Proposition 51K2596

Projet de loi modifiant la loi ordinaire du 16 juillet 1993 visant à achever la structure fédérale de l'Etat.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 3, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax environmental protection environmental tax preparation for market

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Jo Vandeurzen (CD&V) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

(...) 10 July 2006. Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, states that the government is still working to address the nefarious effects of the ordinary law of 16 July 1993 completing the federal state structure that introduced environmental taxes. Normally, at the beginning of 2000, the government had to impose an environmental tax of 15 Belgian francs on all beverage packaging, regardless of their content. She has tried diet to form into ecoboni, that is, tax reduction, to encourage the use of reusable packaging.

The present draft law is intended to amend Article 371 of the above-mentioned ordinary law in order to respond formally-legally favourably to the will expressed by the Court of Arbitration in its judgment of 14 December 2005 concerning an appeal brought by several producers. The proposal means that the reusable packaging duties will be taxed at a rate of 0%. The Minister is open to any other proposals to resolve the problem of environmental taxes, provided they are budgetally acceptable.

During the discussion, Mr. Devlies will explain the bill that his group has submitted on this issue. On the basis of a number of tables, he attempts to establish that, in terms of the results of this tax, a challenging amount of environmental benefit can be counted. He made it clear that the current bill does not aim at environmental objectives at all. It continues an unconstitutionally found situation and the associated legal uncertainty. It leaves border trade uninterrupted. It is also unaccountable because it harms young families and older people who often buy drinks in recyclable packaging and because it affects cheaper drinks relatively more than more expensive drinks.

Mr. Devlies argued that his own bill, on the other hand, provides for administrative simplification. It reduces a flat-rate tax, increases people’s purchasing power, provides greater legal certainty and reduces the size of border trade. During the discussion, Mr Bogaert joins Mr Devlies’ position. Also Mrs Marleen Govaerts van Vlaams Belang declares that her group is in favor of the abolition of the environmental tax.

Finally, the vote was passed, with 8 votes for the bill and 3 votes against.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we heard once again an excellent report, now from Mr. Van Biesen. He also expressed our views in his presentation. Just clarify what it is about here. Their

It is a tax that applies to packaging and that is important. We have made the comparison in the committee with the taxes that exist, for example, in neighboring France. In your documentation you will find the calculations. Did you know that if we make the calculation on a sixpack or a package of six bottles of one and a half liters of water, for example, the tax pressure in Belgium is 52.1%? In France — indeed, with liberals in government, as some say — this is 7.7%. That means that on such a package only packaging contributions a sum of 1 euro must be paid. This also means that an average family, based on a calculated consumption of 1 litre per person, amounts to a sum of 125 euros per year that this tax per family implies. Their

I could give another example. If I charge in Belgian franc for a glass of water from a reusable plastic bottle, you pay 1 franc per glass of water you drink. This is an important tax that is being levied. You know that this law is the result of a judgment in a judgment of the Arbitration Court in which the previous legislation was broken. Why did the Court of Arbitration make this judgment? Due to the fact that the ratio of the legislation is not sufficiently established. There is a distinction between reusable and non-reusable packaging. Their

For reusable packaging this tax is not applied, but for non-reusable packaging it is applied.

Anyone who makes a distinction between two types of packaging, however, must also justify that. That motivation was lacking. Mr. Secretary of State, that motivation is missing again. The Minister was present at the committee meeting. However, he could not give us any explanation. He could not explain why the distinction is made between reusable and non-reusable packaging.

Mr. Secretary of State, I ask you to clarify this now. What is the ratio? Why is this distinction made?

During the discussion in the committee, I referred to a number of reports, studies and reports, spread over time—these were reports made over the last ten years, in different countries. I mentioned a French, German and Swiss study. All of these studies result in the fact that the distinction between reusable and non-reusable packaging is no longer substantial, as non-reusable packaging is now recycled.

Originally, it was the intention of the law passed by Parliament in 1993, during the Dehaene government, to move to recycling as much as possible. That goal has been achieved. Currently, more than 90% is recycled in Belgium, or at least in Flanders. The environmental objective has been achieved. So my question is why you distinguish between reusable and non-reusable packaging. It is important that you answer this question correctly and correctly. If you do not do so, the Court of Arbitration, if it later takes note of the debates held in the committee and in the Chamber, will have to determine that the Government does not provide any justification regarding that distinction. Therefore, Mr. Secretary of State, I think it is of particular importance that you give a statement for this.

I also fear that this measure is counterproductive in the environment. This tax on the industry, I think, loses any incentive to recycle packaging. Through the imposition of this tax, any initiative is eliminated.

Furthermore, I believe that this tax is unfair, especially with regard to the weaker in our society, such as the disabled and the elderly, for whom it is difficult to carry glass bottles or to carry goods with them, to bring them to the basement, and so on. That is much requested for people who are less well on their feet or disabled.

Therefore, it is normal that they prefer to use non-reusable packaging. This is an associative tax.

A second reason why this tax is unassociated, dear colleagues of sp.a and spirit, is because it is a flat-rate tax that applies to everyone, regardless of the income that one has. Whether you have a high or low income, the rate is always the same. This is another tax that breaks the progressiveness of taxes. I would have liked to hear from our colleagues from the SPA, following the discussion in the committee, why they support such a tax.

Furthermore, this tax is a regrettable matter for business. Many companies have invested ⁇ heavily in non-reusable packaging and especially in its recycling. All these efforts now appear to be useless.

Finally, this tax also has a very negative effect on border trade. These high taxes — I just gave the example of the rates in France — are very easy to avoid by making purchases in a neighboring country, for example France. If you buy these drinks abroad, this is also accompanied by the purchase of other items. In this way, the entire purchase of food and beverage moves to France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Germany. Studies show that this means a loss of turnover of 1 billion euros for trade, dear colleagues of the VLD, in the border areas. For this reason, traders in the border areas are urging not to impose this tax. I would also like to point out that the revenue from this tax, which can be estimated at 200 million euros, is again flown away in part due to the loss of turnover of the commercial business in the border region.

Dear colleagues, finally, I have to say that the Minister was pleased in the discussion about the fact that we are seeing these days a great increase in the turnover of beverages due to the warm weather. The warmer it is, the more drinks are purchased, the more packaging tax can be levied. Nowadays we can say that it is important for the government that it is very hot in the summer, because then it can make money with the packaging tax. And it is of great importance that it is cold in the winter, because then, of course, you can also earn significant income through the sale of petroleum products.

Dear colleagues, you know that there was an alternative proposal, which came from colleague Bogaert and myself. This proposal consists of eliminating the tax without a doubt. The proposal was unfortunately rejected in the committee. Colleagues, I would like to call on you to reject the draft government now, so that Mr Bogaert and I can submit our proposal again and submit it to the plenary session later.

Secretary of State, this is important. I have asked you a precise question regarding the distinction between reusable and non-reusable beverage packaging. I had expected that you would answer it.

I must note that the oral report of Mr Luk Van Biesen is supported by the printing test of the written report. I have checked it, Mr. Van Biesen. There are so many numbers in it, which, of course, you cannot explain, but on the banks of the Chamber is also the print sample of the report. Therefore, one is sufficiently informed, even if it has gone quickly. The bill was submitted on 3 July, the Council of State decided on it, and so on, and now it is 13 July.

Mr. Secretary of State, would you like to respond to the intervention of Mr. The Devils?

I listened with great interest. Devlies who repeated all the arguments that had been developed in commission by Luimême and Mr. Bogaert, the same as those he had otherwise exposed when depositing his own proposal of law.

I heard a specific question: what is the concept difference between disposable and reusable? It’s enough to refer to the 1993 law—a time many remember; for my part, I don’t remember it because I wasn’t present—which clearly defined the difference between the two concepts.

The reusable container is the container that can be reused at least seven times and for which a deposit of EUR 0,07 or EUR 0,08 is deposited, depending on whether it is a container of half litre or one litre. Is it necessary to remember what is disposable or non-reusable?

I observe that both the State Council and the Arbitration Court — Minister Reynders recalled it in a committee — have highlighted the possibility of a differentiated treatment of disposable and reusable. It is the ordinary law of 16 January 1993 — which we must constantly correct, excuse me to say it — that introduces this concept of differentiation about which there is no scientific dispute.

I can hear the humour of Mr. Dewey reminds me that Mr. Reynders said in a committee that the warmer it was, the more we drank. by Mr. Reynders ⁇ indicated that the thirst was due to the environmental climate of the commission at the time. I also remember, not without humour I believe, that Mr. Bogaert had proclaimed a great truth, namely that there is a direct link between the consumption of fresh drinks and the evolution of climate conditions.

I must remind you that in the North Pole, we also drink!

Probably, but ⁇ other types of drinks. For the rest, I am at your disposal. The objective technical differentiation has existed since 1993. It is not modified and I have ⁇ the most important criteria.

I may not have been enough in my questioning, because of course it is about taxability. Why is a tax imposed in one case and not in the other? In fact, that is the question.

You refer, in order to distinguish, to the law of 1993. I did not have a seat in Parliament at the time, but if I read it correctly, that law had a number of objectives and there were certain percentages of recycling that had to be reached. These objectives were spread over time. For example, in the first year you had to get 30 percent, in the second year you had to get 40 percent, and so it went on to 80 percent. In the end, it reached over 90% and the goal of the law was fully achieved. There is almost complete recycling, ⁇ in Flanders. I also refer to the campaigns set up with FOST Plus that are very successful.

So you have based on the distinction made in that law, but the finality of that law was different. Now you come up with a packaging tax in which you use two different tariffs: a zero tariff for reusable packaging and a ⁇ important tariff of 10 cents per liter for non-usable packaging. Why do you use a different rate?

I referred in the committee to reports from foreign research institutions, which demonstrate that, in terms of the environment, there is no distinction between reusable and non-reusable packaging. Now my question is why one package is charged a heavy tax and the other not.

I have been scattered for a moment by Mrs. Detiège, in connection with the following topic, of course. Mr. Secretary of State, you have the word.

I think I have responded broadly by giving the criteria as they were established. by

I have made reference to the State Council opinion and the arbitration court judgments and return to them in detail: State Council opinion 40-709/2 speaks of the need to operate a differentiated treatment of reusable and recyclable containers. Should it be reminded? — the ordinary law of 16 January 1993 is based precisely on this concept of differentiation. For the Arbitration Court, two judgments highlighted the difference between reusable and non-reusable beverage packaging and the fact that this difference was not without reasonable justification. by

I would like to play cat and mouse, but all this has been discussed in the committee. The philosophy of this text was established in 1993 — neither by you nor by me, Mr. Devlies, but there was a majority to vote for it at the time. We legally correct certain perverse or cancelled effects as such. I would like to resume the whole debate but I cannot go further in my answers, at the risk of repeating myself.

Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that my legitimate question is not answered. He was also not answered in the committee.

I can only refer to the opinion of the State Council. I quote: "...the numerous urgent amendments undergone by the ordinary law of 16 July for the completion of the federal state structure, as well as the many appeals brought against it, the constituents of the preliminary draft law should incite them to ask questions..." - with constituents the State Council refers to the government, the opinion refers to the draft law, not to the draft law - "... the method applied in the draft law examined. Does this method not prevent the repetition of errors already committed?” You can find this passage at the bottom of page 9 of the State Council report.

With a question sign.

Indeed, with a question sign. Their

Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that the mistakes at the bottom are repeated here, yesterday in the committee and today in this plenary session.