Proposition 52K1202

Projet de loi portant abrogation de la rétribution de 0,1 euro sur les quotas d'émission alloués gratuitement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

May 30, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax greenhouse gas climate change air quality environmental protection reduction of gas emissions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 3, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs. Muylle is the rapporteur, but I do not see her. I didn’t see her this morning either.

Ms. Van der Straeten has the word in the general discussion.

Are you looking for Minister Magnette? Then we have to wait a moment. This is a good reason for suspension.

I think the rapporteur is not in the country or is sick. I did not see her this morning. It is a virtual oral report.

Climate and Energy Minister Paul Magnette

The Minister has finally arrived. I give the floor to Mrs. Van der Straeten.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this is a short draft that we have discussed in the committee. My colleague, Mrs. Muylle, is not present for the report. However, it would have been a short report because it was not much discussed in the committee.

The draft consists of less than three articles. I think, Mr. Minister, that the draft we will have to vote on later is actually a bit exemplary for climate policy in our country. Belgium has a climate ministry, but in terms of policy, mouse after mouse is constantly generated. The only concrete draft legislation on climate policy is the draft legislation on free emission allowances and the remuneration charged on them. This bill consists not of three but four articles. In total, the document does not cover ten pages. It’s a little like climate policy; it doesn’t get a lot out and if something goes out, it’s narrow.

The reason why we should vote on this is not because it would be a genius idea of the competent minister, but because it is about the implementation of a decision taken in the Consultation Committee. The Consultative Committee has met several times on the issue of the national allocation plan. There were two problems. First, the European Commission has asked Belgium to make an additional effort to further reduce. Second, we were confronted with ArcelorMittal’s request to obtain additional rights for two upper furnaces in Liège – to start one and keep the other open.

These two aspects formed the initiation of a large debate and presumably of hours-long meetings. In the end, it was Prime Minister Verhofdstadt who managed to find an agreement. The agreement included, among other things, the abolition of the federal remuneration on the free emission allowances. It is about that aspect of that agreement that voting is requested today.

I find it therefore striking that we must vote today on one aspect of that agreement, while it was not the only obligation for the federal government in that same agreement. The same agreement also agreed, for example, that certain power plants of electricity producers would be granted fewer duties. It also agreed that the central government would do everything in its power to ensure that there would be no additional impact on electricity prices.

I have questioned you about this several times. I have asked you how you think to do that or when we can expect an initiative in it. It has always been very vague about this. I note that it can go fairly quickly and fairly smoothly for the draft emission allowances, but the government’s, the minister’s, commitment to make the allocation of fewer allowances to power plants accompanied by no additional impact on electricity prices is something I haven’t seen so far.

Soon is the recess. I have heard that we will only be able to vote next week. Nothing has been submitted and therefore it will not happen. Nothing will happen and ⁇ in September, October or November all political parties will have to stumble over each other’s feet again to say how scandalous it is that electricity prices are rising, because there may be a transfer of free emission allowances and that the regulator needs to be strengthened. We will all agree on this, but we will have to conclude that fundamentally nothing is done to prevent it all. In this case, we are carrying out one aspect of the agreement in the Consultation Committee, while waiting for the other aspect on which federally something had to be done, namely to avoid an additional impact on electricity prices. This is probably waiting for Godot.

Basically about the design. At that time, that tax was introduced in a program law with the aim of financing the federal emission allowance purchase policy. It is also mentioned in the explanation to the text. That money went to a budget fund. It was not specifically concerned with the purchase itself, but with the financing of the specific gap on public spending, legal expertise and personnel costs. I asked you in the committee, Mr. Minister, but you did not know the answer. I was allowed to ask you this question again during a meeting of oral questions, but we have not had the opportunity to do so since. I have always wondered if that is true. That tax, included in a law with four articles that we will abolish today, has generated as much as 6 million euros. 6 million euros were allocated to the Kyoto Fund to support the purchase policy of federal emission allowances.

I still wonder – maybe today you can answer the questions I asked then in the committee – whether that 6 million was effectively used for the purchase of emission allowances? They were intended to cover the overhead costs of the policy concerned. I suspect, I think I’ve noticed, that it’s not about 6 million but that of those 6 million only 1 or 1.5 million was effectively used for the federal policy on the purchase of emission allowances.

That strengthens us in the idea – the Greens were also in the previous legislature against the program law – that it was not at all a measure for climate policy, but actually only meant to feed the state treasury. It does not even have anything to do with ecofiscality, but it merely serves to fill the budget gap. It’s about 1 or 1.5 million, maybe. The rest is simply stuck in the big hole in the budget.

Mr Wathelet, you will ⁇ not be pleased that a measure intended to close the budget gap will disappear.

Since we discussed this in the committee, Mr. Minister, I have another question. Is it true that in the meantime the companies also deposited money for the year 2008? Is it true that they paid those taxes before we abolish them here today, or does the law have an effect on them? Is it true that the money deposited by the companies is now somewhere on the account? What will happen to that money? Should it be used or should it not be used? Should it be returned to the companies? Is the information correct that somewhere now a sum of 6 million euros, or maybe less, is sleeping, which has been deposited by the companies this year for a tax that we will probably soon abolish?

There is great uncertainty about this. If you do not answer me today, I will repeat that question as an oral or written question. I can also ask this question to the Secretary of State responsible for Budget. He will be able to answer that.

Would I repeat it for clarification?

Therefore, Mr. Wathelet, we are going to abolish the tax on the free allocation of emission allowances today. In 2007, this tax generated 6 million euros. According to my information, the companies also paid that tax in 2008, while it actually had to be lifted.

My question is what will happen to that money? Can it be used, can it be spent, or should it remain on an account? What will happen to it?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know clearly – I have my hands on the table – whether the State Secretary of Budget agrees with what Minister Magnette will answer.

I ask that for two reasons. In general terms, this would be a unique situation in this legislature, and specifically for this matter it is very important to know if there is a response from the government.

We will know this safely.

Second, I was very surprised – and I also told you this in the committee – when I read in the explanation of your design that it is all the more justified because the installations will receive fewer rights allocated. Electricity producers, in particular, will receive even fewer rights, while they are already hit hard enough.

Mr. Minister, you have been Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have asked my colleagues in the Flemish Parliament questions on this. It has been shown that there is no shortage of rights at all, on the contrary. When we look at what the verified emissions were in 2005 and 2006 and what the allocated emissions are in the new plan, we see that they are still well above that.

Not only the producers, but also all the companies, are very widely measured in terms of emission allowances. So what you write in your explanation is absolute nonsense. It is Mrs Crevits, whom you would always like to refer to as being competent, herself who has confirmed in the Flemish Parliament that there were indeed more allowances allocated than the verified emissions of those companies for the period 2005-2006.

You have tried to hide it conveniently by a seemingly substantial explanation. There is no such substantive explanation. That measure has come to tighten the State Treasury and that measure is abolished today, especially to please Electrabel, Electrabel that does not want to tax nowhere.

Today you decide to be up to 6 million less and in the explanation you refer to the electricity sector, well, that is – I can read between the lines –, another gift to Electrabel, to please Electrabel.

I wonder what you are a minister for. If climate policy is limited to such occasional proposals, then I think it is not good if we deduct the ecological urgency, which you and the Prime Minister would like to talk about, from the legislative work.

The abolition of this tax does not really come at an unmistakable moment. Last week the Council of Ministers decided to purchase emission credits and hot air. In this case, we are talking about the purchase of hot air in Hungary. So it has actually been decided to focus the federal purchasing policy no longer on CDM credits or JI credits, but to actually choose an unsustainable, unecological path by choosing to buy hot air. At the time, it was agreed that hot air could be under two conditions, first if there were insufficient CDM credits and JI credits and second if there was insufficient money in the Kyoto Fund. Of course, if one first emits the Kyoto Fund or reduces its resources to then have an excuse to buy hot air, then it is easy.

When we begin to count that, the present design, even if it seems innocent, is ⁇ not so innocent.

My biggest problem with the design is the following. By submitting the draft so, with four nonsense articles, that then is approved by a majority against a minority, it shows that you do not have a sustainable vision on financing climate policy. You refer to it, it was originally intended to finance climate policy. I am not convinced that the money was used for that. I think it was not used for it. In addition, I have not heard from you what is opposed to this, where the funds will come from to finance climate policy. You said that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. It does not fall within the scope of the text. I think it has to do with it, because the money for those emission credits must come from somewhere. You do not have a vision. You are negotiating. I have heard from the Prime Minister that you are still negotiating the 250 million. You have great ideas about it and with the words I absolutely agree. However, I fear that they will not be written down in laws. I note that you do not have a sustainable vision of climate policy financing.

For all of these reasons, given the cracking reasoning, which does not contain substance, given the fact that it is unclear for what the money was used, given the fact that it is unclear whether there is currently somewhere money to sleep on an account that should not be used, given the lack of a sustainable vision on climate policy financing, the Greens will therefore abstain from voting on this draft.

Does anyone ask the word in the general discussion?

Mr. Minister, would you like to answer?

Mr. Speaker, I have already responded broadly to Mrs. Van der Straeten, but I can confirm that the 6 million will remain well in the Kyoto Fund and that they will be well used for climate policy.

My question was not so much about the amount of the inning. In 2007, 6 million euros were collected. That amount was, by definition, allocated to the Kyoto Fund. You confirm that the money has been used for the aforementioned fund.

However, I ask you, first of all, how much of the aforementioned 6 million euros was effectively used for climate policy. Secondly, my additional question was whether the companies also deposited money in 2008 and what amount it is about. Can that money be used or should it be returned to the companies? Should the money remain on the account? What will happen to the money?

The Minister does not want to go further into the subject. I cannot force the Minister to answer.

I would like to respond to the Minister’s response. He does not give an answer. Now I understand why Secretary of State Wathelet was ready to agree. After all, there is no answer, which is the strength of the current government.

I would just like to point out that this bill has a specific scope. This is not a project on the entire climate policy. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to open a debate on the entire climate policy.

The project concerns this collection and its abolition. I actually indicated that all that was perceived remained on the fund that would be used to finance climate policy. For the rest, the existing resources of the organic fund have been increased in the budget. This was discussed during the budget debate. Therefore, I do not see the usefulness, on the basis of this project, to open a general debate that we have elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Minister say that this is a bill with a limited scope and that he does not want to open a general debate on energy and climate policy. The problem is that when there is a committee debate on energy and climate policy, he also says he has nothing to say! When resolutions are submitted on the subject, he has nothing to say. This is a lancinant problem.

There are many communications, conferences, meetings, etc. But when parliamentarians ask questions, want to intervene or open a debate, there is no way because the minister says he has nothing to say. If there is nothing to say to the Parliament, a problem arises!

We will not solve it today.

If Mr. Nollet came from time to time to the committee, he knew that I answered systematically to the questions I was asked, in a precise and in-depth manner. Mrs Van der Straeten knows that I always respond to them with great pleasure and in the most detailed manner possible.

I simply think that discussions should take place on the subject of the project. There has been a long discussion of the budget and the bill containing various provisions. This bill has a specific purpose. I will answer the specific questions that relate to this specific bill. I repeat, I see no reason to enter into a broader debate today on the basis of this text.

Indeed, the subject of the present draft is very accurate. You need to define the subject of the design. It is about the implementation of an agreement, concluded in the Consultation Committee. I have told you that the agreement in the Consultation Committee was not just about this aspect, but that there was another very important aspect at the head of the federal government. In particular, by reducing the allocation of rights to power plants, the federal government would ensure that there is no additional impact on electricity prices. You have answered questions, but not so detailed. You did not say you would submit a design, you did not say how you would address it. Today I see that you are very diligent to abolish that tax, to make Electrabel a pleasure, but when it comes to the additional impact on electricity prices, you do nothing.

I suggest that this debate be closed unless you really insist. I think it can continue elsewhere.