is interesting that you make this kind of comment, study the survey and ask questions about it. I remember, however, that in the previous two surveys, that of 2000 and 2002, exactly the opposite was said. Then the figures were used to emphasize how serious the situation was. At that point, the way the figures were collected was not questioned at all. On the contrary, at that point the figures were used to demonstrate the administrative burden and asked to do something about it.

Today we note that the administrative burden has decreased to 2.6% of GDP. You use this to talk about the circumstances and the way it happens. It would decorate you if you follow the same criteria for the three surveys. I would point out that the 2004 survey declined in the same way as in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

The outcome of this survey is very clear. In 2000, the administrative burden was estimated at 3.5% of GDP, in 2002 at 3.4% and in 2004 at 2.6% of GDP. This is stated on page 71 of the study of the Plan Bureau. Facts are facts. If you question the facts, this discussion can take a long time.

More and more. Compared to the 2002 and 2000 surveys, the 2004 survey shows a better confidence range. On page 59 you can read that the reliability of the 2004 survey is much higher than that of 2002 and 2000. This means that the collected figures are a more accurate representation of reality than the figures from previous surveys.

You talk about internal and external costs. Indeed, the survey shows that internal costs have decreased significantly but that external costs have remained virtually stable. We have communicated this to the Prime Minister. You should know well what is understood by internal and external costs, respectively. Internal costs are the costs inherent to the administration in the company itself in relation to the government. External costs are those costs where intermediaries such as accountants, social secretaries are used to fulfill the administrative obligations. What is revealed? Companies that conduct their own personnel policies and make their own statements in accounting and taxation notice a significant decrease in costs. Those who outsource to intermediaries see this much less. This can be explained by the investments that the intermediaries have had to make and the reduction of administrative costs will only be able to account for their clients in the longer term.

Ms. Pieters, you refer to the success of the Social Security Crosspoint Bank. You are indeed right. The Social Security Crosspoint Bank has an unlikely success. I would like to point out that, for example, the Netherlands will start with identically the same project from 1 January 2006. That project was planned in our country for a long time, but it has only come to cross speed in the last two to three years. Their

The first projects, in the 1990s, were small pilot projects. Honoring whoever deserves honor, the implementation, ensuring that it works effectively and that all companies use it has happened in the years 2002 and 2003.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I also cited the following metaphor here last week in connection with the Generation Pact. If one makes a chariot, one puts four wheels under it and one pushes that chariot, then that chariot is of course at speed. Those who are on that car at speed, of course, are lucky. Who has the honor? This is the one who made the chariot and put four wheels under it.

Mrs. D'Hondt, it has to go up the mountain.

Mr. Speaker, no, if one pushes well, it also goes to false plate. Their

Mr. Secretary of State, I am one of the people who believe in the Cross Bank of Social Security and who have still stood at its cradle. You should not only give the cross-point bench the honor, but you should also not minimize them in the second part of the sentence. It’s not the last two years that she has become performing and good. If you look at the example of Europe, you can see that it was six to seven years ago. Their

I do not want to do anything from that. It works very well. I am even very proud of it. You must, of course, also give the builders of the carriage and the forging of the wheels the honor that they deserve.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: Mr. President, Mrs. D'hondt, you are a specialist in social legislation. You are probably also referring to the chariot and forging of the social balance, which was introduced in 1995 and against which 200,000 companies look every day. Their

That social balance, which was initiated in 1995, I will now, together with colleague Peter Vanvelthoven, finally begin to reduce.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, there is a lot to say about the social balance, including its complexity. On the ground of the case this. Be glad that you can now draw statistics of certain things. Without the social balance, you would not have been able to draw any statistics on certain data that, thanks to the social balance, are now available to the government and to all of us. Their

Indeed, she was too complicated. That is clear. It is now simplified. This is also a good thing. However, you should also assume the usefulness of social balance for where. Otherwise, we would not have certain elements, which were not collected in any other way, and we would not have the possibility to control them.

Mr. Secretary of State, you can decide quietly so that I can move on to another topic.

Vincent Van Quickenborne: Mrs. D'Hondt, you are right. We will make them even more useful than they were in 1995. We will focus more on the training efforts of companies to see whether the Lisbon objectives are achieved in terms of research and development. Mr Vanvelthoven will take the necessary measures for this purpose. Their

I want to make decisions slowly. The Cross Point Bank of Social Security is indeed a useful and well-functioning tool. Furthermore, the next phase shall enter into force from 1 January 2006. The survey, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, also addresses the success of measures and their effective operation. On page 33, I always refer to facts, it is clear that the companies find that in the first place the Crosspoint Bank companies and the company number cause a significant decrease in the administrative burden and that also the abolition of the paper accounting, also a measure I have taken, makes companies experience that the administration becomes simpler.

Ultimately, the question is where we are now. Is the work done now, is the work done now? The work is not done, that is obvious. What remains is 7.2 billion euros of administrative burden. Therefore, the path we have taken and which is also shown by the survey of the Federal Planning Bureau absolutely implies to me that there is no place here for triumphal crevices and the like. I have never done that either. I have always been modest to keep timbering on the path of administrative simplification.

For the 108 projects that we have implemented with this government, I use the image of a tanker turning. If a tanker turns, then it is true that the one who stands in front of the tanker naturally sees the turn a little faster than the one who stands behind the tanker. In other words, in this file it is like in security. First we need to improve safety on the ground and in the long run the sense of safety will also improve. The same applies to administrative burden reduction. First the facts must change — and they are now changing — and later people will also feel that things are getting better. However, this is a work that I think has only been really used for a few years. We are now working on it.

Again, humility adorns this file and there is still a lot of work on the shelf. I am always willing, as always, to also consider proposals from the opposition, concrete proposals for simplification, for example in the field of social balance. I would have liked to see it.

Mr. Secretary of State, you don’t have to tell me how bad the situation was in 2000 when for the first time seriously talked about administrative simplification. This was not the first time, as in the previous government periods also attempts have been made to address administrative simplification through projects in the form of audit and other matters. However, these were partial projects, and it was never addressed in its entirety. It was only in 1999 that the Service Administrative Simplification took concrete form. You don’t have to explain what external and internal costs are, I know. It is very clear that internal costs are decreasing because many large companies that can handle internal costs and deal with them better than small companies that need to outsource it to accountants, as you said. I know my homework.

That the KBO works well is clear. It is clear, you proved it yesterday with your registration number that will be easier to carry out on condition that all the necessary KBs are there. You have not mentioned this, but there are still a number of KBs to be drawn up. Every minister must take responsibility for this.

As far as the social balance is concerned, we are not going to follow the history of the social balance because you were probably still on the school benches when we reacted here against the social balance. I agree with Greta D'Hondt, although I was a fierce opponent at the time, that this has provided some interesting statistical material. At that time it was also the goal of tracking the formation efforts of the companies. Their

The social balance was too complicated. That you simplify them now, so much better!

It is above all — you know it very well, because you are turning around the pot — the communication of October 5 which lies on my stomach. You say you work in all humility. I would drop that “modesty.” You work, and you work well. But you do not work in all modesty, because it was too early to communicate that Kafka works. It is Dimona who works; it is the multifunctional declaration that works; it is the Cross Point Bank of Social Security that works; it is the KBO that works. This is part of the work you have done since 2004. You must not stretch the car in front of the car. In this, however, I ask for a little modesty and I insist that you would communicate when the statistical material is finished and complete.

The Secretary of State is very modest. He will not even answer anymore. A good sign of humility.

This concludes the discussion of the section Administrative Simplification, as well as the section Environment, for which Ms. Van Weert is competent.

We take the discussion of the section "Social Affairs and Public Health". We initiate the discussion of the volet "Affaires sociales et Santé publique".

I have registered the following colleagues: Mr. Goutry, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, Mrs. Cahay-André, Mr. Verherstraeten and Mrs. Dierickx.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak from my bank.

Mrs D'Hondt, you are "inevitable", if I can say it with sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen,

La loi- Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will introduce six points to the discussion in my limited presentation. These points are drawn from both the program law and the law containing various provisions. We had to discuss the two almost inseparably from each other, as pharmaceutical policy measures are present in both parts. I will talk briefly about: the maximum invoice, the medicines, the impulse fund for the general practitioners, the care of the elderly, the supplements in the hospitals and the powers.

Let me get to the first point, the maximum invoice. In the draft law, the Minister launches a new construction that implies that the fiscal maximum invoice, which formerly existed as a mechanism separately, is now activated in the larger whole of the maximum invoice. From now on, however, there will be three subcategories: the so-called social maximum invoice, based on certain social categories to which the patient belongs, the maximum invoice for modest incomes and the maximum invoice for the rest of the population linked to the income disc. In the latter case, an intervention may take place if one exceeds the fixed maximum amount in the current year by paying imposition costs and braking fees.

However, there is still a distinction in that the so-called maximum social invoice and the maximum invoice for the modest income are refunded immediately in the year itself, as soon as the persons concerned have reached the maximum amount of personal contributions.

In terms of the maximum tax invoice, progress has been made. We should congratulate the Minister on this. For the maximum tax invoice, during the year following the tax declaration, the income will be transferred to the system, so that one can already receive a refund of the costs incurred in the year before. This is how I think we understood it. Through that measure we gain a year, because otherwise there would be a two-year decal. I think it is a good system, which in any case means progress.

We have also always said that we support the principle of the maximum invoice, at least insofar as it is aimed at people with low incomes and high medical costs. Such vulnerable people should be protected primarily by such a maximum invoice.

The Minister has tried to remove a number of imperfections in the system of the maximum invoice. I am talking about double payments. I have a bit of my doubts about the technical output, because in the design there is the transmission of the data to the healthcare provider.

I think rather the organisms meet in the cost. Thus, the insurers, of whatever nature they may be, will need to be well informed whether or not someone benefits from the maximum invoice, in such a way that there would be no additional compensation from other systems, so that the so-called double payments can be avoided. There has also been an adjustment, in my opinion rightly, for example for families with children with a sick or disabled person. These give children, especially themselves, the right to access the maximum invoice. The system has so far worked as follows. Once the child reached the counter amount, regardless of the family’s income, all family members could enjoy the maximum invoice. That could never have been the intention. We also noticed this at the time, when Minister Vandenbroucke put that system on its feet. At that time, I think, there were not the administrative means to avoid those possibilities. Now it can. Such families will now be divided. Only the costs of that child or of the person concerned who benefits from the preferential scheme, including for the health insurance, will be eligible, and not the rest of the maintenance costs of the other family members.

In summary, Mr. Minister, the interventions you propose in the maximum invoice are good. They make the maximum invoice more consistent, more a closing whole, slightly less complicated. It is possible to pay faster within the framework of the maximum tax invoice. That is at least a positive point.

I just want to warn you about the next. I do that every time, because it tends to some sort of alibipolitics.

We must, of course, communicate clearly about the maximum invoice. It protects very well people with low incomes, people with high medical expenses, or people with disabilities. These people are very well protected. All costs that come with them usually fall into the maximum invoice for them, because their counter amount is so low.

However, we must avoid raising the brake money for the bulk of people for a certain benefit, saying that it will not hit the patient because it comes into the maximum invoice. No, it is placed in the suitcase, per person, in order to ⁇ the amount of the maximum invoice. Two earners in a family have a fairly jointly taxable income. They already have an account of, for example, 1,200 euros per year in brake payments. These people will in many cases not reach the maximum invoice. We see this in the payments. Of the 9 billion of the maximum invoice, we pay 7 billion in the social and only 2 billion Belgian francs in the tax maximum invoice. Many ordinary citizens who do not have such large expenses or who have a better income are not in that maximum invoice.

We must be careful not to give a wrong impression. If we increase the costs, we should not say that it is not a problem because those costs are still in the maximum invoice. They will be included in the system, but they will only be repaid once those people have reached the famous threshold.

Regarding the maximum invoice, I conclude with two comments.

Regarding the cohabitants with disabilities, there was an imperfection in the establishment of the maximum invoice. I am always very excited that when one designs a system, one leaves out certain groups at the beginning for budgetary reasons. When will these groups be seen again? Never again, and this is shown here again. It is said that if it improves and if one gets more budget margin, one will put those groups in the maximum invoice. Well, the evidence has been delivered again. We have had the maximum invoice for six or seven years. Then we excluded the cohabitants who enjoy an integration benefit. What is shown today? They are not in yet. We then excluded the children who enjoy an increased child allowance since the system came into force. Well, they are still not in there. Once the folds have been laid, it is very difficult to get back to them. I regret that, because it is necessary that these groups also could enjoy the maximum social invoice.

I come to the second chapter, the medicines. In the law on the various provisions, as well as in the program law — it was a little slicked sludge mixed with each other —, some price measures were approved by the colleagues of the majority. There is more or less a principle for public procurement.

My criticism of the Minister’s drug policy is of a formal and substantial nature. I find it difficult to follow all measures. In fact, the Minister takes steps again and again – in the Program Law, in the Health Act and in the Act on the various provisions – in his pharmaceutical policy. These steps are also good steps that lead to price reductions, but they also make it technically so difficult and unprepared, by applying the various arrangements, that it always becomes difficult afterwards to make the synthesis.

It seems to me almost appropriate that at some point the minister would come up with a draft which would turn the pharmaceutical policy into one large draft and make it a separate legislation sui generis. There will be a lot of measures in the future. In this way, we can always return to the framework law. For example, one would have a lot of hairs and cracks to hang onto the various legislations. Otherwise, I am afraid that in the long run we will know less well how the legislation is in place.

Mr. Minister, as I said in the committees, in the case of medicines, we start from the three B’s: availability, affordability and reliability of medicines.

Let’s be honest: with us there are no problems with the availability of medicines. They only exist in three-quarters of the poor world. In the poor countries there are not even the most basic medicines. We actually have too many medicines. We have 10,000 different types of medicines. We also have too many of the same drugs, with all the same active ingredients, but with all different names. We saw it this morning. There are 14 versions of paracetamol with all the same effectiveness, but with all different names and brands.

Of this he should say that it is no longer clear to the doctor who is flooded by always too much of the same, where the patient also does not find his way in. It was said this morning: it is not the patient who has to serve himself, it is ultimately the doctor who has to prescribe something to the patient. That is the big problem of availability with us; we do not have too little as in poor countries, we have too many medicines. Then one gets what is called me-too-products; again another version in another galenic form. If it is not a pill, it is a syrup, and if it is not a syrup, it is a melting pill, and so on. Ultimately, this is not an innovation and does not bring therapeutic added value in the treatment of conditions. Their

Our conclusion is that there needs to be much more order and much more transparency. Furthermore, it must be evidence-based to distinguish good products from all that is the same. This must also be made clear. This should be done in the future more by the government as an independent, objective body above the parties, which provides objective information, but not by the doctors visitors as it is now.The case is In the order of their company come who after all praise their pills, medicines and brands and of course they have a good commercial explanation for this. The government should actually have independent people of high scientific level who fully know the market of the medicines, both therapeutically and in terms of pricing. They could act from there and give advice, and the Minister could say that for that condition that certain products are evidence-based and in addition the most interesting in price. The prescribers could then be advised these products, evidence-based. For us it is clear that when it comes to a safe and effective drug, the cheapest is the best. That is almost the evidence itself. Their

The second point is the affordability, both for the patient and for the health insurance. So far, there are savings on medicines. The Minister also said this morning that he has saved 2 billion Belgian francs in the pharmaceutical sector, through a number of recent measures. He has also been able to recover large deficits due to excesses in his budget of last year. That is good. Only I have warned the Minister repeatedly, including during the vote on the Health Act, that we must take care that the price interventions on medicines, which are good in themselves, are carried out consistently until the end, so that the patient does not pay the bill. Until today, if the price specialty does not follow the reference generic or cheaper agent and the doctor prescribes the more expensive remedy, the imposition by the pharmacist is the responsibility of the patient. Today it shows that this is also so. According to the minister, this is not a problem because it is included in the maximum invoice. Their

This brings me back to my first point. It is in the maximum invoice for the people who are at the counter of the maximum invoice, all the others have to pay it out of their own pocket.

Mr. Minister, I speak in a nuanced way. In terms of price control and pressure on medicines, you as a minister have taken absolutely interesting measures. You will also take measures that have some structural impact, such as improving the reference price that has existed since the generics. That is a good policy, but we must follow it until the end.

It is not enough to push prices down. We must also be able to set certain prices and carry out eliminations. We must be able to decide and announce that a certain group of medicines at a certain price are the most interesting. We expect prescribers to use this group of medicines.

Today, too much is left in the unknown. It is expected that the specialties will lower their price. In fact, it is left to the doctor and the patient. There are cheaper and more expensive medicines. Doctors and patients need to find out. I point out the famous booklet, which is now issued by all the health funds and contains many hundreds of pages. All medicines can be found in it. With the help of icons, one can determine whether it is a expensive or cheap medicine, whether it is fully or partially refunded and how much the brake money is. That cannot be the intention, right? The patient is not very beneficial because he generally has little involvement regarding medication. The doctor must do it. How can the doctor for each patient again overtake the conscious booklet and for each prescription among the dozens of offers find what the best purchase is? In my view, the arrangement must be done by the government itself. It must give directives. After all, we work with community funds from social security contributions to repay the medicines. It is not too much asked that the government take its responsibilities and draw up recommendations for the doctors with advice on quality and price. In this way, the doctor should clearly inform his patient why he is not available for a particular medication and ask whether he will agree to receive a more expensive medication prescribed. This way the patient knows what to do and what to do. Today, this happens too often steamlessly, which is a dangerous thing.

The same applies to the prescription on the substance name, Mr. Minister. You have already launched it in part. It is a useful project, which CD&V can in principle be behind. For certain ingredients that have proven their usefulness for decades and cannot be improved — paracetamol is an example —, one can safely prescribe by substance name. Whether the drug calls A, B or C, if it is paracetamol, it is equivalent and is effective. Prescribing on drug name is a very good and useful idea, as one can also prescribe in dosage. In this way, it can be avoided that the patient must purchase a standard package if he does not need it, and small packages on drug name may be prescribed or even magistral preparations.

It may even be a magistral preparation, why not. However, I think that a mistake has been made, which, though, can be corrected: the prescription on substance name would be better discussed with those who should prescribe it. I remember that dr. Piet Vandenbussche at the hearing with the general doctors in January broke another lance for prescribing on drug name. I am surprised that he subsequently gave counterwind by saying that they are actually not for it, because there is controversy about responsibility.

I think there should have been more discussion. After all, it was not clear what the role of the pharmacist was: thus the pharmacist can substitute and the doctor then again does not like that the pharmacist delivers something that he did not prescribe by name. Therefore, too many uncertainties that were not cleared in advance remain. Because of all those practical problems, the useful idea of prescribing on the name of the powder may have drowned a little. It is not too late to take it back. It is up to you, you have the power to improve it.

Then I would like to say something about the brake money ceilings for the B category. I understand your technique. You say that the price of generics should be reduced by 30% and that those who want specialties should only follow. Those who do not follow will have to pay more. We then pay less back and even raise the ceilings, thereby substantially increasing the imposed for the patient. I repeat that it is a useful technique if it is sufficiently clear to the doctor and the patient at that moment that one prescribes a ceiling medicine that will be so expensive for the patient. If not, it is, of course, dangerous, because then the patient depends on the prescriber and ultimately it is the patient who must pay the bill. Therefore, we should not go over too lightly.

Research shows that the influence of the pharmaceutical lobby, of the doctors visitors, on those doctors is huge. Research shows that, if one promotes certain medicines to doctors, they are subsequently mainly prescribed. So doctors believe it: they listen to the explanation, are convinced that it is better and prescribe the product. This is exactly what we want to counter. We want to go back to the base. There are enough drugs, there are enough molecules, we should not make it all so complicated. Except for those few complications, with the bulk of those drugs, we can draw our plan.

Also, the group-specific revisions are a technique you have proposed in the Health Act. In itself, it is a technique that can be useful, provided that it is implemented consistently. I hear you say that you will do it for the cholesterol lowers and the stomach suppressants, but I think you will have to determine a whole category of drugs that, according to their class, can fall under it. We must also do so consistently and not just for the blockbusters or the popular products. For example, we spend 6 billion on cholesterol: that jumps in the eye and we are then inclined to quickly do something for the cholesterol lowers.

We should actually do this at the level of all major therapeutic classes. Where we can, we must bring order, bring the groups together — the same are the same — and we must be able to revise them groupwise. We should also, as you suggest, be able to move to public procurement.

This is not a new technology, colleagues. Think about vaccines. The vaccine policy is already undergoing a tender. They are asked for the best price on the market. Based on this, the products will then be purchased. Mr. Minister, that public procurement should not be one shot, but should be done structurally and systematically on all types of products that must meet certain criteria. If they meet these criteria, they are eligible for public procurement. We must apply this consistently every time, with good coaching from an agency that oversees vigilance, safety, quality, therapeutic effectiveness and the price of the product. If we could strive for the future, then we really work on what is called the kiwimodel. This model is based primarily on two things.

First, that there is a well-functioning and independent pharmaceutical agency that has the necessary manpower and resources, that knows the entire market at a scientific level, also therapeutic and in terms of price, so that this organism gains authority in our country and stands above the firms and consequently can provide information and advice to the Minister. This is Kiwi I.

For kiwi II, the government itself makes choices, based on these opinions. Not everything is allowed in a single market. The government gives clear guidelines to the regulators and will eliminate them. It will only retain what is affordable, useful and therapeutically active. In my opinion, these are the two foundations of the Kiwi model and if it is as we understand them, then we naturally support it. In fact, I think the minister is still behind. After all, who with common sense can’t stand behind that?

Finally, I want to talk about taxes. You know my opinion on this. I have said this in the committee. I think a claw back system is more useful. A claw back confronts you with your expenses in the year itself.

Mr. Goutry, you would be brief and short. What would you have done if you had spoken for a long time?

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This claw back system immediately takes back the excess. Mr. Minister, you are now going to create a fund, a commission fund, in which those firms will have to deposit. That money will then be used for negative balances. However, I am afraid that this will become a kind of alibi fund. Indeed, there will be deposits in order to at the same time gain playing space in that market and revive that auto-commercial approach. The claw backsystem brings with it a greater responsibility.

The third point is the impulse fund for family doctors. You know my criticism. I think this is a good idea.

For me, however, this is not sufficient. I think you should have taken care of more framework. You should have said more clearly what it could serve exactly, what resources would be in it, where they would come from, and for what they would be used. Now you are asking Parliament to have a delegation too large so that you can set up a fund and only then will you see what you will do with it. I think this will need to be done in consultation. Ideas have already been raised on this subject. However, as it is now stated in the text, it is too vague and too poorly described for me.

As for the care of the elderly, I have to congratulate you. You do something important around the short stay. You will revaluate the financing of the short-stay. If this happens, it is a very good measure. I also asked to pay attention to the day care centers. These are also facing financial problems in terms of their operation. That is something for the future. People can - sometimes in combination with home care during the day, be cared for in an institution after which they can be recovered at home again in the evening. Meanwhile, during the day, they receive all the necessary - hygienic and other - care they need. I think this is a form that we should work on, in accordance with home care.

As for the supplements, it is meritorious that you will do something about the room supplements. However, we would rather have seen a good overall arrangement. There are three types of supplements. The first category concerns the room additions, which you are now doing something about. This, however, is limited to those who enjoy the preference regime. I would have done it for everyone. A second category concerns the honorary supplements for which we had excellent legislation that Minister Vandenbroucke has repeatedly abolished; understand who can! A third category concerns material supplements. This is what patients are increasingly concerned about. For all modern techniques used in hospitals, supplements are charged. No one knows if they are included in the nursing day price or should be paid separately. People don’t know it, so they pay them – sometimes wrongly, as research has shown. You have said that you will draw up a list that will make it clear what is included in the nursing day price and for which the hospital may or may not charge a supplement. Mr. Minister, you must urgently put things in order in this regard. Now everything happens at a fur et à mesure: once a measure, then once something that improves the situation. This, however, is not a fundamental approach to the problem of supplements.

Finally, I will end with the powers. You know that this is a tear point to which we will not return. We have always said that power is powerlessness. A mandate temporarily gives you the opportunity to intervene linearly and to partially solve certain major problems. However, this does not work. It is not good for the consultation, it does not contribute structurally. It is not refined and it does not punish those who should be punished and does not reward those who should be rewarded. It cuts through everything. A mandate is a tool that you can use when the need is highest. You did that this year. At the end of this year, your mandate will end, and then you must still continue with the policy and then your budget must still remain balanced. That is our great concern. We wonder whether, once the brutality of that mandatory system has disappeared by the end of this year, you will still have sufficient tools to act dominantly. Will those instruments also be sufficiently fine tuned, will they target what needs to be targeted and will they therefore be fair and effective? Here is my – though too short – contribution. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the law-programme that is submitted to us today contains social provisions that already concrete many of the guidelines presented last week on the occasion of the budget debate.

A few words first on Articles 11 and 12 relating to the accompanying allowance.

In addition to the series of measures developed by the government to encourage youth employment, within the framework of the Generation Pact, it is planned to reintroduce an accompanying allowance measure in favour of young people who are in waiting period after leaving school and who therefore are not yet entitled to waiting allowances.

These young people may receive a financial incentive provided that they undergo, under the conditions determined by the King, training or accompaniment in order to integrate them into the labour market. The accompanying allowance was previously provided in a royal decree of 6 October 2000. It is now reintroduced and supported by a budget of 1.3 million euros.

This initiative is in line with the logic of the Generation Pact which massively focuses on the stimulation of training as well as on the mixedness and transition between the school environment and the world of work. This is the first step taken today in the framework of the 2006 budget.

I will then address Articles 31 to 40 relating to sustainable development. The Secretary of State is no longer present, but I still continue my speech.

These articles create a global energy cost reduction fund that pursues two objectives: on the one hand, stimulating by structural measures of financial savings on the cost of energy in private homes for the target groups of the most disadvantaged and, on the other hand, providing cheap loans promoting overall energy reduction in private homes. The government thus intends to handle the difficulties of citizens facing the impact of rising fuel and fuel prices.

With this in mind, I will recall the initiative of the Minister of Finance that provided for a state intervention in the payment of household bills for domestic fuel. It is in the continuation of this reflection that the Fund in question was created.

Regional energy auditing instruments will be used to study structural measures that can lead to effective reductions in energy bills.

The text of the bill, however, is limited to giving the general organizational lines of the fund and many issues still need to be resolved, in particular with regard to the practical application of the measure to grant loans at reduced interest rates. The implementation arrangements must ensure that the resources will be used efficiently. by

A maximum of resources must actually be allocated to energy-saving work. Finally, objective criteria will need to be specified with regard to the way of selecting the houses that can benefit from the works, in order to avoid any local arbitrary. Finally, in order for the measure to be effective, the Minister must be able to rely on an adequate collaboration with the Regions. We discussed this for a long time now.

I come to Articles 42 to 62 which are the provisions relating to the integration of the maximum to be charged tax in the maximum to be charged "modest income", executed by the insurers. We are proposing a comprehensive correction of the system. This was ⁇ necessary for greater social efficiency. In the long run, in addition to the significant administrative simplification of the mechanism, this integration will allow mainly to reduce the costs related to the MAF but also to ease the workload of the administration of corporate taxation and income since the whole of this charge will then be executed by the insurers.

In addition, these changes will offer faster repayment to patients as well as broader social protection as, from now on, moderator tickets for master preparations as well as the delivery margin for implants will be taken into account. Finally, an important correction in our view will be to make every effort to avoid double payments. by

Article 69 also deserves our attention because it concretizes, for self-employed persons, the principle of reinsurance of moderators tickets for dental care of children under the age of twelve. Unquestionably, this measure gives us full satisfaction.

In this regard, let me go back for a moment on the other measures that will lead, during the year 2006, to a better accounting of a number of benefits in the mandatory insurance of self-employed persons. by

I therefore recall that this government issued an envelope of 19 million euros, considered as an exogenous factor, thus enabling the realization of several important projects in 2006. I mention, of course, the inclusion, on 1 July 2006, of small risks in the compulsory health care insurance for new self-employed and for self-employed pensioners in need — thus falling within the GRAPA; the extension of the scope of the Act of 1994 on the general regime to self-employed beneficiaries of collective debt settlement; the addition of four orphan medicines to the list of major risks and, finally, the addition of logopedic benefits not yet covered to the list of major risks.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, through this program law, we provide, in Article 70, the legal basis for the creation of an impulse fund for general medicine. This fund will be a financial support for general practitioners wishing to settle or regroup within collective practices. Certainly, the Action Plan 2006-2007 for the development of general medicine must, through this fund in particular, pay particular attention to the conditions of performance of our service providers. We must continue to focus on the administrative burden on service providers, sometimes at the expense of the patient, the sometimes excessive control of the INAMI and the degradation of certain rural areas. So many factors are sources of dismotivation that do not encourage our young doctors to practice in our country.

I draw attention to the fact that the terms of this fund will be transcribed through a royal decree. We will therefore, Mr. Minister, ensure that the established criteria are objective and correspond well to the necessity and reality of the field.

I will conclude by addressing Articles 79 to 81 which aim to strengthen the fight against fraud in contributions. The MR Group remains ⁇ committed to the goal of reducing social fraud. Our country is still in the queue of the peloton compared to the countries of the European Union. In 2004, it was estimated that social fraud accounted for approximately 20% of GDP. Such fraud deprives workers of essential social protection, undermines solidarity and amputates the public finances with a not negligible share of revenue that is due to them. Economically, they generate a phenomenon of unfair competition against companies that comply with the rules.

In this view, we fully endorse the various measures that are taken in this draft law-programme to reduce fraud on contributions (including the removal of the possibility of exempting and reducing the sanctions in case of proven fraud, increasing the penalty).

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the various points that I wanted to address during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, according to good practice, the Social Program Law has become a whole of measures of various kinds. Between a set of technical provisions, it still contains a few feathers that the government can comfortably put on its hat.

I would like to go deeper into two concrete examples. First, the service checks for self-employed and second, the accommodation of graduated youth.

For the self-employed, for example, the government has decided to add a new element to the social status in order to better combine work and family, this following the measure of early 2003 — in remembrance — which doubled the maternity leave for self-employed mothers. In the past, the debate has, in our opinion, been too focused on workers, while for self-employed workers the problem may be equally strong and even stronger.

The government decided to leave independent mothers the choice. Either help in the household through service checks, which by the current program law from 1 January 2006 is a fact – for which many young self-employed mothers will be grateful to the government, in my opinion – or assistance in the case or the company, but it is still under development. We will therefore see that measure concrete only in the course of next year. People who are self-employed cannot afford to be out of the running for three months. No work is no income for self-employed. Moreover, they see their business or business deteriorate when they are not there.

Another good example is the financial aid granted to graduate youth in waiting time who are following training or guidance as an incentive to integrate into the labour market. Since they are still entitled to child allowance and they retain their status as young in waiting time, the accompanying allowance is logically not considered a unemployment allowance. It is essential that young people are activated as soon as possible after school. The cause of long-term unemployment is not for nothing often the long-term itself. Many people who have nothing to do with their hands for too long automatically start to look fatalist to their situation and lose their motivation, their sense and their skills guidance so that they are no longer interested in the labour market and the labour market no longer for them. Certainly young people about whom the business community often complains that the qualifications they have obtained through education do not sufficiently correspond to the required skills on the workplace, in this way we believe they can be prepared for their job much more efficiently.

Mr. Minister of Social Affairs, the fight against social fraud has been an important point of discussion in the program law.

Mr. Minister of Pensions, severe sanctions are imposed on employers of retired workers who make mistakes, also on retired workers who make serious and repeated mistakes. Several members of the committee have called on you, Mr. Minister, for more legal clarity and also on the need for more information for pensioners. I would like to join you and ask you to launch an information campaign on what can and cannot. We said this in the committee too. For people, the boundary between a friend service and real work is often very vague and not always clear.

The penalties provided are heavy. Good information is absolutely necessary.

The Minister of Social Affairs has formulated some strange proposals on improving the collection of social contributions. It is not only the private employers who are mistaken. I note that you are taking two serious measures, Mr. Minister, with respect to the public institutions themselves, in the first instance with regard to public law legal entities who receive public subsidies but fail to fulfill their obligation to contribute. The government that subsidizes those public figures could already withdraw the contributions from the subsidy. You extend that scheme to public legal entities who receive subsidies from a subregion, to institutions that depend on the State or subregion, and also to private employers who receive subsidies from the government in the broad sense of the word. The arrangement raises the question of whether the arrangement has been discussed with the provinces as regards its development. Eventually, they will be asked to pay the social contributions to the RSZ.

Finally, I would like to make a comment on that preliminary point. Many institutions receive their grants too late, sometimes with years of delay. I refer to hospitals. Love must come from two sides. If the government expects a timely payment and assumes serious coercive measures, the government must also pay out its subsidies timely. I think there needs to be a balance at that point and therefore there is still work on the shop.

Another striking measure in the struggle for better collection of social contributions is the extension of the limitation period, which is brought to 7 years for employers who are obliged to make their declarations through the Central Service for Benefits.

Finally, in response to a question from Ms. Lanjri, you stated, Mr. Minister, that there are problems with 61 government agencies. Apparently, the central service has not been able to submit better statements since 2002. The central service would also not have submitted a declaration concerning the additional fees arising from the new police statute, for the period from April to December 2001. This would result in the amount of due and open contributions rising to 200 million euros. There is still a lot of work on the shop.

I haven’t seen Mrs. Burgeon yet.

Per ⁇ Mr. Verherstraeten can give us the pleasure of developing his argument.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, maybe we should some time make an evaluation of this meeting with regard to the organization of the program law and the laws of various provisions. I have not seen a PS colleague in the banks today all day. However, we will amend very important provisions here.

Mr. Minister, I would like to work with you above all on the legal framework relating to the infamous Amendment No. 29. The King shall be given the opportunity to take all useful measures in order to transfer pension obligations to the State. Those powers shall be conferred until the end of 2006. There is a ratification clause from the legislator.

In the explanatory note to the amendment, which has been included in the present draft, I read that it is a rational transaction in the interest of all stakeholders and that it is a good thing for the staff concerned. In this case, we are dealing here with a typical hidden language use. In reality, of course, it is not a rational transaction. As so many rightly have already written and proclaimed, in reality, one wants to virtually balance the 2005 budget. It is intended in the coming days to take over the pension funds of the NMBS and the Antwerp Port Company and thus collect more than 500 million euros and put on the account of 2005.

Colleagues, as you know, one is not assigned to his test piece. I refer to Belgacom, BIAC and Belgocontrol. We have been selling our buildings for years and renting them for a large part. In fact, with these types of operations we take huge risks, because we obscure the reality. Just as a company sometimes struggles to mould out profits in order to avoid taxes, we are currently moulding out losses and deficits. In this way, we give an appearance that does not coincide with reality at all.

Apparently, this will not even be enough to balance the 2006 budget. Today I am not talking about the effectification of the tax debt, about the regularization, about the creative patrimony or about the management of the burden. They say that will not even be enough. We are still silent about the Silver Fund.

However, I would like to put some legal comments on the article on the possible transfer of pension obligations to the Belgian State.

First, there is a consensus in politics – and this is right – that we should indeed keep working a little longer. However, our concern is that if that hard-working Flaming has to work longer, he has the right to a guarantee on a problemless old day. If we look at the latest budgets and the present program law, we still think that that problemless old day for that hardworking Flaming is not guaranteed.

Colleagues, when we consider the acquisition of pension funds from public legal entities, we must be honest and dare to say that this is a very extensive delegation of powers. The State Council was not able to give an opinion on this subject because the formal requirements were not met. Furthermore, the opinion requested by the Government was limited to three elements, namely the legal basis, the authority of the plaintiff and whether the formal requirements in this regard were met.

Colleagues, I would like to quote the State Council statement on this subject: "In such a short period of time, the State Council must necessarily limit its investigation, even with regard to the three points. The State Council, which, however, has used all of its resources, is thus made unable to pay sufficient attention to the draft and can therefore not deliver work that meets the quality requirements that the Government and Parliament can expect from the Legislative Division. However, this legal contribution is a factor that promotes the harmonious functioning of the rule of law.”

Colleagues, I think that, especially if we go to an exception, namely an extensive delegation of powers that does not affect the prerogatives of the Chamber, however, some more serious legislative work is in place, at the risk of getting problems later. Actually, we have no advice now. If we look at previous opinions of the State Council regarding the special powers, the delegation of powers together with the present text, then I think that we are not acting without risk. The state takes on a lot of obligations and receives money in exchange for them. The question is whether there is a balance.

Colleagues, if the operation is not fully balanced, we might not be in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the European Treaty. It prohibits aid measures to companies that could adversely affect trade. There is a risk that those measures will be subsequently abolished or at least limited by the European Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Tobback is competent to do this, but I do not see him.

I think this is a very concrete question. I want to wait for Minister Tobback for the European part.

Mr. Speaker, this gives us the opportunity to ask a question to Mr. Verherstraeten. Unfortunately, we did not hear your party yesterday in the board of directors of the Pension Fund of the Port Company. We know that sp.a and VLD have become heavily damaged by the entire pension construction. I didn’t know it was CD&V. In Antwerp, she was not on our side. That the Socialist Trade Union participated in this operation, until then. But on our side was fortunately the Christian trade union and the liberal trade union, but not the CD&V itself. They came on behalf of the city administration to plead that it must be removed. In addition, we have an amendment, colleague, aiming at removing the article on this whole operation from the program law. For now, your group proposes only to send a report to the Chamber. If you want a radical solution, you should be more inclined to the Flemish Interest solution and you should call your Antwerp colleagues.

We have an amendment on this subject that deals with the essence of the story. I come here to the issue of compliance with the European Treaty. If there are transfers as such, they must be balanced. Are the rights received in accordance and in accordance with the obligations assumed? If you want to do this decently then I think that the amendment, as submitted by colleague D'hondt, college Lanjri and myself, can provide an important answer to that. If it is balanced, then I see no problems in itself. The problem is that this is very difficult to measure.

You assume the hypothesis that it could be a good operation, provided that this would be shown from a report. But in principle, you have no opposition to the method. At least not in Antwerp, and therefore not here.

If our amendment had become legislation, if this could have happened in advance, we could have measured it better. If this is not the case, if that would be unbalanced, then either the State is the dupe, or the Port or the NMBS or other public enterprises. If public enterprises could make a very advantageous transaction with it, then the question arises – and that was actually my question to you, Mr. Minister, whether this is compatible with the European Treaty and more specifically with Articles 87 and 88. My question for you is whether, with regard to the transactions that the government is currently doing and possibly the one that it still wants to carry out, the European Commission has already been informed?

Has the Government informed the European Commission of the transactions which it is currently undertaking and possibly of the transactions which belong to its intentions? If so, has the European Commission already made comments on this?

Bruno Tobback: Mr. Speaker, in order to reassure Mr. Verherstraeten, I would like to refer to the discussion of the amendment in the committee, where it was clearly stated, also in the justification, that such operations are based on the principle of balance and equality in the takeover of the obligations and the takeover of the reserves and the funds provided to cover those obligations. In principle, this also happened in these two operations. Whether that happened until the last figure after the comma, one will of course have to see in the future, but in principle in this the obligations are covered by the resources that are taken over from the various public companies. Otherwise, it would indeed be state aid and this measure is not intended for.

If there is a balance, it seems to me in accordance with the European Treaty. I want to be intellectually honest. Only, of course, from our position, it is very difficult to be able to properly judge the balance of that operation. Per ⁇ the facts will have to judge a lot about it.

My question was whether the European Commission was informed in advance of this operation?

Bruno Tobback: If you ask me, it is not customary for such operations to ask for prior authorisation or to report to the European Commission. If there are comments from the European Commission, we will, of course, respond correctly. But then you should first address the Minister of Budget, in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat with regard to the Minister what I said in the committee, knowing that it was not only elegant, but almost necessary, when we were confronted with this proposal in the committee, that we were provided with an actuarial calculation which showed us that, in the long run, the benefits that now exist as a result of recovering the — whether or not existing; that is another separate discussion — reserves, are in accordance with the pension charges that will be borne.

First, allow me — I have also said that in the committee, and I would very much like to say that I was mistaken — to say that the crawl on my elbows tells me that this will not be the case. If I had such a very lucrative greenhouse, one would ⁇ not get them! They would not get them! There must be a fly somewhere! That was my first point.

Second, if I didn’t need the money to balance my budget, I ⁇ ’t ask those companies. In short, the eardrum on my elbows tells me that the invoice may be presented to us someday.

Mr. Minister, this plays a longer-term role and does not immediately weigh on the budget, although, of course, it is the budget for 2005 that you still want to balance.

If I wanted to believe that it was not about balancing the budget, but about a future plan, about a visionary matter, then I would underline this with figures that show to the commissioners who are interested in it — and that should be the whole House — that we are indeed doing a good operation, not for the one-year budget, but for the pension systems of this country.

To get closer, I must be honest, I feel the ejection on my elbows that we are getting a subjugated child here. When I feel it so strongly, I rarely make a mistake. But I would like to admit that I was mistaken if the figures show that.

It is neither a lucrative cabinet that sat at the port company of Antwerp, nor a subordinate child. It is, ⁇ with regard to the port of Antwerp, a closed package; the new pensions are already at pool 2 of the RSZPPO. For the old current pensions, current liabilities and a number of future, but very limited, there was an own reserve. The port company does not make profits or losses. This account is in principle neutral. We know what it is about, we know what future obligations are and we also know what is being transferred.

The same applies to the NMBS. If that company borrows to transfer those resources, it means that it was neither a profitable cabinet nor a subordinate child. In addition to the commitments we take on, there are resources to cover those commitments in the future.

Mr. Minister, I must honestly say that in this regard I have somewhat more confidence in Mr. D'Hondt's elbow feeling than in the statements you now make. When you negotiate with government companies in the time frame within which you now have to do so, with the date of December 31 before you, you are actually negotiating with your back to the wall. Then it is fucking difficult to negotiate. If the fears of colleague D’Hondt eventually come true, we are still facing problems with regard to the European Convention and there could be subsequent measures that would require the law that is adopted today, and the implementing provisions that follow, to be abandoned or amended.

Mr. Speaker, I try to be shorter and engage in the time frame. There is not only the problem of European regulation. There is also a problem with our Constitution. We are clearly dealing here with a very broad delegation of powers, much wider than our Constitution actually allows in this regard. In order to gain some time, Mr. Speaker, I will not go into this issue very thoroughly. In this regard, I would like to refer to the colleagues to the book of Professor Velaers on this subject, since he has done a study concerning the delegations of powers over the years in Belgian politics. The doctrine of law, however, is very clear and unambiguous that, if we give special powers, it must be done in factual circumstances that are very exceptional, in crisis circumstances, that it must be very limited periods, that the special powers must be very accurately defined and that they must be in accordance with the Constitution and with supranational rules.

Colleagues, in addition, special powers can only in crisis circumstances. We can sovereignly judge whether the crisis conditions exist. However, our judgment of opportunity is not unlimited. It is not unlimited. The proportionality principle also applies. Both by nature, duration and scale, the measure must be proportionate to the crisis situations presented herein.

When we look at the explanation of the amendment, we see that there is no reference to exceptional circumstances or crisis situations. If we can trust the government and its spokesmen, then there are no problems in our country and there is no problem with the budget. The Dutch government did not declare war on us last week.

What are the crisis situations and the exceptional situations that justify that special powers are granted to the government here today?

Second, we are talking about the limited period. Experience shows that an average period lasts about six months. Here it will be for a year. Colleagues, a year is quite long, especially since the government at this time for the first time intends to take over the pension funds of the NMBS and the port company of Antwerp before 31 December 2005. She will fix it in a few weeks. Why should special powers be given for more than a year?

I come to the exact description. Article 105 of the Constitution requires that there must be an explicit grant. The law must explicitly state the purposes, nature and extent of the special powers. In this regard, I would like to quote from an established jurisprudence of the Council of State: “A law of authorization should not only specify the purposes and purposes for which the special powers are granted. Furthermore, and above all, it must precisely determine the matters in which those powers may be exercised, as well as the precise extent of the rules which the King may issue." or yet: "It is important, first of all, that the law does not intend to specify general objectives, but clearly specifies which matters are intended and, where appropriate, specifies for a particular matter what is involved in the authorization and what is held outside it. In addition, when authorisation is granted for special purposes, it is appropriate that the text of the draft law formulates those purposes clearly and clearly. These objectives are co-determining the extent of the powers that can be conferred on the government. Special powers, which are not outstanding with the purposes underlying the draft, threaten to grant the King an unlimited authority, except for the finding that for the granting of those powers the accountability required by the Constitution is lacking.

Colleagues, this is not mentioned here, neither in the legislative text, nor in the explanation. It will also not be shown in the preparatory works. However, this is important, because once the decisions have been issued, a judicial review may take place in application of Article 159 of the Constitution, to verify whether this delegation power has taken place in accordance with the law and the Constitution. I assume that the actual ratification contained in the original amendment and now in the approved article serves to circumvent the judicial test. It seems to be written constitutionally.

I come to the fourth principle, the respect for higher rules of law. It must be in accordance with the Constitution. It must be in accordance with special laws and supranational provisions. I would like to refer again to the European Treaty.

Colleagues, if we examine these four conditions — and I refer not only to Verraes, but also to Professor Alen who has published about them — we must conclude that there are no special crisis circumstances here. There are no special exceptional circumstances here that justify the granting of such an extensive special power to the King. The circumstances are not there and at least they are not proven. In this case, we want to close a gap in the budget.

Second, the period is also far too long, ⁇ given the fact that one needs to balance the budget before 31 December. Third, it is not a precise description at all. Let us review the text again. What is in the article? The King can take all useful measures. This is not about public legal entities. It is about public legal entities, so private companies, such as Aquafin and VZWs, are also eligible. In other words, this criterion is also not respected. We fear that the fourth criterion, in particular compliance with, among other things, supranational rules, will also not be respected.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I come to a decision. If in another European country, for example in the Netherlands, a minister in line-up with such a bill went to the Second Chamber, he would be flown back. The European Commission will be able to verify the effectiveness of these operations. In the future, it will be able to verify whether this operation is in compliance with the European Treaty. Subsequently, it will have to verify whether this is not implicitly a covered form of government aid, which could actually adversely affect competition and free trade.

I fear that this government will have to do a lot of lobbying. I fear that, first of all, the Deputy Prime Minister and also the Minister of Budget will have to use all its charms to, for example, ask the Prime Minister of the Netherlands on its knees to provide his support to bring these rules into conformity with Eurostat and to obtain the approval of Eurostat.

There will be a lot of goodwill from foreign colleagues to get those operations approved.

You take those risks! Those risks could have the effect that, after approval in the Chamber and signature by the King, the European Commission will a posteriori withdraw all the provisions or destroy them altogether. Then we are even further from home. If that is the case, CD&V will regret that, because it is played with future generations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, Colleagues, on behalf of the VLD, I would like to explain our position on the section "public health" in the Social Program Law.

The main provision in this Program Act is undoubtedly the integration of the tax maximum invoice into the social maximum invoice with some accompanying measures such as the integration of new benefits into the maximum invoice and the abolition of the highest ceiling. This will undoubtedly lead to a better protection of the patient than is currently the case. Since the introduction of the maximum invoice, the VLD has insisted on an evaluation of the system. To date, it has not yet been fully implemented. We ask that to be able to verify that there is no misuse of the system.

With regard to medicines, they advocate for better practices in prescribing and taking medicines. In it, the government sets out provisions on prescribing: not only what doctors and dentists prescribe is determined by the government, but also how much they prescribe. The pharmacists will be involved in the future to better support the patient’s therapeutic loyalty. We will very carefully examine whether those measures really allow for a more correct use of medicines and savings in the sector.

In the past few months, we have been able to see a small war between politics and the pharmaceutical sector. I think that page has been overturned. The fact remains that the charges for pharmaceutical companies are very high. The VLD can find in the law a number of provisions that give a positive evolution. There will only be a tax, which will give more clarity to the pharmaceutical companies. The claw back system is abolished. A reserve fund is established which is financed by the pharmaceutical companies and the amounts remain owned by the companies. The system as a whole will be more transparent.

There are also some structural measures for this sector. For example, a system is introduced in which the pharmaceutical companies can lower the price of their specialties themselves, and all this up to 2% of the total turnover. The companies can therefore decide which specialties are eligible for a price reduction of at least 5%. In this way, of course, the costs can be pressured and the companies themselves have a grip on the efforts they make. Their

Also positive in this case is that the taxes on the pharmaceutical companies will be proportionate to the investments they make in Belgium. Our country is known for innovations in the field of medicines. We can only welcome such an initiative. So pharmaceutical companies that invest heavily in scientific research, in new medicines put a lot of people to work here. Therefore, they pay a lot of social contributions and taxes and should be rewarded for that. Their

Finally, Mr. Minister, I would like to talk about the legal basis created for the establishment of an Impulse Fund for the establishment of general physicians. I have asked you a question about this in the committee. I think this is a positive initiative. However, I have some concerns about this decision. I also agree with the comments of the State Council. Their

There may be some more specifications. Mr. Minister, I have understood from your reply in the committee that, as regards the establishment premiums for general practitioners, you do not want to invest so much in infrastructure, in the physical cooperation of general practitioners, but that you are talking about cooperation through networks, about synergies through existing or still being established systems. Their

Everything remains a little vague. I would like more clarity on this. Installation premiums can go up to 30,000 euros. However, can you specify this more. Their

I regret, however, that there has been no substantial debate in Parliament on such an important measure and that the executive power has drawn the leaf completely to itself.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Demotte for clarification on two issues. My first question concerns the program law, my second the law containing various provisions. Their

Let me start with the volunteers. Last summer, the law that regulates the status of volunteers was adopted. What in this House, over the majority and opposition, was considered a happy moment, now threatens to pursue us because the so necessary implementation decisions are left behind. Their

While last summer the volunteer organizations breathed relief and were happy that this statute had finally come into being, we now, I think it is not less on your cabinet, especially many questions — the number increases from day to day — from volunteers and their organizations that see January 1 approaching. Their

There is, of course, a six-month transition period, but people still want to know what the state of affairs is when the law enters into force on 1 January. There are no implementation decisions, Mr. Minister. On 26 October, I questioned you on this issue in the committee. You have said that you are doing everything possible so that before the date at least the most important implementation decisions would be there.

Mr. Minister, today the organizations working with volunteers are overwhelmed with offers from all possible insurance companies, offering their policies, from the less expensive to the most expensive. They do not know sufficiently what offer they should take and what they will have to insure.

When will the implementing decisions be made? In addition to the insurance, there is also uncertainty about the organizational note. This should also be regulated by an implementing decision. Where are we standing? What is the state of affairs? When can we count on this?

I have a second question to Minister Demotte, concerning the commercial cars.

We talked about this in the committee. I expressed my concerns about what was on the table and also made a proposal for amendment. This proposal did not succeed. I hope, Mr. Minister, that in the meantime you have also encountered the necessary pressure from the sector to make a arrangement that does not require the payment of the solidarity contribution on commercial vehicles, in the cases discussed in the committee. I repeat my example of the electricians who usually go to the factory with two and yet hardly, by the law we were producing, can pick up a third on the road to cover 80% of the road with it. I ask you to make that arrangement so that our electricians can still be on the road with two and the car with which they move could also be a commercial car and therefore not subject to the solidarity contribution.

Mr. Minister, you would like to confirm here in the plenary session that for the bonafide, well-controlled and in order undertakings, which are therefore determined by inspection that they are fully in order with the hopefully amended provisions on the solidarity contribution on commercial vehicles in 2006, the retroactive force registered in the law for 2005 would not apply?

We must also dare to look at the timing within which any adjustments could still take place. I will be grateful for the answers to those questions.

Speakers have had their beurt. I ask the government how it intends to formulate its answers. Are you going to distribute the work? I would like to give the floor to Mr. Demote and then to MM. Vanvelthoven and Dupont to answer the general questions before addressing the specific questions that arose at the end of the debate?

Mr. Speaker, I will answer briefly to the various speakers, starting with our colleague, Mr. and Goutry. When, joining a topic discussed by others, he appeals to the measures that have been taken in the field of medicine policy, I found his statement very nuanced; it was indeed very correct in his analysis. The project actually contains shadow areas that call for information supplements.

Thus, an important issue is that of controlling the cost of the drug. Today, many molecules are on the market. In particular, he talked about products available in the form of brands. He cited the number of 10,000, and I think the order of magnitude is reasonable. In this regard, the public authority must provide information tools that clarify things. What is our difficulty? The first difficulty we encountered is that we are not currently fighting with equal weapons with the firms that distill information on medicines. The means of promoting firms are extremely important; this point has also been discussed during the review of the Health Act. I have even recalled that, in some international studies, the funds devoted to information or advertising of firms are superior to the funds devoted to research. by

In the face of this, we have a few instruments which, though small, remain no less important. One of them was recalled this morning at a meeting attended by Mr. Goutry is the CBIP. This is an information site, which allows to obtain information about available medicines. This site is probably refinable, because it is a very beautiful tool, which allows a healthcare provider to obtain information through elements that, in my opinion, could, tomorrow, be refined in order, for example, to allow a comparison between medicines. It is not enough to know the molecule. It is not enough to know the conditioning. It is still necessary to know certain elements, such as those relating to excipients, which are not always very readable at the moment, and which, if I am not mistaken, do not appear as such on this site.

In addition, we put resources at the disposal of ASBL such as Farmaca.be. They are composed of independent delegates who can provide information. In this regard, we are present with a difficulty of another nature. Indeed, when we send independent delegates to doctors, we must not lose sight of the fact that their number is much lower than that of firms. Then, neither should we give the impression that the advice they are going to give are health economics advice that does not take into account scientific elements. Sometimes, one tries to make them believe that they are kinds of missi dominici of Public Health having a more focused look on the cost of the medication than on its therapeutic quality. by

This is not the case, but it is a prejudice that needs to be overcome today.

The third instrument. I asked the ACRM and a number of ad hoc bodies to give me concrete proposals on the implementation of a database that can be recorded on PDAs, so that when doctors visit their patients, they do not fall into the trap of inexploitable overinformation. Based on a given molecule, we could thus obtain accurate information that allows to prescribe, at the lowest cost, the best product indicated.

I am looking forward to seeing doctors have this system. This is by no means a gadget, it is quite useful! This system also responds to a correction we make in the texts we vote for, in particular on the issue of the adjustment between the time when the new price lists of medicines are announced and the gap with the reference price. You know the problem well. Some people do not have the information, the slightly more expensive molecules continue to be prescribed to them and they must pay the difference from their pocket, via the moderator ticket.

In the case of the withdrawal of a drug from the market at the lowest cost, we also correct the legislation. It would also be useful that the provider is immediately notified by a system that must be able to be updated online. It would be enough to connect the PDA to the internet from time to time in order to update the data.

With regard to the “payable” nature of the drug policy, information is at the heart of our concern. Intelligent savings measures cannot be distinguished from more comprehensive information given to the patient through mutual partners, which also have an important role to play, and to healthcare providers. This is the role of public authorities.

Regarding the question of the tender and the kiwi model, I have always said—even when some came up here at the tribune, convinced that it was an absolute model—that a model of fruit basket is better than a single fruit in the basket.

In this case, kiwi is an interesting model in some aspects. Indeed, for some molecules, a call to the market can be made in order to have the lowest prices. On this basis, the State could reimburse these products more than those that did not win the appeal. These drugs are then doubly interesting: on the one hand, they are cheaper for society and the individual; on the other hand, they are better repaid. By doing so and putting the products that could be the subject of this category B refund bidding and the others in category C, a differential of interest for the person is created. Does the system allow us to go too far? We have to start with blockbuster products. Among the blockbusters are anti-cholesterol. This is where we started the discussion about the Kiwi model. The second type of blockbuster we could put in this basket are IPP products, that is, that act on the production of gastric juice.

If we start with these two products and obtain results, we will demonstrate the usefulness of this process, ⁇ also for other products.

I now come to the use of this tender procedure for products that are not refunded. This is one of the proposals. I am someone who needs indications and studies and, a priori, I am not closed to proposals of this nature. But I ⁇ ’t want the medical culture not to be changed at the same time as this new system is introduced. It cannot be considered that the public authorities are solely responsible for the behavior towards medicines. Rules can be invented that create behaviors, but it also requires the voluntary participation of prescribers, in particular. Here comes the delicate question of therapeutic freedom.

If bidding blocks exceed a molecule and make that, for drugs whose indications may be the same without the molecules being identical, one drug is supported by the government and the other abandoned, you also create a situation in which the average consumer-patient is not prepared. Moreover, if the prescriber does not wish to inform his patient, it creates an extremely strong tension between the needs of people, which are often expressed in terms of brand – since they do not refer to molecules – and what is prescribed, which will be a single product, refunded or not, favoured by this tender procedure. by

It will be necessary to demonstrate finesse in the methods to be established. In any case, we cannot maintain the current situation. I will give you an example that has hit my mind recently: it is that of vaccines. I heard people claiming this morning that we should expand the common purchasing methods for certain vaccines. This seems to me a very good idea. But the mental revolution has not yet taken place, including in our institutions. When I speak to the Communities, I recall that the interest is not to buy a vaccine in the German, French or Flemish Communities, but to have a whole market, so that then the Communities organize the distribution, according to their competences. I can tell you, Mr. Goutry, looking straight in your eyes, that it is difficult for us at present to convince the institutions of such an elementary choice as this one. Mental revolutions still have to happen.

As for the "claw-back" system, on which at least two speakers asked questions, I think it showed its limits. This system is based on a relatively incorrect principle, as the actors are only indirectly and a posteriori liable. by

Personally, I think it is better to take responsibility in a more direct way. So I decided to change the rules of the game. In the previous situation, if the budget given to medicines was 100 at the beginning and reached at the end of the year to 110, it was then said that the pharmaceutical industry would pay about sixty percent of those 110, the other actors would still intervene on one side, and then we had the feeling that "the sky is the limit".

There is a refund in part by those who are responsible. But the basic budgetary objective was, in my opinion, underestimated — I also proved it by raising it. We were in a somewhat hypocritical logic where it was said "we put the bar at 100" while it should have been at 105 or 110, and then we corrected anyway at the end.

Here, we have raised the bar, quite significantly, in the order of several tens of percent in total over the last few years. Now that the bar is at a reasonable level, it makes sense to say that the industry can constitute a fund, and that this fund is the guarantee of compliance with the budget objective. It is easier for the industry, and clearer in accounting terms. Indeed, the industry will no longer have to say a posteriori "I have not given enough, I must give a little more", which on the one hand turns the methods of accounting of the industry itself, and on the other hand, puts it before an uncertainty also in relation to its shareholders: it never knows exactly where it is going in terms of industrial development, since there is a catchback from what has been exceeded over the previous year.

In this case, we have a reserve fund of 100 million euros, which are not the property of the state but remain the heritage of the industry.

If the industry, in the context of setting a more realistic budget, ⁇ ins the budget objective with us — we have every interest in working together — those 100 million euros remain the property of the industry. If, on the other hand, at some point, we let things go, we will recover no more than sixty percent as it was the case, but 100% of these amounts since the fund must be reconstituted by the industry.

This is a debate, Mr. Goutry, we are not in a manichean situation where some are absolutely right and others absolutely wrong. However, I think that the philosophy of this system is justified at least as much as the previous one.

Questions were also asked about the role of doctors and especially general doctors, first-line doctors. I think the medical-mutuellist agreements already provide an answer to the questions that have been asked about installation costs. It was Ms. Dierickx who feared that the definition of installation costs was not sufficiently accurate and therefore that the executive power abuses its authority to take action in this area. I can reassure her: the medicomutuellist agreement provides that the interlocutors who are the major actors of the system themselves very quickly make proposals for these installation costs. I think that is the best way to follow. A priori, approximately five million euros were devoted to these costs. Second, with regard to the role of general practitioners, you will have found that we have made a commitment to the revaluation of intellectual acts in general medicine and in hospital specialized medicine which was the subject of a long discussion last year and continues this year. The Medicomut agreement goes in the same direction from an agreement built by the actors themselves. I dare to think that we did not make a mistake. by

I would like to conclude with the questions posed by our colleague Mrs D'Hondt, in particular on the status of volunteers. Several points remain suspended. The first of them is the question of insurance, the royal decree on insurance. I am not inclined to put responsibility on others when there is no reason to do so. However, I can tell you that the Royal Decree on Insurance is still in the hands of my colleague Mr. by Verwilghen. As long as we do not have the elements to move forward, we are blocked. I would like to invite you to ask this question to my excellent colleague Mr. Verwilghen, as kindly as you did in my place.

The second point concerns the cumulative with unemployment benefits. The drafting of the text is underway and I am assured that the text may be ready in January. The third point relates to control and concerns my colleague Peter Vanvelthoven. I’m not going to replace him, but I know things are going on at his home. With regard to commercial cars, the last topic discussed, are improvements possible through a bill? I think yes. The contacts with the sector seem reasonable to me and can lead to a text that I will support. by

The agenda, I talked about it with the chairman of the House recently. by Mr. The President tells me that we can start an emergency procedure on your request and that from January 9th we can start it. The latter question concerns the retroactive nature to 2005 for companies that provided in 2006 proof that they are correct. It is clear that if they are in order for 2006, we will not bored them for

Does anyone want to replicate?

Mr. Speaker, I would have wanted to ask a question to Minister Verwilghen, but he is not here now.

He was here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit my question to Mr. Verwilghen on another occasion.

To Minister Vanvelthoven, I have another question about the implementation of the Volunteer Statute, as regards the organizational note. Minister Demotte is also working on this.

Is January a timing for you?

Peter Vanvelthoven: Mrs. D'Hondt, I can

Peter Vanvelthoven, today we are not stuck on a date, but we are indeed working on it. I will return to this in the committee meeting, at another occasion.

I close the discussion of the chapter.

We will discuss the section "Development Cooperation". We initiate the discussion of the volet "Cooperation to Development".

Two speakers are registered: Ms. Wiaux and Mr. by Boukourna. I welcome the presence of Minister De Decker. We will then conclude the general discussion and we can close the afternoon session. After a short break, we will address the articles, long and many. Voting will probably take place from 18.30 or 18.40 hours. Please warn those who should be.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all apologize to the Minister of Cooperation, present this morning, while I was in the committee; I arrived too late. Thank you for coming back for a few very short, positive words about the articles of the law-program that concern you.

The CDH supports the provisions of the Program Law relating to the implementation of a voluntary service for development cooperation. We support them especially since this idea has been promoted for a few years by the CDH; a bill had also been filed during the previous legislature.

However, I will express a little regret that I already expressed in the committee in October: this project of voluntary service of collective utility is limited to the framework of development cooperation alone. This is ⁇ a step in the right direction, but we think such projects could go further.

We find it appropriate to diversify the supply of services of collective use to meet in particular the expectations of young people as well as the needs of society as a whole. We therefore believe that such a service could be made accessible to young people who wish to invest in a project in Belgium, for example, in the areas of social action and solidarity, culture and education, environment, civil protection, and many more. I know, however, that here we encounter the complexity of the matters and of our institutions.

Nevertheless, I dare to imagine that, based on the experience of this voluntary service for development cooperation, we will be able to quickly draw a first assessment and learn from it, which will allow us to question you, Mr. Minister, either here or in a committee, but also to improve and refine a voluntary service of collective utility.

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. The first concerns the creation of a separate management state service for passports, visas and identity cards for Belgians abroad, as well as their legalization. The second concerns the creation of a voluntary service of collective utility, which was just discussed by my colleague.

The creation within the SPF Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation to develop a service that allows separate management of passports, visas and identity cards for Belgians abroad seems to me a very good element that testifies to a concern for healthy management and modernization of our consular services. We hope that this will be the case and that this effort will continue and strengthen. Furthermore, the establishment of a voluntary service in development cooperation seems to us to obey a very interesting principle, consisting in allowing young people between 20 and 30 years of age to take a training organized by the Belgian Technical Cooperation and, subsequently, to put themselves at the disposal of a developing country for a period of one to three years, and thus to acquire a first professional experience.

Applicants who meet the conditions may be hired by the Belgian Technical Cooperation under a contract of employment governed by Belgian legislation. They will also be able to be integrated into projects under NGOs or international institutions, partners of multilateral cooperation.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a few questions about this voluntary service for development cooperation:

What will be the selection procedure? What will be the criteria? How can we ensure that less skilled young people can benefit from this measure? It is worth paying attention to the diversity of candidates engaged in this service.

- What will be the formation of Belgian technical cooperation? How long will it last? What will be its content? by

- How will youth volunteer service be articulated in the programmes and projects of Belgian technical cooperation with those of NGOs and partner international institutions?

What will be the status of these engaged young people? Has a trade union consultation been planned in this regard?

If the creation of such a service is interesting, there are many questions about its establishment. But we hope that through periodic evaluations, Parliament will be involved in the establishment of this voluntary service. For our part, we will pay attention to this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Wiaux and Mr. Bourkourna for their comments on this creation of a voluntary service for development cooperation. I am delighted — and I take advantage of the opportunity I am given to thank the members of the House — of the broad support that this government initiative has received.

Ms. Wiaux said she regrets that this new voluntary service cannot be extended to other areas of activity of federal, regional and community public authorities. Madame, you will have noticed that if we amend the program law it is because, in order not to waste time and to respond to the objections of the State Council, we amend the Belgian Technical Cooperation Act (the CTB).

Initially, the government had decided to create this voluntary service for development cooperation on the basis of the law of 11 April 2003 which was adopted by the House, which was not mentioned by the Senate, but whose implementation decisions have not been taken. This law would enable the extension of voluntary service in the armed forces — it was also for this reason that it was created — but also in all other sectors of activity of the federal authority. It is therefore not excluded, Mrs. Wiaux, that the law of 11 April 2003 is implemented a little later.

In the framework that we ultimately chose in compliance with the opinions of the State Council, young people — Mr. Boukourna explained well that these were young people between 20 and 30 years old – they will be able to perform a volunteer service. To do this, they must have at least a secondary degree. You are concerned, Mr. Boukourna, about the real possibility that will be offered to the least qualified to perform this service.

By definition, a selection will be made. Hundreds of candidates will likely appear while hundreds of volunteers per year will be recruited. So we decided to make a royal decree aiming to base the selection essentially on the motivation and on — I would say — the overall balance of the young people we are going to send on mission.

In fact, it is obvious that it is not necessarily an easy experience to find yourself at 20, 21 or 23 years in a developing country, charged with particular responsibilities and living an entirely new experience. The motivation and overall balance of the candidate are elements that will be very widely taken into account. by

They will receive training first in Brussels, at the CTB, which is used to provide training for development cooperation and then they will be sent to one of the 18 partner countries of Belgium, where our agents present on the ground will frame them during their volunteer service. These 18 countries include officials from the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and CTB. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone, the CTB has no less than 135 agents spread across the ten provinces. These agents will guide these young people, accompany them, guide them, advise them, and also oversee them in order to examine how they will perform their duties.

Of course, the consequence of organizing this voluntary service is the application of social status. It was decided to remunerate them at the level of the guaranteed minimum wage with, of course, the social framework that would apply to any other person who would benefit from this status. The creation of this service is the subject of a trade union consultation, which has just taken place or which is underway and of which I do not yet have the results.

Here, Mr. Speaker, are a few comments that will reassure honorable parliamentarians. I thank them, in any case, for their support for this very important project, inasmuch as it responds very widely to a real motivation of a large part of the youth and where the development cooperation of Europe with the third world, especially with Africa, will take on ever-increasing proportions. by

You have seen that the transition process, the electoral process, has been very successful in Burundi, that the constitutional referendum took place in the Congo under relatively good conditions. This encourages us to believe that these countries are on the path of change. Therefore, if this change takes place, it is obvious that the international community will still intervene advantage to help them. In this context, it is good that many Belgian young people are trained for this ⁇ enthusiastic task that is to take care of the development of these countries.

Dec. 21, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Yes, Mr the President.

Mr. Casaer already told me yesterday that he refers to his written report.

Ms. Galant and Percriaux refer to their written report.

Mr Van Biesen has the word for his report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, most colleagues remember that last year, during the discussion of the program law, when I was also a rapporteur, we presented the discussion and the article-by-article discussion quite extensively.

As a footnote, it was then made clear that the method by which a program law was pursued in the committees was no longer of this time.

This year shows that the program law, as it has been dealt with in the Committee on Finance and Budget, seriously undermines the democratic rights of Chamber members and the debate. Very often we were confronted with oral explanations of the minister on texts we received only later, which we had to discuss almost immediately within a few seconds upon receipt and approve or reject.

We would like to protest against this process, Mr. Speaker of the Chamber. This can no longer be done by the bucket. A government that respects the Chamber and a Chamber that respects itself is a Chamber without program law.

As a form of protest, I therefore refer to the written report.

I can share some data.

I would like to return to the reporting itself. I would like to join the other reporter and support what he said. Another reason why we refer to the report was that we couldn’t decide between us who would deal with which part. Since the services, as we are used to, have prepared the report magnificently, we can safely refer to it. Their

On the banks we found the report of the discussion that took place last afternoon in our committee. In the last instance, two amendments were submitted there by the Government, which I would like to briefly report on, precisely because this discussion took place just yesterday. A first amendment by the government aimed to partially withdraw a previously approved amendment submitted by several colleagues of the majority. The Government was of the opinion that the previously approved amendment went too far, in the sense that certain collective investment funds — for that was the case — would be exempt from tax, while the original amendment was merely intended to avoid double taxation.

A second amendment by the Government concerned the omission of a deadline that was not intended for some provisions. In the discussion that followed, colleague Tommelein declared his agreement with the amendments and colleague Devlies declared his opposition to the amendments, while your servant Roppe again denied the art and flight work that preceded the taxation measure of ICBs.

I also had questions about the reasoning of the first amendment and the possible discrimination in the taxation of investment institutions. After the Minister had the necessary technical explanations provided by his associate and declared willingness to support legislative initiatives to eliminate discrimination, the amendments were adopted by 9 votes for and 5 votes against. So far my report, more specifically on the meeting of Monday afternoon.

Mrs Roppe, there is a verbal report to be given, but I know that all these designs have been addressed with the high urgency. This means that only the deadlines are shortened. I would like to remind the Chamber once again that the high urgency will never compromise the written or oral report. They are only the terms that separate it from each other in the normal way of working and that can be shortened.

Mrs Dierickx also refers to her oral report.

Mr Bogert, I give you the word. I think you would like to intervene on the comments of Mr Van Biesen.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a moment of support to the good colleagues Van Biesen and Roppe. I agree with the words they used, namely that democratic rights have been seriously compromised. I would like you to take action. I can also testify that the situation was very serious when discussing this law. That is unacceptable.

I share your opinion.

I agree on behalf of our group.

I will illustrate how things have evolved over time. In the beginning, they had budgets and to those budgets they added what they called – a little embarrassing to me, to be honest – a “cavalier budgetary”. This was a bill that was voted together with the budget.

If one adds several articles to it, those are laws. About twenty years ago, this custom was abandoned and separate laws were made to execute the budget. These could be divided into two major parts: social and financial settlements. After that, a program law was adopted aimed at enabling the execution of the budget. Also that denaturated a little — I find no other word for it — in the sense that there were very many things that had little and sometimes nothing to do with. There is also a proposal of M. Tante and other colleagues. We have very recently split the two to remove the things in place, thus making the law-programme a law of execution of the budget. It is a little strange, because this law itself concerns the budget. And the rest consists in what I call a law-mosaic.

But you must say, and you le ferai très simplement et avec mesure, that you regrette that, in the provisions of the laws-programmes - un peu moins maintenant, puisqu'elles sont reliées davantage au budget - et dans les lois-mosaïques, pas mal les ministres accrochent un petit wagon au train qui traverse nos deux Chambres. I think this is a weakness for some things. In the long run, one could say that one could also include the BOM in a program law or in a law containing various provisions. We would not accept that, Mr. Van Parys, I know that. Now I want to paint it a little. I continue to insist that it would not happen in program laws or laws containing various provisions when it is not necessary. I will explain a word about this. Ministers should be enough men and “women” to do their work through the competent committee. If it is urgent, it is only requested that it be dealt with urgently. Another consideration is, according to me, much more important to explain this. Before 1995, when the Senate and the Chamber had equal competences, number of political compromises — in the sense of "honorable" of the term — were done as follows: on voting a law to the Senate and the other to the Chamber, and the exchange of the two Chambers allows the comfort of the political agreement between majorities. I knew that period well. Today the Senate, through the Aujourd'hui, le bicaméralisme est réforme de la Constitution, has become less competent. It may evoke a number of laws, but the mandatory bicameralism is in some sense limited. The result is that the necessary compromises within the majority usually take place in a law, dans un seul train. That is actually the cause of the “denaturation” of the program law. We must calmly but in a correct way put the pail and perk on it. That has nothing to do with majority and opposition, because that role plays in our system, fortunately, for so much time.

I am not shocked by the comments of Mr. Van Biesen and Bogaert, Mrs. Roppe and the colleagues of the UK, far from that. I say again here - so it is also acting, otherwise I would not spend so much time on it - that sometimes I also understand the prime minister who tells me that some colleagues ask him one and another. It seems to me that he is sometimes reticent about this way of acting. However, the government is a large boat whose captain must take into account all officers who freeze or crew the boat.

I would like to say this clearly at the beginning of our discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased with the conclusion you make and also with the background you have outlined. I can only support the intentions you have expressed in this regard.

However, I would like to point out the fact — I think colleague Van Biesen was also concerned about that — the way in which we in the committee were confronted with certain texts. On the one hand, you are completely right about the content of the program law and the law containing various provisions. There is a lot to comment on this. On the other hand, however, we wanted to accuse the very method of work — working too quickly and unprepared.

I think there is consensus on this.

We agreed that the first interventions would be of general order. I think mr. Wathelet is also interested in the Finance section of the program law.

Mr. Wathelet, in anticipation of the imminent arrival of Mr. Reynders, I let you start.

Let us all hold on to our agreement reached last night.

During this period, it is appropriate to make a balance of the year and in particular of the last quarter.

We had a later return than expected. Indeed, the House Regulations provide that the parliamentary return takes place in September and we returned only in October, to hear the prime minister’s general policy speech.

I read the speech I made in October. I could repeat it almost as it is. It is true that I had raised certain questions concerning, on the one hand, the preparation of the new taxation of the sicavs and the new regularization of the DLU and, on the other hand, the budget. I asked if this was correct or if, again, it was truffled with tricks, threads and one shot operations. All these questions have been answered today. Unfortunately, all these answers go in the same direction, in the wrong direction and my fears confirm!

The taxation of the sicavs, the procedure of regularization, the one-shot procedures were manufactured on a table corner, at the end of negotiations, on 11 October. They had to find the last 800 million at the last moment! These operations were not prepared at all. Today, we know this and we can only see the wrong signal given to the population.

I would like to go back to the budget. It is true that we discussed this last week, but in the meantime, an extremely important element has intervened, namely the Audit of the Court of Auditors, which took place yesterday in the premises of this Chamber. This hearing came to confirm all of our fears.

These are, again, the one-shot operations: the recovery of the Belgacom pension fund in 2003, BIAC and Belgocontrol in 2004 and the SNCB and the port of Antwerp in 2005. Furthermore, for the SNCB, there are no pension funds but simply obligations taken over by the State, with a return for this year, a white operation for 2006 and a payment for 2007.

The sales of the buildings are estimated at approximately 560 million. This year is a start for this year, but again, we are committed to the future.

The Court of Auditors explained to us on Monday in the Finance Committee that the federal refuses to honor certain claims with, as a result, interests that become higher than the amounts due, which is inadmissible. Why is this unacceptable? We are hypothesizing the future. I can understand that this generates revenues, that it sweeps a budget — ⁇ for 2005 — but at the same time it is claims that will have to be honored in the future, with extremely damaging consequences for our federal state when we know that interest becomes higher than the amount of the claim. Especially since the challenges we know today are nothing compared to the challenges we will face tomorrow: ageing, decreasing debt, employment, the link to well-being of allowances for self-employed and employees. It is true that this question of linking to well-being, which seems to be the object of consensus, is postponed but it will need to be addressed.

The one-shot operations that we find again in this budget do not allow us to predict that the challenges of tomorrow can be addressed.

Regarding the governance related to this budget, I will highlight the non-renewal of mandates in the Supreme Financial Council and the manner in which the Court of Auditors has been treated. The Court of Auditors, the independent body responsible for verifying whether all these budgetary matters have actually been carried out correctly and whether all the information has been made available to it, is denied clarifications on fundamental data concerning the taxation of the sicavs.

I would like to now return to the Covenant of Solidarity between Generations that we talked about last week. Will this pact be sufficient? No, because it has not answered the real questions of linking to well-being. It has not focused all the amounts on those who need them most, on the least qualified, with impacts on employment. He did not complete the assimilation of years for women who have incomplete careers.

All these questions regarding employment traps have not been answered.

Nevertheless, the challenges of tomorrow will have nothing to do with the challenges of today: aging competitiveness, the objectives to be achieved absolutely in employment will be even more crucial tomorrow. The Pact does not address these challenges.

On the other hand, the Pact has caused difficulties at the level of discussions between the government and the social partners. There is therefore a risk of breaking, without real progress for tomorrow, facing even more considerable challenges in the future.

I come to the program law and the law containing various provisions.

Thank you for talking about trains and wagons.

I am not talking about locomotives. I was a long time in Communications, while Mr. Reynders was the Chairman of the SNCB; we are therefore experts in this area.

There was also someone else known as the locomotive, right?

Yes, the guide is experienced, the road is long.

This new program law and this law with various provisions are becoming more and more thick: these trains drive more and more wagons.

However, there are many retreats. The question of insufficiency, the question of fines for the submission of late annual accounts are merely retrospectives for items already voted within the framework of program laws or laws containing various earlier provisions. Our Parliament lacks real projects, projects independent of these particular laws.

Why Why ? Because the projects we are discussing, which are of some importance, such as the energy legislation, discussed in the Economic Committee, are imposed on us by Europe. Yesterday, we had a necessary discussion on the Special Research Measures (MPRs): they are imposed on us by the Arbitration Court. Each time, external bodies impose on us all the arrangements we take. A last example: the European arrest warrant which constitutes a major reform, but once again imposed by Europe.

It was attempted to hang wagons to these trains which are this loiprogram and this law containing various provisions, while it was agreed to implement strictly in Belgian law the budget notions of these laws, without going out of the defined framework.

I would like to mention two more specific chapters: Economy and Finance, as well as Energy.

First, the removal of fines for late filing of annual accounts.

We have repeatedly stressed the aberration of this sanction. I have asked many questions about this.

Fortunately, today, the government realizes that this sanction is completely inappropriate and it returns to what it voted before. In order to do so, it was really necessary for the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to rise up against this completely disproportionate and unjustified fine.

The government, returning to its decision, admits that the measure was aberrant. Why, then, does it not act retroactively until the moment of the very creation of this fine? This means that between 2003 and 2005, all those who have filed accounts late will be punished through an aberrant fine that is now abolished. Why not have assumed the aberrant nature of this measure until the end, with retroactive effect until 2003?

With regard to the taxation of the sicavs, the Arbitration Court and a number of press articles that we have been able to read on this subject speak of mega-cafouillage; the taxable basis even of this taxation of the sicavs has changed.

On 13 October 2005, it could be read in the press that this taxation relates only to the interests produced by the bond share of the sicav. On 14 October 2005, it was read that the tax applied to the whole of the sicav. On 15 October 2005, we returned to what was said on the 13th. Then, an agreement was reached, specifying that only the obligatory part of the sicav would be taxed but that it would be possible to return on the surplus value, while the State Council had emphasized the totally unconstitutional character of this legal uncertainty in the context of the taxation of the sicavs.

These negotiations alone resulted in an increase in the tax on stock transactions from 0.5 percent to 1.1 percent. There is a manifest unpreparation; moreover, the measure is completely unjustified. We are told that capital will be taxed, no! It is the small savers who will be taxed, i.e. one million people who own sicavs and who have no means to invest in venture capital. I would like to remind you that 60% of a sicav of capitalization corresponds to venture capital, which can be made up of shares, and that 40% corresponds to bonds. We will therefore require these people to change their way of investing while they often do not have the means or the portfolio to afford to invest in this venture capital.

I also heard that it was Europe and the Savings Directive that required us to tax these sicavs, that’s not true! Today, we agree to say that Europe did not ask for it at all!

The State Council also highlighted the totally discriminatory and unconstitutional character of this taxation of the sicavs. The only conclusion we can draw today is that we do not understand the government’s stubbornness. This taxation of sicavs is inappropriate and is not justified, it is unconstitutional. Why want to keep it? Will the Belgian government be the first to tax surplus values? Per ⁇ it is his will.

But I do not understand this stubbornness to want to tax the sicavs absolutely, especially since this taxation of the sicavs is eminently linked to this new regularization which the socialists have accepted purely and simply. In 2003, they told this tribune to accept the DLU, while warning those who would not participate and threatening them with a 100% tax increase in 2004 and 2005: "If you don't take this train, you will actually be taxed. You will be fined: 100% tax increase.” by

What happened in 2005? We are back to all the commitments relating to the first DLU. All amounts are regularized, without accepting even a minimum of penalties for those persons who have not paid their taxes. And all those who have contributed to the prosperity of the State by investing in capitalization sicavs or other products, such as life insurance, are taxed, while those who have not contributed to the prosperity of the State, who have not seized the previous DLU which we had also criticized, those are regularized. What message do we send to the Belgian investor?

In terms of energy, the benchmarks are once again shaken. Indeed, in many examples I will cite, vehicles, institutions are used for a purpose other than the one for which they were created. This is unacceptable! As regards the oil social fund, the King is asked to manage all the possibilities of the oil sector’s contribution to this fund, while this matter cannot fall within the competence of the government. It can only fall within the competence of the legislator, because it is actually a tax. by

As for Fapetro, which was created and powered by the oil sector in order to control the quality of petroleum products, it will now have to join Apetra, while Fapetro should absolutely not be created to contribute to the management of stocks. Fapetro’s new mission is to ensure the quality of biofuel products. very well . When it comes to the quality of petroleum products, this corresponds to its mission, but using the amounts invested by the petroleum sector to participate in the management of stocks is absolutely out of the object for which Fapetro was created.

The program contract has been discussed many times in the committee. There is discrimination at this level. Why Why ? Because the program contract is concluded with the seven major companies members of the Oil Federation on the 800 companies active in the oil sector, but these seven companies account for 75% of the turnover. Indeed, an agreement with seven companies representing 75% of market shares may appear to be discriminatory compared to all other companies active in the sector, which are much more numerous but which represent fewer market shares. by

Today we turn the vapor. Indeed, a program contract that must be concluded while there is no consensus within the companies active in the oil sector, can be imposed on them if 60% of them agree. In other words, we could have a program contract that applies to all oil companies while more than 80% of the turnover would not be represented in that 60% majority. That is why we had proposed an alternative aimed at providing a double majority: 60% of the turnover and 60% of the number of companies, this in order to have a consensus and thus the membership of the oil sector to implement this program contract.

With regard to the payment of invoices, there is absolutely no constraint. It is on a voluntary basis that this payment must be offered by distributors within a radius of 25 kilometers. This is entirely contrary to the declarations of September or October that envisaged this bindingly scaled payment. This is not entirely what is envisaged in this program contract. The difference between the promises made and the measures taken is enormous.

Finally, we come to the energy cost reduction fund. Does this matter really fall within the competence of the federal state alone? Not exactly and the federal government realized this, a little later, by submitting an amendment proposing an agreement with the Regions. However, the problem is not addressed by the right end. Indeed, the emphasis is placed on the person who contracts the loan, whether it is the tenant or the owner. This is how a tenant could consent to investments in a house or apartment in which he lives, investments that could benefit the owner while it is the tenant who should be protected. This is about loans made by people who, we know, often have little income and for whom it is difficult to get long-term loans requiring repayments and therefore some budgetary rigour. Is borrowing the best way to help households, who are already in financial difficulties, perform the necessary energy work in their homes?

However, there is a small positive point. I mean talking about helping communities to help them cover the cost of oil bills. A consultation committee has met. Efforts are being made at the federal and community level. It is positive. For my part, I feel that this concertation committee is a source of hope for the various communities that need to be helped following this rising price of energy.

In conclusion, we again see a gap between the announced ambitions and the achievements on the ground. This government has re-launched itself in a DLU, it tax the sicavs, it makes a budget with "one shot" measures; the procedures are defiled - I have demonstrated it and the president has also recalled it. All structures are not respected, whether it be the Supreme Council of Finance, the Court of Auditors or the Council of State. Today there is a break in the social dialogue; the real challenges of our society in terms of employment, competitiveness, ageing, growth, are not met. It is in this, gentlemen ministers, not only that you are not improving our present, but above all that you are mortgaging our future.

I would like to thank Mr. Wathelet for his concision.

The female ministers here can all stand their male.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies Ministers, Ladies Ministers, Ladies Ministers, Colleagues, Good Morning.

Mr. Bogert, you know your world.

I try to pretend I know him.

You said that.

I would like to greet everyone at home. Their

Mr. Van Biesen, I would like to agree with what you have just said. There were not many ministers present. You just said that the democratic rights of the Parliament were compromised during the discussion of the program law. I absolutely want to join it. Their

It is a shame how we have been treated as a financial commission in recent weeks. Mrs Roppe, I have understood that you have joined the criticism of Mr Van Biesen and that other parties have done the same. I totally agree with this. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, this program law will be remembered as the hold-up on the small saver. More than 1.2 million small savers are affected by this new tax on capitalizing investment funds. More than 2 million savers are affected by the insurance tax levied on tak-21, tak-23 and all other life insurance. Their

I will not do the whole story, but in the early morning of October 12, Mr. Vande Lanotte stated without scorn that the tax on investment funds would only hurt the big saver. We now know how big this savings is. It is also the little man who has the bad luck to be something bigger. These people are equally affected. Their

It is Jan with the hood that makes his savings capitalize for his old day, because indeed the pensions in this country are not insured as they should be insured, unlike a country like for example the Netherlands where that is already in order. It is that Jan with the hood who takes his responsibility to collect some savings so that from a certain period he does not have to appeal to the OCMW for a satisfaction in the cost price of a rest house. It is that Jan with the ass that is affected by these taxes. These taxes are contrary to what is meant in the Generation Pact. They are completely contrary to it. Their

For Jan’s efforts with the Pet to make sure he still has something left for his retirement, he is now rewarded with a new 15% value added tax on investment funds that invest more than 40% of their assets in debt claims.

According to the Minister of Finance, on 13 October it was only about the application of the European Savings Directive. Everyone knows, however, that the Savings Directive is aimed at foreigners who come in Belgium to collect interest and that the Savings Directive does not require the Member States to effectively tax those interests in the name of their national residents.

Mr. Minister, it is therefore not correct that the new tax would only affect those investments that are covered by the Savings Directive. Initially, however, it was intended that the Belgian new tax on bond funds would become a faithful copy of what applies under the Savings Directive, in particular a mobile charge on the interest component of capitalization shares of European investment institutions that invest 40% or more in debt claims.

After reading the final version submitted by Government Amendment No. 13 to the Committee on Finance and Budget, we know the real end goal of the Government. As of 2008, the government wants to tax not only the interest component, but also the entire surplus value, realised from 1 July 2005. The committee members are thrown a suit on the shoulder that they should be able to pass through very quickly. However, they must establish that they can fully assess the true effect of this tax increase only a few days later.

This value added is realized from 1 July 2005. The property tax, which you swear that it will never come, is therefore already in place. An asset contains real and movable components. On those moving components you are entering an asset tax today. In addition, the new tax will be extended to all investment funds, including those that do not have a European passport.

Finally, the taxable base will not be reduced to the amount of realised value added, as in the Savings Directive. If the surplus value is smaller than the interest component, a Belgian saver will sell his beef with loss and also pay the new tax. That seems to be more than a tax on income from assets.

As the new tax is already expected to raise 235 million euros next year, the little man is sent to the distribution district with soft coercion. The new tax can only be effectively levied at the moment when the saver sells his shares in an investment fund. The statistics show that one stays in the same fund or compartiment for an average of four years.

In order to ensure that the tax generates the budget revenues of 235 million euros, Minister of Finance Didier Reynders wants to stimulate the transition from capitalization buffers to distribution buffers within the same fund, which in any case already owed a moving advance tax of 15%. Therefore, those who switch from the capitalization buffer to the distribution buffer will be able to claim back the stock tax of 0.5%, if they switch to the distribution buffer in January or February 2006 and the latter persists for a year.

We are waiting for the commitment of the banks.

I have a first question to the Minister of Finance.

The minister was here a few moments ago. He is not far away, he knows. Look, there he is for you. The Minister is in Development Cooperation. The [...]

Mr. Minister, I have a first question, to which I would like to have an answer in your reply.

Will the banks indeed be prepared not to charge entry and exit fees when transferring from capitalization funds to distribution funds? Is there already an agreement on this?

Those who do not use the purchase period should take into account that afterwards the stock exchange tax will be increased from 0.5% to 1.1%. It is uncertain whether that increase will be repealed after 1 January 2008.

Could you also give some clarification?

In any case, the small saver in that case will be taxed on the full value added.

Chapter 8 of the Code of Taxes Equated with Seals. The Council of Ministers also decided to introduce a new property tax by imposing a premium tax of 1.1% of all premiums deposited on an individual life insurance, from 1 January 2006. That tax will therefore be levied for each insurance that concludes a private person, as well as for the ongoing insurance, which were often concluded years ago. It covers the premiums for savings insurance, death insurance, debt balance insurance, savings insurance with a guaranteed annual return or bound to the result of an investment fund, long-term savings contracts and interest contracts.

That new property taxation is in the rage taxation that is full of rage in the government, ⁇ inconsistent, and that on three levels.

First, that new insurance tax, in addition to the introduction of a moving advance tax on the capitalization beef, is a second holdup of the little man.

The little man who, at least formally, is so cared for by the socialists.

On premiums of a debt saldo insurance, which are paid from next year, an insurance tax of 1.1 percent is introduced. This new tax affects precisely those people who need to make a debt balance insurance – I put the emphasis on “must” – to get a loan for the purchase of a home. From next year, they will be exhausted. The people who purchase a home — fortunately there have been millions of families and will remain — who are obliged to undertake a debt salary insurance, are conceived by this government with a new tax. This new tax on debt balance insurance is in sharp contrast to the good intentions expressed in the bill no. 1970 amending the Code of registration, mortgage and register rights, signed by the ladies Baeke and Roppe and by the ladies Bacquelaine, Van Biesen and Van der Maelen.

He is here behind me.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bacquelaine should listen carefully.

With this bill, socialists and liberals want to abolish the mortgage right of 0.3%. At the end of this meeting they will impose a new tax, not of 0.3% but of 1.1% on debt balance insurance, almost four times as much as what they want to abolish. Understand who can!

In addition, the mortgage right of 0.3% would be abolished only up to a sum of 100,000 euros. The little man who has to borrow 100% to buy a house in a row or an apartment — with 100,000 euros you don’t buy a chic villa — is promised a gift but can pay 1.1% tax on the premiums of his debt saldo insurance from next year. I find this injustice.

Moreover, it will not be just the little man who will buy a cottage from next year, who will have to pay the new tax on the debt salary insurance. It will be all small owners who chose the distributed annual premium of a debt balance insurance that they still have to pay in the coming years. Those involved, about 520,000 people, will never enjoy the exemption from the 0.3% mortgage right, but will pay the full pot on your new taxes, Mr. Van der Maelen.

The introduction of the new insurance tax on debt balance insurance feels uncomfortable if we take the explanation to your bill no. 1970 to read. It sounds as follows. I quote: “Ladies and gentlemen, the buyer or builder of a home is facing a lot of additional costs. We think of the registration fees on the purchase of land or existing home, to VAT on new construction and renovation. In addition, as a blow to the firepile, a mortgage duty of 0.3% must be paid, a tax established on the inscriptions of mortgages and privileges on real estate.

One continues: “This tax, which is based on not having money, is not responsible for people who take out a loan or acquire their own home. The ownership of a home should be encouraged. Ownership of a home is the best way to prevent crumbling and marginalization. Ownership of a home is the best form of pension savings. Getting around with an average retirement is much easier when no rent needs to be paid anymore. Hence our proposal," say the applicants, "to not demand the mortgage right of 0.3% for loans intended for the acquisition of the only own home. In the Flemish Government Agreement 2004-2009 it was agreed to abolish the registration right on the mortgage registration of a loan for the construction, renovation or acquisition of the only family home for the first deposit of 100,000 euros. With this bill, the applicant intends to abolish the due mortgage right under the same conditions.”

As a blow to the firepile, a new tax is now levied on not having money and that is not responsible for people who take out a loan to acquire their own home, Mr. Van der Maelen. Volunteerism, the culture of promise.

Mr. President, allow me to admit that I hear this from Mr. Bogert for the third time. He continues to repeat this. We have calculated that. We calculated that a debt saldo insurance on a loan of 100,000 euros through the abolition of the mortgage right of 0.3% brings with it an advantage of 300 euros. The 1.1% tax on the debt balance insurance involves a family cost of 72 euros, spread over 13 years. That is about 5 to 6 euros that you have to pay per year. Then I am not talking about the registration right that has been abolished at the Flemish level.

We have taken a number of measures, including the abolition of the mortgage right. We are very pleased with this because we want to promote having our own home. However, that does not mean that one could never take another measure that would have an impact on it. If I limit myself only to national measures, the final sum is positive, namely 300 euros —72 euros is still 228 euros in favor of the young family that wants to have a own home. I do not yet account for what the abolition of the registration right has brought as an advantage.

Thank you, colleague Van der Maelen, I will let you check these figures. Your proposal has not yet been voted. If it goes to vote, we will support your meaningful proposal. I would like to point out the next inconsistency. On the one hand, you make it easier, on the other hand, you make it harder. In any case, it is, in principle, irresponsible that you impose an additional taxation on debt balance insurance — the law expects people to engage in it. It is not yet too late. An amendment is still among the possibilities. You may soon need to make an amendment to the debt salary insurance. I principally share your concern, but technically you can do something. I would like to submit an amendment, but it will be voted down. If you submit this amendment later, we will be happy to support it.

I want to continue: is this 1.1% tax on insurance products not another round of bullying by the little man? The little man is also placed on a blacklist that the insurance companies will have to draw up annually. The new lists that the insurance companies must produce, although after amendment with the indication of the contract number — and no longer the entire identity of the insured — is another indication that the government is preparing on foot a property cadastre of both movable and immovable property. This was already shown in the tender for an integrated information system for patrimonial documentation, called Stipad.

However, I would like to point out that what you present here has changed: the insurance contracts from Luxembourg must no longer be marked by name. You have voted for this group. I personally abstained on this point, because I think that proper taxation will only be possible if European transparency comes. You know that these insurance products are used in Luxembourg to avoid the European Savings Directive. I was ⁇ surprised by your attitude.

A second inconsistency that I would like to point out is also the result of the comprehensive tax rage that must affect all life insurance companies. Individuals were encouraged by our party CD&V to save years through long-term savings, group insurance or deposit of individual premiums.

Those who save will receive a tax reduction of 30 to 40%. In retirement, the paid capital is favorably taxed at a rate of 10%. It is not about gathering large capital. But what the left hand gives, the right hand takes back with the new tax of 1.1%. Where is the logic of such fiscal policy? The government is sending the signal that one should save for his old day. However, the same government will immediately tax the person who is convinced of this. What message does the little man have to a policy of giving and taking back? This assessment has the effect that the small capital he saves will be smaller and this is because the Belgian government has a hole in its hand and spends too much.

The contradiction between saving and consuming has never been shown with so much contrast. Also in connection with the pension fund of the NMBS, which is being acquired, is clear what is going on. The 2005 budget is closed with heels and eyes. I find the particular penalty that one receives from that NMBS pension fund must be registered in the 2005 budget while the government will only take into account the NMBS pension rights in 2007. The port company is technically a little different but is indeed going in the same direction. They do this without shame. One by one the nests of the capitalization funds of the state-owned companies that still exist in this country are robbed. I find it ⁇ shocking that these incomes are registered in 2005 while it is simply clear that the pensions are not taken over until 2007. This means that it will also be exempt from new payments in 2006 and that the actual payments will not have to be made until 2007.

In other words, this government rules over its own grave. Commitments are being made from 2007. The same applies, by the way, to the increased deduction for retirement savings because this will only begin to weigh on the budget later, from 2007 at the time when the 2005 income will be collected. If the same rhythm continues, the revenue of 2006 will only begin to be collected from 2008. This means that the increased deduction for retirement savings, which is used as a counterpol for the tax increases being discussed today, will be charged to the next government. I personally do not consider this a form of good governance. I think every government is responsible for the gifts it distributes and for the taxes it leaves. I think that every government should dare to stand face-to-face with the voter and that the taxes it leaves should fall within the same legislature as much as possible. That is good governance.

The coherence of fiscal policy with the savings sector is inconsistent on another third point. Competing insurance products and banking products will be treated fiscally in different ways due to the unreasonable introduction of the new assessments, so that the tax authority no longer positively directs the market, but one product from the market will price in favor of the other product, investment products with an equal risk profile. The completely different treatment of economically equivalent products depending on the chosen distribution channel will undoubtedly cause major shifts in the savings market, in which the customer will quickly show a preference for less or only once taxed financial products. In a bank insurance group, this leads to purely internal shifts. In the case of insurance companies that only sell directly via the Internet or agents or brokers — there are many independent agents and brokers in our country — this leads to pure and useless loss of turnover and, consequently, of employment.

Life insurance was in many cases, but not in all, exempt from mobile charge. If the term is more than 8 years or if there is at least a death coverage of 130%, there is no mobile advance fee due. All these contracts are now subject to the insurance tax of 1.1%. This leads to double taxation. It should also be ignored the different tax treatment introduced between branch 23 products and investment funds. The insurance distribution of products that are perfectly similar to banking investment products should be taxed in the same way. This is the branch 23 insurance associated with structured investment funds, which also in the banking environment is normally not subject to a mobile advance fee. The majority of the structured funds will in no way give rise to the collection of the withdrawal tax of 0.5%. Either the withdrawal from the fund is postponed until 2008, or the liquidation of the fund is expected to be completed in 2006-2007. In the latter case, no tax is imposed. On the other hand, all Branch 23 Products will be subject to the insurance rate of 1.1%.

Ladies and gentlemen, I decide. Everyone knows that in the future, pensions will be insufficient with the policy that the government follows. For those who do not believe it, compare the average employee pension and the average cost of accommodation in a rest home. For years, CD&V has pursued a policy encouraging people to save themselves for their old days.

In this regard, the first home is the first building block of a supplementary pension.

In addition, CD&V pursued a fiscal favourable policy in favour of the savers who re-invested the proceeds of the savings and did not pay annually. Therefore, no moving advance tax was imposed on capitalization beefs, but on distribution funds. Paars changed this policy. In terms of saving, violet made a trend break with the past. The taxation on the capitalization bill now revokes the policy proposed by CD&V in terms of savings.

This government also chooses to introduce a property tax on the saver’s savings investment. The tax is independent of any income. Furthermore, the new tax is accompanied by a collection of information that only makes sense in the light of the establishment of a property register.

Purple politics is difficult to unite with the discussion of a Generation Pact because it is incompatible with aging and the affordability of pensions. Now this government is imposing new taxes on savings to cover its own spending drive. Therefore, we ask ourselves how credible the politics of purple is. The EBA wanted to recover money from abroad. At the same time, the stock exchange rates were raised. Now the government is making a second attempt with the regularization declaration. At the same time, a mobile advance tax on capitalization funds is introduced and stock exchange taxes are raised again. Understand who can! Their

The confidence of the saver in the Belgian government, colleagues, will only be of very short duration.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, My dear colleagues, as part of the discussion of this law-programme, I will limit myself to briefly address three themes that I find interesting, namely, first of all, the incentives for spending to save energy and the measure in favour of individuals relating to heating gasoline.

I also take advantage of this to welcome the other initiative taken by the government, namely the aid of 10 million euros relocated to help local authorities to cope with the increase in energy costs. We know that these 10 million euros will be paid to the Communities and Regions, under the responsibility for them to redistribute them, according to the method they choose, to these local authorities.

I will then, and finally, address the measure relating to the tax regularization that now encompasses the tax repentance of citizens and ⁇ .

In line with the government agreement that provides incentive measures to reduce energy consumption in homes, it was decided to further extend the existing fiscal incentive for spending to save energy.

For this purpose, the maximum amount of the reduction will be increased. Currently fixed at 500 euros for new dwellings and 600 euros for renovated dwellings, the tax benefit will be increased to 1,000 euros not indexed per taxable period and per dwelling without any distinction as to the type of dwelling. In addition, the maintenance of a boiler is now included among the work that can benefit from the tax reduction.

I come to the repercussions on the heating note of households due to the rising oil prices and the government intervention by a oil check to all residents, intervention which I find quite appropriate. This means the granting of an allocation to any owner, tenant or occupant of the home supporting the price of heating gasoline. This temporary relief measure applies to all deliveries made between 1 June and 31 December 2005. For the deliveries of heating gasoline made from 1 June 2005 to 30 September 2005 included, I clearly understood by reading the press that the allowance would be granted to the entitled by means of reimbursement from the vote of this law, that is, from the first days of 2006, while for the deliveries of heating gasoline made from 1 October 2005, the return was immediately deducted from the price of the invoice for the supply of heating gasoline.

I also note — and I am delighted — that the idea of a flat-rate reimbursement for households heating on gas or electricity has made its way, which should thus place all households, whether they warm themselves on gas, electricity or oil on an equal footing.

Furthermore, I can only welcome the government initiative allowing the payment of heating oil bills without interest or additional cost, as recognised in the Notice of the Council of Ministers of 23 September 2005. Thus, traders wishing to offer this service will register with the SPF Economy, SMEs, Middle Class and Energy. The list will be published so that everyone knows directly to whom to address to benefit from the said measure.

I am ⁇ satisfied with the absence of geographical discrimination in this matter. Indeed, if it appears, after evaluation of the list, that no trader is registered within a geographical radius of 25 kilometers around certain points, the King may take the necessary measures to offer consumers living within that radius the possibility of benefiting from these scaled payments. I find this extremely important when we think of remote regions where there are few or no oil suppliers.

As regards the chapter on tax regulation, I will insist that the system established establishes, by law and permanently, the possibility for each taxpayer or VAT liable to regulate its tax situation. Alongside the measure, it should also be emphasized that the door is open to discussions with the Regions in order to add a possibility of regularization in matters of succession rights. It is therefore a matter of allowing the regularization of all kinds of income, mobile and real estate, diverse and professional.

This regularization is open to both individuals and legal entities, with strict confidentiality, through a contact point within the SPF Finance. They will have the opportunity to regularize their tax situation by declaring spontaneously the income they have omitted to provide. Taxpayers will be entitled to both tax and criminal immunity. Revenue and transactions subject to VAT, subject to tax regularization, will not be subject, as was the case for the DLU, to a flat-rate contribution, but rather to a levy fixed in application of the applicable rules on tax according to the nature of the regularized income and taking into account the period during which such income was collected.

After payment of this levy, in addition to the aforementioned benefit of immunity, the possibility is thus offered to the taxpayer who has regularized his tax situation to enjoy an increased freedom to dispose of his capital. I see this as an additional incentive to the success of the measure.

I will not extend long on the bill containing various provisions, but I will delay a little on childcare costs. The content of this measure is interesting, as it is primarily a clarification of the measures taken under the law of 6 July 2004, which was drafted in order to facilitate the implementation of the arrangement, both in the head of the parent taxpayers and the various stakeholders active in childcare.

To put it briefly, the amendment made to Article 113 of the Income Tax Code 1992 intends, first of all, to objectivize the custody costs of children under twelve years of age by specifying that custody is carried out outside the normal time devoted to the education itself.

Further, in order to avoid confusion in the future due to a welcome relief, the measure extends to welcoming homes to which childcare fees can be paid in order to benefit from the deduction of these costs from all net income.

Children's care costs may also be paid to children's care centers, on the one hand, having any connection with the school or its organizing authority, and, on the other hand, recognized, subsidized or controlled by local public authorities or by a Community or regional body. As control over child-care activities is necessary, the text therefore provides that the respective child-care centers must have a link with a public authority that recognizes, grants subsidies or exercises control. The exposition of reasons has, on the other hand, usefully specified that it is of course that the payment of childcare costs made directly to the organizing authority or even to the municipality, does not prevent their deduction by the parents.

Therefore, this creates an interesting arrangement for families.

I would like to pinpoint another measure of the bill containing various provisions, with which I will conclude: the plan "PC for all". I would like to highlight the progress made in combating the digital divide. The "PC for all" plan is realised within the framework of this bill through the amendments submitted in the Committee of the Interior and in the Committee of Finance.

It is well known that if we are increasingly numerous to use a computer daily - the proof in the session-, the Internet or the e-mail, it is not less that only half of the Belgian households are equipped with a computer and that only 40% of them have access to the internet. Belgium is thus below the European average and even much below the penetration rate of our Dutch neighbors in this matter: 65% in the Netherlands, 56% in Luxembourg.

For 60% of non-internet users, cost is obviously an important factor, and for more than 50% of non-internet users, PC and internet are too difficult to grasp in their technicality. Therefore, the government’s plan goes beyond these two limits and we are very pleased with this.

An indicative calculation shows, first of all, that the government-planned package, called "Internet for All", will offer citizens the opportunity to benefit from a total reduction of approximately 40%, consisting of an effort by the sector and an effort by the authorities on the current market value of the products concerned. The tax benefit itself takes the form of a tax credit deducted from the IPP, equivalent to 21% of the purchase price of the equipment, with a maximum per taxpayer of 147,50 euros in the case of a desktop computer and 172 euros for a laptop.

The tax benefit will only apply to packages consisting of different parts that, together, succeed in achieving the aim. In addition to a computer, security software and Internet connection, each package must include a minimum of four-hour basic training aimed, on the one hand, to teach the user how to use the computer, the Internet and the email, and, on the other hand, to address the basic rules of security.

As you can see, the goal is also to offer new users a real learning of the hardware and its functionalities. It is of course that we support this dual device and that we hope that it will allow many Belgians to access the infinite possibilities that the internet opens.

Prime Minister, I greet you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Prime Minister, Colleagues, in a general introduction, I find it appropriate to criticize the nature of the proposed drafts.

How many times have all political parties already declared themselves democratic here? These self-proclaimed Democrats succeed every year in chasing the most important decisions through the House in two periods of several weeks through these garbage-baking laws, such as the Program Law, the Mosaic Law and laws containing various provisions.

I regret that this has become a regular habit of the government. For a few weeks before the holiday, the legislative work may not go fast enough. Sometimes it may even seem that the government has spent so long with the texts on the budgetary measures in order not to give Parliament the time to examine everything.

Yesterday, our chamber chairman, Mr. De Croo, confirmed in the Nieuwsblad that the government was too late this year with the program law. For the first time in six years, we voted first on the budget and only then on the program law. This is not a sign of good governance.

In the Committee on Finance, we have repeatedly pointed out that we could only have the texts at the very last moment, so we had little or no time to study everything. It seems that the ministers are doing this intentionally. We also note that journalists can have access to the legislative texts earlier than the people’s representatives. We can rightly say that Parliament is being raped.

The self-proclaimed Democrats see Parliament as a necessary evil, as a burden. It is a formal obstacle that must be taken according to the Constitution. Prime ministers from a different political direction, from previous governments, have also put the Parliament out of play. Last year, they even managed to publish the implementing decisions of a law that had not yet been passed. Each year, including this year, the list of additional taxes per program law is extended.

The State Council has also criticized such bills. It is not a good legislative work to place provisions of different scope in the same scheme. Such laws facilitate government work, but largely de facto outplay Parliament. There will only be a discussion and a vote. Recently, the Arbitration Court destroyed another article in a program law that authorized the government to make fundamental changes through a royal decree. Even in this program law, the King gets too much power. This can be called very democratic.

Until now, the discussion of the nature of the draft proposals presented and until now also my considerations on democracy and parliamentary participation. There are some chapters of the present draft laws that deserve our special attention. That is why our comment now follows on these massive government measures that we will unfortunately not be able to approve. Moreover, we will vote against.

A very important chapter in the Program Law is Chapter 5, the tax on bond funds. The Belgian investor is very cautious and the majority of investors in Belgium go to bond funds. After weeks and months of uncertainty and uncertainty, the investor finally knows what to do. Bond funds without coupon payment can be sold as soon as possible after 31 December. Those who want to save with an insurance broker deposit their premium best before the New Year. Banks and insurance companies have begun to make adjustments. From 1 January 2006 the taxes must be applicable. It becomes a witch tower, a titanic work to get everything in order on time.

Now that the financial institutions have settled on these new taxes, they are asking for understanding and patience from the tax authorities for problems that will still arise in the beginning. Therefore, I have a concrete question to the Minister of Finance, who has since disappeared. I hope that the Minister of Economy will forward my question to the Minister of Finance, namely whether the Minister will give his administration directives to show a little understanding and patience in the collection of the new taxes at the beginning.

The new tax on beef has been updated and adjusted several times in the past months. The ultimate compromise has become a plot in which simplicity is far from being sought. We have repeatedly emphasized the fact that they are popular investments of the small savers who are therefore severely affected, but not of the big, thick, rich investors. These are investments that were just created and encouraged by the government to save without paying taxes.

The small savers that are visited here are usually retirees who have chosen the safe for the uncertain and do not dare to take risks anymore because they do not have so much more credit time. They also fear that the government will no longer be able to pay their pensions because it has not set up sufficient reserves.

More than three million people, including all taxes of this program law, will be punished for their economical way of life. Indeed, unlike the State, which lives clearly above its standing, these savers, the investors that are fished here, have spent their already taxed income from labour economically. They were also in the firm conviction, or as it now appears, in the delusion, that their income would not be taxed a second time. These people feel deceived.

Foreigners who work here and keep money are left alone.

Their savings money is shipped to their country of origin and sent to the family not yet reunited. So it is the brave, hard-working, economically living citizens — the ordinary man and woman in the street — who invest their savings here in their own country, who are punished. The real big capital owners are with their money abroad and the government knows that well enough. With the latest government adjustment, which stipulates that only mobile advance tax on the interest rate value must be paid and not on the realised surplus value — however not until 2008 — the realised surplus value is thus not deducted from the received interest income and pays the investor tax on revenues he has never received. In the current economic environment, this scenario is not even so unlikely.

As the 15 percent mobile premium threatened not to fill enough to fill the budget gaps, the government also introduced an increased stock exchange tax. For bond buffers without a coupon, the taxation with these two new measures has become heavy. More than 20 percent of the revenue is cut off by the government.

The government provided a favourable exit arrangement in January and February 2006, but investors have to recover the paid stock exchange rates of 1.1 percent themselves. From 2008, the rate may again be reduced to 0.5 percent, but it is not certain. If our ministers have changed by that time of thought, they can still decide by royal decree to maintain the rate of 1.1 percent. As already cited in the general introduction, the King is given far too much power in this type of draft laws.

It is also unclear what the investor should pay. It is the financial institution concerned that will have to make the calculation of the interest income and that will also have to transfer the mobile advance tax to the Treasury. There are problems because the information systems have not yet been adapted. Does it concern the actual interest income of each fund separately or will a flat-rate capitalization be taken into account earlier during the holding period?

More questions are pressing up. From 2008 onwards, not only the interest income will be fined, but the entire surplus value. However, the amendment of the Program Law does not show clearly whether it is only about value added realised in the block fixed-rent investments. Mixed funds also include shares. Will the start date of 1 July 2005 also be taken from 2008? Will a person who purchased a capitalization swap in 2004 know the starting date of 1 July 2005 for the calculation of the taxable basis, but will he pay a mobile surcharge on interest income for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2007 and, when selling in January 2009, pay a tax on the total value added from 2008 or will the total surcharge on the interest part be taxed as the starting date of 1 July 2005 when selling in January 2009? These questions are pressing. Their

In its first calculation within the framework of the 2006 budget, the government was a little too proficient. The aforementioned measures should generate €235 million on the banking side and €220 million on the insurance side. Algauw became clear that only 50 million euros would be maximum feasible. Hence the action of the stock exchange tax, to reach the 455 million euros. This stock exchange tax applies only to the sale of participations in funds. Belgium was indeed condemned by the European Court of Justice for charging stock taxes on subscription and abolished this measure in July 2004. However, there are still dumped persons who have not received the wrongly charged stock tax back, so the State has been able to dispose of that money for years. The program law gives the saver the opportunity for two months to free switch to distribution shares to so-called boost the economy, but then the saver must take the initiative himself. Their

Another new form of taxation is that of Chapter 8 of the Program Act: an insurance tax of 1.1% on all life insurance, with a few exceptions, and levied on the total paid premium. In the first instance, these are insurance types 21 and branch 23. Branch 21 covers all insurance with guaranteed minimum return and capital guarantee, as there are the popular insurance products such as First, Crest, and so on. Branch 23 is insurance linked to investment funds. Under that dome, banks and insurance companies have sold a lot of long-term savings plans over the past few years. Each premium deposited in such a savings plan shall be subject to a tax of 1.1% from 1 January 2006. Their

In addition, many more insurance products will be covered by the new tax. Just think of debt saldo insurance and other death insurance, youth savings plans, life rates, insurance bonuses and the classic life insurance that are eligible for a tax reduction up to 1.870 euros. Together, more than 2 million police officers are involved. Add to that the more than 1.2 million investors of the bond funds. The Minister of Finance initially announced that the insurance companies would have to bear the new tax and that there would be a ban on transactions, but such a measure is difficult to realize and also not to be found in the draft law. The insurance companies also do not have such a huge profit margin on life insurance, so few will make a cost reduction to compensate for the tax. In most cases, the saver will pay for it. Their

The government punishes the honest taxpayer, the good savvy housekeeper and housekeeper. By the way, I read today that there are more men than women investing. If the purple coalition really wants to stimulate entrepreneurship, as it always claims, then it would be better to take other measures, such as the abolition of the VAT exemption when selling a business. That money could be used for a substantial tax reduction for startups, coupled with the legal guarantee to never introduce a property tax.

The introduction of a value added tax from 2008 contradicts the European Savings Directive, which limits the basis to interest. That concession of the liberals to the socialists opens the door for a wealth tax. The tender in March 2005 issued by the tax authority to put his property data on computer points in that direction. The abolition of the shares of toonder from 2008 is also a sign on the wall.

Comparison with other countries is not possible. We must look at the tax system as a whole. The United States has a value-added tax, but much lower rates in the personal tax. For years, the state has encouraged savings with some fiscal advantage. Now the government is raising new taxes on savings and even on financing for a residential home. And then just submit legislative proposals such as sp.a, spirit and VLD do to abolish the mortgage right of 0.3% on a mortgage of less than 100 000 euros for the purchase of a private residential home.

The government is ignoring the core of the problem, namely the depreciation of public spending. And then just act, like the socialists, as if the acquisition of a own residential home is the most important thing for them. Everyone should be able to acquire their own residential home. They would rather take their own spending drive, rather than punish the people who have controlled their spending and saved and invested. On the one hand, the socialists insist on additional taxes on savings transactions, on capital and even on financing of a residential home. On the other hand, the same socialists are going to proclaim how important they find that everyone can acquire their own home. For this, they want to take possession of large land possessions as real communists. But many buildings, however, are owned by ordinary people who have inherited a single piece of land, and ⁇ not large land owners.

By this program law, banks and insurance companies are playing out against each other. The insurance companies have the disadvantage that their investments are not done anonymously, because insurance investments are once on name. Investors and banking funds that do not deal so closely with tax deontology retain the possibility to escape the tax by selling their funds through a foreign intermediary. The tax is only owed by the Belgian banks and stock exchange societies. This may cause some investors to decide to deposit their funds on a Luxembourg securities account and sell them from there.

The new insurance tax cannot be deducted through a foreign broker. As a result of the European Directive of 2002, the place of residence of the insured is decisive for the taxation of premiums in Europe. If a Belgian resident subscribes insurance with a foreign insurance company, that foreign company must also record the Belgian premium tax and also pass the contract numbers.

As a result of all these adjustments, many uncertainties remain and it is far from certain that the €455 million budgeted will be met. The Program Act puts aside the criticism of the Council of State by giving the King the power to extend the measures to all value added. The discussion of Chapters 5 and 8.

On Chapter 6 of the Program Law, namely the tax regularization, I would also like to say a few words. Only one year after the Single Liberating Declaration, a second liberating declaration is issued. In fact, this is unacceptable because it encourages tax fraud. It is not fair, and it is also a jaw blow against the many, honest taxpayers. In other countries, tax amnesty arrangements were also made to get money from tax offenders back, but then there was a period of no new amnesty operations. In those other countries, Mr. Minister, the taxes are not as high as in Belgium.

In fact, there has long been a system of individual regularisation in which the administration, the auditors or inspectors in question, has personal contact with the taxable person and has an appreciation and negotiation margin. With the tax regularization of the program law, everyone is shaved on the same chest: much or little decayed, past or outdated. The Minister in the committee answered a number of concrete questions in the implementation of tax regularization. For the ordinary people, the taxpayers, the entire operation remains unclear so that we rightly wonder whether the intended goal, in terms of income, will be achieved and whether the Arbitration Court will not reject the difference in taxation of real estate, movable and various income versus professional income as a prohibited discrimination. The State Council also advised to regulate tax regularization in a separate bill. The tax on bond funds will have a negative effect on spontaneous regularization. Because of the breached trust, many investors will remain abroad with their black money.

I also have a question related to Chapter 7, specifically the VAT anti-abuse measure. In French, it stands for TVA, measure antiabus de droit. In Dutch, the word has just disappeared. In the explanatory memory, an example is given of a structure that is set up to avoid charges. In the example it is a structure located outside the European Community whose activity consists in acting as a recipient of services, intended for the whole of the legal person. Such construction can then be invoiced by the service providers without VAT.

With the measure in Chapter 7 of the Program Act, the tax authority would have a new means of evidence to better combat such establishments. The example is unfortunately chosen, because for that group, as a rule, the VAT will be deductible. So, why would they emigrate to a country outside the European Union? It is likely that the provision will be used more in the non-profit sector. This sector sometimes dares to set up structures to obtain the right to VAT deduction, dividing activities into separate entities. Without those separate entities, those segregated activities would not be entitled to deduction. The question is whether the new measure in Chapter 7 can be applied to such establishments?

Also, I would like to talk about Chapter 11, house burn oil. In Dutch, the title is clearer than in French. In French it says: gasoil, cry the heating. With us, it is clear: home fuel oil. Heating of private houses. Private heating is meant from the famous law that "establishes a allocation fund that makes the necessary resources available to the rightholders, referred to in the law granting a subsidy for the purchase of home combustion oil for the heating of a private home." Minister Reynders has repeatedly urged in the Committee for Finance to approve the program law as soon as possible and ⁇ not to halt or delay so that all discounts on private housing can be granted. The minister wanted to give us some sort of guilt if we delayed or halted the program law.

With the whole problem of schools and non-profit institutions that can no longer pay their sharply increased energy bills, the question is more urgent whether the government would better reduce the high VAT of 21% instead of allowing one-off discounts. Heating is not a luxury product. It is as vital as food. Nowhere else in Europe is the VAT — that is, the income for the State — on heating as high as here.

The Minister presents the reduction, or the compensation of the VAT of 17.35%, as a great response but in fact it is just a part of the VAT that the State now int in more because the prices have risen so tremendously. 21% VAT on 1,000 euros is, of course, a whole pack more than 21% on 500 euros. So, the treasury benefits greatly from the high fuel prices.

My party is in favor of a reduction in fuel taxes, even in order to improve the economy and competitiveness.

Of course, this is a huge income for the state. Therefore, the reduction of VAT and taxes is not a matter for this government. The reduction of VAT on monthly bandages or on lubricants will not cost so much but will also not give economic added value or provide additional stimulus to the economy while reduced energy costs would do so.

I would also like to say something about the bill containing various provisions. That draft law is subject to the same criticism as the program law, namely: it is a whole set of measures that must be quickly pursued by the Parliament and that contains a correction of earlier program laws that were also then quickly quickly put together.

With regard to this bill, I would like to draw attention to Article 162, and my own amendment no. 8, document 51/2098, to defend.

My amendment aims to eliminate the discrimination already created last year by raising the age to 12 years for the deduction of childcare costs. After all, a lot of people still take care of the care of their children themselves and do not have the financial situation as wide as the two-payer who today all the attention goes to. Their

There are also families of small self-employed persons, freelancers and entrepreneurs, one-payers who always take care of their children themselves while further exploiting their business or whose children are taken care of by grandparents or family. Their

For these people, the government has done nothing. These people, in my opinion, are equally entitled to tax benefits. Therefore, in Article 132, paragraph 1, sixth subparagraph, of the BGB, I request that the words "3 years" be replaced by the words "12 years". Since in Article 162 of the present bill the expenditure for child care which can be deducted from the personal tax is extended to the kindergarten and lower schools, it is only normal that parents who take care of child care themselves and do not use institutions already subsidized by the government also receive a tax benefit up to 12 years instead of up to 3 years.

The Government Agreement of June 2003 — the first government agreement in my career as a people’s representative — also emphasized that the family is the cornerstone of society and the best environment for personal development. I quote literally from the government agreement: “the best environment for personal development and the involvement of the individual in society.” Moreover—also a philosophy of purple—all forms of society must be taxed equally. Further in this reasoning, the traditional family should be encouraged and ⁇ should not be discriminated against. Parents who do not send their children to the shelter do a great service to society.

The bill containing various provisions also repairs the legal framework of the deduction for the own and only home. My party calls for a drastic simplification of the tax system. However, we see the opposite. The system is becoming more and more complex and there are more and more deduction points. The Flemish Belang advocates the reduction of the rates, which would make less complicated deduction points. The deduction for the own and only home has become even more complex so that it is already clear that the tax authority will not automatically be able to make the right choice for the taxable person. People who have taken a loan for their home — both before and since 2005 — should seek advice from a tax consultant, an accountant or specialist in the matter in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the important communication that the Belgian State is clearly above its standing. We heard this from the Court of Auditors. In the mistake book we can read black on white that the fines that the government must pay are often already higher than the original amounts.

The program law introduces a lot of new taxes. The Court of Auditors has a sharp criticism of the federal budget for the following reasons. The budget is very vulnerable to an economic counterpart and depends on one-off measures. The new fiscal measures are too poorly elaborated and too unclear. The government is not able to save enough.

The European Commission and the International Monetary Fund have also criticized the new fiscal measures contained in the program law and the draft law containing various provisions. It could be that Belgium, with all these new fiscal measures, would be flooded back to create a budget deficit.

It would have been better for the state to save. Therefore, we will vote against the program law and against the draft law containing various provisions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, as part of the Finance section of the law-program, many elements have already been explained on the state budget. I will try to avoid repetition in my speech.

This aspect of course includes a number of measures that can be welcomed. Nevertheless, it can also be regretted that the communication has not always been at the level and that it has not been able to clearly explain the important choices made during the preparation of this 2006 budget. Indeed, the budget as well as the loiprogram include essential measures that implement ideas and choices made by the government.

As for the budget — I have already had the opportunity to say it — taxation must remain a means and not become an end in itself. This is, of course, the means of securing revenue to the state but also of making political choices, of encouraging or deterring certain behaviors. In this regard, the measures repeated here are ⁇ exemplary.

We are talking about taxative rage, harshness, etc. Too often, we can only find that changes or adjustments to tax legislation are only taking into account the reality, the developments in our society, or normal reactions to abusive practices. But they also aim to meet especially essential elements, such as the weight of public debt, and certain constraints that have been imposed on us in the past in order to be able to return to the Maastricht criteria.

Within the framework of this law-program, what is seen?

- Measures aimed at more justice, by expanding the tax base, which allows for a better distribution of the contribution of each and the different incomes, whether those from labour or capital. More justice also by enabling the fight against tax fraud through anti-abuse measures and the correction of some obvious abuses as is the case for the registration of utility vehicles. - favourable measures aimed at encouraging energy savings, the use of biofuels, as well as measures to meet urgent needs, including gasoline for heating.

These elements let me think that the political choices are made, the measures are taken and the law-program is the implementation of them.

The taxation of sicavs is one of the important political choices that has been made. As I said in the introduction, it seems to me essential today to introduce more justice in the contribution of the different incomes to the incomes of the State in general and to social security in particular. A contribution of all income, whether it be the fruit of labour or that of capital, allows for a better distribution of the efforts to be provided. I will not teach you anything by saying that the wider the tax base, the more you can afford a reduced contribution. Everyone must contribute to the benefits he receives at the level of his resources. We are talking about social justice.

I don’t see what’s shocking or even unusual about modestly taxing the sicavs that contain more than 40% of bonds. In this context, we speak well of income; therefore it seems to me normal to include plus-value since it is an integral part of income.

Everything was told about this choice. “It’s immoral!”; “We’re going to let capital run away!”; “Belgium cannot distinguish itself at the level of Europe.”

Let me remind you of some things. As the newspaper "L'Echo" recently pointed out, Belgium holds the top of the pavement in terms of the taxation of surplus-value. But when we say "the top of the pavement", it is not the top of the pavement in terms of taxation but in terms of the absence of taxation! Nevertheless, one cannot tax the newspaper "L'Echo" of a socialist militant!

Why is Belgium holding the top of the pavement? Because our country practices one of the most interesting taxation, a surplus-value tax reduced to nothing and, therefore, this places Belgium at the same level as Switzerland. Luxembourg, on the other hand, tax at least partially surplus values, up to a maximum rate of 39.95%. I think that can leave a dreamer! Let us also not forget other existing forms of taxation that are not mentioned - they are not here in question - for which Belgium is ⁇ singular.

Therefore, when I am talking about the return of the "taxatory rage", allow me to raise some doubts. While it is true that the OECD places our country in the third place in terms of sampling — some are pleased to regularly recall it — objectivity forces us to make two remarks. On the one hand, too many incomes completely escape tax while others are low taxed. On the other hand, if one makes a comparison of the international scene — since that is what it is — before making loud screams, it would be appropriate to link the rates of levy with the benefits and public investments. This will result in a variable benchmarking. There is a lot to bet that the palmarès will experience some big turmoil!

Therefore, I can only welcome this measure, even if incomplete, since it will take its full effect only in 2008 with the full accounting of interest/plus-value income. The taxation of these financial products seems to me quite logical and consistent, especially since the bonds, on the other hand, are already taxed through the liberatory pre-count. Therefore, it seems to me normal to take into account the obligation parts of the sicavs and the sicavs consisting only of obligations. The implementation of this tax is fully in line with the model proposed by the Savings Directive.

Furthermore, if this established arrangement will be fully implemented only in 2008, we welcome that the government has ensured the consistency of the method by providing for an increase in the tax on stock exchanges from 0.5 to 1.1% – this percentage is not very high – with a ceiling of 750 euros and its possible disappearance in 2008 as it is a transitional measure. In addition to taxing savings, the choice made by the government is also an economic choice, since savings invested on the stock market must enable companies to finance themselves to produce, to contribute to growth and job creation. Therefore, taxing in particular the bonds seems to me quite consistent, especially since correlatively an incentive was put in place by the repayment of the TOB if there was conversion between 1 January and 28 February. by

In the same logic, it also seems to me quite normal that the products of branches 21 and 23 are taken into account since these insurance products are, in fact, savings products. It is therefore a matter of consistency, especially with the taxation of sicavs, and it is good to remember that this is only a reduced tax, since it is 1.1%.

This is for some elements concerning the measures taken by the government that require more social justice and a political choice made.

If the political choice is made to encourage, it must also deter certain behaviors. It seems to me that action should be taken against the behaviors that we may encounter in this taxation, which is adapted to reality, which corrects abusive practices or inequalities, and which fights fraud.

It is good that the government finally takes the necessary measures to restore the utility vehicle category to its real function, namely to offer a suitable taxation to professionals who use their vehicle as a tool. He had become somewhat unfair to see Cayenne at Sablon, while knowing that this luxurious off-road was registered as a truck. This is also a clear choice made by the government, a choice of justice and correction of abusive practices. One may ask what will happen to vehicles that are currently registered as utilities: will they remain? Or will they have to meet the new standards in order to continue to benefit from these provisions?

Another element of corrective justice and re-balancing: the anti-abuse measure. VAT is an important part of taxation, many European directives are dedicated to it, a part of what we pay as VAT goes directly to Europe. It is therefore good that measures are taken to combat fraud in this area.

In this context, it is essential to provide fraud fighting services with the tools, including legal, necessary to fulfill their mission. Legal certainty is of course essential, but it is equally essential to combat law abuse. This is a form of self-protection of the legal order, to recall the expression of the Attorney General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Mr. The Treasure.

VAT and its application are complex subjects and are conducive to fraudulent legal assemblies, as is discovered too often when updating VAT carousels. It is therefore ⁇ important to be able to combat abuse of law in this area. Furthermore, the measures taken here must be linked to the existence of the pre-decision procedure — the “ruling” — which allows any company to ensure that these transactions will not be contested. This will guarantee full and complete legal certainty indispensable to a sound economic activity. I would also like to raise the measure regarding the low-income tax credit, including statutory officials. This is a good measure because it corrects an injustice that excluded officials from the benefit of this measure. Public employment is important and should not be discriminated against in employment support schemes.

As I said, if taxation is there to ensure political choices and deter certain behaviors, it also serves to make key decisions and better understand the real problems. Taxation, some measures of which take effect with delay, can also respond quickly to sudden problems. And I am pleased that the government has been able to respond promptly to the relatively sudden rise in fuel prices, while anticipating and developing policies to reduce and rationalize energy consumption.

As for heating diesel, there is no delay in the current state of things, but serious work awaits the tax administration at the beginning of the year, considering all those who await the refund of their oil bill. Therefore, officials will need to be mobilised in order to be able to meet the large demand, as it is already being raised at the moment. As I said before in the budget discussion, since the communities are stakeholders and a recent agreement has been reached with the communities, ⁇ it would be worth considering putting the hand directly on them instead of overloading the administration, which will face individual requests.

We welcome these measures, as they allow the population to amortise this relatively brutal rise in fuel prices. However, we would like to remind here that structural measures must be decided, and ⁇ even only, for those with the lowest incomes.

Indeed, if one can see that the barrel of oil decreases somewhat, all studies demonstrate that the cost of energy will grow, especially since we could reach a peak of oil production. It is not necessary to be alarmist, but I believe that based on these studies based on objective elements, we must move towards structural initiatives aimed at the lowest incomes. For it is those with the lowest incomes who are most affected by the effects of price increases, and they are those who need to be especially helped. It will probably be the same for the measures that will be taken in order to lessen the cost of the gas bill. They could provide a structural response.

If it is necessary to deal with a sudden element, a sudden rise and to provide a quick and as appropriate response as possible, it is also necessary to establish a taxation that allows you to look at the future with serenity. In terms of energy, it is highly likely that the trend of rising prices will continue. I think it is essential to implement policies to reduce and rationalize consumption. Therefore, expenses must be engaged to save energy. Many measures must be taken and are taken with higher ceilings for investments and renovations, all of which contribute to reduced energy consumption.

On the other hand, while it is possible to consider individual measures for energy savings, another way of encouraging would be to target investments in priority sectors. by

It is the duration of these measures that must be taken, which will be taken since the next measures will instead aim to encourage energy savings and this is normal. While it is essential to allow everyone to warm up and to take into account the rising rates, taking into account the future also compels us to adapt our behaviors, those of individuals as well as those of communities. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with these studies, which are sometimes costly, as well as these investments.

The measures are positive. We can understand that they cannot satisfy everyone, both in the majority and in the opposition; we can understand that the choices made politically cannot satisfy everyone, but they have the merit of being clear. They are not simply explained by a budget to keep in balance, but they are decided by taking into account social justice and fiscal justice to maintain. In addition, they are operated in order to encourage or deter certain behaviors.

We will vote for this part with confidence.

In a matter of minutes I will give the floor to Mr. and Devlies.

Then I will give the ministers the opportunity to answer. I would like to close the chapter on Finance, Economics and the general discussion this morning.

So we will begin our work this afternoon with the Infrastructure, Environment, Social Affairs, External Relations and Authority Departments. We will try to close our discussions around 18:30.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have already had a fairly thorough discussion in the committee regarding the articles submitted. A number of members have already taken the floor. Their

Chairman: Geert Lambert, Vice-President Voorzitter: Geert Lambert, undervoorzitter.

I will limit myself to a small part of the proposed legislation, in particular the anti-abuse provisions on VAT. Their

A few months ago, the former Minister of Budget, Johan Vande Lanotte, announced that he would take an anti-abuse measure as part of the fight against VAT carousel fraud. We were looking forward to the initiative to be taken in this regard. Their

On the basis of the text presented now, the Government intends not so much to introduce a measure against VAT-carousel fraud, but rather to limit the right of the taxable person to choose the least taxable route. It aims to do so by introducing a copy of the anti-abuse provision from income taxes into VAT legislation. Their

This intention to put a pillar and perk on ingenious legal structures is clearly reflected in the memorandum of explanation which in that context mentions the structures in which, without economic responsibility, fictitious or buffer companies are established. Their

By analogy with income tax, the counterproof consists in demonstrating that, in addition to fiscal motives, there are also financial and economic motives. Being aware of the legal uncertainty that such a measure implies, the memory explicitly refers to the procedure of previous decisions, the so-called ruling, missing it allows the economic operator to ex ante ensure that the economic acts he wishes to perform will not be challenged subsequently.

The question arises why the government is taking these measures now.

On the one hand, the question arises why it now only introduces the measure, which was already incorporated into income taxes by law of 22 July 1993. The measure has been in effect for 12 years in the income taxes.

On the other hand, just now a number of important judgments of the European Court of Justice are expected on whether or not there is an autonomous, Community, anti-abuse principle. The proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union are always about structures which attempt to recover VAT in cases where this is normally not possible, in accordance with the general principles of the same directive.

The government is well aware of the upcoming European justice. It is already announced that new legislation will be adopted as soon as the judgment of the European Court of Justice is known.

The measure is also strange at the moment, given the European Commission’s initiative to allow Member States, through a revision of Article 27 of the Sixth Directive, to act legislatively in a flexible manner against certain legal structures and to adapt the Directive in a sustainable way to certain known obstacles.

Furthermore, given recent jurisprudence on income taxes concerning the application of the anti-abuse measure for the re-qualification of documents, the inclusion of a copy of the provisions in the VAT Code currently seems to have little meaning. Based on the case-law, the application of Article 344, § 1, of the Income Tax Code is considered possible only if the consequences associated with the qualification of the act given by the parties are identical to those associated with the qualification replaced by the administration.

Moreover, this application condition, which is difficult to realize in practice, appears to be further complicated on the VAT level by the fact that the concepts of VAT must be interpreted in the Community. Consequently, the judges and councillors will have to ask a preliminary question for any dispute concerning the application of the new article 124 of the Code of value added tax. This will lead to long procedures before the taxable person gains legal certainty. Their

Instead, the introduction of this anti-abuse law seems to be a tool to create legal uncertainty. The expected increase in the number of legal disputes and the fact that in the Memory it is expressly stated that the administrative decision-making practice must bring this legal certainty demonstrate that the government is losing its legislative task by shifting responsibility to the other powers. Their

In addition, by introducing the measure in question retroactively as of 1 November 2005, there is in fact again an example of legislation affecting the business climate in Belgium. There is nothing worse than legal uncertainty. They are not allowed to jump for legal disputes with the tax authorities. In addition, an administrative ruling is only valid insofar as it is not contrary to the law. The practice will have to show who within the administration will have the last word on this. Their

Mr. Minister of Finance, in relation to these articles, I have a precise question to you. Meanwhile, municipalities have raised concerns about the proper legal scope, more specifically about the VAT obligation of municipalities for everything related to sewage. Their

Mr. Minister, I refer you to the ruling with the intercommunal sewage companies and the answer you gave to Senator Steverlynck regarding the VAT obligation of individual municipalities that enter into an agreement with the sewage companies. Their

I would like to conclude my intervention with a specific question to the Minister of Finance. Their

Can I assume that this article of the Program Law has no effect on the VAT obligation of municipalities for everything related to water distribution and sewage?

Mr. President, I would like to misuse Mr. Devlies’ explanation to ask a question to the Minister responsible for the Regie der Gebäude, within the framework of the amendment granting state guardianship on the transfer of the Court Palace of Antwerp. My question relates to the bids that took place on Monday.

Mr. Minister, would you like to answer?

I have a few answers.

Mr. Bogert had two questions. A first question was whether it was possible to have a reduction in commissions and costs for the banks for two months, until the beginning of next year, for the beef, to go to a distribution product. There is a reduction in the TOB. That is clear. It is in the law. It is perfectly possible for banks to follow the same reasoning with regard to their commissions on an individual basis - bank by bank - and on a collective level, for example with Febelfin and with an agreement within Febelfin. We have no real agreement with the banks to do so. It is their choice. It might be useful for banks to do so in order to have customers for another product.

There was a second question relating to the status of the TOB as of 1 January 2008. The tax is ready. We are coming back to a lower level, but without a royal decision. It is possible to abolish a new scheme, with the same TOB and without tax on elements other than interest. Mr. Bogert asked what the situation will be. I thank him for his trust in me. I will try to stay until 2008 and make a decision. I thank Mr. Bogert for his trust. It is not the first time. He has already asked me a number of questions to know what I will do in 2011 or 2012. I am willing to stay until then. I have no objection to this. I thank the CD&V Group, and in particular Mr Bogaert, for their confidence in this regard. I will try to stay until 2008 and maybe even longer, maybe until I am eighty years old. This is a very good final career for me. I am willing to do that.

Mr. Minister, I will pass the message to Mr. Bogert.

It is not the first time. He gave a very good comment in the Finance Committee regarding the program law. He said it was a very good preparation of the law. It was very pleasant to hear that.

The text is ready. There is a reduction in the TOB without a new royal decree. It is also possible to go to another system, but there is only the abolition of the current item.

Then I come to Mr. Devlies and the new anti-abuse measures with regard to VAT. It is not the goal of doing anything against the municipalities or against a specific product — if I can call it so — within the municipalities. However, we must always follow the same reasoning, we must have an economic goal. With that economic objective, however, there is no reason for a different treatment of municipalities. I have no such intention in this regard. This also applies to my administration. Case by case, however, we need to come to a clear and clear analysis, without there being real problems in the municipalities for such a product. Normally, we must stay with the current situation.

I am referring to the guarantees related to the Palace of Justice in Antwerp. So far, we are continuing this operation in Antwerp. There will be a new meeting next Friday with all the offers on the table. I will look at the various offers and, if necessary, we will have to provide a state guard. That is ready and clear. I will put some conditions on the table. So far, however, I have not made a decision regarding a state guard. First and foremost, we must have the law. That is clear, there is a specific provision. I also have to look at the different offers. We are waiting until Friday. Per ⁇ it will still be possible to have a discussion on this subject on Friday afternoon. However, I have not yet put precise conditions on the table, I must first and above all see the different offers. Then we will make a decision.

Mr. Minister, except for mistake on my part, I think that on Monday, the youngest members normally received the last offer from the candidates concerned. I thought that the act normally turned out on the same day, though under the suspending condition of a state guarantee.

It happened on the same day, but it was not on Monday, it will be Friday. There were also a number of questions from the various companies involved in the preparation of a legal offer. There are two more meetings, today and tomorrow, to answer those questions. Friday is usually the last meeting. It will happen on Thursday or Friday, but I think Friday. So it is the same reasoning as last week, I have to make a decision on the same day about the State Guard. However, it did not happen on Monday, it will be before the end of the week. We are still working on a number of questions from the various companies and we are trying to answer them on a legal level, not only with the Regie der Gebäude but also with the consultant of the Regie der Gebäude.

Mr. Minister, this cannot cause any problems. If you now re-discuss the conditions and the risks and change the modalities — either explicitly or implicitly — you could have problems, like the Sun and Sea at the time. Some bidders go off, other bidders are still joining.

The state guarantee is only a possibility. I don’t think it will be possible to do an operation without a state guard, but I’m waiting for the offer. If someone submits an offer without requiring a state guarantee, then I have no problem with this proposal.

Mr. Minister, in the event of changes after meetings, other candidates may submit candidates.

Everyone can come. But so far there is no change in the conditions. There were still some changes in terms of interest, but not in terms of the state guard. This is a separate decision of the Government and the Minister of Finance. So we go on. On Friday, December 23, we will reach a final decision. But if it is impossible to make a decision on that date, then I am prepared to wait until 31 December.

Mr. Wathelet spoke to me, who said that a lot of effort has been made in the field of energy. However, he has linked that to the fact that this would be the result of European directives. That is partly correct. I say, in part, because neither the degressive rate, nor the listing of Elia, nor the energy infpoint, nor the electronic gas cadastre, nor the interconnection are provided or required by directives. These are additional initiatives that this government has taken. Their

He had three problems. First, Fapetro and the fact that this would be used for various purposes. We must assume what Fapetro is: it is initially a budgetary fund. That fund may also be used for other efforts and purposes, provided that the data to be processed has the same purposes. Therefore, it is quite normal for Apetra, Premas, Bofas and the Social Fuel Fund, which all work with calculations, formatting and sending documents based on data that can be supplied by the sector, that budget fund has chosen to make this possible. There is nothing illegal in this. Their

Then he talked about the program contract. It is true that the program contract has so far been concluded with the people of the Belgian Petroleum Federation. Initially, there are seven large companies, which are almost exclusively engaged in refining. Beyond that, there are many other things to be done in this sector such as transportation, distribution and supply. These are different meters. This is accepted for other energy sources and must therefore also be accepted for petroleum. That is one of the reasons why the possibility is now provided through the Program Law to be able to conclude agreements with those other sectors, i.e. to be able to conclude binding agreements with those 60% other sectors engaged in transport, distribution or supply. In that regard, I do not think that this is a change, but simply an adaptation to the everyday reality.

Finally, I would like to say something about the distributed payment. We hear a diffuse clock. Some say that the announced obligations have not yet been imposed. Others argue that these commitments will kill the sector. I think of the speech that Ms. Pieters held last week. We must take into account the problems that the sector knows, but we must also not lose sight of Mr. Wathelet’s position.

We discussed this with the industry and we eventually reached an agreement. This can be poured into a KB. The KB design is ready. We can only publish and execute this KB as soon as this program law on distributed payment has been published. Then we will follow the normal steps of the procedure.