Proposition 52K0376

Projet de loi visant à élargir le public-cible pouvant bénéficier d'une allocation de chauffage du Fonds social Mazout et à augmenter la quantité de mazout donnant droit à cette allocation.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Colette Burgeon, Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Dalila Douifi

Submission date

Nov. 14, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

petroleum social policy welfare fuel oil

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Vooruit N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Karine Lalieux (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 20, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the Public Health Committee examined the bill 376/1 in its meetings of 27 November, 4 and 13 December 2007.

Ms. Burgeon, co-author of the bill, presented us with the objective of the text under consideration, motivated by the previously unknown height of the price of oil.

The bill aims to replace Articles 205, 207 and 212 of the Program Law of 27 December 2004 with new provisions in order to extend the current conditions of access of households to the interventions of the Social Oil Fund.

The first objective is to reach a broader target audience, through a revision of the income ceilings, which are raised to €22,872,51 net.

The second objective is to increase the amount of oil eligible for fund interventions, the current ceiling of 1,500 liters to 2,000 liters.

Finally, the third objective is to replace the mechanism for smoothing intervention thresholds based on the evolution of oil price over the past five years by an inscription of the current intervention grid in the program law. In this new provision of the law-programme, a new intervention level at 14 cents per litre of oil will also be added when its price exceeds 0.715 euros per litre.

The proposal also provides, in parallel with the existing contribution collected on all petroleum products, for the use of a new funding instrument, namely the collection of an amount of VAT to be determined by royal decree.

At the end of the general presentation of the text and while supporting the social objective of the proposal, and taking into account both the numerous unknown and the likely financial consequences of the text under consideration, MEP Daniel Bacquelaine found it necessary that the committee invites the Court of Auditors to submit, before voting, a note containing an estimate of the new expenditure.

The authors of the proposal, the honorable members Karine Lalieux and Colette Burgeon, challenged this request for opinion to the Court of Auditors for practical reasons, considering that this request could block the work of the committee for many months while the urgency on the text had been granted by the House in plenary session. They also argued that requesting the Court of Auditors would therefore be a waste of time. Representatives of the groups cdH, CD&V-N-VA, Open Vld, Ecolo-Groen! by the voice of mr. Wathelet, Verhaegen, Mrs. Avontroodt, Mrs. Gerkens and your rapporteur supported Mr. Wathelet’s request. Bacquelaine to seek the opinion of the Court of Auditors. This request was adopted by the committee with 9 votes for, 4 votes against and 1 abstinence.

by Mr. Verhaegen and Avontroodt also proposed to consult the CPAS in order to know the burden of the current regime and what changes the adoption of the proposed measures would entail for them. The Court of Auditors issued an opinion on 11 December, just days after being officially requested by our President. In this regard, all the members of the committee warmly thanked the Court for the promptness with which an opinion had been submitted.

However, the speed of the Court’s response implies that it must be based on inevitably prudent and projective assumptions. Nevertheless, each of the members agreed, even those – is it not Ms. Burgeon – who had refused to appeal to the Court of Auditors, on the relevance and quality of the Court’s work.

In the context and in the light of the opinion of the Court, all members recognized the necessity of the objective to strengthen the capabilities of the Oil Social Fund, taking into account the price of the oil, at a historically high level.

However, there are differences as to how to ⁇ this goal. Many members were surprised that only 10 to 15% of all households currently entitled to an intervention from the Oil Fund actually perceive such intervention. Certainly, not everyone warms up to the oil but it remains no less that the really eligible public is very little concerned by the measure in force for two years. Members therefore expressed the desire to first provide efforts to reach in depth and as fully as possible the first target group, i.e. socially disadvantaged persons, before expanding the fund to other categories.

Of the 850,000 households that already potentially now have access to the fund, only 99,682 have actually benefited from an intervention.

Similarly, it was noted that the average amount of fund intervention was only 1,100 liters, while the current ceiling is 1,500 liters. Therefore, the question arose of whether it is appropriate to increase the maximum amount of intervention which, by the way, may constitute a negative signal regarding the objective of energy use savings.

It was also stressed that it could be expected that the number of people tending to use the Fund will increase, given, on the one hand, the fact that the price of oil continues to rise and, on the other hand, the fact that the new target group with a higher income than the current public is also often better informed and more assertive.

The committee was also interested in learning that the theoretical number of households concerned would increase, with the proposal discussed, from 850,000 to 2,500,000, although, in fact, it can be thought that the actual number of beneficiaries would increase from 99,000 to a range, according to the Court of Auditors, between 250,000 and 375,000 households.

The fact of having to address the CPAS to obtain an intervention from the Fund was also highlighted, in particular by Mr. Wathelet, who considered that this constituted a barrier to the use of the fund. Some members have proposed to look at this issue in the future, in particular due to the desire of the CPAS federations to no longer deal with these cases.

Many questions were also asked. First, as regards how to ⁇ more efficient, and therefore less costly, energy consumption, in particular by promoting more environmentally friendly measures such as “passive houses”, a measure ⁇ favoured by your rapporteur.

Then, as regards the actual cost of the system and its financing through VAT revenue, VAT which the Court of Auditors has clearly stated that only a small portion fed the state treasures. The surplus cost for the fund of the bill may represent amounts ranging from 25 to 59 million euros compared to the current situation. And this regardless of additional VAT revenue, but also additional costs incurred by an increase in the cost of oil.

Finally, the role of CPAS and the means to be implemented for a more efficient management of the files and costs to be borne.

Some members discussed the possibility of granting different, progressive interventions taking into account income, i.e. by intervening more strongly in the costs of the oil of the lowest income.

For the surplus and detail of some discussions, I refer to my written report.

In conclusion, on the text of the proposal, Article 1 was adopted unanimously.

Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the original proposal were replaced by Amendment No. 1 submitted by MM. Daniel Bacquelaine, Melchior Wathelet, Yolande Avontroodt, Nathalie Muylle and Véronique Salvi. This amendment was adopted by 10 votes against 7. It aims to provide the new government with signals, accents, guidelines, allowing, through a simple royal decree, not only an increase in the number of beneficiaries through the increase of the maximum amounts of income, but also an increase in the intervention threshold, while taking into account the available budget margins.

Amendment No. 5 incorporating a new Article 4a was adopted unanimously. This amendment aims to increase the deadlines for the introduction of the application to the Fund. In fact, applications can, by this amendment, still be submitted two months after the heating period, that is, until the end of June 2008.

Article 5 was adopted by 12 votes and 5 abstentions, since it was already covered by the new Article 4.

The whole proposal, as amended and corrected, was adopted by 10 votes against 6 and 1 abstinence.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, that one of the discussions of the committee was about the perception of the authors of the bill. The latter felt the vote on the main amendment as a willingness to dilate manoeuvres, while we know very real and hard-lived cold spikes. The rapporteur I am can therefore only rejoice to find that the bill submitted to the vote of our Auguste Assembly will, without doubt, be one of the first gifts deposited at the foot of the Christmas tree of the new government which will be presented to us tomorrow.

Thus, the expectations, fears, concerns of all the members of the committee will undoubtedly be lifted and the common will to improve the Oil Social Fund thus demonstrated. There is no doubt that it will also be felt by all our colleagues and, beyond, by all our fellow citizens as a future-bearer for the joint work that we have to carry out in the coming months in the service of our country, Belgium.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that the full opinion of the Court of Auditors has been included in the annex to the written report.

The proposed legislation has taken a long and very strange path in the committee. For example, the original proposal envisaged an increase in the limit of the quantities for which the subsidy is possible, an expansion of the target group, the establishment of a new threshold for compliance in relation to the price of the fuel oil above the current limit and the establishment of an additional source of financing, in particular a part of the revenues from the increase in the VAT collected.

The proposal was once again another example of a socialist marketing policy, where, under the guise of a social policy, one wants to give gifts to certain segments of the population. A genuine social policy is not carried out on the cap of the needy, let that be clear. In a genuine social policy, one tries first and foremost not to let people fall into the damn corner.

However, during the discussion of this proposal in the committee, a number of striking facts came to light. For example, the Court of Auditors makes a special observation, and I quote here from the opinion we may have received from the Court of Auditors: "In the limits of these hypotheses, it can be assumed that currently only 10 to 15% of all households eligible for support from the Stock Oil Fund also receive one." This means that the existing Stock Oil Fund is completely overtaking its purpose. Only one-tenth of the target group is reached. We can therefore conclude that the aforementioned scheme needs urgently to be evaluated and revised. Socialists didn’t seem to find this so important. If even the lowest income group is not or barely reached, the socialists want to increase the target group. This can hardly be described as good governance.

Equally significant and significant is the decision of the OCMWs to withdraw from the Stool Oil Fund. In their press release it is even stated, and I quote again: “The OCMWs have since the start of the Social Oils Fund fundamental objections to the principles and functioning of this fund. These objections have not diminished in recent years. The Fund is still not an instrument for adequate assistance for the OCMWs today.”

Colleagues, I think I can say that we should not suspect the OCMWs of an associate institution. If even they are of the opinion that this fund does not fit in a social policy and we find that the target group is not or insufficiently reached, does it not make sense to first make an evaluation of this fund? If the government wants to do something about the rising energy costs, that the same government should first think well about the measures to be taken.

In the committee, the present proposal has been thoroughly amended, which now actually gives the next government the power to amend the amounts currently provided by royal decree.

We believe that a genuine social policy in this matter is better conducted on the basis of reduced excise duties. The existing OCMWs may, independently of that measure, take appropriate measures within the current legislation tailored to the person concerned.

We will therefore not approve the present proposal because it is unthinkable and incomplete, and cannot sufficiently be considered as a genuine social measure.

First of all, I would like to say a few words about the situation. A draft law tells us to raise the income ceilings that give access to the Oil Fund, to raise the quantities of oil to which these people with the lowest income will be entitled through the Oil Fund financing and to finance that increase through VAT revenues, since state revenues have increased as a result of the rising prices of petroleum products. Here is a summary of the current situation.

As Mr. said. Flahaux, an opinion has actually been requested from the Court of Auditors which gives us an estimate of the cost of the measures with a ⁇ wide range. In fact, we do not know how many people will use this expanded fund. The Court of Auditors notes that only 10% of people with incomes below the current ceilings use funding from the Oil Fund. Mr. Flahaux, what was also highlighted but which you did not relay in your speech, is that, among these people, not all consume oil. Many are heated by natural gas. Therefore, it is not 10% of oil consumers who have incomes below the ceilings.

It is still that the cost assessment is difficult and that the figures of the Court of Auditors present a very large range. The estimated costs vary between 30 and 74 million. The Court also draws our attention to the fact that our VAT revenues have, of course, increased but that the percentage of VAT revenues still to the federal state is ⁇ low, given all the arrangements we have taken and which make the VAT revenues participate in various financing, whether in favour of communities, health care, etc.

So this is the situation in which we find ourselves, with an amendment of the future blue orange majority planned at the time, social-Christian and liberal, accepting the idea of increasing the ceilings and funding of the fund without further practical details and considering that it would be up to the future government to concrete the measure. This much broader provision eventually won it in the committee's votes.

So the proposal on the table today tells us that there will be raised ceilings and increased funding. How much and how, we do not know.

With regard to these provisions, I would like to add additional elements to the reflection that we are supposed to have together.

But before that, I would like to remind that if we are again today in the obligation to opt for a punctual measure to give help to people who do not have the ability to buy their oil, it is because for four years, the liberal socialist government has not applied the tools and has not used the available budgets.

These tools and budgets, however, would have enabled citizens to save energy and made it possible to provide assistance to the most deprived of us. Indeed, a fund called the Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund has been planned and has been in place for almost two years. It was created for the most disadvantaged public, in collaboration with municipalities and CPAS. In fact, no one has been helped yet.

This is the hypocrisy that prevails today. We don’t take the steps that would allow people to permanently reduce their bills, but we offer them gifts to help them with, occasionally, too high bills.

The current funding of the Social Fund relies exclusively on the solidarity of citizens since it is through a contribution that this fund is financed. Furthermore, the proposed measure is to increase financing through VAT, which is also based on the solidarity of citizens as all of them finance VAT, including VAT on fuel.

Today, we need to help the less disadvantaged of us cope with the rising costs of oil.

I come to the additional comments I would like to make.

As a committee, I reflected that the budget assessed by the Court of Auditors was important – we still reach 74 million – and that it would be necessary to ask if we could bear those expenses. And then, I hear my colleague Jean-Marc Nollet talk about a post in the 2007 budget adjustment which provides 80 million to cover the costs of a study launched to know how to do not comply with the law of nuclear exit and have another energy policy. These expenses would have been made by negotiators, ministers in place or not.

of 80 million. This is the amount of the adjustment. 74 million, that is the amount assessed by the Court of Auditors for the financing of the Oil Social Fund. My argument is therefore annihilated since I realize that around the table, a few people have not hesitated to throw out the window, against the opinion of the Financial Inspection, 80 million to know how not to comply with the law! What a hypocrisy!

In addition, I had expressed in a committee my amazement at the request, in particular, of the MR and the VLD to seek the opinion of the Court of Auditors in order to obtain a cost assessment. I did not understand that the government had not already conducted such a study while it had the tools and all the figures relating to finances, to VAT revenues. The government could have made this assessment because everyone, all the leaders of all political parties, claimed to want to help people by giving them a premium to pay their heating bill.

But they say no, that we do not do this, that we only negotiate. Here too, between the political discourses held to citizens and giving the impression that one wants to help them and the concretization, which does not help them neither to save nor to assess the cost of measures, there is a very unethical gap.

A new transitional government is being formed. Tomorrow, he will present to us his government statement and probably measures aimed at the poorest, including measures allowing them to assume their heating bill. I hope that the liberal, social-Christian and socialist partners will tell us today what the measure will be done in concrete terms. Since you will come with a note tomorrow, I assume that you have a budget estimate that will allow you to say how much the ceiling or fund funding will be raised and with what means. If you do not do this today, I will consider that appearance once again prevails over the concrete help we want to provide to the citizens.

I therefore abstained in the committee for the final vote since the proposal mentioned that the government committed to raising the ceilings and funding; it was a step forward and it was better than nothing. I hope that we will still be able to at least abstain after learning about the numbers that the government will announce to us tomorrow to help citizens. I also hope that we will have measures to allow energy savings because the scandal has lasted long enough: millions are sleeping and citizens are not helped to reduce their oil bill!

The speeches follow each other and are not very similar.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you all know, as you all repeat in every field, the price of oil has never been so high, never! It is sadly historical, it is inheritable for many families, for many of our fellow citizens. Its price, for orders greater than 2,000 liters, has increased to 0.67 euros per litre. Never before had the price of oil reached such a peak. And this price is even higher for smaller orders: 0.7158 euros between 500 and 1,000 liters ordered. Today, an average delivery of 2,000 liters of oil oil costs more than 1,300 euros, a month’s salary for many of our fellow citizens, more than double some social benefits. It is not normal that getting warm during the winter becomes a luxury. It is unacceptable to think that heating becomes an inaccessible need.

Who can now pay for such an expense at once, when the prices of all foodstuffs exceed the ceilings, that rent sometimes accounts for 50% of the income?

And let’s not come to tell me that the socialists take out the violins to make them cry in the chaumeries! Those who dare accuse us of sinking into the pathos do not know the reality of people, do not know the gap that is dangerously reduced between what some earn and what they must spend on first necessity goods before the beginning of the month.

The responsibility of women and politicians is to address the problems of the population, to bring solutions to the problems of people’s daily lives, especially when they take such a scale.

The six months we have just lived have been, in my view, synonyms of immobilism. The absence of a government capable of responding to the urgent needs of the people has translated into the daily life of many with a great concern. The prices of energy and everyday life could explode, pack up, go crazy, without women and politicians being able to bridge this package, contain this crazy race. This feeling of anxiety was further accentuated, it was even more bitter because people knew that the political world could act. Yes, we could have acted sooner, dear colleagues! Not the government, because it was too long to form, but at least the Parliament.

The Socialists have not stayed on the balcony for these six months. They didn’t just talk about the crisis, the purchasing power and the rising prices. They didn’t just say they had to deal with people’s problems. No to No! They didn’t stay on the balcony. They sat around the table and managed to agree on proposals. PS and sp.a are the only two parties in this assembly that have jointly deposited texts that can, if adopted, solve people’s problems and that could already have eased the energy bill if they had been adopted earlier.

Who other than the PS and sp.a has submitted proposals to help relieve the weight of gas and electricity bills, to impose a maximum price for gas and electricity, to expand the Oil Fund, to create an observatory of the prices of everyday life and to re-establish price control, especially for food products?

There are two points in common to all these texts PS - sp.a. First, they represent a concrete response to the needs of the people, to the real concerns of the population and finally, they have still not been adopted by this Parliament and have experienced circumventing manoeuvres: repeated hearings, sending to the Court of Auditors, refusing to consider the urgency. These texts suffered from the blue orange immobility for six months.

Now let’s take a look at the proposal we are discussing this afternoon.

The socialist proposal to expand the Oil Fund has taken a rather chaotic path. She started off on the wheel hats by speeding up the emergency. After a few technical discussions, it was sent to the Court of Auditors. Why, Mr. Flahaux, did we not agree that she goes to the Court of Auditors? Unlike the State Council, the Court of Auditors had no time limit to discuss it. The problem with oil is now and not in six months! That is why we were a little confused about this problem. We were worried because, on the way to the Court of Auditors, the proposal lost its way. It took her a good week to go three hundred meters and finally get on the court table. We feared that it would be completely lost there because, as I said, the Court has no precise deadline to comply with. And there, on the contrary, it returned to us very quickly and, in addition, valid certified. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for the promptness it has shown in examining our proposal.

Last week, we could finally vote on this proposal. In short, I remind you that it aimed to expand the Oil Fund by allowing it to intervene up to 2,000 liters – currently, it is 1500 liters –, which corresponds more to the average use of a family, but also by extending the beneficiaries to anyone whose annual net taxable income does not exceed 22,872 euros, about 1,900 euros per month, while currently, this income is placed at 11,763 euros. It must be insisted, this proposal was anything but fantasy, the Court of Auditors having fully validated its feasibility.

As a committee, we therefore discussed and endured another attempt to delay, another dilatory manoeuvre. The former blue orange agreed that it was necessary to wait for the next government to expand the Oil Fund and to see how, and to what extent, this could be done. This was another way to postpone the debate because we could already have voted on the proposal, we could even have already amended it to review the extent of the enlargement. We could have just made real politics and addressed the real problems of people for several weeks already.

Today, we are very happy, our country has a new government and will be able, from tomorrow, to work on solving these problems, especially the rising prices of oil. Yes, we are very pleased! Tomorrow, with a government, we can help people warm up! And finally !

Even if we regret the lost time, even if we keep a bitter taste in the mouth before the dilatory manoeuvres of which she was the victim, we will support our proposal, amended by the former blue orange. And not just because we have joined the government, but because finally there is a government. From tomorrow, he will take this question to his arm-to-body.

I repeat, we would have largely preferred that our initial proposal be voted today. At least, people knew what we wanted. We would have preferred not to have to denounce the dilatory manoeuvres, but I also repeat, we will vote on this proposal as it has been amended, because acting otherwise would paradoxically delay an even more legitimate but necessary solution for our fellow citizens who really need it.

Rejecting this proposal, now that we have a government, would force us to start everything from scratch. And with time, dear colleagues, we have lost a lot of time. It’s cold now, not in six months. We have taken our responsibilities in the opposition to force the debate and above all to force the solution to the problem of the heating bill of many of our fellow citizens. And we will take them tomorrow, in this new majority: we have joined this government to deal with the urgent problems facing the Belgians.

Madame Burgeon, I wanted to both ask you a question and give you a reflection.

Who other than the PS and the sp.a has submitted a proposal to meet the needs of people? You are not the only brother parties, beyond language boundaries, to have submitted proposals in the service of citizens. It is Ecolo-Groen. He feels very involved. But who other than the PS and sp.a, during the previous four years, while they had the skills, did not help citizens save energy and let funds sleep? This responsibility must also be assumed.

Now, while you voted against the proposal in the committee, you tell us that you will support it, because you will be in the new government. If I have heard right, you will inherit these skills. Therefore, do you have any information to reassure you about the amounts of the increase in the ceiling and the increase in the funding of this fund, which justifies that we support a proposal that today does not present more figures than during the committee debates?

Madame Gerkens, like you, I read that we would probably have the energy charge in the next government, but nothing has yet been done: the PS will know tomorrow what will happen.

So why do we trust? Christian Dupont, the previous minister, launched the oil fund; it exists, but needs to be improved.

The premiums for the renovation: it is the socialists of the government of the Walloon Region who do all the work. Therefore, in this area, we can trust them.

Madame Burgeon, this is exactly the difficulty we have to talk about these matters. I will take advantage of this to intervene before the government finishes its text. Giving bonuses to people who already have the money to invest does not pose problems; those you want to help do not have the option to invest to, then, receive a bonus.

In the existing provisions including in the competence of the federal, a fund exists which is unused and which serves as a third-party investment mechanism. Money is given to people.

As regards Mr. Dupont actually enabled the realisation of the fund, but he explained that all his motivation was not enough and that it was also necessary to obtain the agreement of the other members of the government to ensure sufficient financing.

He had it!

No, he could not raise the ceilings as he wanted.

It improved the situation year by year.

It is not enough to have a socialist minister motivated for this to work and for the provisions to appear tomorrow in the text of the government. We must also have the guarantees of the other members of the government. Mrs. Burgeon, I thought you had a minimum of guarantees, given that the government statement is already taking place tomorrow afternoon.

I am not referring to a point of controversy, but to a point of history. The Oil Fund was created, improved from year to year according to the comments of parliamentarians, CPAS and users. The ceilings have been adjusted; that is what we need to do this year.

The Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund exists. At least 25 pilot municipalities have joined this fund but there are a number of technical difficulties in implementing it. I remember very well those who fought for this, including Johan Vande Lanotte and ourselves.

Mrs. Burgeon, today we give you the benefit of doubt.

It is kind!

Tomorrow we will hear what the future prime minister will say. We will see if the amount he will mention will be the same as the amount you are advancing today at the tribune. We will then know your weight, your capacity as part of the negotiation. We all know that this is a priority, an emergency for people. Today you do not have the text, but tomorrow the Prime Minister will talk about it and we will know, at that point, if what you say today remains valid. We will then look at you on your bench and see if you are still right and if you maintain the same line of conduct.

This does not pose any problem to me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask again Mrs. Burgeon. In fact, she accuses us of practicing dilatory manoeuvres. However, this text was submitted for the first time in a committee, on 27 November, that is, three weeks ago. The text is now being discussed in the plenary session. It will probably be adopted by the former blue orange but also by you. This is also a great surprise. You didn’t have tough enough words about this text. We look forward to your reunion. Also, I do not see where the dilatory manoeuvres are.

Mr Flahaux, first of all, when we asked for the urgency, did your group vote in favour of it in the plenary session? No to No! Then, in commission, you requested the opinion of the Court of Auditors, because you knew properly though that it had no deadline to return its file. It is because of the diligence provided by it that we have not experienced any problems in this matter. The same applies to the demand at the CPAS level. But lack of pot, given the latter, we already had the opinion of the Union of cities and municipalities!

You tried to play the extensions, but not too much, because you could have made the liberals endorse the non-solution of the problem before the Christmas holidays. But, I repeat, you did not help us as part of the emergency request!

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I would like to put the points on the i. I think it is right, also with regard to the expansion of the Social Oil Fund, to say what it is about. I would like to remind all my colleagues that my group, the Flemish Belang group, largely supported the high urgency in the plenary session at the time because we as the Social People’s Party are aware that in these cold winter days for ordinary people there is indeed a real problem with paying the fuel bill. For us, there is indeed a real problem with those high oil prices. I can also say that this is not new for us: even in the previous legislature we have submitted a bill on the creation of a social fuel fund.

In the committee we have indeed held a very animated debate on this matter. I have also been able to establish very strongly in the committee that the then almost deadly orange-blue majority, which is in the meantime completely dead, simply continued on its antisocial impulse and eventually completely disguised the original bill of PS and sp.a.

Today I declare, Mr. Speaker, – in that sense I am infinitely grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the PS after the presentation of Colette Burgeon – that there is a big difference between the lack of firmness at the PS and the firmness of my group. I have no confidence in any Belgian government, with or without the PS, with or without the prostitution of CD&V. For me, a Belgian government remains a Belgian government. I tell you very clearly, colleagues, that today, again, the Parliament misses an ultimate opportunity to use its power. Again, in the last hours, in which we, as Parliament, could impose a number of measures, which miss the ultimate opportunity, while we will all be supposed later, presumably tomorrow, to go again brave in the hands of some monster coalition. The Flemish Interest, however, will firmly uphold and continue to uphold the position that we took in the committee meeting also today in the plenary session.

Initially, I planned to ask about the attitude of the new monster coalition. I had the pleasure of listening to Colette Burgeon. In fact, I do not need to ask the question whether the Social Oil Fund will be expanded.

I do not even have to ask the question of how the members of this new majority will behave and what role Verhofstadt III will play in this. I don’t even have to ask the question whether the Parliament will have to determine its position and its voting behavior in a well-informed manner. These questions have already been very clearly confirmed by Colette Burgeon on behalf of the PS group. I have taken note of the enormous curve and the enormous speed with which the PS – when it comes to the positions one can very quickly deviate from its principles – now directs the positions.

The Social Stock Oil Fund was a realisation of purple. From our group, we say that technical comments can be made rightly. We must conclude that at the moment with the Social Stool Oil Fund we do not sufficiently reach the target audience we want to reach. In this sense, we are also a requesting party to quietly take the time for an evaluation. I am specifically addressing the colleagues of CD&V. Now that Verhofstadt is returning here from tomorrow in full glory, I would even dare to say that we might have to ask the other snooping VLD’er, Noël Slangen, to set up an information campaign – if you allow me some cynicism – to reach the people we want to reach.

Colleagues, the OCMWs complain rightly about the administrative inconvenience in this file. They call for the merger of the three funds in this regard, the Social Oil Fund, the Gas and Electricity Funds and the Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund. It was useful that we in the committee asked for the opinion of the Court of Auditors. That made it clear that in the end, with the increasing VAT revenues generated by the rising oil prices, we will be able to pay a significant portion of the expansion of the Social Stock Oil Fund.

I think it is good that the Vlaams Belang briefly summarizes its position on this subject. I want to do that for a little bit. The Flemish Belang is a social people’s party. We also have no shame on this. Our voting behavior today will clearly confirm that we want to give a political signal on this. We are fully aware that the arrangement as originally drawn up in the bill of the PS and the sp.a was not perfect. Nevertheless, the Vlaams Belang will continue to advocate for the expansion of the Social Stool Oil Fund.

I can therefore without any problem announce that we will really help our PS colleagues out of the moral need. We will submit the text as originally proposed in the bill by amendment so that the socialist colleagues no longer have moral problems. As Vlaams Belang, as a real social people’s party, we will try to restore the text to its original state through amendments. It is then up to the colleagues of the SP and the PS to vote against their own text.

I leave this to them, but my group and I have already determined our attitude.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am around and I want to do that with an image. In this Christmas time, I would rather put some extra fuel oil checks under the people’s Christmas tree, than a ugly Christmas tree that is the result of a political flight between Verhofstadt and Leterme.

Colleagues, I think the attitude of the Flemish Belang group is very clear. We do not allow uncertainty to exist. We will vote against the draft law and we will remain with our position. We are a social party.

A lot has already been said about the Social Oil Fund. This dossier was very strongly followed by my colleagues Pieters and Creyf during the years we were in the opposition, especially in terms of the financing of the Social Stock Oil Fund.

We know the contours of the proposal, as it was submitted by the sp.a and the PS, namely an expansion of the target group through the increase of the income limit to 22.871 euros. The maximum amount is increased from 1500 liters to 2000. A new allowance threshold of 14 cents, above 0.715 euros, will be added. The leveling mechanism is abolished. Everything will be financed with the surplus income from VAT.

Given the large expansion of the target group, it was also evident that my party supported the request to seek an opinion from the Court of Auditors, ⁇ because we suspected that there would be significant financial consequences.

The report from the Court of Auditors came very quickly. Very good work was done in a very short period of time. The report contains some remarkable findings. Initially, as far as the target group is concerned – it was cited by several colleagues today – only 10 to 15% of the current target group today appeal to the Fund. That is very remarkable when you look at the figures, and especially when there is a bill on the table today that wants to extend to a income threshold of 23,000 euros, which according to the Court of Auditors means that possibly 2.5 million families in our country can be eligible for it.

If one crosses that line, whatever the Court of Auditors does – ten to fifteen percent of that target group – then one speaks quickly of 250,000 to 375,000 families, which, according to my group, is a very cautious estimate. After all, when one reaches a wider target group, people start to participate much faster and they are also much more mouthful. Therefore, those ten to fifteen percent would not be retained and we would be very quickly at higher percentages.

It is clear to us that in the current functioning of the Stool Oil Fund the target group – the group for which the measure was actually intended – is far too poorly eligible. Colleagues also referred to the criticism of the OCMWs. It is said that the Steel Oil Fund is not working well enough today. One can work too little on a scale and there should also be a convergence of the different energy funds. For these reasons, the OCMWs have been withdrawn from the Management Board. In fact, they want to be able to work much more on the scale.

As regards the extension to 2,000 liters, the Court’s report shows that it is effectively reduced by the socially needy, those who need it, only 1,100 liters. With an expansion up to 2,000 liters, does one come to the right target audience to help?

Regarding the costs, the Court’s report has mentioned a possible cost of 39 million to 73 million euros, still assuming a participation of ten to fifteen percent, which we do not believe. If we stay at today’s 1,500 liters and go to a participation of 30 percent, we are very quickly at a cost price between 100 and 150 million euros.

According to the proposal, we will finance this from the surplus income from VAT. We know too well – the Court of Auditors also confirms it – that today only 3.96 percent of those incomes still provide some flexibility for the government. The report of the Court of Auditors speaks of constant volumes, but we doubt whether these volumes remain so constant. Yesterday I was in contact with the local supplier in my town, who said he lost five to ten percent of his customers over the past year, ⁇ private customers switching to natural gas.

If all of this is calculated, you have a surplus income at constant volumes of 21 million to 39 million euros, which is therefore ⁇ insufficient to pay those 100 to 150 million euros, which will be the actual surplus costs of the proposal that is presented today.

I decide . Does my group have trouble adding a new threshold? and no. Are we having problems with the abolition of the leveling mechanism? and no. Are we having trouble expanding to 2,000 liters if this is really needed? and no. Do we have problems with the financing of the VAT surplus costs if they exist? and no.

What we do not want today, however, is an expansion to half the population, while the target group for whom the Social Stool Oil Fund is really intended, namely the socially weaker and the socially needy persons, remains in the cold and underweight participation.

Thus, colleagues, a social policy is being carried out. Therefore, we supported the amendment that should bring this problem on the government table, with the clear questions for a current evaluation of the Social Stock Oil Fund and for a redefinition of the target group, of those who really need it.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr Flahaux for his report.

Returning to the 11% figure, he stressed that it was necessary to clarify that not everyone warms themselves with oil. There are other energy sources used. This partly explains this small proportion – 11% – of people benefiting from the Social Fund. This should be said to make sure that everyone has all the data in the file.

I now come to the social constatation, to the difficulty that everyone knows today to pay their energy bill whatever it is (gas, oil, electricity). We all face the same difficulty. Of course – this is common sense and unfortunately the reality – the lower the income, the more difficult these energy bills are to pay. The situation is screaming today.

We also had a street demonstration last weekend about purchasing power. But the purchasing power for all our fellow Belgian citizens is also, and unfortunately in an increasingly important way, the energy bill to be paid. Everyone agrees with this finding.

However, we should not be mistaken in the debate. What would have happened if we had voted the proposal as such a month ago? Nothing is!

A signal would have been given but the government would have had to sanction and promulgate this law, but a government in ordinary affairs could not have done it! If it had been voted a month ago, nothing would have changed. Another signal was to be transmitted by Parliament to the government at the time. Today, this is another signal that Parliament will give, I hope.

I think it was a good idea to ask the Court of Auditors for an opinion. This was very instructive and allowed us to get a number of important and very eloquent figures. The first concerns VAT. They are impressive. I was also very surprised by this famous figure of 11%. It is true that people warm up differently but 11%, this remains very little, especially for people with the smallest purchasing power since it is the Belgian citizens with the lowest incomes. One thing ⁇ even more impressive is that the figures are less good the second year than the first!

The [...]

This is what the Court of Auditors states in its report. If Minister Dupont tells me something else, I am ready to believe it, but if I refer to the Court of Auditors report, fewer people used the fund in 2006 than in 2005.

It’s just, but the second winter was much milder.

As for the number of beneficiaries, it should be known that the benefit of the fund is attributed to the head of the household and therefore not to any social allocator. This means that it can happen that a housekeeper has too large incomes to benefit from that fund even if, in his household, lives a person who receives a disability pension and is included in the figures of the Court of Auditors. This is the explanation of the phenomenon, or at least of a part. I repeat that the allowance is allocated to the head of the household and it is his income that is taken into account.

This information helps to temper the figures. However, these remains questionable and worrying. In any case, this is a proof of the usefulness of having a government. When legislative proposals are submitted by parliamentarians, it is always interesting to be able to have all the information.

What can be done? What mechanisms can be implemented?

In this case, the Parliament will give – in any case, I hope – a clear signal to the next government, which obviously will soon be appointed, which, of course, everyone seems to be delighted with. This will mean increasing the intervention, increasing the number of people affected and increasing the heating period.

The Parliament will give a very clear signal to the Government regarding these three elements by reminding it that there is urgency in the matter and by inviting it to take the necessary measures as soon as possible. It is positive!

It should be noted that if the proposal had been voted as it is, other important problems would have arisen. The first consists in the fact that there was no progressivity in the amounts allocated by the State to the household head who can benefit from the fund and who heats up with oil. In other words, a person earning €1,900 net per month benefited from the same intervention for the same tank with the same number of liters of oil as a person receiving the income of social inclusion.

The lack of progressivity is a problem as it is public money. Since it is in particular the product of VAT – this was the subject of the proposal – the public money should be allocated to those who need it most, that is to say, to households who are most in difficulty. This is better than allocating the same amount to all households, regardless of their resources, with some having twice as much income as others. Therefore, the lack of progressivity is a problem.

I come to another issue that is problematic. Thus, we cannot merely concentrate our efforts solely on oil. Everyone seems to agree on this point. Let’s look at the other funds. Let us make sure that people who heat themselves using other fuels – I think of gas in particular – can also benefit from aid.

CPAS is the third difficulty. You know like me that they have a number of reluctance in relation to the functioning of the Oil Fund. They compare it to the Gas and Electricity Fund by saying that for the Oil Fund, a single amount is provided per accepted file while for the Gas and Electricity Fund, amounts can be allocated with much greater latitude.

The functioning of the Gas and Electricity Fund is ⁇ not the most optimal, as is the functioning of the Oil and Gas Fund elsewhere. It might be interesting to make sure that the operation is optimal with as many synergies and consistency as possible, regardless of the fuel with which you heat up.

Let us never forget that these solutions should only be temporary. The best way to consume cheaper is not to consume at all. So let us make sure to focus on the households that are the most disadvantaged, which are often the least well insulated in terms of energy because they have houses that have a high permeability with the outside, so that with the lowest amounts, one can have the greatest possible impact in terms of insulation of houses, thus in terms of energy cost but also in terms of the environment. It seems to me that it is in this way that public money should be allocated, with the highest priority, where the impact on the environment and on the cost of energy will be the best.

Today, it is quite positive that Parliament gives this triple signal to the government: act quickly, increase intervention and the number of people affected at the level of the Oil Fund, and increase the heating period. This is one of the urgent issues that citizens are waiting for us.

Mr President Mr. After Wathelet finished his speech, which is probably his last speech as group leader of the main French-speaking opposition, I wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate him for all the work done and also tell him how much he is already entering the skin of his new function, since the transition is palpable. I just wanted to highlight the quality of the work he was able to do with his group when he sat in the opposition.

I will not speak too long. My voice, by the way, does not allow me to do so, for which I would like to apologize.

Last week Wednesday, just a week ago, we had the vote in the committee on the bill proposed by PS and sp.a to expand the Social Stock Oil Fund. For that bill of the socialist groups in the House, the plenary session had obtained the high urgency. The purpose of the bill was actually very simple.

Never before have we had such peaks in the price of fuel oil; in the last weeks we have been able to record truly dizzying record prices for fuel oil: almost 71 euro cents per litre. Had one, when you founded the Social Stock Oil Fund, Minister Dupont, made the prediction that we would have to pay 71 euro cents per liter, no one would have believed that; that would have been laughing away. The current regulation does not even provide for an intervention in a price setting of 71 euro cents per liter. In any case, we found it urgent to submit such a proposal.

We have three objectives with the bill. First, we wanted to expand the number of families or households so that not 100,000 but 400,000 households can get an intervention through the new regulation. Second, we wanted to increase the quantity from 1,500 to 2,000 liters. Third, we wanted to increase the maximum financial intervention from 190 euros for 1,500 liters to a maximum of 285 euros for 2,000 liters. That is actually the simple essence of the bill that was voted on Wednesday last week in the committee.

Many families or households really find it ⁇ difficult to pay their energy bill in general and the fuel bill in particular given the dizzying prices, we all agree on this. We also referred to other proposals in the committee, namely the maximum prices for gas and electricity, which we have been discussing in the meantime. In this context, everyone agreed that something had to be done. We all constantly agree here that life expectancy has become dizzying for so many families, but about the concrete answers or solutions that come to lie on the table, we are unfortunately suddenly much less agreed, unfortunately.

Last week, colleagues, the legislative proposal of the PS and sp.a in the committee was rejected by then an orange-blue majority. An orange-blue amendment has also been submitted to the committee to replace the entire bill, which is subsequently put to vote.

That amendment, that bill on which we will vote later and that the majority of our assembly will approve, does not provide a solution to that pressing problem, of very great actuality, by the way. That proposal, which will be approved by a majority here later, does not offer a solution to the barren winter days. The proposal only shifts the problem to the next government. That is all that will be approved here later.

And behold, tomorrow the next government, with a temporary character, will come to our meeting, for some urgent things must be done for the people anyway.

What these urgent matters exactly mean, we have not heard about it so far, with no word, despite the fact that we have tried to solve urgent problems here, and despite the proposals we have sprayed and put to vote in the committees of the House in the last weeks.

Tomorrow we do not expect much concrete from the soil ashes that should be brought in response to the urgent problems of, among other things, the longevity and the high fuel production for people. What we expect tomorrow will be suspicious words, colleagues, to reject social proposals that can really do something for the people.

Congratulations for the number of suspense words, which we can expect here tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, allow me to express here now the position of the group of the Reform Movement and not the position of the rapporteur of the Oil Social Fund.

From the beginning of the discussions, the Reform Movement recognized the relevance of the goal of strengthening the opportunities for action of the Oil Social Fund. The rises and price instabilities induced by the energy crisis are, as we know, striking households. In particular, the current situation places the most precarious of the Belgians in a sometimes very delicate financial situation. Maximum prices for heating gasoline reached record highs following rising oil prices on international markets.

In the face of this finding, the MR is resolutely inserted in a willingness to act to help those who need it most. At first, we were wrongly taxed, Mrs. Burgeon, – we will recognize it today – of wanting to halt the discussion at any cost under the pretext that we were asking for the opinion of the Court of Auditors.

It is important to note, today, that this opinion has enabled us all to have a number of important, even essential, information. Even my friend Colette Burgeon, initiator of the proposal, opposed to the request for the Court’s opinion, recognized the relevance of the Court’s conclusions and the report of our debates.

The first finding that has caught our attention is the fact that only 10 to 15% of the target group currently benefit from an intervention from the Oil Social Fund. This is a general failure. It is clear! For us, it is important first and foremost that those who benefit from this fund actually have access to it. This does not mean that we do not want the target group to be expanded to less disadvantaged categories, but the MR priority remains to actually reach the maximum of the first potential target group. A great effort should be undertaken by the outgoing and entering minister on this subject.

Furthermore, the approach of appearing with a CPAS to request an intervention is not an obvious approach for a number of people who have, unfortunately, retained an image of assistance from the CPAS. This may also explain the fund’s low intervention rate. In addition, the administrative management of cases by the CPAS, since I have questioned several of them, poses certain problems: lack of resources, lack of time, low compensation for CPAS and lack of parallel guidance. Pistes will therefore need to be studied to improve their action urgently, in order to actually better reach the target groups and have in the head of the CPAS allies and not opponents of this measure.

Increasing the maximum amount of intervention also does not seem to me to be the best criterion. Indeed, on the one hand, it was noted, on the basis of the figures provided by the Court of Auditors, that the maximum quantity of 1,500 liters was not reached; it is now on average 1,100 liters. But above all, we should not create an incentive to consume oil or, at least, a de facto obstacle to energy savings.

We believe that a substantive reflection – and Health Commission Chairwoman Mrs. Gerkens mentioned it – needs to be carried out urgently with the new government to see which criteria are acceptable.

Finally, the MR insists that measures are taken to promote, really this time, a more efficient consumption of energy. The most disadvantaged people should be able to be helped to make the necessary investments in their homes in order to reduce their consumption of oil or other fuels. This can be done by expanding increased tax deductions or, even better, by encouraging the "third-party investor" formula that avoids socially in need to pay off or advance fresh money.

In conclusion, the MR group is in favor of the expansion of access to the Oil Fund. Our amendment, I recall, was part of a positive and realistic approach, namely to entrust the new government that we will take care tomorrow to result not only in an increase in the number of beneficiaries through the increase of the maximum amounts of income, but also in an increase in the intervention threshold while taking into account the available budget margins.

I don’t want anyone to think that we’re taking dilatory steps. Furthermore, in the area of the solidarity contribution for pensioners, it is questioned who has carried out these dilatory steps.

We can only rejoice in the fact that, from Monday morning, the new minister in charge of this matter will be able to begin the study of this matter and to elaborate quick proposals to be submitted to the new government in the perspective of the will expressed by our Auguste Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on days like this, the confrontation with the high energy prices and the high energy yields is even harder. In seasons like this, when it’s cold outside, the call for ad hoc solutions is always the biggest. Oil prices will no longer fall in the coming years. That also applies to gas, that also applies to wood, that also applies to coal, in short, that applies to all fossil fuels.

An average Belgian family pays more for heating than an average Swedish family. This is because our houses are poorly or not insulated. Today, many people are unable or still unable to enjoy the Stock Oil Fund, and its current expansion will not change much. Associations of people living in poverty also point out that most poor people do not even have a fuel tank or central heating, but often heat themselves with coal, with oil stoves, with convectors and often even with electricity.

Colleagues of the PS, Mrs. Burgeon, what is the response of your group to those people, to the people who heat themselves on gas and on electricity? The expansion of the Steele Oil Fund, as shown here today, is absolutely not a sustainable and even less a structural solution for high energy yields. It will again be the poor people who will be the asshole of this. They are those people who live in the worst houses, in the worst apartments, who are not insulated, who have single glass and who do not have efficient heating devices. The heat, and therefore also the euros, literally fly through doors, windows, pebbles and holes outward. A premium on the invoice will not change that. These people will continue to pay blue for heating.

Therefore, colleagues, we ask, the Greens, that the Stock Oil Fund be transformed into an isolation fund that is funded by the energy sector. That fund should be used to set up an ambitious insulation program. This has happened in Germany and England. It is actually a structural, sustainable solution for high energy performance, for energy waste.

We advocate for a structural approach to energy poverty. That is something, colleagues of the PS, about which I have heard you say little in the various presentations. The expansion of the Social Oil Fund may be a good thing, but it is only a very limited and a very small step. Moreover, it is absolutely not a response to the global approach to energy poverty. We will look forward to the proposals that your group will make on this subject. We demand that the various funds existing at the federal level in the field of energy and climate be merged or that there at least be a coordination to use those funds in a more efficient, more structural way and not simply to use them to give people a premium on their invoice.

For these reasons, colleagues, the Greens will abstain from voting on this bill.