Proposition 51K3072

Projet de loi portant modification de la loi du 15 avril 1994 relative à la protection de la population et de l'environnement contre les dangers résultant des rayonnements ionisants et relative à l'Agence fédérale de Contrôle nucléaire en ce qui concerne le financement de l'Agence.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Willy Cortois

Submission date

April 12, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

financing nuclear energy environmental protection nuclear safety radioactive waste

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Ingrid Meeus (Open Vld) voted to adopt.
• Ingrid Meeus (Open Vld) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

April 26, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, my report will be brief, but I think it is necessary to present it, given the context of nuclear.

In his introductory speech, Mr. Willy Cortois specifies that the bill under consideration has its origin in the judgment of 8 November 2006, by which the Administrative Section of the State Council decided that the Agency could not be financed through fees. This proposal aims therefore to introduce a mode of financing that better guarantees legal certainty.

In the general discussion, Ms. Creyf believes that the provisions of the project aim to introduce a tax with retroactive effect. by Mr. Cortois says that he has no intention of introducing a tax. This is a kind of tax.

In the discussion of the articles, in Article 3, Mr. Willy Cortois submits amendment No. 2, which tends to also fix for the year 2008 the amount of taxes collected for the benefit of the Agency and to be borne by holders of authorisations and approvals. This amendment is adopted, like Article 3, by ten votes against one.

In Article 5, Ms. Creyf presents an amendment No. 1, which aims to remove the projected article. It thus wishes to resolve the financing problems of the Agency following the decision of the State Council of 8 November 2006.

by Mr. Philippe De Coene considers, however, that the amendment n° 2 of Mr. Cortois is more capable of achieving this goal. The committee voted by ten votes against one for the maintenance of the article making amendment n° 1 of Mrs. Creyf unobject.

by Mr. Willy Cortois submits Amendment No. 3 aimed at deleting the provision providing for financing of the Agency from appropriations entered in the general budget of expenditure. Amendment No. 3 of the Cortois was adopted by ten votes against one.

According to Article 6, Mr. Willy Cortois submits Amendment No. 4, which postpones to 1 January 2009 the date on which Articles 3 and 4 cease to produce their effects. It indicates that this amendment is the logical consequence of Amendment No. 2 to Article 3. Amendment No. 4 of the Cortois and the article were adopted by ten votes against one.

At the general vote, the committee unanimously decides to derogate from Article 82 of the House Rules and to immediately vote on the entire bill. The draft law as amended and corrected is adopted by ten votes against one.

Mr. Speaker, I had indeed suggested that the two proposals be discussed together for a very obvious reason, namely that the proposal we are going to vote on later is actually the implementation of point 13 of the resolution. Thus, to say that one has nothing to do with the other is to pretend that there are two separate worlds. That being said, it is right for me. It is the implementation of point 13 of the resolution. I am a little surprised by Mr. Cortois’s comment.

I have suggested your suggestion, but if there is no consensus on that – without any adverse intentions – I must work according to the agenda. Therefore, you would rather take the word on the resolution.

Mr. Cortois’s Amendment No. 2 decided to halve the remuneration for Class 3 equipment, the radiological equipment. This is a good decision of the Minister of Internal Affairs. There was no return of these contributions to the sector. The medical radiological devices are inspected by private firms and are paid separately. There is no reflux from the FANC.

No other speakers are registered. You too, Mr Cortois?

I welcome the unanimity.

Keep your joy a little longer until the mood is over. Then you will see it.