Proposition 52K1449

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1994 portant des dispositions sociales et diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 2, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection competition policy prices policy price formation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (Vooruit) voted to adopt.
• Josy Arens (LE) abstained from voting.
• Colette Burgeon (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Camille Dieu (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Karine Lalieux (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 16, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The present draft was preceded by a resolution and a bill.

Where is the Minister?

He does not need to be here for the presentation of the report. We have just done that too. The Minister should come when we start the discussion.

On 18 March 2008, Ms. Lalieux and Ms. Douifi, respectively, explained a resolution and a bill on a type of price observatory. According to Mrs Lalieux’ resolution, it is essential to know the price structure and who receives which part of the prize, in order to ⁇ transparency in the price structure. The competition council acts too slowly and a posteriori. According to Ms. Lalieux, the price observatory should monitor and measure the price fluctuation of a whole range of basic goods and services.

Ms. Douifi’s bill aims to extend the powers of the Commission on the Regulation of Prices with a permanent monitoring of the prices of a package of goods and services that are generally considered basic needs. According to this proposal, the committee must ensure that prices are reasonable and remain accessible to all consumers. It is intended to ensure the required transparency in prices and the reasons for their fluctuation.

In the subsequent discussion, Mr Clarinval stated that he was concerned that an excessive interference in price control would lead to a swing of costs on the intermediaries. He and Mrs. Jadin feared that the proposals would lead to maximum prices.

I myself supported the proposal for price monitoring. I have pledged to strengthen the existing institutions. Ms. Gerkens wanted to protect the weakest links in the production chain. Laeremans and Schiltz supported the demand for more transparency. They felt that the bill was a step in the right direction.

I come to the bill. The Minister of Entrepreneurship and Simplification submitted the bill on 2 October. It was discussed on 21 October and 4 and 18 November. Meanwhile, concerns about rising inflation were also reflected in the government agreement that decided that the government would set up a price observatory. At the Council of Ministers on 23 May, a bill was approved. Following the opinion of the State Council received on 7 July, and some minor technical observations, the bill was submitted to the House on 2 October 2008.

As for the bill, it establishes a price observatory structure within the Institute of National Accounts and it has a two-part structure. Observations and analyses are made by the FOD Economy as an associated institution of the INR. The Scientific Committee, on its part, will examine the observations and analyses.

The INR will carry out the following analyses explained in the documentation: quarterly reports on the price evolution of the key or sensitive products from the basket of the consumer price index, an annual report on the price evolution and punctual analyses at the request of the Minister responsible for economy, the Minister responsible for consumer affairs or the Minister responsible for SMEs and self-employed persons. This will be approved by a ministerial decision.

On October 20, the Institute of National Accounts also completed a test case, in particular the analysis of milk prices. This test case showed that the chosen option worked.

In the general discussion, Ms. Van den Bossche noted that the price increases in the other countries in August 2008 were, on average, more limited than in Belgium. Studies showed that prices in Belgium rose faster and stronger than in neighboring countries and that this was only limited to the higher raw material prices. Ms. Van den Bossche would have liked to see the design in an extensive way, so that any increase would be examined and then the sector could be held accountable. He says the bill is useless. Mr. Henry also shares this view and lacks the possibility of action and the social dimension. Mr. Crucke and Mrs. Staelraeve considered it important to have reliable data in order to lead to an objective and clear debate. Mr. Crucke found that a price increase is not in itself shocking, only when it is unreasonable that is offensive. Mr. George thought it was important to know the prices and how they are made. He also emphasizes the importance of the observatory in the non-reckoning of price declines. He considers the observatory important because it provides the possibility of tracking price fluctuations and thus serving the general interest. Mrs Partyka and Mrs Staelraeve support the initiative to integrate the price observatory with existing services instead of establishing a new organization. They also emphasize the importance of scientifically supported analyses and the fact that correct information is essential. Mr. Logghe wondered why the price observatory could not be housed in a single entity instead of the two-part structure. Mr. Clarinval wondered how the price observatory could gain insight into international pricing. Mr. Henry has doubts about the impact on purchasing power and the objectivity and independence of the observatory. Ms. Lalieux believes that the government, and not a committee of experts, should be able to determine the sensitive products, and also wants other ministers to be involved in drawing up a draft for greater independence and transparency. Mr Laeremans had questions regarding the appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee, their remuneration and the frequency of meetings. Finally, Ms Van den Bossche considers that the scheme is far from efficient because it cannot intervene automatically and that price fluctuations are only observed. Any public intervention is optional and delayed. It also states that a fixed list of products is most appropriate. Mr. Henry is also in favor of an automatic mechanism.

Finally, the Minister’s answers are as follows. He emphasized in his intervention the independence and objectivity of the Institute for National Accounts and of the three components, namely the FOD, the National Bank of Belgium and the Federal Planning Bureau. He also emphasizes transparency through the publication of reports and analyses. Finally, he stressed that, on the basis of the information obtained, it is within the competence of the respective ministers to take action in case of abuse.

During the article-by-article discussion, Mrs. Lalieux and Mrs. Burgeon submitted three amendments. An amendment on the composition of the committee, in order to add industry, consumers and a poverty expert. The second amendment aims to require the INR to transmit all statistical tables and outlook to associated institutions, namely the Central Council for Business and the Commission for the Regulation of Prices. A limited list of important or sensitive products should be drawn up by KB so that the full list of 500 products of the index does not have to be taken into account. The draft of the INR must not only be drafted by the Minister of Economy but must be drafted by the three competent ministers.

Following the interpellation of the Minister, the three amendments were withdrawn, which, however, were submitted again later by the Ladies Van den Bossche and Van der Straeten and Mr Henry.

There is also an amendment by Ms. Van den Bossche that stipulates that the draft for the INR should be drafted not only by the Minister of Economy but by the three competent ministers. There is an amendment by Mrs. Van den Bossche and Mr. Henry, concerning an automation of succession in the law. Finally, there is another final amendment by Mrs. Van den Bossche and Mr. Henry, which seeks a legal anchoring of the amendment of the Commission’s competence on pricing.

At the vote, the six amendments were rejected each with the same result, namely 5 votes for, 9 votes against and 1 abstinence. The entire draft law was adopted unchanged with 11 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

I suggest that you wait until the Minister is present before you intervene on behalf of the group. The Minister is coming.

For the report of the commission, we do not need ministers, but from this moment on, we miss them!

I would like to know what we can expect. Is the Minister coming?

He is coming. He would be here in two to three minutes.

Then we wait a moment.

of course .

As soon as the Minister has arrived, we will move on to the general discussion. The floor is yielded to Ms. Partyka on behalf of her group.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to join the report and briefly say that our group absolutely shares the concern about transparency in pricing. We are, of course, absolutely in favour of the establishment of the intended observatory.

It is excellent that here the existing expertise and know-how within the federal institutions is applied. They will undoubtedly do good work in this regard.

We are also pleased that the draft is finally put to the vote. The need is clear. Inflation is 1.5 percent higher in our country than in the rest of the eurozone. This is due, among other things, to food and energy prices.

There is a need for such an observatory. In the whole debate, there is also an absolute need for an objective and scientific analysis. After all, there is too much talk and too little work based on a scientific analysis.

There is absolutely no time to lose.

What is even more important is that after the analyses, it will be up to the ministers, each within his or her competence, to act if there is evidence of abuses and to take action if there is evidence of incorrect or abnormal pricing. After all, there is really something to do.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the quality and very comprehensive nature of his report. The discussion on this topic was somewhat animated. No one will deny me when I say that times change. When we discussed the commission price observatory, we were in the midst of inflation and the fear everybody talked about was an abnormal price rise. We were in October. A few weeks later, we see the reverse movement, a drop in prices.

With regard to MR, we are not surprised more by an increase than by a decrease in prices. There is, in itself, no scandalous character to a price fluctuating, whether up or down. On the other hand, the same is not the case when this fluctuation appears to be truly incomprehensible, when no economic reason justifies it. The rule of supply and demand persists, even though times change. When demand is higher, the price increases. This is a very cartesian logic. On the other hand, if prices are artificially modified, if the rules of competition are not respected for one or another reason, an intervention is necessary. It is in this sense, Mr. Minister, that the MR supports the Price Observatory. There was a lack in this perspective.

We will support the price observatory, but we are against price control, unlike the Socialist Party that demanded it. However, the Socialist Party will probably vote on this text. This is a positive development that I would like to welcome.

The government agreement is fully respected. The observatory meets a number of conditions. He will have almost complete independence, he will use professionals and he will be able to give quick answers. What is the real problem? When the economic, social or political world finds a malfunction or thinks there is a disruption, an analysis should be carried out as quickly and objectively as possible. We must have data that is not questionable. To do this, we could only use a number of designated experts in the matter. And on this basis, the political debate can intervene. We will probably disagree – and that is democracy – but at least we will have an element of analysis and not intervention. For us, it is a very good thing that this price observatory can be dealt with today.

To conclude, I will quote a very interesting book to read: it is the "Green Deal" of our colleague Jean-Marc Nollet; it contains very interesting elements. I will repeat one of his affirmations on prices and economics – I quote: “The proper functioning of a market economy – to which liberals are ⁇ attached – is based on the accuracy of its prices. It is on this basis that the fundamental economic decisions, production, consumption, savings, are made.”

Mr. Minister, I didn’t know that you responded so quickly to the wishes of both the ecologists and the liberals, namely to allow the market economy to function well.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there has been a lot to be done about the establishment of this price observatory. The need for an additional tool for price analysis and possible adjustments has been mainly discussed, as colleague Crucke also noted, during the last months of 2007 and early this year.

In the meantime, a lot has changed. Meanwhile, wages have been indexed several times over the course of 2008 and prices of various products are falling again. Nevertheless, a thorough analysis of price fluctuations and the price structure of products in our country can be found useful. After all, not only in times of inflation, but also in periods of price declines, a better knowledge and analysis of the evolution of prices and especially of the structure of prices can be ⁇ useful.

At this point, however, some critical, objective approach is very important. It is very important that we look at these issues rationally and objectively. But too often price issues are reduced to emotional issues, expressed in slogans and black-and-white approaches that ultimately serve no one, and at all not the consumer, the citizen. Therefore it will not surprise you that, as a liberal, I am found to be all but for a rigid and all too strong government intervention that intervenes and on the normal market process of demand and supply of products and on the competitive position of our country and our products and a government regulation that only makes the lives of citizens and companies more complex and more expensive.

Therefore, we should not take part in the wrong reasoning that the strength of an institution is directly proportionate to its size or size, a mistake that is often made in this federal country. The track of an additional government agency in a Belgian where the public sector is already very large, may provide for some of you for the sustenance of your conscience, but in any case not for a more efficient price analysis, let alone for a greater net income to be spent in the hands of the citizens, of the people in the street itself. Ultimately, that is what we have to do. It is our responsibility to do more net spending power, to retain more purchasing power, more opportunities for consumption, more choices in the market and to create a good life for all Belgians, even in more difficult economic times.

The draft law presented today in the House satisfies that for us. We believe that this is the only correct option in this issue, and for the following reasons. The legislation on economic regulation and prices sets as the basic principle that of the normal price. This means that products should not be sold at abnormally high prices, even without the intervention of the Minister of Economy. In addition, the Minister of Economy already has numerous instruments at his disposal to intervene in the market when it would be necessary, such as in certain sectors with a social value. Program agreements may be concluded and procedures for price increases have been agreed.

Therefore, today there are indeed instruments at the disposal of the government to intervene in the market and on the prices of goods.

The seventh means of analysis of commodity prices is today the monthly analysis of consumer prices. It gives us a good picture of the cost of life by measuring a basket of 12 groups of consumer goods. This happens monthly. So we already have a fairly good picture of the evolution of prices.

It may still lack an analysis of the structure of prices, of the structural elements and constituent parts that make up the prices of various commodities. In addition, also in other policy areas, the analysis of figures and the learning from previous policies and statistical evaluation are a problem in Belgium, which still needs to be worked hard.

In our opinion, therefore, it is the only correct choice that an existing government agency, namely the National Institute of Statistics, which is ultimately the most home in the matter, receives additional assignments through a scientific committee at the National Institute of Statistics.

The task of the Scientific Committee is therefore to analyze how the different components of the final consumer prices are created, how they evolve and why. The analyses can be carried out separately for important and sensitive products in the consumption index. In total, it is a list of more than 500 products. This is independent of the overall evolution of the price level. Even in times of stable and even falling prices, we believe that these analyses are absolutely useful and can be very valuable for policy.

It is therefore my absolute conviction that the consumer is ultimately better served by an analysis by the professionals in the field at an existing government institution, which was also already cited by several of my colleagues here on the speaker’s floor, than by the creation of another board or a completely separate functioning public service.

The analyses of the relevant committee may, as mentioned, give rise to intervention by the competent minister. In any case, they must allow the government to take the appropriate measures if necessary. In our view, that intervention should in no way be intended to have a structural impact on prices, but rather to promote competition and increase market transparency of the constituent elements of prices.

Colleagues, this is also the track that is followed in other countries. When we look around us, we see that the competitive position of our country must absolutely be liberated and that therefore it must absolutely not be tortured by an excessive intervention in the market. This has also been noticed in other countries. In France, for example, there is a very limited committee active on markets, which primarily intervenes preventively and informatively, providing information on prices rather than absolute and complete intervention on the market.

Also in Sweden, a country that is traditionally considered to be a more social and progressive country than Belgium, there is that mechanism, that authority, that committee embedded in the competition council.

I think the examples show that Belgium, with the present bill, chooses the only right path, namely the path of analysis and the better structuring of prices. We do this without doing very big things about it and with the purpose of the bill in mind: a clearer price agreement, more transparency in the market and a high competitiveness for Belgium, so that the consumer has the widest possible choice of products on the Belgian market.

We sincerely support the bill and thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I remember that during the debate on the government statement, in March 2008, my group welcomed the establishment of a daily life price observatory. This was a claim of the PS and, since September 2007, I personally claimed the creation of this observatory.

There was a need for transparency in the price structure so we witnessed a dizzying rise that could not be explained by the rise of commodity prices alone. Suspicions of disappearance weighed heavily and various reports pointed to an abnormal situation, reports that came from the bank ING, the National Bank of Belgium, the Vlerick School, so not especially from leftist organizations, Mr. Minister.

We welcomed, in March 2008, the government’s willingness to resume this idea. I still remember hearing you say, especially on many television platforms, that, contrary to what some patrons clairvoyance (the FEB, the FEVIA, the FEDIS), this observatory would not be a “bidule”, but rather a guard, that this observatory would analyze in detail a whole series of essential products for the families, that with this observatory, one could control and punish written misrepresentations, that this observatory would include, within it, representatives of consumers and families, the first concerned, – I remind you, Mr. Minister – by the vertiginous price rise that the raw products had known.

Today, Mr. Minister, I want to say that we are preparing to vote for a “bidule” as FEVIA, FEDIS and FEB said. A "bidule" because given the state of your project, this observatory is, in my opinion, not at all operational. Beyond the statements and descriptions contained in the developments of your project – this is what I have tried to make clear in commission – the observatory is surrounded by such a fuzzy that I still wonder, even after all those hours spent in commission to discuss with you, who will determine, for example, the list of sensitive and delicate products that should be monitored. I have asked you this question many times. There are, as my colleague just reminded, more than 500 products in the housewife’s basket, and we still don’t know which ones will be under monitoring, who will decide to put them in it. I wonder again and again about the absence of consumers in such an observatory, I told you. I wonder again and again what will happen if the latter finds an abnormal price rise. I still ask myself the question of whether the government will intervene or whether it will be able to do so at some point. I still wonder if competition can go into the office game.

Mr. Minister, the examination of this project in committee was, of course, the compromise between the different approaches to market regulation. If I could understand the insistence of the liberals in this government to cite competition in order to respond to disruptions, I also perceived that a series of goods and services would be monitored and a report would be published every three months.

Furthermore, I deplored the absence of consumers and families in the observatory, while the Central Council of Economy, which brings together the social partners, was considered as a privileged associate or even that letting the sole Minister of Economy decide on academic experts was a slight decision.

Mr. Minister, I guarantee you that, when you appointed, for example, a Citibank lawyer to work on consumer credit and on the transposition of the directive, I was more suspicious than in a commission in view of his report.

In short, it was to let you decide on your own by the experts or even the approval of the specifications of charges. It seemed to me very light, while consumers and middle classes are primarily concerned by this project. But I reassured myself knowing that three ministers could seize the observatory.

This project is actually a compromise only in its developments. In its implementation, there is, in my opinion, one dominant: the “let-do”. Let us let the administration and its minister of custody do for the specification of charges which turns out to be the real bone of the project! Indeed, ministers who have the protection of consumers, middle classes and farmers in their competence would not be affected! Let’s let the administration or the ICN do to determine the sensitive and delicate products in the housewife’s basket! Is it not about policy to give clear guidelines in what stands out in the general interest?

Mr. Speaker, listening to Mrs. Lalieux, I wonder if what she proposes is not rather a price control!

Mr. Crucke, I just said that in the context of a price observatory, for products whose prices will be studied structurally, the political world, that is, we who are the representatives of citizens and consumers, must choose which ones should be under monitoring at all times. I have heard a lot about this in the committee.

I thought – we talked about it long and you seemed to agree with me at the time – that the three ministers concerned should decide on products that should be constantly monitored. I submitted an amendment but it was not accepted.

On the other hand, at some point, I asked a question to the minister and he did not answer: if a breakdown occurs, what will the government do? The Minister has not yet answered me in the committee and I am asking him the question here. We will soon see if he will answer me in the plenary session.

In any case, you seem to not want to answer. Are you, yes or no, for price control?

I think that at some point, on a certain number of basic necessity products, prices may undergo a slide that produces a profit considered exaggerated for the large distribution or the operators of price transformation. At this point, I think the government should intervene on the profit margins of these companies. Bread, pasta, dairy products are essential products for families.

I also remind you that the Minister has renamed a President and a Vice-President to head the Price Control Commission. He has often cited this instance as part of this bill.

It’s not about putting all prices under control, but, after a transparent analysis revealing the price structure in the event of a breakdown, I ask the government to act on the drift. If it is only about informing the population of the disappearance, I wonder what the price observatory is for, except to say that transparency actually reigns today in the price structure. However, I recognize this element and I emphasize it. This is why I abstain and do not vote against this observation. In fact, it was first and foremost an idea of transparency in the price structure.

We agree: in order to claim that there is a breakdown, it must first be objectively observed.

Mr. Crucke, you are not going to teach me here, in the plenary session, what a price observatory is, when you rejected my proposal in 2007 because I wanted transparency!

I know well what a price observatory is for: it aims to establish transparency in the price structure. It is all the more important that this transparency is claimed by producers, farmers and even today by the large distribution that has otherwise changed its mind. Indeed, when I had presented this idea on television platforms, the FEDIS had said to me: “It’s just a brol, we don’t need it.” If you read the FedIS newspaper, you will see that it wants it now, since it is shown with the finger today.

Of course we need this transparency to know where the drainage is located, but if there is one, what will you say and do, Mr. Crucke? To entrust the matter to the Competition Council, who will decide five years later as for bread? After four years of agreement in the Flemish bakery sector, during which the population had paid more for their bread, this agreement was denounced. However, the government must act in case of excessive profit margin.

“Let’s do” is the master word since the project says nothing, Mr. Minister, about what will be undertaken in the event of a price drop.

Mr. Crucke, we have tried to convince you. As a committee, we could do nothing to improve the text by respecting the compromise I talked about between the liberal wing – who believes in competition and only in it – and the socialist wing of the government – who believes much more in regulation and control. We were therefore unable to fill some obvious gaps between the development of the motifs and the actual content of the legal text, which is rather meaningless.

Mr. Minister, I have already told you, I am disappointed because the creation of a price observatory is not at all a gadget in my view. The signatories will abstain from voting on Thursday. On the other hand, together with my whole group, from Thursday afternoon, we will solemnly ask the Minister of Consumer Protection to use all his power to order punctual analyses to this body, in particular on automotive and fire insurance, banking services, rents, and not, Mr. Minister, in terms of energy. Because, as I said before, this is monitored by the CREG.

I am disappointed with this bill. I will abstain from some members of my group after tomorrow. I hope other ministers will be able to make this project much more real and concrete. Finally, Mr. Minister, I hope that in the plenary session you will be able to answer me about the government’s reaction to help families join the two ends in the event of a breakdown.

I share the disappointment that Ms. Lalieux expressed on several points. For months, various government ministers have told us that they are concerned about price changes and the decline in purchasing power.

According to figures from the SPF Economy, between June 2007 and June 2008, the price of bread increased by 20% and the price of milk by 27%. Between January and September 2008, electricity prices increased by 16%. In parallel with these increases, the purchasing power of households fell. Therefore, it will not be surprising to see consumer confidence also follow the same trend and reach summits downwards. The index was at least nine in September.

I like to hear Mr. Henry said that purchasing power has fallen. Does it agree with what we can read today in "To the Future": "The purchasing power rises, the spending decreases"?

Following a financial crisis that will ⁇ not bring calm, a zone of turbulence produces opposite effects, Mr. Crucke, such as the fall in some prices more recently. It is also not a generalized price decline. by Mr. The minister may be able to tell us more about this, since this is very recent information.

This does not mean that it will last, Mr. Crucke. It is necessary to analyze which prices are falling or increasing and in what proportions. What will be the effects on the overall price mapping and how will it evolve during the multiple crisis we are going through? What implications will these different developments have in particular on disadvantaged audiences, those who are concerned with basic necessity products even more than other audiences?

It’s true that opposite effects are happening, but I think it’s hard to predict what will happen in the coming months. We need a closer observation, but also a capacity to react to these observations of the prices of the various products of daily life.

We were ⁇ disappointed to read this project so far away from the aspirations that we had realised in the bill we had drafted and filed in collaboration with the sp.a and the PS. I will address four reasons for our disappointment.

The first is that your goal is unknown. You have not defined criteria for what would be a proper functioning of the market. You want to look at the prices, but you don’t know with which glasses. When is there excess? What is the proper functioning of the market? These are essential notions, without which one speaks in the vacuum.

The second reason is that it is not an observatory. As Magritte said, “This is not an observatory.” As we have been able to explain in the committee, for us, an observatory is not only a cell of the administration, a scientific committee hosted by the administration, but also a place of discussion, a place open to different sensitivities and about society, a legitimate place from which to give a circumstantiated opinion after hearing all the points of view. Mr. Minister, in your non-observatoire, consumers are not even represented, the experts are largely designated by you, these same experts are virtually all from the economic sector, as if the way citizens perceive daily life was only a matter of figures unrelated to sociology, the social organization of society, its functioning.

We therefore submitted again and with the co-signature of sp.a our amendment concerning the composition of this observatory. We also re-submit the amendment originally submitted by the Socialist Party. I imagine after hearing Mrs. Lalieux that this amendment will be supported to ensure that the three ministers in charge of Economy, Consumer Protection and SMEs are associated with the drafting of the specifications and that the government determines the list of sensitive products.

The third reason is the absence of an emergency procedure provided for this observatory. We have proposed in our original text and subsequent amendments that there is an automated procedure within one month in case of an abnormal increase, i.e. more than 2.5% of the price of a given product compared to the overall price index over the same period. Such a procedure is not provided in your text.

To join Ms. Lalieux’s conclusions and hoping that apart from one or the other abstinence, her group will join us at the time of the vote on Thursday, the fourth reason is that we do not see what such an observatory will change. There are already many mechanisms allowing the government to act on prices when it turns out to be necessary, ⁇ in the 1945 Act. But the government does not act. It is ⁇ worth watching the prices carefully, and that is why we have submitted proposals and amendments ourselves. However, as planned, it will not bring much and above all it does not tell us anything about what the government will do with these observations.

Everyone has the word “regulation” in their mouth in the context of the current crisis, but what exactly does this mean for the government in this case? What actions will be taken for better price regulation? This observatory that you create will only gather information; it will not organize regulation. Who will regulate if the government doesn’t? These are the questions that we would like to answer, Mr. Minister.

As I said, I hope that our colleagues will join us in the vote on Thursday in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to once again highlight a number of points, by reading a few passages from a text, entitled "Observatoire des prix: rectifiez le bidule du ministre Van Quickenborne", before reading.

“Middled with van Quick sauce, the observatory as provided for in the bill is empty of its substance. No automatic action trail is provided for the government if a breakdown is observed at one or another price, no intervention, even theoretical, of competition services is described. We go so far as to ignore who will determine the list of sensitive products that should be placed under the loop every quarter."

I will not make it more painful than necessary.

"While it should have been a wardrobe with clear means and goals, for Karine Lalieux, the Van Quickenborne version observatory resembles a bidule fruit of symptomatic let-do."

Mr. Speaker, such communications are sent and supported by the majority. We just heard the speech of a colleague from the majority, Karine Lalieux. She is a prominent member of the Committee on Business. It was the opposition that applauded her intervention. I have been very attentive, Mr. President. No member of the majority agreed with the content of Mr Lalieux’s statement.

The grass has been cut off a little before my feet, but I have a fundamental question. Will we continue with this bill today? If members of the majority come to the floor to say – c’est le bidule – that it is brol, that it is symptomatic and that it really does not mean anything, if there is so much disagreement about it within the governing parties, then the question is whether we should continue with this. As colleague Henry has already said, there is a house in fire just before the fire department, but the fire department does not have the means to shoot and extinguish in action. It was very well described. I ask the question again. Are you starting again?

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I come to the essence of why we believe that the SPAA bill is more effective and effective in addressing certain circumstances of price increases. That is the resolution that was already submitted by the PS a year ago.

It is important that, within the family budgets, it is primarily the energy bill that makes a huge difference and weighs heavily on the household budgets of all families, not least of the lowest incomes, but also of the modal incomes. The CREG, our regulator, had already calculated a year ago that in 2008 the bill for gas and electricity will be 300 euros more expensive and that is very sensitive this year for the Belgian families. The reason for this is that the price increases for energy in Belgium were unacceptable compared to other European countries. Prices have risen to 30% in one year. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, said today that the reforms of the Belgian energy market could pressure consumer prices by 1 to 2 percentage points.

I’m glad you read it too, but you should read the full report. The IMF has made it clear that there is a lack of competition in the market, but the IMF has not advocated for maximum prices, unless I read it wrong.

I think no one advocates for maximum prices. I will return to it, but in the SP-A bill to do something about the price increases and to intervene effectively, as well as in the PS resolution linked to it, there is nowhere a proposal to impose maximum prices.

You do not get rid of it so easily. It is politically incorrect to say that the SP-A bill advocates the imposition of maximum prices. That is wrong, and I will tell you why later.

In terms of energy prices, the announcement was made that there would be a massive price rise a few hard days after the elections. It has been more than a year since we have faced the phenomenon of the huge price increases. To objectivize this, I would like to refer again to various studies and reports that have already provided us with very important information more than a year ago.

Following a study, ING came to the conclusion that food prices in our country have risen much faster than in the rest of Europe. It is unclear why prices are rising so much faster than in the rest of the eurozone. Prices in our country are about 6% higher than in the rest of the European countries.

The National Bank concluded, following a study, that a sharp price rise for processed foods is largely independent of the price development of food raw materials.

The Vlerick Management School also already made an extensive reporting following a study in October 2007. It was concluded that 1 in 3 manufacturers – which is more than 30% of respondents – admitted that the price increases of foodstuffs are too high in proportion to the price increases of raw materials. More than 50% of multinational companies have admitted this, and more than two-thirds have admitted this in merchandise houses.

Already then, our society and we as policymakers, as parliamentarians, became alarmed by the numbers and conclusions black on white of these studies. In response to this, we submitted a bill. There was also the resolution of the colleagues of the PS and of Ecolo-Groen! who signed the bill. They were all proposals of the same nature, in the same direction, which did not ask for the creation of something new. We have only made a proposal to strengthen the existing award committee in its powers. I will come back later on the way we want to do it. It is a proposal that, of course, still prevails.

I acknowledge, Mr. Minister, that the submission of that bill arose from the legitimate concern about the rising inflation and its impact on people’s purchasing power. The report also literally shows that you share the same concern regarding the motivation of your design. But this is also the case with us when submitting our proposal, in response to the results of the various studies and reports to which I have referred and which indicate that there is something wrong with pricing. The pricing is at least vague, from the raw material to the moment when it is offered to the consumer in the shops.

Mr. Minister, we have also submitted our bill out of concern that access to a number of basic products and services must always be guaranteed for all.

In our vision, you try with your price observatory to give the signal that you also want to do something about the rising prices. However, it is not a strong signal. I don’t know you personally very well, but you never gave the impression that you are a shuchter of nature. However, the submission of the present draft in response to excessive price increases, as exposed by the studies, is a much more timid attempt to do something about the problem.

Mr. Minister, therefore we think that by submitting the draft for the establishment of a price observatory, you actually want to camouflage that you do not really want to do anything about the problem of price increases. The principles of free market and free prices must and will, if it is up to you, be defended, even if this is to the detriment of the Belgian consumer.

Your price observatory will, in the best case, observe. However, as Ms. Lalieux has pointed out several times, there must also be an intervention. It should be possible to take action if prices show an abnormal evolution. It does not at any time provide for the draft that prevails.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we still find, even more than ever before, that our bill is much more powerful and much more effective. In fact, the sp.a proposal closely monitors the evolution of the prices of a basket of more than sixty basic products and services, while the draft – Mrs Lalieux blames you that – does not contain any description of the basic products that should be precisely screened and followed.

Our concern is at least that a number of basic products such as food products, basic services, as well as energy products must always be able to remain affordable and accessible for everyone. This is not the case now. I could give rising numbers of people who are excluded from some food products and especially from energy products. This is truly unacceptable for us.

From that concern, we continue to emphasize that one must also be able to intervene; it is not only about observing and analyzing prices, but one must also be able to give an outcome. The monitoring of prices in the sp.a proposal takes place much more frequently and systematically with a monthly publication. The draft provides for a three-month report. In the SPAA proposal, intervention is taken as soon as a basic product or basic service shows an abnormal increase. This means a price rise that is 2.5 percent higher than the index. The alarm bell procedure starts when this happens. This means that the sector must be able to demonstrate that the price increase does not result in an abnormal profit or is not exaggerated and that there are immediate recommendations from the prize committee to the government to take action.

In other words, Mr. the Chairman, Mr. the Minister, colleagues, unlike the draft that presents; analyzes, reports, alerts and engages the sp.a. proposal if it is deemed necessary. This is, in our opinion, only an adequate response to the results of the studies and reports I have referred to.

I come to my conclusion. Whoever approves the government draft this week actually agrees to install a system of observation, at best. However, you will do nothing to the price policy itself.

Finally, today in The Time has been published an advance reduction. Indeed, Mr. Minister, I could not read the entire report. There is today in De Tijd, a Flemish newspaper, a preliminary publication of a European study, the annual Lisbon report, which shows that Belgium has a price problem. In the second half of the year, prices in Belgium increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points more than in the rest of Europe. The main reason for this, according to this European study, is that you have forced too little competition in the energy market.

Mr. Minister, instead of voting back on our bill later, you might better read this study thoroughly and draw the appropriate conclusions. I do not think we are wrong with our bill. You are wrong with your design that is actually again a proof of non-policy.

The price observatory is an indispensable tool for three reasons. We are living in a period of disruption, where prices go up and down. During this period, the prices of basic necessities are affected by these yo-yo movements. It is therefore extremely important to follow the evolution of these prices and their formation. These prices are reflected on all of our citizens.

Furthermore, this observatory is an indispensable tool due to the characteristics of our State: it is open to competition and does not constitute, in a series of fields, a market in itself. It is a country where more than half of the population lives from exports.

Finally, this tool is indispensable, because it is necessary to maintain the competitive capacity of our companies, to ensure that purchasing power is ⁇ ined for our fellow citizens. It can also prove indispensable as an instrument of economic policy, in particular in the fight against inflation.

These three objectives are met by the Price Observatory. I said this in the committee: I support the approach of creating this latter.

In terms of structures, behavior and results, will what is set up bring satisfaction? This is the question of the bottle half full or half empty, and that of the plans on the comet. I would like to say in this regard that the structured structure is based on the expertise of a number of persons with data. The latter are centralized, in particular, in the Central Council of Economy, the National Bank or the SPF Economy. It is appropriate that this structure can be quick and does not obscure in academicism. The worst of things would be to have an observatory writing reports with academic slowness. It is appropriate, here, to have a lightweight structure, not plethoric, and that can produce quick results. Experience will clarify things. Beyond the observation, the public power, the government, under the control of the parliament, must be interested in the measures that can be taken when abnormal situations or disruptions are found.

Because, of course, only by its establishment, the observatory will play a deterrent role, but this function will fade if, quickly, market participants realize that no operational measure will be taken. That is the whole issue.

There are questions about the effectiveness of the project. I would like to draw your attention to this point, Mr. Minister. I fully understand the creation of a scientific committee, a narrow, operational body with the ability to deliver sound scientific analyses; I also understand very well the choices made in terms of the analysis of quarterly and annual reports, but especially of punctual analyses for the protection of consumers. But it should also be agreed on the rapidity of actions to be taken after making the findings.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs who have contributed to this interesting report. We had a very animated discussion in the committee. Today I see that again some colleagues make interesting comments.

I would like to respond in general terms to what the colleagues say.

Colleagues, I see that there is disappointment in some people, but I think that disappointment is wrong. Indeed, we are voting here today for a price observatory aimed at making an objective analysis of prices and not for an institute for price control. I have the impression that some of my colleagues are reluctant to the 1970s. We also had a crisis. It was then thought that the crisis could be solved by introducing price controls and imposing maximum prices.

Mrs. Douifi, you take away from your own party today when it comes to maximum prices. Your own group leader said on 9 June 2008 in the newspaper De Morgen literally the following. I quote: “Since September we have submitted proposals for more purchasing power in Parliament, including to introduce maximum prices, but the other parties did not want to approve them.” The proposals you make are not the proposals we aim for with this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I think you yourself have much more problems with maximum prices than I, my group or my party. You forget that imposing maximum prices is one of the possibilities you already have as Minister of Economy.

You are Minister of Economy. The current price legislation provides for a number of possibilities, Mr. Speaker, to intervene. The problem of purchasing power and abnormal price increases that this government, the start-up government, or one of the predecessors of this government – always with the liberals – talks about, in terms of energy prices, has already occurred five days after the elections. There was action and reaction.

You have announced your price observatory to do something to the purchasing power of the people, to do something to the price increases that are not always in proportion. As a Minister of Economy, you have a number of options under the law. I summarize them very briefly. The tools you have are the conclusion of conventions, the so-called program agreements, the blocking of rising prices and the introduction of maximum prices and the personally consulting with the sectors to update the prices. These are the three legal possibilities that the Minister of Economy already has today. So let us not tell us today that it is some sort of extreme socialist, leftist or socialist-communist measure to introduce maximum prices. If necessary, you must intervene. However, you do not want that. Mr. Van Quickenborne, you are a liberal who is absolutely against price regulation. This price observatory is a real camouflage to do nothing.

I only said that Mr. Vanvelthoven is for maximum prices and that you are not. So it’s time for the SP to just know what it wants to offer.

The government proposal, which was approved by the various parties of the government on 23 May 2008, just a few months after the formation of the government, is a tool to bring objectivity to the debate, as Mr. Crucke and other colleagues have emphasized. In other words, we look at whether everything in the chain of creation, from production to sale, goes according to the rules of art. What does that mean concrete? First, we look at whether there is sufficient transparency in pricing and second, whether there is sufficient competition in the various stages from production to consumption. We did not wait for the vote on this price observatory because colleagues from Wallonia, including colleague Laruelle, have asked the price observatory to do a study on milk prices. That study happened.

by Mr. George asked the question about the speed of reaction in this case. You have seen that on the problem of dairy products we have had a fairly quick reaction thanks to this price observer that we were setting up.

This is, by the way, a study, which has been completed to the great satisfaction of the various actors. In other words, a price observatory can actually work.

The observatory is established at the Institute for National Accounts. The Institute for National Accounts consists of three components: the Plan Bureau, the FOD Economie and the National Bank of Belgium.

The Institute for National Accounts already has two important tasks. First, it sets the economic outlook. That’s what the planning agency does; you know those numbers. Second, it makes the national accounts, thus the macro-economic accounting of Belgium. It is the National Bank of Belgium that does this, each time with a scientific committee.

Today we use the same structure to establish a price observatory, in other words a light structure, which has the necessary knowledge in the home and which in the past has demonstrated that it can do so. That is the objectivity.

After we have brought objectivity into the debate, there is indeed time for political reaction.

Ms. Lalieux asked what we would do from a political point of view.

We can use different instruments. This includes all competition issues. You said the price of bread had risen. It is true that the price of bread rose by 20% between June 2007 and June 2008. We reacted at the beginning of 2008 by reporting to a baker organization that this was exaggerated. Since then, the evolution of the price of bread has been more consistent with the normal evolution of prices.

We also have the instrument of the 1945 Act on Price Control. Different products are still subject to price control.

This is how we today use the instrument of program contracts for the oil and oil sector.

A third possible reaction is the reaction relating to, for example, agricultural products. Mrs Laruelle and her colleagues at the European Council called for the gradual elimination of the milk quotas that existed at the time. This was also a political reaction.

Fourth, the political reaction on the issue of energy is one that should encourage a thorough debate in the government about the lack of competition in the field of energy production. The Prime Minister stated last week Friday that liberalization in our country has partially failed.

The European Commission and the IMF also say today – Ms. Douifi refers to – that inflation in our country is higher because our energy prices for consumers and ⁇ are higher. The reason for this is not only the distribution prices, but also the lack of competition in the energy market.

I have made a proposal to fully implement the pax electrica, which we then agreed with the PS and sp.a under the previous government. That is, we are obliging a major player in our country, Electrabel, to hand over part of its production capacity to a third player in the energy market. I think that promise must be fulfilled. Hence my proposal that I have submitted here.

Colleagues, the price observatory aims – you should not forget this – to make an analysis of prices and pricing. Politics must also react. It has a number of existing instruments, or they can be developed, such as in the field of energy.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Price Observatory is an instrument that can work with a load book in a light, smooth way, as is the case with the economic outlook for the national accounts. We entrust the recording of sensitive products to the price observatory. After all, asking the government to capture this trimester trial would be too hard work, would not be flexible enough, and would not be able to respond quickly enough to the instrumentarium, which is evolving. Finally, it is still up to the government, to the three ministers of Energy, Medium and Economy, to ask for punctual analyses if necessary, thus quickly responding to the developments in the market.

Therefore, I consider that the present draft, which has been supported and submitted by the entire government, is best deprived of Parliament’s approval.