Proposition 52K1013

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (II).

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

March 20, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive civil procedure prisoner award of contract public procurement judicial power criminal procedure criminal law penalty alternative sentence mitigating circumstances

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD

Abstained from voting

Vooruit FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

May 8, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will try to summarize in the most concise way possible the debates that led to the vote of the law-programme in the Social Affairs Committee.

I would like to start with the part that falls within the competence of the Minister of Social Affairs, Laurette Onkelinx. In her presentation, the Minister expressed the Government’s willingness to improve purchasing power by introducing a new annual age supplement for all beneficiaries of family allowances and for all workers. The old school return system is abolished in favor of this age supplement for all children from zero to twenty-four years old. The school return premium only applies to children between six and seventeen years of age. A bill is attached to the bill under consideration, the authors propose to increase the benefits and no longer make any distinction between the first, second and third child but only based on the age, the situation of the parents or the disability of the child.

During the general discussion, the Ecolo-Groen group! This is the 13th month announced for family allowances. The minister answers that this is the goal, but that the age supplement is a first step towards this thirteenth month.

The MR group ensures that a similar measure will be taken for independent workers. The minister explains that since the regime of independent people is largely made up of royal orders, the adaptations will take place by this way and referred to her colleague responsible for independent people, Sabine Laruelle.

The sp.a+Vl.Pro group is mixed in the face of a measure which it judges to be below the promises made and questions about the difficulties of the recomposed families. He adds that the family allowance system is less and less meeting the goal of reducing the poverty threshold and announces the filing of several amendments. The Minister responds that the government has put additional resources in the benefit of the social partners for a well-being link of targeted social benefits where the needs are most felt. She also explains that she referred to the ONAFTS management committee to examine possible solutions for recomposed families.

Finally, the CDH group welcomes the announced measure for family allowances.

Another measure of the program law concerns the legal certainty that should surround the decisions of the ONSS (National Office of Social Security). It is to introduce a time limit for appeal to the benefit of the worker against the decisions of subjection or de-subjection taken by the ONSS. Currently, the legislation does not provide for a specific time limit for appeal. Therefore, it happens that a worker introduces a complaint, years later, which poses major problems in the functioning of the whole social security. It was therefore decided to introduce a three-month period from the notification of the decision.

Furthermore, it was decided to redefine the scope of the Act on Economic Recovery Measures, which would establish solidarity between SMEs and large enterprises, as well as to redefine the articles relating to the legal interest in order to match the legal interests of tax and the legal interests of social and to introduce the same rules for the modification of the two rates.

During the general discussion, the Ecolo-Groen group! expresses its willingness to extend this period to six months and submits an amendment to that effect. The sp.a+Vl.Pro group requests clarification, in particular the time from which the limitation period begins to run.

The Minister recalls that the three-month appeal period is in accordance with the Charter of the Social Insured and that this period begins to run from the moment when the decision of the ONSS is notified to the worker. During the vote on the articles, the various amendments are rejected. All provisions submitted to the Social Affairs Committee were adopted by 9 votes against 3 abstentions. The proposal for a joint law thus becomes unobjective.

The second part of my report is about pensions and the social economy. The MR, Open Vld, PS and CDH groups call for the disjunction of their proposals in order to reopen the debate on the abolition of the solidarity contribution on pensions. Minister Marie Arena, in her introductory presentation, announces that, of the five measures decided at the budgetary conclave, only one is the subject of a provision within the framework of the draft law-program: the solidarity contribution, the adaptation of which is the subject of Article 22.

The government has therefore decided to decrease this contribution in the three pension schemes, and this from 1 July 2008. The purpose is to increase the ceilings re-established in the law of 30 March 1994, but since the new rates still have to be calculated, the program law gives the King authority to amend the law by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers and subject to parliamentary approval. The Minister stresses that the State Council has not objected to this procedure. A bill is also attached which aims at the immediate and complete abolition of this solidarity contribution.

During the general discussion, clarifications are requested by the PS Group regarding the progressive implementation of the removal of the contribution. The PS insists on the need to start with the lowest pensions. For its part, the sp.a+Vl.Pro group considers that Article 22 is a white-seing granted to the government and asks whether its formulation does not imply a total and immediate removal by July 2008. He also believes that this removal of the contribution is accompanied by no measure aimed at raising the smaller pensions. He proposes amendments aimed at restoring the balance.

For Ecolo-Groen!, the removal of this contribution does not meet the objective of taking care first of the lowest pensions, as the poorest pensioners are not affected by this contribution. Ecologically green! It also asks about the cost of this measure and asks the Minister about the ageing fund and the concrete measures aimed at combating poverty.

The Open Vld welcomes this measure and recalls that it is for obvious budgetary reasons that the abolition of the solidarity contribution will take place in stages. The Open Vld adds that the smaller pensions will benefit from the 2% increase that will enter into force on 1 July 2008 and that the pensions of the self-employed are also among the lowest pensions.

The MR recalls that its group has been fighting for a long time for the removal of this contribution that must be carried out in the future.

Sp.a+Vl.Pro wants to know the scheme of this gradual removal as 30 million euros are still planned this year. The total elimination is estimated at 271 million euros.

Finally, the satisfaction of the CDH which is also looking forward to the upcoming establishment of the National Conference on Pensions.

The Lijst Dedecker (LDD) is also delighted and stresses that further measures will be needed for pensioners.

The CD&V also expresses its satisfaction by also emphasizing that increased efforts must be made in favour of the lowest and oldest pensions.

The minister finds therefore a consensus within the commission to defend the pension system, but also the erosion of the lowest and oldest pensions. She adds that the pensions covered by the solidarity contribution may not be the lowest, but that no one would dare to call them high. Furthermore, it is the lowest pensions affected by this contribution that will be the first beneficiaries of the abolition.

Ecolo-Groen!, in his replicas, recalls that, in essence, his group was not unfavorable to the abolition, but that we must first help the lowest and oldest pensions.

Sp.a+Vl.Pro, for its part, considers that it has not received the necessary clarifications as regards the calculation of the withdrawal of the contribution and that a 2% increase for smaller pensions is insufficient.

The Minister concludes by confirming that 25% of pensioners are affected by the solidarity contribution, that 20% of the population benefits from the lowest pensions and that it is impossible today to specify how many pensioners will be affected by the abolition of the solidarity contribution in 2009. The budget for this purpose will be 60 million euros.

The second part of the program law within the competence of Minister Marie Arena concerns the social economy. The Ministry recalls the context in which the Fund for the Social and Sustainable Economy (FESD) was created. It then exposes the content of the draft law-programme which aims at the end to eliminate this fund. It then specifies that the draft program law does not regulate the financing of the repayment of bonds, but that the federal state must guarantee all the financing operations of this repayment.

CD&V is concerned about urgent decisions to be made and asks whether the deadlines can be met.

Sp.a-Vl.Pro submits an amendment aimed at avoiding the use of the State Guarantee for the repayment scheduled in June 2008 in order not to burden the State budget. The Minister recalls, in fact, two contradictory objectives: on the one hand, the regionalization of the social economy and, on the other hand, the bond loan to which the Fund has subscribed and which must be repayed by 27 June 2008. Therefore, consultation with the regions is necessary.

The Minister adds that she cannot join the amendment of sp.a+Vl.Pro since it is not included in the government agreement. As a result, the amendment is withdrawn and the articles are adopted unanimously.

For the chapter within the competence of the Minister of Employment, Joëlle Milquet, two themes are concerned by the draft law-program: the titles-services and the employment bonus.

New conditions will be imposed on securities-service companies. In order to be approved, they will not be liable for delayed social contributions. The ceiling, beyond which there is a question of backbacks, is set at 2,500 euros. Managers of the company may not have been involved in at least two bankruptcies. The conditions for automatic withdrawal of the approval will be fixed by royal decree. In addition, the publication of the UNEM evaluation report is postponed from March to June.

During the general discussion, the PS and Ecolo-Groen! The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among other things, asks the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the maximum of 2,500 euros. The PS asks what is the surplus value of the fixation at 2.500 euros of the ceiling from which the amounts due are considered to be delayed. Ecologically green! The question is whether this ceiling does not risk inciting employers to omit the payment of social contributions below that amount.

As for the title-services, Ecolo-Groen! Insists on working conditions and the training of employees of the service titles. The LDD notes that the compensations of the ONEM and training funds are sometimes expected and submits two amendments. The sp.a+Vl.Pro submits amendments aimed at avoiding any breakdown of the service securities system. It proposes a regular evaluation debate in Parliament, a co-financing of the Regions since a large number of users are seniors who are looking for a home-accompanying service and more financially easy access for single-parent families.

Regarding the ceiling of 2.500 euros for securities-service companies, the minister answers that the choice of the amount is explained by mainly technical reasons. Strengthening the controls should allow for savings estimated at 10 million euros. It responds that derogations from the limit of 750 euros have been taken for single-parent families as well as for seniors. Finally, the minister recalls that the budgets allocated for the training and working conditions of the workers of titles-services are not insignificant. Referring to the evaluation of the system by the ONEM, the Minister undertakes to provide the committee with a periodic monitoring of the available data every three months. The LSD withdraws its amendment.

Regarding the employment bonus, the minister explains that a second increase is scheduled for 1 October 2008 and will target the lowest wages. This provision significantly increases the difference between unemployment benefits and the guaranteed minimum wage.

During the general discussion, the PS group asked, in particular, whether the minimum wage should be linked to the age and old age of the worker. According to EU directives, age should no longer be a criterion to be taken into account. The PS also questions the perverse effects generated by the non-payment of personal contributions in some cases.

Ecologically green! suggests that the employment bonus mechanism should be extended to other incomes such as social benefits. The LDD regrets that the employment bonus is presented as a reduction in personal contribution, while it is a reduction in tax for workers who only benefit from low pay. The CDH group, for its part, highlights the well-founded nature of this measure, which is an effective response to employment traps and asks how many workers can benefit from it. The sp.a+Vl.Pro group also submitted amendments regarding the employment bonus. He believes that the proposed provisions may discourage wage increases, fear of losing the benefits of the employment bonus.

In her response, the minister explains that the very small amount of personal contributions has the virtue of concretizing the interpersonal solidarity of workers. Regarding minimum wages, the Minister notes that the social partners have invited sectors to evaluate the age-based remuneration systems and the European Directive on this subject.

During the discussion of articles, amendments are rejected. All provisions submitted to the committee were adopted by 11 votes against 4 abstentions.

I hope I have been faithful to the committee’s work. I thank you and if you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address, on behalf of my group, the social aspect of the law-programme.

That improving purchasing power is a priority for the MR group is an euphemism! We naturally welcome the government’s willingness to make this improvement of purchasing power a priority goal. Furthermore, in this context, the draft law-program and the draft laws containing various provisions that are submitted to us today already concrete some ambitious measures, starting with the annual age supplement granted to all beneficiaries of family allowances in the system of wage workers and the public sector. Independents can also benefit from it. This is of course essential for us, since a similar provision will be taken by royal decree.

This is an important step for families, as it now targets all children from 0 to 24 years of age, while the re-school premium was only for children from 6 to 17 years of age. This is a significant addition to the purchasing power of households, although we regret that the thirteenth month has not been directly introduced in terms of family allowances, as announced in the government agreement.

With regard to pensions, article 22 of the program law is dear to us and my group has been fighting for years to get it; it is, of course, the abolition of the solidarity contribution on pensions. We have long pledged for this contribution, which was established during the Dehaene era and which we judge to be completely unfair, to disappear. We can therefore only applaud its abolition, even gradually for obvious budgetary reasons.

This is a strong gesture for pensioners, even though not all are affected by this solidarity contribution. A pensioner who earns 1,200 euros a month is a wealthy pensioner. This is unacceptable! This solidarity contribution is unfair and we will remain extremely attentive to all the steps aimed at its abolition.

Since we are talking about pensions, as I said a moment ago, the fate of the self-employed is also essential for us. My group is ⁇ pleased to see that once again, this law-programme makes the good part to the self-employed and more ⁇ to the increase of their pensions.

The economic health of a country is measured by the performance of its SMEs.

When we know that self-employed workers make up about 60% of the employment in our country, that they not only create their own jobs but that in addition they create others’ jobs, we understand better how important, even primordial, it is to offer them a social status worthy of that name.

Pensions are the main concern of the self-employed and this is understood. A self-employed person receives a lower pension than an unemployed person who has never worked. That is why since 2004, the Minister of Independents has always wanted to raise the amounts of the minimum pension of independent workers to align them with those of employees.

Therefore, I can only look forward to the 2% increase that will apply to pensions from 1 July 2008. Just as I can only satisfy myself, on behalf of my group, with the new improvement of the early pension in favour of self-employed workers. I think it is a good thing to allow from January 1, 2008 that from the age of 60, those who wish to anticipate their retirement and who total 43 years of career are no longer subject to malus.

We are convinced that these new measures will further attract people toward independent status while allowing them to improve their quality of life at the time of retirement age.

I am referring to the Employment Law section of this program. I am relieved to see that the government has shown its willingness to ensure the viability of the service securities system and its tax deductibility which we have strongly defended. Removing it would have made all the attractiveness of the system disappear.

I recall that the system of service titles has helped to create some 90,000 jobs since its inception, that in 2007, more than 600,000 people have used it to have help at home and that this contributes to a better conciliation between work and family life, which we love so much. We are pleased that by marginally increasing the price of service securities, the government has been able to guarantee financial sustainability and thus sustain the system.

The initial goals of creating stable jobs and combating black labour have been fully achieved. Today, a service adapted to the needs of citizens is offered.

We believe that it is absolutely necessary to continue on this path and, in particular, to extend the service titles to the out-of-school care of children. It is about responding to an urgent need of working families and filling a shortage since no service, except black work, offers to take care of children outside the opening hours of schools or nurseries.

In addition, the government proposes in the program law to further improve this device by strengthening control. We are, of course, in favour of this, as well as the strengthening of the conditions of authorisation designed to avoid abuses. Finally, we are pleased that service titles are also accessible to low-income people through a tax credit.

Work is at the heart of our political project and we want to re-value it, make it more attractive. It is therefore a priority for us to combat employment traps and increase low wages. We support the employment bonus mechanism that, from 1 October 2008, goes from 143 euros to 175 euros, with the will of course to concentrate this increase on low wages. This is one of the essential points that will allow to give meaning to the word work, to the word effort and that will offer the greatest number the opportunity to regain strength and dignity through work.

The Reform Movement will therefore support and vote this law-program.

Colleagues, Ms. Reuter was the rapporteur and then spoke on behalf of the MR group.

However, for the sake of good progress, I must also ask the other rapporteurs whether they wish to report.

I assume that none of the rapporteurs asked for the word. They refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I will not report on the program law because it deals with a rather technical area: animal by-products not intended for human consumption.

There has been a debate about fixing a fine of 25 or 1,000 euros for people who do not correctly declare the birth of an animal. These things interest many of our fellow citizens on a daily basis.

My group will speak about this during the debate. So I don’t want to report, but there will be an ideological debate about the amount of the fine that must be determined.

However, I will report soon on the bill which contains various provisions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Excellences, dear colleagues, like many colleagues – this we will see and hear later – I am pleased with this substantial work. I feel completely back from being gone. I am very pleased that there are solid documents on the table. When it comes to public health and social affairs, I’m back where I should be. I will try to clarify our views on this.

By the way, in my modest judgment, the program law, mainly since it is part of various provisions Public Health, is a first preview of the ambitious program that is also included in the government agreement, with a lot of social priorities.

Mr. Bonte, we have been able to discuss this with each other so often in the past. It is not without any pride that I say that with this government team there will actually be efforts for long-term sick. At the time, we tried from the opposition, when you were in the majority, to work hard on that. Unfortunately, we did not reach the final meeting. However, we have not forgotten the topic.

Colleagues, the preliminary picture is in it, yes, because the minimum pensions for self-employed are increased by 2% and for workers idem dito. We know that, legally linked to it, d'office an increase of 2% is included for the disability benefits. These are indeed the most respected categories of people. These are people who are not only unable to work due to prolonged illness and thus see their earnings and savings capacity decrease, but also face high costs. These high costs, of course, pressure their already damaged budget.

An important part of the government program is about the price of love. Two people with disabilities who are going to live together are disadvantaged because a portion of the integration benefit for one of the two is reduced. This is a difficult issue that has been discussed here for years. A solution to this issue is also concrete in the ambitious government program in the Social Affairs and Public Health section.

There is the anomaly associated with the increased child allowance. In the draft law various provisions the school premium is restored in honour. This will happen in the month of August, related to age. That is normal, proportionate and right. Therefore, an additional child benefit is provided, which is also equalized between employees and self-employed persons. That is very meritorious. The Government Agreement stipulates that in the future there should no longer be a distinction between child allowance for workers and those for self-employed.

There is also a part about medicines. This is probably stated in every program law and in every law various provisions. The theme is in so many laws that it is always the subject of one or another amendment. The aim here is that we want to pursue a responsible pricing policy for medicines. This also has a significant impact on long-term patients. Medicines constitute a large spending item for long-term sick people. By working on the price policy of the medicines, we can have a direct impact on the difficult, social situation of people who are able to work.

The brake money for patients and supplements are still important elements, which has already been discussed a lot. The colleagues of sp.a have already said a lot about this in the previous legislature, Mr. Bonte. This week we experienced an annoying, even annoying spectacle. At that time, Mr Stevaert had already said that the supplements had to be removed from the world as soon as possible, after Mr Vandenbroucke had reintroduced them. Remember, however, we had previously drawn up a legal arrangement to work away from them. Well, although Mrs. Detiège, under purple, has enthusiastically emphasized that supplements for parents and children should be abolished, she voted against a provision in that sense this week. Imagine how one first approves a measure, then with great ease rejects the same measure. That alone, of course, reveals the panic of an opposition that has never really been able to draw out a social policy in the former coalition and that of course – I also understand this – now what is “coincined” by the forthcoming ambitious program.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goutry, I would like to interrupt you for a moment to talk about the work.

It will not be a coincidence that you have already mentioned my name three or four times and made a caricature of the past. However, your enthusiasm for the present design is damaging.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that I subsequently develop my ideas on the matter in the speech. In the other case, I must constantly point out to Mr. Goutry how good and how important one and the other is.

Second, Mr. Goutry, you are speaking in the flight about the supplements and you are repeating what happened 15 years ago in Parliament, against the will of then Prime Minister Dehaene in, with Mr. Vermassen. We were all there.

However, I want to be clear about the supplements. Ms. Detiège has also submitted an amendment on the supplements. We are therefore effective for the abolition. Now, however, do not suggest that the present program law contains a major revolution in supplementation. I hope you do not rejoice about this. I hope that this is not the case. After all, you know as well as I know how heavy the supplements at certain patient profiles begin to weigh.

Mr. Bonte, a program law is always a merger of multiple provisions from multiple systems. However, the provisions also always interfere with other matters. The direction chosen for a particular measure also reflects the vision behind the measure. Therefore, for the sake of you and the other colleagues who listen carefully, I just wanted to stretch the idea behind it for a moment, so that you can see that the measure is not a loose flood but a thorough project, which is connected with the entire government agreement.

In addition to the age allowances and the child allowance linked to a kind of school premium, the solidarity allowance for pensioners, which has been discussed for so long, will also be abolished. This was specifically included in the law on the various provisions. The abolition will begin with the lowest pensions. These are also the people who feel the most of the aforementioned contribution. Subsequently, the solidarity contribution will also be gradually and gradually abolished for those with higher pensions. That is a requirement that has long been on the table, also with regard to the reduction of purchasing power, which is strongly felt by seniors who must live on a limited income such as retirement. In this sense, abolition is an important matter.

Mr Bonte himself has already stated that the increase in the minimum pensions for self-employed is 2% after an effort had already been made during the previous legislature. We must be correct on this point.

Importantly, the increase is linked to an improvement for employee pensions by at least 2%. As I said, the increase continues up to and with the disabled, who are automatically associated with it. In that sense, we will do a good job here for groups of people who are at the bottom of those benefits.

As regards early retirement for self-employed workers, I would like to point out that the measure is a ⁇ historic breakthrough. After all, there has been a sanction for self-employed persons who retire early from the age of 60 years. They lost forever 5% of their pension amount per year of early retirement.

This is now being revised. People with a career of 43 years as self-employed can start from 60 with early retirement while ⁇ ining their fully already proportional pension as self-employed. This is a very important measure for self-employed people.

The Committee for the Social Intelligence and Investigation Service (SIOD) will be strengthened because the Minister of Self-Employed, the social statute of the self-employed, will also be part of it, which will allow for a more accurate and more efficient fight against social fraud.

The vocational periods of social security users are set at three months. This is fully consistent with the Charter of the Social Insured. The charter existed for a long time but the conversion into concrete terms of appeal did not come about. This, Mr Annemans, has also been realized in the meantime. If the law is passed later, it becomes a fact.

There can be long debates about service checks. This may also have to happen in the course of this legislature, which is mainly driven by its social program and its social ambitions. I feel absolutely attracted to be able to conduct those debates now and in the coming days and months. The service cheques will be discussed as a good instrument, which, however, cannot be blindly handled, which should not simply remain intact in all circumstances as a system. It is a system that can work well when it is properly coached and controlled. In my region, there are only service cheque companies that have handled it poorly from a commercial point of view. They first competed with public providers and then went bankrupt, causing a lot of people to stand on the streets who, in the meantime, happily...

Mr Bonte, you may intervene but I assumed that you would reserve your comments for your speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pause for a moment on the service checks. Mr Goutry makes a number of important statements.

During our discussion in the committee, there was quite a bit of criticism from the opposition and from the majority that there was too little ambition from the budget and therefore also to the program law regarding the constitutional amendment. This is also the case with the service checks. I remember several pleas, including from colleagues from your group who believe that the service cheques should be extended to childcare and to pre- and post-school surveillance in schools. I think the colleague Van den Bergh was. You say you would like to engage in the discussion. Others advocate for workplace services, others for flexible childcare. We have also discussed this issue with our Walloon colleagues for a long time.

Today we make a decision on service cheques. In the government agreement and in the policy note we see that there is an upcoming discussion on the extension of the task packages. The question is whether the CD&V - N-VA group holds to the plea of colleague Van den Bergh and others to use the service cheques also for the pre- and post-school childcare in schools. If one thinks a little logically, that is, in my opinion, something that may also be financed from the rich Flemish public treasures and that in any case in terms of competence would belong much better. I just want to know if you confirm the plea in it and whether you will continue in that line with regard to the service checks.

Did you know that Van den Bergh’s colleague is the most sexy politician?

Mr. Bonte, the discussion about the service cheques is indeed a little longer than what is currently stated in the program law. What is now able to do is what I wish to keep for the time being, because the rest, for a part, has to be passed on to us too. Control and use should be better regulated and reviewed, to avoid – see Professor Pacolet’s study – that we would here misuse an instrument that can prove very good services. Before expanding that too much, one must see that the niches where services are already provided can be well controlled. Moreover, they are begging for workforce and get a lot of contracts not fulfilled. Therefore, we must first exploit this well before we begin to expand vastly.

In the past, there was a very strong restriction. It has already been sensitively expanded, including in the context of the associated PWA discussion. It is obvious that one system has to do with the other. It is also clear that we will not yet make any decisions on the basis of the case, because we do not yet know that and cannot sufficiently estimate what the financial repercussions of this could be.

Mr Goutry, [...]

You must ask the word that is the easiest.

You have the word.

Mr. Goutry, if I understand you well, you say that, as far as the CD&V - N-VA group is concerned, it is far too early to speak of the extension of the task packages. I note that Mr. Van den Bergh then spoke much before his time, because he advocated very sharply for the childcare in schools. However, this is not my point. I understand that you say that he was a little too early with his statement. However, what I have very well noted in the very long and engaging discussions we have had about this, is that almost all the other majority parties, if not all, announced that the expansion should come anyway, including for the powers of childcare, education and other matters.

In other words, I think you will have to consult very quickly and maybe persuade your coalition partners to make the same concerns as you, also in terms of the budgetary side of the matter, but so far you are, unfortunately, not yet.

Mr. Bonte, I thank you for your good advice, but what may be much more important – it surprises me a bit that you say nothing about it – is that now there is also a credit bonus for people who can not taxally benefit from the service checks. I already find that much more important than the questions of how many categories we will expand, for whom we will do it, whether it is organizable and whether we will find the workforce.

First and foremost, it should be affordable for the user, and especially for the user who has difficulty. I am a little surprised that you did not mention this, but you may explain it later on the speech floor.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will conclude with the work bonus. (Applause to some banks)

I used to be applauded because I started, now because I ended my argument.

The increase in the work bonus of 32 euros is not insignificant, in the context of purchasing power and the purchasing power debate. This was also a bit of the implementation of this program law and the law on the various provisions. The social and human importance of this law is precisely that there are many measures that may not seem such a fantastic thing in themselves, but that the households in our country, the people who need to live from benefits, the people who have a little more difficulty and the people who complain about the purchasing power will benefit from the approval and transposition in concrete of this law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, for my group, the adoption of the program law and the law containing various provisions was a priority, not the priority of the day, but actually a priority. What will we adopt tonight? A project that answers the real questions that worry our fellow citizens, bringing the first concrete answers to the problem of purchasing power that threatens many people and families in Belgium. I will quote you a few examples that really interest our fellow citizens and which are answers that politics must absolutely and prioritize to the difficulties of a large number of Belgians.

We are, you know, very attached to the quality of life of our elderly, which goes for many through their purchasing power and the increase of it. Therefore, we are satisfied with the abolition of the solidarity contribution, especially since, contrary to what some probably would have wanted, this will not be done unconditionally and we will start with the lowest pensions. It is only justice that those first benefit from the measure.

Nevertheless, it will be about ensuring the financing of the measure for employees and self-employed schemes, being understood that the reduction for the public sector will be borne by the state budget in the primary expenditure.

We also found positive the measurement of the employment bonus, which has allowed, since 1999, to increase the net wage of the workers concerned by about 9% out of index, which has helped to reduce the gap between net minimum wages and net average wages. However, the PS group would like to recall that it would be appropriate for the social partners to agree to harmonise the conventional principles governing the guaranteed minimum wage interprofessional, in particular with regard to the age criterion which should no longer be taken into account since the European Directive 2078.

Furthermore, I would like to add that this measure must not, in the long run, challenge the internal solidarity of the social security system, nor discourage the “vertical ascension” of workers by constituting a barrier to training.

Another positive measure in our view is the measure of granting an allocation granted in September. Of course, there is a perpetuation of the system as we are moving towards the granting of a thirteenth month of family allowances. We are aware of the extent of the efforts made in this regard to improve the situation of salaried workers as well as self-employed; self-employed who will also see their minimum pension increased by 2% in the same way as salaried workers, which we welcome.

I will also mention the increase of the tax-exempt quota of 250 euros, which will go from 6,150 euros to 6,400 euros for all workers whose income does not exceed 22,873 euros per year. This represents an annual benefit of 62 euros in addition to the 50 euros that will be granted at the end of May, as a result of an increase in deductible flat-rate fees.

Finally, we welcome the government’s action that will allow a reduction of 50 to 75 euros of the heating bill of low and middle-income families, thus facing the quite extraordinary rise in prices on the electricity and gas market, which we have known for a few months and thus easing somewhat – ⁇ not enough – the distress of some households today in great difficulty.

These are the first answers to the problems facing many of our fellow citizens.

Colleagues, I will briefly, in general terms, intervene on the program law. A number of our group members will further explain some amendments that we would like to submit in this plenary session for the approval of the other members of the House.

Today we are talking about the program law that is per definition linked to the budget. As for the budget, you know our criticism. We gave them from the beginning. That criticism comes down to the fact that the budget is not closing and that a lot of parameters are unclear. There are incomes that we know today cannot be realized. We have – and the Minister of Finance was also in the committee, I think – already asked at the first discussion that the government should start a budget control. The Minister of Finance then said that the budget had to be approved before we could check them.

Meanwhile, the Federal Planning Bureau has submitted a new report showing that this budget is indeed not conclusive. As you know, the European Commission expects a deficit of 0.4%. As I said before, the Chairman of the Chamber also considers that it would be better to start budget control quickly and not wait until July.

July 15 is apparently the date when everything will be resolved. Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde will be resolved, the major state reform will be resolved and the budget will be resolved. I can tell you no, Mr. Minister. I had understood this afterwards.

Why do I say that? There are some good things in the program law. I said this in the Committee on Finance. There are some good things in it, but the doubts are of course growing. After all, good business costs money, but there is no money. There is a hole in the budget. So, we have our concerns about the extent to which those good measures can be effectively paid.

What we notice in this budget and in this program law, colleagues, is that the group of pensioners is left behind by the government.

The increase in minimum pensions is a simple achievement.

I am glad that you enter into it. And what does this government do?

You have to learn lessons from me!

What has this government done? What were the plans? There is a problem with purchasing power. Some even deny that. Also in this hemisphere there are those who argue that there is a purchasing power hysteria and that this is a problem that will disappear by itself once the social elections are behind.

The problem of purchasing power exists and we all know that. Gas and electricity cost people 300 euros more annually, food prices are 200 euros higher annually, hospitalization insurance will cost two to three times more, which means 300 euros annually. If I collect that alone, I get 800 euros a year. For many pensioners, this is a monthly income. What does this government do? She says that she will do something to address the purchasing power problem and reduce taxes by raising the tax-free minimum. That seems to be a good measure, until we determine that the measure does not apply to pensioners, sick and disabled. Those who need this tax reduction most for their purchasing power do not get it from this government. The argument for this is that they want to activate the people. As if you can activate pensioners, sick and disabled. Let me now explain why this measure does not apply to pensioners, sick and disabled. We will submit an amendment on this later and you will have the opportunity to vote on it.

A second measure this government does not take is saving for the pensions of the future. Colleague Bonte will go deeper into this later. The Silver Fund will not be funded for the second year in a row. The problem of ageing is thus pushed in the long run, as everything is pushed in the long run by this government today.

What is worse is that this Parliament has passed the Silver Fund Act, which states what surpluses the government must make.

We have approved this law here. This government says very simply: we do not attract ourselves from this. Law or no law, approved by Parliament or not, we do not draw anything from it. Instead of a 0.5 percent surplus, this government says it will find a balance. In the meantime, we know from the European Commission that we will reach –0.4%.

Third, I just said that the premiums for hospital insurance will be two to three times higher. In this regard, the government does not take any initiative. One of my group members will submit an amendment and explain the matter.

As a conclusion of my brief presentation, I can say that the pensioners are left behind by this government. A year ago, pensioners at Rerum Novarum were promised to increase their benefits by 2 billion. What do we see? There are tax cuts, but pensioners are excluded.

Mr. Speaker, just then my voice seemed quite loud, so I will now try to find the right balance.

For 11 months, we have been asking as Greens for a government that addresses the problems of the people. These problems are known: reduction in purchasing power, rising energy prices and global warming. Exodus has been repeated here. We have been waiting for solutions for 11 months.

With the program law and the draft law containing various provisions, we must unfortunately conclude that it is not this government that will help the people in a truly effective way. The Program Law confirms our criticism of the budget, our criticism of the government agreement, and even my criticism of this government, which I formulated earlier today.

Those who really want to do something about purchasing power must thoroughly strengthen the energy regulator, the CREG. This government does not do that. Whoever wants to do something about the rising prices must take the tools available for this, but this government does not. Those who want to do something about global warming should invest in renewable energy, but this government does not.

Colleagues, the CREG dossier is a wonderful example of how this government could have done something for the people’s portfolio, but decided not to do it. The government declares that it wants to do something to increase purchasing power, but when it comes to strengthening the institution that could mean something and could do something to the energy prices swinging out of the pan, then it, as so often, does not go home. Our amendments to strengthen the Committee for Electricity and Gas Regulation, the CREG, were wiped out in the committee meeting. Therefore, one is not willing to give the CREG itself the authority to intervene when unreasonable prices are used. One is not willing to give the CREG the necessary powers to really monitor, really control the sector. With the bill containing various provisions of the government, the CREG remains a guard dog without teeth. It is a pity for the consumer. My colleague Tinne Van der Straeten will further deepen this dossier for us later. I hope you will listen attentively.

In short, what the government proposes is not a real, thorough, solid reinforcement of the CREG. Because we want to help the people, we have only submitted amendments. You can vote on it soon. This is a second chance for you. However, we know from other files that you often miss opportunities. I hope that this will not be the case later.

As for the rest of the program law and the bill draft containing various provisions, we, from the Ecolo-Green! group, must conclude that we have found few real social merits of this government, except, indeed, a few small things, beverage nuts, if you wish – to use your own terminology. But the May 1 speeches and the many statements on Rerum Novarum last year and even this year were clearly not a sufficient source of inspiration.

To say it again, Mr. Goutry, the ACW was very clear when it was said that one kept sitting on his hunger and that the social measures for them were insufficient. However, ACW has long been a social partner of CD&V.

The PS’s electoral program, the CDH’s promises, the Prime Minister’s speech last year at Rerum Novarum, with another 2 billion euros of social measures as a promise. Apparently this is quickly forgotten.

What should we think of the whole vaudeville around the VAT tax we experienced in the Committee on Finance? Does the dossier of the VAT taxation on new grounds not clearly show the smoothness of this gathering of ministers and the minister who wanted to clearly discuss this at that moment in that committee and two majority parties who request the suspension? Remember that second day after the Easter holiday in which we finally received a prime, concrete figures in the Finance Committee. We could get to work. The opposition had determined that there was a problem with the VAT tax. What do we see? The majority does not agree. There is baking policy. There was consultation. There was no consultation. The Flemish Prime Minister calls the federal government to order. It really couldn’t get up. It was a shameful, vengeful picture.

Almost this government had then adopted one of the most associalistic measures. The land taxes on new buildings would be increased from 11% to 21% and especially social housing would be hardest affected. Your plan has not gone on, Mr. Reynders. In the long run, this will also become a constant in the government.

Meanwhile, this measure has been pushed more and more into the background. She was sent to Europe and temporarily disappeared in the refrigerator. I have explicitly asked the committee not to forget the measure in the meantime and to prepare a response before the moment when the European statements come. All this does not deprive you of the responsibility to actually work on a negotiated solution in the meantime.

What about that same Minister Reynders who in the previous legislature claimed high and low that the budget was balanced and who now in the program law must take over the financial debt of the Railway Infrastructure Fund worth as much as 4.5 billion euros? If you calculate that debt, the budget of the previous legislature was not balanced at all. We already know, Europe has also confirmed, that the budget of this legislature is also not balanced.

There is also the abolition of the solidarity contribution on pensions. This will ⁇ bring us 300 million euros of additional minor incomes, and that while the Fund for the Ageing will not be founded this year. That means we are de facto going backwards, knowing that at this time there are already articles in the newspaper that we will find it very difficult in this country in the next 25 years to capture that aging. It is a completely irresponsible measure not to register compensation for the elimination of that solidarity measure.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude today that the current government is and remains a little social government and that it will do nothing about the climate or pollution.

For a moment, however, we had hope. We thought we could see a positive point in the program law, namely a proposal to impose taxes on lands that could potentially be used for energy production but remain unused. The principle was on us. After that, however, the uncertainty began to play again. In fact, it is proposed to express the fee not per potential kilowatt-hour but per square meter.

It took us two committee sessions before Mr. Magnette could tell us what the total amount of the fine would be. Two committee meetings were needed to obtain such vital information. I do not understand that. I may be new, but I don’t understand it. I know, the sun shines and a person would like to work a little less hard, but two committee sessions are still too much. Would you rather not have the Parliament know that nothing will ultimately change and that the sum of the fines in both cases would be the same?

It has been repeated indefinitely. The current government has no vision, no project, nor a calculator. She put the calculator aside. After the events of the last few days, we can even say that the current government is not a team. The program law is a good illustration of this. The aforementioned law confesses nothing but the immediately feasible. The VAT chaos has illustrated the chaos within the majority. In this way, a country is not governed. This does not provide an answer to the many problems facing citizens.

Ecologically green! strongly condemns the aforementioned indecisiveness, steeringlessness and disorder. We call on all ministers and secretaries of state to form a government instead of continuing to play strategic games, where everyone, and especially the population, is constantly losing. We will, therefore, strongly reject the existing Waste Bake Act – that is it too.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

These bills, and in particular the bill-program, already concrete a lot of ideas of the government agreement to which we can only adhere. Indeed, it appears evident, when reading these laws, that they bring new advances, sometimes modest, sometimes more consistent in terms of purchasing power, whether for families, pensioners, self-employed or employees.

With regard to family allowances, and especially with regard to the annual age supplement, let us recall that the CDH has always been concerned with meeting the needs of families. We were therefore the first to defend the system of school entry premium. It is therefore logical that we support this new benefit, which is the annual age supplement, since it replaces the school return premium. The real advancement that this supplement provides is the extension of the system to children under 6 and those over 18 years of age. Indeed, it was abnormal for families not to receive premiums for these age groups while fees also exist for these children and adolescents. It is of course essential that this advantage is also granted to self-employed workers. We will therefore ensure that the announced royal decree will be implemented as will the program law.

Furthermore, for the future, we expect the government to fully sustain the system in the form of the granting of a thirteenth month of family allowances payable in August, as agreed in the government agreement.

Reduction of the solidarity contribution for pensions. This contribution – we know it – is a retention on pensions when they reach a certain threshold. It is obvious that this measure was taken at the time for purely budgetary reasons in order to ensure the financial balance of social security. But today we find it necessary to take action to gradually reduce this retention, taking into account, of course, the available budget margins.

We are pleased that the Motive Exhibition announces a special attention to the lowest pensions. The priority is the standard of living of pensioners. It is therefore legitimate to remove this contribution for the lowest pensions in the first place. But we draw attention to the fact that these will be the lowest pensions among those subject to the solidarity contribution and which therefore exceed a certain not negligible threshold.

While this gradual abolition is indeed one of the proposals of my political formation – and, as such, we look forward to its adoption – it does not, however, constitute the absolute priority in terms of pensions, in view of other much more challenging situations.

The CDH therefore wishes to recall that the reduction of the solidarity contribution must necessarily be accompanied, in the coming months and years, by other measures in favor of our elderly. For the CDH, it is the amount of the smaller pensions and the oldest ones that must prioritize the energy and resources of the government. Almost 21% of Belgian pensioners are considered to be in poverty. More than one million of our elderly receive a pension of less than 1,000 euros per month. It is to this category of pensioners that the cursor of government action must move.

At a time when we live in a time when five generations side by side, where there are almost as many blonde heads as grey heads, the issue of pensions, their financing and their amount, appears more than ever as one of the highest priorities of public authorities. Therefore, I personally look forward to the future of a National Conference on Pensions, an idea that we could have defended on the occasion of a proposal for a resolution under discussion in the Social Affairs Committee.

I hope that the Minister meets well the expectations in this regard. Courage must be shown, because it will inevitably be necessary to make responsible, concerted, delicate but yet indispensable choices for the future. This is a challenge for almost all industrial companies in Europe. We must lay the foundations of a truly intergenerational society and face the challenge of the “sustainability” of our long-term pension system, in close connection with the issue of the overall increase in the employment rate in our country.

Finally, on this chapter, I recall that the CDH continues to demand, in addition to these reductions, the structural link of pensions to well-being and not just a simple catch-up, even though this is obviously a not negligible advance.

Regarding the social status of the self-employed, unfortunately, at the present time, the willingness to engage many people is discouraged because the status of the self-employed is sometimes too unattractive. While some self-employed have a good career, others, on the other hand, fear the lack of social protection. It is far away, in many cases, from the time of the independent ones who were riding on gold. It is not unnecessary to recall that, according to estimates, in 2007, 150,000 self-employed people lived below the poverty line in Belgium.

The CDH is therefore pleased with the increase of the minimum pension for self-employed and the removal of penalties suffered by those who wish to retire at age 60, provided that they total 43 years of career.

These are measures that go in the right direction and that will need to be supplemented by others to somehow catch up the remaining gap from the employee regime where this is justified.

As for service titles, they talk a lot about them and we understand why. The success is huge. For 2007, more than 600,000 users, 90,000 employees, 1,700 licensed companies and 53 million securities purchased. The service titles have thus contributed to creating employment especially for less skilled persons, to fight against black labour and to ease the daily life of the user families. For these three reasons alone, they deserve our consideration and it is probably the most effective mechanism in terms of job creation in recent years.

This does not mean that these contracts are the panacea. They remain precarious, of course, but nevertheless allow many people to put their feet back on the edge of professional life in a “win-win” relationship between users and service providers.

In the face of the scale of the phenomenon, it has become necessary to better frame and control the licensed companies. Due to the provisions of the program law, companies of service securities will not be liable for a tax or social contributions default. A fight against fraudulent practices is put in place as managers and managers of securities-service companies may not have been involved in bankruptcies before. Finally, the King will be able to determine how to automatically withdraw the approval of companies.

Therefore, the benefit of this new framework is double. It allows, on the one hand, savings by acting against fraud but above all, on the other hand, it helps to ensure that securities companies are serious employers, thus offering the useful guarantees both to the providers and the beneficiaries.

In addition, the program law suggests creating a tax credit. It was totally unfair that low-income people could not benefit from the tax reduction because precisely they don’t pay enough taxes. State intervention in service titles must benefit in the first place those with low incomes and for whom service titles can represent a real aid. A solution was therefore indispensable and it was the tax credit that was chosen, repairing an inequality of treatment among citizens.

This measure must be accompanied by a good information of potential beneficiaries so that they turn without fear to the service titles, being assured of the intervention of the state. As you have understood, the CDH will support all measures that will help to improve and sustain the system of service securities and is demanding to fully engage in favor of the expansion of the nature of the services concerned.

Regarding the increase in employment bonus, this is a way to increase the net wage of the worker by reducing personal contributions. Therefore, it should not be neglected in the search for the strengthening of purchasing power. It is a measure that goes, too, in the right direction, that of reducing what is agreed to call employment traps which are rather in reality traps "to unemployment". The difference between certain unemployment benefits, whether they come from the UNEM or CPAS, and the lowest wages is sometimes so small that job seekers have little interest in exchanging their situation for a approach of professional engagement.

Undoubtedly, and the Minister of Employment is well aware of this since she has devoted an important part to it in her general policy note, the fight against employment traps must be at the top of the list of priorities of government action. The employment bonus raised by this law-programme is part of this logic, which I am delighted with. To produce maximum effects, the measure will have to be accompanied by further advances against these employment traps.

The increase suggested in the program law has at least three advantages. First, the increase in salary. Secondly, it is not the employer who funds this increase. Third, low wages are ⁇ favored by the mechanism of gradual reduction depending on the wage.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, excellent and dear colleagues, here are a few considerations that I wanted to share with you on behalf of my group on the “Social Affairs” section of the law-programme. I have naively the impression that I have done here more useful work than in other debates that mobilize our energy. In any case, you will have the trust of the CDH on this law-program and on the law containing various provisions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the Program Law or the Dumpbak Act, we have already experienced this legislature once. It has manifested itself in this way. I am pleased that many colleagues are trying to claim that the VAT on new construction has hit the agenda. I would like to remind you that both my chairman and I, as full-fledged street boys, came into that rubbish box to remove the there and steamlessly inflamed rule. Fortunately only. We are pleased that it has gone to Europe and it may remain there for a long time so that we will not face this measure for the time being.

Then, for us, the program law is also full of half measures. I am glad that Mrs. Laruelle is here. Very large statements in the months of October and November on equalizing the pension of the self-employed with that of the employees. Where are you now? If you’re going to make as much effort for your flying team as you did for equalizing self-employed pensions, then frankly it will become a very big low-flyer.

Mr. Goutry, I also don’t understand how you can be so euphoric about abolishing what was actually a punishment for the self-employed who retire early. 43 years has been a perfectly long career. Secondly, however, it is no more than logical that this has been abolished because otherwise there would have been nothing left. I still find it a great shame that someone with a full career as a unemployed still gets more than a self-employed who has worked in the sweat for years. That still exists today. If you come here to say that we have taken good social measures, then they are not half enough for me.

The same applies to child allowance for self-employed persons. There is the partial abolition of the solidarity contribution, a one-time rule of Dehaene that we still engage with us, okay. In any case, it is not enough for us. If we look at the way the choices were made – we just talked about it with the prime minister – we find that we primarily choose to further complicate the government and not to demolish the government by allowing structural tax cuts. We remain sitting with a moloch that cuts money and causes us to do insufficiently on the social level for both ⁇ and families. You can turn it and turn it as you want, we can’t get out of it.

In addition, there is also a very clearly unthinked measure in the program law, but there were more. It is a pity that Mr. Vandeurzen is not here; we will ⁇ question him and question him on the matter. The punishment of the doctors for refusing the blood test was a pure shame. Mr Vandeurzen also said during the discussions on the court that they must be able to rely on their own deontology. Apparently, this is not the case for doctors and they should be punished when they are called to take a blood test. In any case, we will continue to monitor that work is made of this matter.

Finally, I will come up with two amendments that we will ⁇ maintain. First, the flat-rate deduction for mileage costs is still currently calculated on the basis of the 1992 calculation. We talked about it in the committee. I am sorry, Mrs. Staelraeve, that you are here alone. Your colleagues do not seem to find it interesting enough. It is a great honour for you to be here. Both from CD&V and VLD, I heard that they actually support it. It is only logical that they stand behind it. At present, the flat-rate deduction is still based on the NMBS tariffs: 3 francs per kilometer. That was subsequently doubled to 6 francs. At the moment, we must be able to estimate the kilometer price at 30 cents and also deduct in that respect. We also submitted this amendment.

The second amendment. If we are with a government that wants to work for a healthy and prosperous economy, then we also maintain the amendment for the exemption for the additional employee. The amount currently filled for an additional employee remains at the level of 1998. You should know that in 1981 the amount for the additional employee for companies up to 11 employees was 100,000 francs. In 1998 it was 150,000 francs. If you know that GDP has been 370% higher since that period and that the index of consumer prices has doubled, this is a ridiculous situation. This amendment will also be ⁇ ined. Then I will give the word to colleague Ulla Werbrouck in relation to railway infrastructure.

Mr Bogert has the word.

Isn’t it up to me first?

Mr Bogert, Mrs Werbrouck would like to speak immediately after Mr Van de Velde. It is her maidensprach.

Colleagues, List Dedecker calls for the deletion of Articles 12 and 13 in the draft program law. What is it about? We demand the abolition in the first place because such financial transactions and shifts should take place under parliamentary control and not through a mere mandate to the executive power. These articles and techniques surprise us, now CD&V belongs to the majority and even the prime minister delivers. We expected a more consistent attitude from this political party and its prime minister.

From the opposition, CD&V has in the past heavily hijacked the government-Verhofstadt, when it used “one shots”. The government makes this subject to two conditions, but that is not enough to justify this technique. First, there should be no weakness of assets. Second, it should not incur additional costs for the following financial years. What is being done here now satisfies the two conditions that the government imposes on itself, but it remains a non-structural measure.

In this context, I would also refer to the observations of the Court of Auditors, which pointed out that those Articles 12 and 13 would have a negative impact on the balance of claims for the year 2005. Therefore, List Dedecker wants to come to a correct fiscal policy, in which there is no place for the technique of “one shots”. We therefore call for the removal of these articles. I expect the CD&V Group to have some consequence in their voting behavior on this amendment.

I would like to thank Ms. Werbrouck for her first speech. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Bogert, the word is up to you and please excuse me for having to wait a moment with your speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have prepared a very short presentation.

The draft program law that is being discussed today is closely linked to the budget. Our group has been vigilant and will continue to be vigilant with regard to the budget. We clearly support the objective of the Stability Pact.

The Stability Pact provides for a rapid build-up of a structural surplus in the coming years. The word “structural” is important here. It means that we will not accept that government assets decrease net to ⁇ that surplus. It means that we will not accept that the burden falls on the shoulders of future generations in order to ⁇ a surplus.

The structural balances of the National Bank and the figures of the Stability Program reflect the following in relation to the past. In 2001 there was a structural deficit of -0,2%, in 2002 of -0,3%, in 2003 of -0,6%, in 2004 of -0,7% and in 2006 of -0,1%.

To have a structural surplus of 1% by 2011 is ⁇ ambitious. If we express this in euros – it is important to count not only percentages, but also cents – we must, for example, from 2006 where there was a structural deficit of 350 million euros, by 2011 move to a structural surplus of 3.5 billion euros. That is the challenge we face. We need to move from a structural deficit to a structural surplus. That challenge is especially important for people in the long run, in order to be able to pay for pensions, health care and all other departments that are important.

In this budgetary context, it adorns the government that a number of priorities have been put forward. For example, the child allowance was further supplemented with the annual age allowance and we are on the way to a thirteenth month child allowance.

Mr. Bogert, can Mr. Bonte interrupt you for a moment?

Mr. Bogaert, if I listen to you, the world can change very thoroughly in a very short term. I do not want to talk about it. I do not want to confront you with the criticism you expressed on the budget at the time.

To realize a structural surplus, the first step one can take is a structural balance. In order to go to a surplus, there must first be a balance.

Our group leader just rightly pointed out that there are a lot of alarm cries, and not by the least, because the budget is fully dissipating. This is largely due to the economic situation, but also due to the lack of measures.

A lot of people advocate to intervene very quickly. If the structural surplus of 1%, as you project it to 2011, is your ambition, know very well that that ambition lies below the financing need that the Committee on Ageing proposes as the absolute minimum, as minimum minimorum.

My question is the following, Mr. Bogaert, you who are very concerned about the budget, whatever you decorate, by the way. We should all be concerned about the budget. What prevents you from advocating, together with the Speaker of the House, for a much faster budgetary control in order to avoid having to eliminate a much larger disorientation in October that may cause people even more pain?

Your question consists of two parts. Is it ambitious to reach a structural surplus? I think so. When I look at the figures from the past – apart from the fact that you carried responsibility during that period, because that is not really what I am concerned about – it simply shows that there was a structural deficit at that time. I again deliberately refer to figures from the National Bank, so that I stand above the discussions on that subject. That structural deficit was, for example, 2.4 billion in 2004.

You are right to say that it will be a whole sandwich to get a balance now. To get to a surplus, it will also become a whole sandwich. I also share your concern, but not in terms of cost control, because I think we are good at that point. In terms of revenue, that is another matter. We must see if we can collect all the numbers and then I will be your ally to carry out a budget control as soon as possible.

In other words, Mr. Bogaert, do you think that the Speaker of the House is too premature when he advocates for an early budget control and calls for not postponing the measures until October?

and no. I don’t think you’ve been able to listen to the many noises.

I say that I will be your ally at the moment when all the numbers are there. We need to review this budget as soon as possible.

The OECD figures, which today show that we are striving at a serious deficit, do not persuade you to act earlier?

I have already said three times that I share your concern in that regard, but I think we need all the basic figures.

So we have to wait?

If the numbers are there tomorrow, then I’m ready...

There is already a dress that shows that there is a displacement.

We need all the numbers.

For example, the child allowance is further supplemented with an annual age allowance and we are on the way to a thirteenth month child allowance. The solidarity contribution for pensioners is systematically reduced. The minimum pension of self-employed persons is increased, the early pension for self-employed persons is improved. In addition, the work bonus for low wages is raised. A discount on the gas and electricity bill that was not there so far is also granted.

In short, that is a wide range of additional measures that undoubtedly provide additional support to people who are struggling today and who have been forgotten in the past.

In addition – this is also very important – we also find in the law a series of initiatives that not only redistribute wealth, but also help create. For example, the draft program law will exempt additional low-skilled personnel in small enterprises, further encourage scientific research so that our economy can become more innovative and competitive, and will increase the tax-free sum for low incomes so that even more people will find their way into the labour market.

Given those important measures for the people, taken in budgetarily very difficult circumstances – who fits the shoe, pull it –, given the government’s ambition to look at the future in the current circumstances and, despite all the winds, to prepare that future as well and as responsibly as possible, our group will support the program law.

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will address here the tax incentives implemented in the law-programme.

Generally speaking, I would like to recall, first of all, that it is vital for our country to make work much more attractive in a changing society. In our opinion, the labor tax must be further reduced while becoming more equitable, prioritizing workers with low or middle income and rewarding those who provide additional effort. While it is normal that income differs depending on the work done, it is essential that the work is sufficiently rewarded to allow each worker to benefit from a much larger purchasing power.

I want to remind you that most people who work pay too fast and too many taxes. In this regard, the implementation of an increase in the tax-exempt income quota and the increase in deductible flat-rate professional costs with a simplification of tax schemes in this government’s program are in the right direction. These measures will effectively contribute to better rewarding work and combating employment traps while allowing to benefit from a reduction in the tax pressure.

I now come to the main fiscal measures implemented in this project. In terms of security, for SMEs, it is the introduction of a deduction for the costs of securing companies. These costs include subscription fees for the connection to an authorized alarm plant, costs in case of individual or collective recourse to an authorized maintenance company. It is also the security of the housing of private persons. In fact, an increase of the tax reduction will be granted for those expenses of securing the building of which the taxpayer is the owner, usufructuary or tenant. The maximum amount of the reduction which was of the order of 130 euros is raised to 500 euros.

Another aspect of this project is focused more specifically on low and middle incomes. For those who do not exceed the threshold of 22.870 euros, an increase in the tax-exempt income quota is introduced at 250 euros after indexation. This increase will benefit taxpayers who have income from effective professional activity. Thus, for the latter, from the 2009 tax year, the tax-exempt income quota will be increased from 6,150 to 6,400 euros.

Then, in some cases, the tax reduction for the payment of services paid with service titles will be converted into a refundable tax credit. Thanks to this social disposition, the taxpayer who pays very little or no taxes will also be able to benefit from a state intervention in the case of use of the service titles. Indeed, it has often been found that for low-income, such as small pensions, the current tax reduction cannot be applied, because there are not enough taxes left.

In order to extend the support for scientific research in Belgium, private enterprises will also benefit, like university institutions and higher schools, from the exemption from the payment of the professional prepayment at a rate of 65% on the remuneration of research staff.

Also, ladies, gentlemen, dear colleagues, in view of all these tax advances, the MR group will vote without any hesitation on all these positive tax measures for citizens, for our SMEs and for our ⁇ .

(The applause )

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Internal Part of the draft law-programme 2008 contains provisions aimed at updating two previous law-programme laws, which establish mechanisms for alternative financing of prevention and security projects by levy on VAT proceeds. At first glance, they may be considered technical, but the challenges of these technical changes are significant.

First, the proposed Article 2 aims to amend the 2001 Program Law on the collection of VAT for the financing of security contracts. The mechanism of the 2001 Programme Act is as follows: 25,5% of VAT revenues are collected for alternative financing of social security; of this total amount, 40 million euros are collected each year for the financing of security contracts and this amount is paid to a fund open to the ONSSAPL called "security fund". According to the mechanisms, conditions and modalities established by the Royal Decree on Security Contracts, subsidies are then returned to the municipalities for the financing of local prevention and security projects.

For several reasons, this fund was excessive in previous years: revenue was greater than expenditure so that in 2007, the levy for the prevention fund had been reduced to 20 million euros, or half of what was practiced in 2001. I specify that this amount was sufficient to honour the government’s commitments to the municipalities, in particular to index the amount of subsidies to security contracts. The previous government had also sustained security contracts by making the conventions multiannual but, for the 2008 budget, the government decided, during its conclave, to limit the levy to only 5 million euros.

If I can understand that all sectors of the state must contribute to budgetary efforts, the legitimate question I ask myself is this: will security contracts still be well-funded?

Dear colleagues, it is indicated in the explanation of reasons that "if during the budget control, it turns out the need for more resources, the law-program will be adapted again in this direction". Further further: “Legislative initiatives will be taken in order to keep these resources unavailable in the budget of the Roads and Means.”

Security contracts finance numerous prevention initiatives and a significant number of nearby jobs in our cities and municipalities, including peacekeepers. The majority agreement obliges the government to develop an ambitious plan for conducting a well-backed and harmonised prevention policy, in connection with the priorities of the National Security Plan and those of the Framework Note. As regards peacekeepers, it will take into account the current sources of their funding and will examine the need for funding.

During the debate in the Interior Committee, the Minister reassured us about the perpetuation of security contracts. Indeed, the reduction of the levy to 5 million euros would not hinder the financing of security contracts and, during the budgetary control, the minister committed, if necessary, to increase the levy in order to sustain municipal prevention projects. It is clear that in the event of a problem, I will not fail to remind him of his commitments.

In any case, my group would like to reaffirm its commitment to funding security contracts and prevention initiatives in municipalities.

The second provision in the draft aims to amend the 2004 program law on VAT levies for the financing of police zones.

The mechanism is identical to the mechanism for financing security contracts that I have just described but, in this case, it is for the benefit of the police areas.

This is an alternative financing of social security and pensions of local police officers in order to limit the budgetary effort of municipalities, in particular for former gendarmes, and to compensate for the weaknesses of the current funding law. This represents a total of 188 million euros for 2008.

I am pleased that the 2008 draft program law confirms VAT levies in anticipation of the future law on the financing of police areas. However, I will allow myself to make a few comments.

Indeed, according to a recent report of the Court of Auditors published in 2007, the special funding mechanism set up by the State to cover the increase in charges related to the policy reform has detrimental consequences for the social security of wage workers who, in the end, partly support the cost of the State’s commitment.

During committee discussions, the Minister of the Interior proposed to address the problem within the framework of a new law on the financing of local police.

This law has been expected for many years by local authorities. I can only rejoice that Mr. The Interior Minister has finally decided to accelerate things. A group of academic experts was in charge of submitting a report and recommendations. It is really important, in my opinion, that this debate can take place quickly.

The transition period remains to be managed. On this subject, in its observations on the 2008 draft budget, the Court of Auditors draws attention to, I quote: "the lack of accounting for the indexation of treatments that will take place in 2008, so that the total of these levies is undervalued by about 6 million euros".

I think the trade unions were worried about this a few weeks ago in the press. It is clear that things will need to be examined during the next budget control.

Security is one of the major concerns of citizens. We must give municipalities and police areas sufficient resources to carry out prevention projects and to offer citizens a quality public service.

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister of Finance, dear colleagues, the presentation of the Flemish Interest on the Program Law can be brief. Following the dismal play of this afternoon on the BHV file, our group has decided not to interfere with the program law in this plenary session, in particular because this government has not yet approved a budget, Mr. Minister of Finance. In the Finance Committee we have just started the general discussion of the budget. I suppose that tomorrow we will have plenty of time to set up another tree about the way the budget is linked with heels and eyes. There is no approved budget yet.

Does that mean that the Flemish Interest group has not yet paid attention to the content of the program law and the law on the various provisions? on the contrary. In fact, the Flemish Interest has submitted a whole series of amendments in the various committees, as well as in this plenary session. In addition, the question also arises whether this program law and the law on the various provisions contain good measures. After all the promises and the announcements of the last weeks of room blue and the PS, it should still be missed.

A first element, it is good that the increase in the school premium is integrated integrally into the child benefit. However, that does not go far enough for us. Therefore, we linked the bill in the form of an amendment.

The second element, it is good that the solidarity contribution for pensioners is abolished. At least, a first initiative is given. However, it is not far enough for the Flemish Interest, hence our bill in the form of an amendment.

A third element, it is good that the pension of the self-employed is raised. Although less than announced by the minister, but the initiative is given to close the gap with the employee pension.

We are also pleased, Mr. Minister of Finance, that after long insistence from the opposition and criticism of the public opinion, the chapter in the Program Law on the introduction of VAT on buildings and the land related to it is removed. Certainly not definitively – we must not go wrong with it – because the dossier is to Europe. It could come back like a boomerang.

On the other hand, we regret that the government has not had the courage to include in its program law the abolition of the value added tax. I expect that the liberals, both the MR group and the Open-Vld group and the List Dedecker, will soon approve our amendment, which we have submitted again in the plenary session. In that case, maybe something else can happen in that area.

In short, colleagues, at the final vote of the program law, the Flemish Interest will abstain. Nevertheless, it is very curious about the voting behavior on a number of fundamental amendments, which we have already submitted in the current plenary session.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Bonte for his long-awaited presentation.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I understood from the political debate on the agenda that it was exceptionally important for a part of the majority that the current, important law should be voted first, before we dare to say something about BHV. It is not noticeable in her presence. There are 20 members of the majority. I exaggerate their number.

The quorum is usually delivered by the majority.

Per ⁇ we should ask for quorum.

In any case, Mr. Prime Minister, the small presence does not indicate that this is such an important draft, which had to be dealt with first.

The criticism of the program law is frequent. Some of my colleagues have already been involved. However, no significant criticism has yet been given. In this regard, I would really turn to the Prime Minister.

Good governance implies, in my view, compliance with laws. What really does not matter to me is that the budget submitted, which is behind the present program law, is manifestly contrary to the Silver Fund Act.

We have discussed this in the committee for a very long time. I would like to briefly repeat this here. Mr. Bogert, you know this better than I do. I will later explain why. The Silver Fund Act, which we have approved here not so long ago, on 20 December 2005, as well as room wide, obliges future governments and future budgets to reserve a certain portion for the Silver Fund. I read literally in paragraph 1 of Article 3 that from the financial year 2007 – last year – the Silver Fund will be allocated annually in principle an amount equal to 0.3% of GDP, increasing this by 0.2% of GDP annually from the financial year 2008 to 2012.

Mr. Bogaert, colleagues, the Parliament has decided that at the time to avoid the accidental majorities, new governments, would sluggish with the resources and would be obliged to reserve a portion for the aging. Mr. Bogert, I see you deny that. I have found amendments from you and Mr. Devlies. You found that registering this discipline in the law did not go far enough, that reserve this amount for the Silver Fund did not go far enough to guarantee future pensions.

That law was good, but its weakness was that it was not an obligation in itself. I asked at the beginning of the parliamentary year whether there was an obligation to deposit, even if there was a deficit. It turned out not to be so.

In 2004 I submitted a bill for the pension savings pot. What is the difference between the two? With the pension savings pot, you actually do what you now suggest, namely, at the beginning of the year, put money aside for the pensions and for that pension savings pot. Then one looks at the other expenses to see if one gets more or less. They turn the logic. First look at savings and then look at the rest of the expenses.

The Silver Fund Act, which you now interpret in a certain way, does not provide the mechanism that one automatically has a surplus or saves in the Silver Fund. You only save when there is a surplus. If there is no nominal surplus, there is no savings.

Mr. Bogert, that is exactly the subject of the debate we have held for hours in the Social Affairs Committee. I have read the parliamentary documents and the discussions of that time. There is debate about the extent to which that law is effectively enforced in details. There is discussion about this.

From your answer I infer that since it is not really mandatory, we also do nothing. Let us be clear, the 2007 budget provided for a surplus. And yes? The initial budget provided for a surplus. You could not live with the fact that there were one-off measures.

... a fraud.

The fraud? Mr Bogert, read the first sentence of the comments to the state budget formulated by the Court of Auditors.

What does that say? That the federal government deficit of 0.6% of GDP is compensated by a single surplus in social security of 0.4%. What does the government do? (Protest by Mr Bogert)

Mr. Bogert, let me finish my reasoning. I am not making myself ridiculous. Do you know what is ridiculous? That the best 1 girl speech I heard a few weeks ago was from Mr. Justaert. It is not very common that Rerum Novarum coincides with 1 May, but the very best 1 May speech came from Mr. Justaert.

I see you choking, Mr. Goutry. Do you know the criticism of Mr. Justaert? You were there too and had better listened or ⁇ tried to do something here to his call. His call was that the surplus in social security of 0.4% be used to get your budget around and that nothing of it, but then nothing, be reserved in the Silver Fund. That is the criticism of Mr. Justaert and that is nail with head beating when one speaks about being predictive towards the future in the context of the reception of the aging.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to objectivize the discussion about whether or not the Silver Fund Act is enforceable. I referred in the committee to a ⁇ interesting article on that topic, written by a certain Luc Buffel, you may know, Mr. Prime Minister. Luc Buffel is the general adviser of Finance and has made a ⁇ interesting document, published at the Federal Public Service Finance in the documentary sheet, about the exact extent to which future governments must comply with the Silver Fund Act. I would like to read his conclusion to you, Mr. Bogaert, in the hope that you will take it to heart sooner or later.

After a very long discussion, in which he does not actually express himself in what extent it is enforceable, he comes to one important conclusion, in which he says that deviations from the predetermined financing path should be explicitly held accountable by the government on the basis of an opinion of the Department of Finance Needs of the Government of the High Council for Finance. The interpretation of the law is, therefore, that if a government wants to deviate from the legally established growth pathway, it can only do so if there is an opinion from the Government’s Finance Needs Department.

I am not even talking about the welles-nietes debate about surpluses or not. I am not talking about the 2007 budget, Mr. Leterme. I am concerned, Mr. Prime Minister, that that budget, also according to the Deputy Adviser-General of Finance, is incompatible with the legislation.

I would like to address the Chairman of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I think we still have a little time before the budget comes into effect here. If it remains as it is, it is completely contrary to the law and also to the conclusions that the Administration of Finance binds to it. I would therefore call for an opinion, as suggested by the High Council for Finance itself.

I think we have nothing to lose with this. I think we also have no benefit from welles-nietes discussions on whether or not the law should be complied with to the details. The reality is that the reserves for the Silver Fund become fundamentally problematic by two years in a row not putting in euros.

I know that it is not in the interest of some to speak here for a long time, but I would still like to have a matter in the report.

I find it scandalous how this is spoken about fiscal policy. Because of the tricks of your ministers in the past, Mr. Bonte, there are 750 million euros in this 2008 budget. Because of all your past tours, 750 million euros weigh on this budget. Mr. Speaker, that is net, after the return effect, three times the amount we are talking about in this program law and in all these debates. If you didn’t get those tricks out, Mr. Bonte, there would be three times as much money for that new policy, which we will discuss throughout the evening. I will no longer speak, given the circumstances, but I would like to correct this for the report.

I will also no longer respond to anyone who speaks in terms of shame and the like, but a matter must still be from my heart. You can criticize the previous government and the previous budgets, but I only assume, Mr. Bogaert, that we are 11 months after the elections and that we have lost a lot of time. In any case, we are discussing this evening here in the House a budget that completely transcends the need to build reserves for the Silver Fund now, in the context of aging. That is your responsibility. This is the responsibility of the majority. I am afraid that we will sweat it out.

Mr. Prime Minister, we have in this country a High Council of Finance and aging committees that try to protect us all, the majority and the opposition, from fundamental distortions that make aging unfinanced. You don’t seem to be awake, even more so for us. I regret that you dismiss Mr. Justaert’s call, which gives just the same criticism, namely that in this budget there is nothing structurally provided in the context of ageing. You were there, but you apparently heard something else. You were also nearby, Mr. Goutry.

These are the things you learn when you ask a lot of questions and get few answers in the committees. Colleagues, I will no longer tire you with the comparison and analysis between the budget, for example in terms of work, and this program law. Also here, Mr. Bogert, the drafted budget is completely dispersed. I would like to witness a discussion about 15 million euros, while the departure can be estimated at 200 million euros.

These 200 million euros will never be recovered. I would like to reiterate this, if at least the Minister is interested.

I would like to talk about the amount of 15 million euros that, according to the budget and according to the policy plan, had to be obtained by allowing the 50+ from the PWA system to flow into the regular market and thus paying less unemployment benefits. After long debates, the Minister has rightly drawn the political conclusion that this was never feasible in 2008 and that she did not intend to remove the concerned 5,400 PWA’s from the system this year. This is, therefore, the way we should assess policy plans, in the light of a budget whose competent minister himself says the target of 15 million is not achievable.

That way I could go on and show that there is a deficit of €200 million in employment policy. I have been told countless times of various excellences that they would resolve that by July 15 or later. That will probably not make the task easier this summer, if it comes so far.

Mr. Goutry, as regards the age benefits in the child benefit, a great social achievement, I totally agree with the choice made. However, compared to what was announced and promised, I can only conclude that this year there will only be a contribution increase of 25 euros for the age group from 18 to 24 years old. This is what the budget provides today. Point out ! For the rest, there is no income increase in child allowance.

Mr. Prime Minister, it will not be without reason that when presenting your budget and your policy plan someone like Mr. Pauly, president of the Family Union, spoke about betrayal of election promises. Unless I also misunderstood him, Mr. Goutry.

The [...]

Take your responsibility. After hours of debate in the House on social security, pensions and employment, I wonder who is still defending those policy plans and that budget. It is always looking at the past. There is no one who has the political courage to defend this policy globally.

Later, I may be talking about an even more painful file that shows the overwhelming contradictions with the government.

Around the retirement we saw the biggest cinema. Even before there was a government agreement, we debated in the Committee for Social Affairs on the legislation proposals of the MR, “tracked” and amended by the PS, on the abolition of the solidarity contribution.

The reality is that there is a budget of 30 million euros for this year, but it is completely unclear what exactly will happen with the solidarity contribution.

It is completely unclear how this will be done. The only thing I know is that Parliament gives a pure mandate. The King will decide and from 1 July this solidarity contribution will be reduced in the amount of 30 million. July 1 is not so far away, Mr. Goutry.

I would also like to address the people of the PS. What absolutely surprised me is that, before you joined the government, you put together with us on the table amendments to ensure that the abolition of the solidarity contribution for the slightly better pensions would be accompanied by a similar income increase for the lower pensions and middle pensions. It has now been completely forgotten. That balance has completely disappeared and the King is now facing the dilemma that he must write a KB before July 1 in which he says how that solidarity contribution will be eliminated.

I don’t know where you want to go, Mr. Bonte. If, based on two months of government and the first program law with the first advance to the first measures, you want to already make an evaluation of the entire policy and say that nothing has been done, then the discussion is immediately closed, because that is impossible. What you are doing now is impossible. You also know that a government agreement is concluded for a period of four years. Program laws and other legislation are there to build things step by step.

Now when you say that on one level something has already been done but on the other not yet, then I can only react by saying that what has been done, has been done. There has been a long talk about solidarity contributions, or not? What has your Minister of Pensions then done for the low and small pensions, except for that one-time bonus, which we now have to make structural, because otherwise nothing comes out of the house. What happened to the rest?

Try to try to defend what you have broccolied in each other instead of looking for a way of escape into the past. We can talk about it for hours.

I would like to talk about these pensions, because it is too important. My group leader has already been able to formulate a number of criticisms about, among other things, the tax interventions in which the pensioners have been forgotten. Not insignificant, Mr Goutry.

When one looks at the discussions over the years – we have discussed the solidarity contribution in the committee for a very long time with you and Mrs D’Hondt – the measures were always motivated by the pursuit of a sort of balance, calling for efforts in the slightly higher pensions in favor of the lower pensions. If one gives the slightly higher pensions additional financial space by demolishing the solidarity contribution, let us do so simultaneously for the middle pensions and the lower pensions. That was the fight between MR and PS before the formation of the government.

The PS has left the hall, has also deposited its amendments and has agreed to a mandate that should allow to carry out the large dada of the MR, namely the depreciation of the solidarity premium. The King will have to do that. I look forward to the compromise that is coming. In any case, there is no guarantee for the simultaneous increase of the lower pensions and middle pensions.

We will give you the opportunity to correct that forgetfulness. That is why we submitted an amendment again. In fact, I fear, Mr. Goutry, that the confidence in your coalition partners for the coming years may be a little too big, given the budgetary problems that we will still need to keep all of us in mind.

I have already talked about service checks. I would like to briefly explain the amendment we are submitting.

I would like to come back to the budget for service checks. This budget is unpredictable. For this, you will be fully dependent on the developments, the discussions that will need to be conducted on making service checks available for other activities, and so on. At least in the government agreement it is stated that these types of activities should be expanded. What is mostly wrong, Mr. Goutry, is, again here, the financial side, the invoice, which is completely undeniable. The 22 cents per cheque that the OCMW, the PWA or the service cheque company will receive, therefore, will not be enough on the other hand to pay the index of the service cheque employees, let alone to pay the fees in the parity committees with baremic increases. The financial arrangements for service checks that have been decided do not allow, therefore, to pay the employee index without additional efforts by the companies, nor the baremic fees. This is what our amendment is about.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it is a step forward – I acknowledge this – to provide a tax credit for people with lower incomes.

I think in a few weeks we will be able to re-evaluate the service cheque activities of the past year. I predict to you, Mr. Prime Minister, that you will bring directly into a community debate, because also in that regard, 25% to 30% of the checks will be recorded by pensioners. This is not about the two-income families, as was so often proposed, but about the pensioners. Ask them around. I have the pleasure of being the chairman of a service cheque company that explicitly targets pensioners. Those who ask it will find that it is very much related to the lack of resources, to the lack of capacity in the regular home care services organized for seniors from the Communities.

At the same time, I hear a lot of colleagues advocating that other community tasks or community powers should be placed in the system of service cheques, such as childcare – from your group –, post-school care – from your group. Mr. Prime Minister, I therefore think that you will immediately get a community agenda through the evaluation of the service cheque system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bonte, I think your concerns on this subject are valuable. I also take records of this. We take them into the debate and I assume that this will be returned to the committee. I would only say that the Government Agreement provides that, with regard to the scope of the service cheques, we will have a consultation with the Communities. That is what is literally stated in the government agreement and so it will happen. We will see what the questions and expectations are and we will try to respond to them. At this time, after seven weeks of government, however, it is too early to say in what way the measures will be able to be implemented exactly.

Mr. Prime Minister, the finding I make and the prediction I make that the upcoming evaluation report will show that 25 to 30% of the checks will be recorded by seniors is a finding we have made in recent years. Together with Mrs D’Hondt, I have always insisted that the Communities take responsibility in this regard. Nothing prevented the government from making the budget and the program law to take a step forward before starting to discuss new tasks with the Communities. We will return to that later.

What I want to talk about now are the positive measures in the program law that actually provide for a tax credit for the lower-income groups. I think this is probably the worst method for the weaker groups. I explain myself more closely. One of the growing vulnerable groups in our society, which I learn again in the committee with Mrs. Arena and Mr. Delizée, are the single-parent families. These are mainly mothers with children who often have to stay at home because they cannot pay the costs of the nursery or the host mother. We must definitely help these people forward. Now it does not matter to me that a tax credit will help that group substantially. That group will not be able to take up the 7 euros per hour today.

The proposal we have submitted in the form of an amendment is to give that vulnerable group of people, who actually need support in the household, but are very close to the greenhouse because they are stuck in benefits schemes, for example, per 10 cheques 2 free cheques. This is much simpler administratively. It is also a stimulus that is immediately felt. I think it can help to emancipate that group in search of work. I think we really should do this within the framework of the credibility of raising the level of activity and removing the unemployment levels. This is stated in an amendment.

I often wonder why we can give free service checks to women from self-employed environments in addition to their maternity leave. I think it is right that this happens. But why can’t we do that for that weak group whose vulnerability has been pointed out by the Secretary of State for Poverty Reduction? That is the question I ask myself. I also receive insufficient answers. That is why we will submit an amendment again later.

Mr. Bonte, you are going into your last five minutes. You had 30 minutes of speech time.

Colleagues, I will also submit and defend an amendment together with my group in relation to the work bonus. It is good that the work bonus is strengthened. This is really a step forward. The evaluation of the High Employment Council also shows that this works effectively.

However, there is a problem in the method in which it is implemented. I want to explain this briefly. It is reinforced to a certain ceiling of wages, more specifically to the level of the average monthly income plus 300 euros. This is where the work bonus goes. If one euro goes above, it goes away.

This is a recurring criticism that we heard from the opposition at the time, which we have today, and which the government at the time prompted to level it out, to systematically demolish it. What does one get differently? What will one get? No employer will be willing to go one euro above that standard, because then the employee will suffer income loss. I really advocate that this be re-examined and that it be done gradually. Mrs. Minister, if you do not, we talked about it yesterday or yesterday, you install an income drop, a hard glass ceiling of double glass of which mostly women will be the victims. This is also the reason why we have submitted an amendment in this regard, precisely to remove those deficiencies and precisely to strengthen the value of the work bonus.

The employment rate of older workers. There was the criticism of Open Vld. We were not yet at the announcement whether the introduction of Mrs. the minister began or Open Vld, by the mouth of its group leader, already made the criticism, Mr. the Prime Minister, that it was not too ambitious, but also that there are too few measures in place for older workers, to raise the participation rate of 50-plus. Open Vld is right.

There too, we have submitted amendments to reinforce a number of measures that have proven to be successful. They were voted out. The only positive thing I remembered from that nightly debate is the commitment of colleague Rik Daems to take together with me a legislative initiative to try to strengthen government policy on that point for the time being.

Mr. Speaker, I have another last element and then I really close. This has to do with the absolute kakophony in connection with the open border problem. It was an absolute kakofonia. I have made every effort to conduct the debate with Mrs. Milquet as Minister of Labour, whose policy note focuses on that international aspect of the labour market, as well as with Mrs. Turtelboom.

Colleagues of the majority, one hears about it white and black, square opposite. In such a sensitive policy area, it is irresponsible that the government sends out signals that one can come here or stay here and that one gives work and that one is being regulated.

The other minister says exactly the opposite.

This is irresponsible governance. It is not good or bad governance, but in any case irresponsible governance.

However, this is not essentially what I am concerned with in this matter. I would like to remind my colleagues that in the previous legislature we had set four conditions ...

Mr. Bonte, you are speaking for half an hour now.

I am working on my final points.

I remind my colleagues that during the previous legislature we had set four conditions before we would fully open our labour market to the new EU countries. Three of the four conditions are more or less regulated, though. I come to the point of primary responsibility.

I left the committee very worried yesterday. One of the four conditions was the need for structural consultation between the inspection services of the different Member States and structural agreements to be concluded in order at least to ensure that the working and wage conditions of newcomers from the European Union can be guaranteed. The aim was to avoid the inspectors still having to come and explain that they have to check whether a Bulgarian contract is in compliance with the law.

Mr. Prime Minister, I received yesterday in the committee the list of countries with which the Belgian inspection services have an agreement. They have an agreement with one new European Member State, namely with Poland. This applies only to the dispatched workers.

I would like to quote what the Minister of Labour stated in this regard. In addition to that one agreement, there would also be an administrative agreement with France. There will also be debates with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and with Germany. There would be good informal contacts with the Netherlands. The minister hoped that a deal with Romania and Bulgaria might also be reached in the future. However, there is only one agreement.

There is no agreement with the newcomers Slovenia, Czech Republic or Latvia. Mr. Prime Minister, at this point, we must put all the hills on the deck and make progress.

At least maybe, but I would like to point out that January 1, 2009 is very close.

Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to talk about the main responsibility. The then government wanted to introduce them. We are a year – a year of non-government – later. When I submitted an amendment to the Social Affairs Committee, it was rejected without argumentation.

I have addressed Mrs. Minister and her predecessor, Mr. Piette, several times about their intentions in this regard. The Minister of Labour is, if I have understood it correctly, absolutely asking party to introduce the measure.

Mr. Piette went a step further. He then said that if the main liability did not come, the CDH would not be part of the future government.

Mr. Prime Minister, I want to be a witness here to the fact that within your majority there are people who say this will not happen. I think we would show ourselves a ⁇ bad pupil in the European peloton. We will never be able to give the newcomers, the guest workers, the guarantee that they can work on the same conditions as the Belgian workers. They will therefore be permanently the subject of abuse and exploitation.

In conclusion, I think that to our great regret – we will surely return to it when we deal with the budget – the law is based on budgetary floating sand. Even ministers admit that they do not realize certain budgets, such as 40 million in VAT money. I hear the Deputy Prime Minister say this will come automatically. He reminded me of Minister of Budget Mathot: “It will be okay.”

As a final point, I would like to make a call...

You usually draw nothing from the speech time, but now it is slowly becoming the time to finish.

This is my last sentence, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a call to ensure that the laws are complied with in terms of budget before scheduling the budget here. I therefore ask you to ask for the advice of the High Council for Finance on what should be interpreted as the minimum minimum of our legal obligation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if you allow, my intervention will concern both the law-program and the law containing different provisions because things are intertwined and I had not foreseen the possibility of two separate discussions.

The energy sector is ⁇ topical. We have already had a lot of debates in recent years and this is likely to continue in the coming months and years. With regard to electricity and gas, it is now evident that, although the market has been liberalized, we are far from being in a healthy market situation where transparency, competition and regulation prevail for the benefit of the general interest and the consumer. This is ⁇ every day, both in the press and in the publication. The opposite is happening: due to historical situations, some dominant actors stifle emerging actors and make plantar profits through power plants, amortized, during a period of monopoly, on the back of consumers who have paid their energy much more expensive than elsewhere in Europe and whom they do not today see the benefit of these surplus costs. This situation is therefore no longer acceptable, both due to the current energy crisis but also due to the increasing and increasingly problematic importance of the cost of energy in household spending. It is therefore a major social problem and we really think that an unregulated or poorly regulated market greatly aggravates the problem, especially for households.

We were ⁇ disappointed by the government’s proposals contained in the program law and in the law containing various regulatory provisions. First, we are disappointed by the big bluff of government proposals around the CREG. Our proposals go much further. It is about guaranteeing complete transparency with respect to all components of the price and giving the CREG the power to intervene directly, in full independence, and not a posteriori, as is proposed by the government. We have been given generous speeches on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry to interrupt my colleague but from the moment he intervenes primarily on energy policies, I find it would be interesting that the Minister of Energy joins us.

Are you waiting for the Minister to arrive?

This would be interesting because I wanted to mainly raise points related to the field of energy.

Mr. Speaker, I can continue and start again when the Minister of Energy is with us! In any case, I can already announce that we have resubmitted the amendments we had submitted in committee on the various topics on which I will speak. Of course, these amendments were rejected in the committee, which we deeply regret. These different topics are the CREG competencies and the issue of regulation, the taxation of amortised power plants and unused production sites. I suppose that mr. The Minister of Energy is coming soon.

In the meantime, you can always give the speech to another speaker.

This is also a solution, Mr. President!

I could ask Mr. Speak until Mr. George’s arrival. The magnet. This is the simplest!

Climate and Energy Minister Paul Magnette

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will focus my intervention on the field of energy at different levels following the interventions in the committee. This relates both to the program law and to the law containing various provisions, in so far as it is a general policy and where things are intertwined. We strongly criticize the government for its lack of ambition in regards to the regulation of the energy market.

In terms of electricity and gas, it is obvious that if the market has been liberalized, we are very far from a healthy market situation, where there would be transparency, competition and regulation for the benefit of the general interest and the consumer. This is obvious to everyone. We had enough discussions, heard very ambitious speeches on this subject, and witnessed numerous media interventions. Strong regulation of this market is necessary.

This is not the case today. For historical reasons, some dominant actors are suffocating emerging actors, while we would need to have new actors, ⁇ in the renewable energy sector. These dominant actors have also made fruitful profits on the basis of fully amortised power plants – you know the problem, Mr. Minister – during a period of monopoly on the back of consumers, at a time when prices were ⁇ high in our country.

This situation is no longer acceptable, both due to the energy crisis situation we are in, but also given the increasing challenge that the cost of energy represents for households. This is a serious social problem, heavily aggravated by the lack of regulation: indeed, we have, on the one hand, the global energy crisis, the rising energy costs and the scarcity of fossil resources, but also, on the other hand, the problem of market regulation.

That is why we were ⁇ disappointed by the government’s proposals, contained both in the program law and in the law containing various regulatory provisions; especially since the announcements were ⁇ ambitious in this regard.

First, disappointed by the big bluff of government proposals around the CREG. Our proposals go much further: we wanted to guarantee full transparency with respect to all components of the price and give the CREG the power to intervene directly and in full independence, but ⁇ not a posteriori and conditioning its intervention to certain opinions, in particular from the government.

As regards the management of transmission networks, it is also necessary to ensure compliance with the rules of good governance. To this end, we propose that all actors in production, trading and delivery may not hold equity shares in the capital of network managers of more than 1%. But also that the CREG has the power to demand investments on the network, when they are necessary, and the execution of works to make the network accessible to new producers.

Such a policy is obviously possible, provided that the political will exists. On the initiative of Olivier Deleuze, in 1999, the CREG had been endowed with significant control powers and a great degree of independence from both operators and public authority. However, as we have already had the opportunity to denounce it repeatedly, these measures have, unfortunately, been denigrated in recent years by the liberal-socialist majority.

Mr. Minister, we have shown in the committee this divergence of views on the issue of regulation. You fear an organ that would be too independent, which would have too much power, in your opinion, while we believe that this is the sine qua non condition of the fair functioning of the liberalized market: rules must be defined by the public power with a strong autonomy of the regulator to enforce them. Let us not be mistaken: the regulator is responsible for making the market work loyally, on the basis of conditions defined by the legislator and public authorities, and not to make the law, but to ensure its observance. This makes it possible to distinguish the roles of each.

Mr. Henry, you hear, you are trying to transfer the responsibility for the surplus cost of energy bills to the previous or current government.

I have followed the file for several legislatures and I consider that the original sin was committed during the legislature 1999-2003, when Mr. Deleuze was responsible for Energy. It was at the time that the CREG was installed, that the Walloon Region and Mr. Daras imagined a system aimed at excluding, for dogmatic reasons, the intercommunal.

In other countries liberalized on the energy level, intercommunal companies could compete with other suppliers.

In our home, it was estimated that intercommunals could not provide electricity. The result of the races: Intercommunals, to whom the producer offered an extremely attractive price, were forbidden to supply to final customers. Thus, a whole series of intermediaries appeared on the market. However, they do not enjoy the same conditions in terms of price.

Finally, the system imagined by MM. Deleuze and Daras – one in the federal and the other in the region – could only result – I said and repeated – in an increase in the price for the final consumer. In other words, you have set up a system that you are now criticizing.

You will allow me to consider that after setting the fire at home, you should not then blame some for playing firefighters!

Speaking of firefighters when talking about the CREG seems to me a little exaggerated!

You can talk about local communities. Questions actually arise about them, including in terms of conflict of interest. This is a whole debate. We have already had the opportunity to discuss this in different places.

That said, with regard to the CREG, there was a very strong regulatory will that was instituted at the time and that has been detricoted since.

There is now an attempt to restore a larger regulation. We believe that this is not going far enough.

In addition, you say that we make the responsibility for the surplus cost be borne by the previous or current government. This is not exactly what I said. We make them bear responsibility for the lack of regulation and the lack of will in this matter. It is obvious to any energy market observer that there is a big problem at the level of dominant actors and regulation.

Mr. President, what are we talking about?

As for the highway network, in neighboring countries, the inhabitants of our country must pay a passing fee to move on the highways. We are one of the few countries where everyone can travel without paying.

Highways and electric roads are charged. This is the liberalization of the electricity market!

It was you who wanted it!

Be careful, she will get angry.

She can!

Who invested in building electric roads and highways? The private sector for a part and the municipalities through intercommunal for surplus.

Nevertheless, you cannot ask for free traffic on these highways by asking network operators – so-called GRDs – to maintain the network without compensation, in order to avoid the system known in some countries where liberalization is extreme, namely an insufficient supply of electricity. Therefore, a minimum right must be guaranteed to the investor, whether private or public.

Do you think that regulation is satisfying?

The regulation of the electricity market, it is you who created it! If it does not work...

This is because there have been various changes on the road. This is precisely what I aim for.

You forget that many network operators have brought lawsuits that they have won. They cannot be expropriated. You have in the Constitution a principle which consists in saying that one cannot take away from someone a right of property without a fair remuneration. This seems obvious.

You can try to build systems. They must still be applicable.

Consequently, GRDs are not responsible for rising energy costs. The cause of the increase in energy costs in Belgium for ⁇ and individuals is the infernal system that was put in place during the legislature 1999-2003!

I would like to speak briefly because I cannot leave Mr. President. Eerdekens say anything!

The first mistake was to entrust the entire electricity market to a single private actor, Electrabel. That, it is a previous government that did it in which I think you were, Mr. Eerdekens!

Liberalization is required by a European provision that wants to separate the functions of production, transport, distribution and supply. This obligation has been fulfilled by Belgium. It was all the more necessary that a single actor cumulated all these functions. Mr. Eerdekens, pure intercommunals are rare in our country. Generally, it was mixed intercommunal with the same dominant actor that was present.

Regulation does not mean that a distribution system operator may not be entitled to revenue from the management and maintenance of its network.

If we introduce amendments just now, it is in particular so that the criteria that are taken into account for assessing costs and profit margins are defined in a clear and transparent manner in the law and not left to the free judgment of the CREG and/or any political authority.

It is abusive to say that it is the regulatory tool that is the cause of the price rise. Since CREG was installed, there has been a decrease in prices by decreasing the cost of transportation, precisely from 1999 to 2003.

In fact, we are talking about a non-management of costs and not an increase in costs. We believe that our regulator does not have the ability to intervene and control market data. by Mr. Henry will come back.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the debate we had for weeks in the Economy Committee during which environmentalists and we – we had submitted a bill in this regard – demanded an extension of the power of the CREG in relation to the control of imports and suppliers. CREG itself had issued a notice revealing its total inability to control Distrigaz and whether the price increase at the level of final customers was actually due to a price increase of Distrigaz since it was not due to an unlawful increase of Electrabel.

Mr. Henry, I remind you that in the program law, the minister proposes that the CREG no longer focuses only on GRTs and GRDs, which are the two regulated parts of the gas and electricity chain, but also on the fully liberalized parts, which is a huge progress.

Madame Gerkens, you have an opinion and I would like to recognize in this tribune that this is a huge progress.

The minister will also explain but we are responsible men and women politicians and we do not want to give all power to an independent regulator. We want to keep our responsibility for the price and its control because it is us who must act for our fellow citizens. This seems to me fundamental.

I also refer to Mr. Henry said that there are today the multiannual prices, which were requested by the CREG. This will allow investments to be made through the stability of investors in our country. Recognize at least some things when you are on the tribune, it is a minimum of honesty in politics that you are asked for!

I find this debate on the history of the electricity market in our country exciting.

I would like to remind you that there is a very broad consensus on the idea that alongside regulated market segments, price formation should be controlled. Beyond this, there is a principle divergence between those who, like you, consider that the impartial non-politically responsible body must go so far as to issue the measures and those who consider that these measures must be taken by politically responsible bodies represented by the executive.

Madame Lalieux, we did not say that there was nothing, but that we were disappointed. Indeed, compared to the announced ambitions and speeches that some of you held a few months ago, we are far from reality!

With regard to this difference in the regulator’s design, our will is not that the regulator makes the law, but that it comply, therefore that it acts within a defined framework and on the basis of criteria.

But it is worth noting that, in recent years, the government has had many difficulties at the political level to take the appropriate measures that were necessary on several occasions and to resist any form of economic pressure, including in the governments in which you sit. This is why we say that we need a regulator with clearly defined powers, who has investigative and sanctioning powers and operates according to defined criteria. This is for the CREG.

Furthermore, we are also disappointed by the lack of clear commitments regarding the taxation of amortised power plants. This is the subject of other amendments we have submitted and we are re-submitting today, since the mandate given by the government to the Minister of Energy to obtain a contribution from Suez does not seem very serious to us: not only is the amount obviously too low, but moreover, what a funny way to negotiate! At least this seems surreal. We can’t help but be skeptical when we are told that all this has nothing to do with the debate about the continuation of the activity of nuclear power plants.

We consider that neither this majority nor the previous majority has the political courage to tell the dominant operator that now, we need to change the rules, function differently, promote the evolution of the market. New actors are needed. We need to open up to renewable energies and re-examine prices down, etc. It is not normal for us to abuse a monopoly situation and make undue profits, at a time when the issue of public interest is to open the market and lower the cost of energy for households.

For the taxation of production sites, the third measure present in the program law, we are once again disappointed by the timidity of the proposals. Of course, we are in favor of the taxation principle, which existed. There has been a change in the method of calculation but we have already extensively discussed this in the committee. We would have liked to take advantage of the revision of the system to go further. We cannot tolerate that speculation immobilizes certain production capacities at a time when new investments and production guarantees are needed. We would like to increase the non-use period from 24 to 12 months, allowing a site to be considered as unused.

Here are three major issues in the energy issue that have disappointed us and that worry us. Energy should remain a major concern. We will return to this in the coming months, following discussions before the Economic Committee on the Energy 2030 Committee report. I suppose that on this occasion we will be able to conduct more prospective discussions, after all the hearings.

Large speeches, even ambitious, will not suffice to reassure investors, open the market, make energy accessible to all and at the same time reduce global consumption and reorient our consumption patterns towards renewable energy in particular. I think this government is starting very badly in this area. This is the main reason for our position on the program law and the law containing various provisions. We submitted these amendments to the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Deputy Prime Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Dear Colleagues, Colleagues, I will say a few words only about the energy aspect of the law-program and the law containing various provisions. I will briefly address three aspects.

The first concerns Articles 4 and 8 relating to the levy aimed at combating the non-use of an energy production site. In this regard, I would like to emphasize the fact that the production deficit of our country is currently 2,000 mWh, which represents 15% of consumption. We import 15% of our electricity from other countries. This percentage can also double in peak hours.

The best energy is obviously the one that is not consumed, but the shortage – beyond weighing on the trade balance – puts our country in a situation of dependence. A dependence situation is never good, especially if we want to get the best price for our citizens. I obviously support this sample because it is actually shocking, striking that production sites are not used. Nevertheless, beyond this levy, I would like this government to conduct a global reflection in order to constitute an investment package to ensure our energy needs.

The second component concerns flat-rate reductions for gas and electricity supplies. The CDH has always been concerned with meeting the needs of families, especially those with little financial resources. This includes monoparental families. In recent years, the cost of energy has not ceased to increase. In the budget of low-income households, the share of energy takes an increasing place. The introduction of flat-rate reductions is an appropriate response; it is therefore welcome. However, I would like the Government to take other arrangements, that it may consider the merger of the Oil Fund and the Gas-Electricity Fund, that it facilitates the administrative and accounting simplification for CPAS and their beneficiaries as well as transparency for their consumers.

I come to the last part: the reform of the CREG. We just talked about it. However, I believe that in the committee, things had been correctly explained. The government has established the legal framework it intends to establish. The strengthening power of the CREG is on the agenda. This reinforcement comes through better information from the CREG, not only in relation to the role of the GRDs but also of the electricity producers. In this area, we are facing a liberalized market and the role of a regulator – I said in commission – in a liberalized market is not at all the same as in a non-liberalized market. Those who believe it is identical are very wrong.

In this case, the government has chosen to retain the final political responsibility. In fact, it is in his hands that the CREG will be able to denounce situations that seem abnormal to him. It will be up to the politicians, controlled by Parliament, to take, if necessary, the desired measures to bring back a fairer price.

This is what appears through the Energy components in these two provisions. The CDH will support them, but I think we also need to open up other reflections for the future.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, while reading the draft law-program concerning the amendment of the law of 6 December 2005 concerning the establishment and financing of road safety action plans, we do not hide from you that we feel some concern. This also echoed the concerns of many local elected who expressed themselves by the voice of Paul Furlan, president of the Union of Cities and Communes of Wallonia.

This chapter is part of the adoption of the principle that road safety becomes a seventh functionality of the minimum police service to the population. The addition of this feature enables the provision of recurring funding for police areas.

Furthermore, it is planned that in addition to this recurring funding, the additional resources issued by the Road Safety Fund will now be allocated on the basis of the location of the finding of violations of the road traffic law. On the one hand, structural financing equals that of the indexed 2007 and on the other hand, additional financing varies according to results.

In addition to the possible and likely lack of gain for the police areas, therefore for the municipalities, the questions that have been asked to us are mostly about the concordance between the amendment of the law of 6 December 2005 on the establishment and financing of road safety action plans and the main goal of reducing the number of deaths on our roads. It is essential to recall that, while the Road Safety Fund is the preferred policy instrument aimed at increasing the road user’s feeling of being controlled, the ultimate goal remains to reduce the number of road victims by 50% by 2010.

However, it seems to us that the establishment of additional financing based on the results will have as the main consequence the acute "flash" in order to fill the boxes. The police officers will find themselves in the situation of judge and party: in order to obtain sufficient alternative financing, they will have no other solution than to flash. The money first, the road safety, we’ll see later.

Our fear is therefore to see the “mobility” teams of the police strengthen at the expense of the “prevention” teams. Now, for us, these “prevention” teams have their place and their role to play in reducing the number of road victims. In fact, prevention and education, especially of the youngest, are essential. Unfortunately, prevention and education do not produce ringing and stumbling. The benefits are long-term.

We are therefore far from the ultimate goal of reducing the number of victims on our roads. In addition, the discussion in the Infrastructure Committee did not necessarily reassure us on this point. Therefore, the PS Group will be very attentive to monitoring the implementation of this new method of financing of police zones. It is imperative to ensure that the subsidy to the police zones will never be lower than that obtained in 2007 indexed. As we have already mentioned, there are strong fears from the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia that the allocation will decrease because there is no backup mechanism that actually guarantees the amount to be obtained.

The PS Group will also ensure that the addition of a seventh functionality of the minimum police service to the population does not result in the State Secretary for Mobility being removed from the "Road Safety" section of the National Safety Plan.

Finally, the PS repeats that for him, the ultimate and essential goal that we all must pursue is to reduce the number of road traffic victims by at least 50% by 2010. We recall it again and again: before repression, prevention constitutes an essential weapon that, unlike repression, plays a long-term role, especially through the education of the younger.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will not wait long. I would like to say that we will submit a number of amendments again in this plenary session, although we recognize that, with regard to the energy chapter, a number of steps, though more shy, are being taken.

Basically – and we have also explained this in the committee – we still think that what should be done does not really happen. There are some small, more timid steps, but there could be a lot more to be taken. I think we can basically summarize what needs to be done as: do something for the consumer who, due to the sharp increase in the energy bill, feels that his purchasing power decreases monthly, yearly. We need to reinforce that purchasing power.

We have approved a number of things in the committee or at least abstained, but we still adopt a number of amendments in order to still give this plenary session the opportunity to do some things that we think should happen.

Mr. Minister, in your provisions is the intention to update the tax on unused sites. We have said that we support that, but we regret that the taxes on energy production are limited to that.

We have submitted an amendment to introduce the mottenball tax. We know that 250 million euros have been entered in your budget for the contribution you are applying for in the energy sector. You give the impression that you are pretty sure that it will come. However, it is not always very clear within this majority whether that amount of 250 million euros is recurrent or not. You have also made clear that if the energy giant Electrabel would not give up and cross the bridge with 250 million euros, you would still come to Parliament with legislative work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene to tell Ms. Douifi that the budget notification stipulates that if the negotiation fails, the government will take the necessary measures. This is not a pure and simple negotiation. There is simply a tradition that the public authority negotiates first with the sector.

So you’re going to ask brave questions. You are all negotiators, but we know the monopoly in our energy market, Electrabel, of course, for a very long time. You know the situation very well. Electrabel has never done anything for the clean eyes of a minister. We do not think they will do it for you. Therefore, it is better to go into legislation today, to ensure that structural and annually at least a fixed contribution can be provided. The mottenball tax, which we again submit through the amendment, provides even more revenues than the 250 million you may collect. To be sure of these revenues, we think it would have been better to do legislative work immediately or to accept our proposal today.

You know our amendment. With that money, on the one hand, we want to eliminate the federal taxes on gas and electricity and, on the other hand, the Global Energy Cost Reduction Fund to supplement food. In this way – because that is just the whole problem for the consumer – we immediately strengthen the purchasing power of the people, in particular through the reduction of the energy bill.

A second, smaller issue is the provision to provide for low-income people a flat-rate discount on gas and electricity. We would like to give this plenary session the opportunity to vote again later. We support that. We have not voted against it. We abstained, however, because we submitted an amendment in the committee at that time, which we will present again today, that adjusts the amounts used from the increase in wealth that was carried out for the income limits for the maximum invoice in the health insurance. In this way we want to make the amounts used for the flat-rate reduction for the supply of gas and electricity identical to the amounts used in the health insurance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to say something about the draft regarding the various provisions. We also maintain that amendment. The Ecolo colleague has come to speak extensively, as regards the powers of the CREG. We have submitted this amendment together with our colleagues from Ecolo-Groen!. You take a number of steps and we acknowledge that. That will be because of your stubbornness, because we have in the past, and also in the past months when orange blue was still alone, without the addition of the Wallish socialists, given how difficult it was. When we had a joint bill PS-sp.a, especially on the powers of the CREG, but also on the price regulation, which was a package, we saw what aversion the liberals have against too much price regulation and how they believe in the sanctity of the free market, while everyone knows that this market in our country is not free, precisely because of the imposing situation of the monopolist Electrabel.

We therefore believe that the non-binding negotiations you will conduct to collect your 250 million euros will not succeed without legal obligation or anchoring. They will not do it for your clean eyes and therefore compensation will be requested by the industry. That can be, for example, a colleague from Ecolo-Groen! It has been said that nuclear power plants will remain open longer. The compensation for the people should be that they finally see on their invoice that something is being done to bring those prices down.

You put some shy steps into your program law and draft law various provisions, but you basically do not have any legal means to ensure that the increase in invoice is not transferred to consumers. If they agree to those 250 million, there is no provision that prevents them from transferring it to the consumer.

Electrabel's spokesman himself said in "La Libre Belgique", two or three weeks ago that the 250 million tax will not be transferred to the consumer bill.

This is very strange because, at Electrabel, there is also a spokesperson

It is for the Dutch speakers. Hopefully she will send the same message.

Electrabel’s female spokeswoman replicated weeks or months ago, when you made your announcements, that it is impossible that such a thing would not be counted. You have to cover yourself, but you do not. You must protect the consumer against reckoning such contributions. Today this has not happened. We find that this fact is not sufficiently taken into account in both the Program Law and the various provisions containing the law. There is no price regulation. In other words, you cannot guarantee that the sharp price increases will be regulated in a way that the final price will become fair to consumers, which is not the case today.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. We will submit this amendment to vote later.

Ms. Douifi, I have previously followed the sector a little as a municipal governor who attached importance to the dividends received from the intercommunales. You are talking about the sacredness of free market activity. I have found that in Flanders the liberalization of the electricity sector began four years earlier than in Wallonia. If I ask you on whose initiative it was, then you will probably know that it is Minister Stevaert. He was the one who compelled the Flemish municipalities to step into the idea of liberalization earlier than in Wallonia.

I would like to point out that it is not only the liberals who believe in the sanctity of the free market, but also the socialists. They have encouraged the Flaming to implement this liberalization idea.

If you want to talk about the debate about the liberalization of the energy market, I am right. I think the problem of purchasing power has risen a few days after last year’s elections. Then we, as a departing government partner, immediately in a government of ongoing affairs gave the signal to the VLD Minister of Energy, Marc Verwilghen, to do something about it. The CREG carried out study work and in September the report was on the table.

We would have better followed the recommendations of the CREG, as we, together with the PS, had urged.

Those recommendations stated black on white that there was a need to intervene in the prices, as the heavy price increases were imposed unilaterally by the energy giant Electrabel. According to the CREG, either maximum prices should be imposed temporarily – which is not something that the socialists so hold on, but something that an independent regulator in our country has proposed – or program agreements must be concluded.

That study work has happened, but it has been pushed into the forgetting. Mr. Verwilghen has managed to do nothing about this. Later, under the orange-blue, nothing happened.

Today I see a number of more frightening steps being taken. However, let us not confuse this with what must be done to truly liberalize the market. You can read our amendments again before voting on them. In our amendments you can already find some answers to this question.

When an energy market is monopolised, with approximately 86% of the market, by one major player, it can still be difficult to speak of fair pricing or fair competition – not only according to us, but also according to the regulator and according to numerous other studies and reports published in the meantime. If prices are imposed unilaterally, more price regulation needs to be ensured until more players enter the market.

This is our last amendment to the draft containing several provisions that we will submit again. In our amendment, we call for temporary price regulation until there is more competition in the market, which will be a work of long breath, ⁇ even of the first ten years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, I would like to confirm that we will not vote on this law-program, even though we support some of its principles. However, too many provisions of this text, Mrs. Lalieux, are unacceptable to us. They result from poor policy choices and go in the wrong direction, in contrast to the objectives we set ourselves in terms of solidarity, good management or response to energy and environmental challenges. They also go counter-current from the speeches at the beginning of the session, Mr. Prime Minister, when the members of the government said that it might be a good tone to move to a work on the substance, to go to serious things. It is true that this project is more serious and more important than the split of the BHV district, in our eyes, but to claim that this law-program is the seventh wonder of the world and that it contains provisions that could address the social, environmental, demographic, economic and energy challenges that are facing us, is to go a little further.

I would like to talk about a few subjects that are not anodins and that are slipped, as the tradition wants, in one or another article of the law-program, especially in terms of social affairs and pensions.

I will quote five cases and stop a little longer on the pension file.

The first point, contained in the law with various provisions, concerns the privatization of airport security services at the request of the Government of the Walloon Region. I do not think that this is a good idea, both in relation to the security functions, which are preferably exercised by the public authority, and to social dumping in relation to workers.

Second point, in terms of infrastructure, I would like to talk about the recovery of debt on the 2006 budget, I think, following the removal of the Railway Infrastructure Fund.

by 2005.

Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. It’s not your responsibility since you weren’t there, but I think this is a new testimony to how fake balances have been created in the past in our budgets.

Without wanting to polemize excessively, I can find examples of problems remaining to be solved since the period when your party was in government! It is not just about 2005! (The applause)

This is starting to date, Mr. Prime Minister! I can tell you about the state debt, the snowball effect when the former CVP, we can say today the CD&V - N-VA, was in power. You can go back to the creation of the world, but you did not offer there an extraordinary gift to the present generations.

In this case, you correct, as in relation to the principle of anchor on which I asked you in your capacity as Minister of Budget, a part of the decisions for which you are not responsible but for which the socialists and liberals in power under the violet are responsible. Reassure you ! At this level, I am not mistaken in terms of responsibility.

The third issue, which I will not extend to, also concerns the Minister of Employment. These are insufficient measures at this point in our view – but you told us that you are still working on them – in order to fight abuse in terms of service titles, because both in relation to the undue profits of some companies and in relation to the status of workers, the number of hours of work, the schedule, the opportunities for training, much remains to be done.

I have already told you in the committee that the expansion to the childcare sector would have a cost. This money could be used for other forms of reception, more advantageous and that would benefit both the workers and the quality of the reception of children in particular in terms of training. Rather than fleeing forward, I ask you, once again, to think twice, Mrs. Minister, and above all to improve the status of the workers concerned, taking into account the fact that this measure is not free for the State and weighs heavily on the budget.

Minister Piette – much discussed before your entry into office – sought to improve the system and made proposals...

Regarding the status of workers, it will not escape you that we have taken measures beyond the increase of 200 million to sustain the service titles, allowing in particular with the differential of 30 cents to ensure a second indexation for workers, which was not the case under the former legislature. There is also a training fund for workers. There are many positive points in decisions made for workers.

Absolutely, and in the same way, in the program law, a provision was added allowing bankrupt entrepreneurs who have had bad experiences in terms of service titles to limit their access to this type of entrepreneurship. I’m not saying there are only bad things. Only, compared to the testimonies that are ⁇ to us, to the discussions we have with the unions, there is a lot to be done. Many workers find themselves with too short working periods that do not allow them to benefit from an adequate salary.

Exceptions to labour rules lead to pressure on workers that we find unacceptable. Minister Piette was aware of this and we have talked about it several times with him in commission. The Walloon Federation of CPAS has also advanced proposals that have been submitted to it. However, I must note that in the program law, besides interesting measures, plenty of things to accomplish are not included. I invite you to pay attention to this.

Fourth, the extension of the Fund for the Social Economy. In the first package of institutional reforms, it was planned to regionalize this competence. Will we be able to do this, given what is being prepared for now in the corridors? We will see well. In any case, the federal fund is removed, or at least, an extinction framework is created – but the Regions are not yet ready! This is not entirely your responsibility, but a sector is waiting for investments and budgets that allow it to develop its activities and you risk being faced with a void. Similarly, in the committee, I insisted on your residual responsibility, even though the competences in question were regionalized, in particular in tax matters.

I would like to mainly speak at this forum on the issue of pensions, more specifically on the abolition of the solidarity contribution, even though no compensatory budgetary measure was taken to compensate for this depreciation for the pension budget and no sufficient promise was made of revaluation and linking to well-being of pension income.

An extraordinary thing happened during the transitional government period: a bill submitted by the MR was put on the agenda of the Social Affairs Committee which provided quite dryly for the pure and simple abolition of the solidarity contribution.

At that time, we had a debate in the Social Affairs Committee. A bill was submitted by my friend, Jean-Marc Delizée, who, before being Secretary of State for Combating Poverty, was part of the commission. Its text was much more comprehensive; it provided for a much more comprehensive set of measures for all types of pensions and not only for those paying the solidarity contribution. It is known, Madame the Minister, that those who pay the solidarity contribution are the 25% of pensioners who benefit from at least poor pension income, that is, from 1,251 euros. It is not about everyone! This framework was therefore more comprehensive and interesting. On this basis, we obtained, in the Social Affairs Committee, a series of hearings of pension specialists and representatives of pensioners. They came to explain the reality of pensions today and showed us the priorities.

Considering the abolition of the uncompensated solidarity contribution and not accompanied by sufficient measures in regards to the revaluation of pensions is a priority error! What were the findings resulting from these discussions and hearings? It was urgent to revaluate the smaller pensions. Pensions are not related to well-being. It has been twenty years! From 1980 to 2000, the value of pensions relative to wages decreased by 25%. The elderly pensioners, especially women and self-employed, now have indecent pensions! Poverty and the risk of poverty of pensioners must be taken priority.

Certainly, the revaluation measures, which were decided by the previous government and confirmed by this government, are positive. We are not going to “crack” on it! However, they are really insufficient in the face of this finding and the context of rising energy and food prices. Not only does the income not increase, but the expenditure increases. Not to mention the emergence and strengthening of the second and third pillar of pension. An excellent KUL study shows that those who benefit from a second and third pillar of pension are already those who benefit from the best income under the first pillar. In terms of pensions, the dualization is increasingly strong, as in the rest of society. It is probably more dramatic.

In this context, to eliminate the solidarity contribution without taking additional measures, is to take care of a water leak while the house is on fire.

For us, Mrs. Minister of Pensions, it is priority to act in three ways: revaluing the smaller pensions in a clearer and more important way than the project on the table proposes, structurally linking pensions to well-being to repair the inequality that has existed for 20 years – Ecolo was not in power when the suppression of the link between social benefits and well-being.

Mr. Gilkinet, you say things that are not quite accurate. In the Social Affairs Committee, things did not happen as you say. First, the MR proposal was not intended to remove the solidarity contribution at one time, but to do so in phases.

Second, you seem to insinuate that the MR would oppose a concomitant revaluation of small pensions while, on the contrary, government decisions show well that we have gone to that.

Then you also forget to say that the smallest pensions, even today, are self-employed pensions. We are still far behind what should be done on pensions in this sector.

Three points in response to Mr. by Flahaux. On the phase, I agree with you. Regarding the self-employed, I repeat what I said: the ceilings must be raised and solidarity better organized in order to be able to raise the pensions of small self-employed. As for the revaluation of small pensions, it was not included in your bill.

You say that you are not against; so much better. Are you even for? It is even better. I therefore urge you, as a member of this majority, to fight even more energetically. Others at various banks made statements saying that it was important. Yet there is nothing in this law-program, nothing in the budget, and not much in the general policy note, except a national conference on pensions. I would like to see results in this regard.

When Mr. Gilkinet says there’s nothing, I’m not entirely agreeing. I recall that we had this debate in the committee: if we have 300 million margin and 100 million are devoted to pensions, especially to the lowest pensions, I think that Mr. Gilkinet is not quite correct in his intervention.

I am not sure that we will one day be able to agree on this issue. Some of the measures had already been decided by the previous government. Of the 100 million, 30 million are devoted this year to the abolition of the solidarity contribution, 60 million next year. I repeat that the solidarity contribution is paid by the 25% of pensioners who receive the least poor pension income. Certainly among those, there are people who will do good to it, but the intention is to eliminate it completely.

You asked me if this was not included in our program and I answered that yes, but in an ideal setting. Make the ideal framework first. When one is faced with many problems, many injustices, one takes hand-to-hand the most crying injustice.

Mr. Gilkinet, I’m sorry, but if you expect to be in an ideal setting to do politics, you’ll never do politics.

This is even worse than this, Mr. President. By accepting to rise into a government and by taking this measure, you make the framework even less ideal.

I would like to point out Mr. Gilkinet said the world was not made in one day. I do not prejudice what would have happened if we were not in the government but I can tell you from what I know about blue orange that this point was not included in the agreement.

Get ready for the blue orange. Madame Milquet, was this included in the agreements?

This is not the subject of the debate but I wanted to reassure Ms. God: charitable souls had watched for it in spite of everything.

Madame God, I visited the 1st of May from the FGTB in Namur and I kept a message sent to the socialist comrades who were in the first row, the main of which said that without the PS, it would be worse!

Per ⁇ you only retained that?

I remembered a lot of things, but this too.

In this case, Madame Arena, the solidarity contribution on pensions is allocated to the pension budget, which it strengthens. I am not opposed to this measure but it was then necessary to obtain, through any alternative financing, that any income related to the abolition of the contribution be compensated elsewhere, regardless of the question I raise about the revaluation of the smaller pensions.

You tell me that you are progressing step by step but I think we are going backwards if we take this measure without compensating it. I will conclude by saying that this provision is a cat in a bag or a blank check, since it is by royal decree that the government will be able to move forward on this issue. I regret this with regard to the problems of ageing.

I will conclude on the ageing fund. The budget is imbalanced. The ageing fund has not been fed in the last two years. This is obviously not your responsibility, Mr. Leterme. You are responsible for the future.

Today, I see that the solidarity contribution will be abolished, that we do not intend to compensate for it, and that small pensions will not be sufficiently increased. In addition, it is expected to link social benefits to well-being. Mr. Prime Minister, if you do not refinance the ageing fund, there will be a denial of solidarity with future generations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Dear Colleagues, I am obviously not dissatisfied with the turn that the discussions took, because we have just demonstrated our great collective interest in the law-program and the law containing various provisions. Some have said, here a few hours ago, that these would not hold so much attention of parliamentarians. On the contrary, we were able to see, through the debate, the number of speakers and the richness of the interventions, how much the subjects included in the program law and the law containing various provisions were of interest and gave matter for reflection. Certainly defiled by the opposition, which considers them empty, I find, despite all, that it speaks a lot about them. So much better! (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, if we have to spend so much time at the tribune about this program law, it is to list everything that it does not contain!

Mr. Nollet, I think rather that you would have wished to put something else in it with a vision and an attitude completely different from the necessities of the moment. As far as we are concerned, we are convinced that increasing the purchasing power of the population is a ⁇ important point. We face major economic and social challenges. We have – I think – the duty to present and take a series of measures that go in the direction of greater activity in our country, greater solidarity and better financing of social protection through the creation of activities and wealth. It is on this path that the government and its majority are committed by proposing today the vote of the law-program and the law containing various provisions.

Increasing purchasing power is a key element of this program. The promotion of creativity and entrepreneurship is also an essential element for us. I will probably have the opportunity to return to it when we discuss the budget discussion. However, the discussion we are dealing with today already allows me to highlight several essential elements.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are encouraged by the government. This is a sign of a healthy economy. Entrepreneurs not only create their own jobs, but also create the jobs of others. This is ⁇ necessary today. As providers of jobs and wealth, small and medium-sized enterprises represent an essential wheelchair of our economy. Purchasing power and entrepreneurship go hand in hand. Consumer confidence in their purchasing power promotes consumption and growth. Growth, on the other hand, benefits our companies who can hire new employees who, in turn, will feed the virtuous circle of economic growth.

For these same reasons, it is for us primary to encourage those and those who wish to opt for the status of independent. This implies making this status more attractive, continuing to catch up with the social status of employees. These questions affect both the daily life of our fellow citizens and the sustainability of our social model. The projects presented to us encounter these largely. I would like to highlight a few points that I find important.

With these draft texts, the government is taking another step forward in reducing regime differences between wage workers and self-employed workers. In terms of pensions in particular, the small pensions of self-employed will experience a new increase of 2% as of 1 July 2008. In the same order of ideas, the malus that touches the pension of the self-employed, who have contributed for many years, will be gradually removed.

All of these measures are essential for continuing on the path of a "admitted independent" society.

I heard Mr. Van de Velde argued that, in essence, it was not done enough for the independent. To sit in this Chamber for about fifteen years, I had to wait a long time for finally to be concerned about the status of the independent. Many measures have been taken, ⁇ under the auspices of Sabine Laruelle, concerning the pensions of self-employed.

by Mr. Van de Velde is no longer there today, but a few years ago, the minimum pension difference between an employee and a self-employed was 200 euros; today, the gap has been reduced to 50 euros. The recovery has increased by three quarters. This is exceptional and I am delighted that the government wants to continue this catch-up: it is necessary both economically and simply in terms of justice.

Furthermore, there were not only pensions: we think of disability, family allowances, which, by the way, continue to advance. In fact, the first child sees their allowance increase very immediately.

I would like to emphasize this element and continue on this path.

Another important measure seems to me to be that concerning the value of work, the need to make it more attractive and to fight against employment traps. The government’s intention is to increase the employment bonus by 32 euros from 1 October to a total of 175 euros. This measure is necessary and will improve the possibility for people to find work when they have unfortunately lost their own. This is an important incentive for employment.

Then comes the solidarity contribution. I am sometimes a little confused about how some rejoice at the gradual disappearance of this contribution; they do so, indeed, from the bottom of the lips and because it is necessary, because they have been put before their eyes a electoral program not too old, which provided for this disappearance of the solidarity contribution.

Everyone should, in my opinion, be happy. Indeed, most parties have advocated this removal during the campaign that preceded the last election.

For our part, for more than ten years we have been advocating the abolition of the solidarity contribution which – I remind you – can in no way be paralleled with the revaluation that is being carried out in terms of pensions. These are two completely different areas. Wanting to compete with the abolition of the solidarity contribution and the revaluation of small pensions obviously makes no sense. By abolishing the solidarity contribution, we put an end to a flagrant injustice that consisted in getting paid today ...

Mr. Bacquelaine, two members would like to intervene: Mrs. God and Mr. and good.

I think I know that we start by abolishing the solidarity contribution for the lowest pensions.

Who said the opposite?

This will not be done in a linear way.

This has never been discussed. All the proposals we submitted provided for a gradual abolition of the solidarity contribution, starting from the lowest pensions to reach, in the end, a total abolition.

I wanted to make sure!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bacquelaine, I would like to intervene on the problem of the solidarity contribution. I just did that too.

I hope, Mr. Goutry, that you have listened very closely to Mr. Bacquelaine, who says that the solidarity contribution and its abolition is a completely different domain than the problem of the lowest pensions in the employee system. They are disconnected. I tried to make it clear: that we used to always say shoulder to shoulder, majority and opposition: let that happen together, because it is precisely the solidarity in the pension system that must be provided. Mr. Bacquelaine considers it to be two separate matters. I just want to bring it to your attention.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I admit, even with pleasure, that after ten years of insistence within the purple governments and today, and even in the period of Prime Minister Dehaene, you have always zealed for the abolition of the solidarity contribution for pensions, of which we know they are taxed on the slightly better pensions.

Ms. Dieu, the solidarity contributions are only levied on the slightly better pensions, you know?

You, Mr. Bacquelaine, have always been jealous of this. What really surprises me is that at the beginning of this legislature we have seen an incredible offensive from the MR to get the bill you have been working on for ten years on the agenda, to discuss, to hold hearings through high urgency. We have done all that.

At that time, the PS effectively submitted amendments to also raise the lowest and middle pensions, which are now not discussed, with the exception of those 2%. What really surprises me now as a legislator is that in the program law nothing is said about abolition. We are not voting on abolition. All we do, Mr. Reynders, is to empower the government to intervene for 30 million this year on the solidarity contribution.

The question I have, Mr. Bacquelaine, is: why do you give up the struggle for the complete abolition? And why did you request the disconnection of your bill with regard to the present draft? Should we have such a great confidence in the government, and you in the other parties, that you assume that those 30 million is the beginning of the complete abolition? Or how should we understand this?

Mr. Bonte, the solidarity contribution was initially decided by one of the governments of Mr. Bonte. Dehaene who had taken care, I must acknowledge, to indicate that this contribution was temporary. This is written in the law: it is taken for the time necessary for the balance of social security. That was the purpose of this contribution. A solidarity contribution was needed to deal with a social security deficit and it was considered that when that deficit no longer exists, the contribution could effectively be removed.

Dans l'histoire de cette cotisation, le sp.a occupe une place majeure, j'en conviens. Je me souviendrai toujours du jour où ma proposition, and 2000, a obtenu une majorité de voix et commission des Affaires sociales et, le même jour, M. Vandenbroucke a voulu remettre sa démission. It is a mania! On me this d'ailleurs qu'il la remet régulièrement, you ne connais pas les autres raisons pour lesquelles il remet sa démission, mais c'est un "démissionneur" professionnel. Sur le sujet, il n'a jamais voulu avancer et quoi que ce soit. His successor, M. Tobback, a adopté la même ligne et a fait sans cesse obstacle à la possibilité de supprimer cette cotisation de solidarité alors qu'il s'agit bien entendu d'une injustice qui touche des gens qui ont cotisé toute leur vie et à qui, au moment de prendre leur pension, on demande de continuer à cotiser, non seulement sur la pension qu'ils touchent légalement, mais aussi sur les pensions complémentaires qu'ils se seraient octroyées par des cotisations complémentaires pendant leur période d'activité, ce qu'on appelle les rentes. It is absolutely anormal on the plan of simple justice. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Bacquelaine, that is a way of discussing. I would rather have seen you answer my question. Does this mandate about which we read in the budget that 30 million euros will be registered in 2008 and which will be completed by the King as of July 1, 2008, within two months, mean that after ten years you abstain from your bill that is ready for voting? We discussed the proposal for the complete abolition of the solidarity contribution. Does this mean that the MR rejects its bill or will it still threaten in the window of pressure on the government to do it anyway, to keep it anyway?

A second element, Mr. Goutry, I hope you have well understood that solidarity in pensions is undermined here. This means that there is no link to raising the lowest and middle pensions in the same way as the reduction of the solidarity contribution. So let’s not explain to us later that you do a lot, even for the lowest and middle pensions, while you now spend the money that way.

I would like to speak simply for the form, because Mr. Bone is of bad faith. He knows well that in the Social Affairs Committee, the proposal of the MR has been disjoined from the others. Yes, we trust the government and our proposal.

Yes, we trust the government now! And as for the proposal of the MR, you criticized the fact that it was requested to disjoin it.

You say we abandon the proposal! But not !

I would like to ask whether the MR still insists on the vote on the bill that is at the end of the reading.

You knock yes.

I can reassure you if you want to reach the complete disappearance of the solidarity contribution: this is our intention and we will do it. This does not remove anything from our conviction that it is necessary to revaluate small pensions and ensure that pensioners have sufficient purchasing power. At a time when we are witnessing an ageing population with an increasing number of pensioners, it would be irresponsible to grant them almost zero purchasing power. We are all interested in allowing pensioners to exercise real purchasing power. This is also our conviction. This proves that it is possible to pursue two objectives at once, that of gradually abolishing the solidarity contribution and that of gradually revaluing the lowest pensions to increase everyone’s purchasing power.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why Mr. Bonte is so nervous about this link. Who has ever connected? Who ever said we want to connect? I know that there are two things in the government agreement, namely that the solidarity contributions will be eliminated and that an effort will be made for the lowest and oldest pensions. What is wrong here?

Because not everything happens at the same time? Two months after the government was installed? What do you want, Mr Bonte?

Mr. President, he asks me a question.

Mr. Goutry, the problem is that you can only spend one euro once. The biggest challenge in terms of purchasing power protection today lies in the middle pensions and the lowest pensions. I simply note that this government is making progress in the abolition of solidarity contributions. So much better. I wonder, however, why the first 30 million euros are not used for the groups in the pension sector that have fallen into subsistence insecurity and poverty. The CSB keeps that on a permanent basis. I think it is politically unwise for people who first and foremost advocate for the strengthening of the lower and weaker income groups in our society, to first spend your euro on the relatively higher income. Your confidence in the majority is apparently infinite. I will remind you at the moment that there may be savings (...)

Now I would like to address the problem of ageing very quickly.

I am always surprised that too often ageing is considered a disease. Ageing is a social progress. We should all be happy that the population lives longer. I do not deny, of course, that this creates significant challenges in terms of pensions as well as health.

On the other hand, I am stunned by the totally passive way some people take on the challenges. They consider that it is enough to gradually feed the so-called aging funds to solve the problem. I have heard such statements from sp.a+Vl.Pro and Ecolo-Groen!. Of course, this is not the right technique. It is not simply by collecting taxes, taxes or contributions to feed an ageing fund that will always be insufficient that we will solve the problems related to the ageing phenomenon. I think we need something else.

Additional pensions should be encouraged. The employment rate among people over 50 years of age should be increased. In this regard, the activation of unemployed should also concern, I think, those over 50 years old. Many people over the age of 50 still want to work. They would thus pay taxes, social contributions and fuel the economic circuit by enabling social protection.

Pensioners who wish – and are sometimes prevented – should be allowed to continue working, for example for their personal balance or because they consider it important for them to keep an activity. Similarly, they would continue to pay contributions, taxes and feed the economic circuit and the circuit of social protection.

This is fundamental if we want to avoid having a two-speed solidarity society with, on the one hand, a small number of people under the age of 50 who are working and, on the other hand, everyone else who should be marginalized to the aging fund. This seems to me to be an apocalyptic and dramatic vision of a solidary society.

I agree with Mr. Bacquelaine on the fact that people over 50 years old, who are far from being old, still want to work.

First of all, I would still like to point out that most people of this age who are put out of the work circuit are done by employers! Per ⁇ they should consent to an effort to keep these people at work.

Second, as regards the cumulation of retirees with an activity, I want them to do so if they have the strength to do so but remember that we have an extremely high youth unemployment rate, that it is important to allow them to work and also to ensure that employers spend 1.9% of training to keep people on the labour market.

I hear your argument. You put your finger on a false idea: it consists in believing that when a society experiences a high employment rate of younger people, the youth unemployment rate increases. It is the opposite that happens. Take the statistics: when the employment rate of people over 50 is low, the unemployment rate is then the highest! Stop making us believe that!

I didn’t say that, I didn’t say it was related. I said it existed today, so we need to find a balance between the two problems.

As always ! As well as at the European level.

When you talk to me about the pensions of the self-employed, I agree that we do anything for them on the condition that the large self-employed also go to the box in internal solidarity. It is the same.

In the challenges posed by the aging population, as the government does under this program law, it would be useful to promote research and development. What is the report?

This report is direct. Indeed, among other things in health care, and we benefit from a very important pharmaceutical industry in Belgium, in the Walloon Brabant in particular, to ensure that technological and scientific advances develop very quickly, thanks for example to the exemption of the professional pre-count of researchers, is a way to improve in the long run the treatments for the elderly. Longevity should also be accompanied by a decrease in morbidity. Of course, what does it use to live long if it is to live in poor health. It is possible to ⁇ both objectives.

One last element. I welcome the tax measures contained in the program law. The reason for this is simple: the best way to increase purchasing power is to reduce tax on bottom and middle income. Not only for the mechanical effect it produces, but also for the excess of freedom it provides. Much more than bonuses, regardless of their color! If you give a bonus, you decide in their place what people should do, but when you reduce people’s taxes, you give them the freedom to decide what they will do with the purchasing power supplement they will have. This is a liberal policy and we support it!

(The applause )

I take advantage of the presence of Mrs. the Minister of Health to tell her that I am obviously in favor of the initiation of administrative simplification in the field of prescription of medicines included in the law-programme.

I am especially pleased that you have heard our concern on this point and that we will be able to continue on this path. by Mr. It is from Ecolo-Groen. He defends the creationist theses, that is, he considers that the world must be created in one day; for our part, we defend rather the theory of evolution. I think the evolution is good. We must now go further and ensure that the prescribers of medicines in our country can act without having to undergo bureaucratic oppression that seems to me to have exceeded the limits.

We often talk about the shortage of general doctors in some parts of the country. As long as we have not increased the attractiveness of the profession and diminished the constraints and administrative complexity, we will find few candidates to exercise the profession.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I do not believe in defending creationist theses. As I explained, if you want to make progress, you have to take steps towards it. In my view, this government is doing the opposite. This is what I wanted to explain when I talked about solidarity.

You have stated you are in favor of an increase in small pensions. I encourage you to find the budget margins that will allow you to bear the price of ageing. The Prime Minister has promised an additional 2 billion euros for the social sector. I see no trace of it, neither in the law-programme, nor in the notes of general policy, nor in the budget!

I see that you are less creative than I thought. I see a good development.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, the present project subject to our approval seems to me to participate in the resolution of the number one problem of the population which is and remains a question of purchasing power. I look forward to this and I hope that very soon, other measures, new, complementary, bold, voluntary, will be submitted to debate in our assembly.

The time has indeed come to undertake new reforms to advance the situation of everyone in our country, so that everyone has a capacity of self-determination to make their own choices and lead their own life, so that everyone can solidarely ensure a high level of social protection in our country. This is the issue of the measures that are proposed to us today and that expect further progress to be made tomorrow with our majority.

(Applause of Applause)

As a socialist, I am in principle in favour of Sunday rest, as well as evening rest. Therefore, I regret that we have to speak at this hour. I do this for my group leader Peter Vanvelthoven and for the chronically ill.

I will briefly explain the sp.a. amendment on the law various provisions. It is quite technical, but fundamental for the people who care about it. I will keep it very short, not like Mr. Bacquelaine.

I will briefly explain the reasons for this amendment. Despite the introduction of increasingly efficient measures to improve access to care, it has been found that 18% of patients should delay certain types of care or even abandon them entirely for financial reasons.

In most cases, these are chronically ill. Some of them even have to pay hundreds of euros monthly, even if they are entitled to the increased benefit and despite the existence of the maximum invoice.

It also shows that elderly patients experience the greatest difficulties in getting a supplementary hospitalization insurance for an affordable and reasonable premium. I think my colleague Vanvelthoven has already noticed this.

During the last reign, several measures were taken to improve the situation of chronically ill people, but everyone knows that this is not enough.

I am very pleased that the current Minister of Health, Ms. Onkelinx, has said that she wants to work on improving the very specific situation of chronically ill people. She even promised in the Public Health Committee on Tuesday to work on the supplement scheme.

I’ve gotten quite hard at that time because I’m still very concerned that people, depending on the hospital room in which they end up, sometimes have to pay incredibly much for the honor of a doctor. I think I cannot.

We have debated this and I think we are partly on the same wavelength. Therefore, I would like to submit an amendment today. The amendment specifically proposes that patients aged 65 years or older who stay in the hospital for more than a week annually should not pay any supplements.

They would no longer be charged supplements. In this way one can assure – the story of purchasing power is now known to everyone – that the purchasing power of these people, by their stay in the hospital, is not fundamentally impaired, that they actually have it a little better than it is now.

The amendment should be included in the draft law containing various provisions due to its high urgency. Why high urgency? Recent reports have shown that the premium increases for hospitalization insurance, ⁇ for older insured persons, are increasing exponentially. It is necessary to intervene legally in the short term in order to have affordable health care for older people and elderly patients. This amendment makes the need to contract hospitalization insurance for older patients less urgent.

I will briefly explain the technical aspect. The first article prohibits the charging of room supplements for this category of patients. The second article prohibits honorary supplements for this category.

I thank you for your attention.

Colleagues, I have four speakers in the debate on the bills containing various provisions. Some have already talked about the various provisions in the discussion about the program law. I will ask the Prime Minister to answer the comments on both the Program Law and the various provisions. I propose to complete the speaker list. I still have on the list Mrs. Van der Straeten, Mrs. Gerkens, Mrs. Nyssens and Mrs. Van den Bossche.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen members of the government, I had registered for the discussion on the bill containing various provisions, and I would actually want to talk only about the CREG.

There is something in the program law about energy. We have already talked about the unused sites, and about the depreciated nuclear power plants and the profits of Electrabel. I agree in this regard with the arguments of my colleague from Ecolo and of Mrs. Douifi from sp.a.

I would like to briefly comment on the CREG. This is not an insignificant topic. Alleszins, in the statements of most politicians, this topic is quite prominent.

Remember a few days after the elections, when Electrabel announced that energy prices would rise quite sharply. All political parties then walked in front of each other to make the strongest statements about the CREG. Everybody screamed about murder and fire.

An investigation was ordered, which produced a report. That report highlighted a number of shortcomings in the CREG. Among other things, it was found that the CREG did not have sufficient access to certain information. Here in Parliament we discussed a number of legislative proposals from the Greens! and Ecolo and from the PS and the sp.a, in connection with the regulation, everyone agreed that the CREG, the federal energy regulator, should be given more powers. Beyond the party boundaries, we all agreed on this.

In February or March, somewhere between the first and second government, we even saw an offer between two government parties, namely Open Vld and the PS by Minister Magnette, about the CREG and the additional powers. That went even so far that it led to the submission of a bill by colleagues Tommelein and Schiltz, which however was withdrawn when the minister included a dozen articles about the CREG in the bill containing various provisions. When reading it – just a dozen articles – it seems to me only logical to find that all those promises made after the elections, in television programs such as The Seventh Day, on websites, or written down in bills, are far from fulfilled. The text submitted for voting here is, firstly, insufficient, but, secondly, also unclear on a number of points; it can even give rise to various interpretation problems, with all the consequences thereof. We have already seen in various subjects, and especially when it comes to energy, that some producers are not embarrassed to set up an amalgam of procedures.

In this sense, we have every interest in making laws clear, which are not vague, which are clear, which cannot give rise to different interpretations and which provide the necessary legal certainty. I think this design ⁇ does not comply with that.

I said it is not enough. It is ⁇ insufficient because some things are lacking pertinent.

I think the first major lack in this bill is that there is still no dispute resolution body, however an obligation in the second European gas and electricity directives. That dispute resolution body was once included in the Gas and Electricity Act, but it was removed from it by the previous purple government. The Minister said in the committee that the possibility of such a new body is still being investigated and that proposals from the CREG are awaited in this regard.

to wait. I think we can wait a long time in this country, at this level, with its political crises. We apparently do not have a government that takes the cow by the horns at the right time and simply introduces certain things.

My colleagues from Open Vld had done that. In their bill they had provided for that dispute resolution body, but they withdrew it. According to colleague Staelraeve in the committee, they have withdrawn that proposal because the minister’s draft is going in the right direction and actually fulfills their expectations.

At this point, I believe that expectations have absolutely not been satisfied and therefore we are still in a situation without a dispute resolution body, without a body that can take certain decisions within a certain period and that provides sufficient legal certainty in that area.

Colleague Douifi said that a few small steps have been taken. I think it was kind from her to say so. If we also want to be kind, we could say that there are indeed small steps being taken in terms of market surveillance. You can see that I am in a constructive mood today. This may be due to the time.

However, I think that these steps may be very small and only a minimal transposition of the European directives in the field of market surveillance.

If I look at the text on it, I find that it is vague and vague and, moreover, does not respond to what the State Council has written in its opinion on this subject. In connection with market surveillance, in certain places in the text it is stated that one can pass through the Competition Council and that then urgent measures can be taken at the initiative of the government.

Regarding those urgent measures, the State Council said in its opinion that it would be good if their nature was defined and that it was made clear what urgent measures mean. This is something that does not happen in this bill. I give it to you on a sheet: something that is vague, gives rise to different interpretations, gives rise to challenging decisions, gives rise to uncertainty, does not provide clarity, transparency and legal certainty. This creates a topic that is so important, once again for uncertainty. When it comes to energy, we already have a lot of unclear legislation from the era of the purple government. There is now a new party in the government. A government that does good governance would also do well to work out this more in our energy legislation and make it concrete.

What it essentially means is that the CREG must finally become an entity that can mean something and that can really do something. However, in the present design, the CREG remains a guard dog without teeth. There were different views on regulation. The government has clearly chosen to give the CREG certain small powers and to put the final decision on whether or not to intervene on the government. Why the fear of really creating an independent body that can conduct its own investigations, which can detect infringements, which can draw up PVs and which then can also take the necessary decisions?

You say no, Mr. Minister. I really do not understand why no trust can be given to the CREG, why not the trust can be given to an independent regulatory authority to effectively intervene? An intervention force in the CREG does not exclude that the Competition Council or the Minister may still act. The Minister would like to interrupt me, Mr. Speaker.

I answered this question when it was asked by Philippe Henry; so I will not repeat the same answer. You are part of the same group even though, apparently, you don’t always vote the same way.

I haven’t heard it right, but I think it comes from the microphone.

So now we have a bill that adds something here and there, some strings, some decorations. It may indeed add something, but that is ⁇ not a guarantee for an efficient regulatory body.

It is also a missed opportunity in another aspect. We don’t often get the opportunity to vote on bills. And usually we have to vote on a repair a few weeks after we have approved them. If there is a draft law here, why don’t we arrange several things at the same time? Why can’t we address the problem of capacity shortages, for example, in this draft, where energy is now discussed in approximately 10 articles?

I know that a collective law cannot address the capacity shortage warned by the CREG in the report it published in October 2007. However, one can suggest in a collective law a number of solutions that are not the miracle solutions, but that can already take a number of steps.

I draw my inspiration again from the withdrawn proposal of my colleagues Tommelein and Schiltz. They had included in their proposal that the CREG could require certain investments after consultation with the network operators. In this way, a number of investments could actually happen. The grid operators are not even deviating from this, because they now have to buy electricity for their power losses anyway. Therefore, it was absolutely not an illogical track.

I therefore regret that this provision is not included in the draft containing various provisions. The PS is a majority party. Open Vld is a majority party. It is not so difficult to incorporate this into it.

Mr. President, Mrs. Van der Straeten, I would like to interrupt for a moment, since my name has been dropped several times.

Mrs Van der Straeten, you refer to the bill that Bart Tommelein and I have submitted. You rightly note that the energy legislation is unclear. I will tell you that it is vague, because the energy problem is a very complex matter. You rightly assume that in a collective law, a program law, not everything can be solved. That is also the reason why we, loyal to the government, have been satisfied with a program law that partially addresses the problem of the area.

The complexity of the energy market also does not allow to offer a solution to all problems in one move. I am confident that the energy problem you refer to, including the possibility of imposing investments that we have so much sought, should be considered in the solution of the overall problem. If it is granted to us, we will have to work on it for the coming weeks, months and even years.

In summary, Mrs. Van der Straeten, we have withdrawn our bill. With that bill, however, we have already given a clear signal that we want to go further with the problem, but that so far we have shown loyalty to the government and are satisfied with the steps that are an incentive to solve those problems.

Mr. Schiltz, I thought in detail that the purpose of the bills was to try to find a majority in favour so that they can be approved. I thought they weren’t meant to give a signal. If this is what the minister has intended to do, to give a signal that we mean it with the CREG, then I think that it absolutely does not honor our energy policy.

Mrs Van der Straeten, I think the signal was given by the government itself. If you follow the chronology of the facts, then you will find that the bill submitted before the government could finally draw into war against the problem of the energy market. Thus, we are caught in speed by way of speech.

I do not know the exact date, but I have it on my bench. Au fond does not do much on the subject. I think I can conclude by saying that this is the draft law of the missed opportunities. If this bill gives a signal, it is that it leaves consumers in the cold and that it is actually tailored to Suez.

When we next time have our mouths full about the CREG, about the powers of the CREG, the rising energy prices and the high inflation, and that we definitely need to do something about it, I think we should be able to look critically at our own legislative work. We should take our work in Parliament a little more seriously. Great statements in television shows of all kinds can then be filled in a little more minimalist: that one says what it is on. A bit of regulation. Not too much, preferably not a strong authority, preferably not an authority that has too much to say, but let us still keep pulling the ropes. This is what is now put to the vote in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

I will spare you the defence of each of our amendments. Instead, I will give you a brief presentation of our amendments to our gas and electricity market regulation tool.

In advance, Mr. Magnette, it is true that sometimes Ecolo and Groen do not vote in the same way. This has always been said. It is true that not long ago you were part of the house, but you will soon find that within the same political family, which shares the same projects, the same programs, it happened, it happens and there will be times when everyone does not vote in the same way.

On the other hand, when you advance this kind of pitch, it is that you have no answer or that you lack arguments!

With this small account settled, I come to our amendments.

It is true that our conception of regulation is different. When Mr. Schiltz says that his party has obtained partial satisfaction and that the follow-up of the measures he advocates will be taken outside the framework of the program law, I think he is wrong.

Mr. Minister, you defended the law containing various provisions by saying that you do not want to go further than the provisions of the text of the law regarding the establishment of regulatory tools. This is where the problem lies. We actually have different visions.

However, I hope you will accept some changes. Why Why ? In regards to regulating a liberalized market, it is indispensable that policy gives directions, defines what it expects from the regulator, but also how the latter should work. From that moment on, the regulator assumes its responsibilities. But if the tools given to the regulator and the methods of work prove inappropriate, it is up to the policy to intervene and change the situation.

However, in your bill, you do not correctly define how the regulator should work and, by doing so, you do not give it the opportunity to work autonomously within the framework of its regulatory mission. This results in aberrations such as, when the regulator observes a non-compliance with the law on trade practices or competition practices, and he considers that sanctions should be taken, you give the minister the opportunity to intervene to prevent it.

There, this does not mean that politics must assume, it is actually allowing political intervention to deregulate the market.

A regulator can make mistakes, but he has no political responsibility. A minister can make mistakes, but he has a political responsibility and that can be corrected. That is why we have a different view on this point.

Everyone can be wrong! Political responsibility must also be found in the construction of the tools, but you do not want to hear it. That is why we are submitting amendments.

I would say that it is not surprising that the text is presented in this way. From 2003 to 2007, there was a detricotage of skills and the Socialist group said nothing while we acted with CD&V and the CDH to avoid it. I see that today the cdH and the CD&V join you in the illusion of giving power to the regulator. Alongside creationists and evolutionists, there are also demolitionists and illusionists, and you are part of it!

We have submitted amendments that clearly define how the CREG should look at prices, price components and costs. It must be able to define how a profit margin can be considered reasonable. I really hope that this amendment will be adopted because it does not affect political accountability at all but it allows for transparency. It also allows the carrier, the distributor, the producer, the supplier to know that when the CREG says yes or no to them for a price, for a tariff, for a component, it is based on clearly identified elements.

Another amendment aims to remove the participation of electricity producers in the shareholding of the electricity carrier. It seems to us that conflicts of interest should be avoided, especially when we have a market as monopolistic as ours, which makes the dominant producer know that he has an interest in making the transmission network and the distribution network less accessible to new producers, especially if the latter are decentralized.

We are submitting other amendments that increase the power of the CREG in parallel with the political choices and objectives that are defined. These amendments consist of saying that the CREG can require managers to adapt and invest in their network to make it accessible to the competitors of the monopolistic producer.

Here are, in a few words, the amendments we have submitted and which will be submitted to vote soon.

I will take the floor for a few minutes, so please rest assured. I will mention the provisions relating to justice, especially those that tend to remove the backbone, of which we talk a lot.

I am pleased that, in this bill, there are some technical provisions that, without profound changes of laws, give practitioners the opportunity to accelerate the course of the procedures. Let me take an example, that of the rules of judges. This has been reached and now allows the correctional court to avoid the appeal by the Court of Cassation to decide in judge settlement, when the correctional tribunal realizes that it could have applied mitigating circumstances. This is technical but it will allow correctional courts to make the economy of a procedure by the Court of Cassation. This is how we have to work! Not all the existing procedures and the reforms of recent years must be overturned, but a provision must be adjusted from time to time to accelerate the course of the procedures.

I take a second example. A provision changes the recent law on judicial delay. It is excessively technical but also allows to repair, to correct at the margin of laws that have a quite important goal but which, obviously, when applied, require a little time to be practicable. Driven already by numerous actors’ reports, the bill modifies certain articles of the Judicial Code without changing the content and purpose of the recently passed laws.

Finally, I note that we are also concerned with the law on adoption and that concerning the staff of the transplants due to the functioning of the courts of enforcement of penalties. When you create courts, you have to take care of the supervision. It is possible here to expand the framework of the transplant staff, due to the fact that we go from six chambers of application of penalties to ten. We have been waiting for this law on the application of penalties for a very long time. We have a court but the mass of the litigation is such that it is necessary to expand the number of these courts of sentences and, consequently, the intendance. All this is going in the right direction. I would like to see other changes like this. Indeed, we are no longer waiting for major laws to change the judicial backbone and make our courts work but we want to make what exists in a concern of legislative economy work, while listening to the actors who show us how certain shortcomings of lack of feasibility sometimes appear when a procedure must be executed.

There are good things: a provision on court fees provides for the possibility of forcing legally required experts to provide under penalty of fine. This arrangement is interesting to accelerate the course of expertise.

I could cite others, but the House and Senate Justice Committee still has a lot of bread on the board to bring this kind of arrangements, technical but fundamentally advancing the business.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we talked about hospitalization insurance earlier, a few weeks ago, when reasonably few pensioners in the country were told that they would have to pay 200 to 300 euros per year more for their hospitalization insurance. For those people, that’s a big hole out of their budget. These are people who are at high risk for their hospitalization insurance, to people who have a lot of costs.

The worst thing about this is that the law actually prohibits it. There is a law made by the previous government that ensures that insurance does not increase by more than the increase in the consumption index, until a medical index is created with objective parameters after which insurance can gradually increase based on the medical index. There is no medical index yet. Therefore, the insurers find that they should not comply with anything. I asked if the insurers were right. You answered to my great joy in the plenary session that this is not the case and that the insurers there clearly violate the law.

I have submitted a very simple amendment in the committee that ensures that what has always been clearly the intention of the legislator, and whatever you have confirmed, simply becomes clear by adding a sentence, namely that the law does indeed apply to all current contracts. Tens of thousands of consumers are helped by this one sentence. It simply makes the law clearer. I find nothing new. You confirm that this is the law. Insurers follow those who don’t because they think there is room for interpretation.

My proposal is simple, Mr. Minister. I have submitted the amendment here again. This is the fastest possible way that you and your government can do something about these huge price increases, simply by getting the law respected. More than that I do not ask today.

I ask this to this majority, because there is no other way to work so quickly to approve this amendment today. I ask you to also think about the reason for the increase in the cost of the additional insurance. I think it is important to know whether hospitals may eventually transfer more and more costs to people with a supplementary insurance, whether that is fair or not, or that means that maybe, once one has a supplementary insurance, costs will be transferred that one would otherwise transfer less. Maybe hospitals exaggerate there to compensate for lack of funding elsewhere. This is a possibility that I think needs to be explored.

My greatest supplication is, although it cannot be answered definitively today, to place as many of the health concerns that people need in the first pillar as possible. In the long run, this will not only make the second pillar less expensive, but even superfluous.

Today it remains simple: simply clarify the law as it already exists and thus help the pensioners against the insurers who have raised prices.

First of all, I would like to thank the members for the debate.

Several speakers, including Mr. Bacquelaine, have already pointed out that it is the first, important work piece presented by the current government to the plenary session of the House.

This broad debate was an opportunity to hear many and interesting interventions. In addition, the government has raised some suggestions that could be repeated later.

Thanks for all the explanations. I think that the program law – the chronology is somewhat adjusted – primarily contains measures for the execution of the budget. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the budget may be dealt with next week, or a week later.

I will not specifically address a number of issues that have been said regarding the functioning of the energy market, justice or hospital insurance because this has already happened during the replicas. I think it is important that we set priorities in fiscal policy within the framework of limited budgetary capabilities.

Budgetary resources must be fixed each time according to the possibilities. As I said during the investment debate, it is important that appear in the type of measures included in the draft law-programme submitted to vote today, the three major axes on which we want to work and for which we want to use the available budget margins.

We are talking about corrections in terms of purchasing power for the benefit of the people who most need this type of measures. For the benefits related to wages and betting there is in our country the system of indexation. This system was developed by the social partners, has an important historical tradition and also contributes significantly to stability in income policy and to social tranquility. In addition, the government intends to make significant corrections in terms of purchasing power in the coming months, not only with words but also with measures, in favor of the weakest incomes.

We also want to use the means to stimulate the activation of the population.

We want to reward labor, commitment, work for income more specifically by working with the work bonus, with tax measures such as raising the tax-free minimum. The third major axis of our socio-economic policies, for which we invest budgetary margin, is the strengthening of the competitiveness of our economy.

The strengthening of the competitiveness of our economy and our ⁇ comes, among other things, through the reduction of the social burden for the categories as reflected in the government agreement.

So, first, strengthening purchasing power as correction on the increased lifetime, as far as it is not fully captured by our indexation system. Second, budgetary resources are used to improve the functioning of the labour market. Third, ensure a strengthening of the competitiveness of our economy.

There are a number of concrete measures. I would want to understrepen dat to my feeling the positive maatregelen, both what of choice van de maatregelen als wat of instruments betreft, toch wel op een heel ruime instemming van de colleagues kunnen rekenen. I look forward to thereover. Dat means dat of important bijdrage tot het inkomensbeleid kan stoelen op een zeer sterke instemming van volksvertegenwoordigers. Dan heb ik het over de problematiek van de afschaffing van de solidariteitsbijdrage, de verhoging van een aantal pensioenen, the increase of the tax-free quota in taxation, the measures in favour of pensions, chronic sick and others.

Strengthening purchasing power on the basis of available margins: a large part of these available margins (from €320 million in the budget we will submit to your debate and your vote in two weeks) are used to strengthen purchasing power.

The second axis, the activation. I already talked about the work bonus. In this regard, Mr. Bonte, it is of course important to keep all our measures critical. This is also the role of the opposition. However, you will not blame me for making the comparison between the measure as it existed and was developed during the previous legislature, on the one hand, and as we are developing it now, on the other.

Mr Bonte, with the previous government, the personal contributions were of the order of 18 euros on a minimum income of 1,283 euros. With the measures now proposed, personal contributions will reach only 3 euros on a minimum wage of 1,360 euros from 1 October 2008.

The activation . In this context, an element of the debate is the current state of affairs, the extension of the scope of the system of service cheques and the debate on its future. I have referred to the consultation provided with the Communities. I think you are right and that this can also be discussed in the framework of the work in the committee.

It seems to me important for the service securities system, despite the debate that will take place on their future extension to certain activities, to already see positive measures in at least four areas: first, an increase in the budget allocated to the order system by 200 million; two, a tax credit for the lowest income; three, the indexation of wages for the workers of the service securities system and, finally, very important for its users, the finding that the final cost of the service securities remains in the order of an amount of less than 5 euros.

Ladies and gentlemen, the program law that is being submitted contains a lot of measures for the execution of the budget, a budget that has been prepared from the care of caution, given the changed, highly evolving international economic situation. A significant part of the €320 million will go, first, to enhance purchasing power, second, to activate and third, to strengthen the competitiveness of the economy.

Thank you for the very smooth discussion. I am confident that the House with a large majority – which will be a strong signal – will be able to approve this first important workpiece of this government.