Proposition 52K0517

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 10, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation petroleum asbestos budget buffer stock cooperative electrical energy energy policy pharmaceutical industry financial instrument tax inspection gas medicinal product tax collection armed forces migration policy public accounting national budget social security survivor's benefit rail transport insurance food safety employment policy self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LDD FN

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. 19, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Colleagues, we have a whole range of rapporteurs: namely Mrs Vautmans, M. Prévot, Mme Lecomte, Mme Marghem, M. Crucke, Mrs. Van der Auwera, Mrs. Galant, M. Hamal, Mr Van Biesen, Mr Van den Bergh and Mrs Detiège.

Does any of the rapporteurs ask for the word for a special report or can I assume that they refer to their written report? I look around and see that no one feels called for this.

For the general discussion, Mrs De Block, Mr Delizée, Mrs Snoy, Mr Van de Velde, Mrs Gerkens and Mr Lahssaini were registered as speakers. If no one wants to intervene, I will now give the word to Mrs. De Block.

It is clear that the draft law on various social provisions was limited in its ambitions. It was not intended to carry out the 2008 budget in its entirety, since at the time of its adoption the 2008 budget consists only of provisional twelve, although we have taken a more ambitious stance with regard to health insurance.

The purpose of this bill was to provide legal certainty where necessary and to generate the normal income needed to allow our institutions to function. As regards legal certainty, this was mainly related to the pension sector in which we ratify a number of royal decrees. This confirmation is especially important for pensions of the overseas territories service. Without this approval, some pensioners would fall back to half of their pensions. This would, of course, have been unacceptable. Regarding the NMBS, the royal decrees also aim primarily to provide legal certainty.

We also discussed the financing of the Asbestos Fund. That is not insignificant. As you know, the Asbestos Fund was established in the previous legislature. These royal decrees should provide for the financial resources for the Asbestos Fund, otherwise that would have to be arranged by the current government, which is not yet there. We will do this through this design. The funds are lower than originally planned and some members have made comments in the committee. The Minister has rightly pointed out that these funds should not yet be fully utilized, as the files of the Asbestos Fund are not yet fully implemented. We are also convinced that if a greater amount is needed for the Asbestos Fund, this can be settled by further budgetary control.

In this draft law, we also take the necessary measures to ensure that some contributions can be collected. This concerns both the tax for the pharmaceutical industry and the contribution charged to pharmacists and veterinarians to fund the Agency for Medicines. We are also pleased that the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry has been reduced as agreed.

The extension of the Agency’s powers with the control of dietary supplements is a step forward, ⁇ in these times when those products can be used unauthorized without any control and can sometimes cause medical complications.

Finally, as a general practitioner, I am pleased that the refund of the fees for the care of the most disadvantaged, the so-called package B and C, is also raised to 85%. This represents a major step forward for the chronically ill persons who are seriously in need of care. In my view, it is one of the necessary steps to equalize the ambulatory care of seriously ill persons with the hospital care. (Diverse conversations in the banks)

I would like to thank my colleagues for their unshared attention.

Mr. De Block has right. It was also at other speakers at the case. It is not because men do not have a loud voice, that men do not deserve attention. I ask you put aandrang – in i have dat de laatste keren nog gedaan – aandachtig te luisteren naar degenen die een inspanning leveren om een gestoffeerde uiteenzetting naar voren te brengen. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus my speech on the provisions provided for in the bill concerning various provisions and relating to the regulation of the gas and electricity market. This topical topic deserved, in my opinion, more attention which could have resulted in various complementary provisions.

Indeed, from 2003 to 2007, the outgoing liberal socialist government sacrificed the regulation of the gas and electricity markets for the benefit not of a greater liberalization of the market, as tends to be believed, but rather of the dominant actors of this market. In 2003, when we transposed the European directives on the organisation of the electricity and gas market, we had established laws that were truly characterized by a regulatory system, which organized the principles of non-discrimination, effective competition and effective functioning of the market. Without these provisions, there were, and there are – we must now see – great risks of abuse of a dominant position with perverse effects on the functioning of the market, on the purchasing power of households and on the competitive position of companies established on our territory.

These rules of competition and regulation are all the more important on the Belgian energy market as Belgium is a small market and, above all, we have a historic operator, both for gas and for electricity, which is now taken over within a French operator, itself being the subject of a merger, namely GDF, then EDF. We arrive at European monopolies, which exceed the scope of our territory and which further increase the monopolistic positions of these actors, hence the need for a strong regulator, a good network manager, which is subject to very specific rules of corporate governance.

What we witnessed and wanted to correct, through the bill containing various provisions, is the dismantling, by the violet government, of regulatory mechanisms and the submission of cost and tariff control not to the benefit of market regulation but to the benefit of Suez and at the detriment of consumers.

All political, economic and trade union actors recognize that this regulatory power must be handed over to the regulator. Competition is needed, and dominant positions must be put to an end. The project with various provisions corrected a gap in legal arrangements by returning to the CREG powers of assessment and opinion to be given on prices for distribution networks; but it was necessary to go further.

Our amendment gives the CREG its powers as defined in the 2003 Act, so that it can again control the nature and extent of the costs of network operators, as well as the methodology, in order to determine which profit margins are considered to be reasonable and fair.

It is also about allowing it to exercise its role of cost control, and not to leave this task to the Competition Council – which was the choice of the violet government. This decision constitutes an aberration, as the Competition Council can only intervene when an abuse of dominant position has already been identified.

Finally, our amendment aimed to give the CREG access to all necessary information so that it can fulfill its role and tasks.

Our amendment was rejected in the committee, Mr. Speaker, because we were answered that we are out of the scope of this bill containing various provisions. But, as I mentioned earlier, this demand comes from all the actors of the society. In addition, budgetally, the subject of our amendment costs nothing. It is simply about restoring their power to the regulatory authorities.

I hope that this plenary session will correct the mistake that was made in the committee, that is, the rejection of our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to speak briefly on one of the points of the bill containing various provisions, the one concerning the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain.

Articles 32 to 39 of this bill concern the financing of this agency. The very fact of having to incorporate these measures into this urgent law is a warning signal. Indeed, the funding of the Agency is problematic and it is not the small steps we will take today that will solve the problem.

Beyond the numbers, there is the quality of the food we eat every day, there are tens of thousands of jobs (88,000 according to FEVIA) qualified or unqualified, and there is the future of farmers and rural areas.

AFSCA is currently funded at 48% by federal funding and more than 50% by industry companies, from farmers to distributors. The agro-food sector has already frequently pointed out that its contribution was much greater than in neighboring countries, which penalizes competitiveness. Furthermore, the respective weight of the different subsectors in contributions is challenged, mainly by the agricultural sector that pays more than proportionally.

Finally, the progressiveness of contributions and remunerations, which are the variable costs that operators must bear when requesting analysis or controls, is insufficient. Farmers must pay a flat-rate contribution, regardless of the size of their farm. For others, their contribution varies depending on the number of jobs, which is not necessarily the right criterion.

To reduce its burden, AFSCA tries to develop a system of self-control by food chain operators, in order to reduce the number of checks to be carried out by it and to reduce the cost of such checks for companies. For this purpose, a validation system is planned, accompanied by a specification of precise charges.

This system is delayed in implementation, for several reasons.

1 of 1. The misunderstanding in the head of AFSCA management of the realities of the field and therefore the overestimation of the initial level of compliance of these many companies.

2 of 2. The failure to take into account the specifics of the smaller by the AFSCA itself, but also by the representative organizations of the sectors, given that the large operators are the largest contributors to the federations that trade.

3 of 3. The cost of validation audits that is not relevant in relation to the profits on contributions only for the largest companies. This is an anti-redistribution system.

Articles 32 and 33, which we will vote on, relate to the modification of the contributing coefficients of operators. First, it is not to apply the planned double contribution. Then, in article 33, it is given the possibility to the King to increase them anyway, going to the maximum until doubling them. So, in our opinion, this is quite contradictory.

I repeat that increasing the contributions of those who are not in self-control will proportionally penalize small ⁇ .

The second point of Article 33 would allow the King to increase the public allocation of the Agency. We are in favor of this, but the State Council is very strict about this, saying that the decision belongs to the legislator and cannot be delegated to the executive. That is why we proposed in a committee to vote on an increase the amount of which was fixed in this law; we did not gain cause.

In 2007, the last adjusted budget of the allocation was EUR 70 million, but the Agency already had a deficit of EUR 5 million in 2006. Currently, there is a cumulative deficit of 30 million euros.

In conclusion, we find it essential that Parliament can take up the issue of funding the Federal Food Safety Agency. The current situation could indeed suggest a resignation of public services in the face of their obligations to protect the health of consumers.

According to Ecolo-Groen!, AFSCA should become a true food quality agency. The first priority will therefore be to increase and recalibrate the federal allocation. The second priority will be to provide for a change of the financing system in the direction of complete solidarity and food quality, because the current system makes the part too good for the industrials, with the corollary of a planned disappearance of the craftsmen and the aseptization of our plates at the expense of diversity.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, since today I have to admit that some things have changed, even proverbially. The saying “after rain follows sunshine” is no longer true. After rain comes Verhofstadt, comes Verhofstadt and comes Verhofstadt. In other words, from the rain we come into the drop.

It should be the crying of the majority here, but I don’t see them. I do not think it is a guarantee of health. Today we see the program law. The technique of the bill containing various provisions, in the trade jargon the rubbish bake law, is again ahead of us. It is the time when cabinet officers and a number of people from the administration empty their slides and soon submit some designs that were forgotten or of which one is not really proud to discuss on a broad platform. They are then quickly taken out of the slide to sweep them through the Parliament.

List Dedecker regrets that technique and we question him. During the few months that we are part of this team, we have seen an accumulation of mistakes from the past. Let me mention the rental law, the gun law, and there are many others. Let us also think of the provisions relating to the criminal enforcement courts, which in the end have not been fully implemented, so they are still in place. Through the quick passage of such laws through the Chamber, we do not only make mistakes. It is a pity that Mr. De Crem is not sitting here, because for eight years I have heard him fulminate against such practices. So I can assure you, dear people of CD&V and N-VA – if they still exist – that you will do it in a different way in the future.

There are three small points to which I would like to draw your attention for a moment. First, there is the postponement of phase 2 of the criminal enforcement courts for sentences with a duration of more than three years. You know that List Dedecker attaches considerable importance to everything that has to do with justice and punishment enforcement. We want clarity for both the victim and the perpetrator. In fact, they should not be punished with punishment. Under the pretext that there should be a phase 1 evaluation – that evaluation was, by the way, long planned – it is now requested to postpone, because one is not ready and because there is no money. I have a good advice for future ministers. There is a good book by Ram Charan and its title is “The Discipline of Getting Things Done”. I would like to advise them to read the book once to ensure that plans made on the legislative level are also implemented.

Another issue is legal assistance insurance. In itself, this law is as good as shamelessness. Our right is accessible and it is accessible to everyone.

Furthermore, this measure is double. There are plenty of possibilities to seek the right. For example, there are the pro Deoadvocates, which are followed in a very correct way with a point system. In addition, in 2008 the judicial fee will be expanded, which can justify very good work. That is a defensive measure, which I admit, which will also apply. Now we throw another insurance for legal aid on top.

The problem for us is not only that it is double, but that, on the other hand, in that law the insured amounts are also defined. This means that the insurer has the right to stop the proceedings at any time, without the defendant being able to fully exhaust his remedies. In the end, we don’t bring too much soil.

The most important point is that a maximum amount of 144 euros is imposed on the insurers in order to guarantee the refund or deductibility of that insurance. I think the private insurers with that imposed price will not be too happy. We get a bit of the system as we have seen with the bank guarantee for the rental. We fear that there will be a problem in this area.

In this case, the lawyers are made dependent on the goodwill of the insurer. In the limit, if everyone takes legal aid insurance, we might sometimes come into a situation where the lawyer’s salary is simply determined by the insurers. We see this as a pure collectivization of the legal system. This is a strange course of affairs, especially for a so-called liberal-oriented majority.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the pensions of the NMBS. Again, the pensions of a public company are taken over. Again, this is a slasher for the budget. The reasoning is: future obligations, we do not actually attract anything from them at this moment; we have at this moment taken our battles home. What surprises me most is that there is no longer a social debate about it, that the operation is just going on and that no form of defective opposition has been and can be opposed.

The measure, by the way, is not very urgent and we also wonder whether it is well thought out. We simply call for thorough and thoughtful governance and therefore point out the technique of program laws as a rejectionable technique.

I will speak on behalf of our group. I would have preferred to speak in a committee where we would have taken the time to have a debate on the substance, as it has just been said. It was at the hussard that debates were conducted, preventing any questioning or other guidelines. We were objected that our intervention was unacceptable while the subject of my intervention, Mr. Speaker, fits perfectly into Title IV – Interior and Social Integration – in particular in the Chapter “Interior” which concerns funds for immigration policy.

This fund is intended to “encourage the efforts of Member States in the management of migration flows, control and surveillance of the external borders and the return of illegally staying third-country nationals.”

My speech goes into full on this subject.

A fund, what is it for? This serves to finance policies that are the reflection of intentions. Today, in the case that interests us, we must answer this question: what kind of migration policy do we want? Do we want to build a policy where Belgium but also Europe will see their borders transformed into a fortress or will we build a Belgium and a Europe where democracy will be strengthened? Do we want the foreign policy of Belgium and therefore also of Europe to be dictated by security imperatives that do not take into account human rights? Or will we work to strengthen our democracy by ensuring that Belgium is no longer shown a finger and condemned by several international bodies: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Amnesty International, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, International Federation for Human Rights?

We are not going to discuss migration policy in the broadest sense. The position of Ecolo-Groen! It is very clear on the subject and is well known. I would like to draw attention to two issues on which other parties have expressed themselves publicly: first, the imprisonment of children in a closed centre for their expulsion, and second, the moratorium on the expulsions of foreigners which could be regularized on the basis of criteria likely to be adopted by the future government. It is now that these parties will be able to show whether they are consistent with the positions they support in the face of civil society.

The two amendments are as follows. The first amendment stipulates that no minor, within the meaning of the Convention on Human Rights of 20 November 1989, may be placed or detained pursuant to any provision of this Act. This amendment also insists that under no circumstances may minors be separated from their parents on the basis of a provision of this law.

This amendment aims to bring Belgium into compliance with international and ethical obligations in the field of child rights. This change is indispensable and urgent as new resources are allocated through project funds aimed at covering expenses that could lead directly or indirectly to the imprisonment of minors. The conditions of detention in a closed centre have resulted in Belgium several convictions and unfavorable reports from instances such as the UNHCR and the organizations I cited.

Article 3 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child states that in all decisions concerning children, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. Furthermore, the Flemish and French-speaking Commissioners for the Rights of the Child recommend prohibiting the imprisonment of children in closed centres.

This is our first amendment.

Our second amendment aims to insert an article concerning the same subject and stipulates that are suspended until a date fixed by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, or no earlier than 31 December 2008, the issue of negative decisions made on the basis of Article 9bis of the Act of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal from the territory as well as expulsions to the countries of origin of persons likely to be regularized on the basis of criteria to be defined by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers and based on humanitarian reasons, sustainable social ties, the duration of the procedure or the possibility to work.

This article is justified by the fact that, every week, dozens of foreign persons are arrested somewhere in Belgium following the issue of an order to leave the territory, are detained in a closed centre, then expelled. Among these persons, many of them have long-term residence in our country, have strong and lasting ties, have effective employment or employment opportunities, have children enrolled in school and/or have long waited in any procedure to eventually be denied a residence status.

More and more votes rise to say that there is a need for regularization. By reading the programmes and draft agreements, it appears likely that the next government will propose to take into account new regularization criteria based on humanitarian reasons, the length of the procedure or the possibility of working.

The projected fund is likely to lead directly or indirectly to an acceleration of the expulsion procedures. Those arrested or expelled today could therefore meet the legalization criteria that will be defined soon. It therefore becomes discriminatory to issue orders to leave the territory of certain foreigners with the relevant knowledge that others, who, however, are in exactly the same situation, will be regularized in the near future.

This is, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the subject of these two amendments which could not have been – I would like to draw attention to this point – presented and defended in the committee of the Interior.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the speech of my colleague Fouad Lahssaini. I would like to know what you intend to do in relation to the amendments that have been resubmitted before we can position us article by article. Will they be discussed in a plenary session?

As far as I know, amendments 7 and 8 were declared inadmissible by the Committee of the Interior. I also have two amendments. Article 11 of the Constitution, which I declare admissible.

The last two submitted amendments are therefore declared admissible.