Proposition 52K1608

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 24, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

share natural gas administrative sanction work copyright bank elderly person tax relief occupational disease fringe benefit foreign national continental shelf direct tax securities electrical energy financial institution gas fine municipality medicinal product family benefit hormone arrangement of working time guaranteed income tax on income investment armed forces life assurance air transport non-commercial sector nuclear safety patent patent law research and development exploitation of the seas war victim public safety civil service public sector public procurement parking charge pension scheme political asylum welfare social security statistics town-planning profession dentist survivor's benefit invention corporation tax residence permit rail transport food safety public health firearms and munitions road traffic employment policy self-employed person

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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. 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs to the program law are the Ladies Nyssens, Van der Auwera, Dieu and Burgeon and the Ladies Arens, Baeselen, Van Biesen and Deseyn.

The rapporteurs for the drafts containing various provisions are Mr Arens, De Potter, De Padt, Prévot and Otlet and Mrs Staelraeve, Lecomte, Dieu and Wiaux.

Does any of these rapporteurs want to take the word for his or her report?

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is a difficult exercise to present a report on a bill-program, because each article deals with a different theme. I will try to tell you what the articles are about and, if an amendment has been submitted, the vote received by that amendment, so that the assembly is informed.

The first part of the report was within the competence of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs, Ms. Onkelinx. It is in the bill of articles 67 to 70, which dealt with social fraud, providing for a flat-rate solidarity contribution to be borne by an employer who has used black workers. These articles were adopted unanimously minus one abstention.

Articles 71 to 88 covered the functioning of the ONSS and other agencies, specifically the prescription in case of fraudulent manoeuvres. These articles were adopted unanimously minus one abstention.

Articles 89 to 91 concerned the curators, holding them accountable through quarterly statements. These articles were adopted unanimously minus one abstention.

Articles 92 to 95 covered the archiving of documents and documents for the National Institute of Health and Invalidity Insurance (INAMI). These articles were adopted unanimously minus one abstention.

Articles 96 to 102 were devoted to family allowances, the increase for single-parent families, for disabled children born before 1993 and the payment of allowances for federal officials. These articles were adopted unanimously minus one abstention.

Articles 107 to 110 concerned maternity leave and the possibility for a worker to extend in time the prenatal rest which can be postponed after the compulsory postnatal rest, in order to resume work smoothly. The article deals with how to remunerate these workers, the very principle being initiated in Mrs. Milquet’s Employment section, which we will discuss later.

Finally, there were articles on the future fund for health care, its creation within the ONSS and its financing. This has been addressed in Articles 111 and 112. The alternative financing of social security was dealt with in Articles 113 and 114. While the financing of the Non-Commercial Sector Agreement for the years 2005 to 2010 was addressed by Articles 115 to 119. These articles were adopted by the same votes.

The second part concerned the competences of the Minister of Employment, Ms. Milquet. Article 120 explains the financing of the e-PV project of the social inspection services by the proceeds of administrative fines. An amendment was submitted by Mr. Bonte and Mrs Kitir aimed at introducing before this article 120 of articles 119/1, 119/2 and 119/3 which granted additional purchasing power to workers unwittingly put into economic unemployment. This amendment was rejected by 9 votes against 3 being understood that this point was discussed at that time by the government. by Mr. Bonte was confirmed by the minister in the plenary session last Thursday. Article 120 was therefore adopted by 9 votes against 3.

The 121 proposed an incentive for older workers who wanted to move from a heavy to a lighter job with a flat monthly premium. This article was adopted by 9 votes against 3.

An amendment was submitted at that time by the sp.a - M. Bonte and Mrs Kitir - establishing a primary responsibility between the ordering authority and the subcontractor for the payment of social debts. It was rejected by 9 votes against 3.

Article 122 relates to the operating costs of the Labour Accident Fund to be paid by the insurance companies. This has long been the subject of discussion on employment. It was adopted by the same vote.

Article 123 creates the legal basis for allowing the employees of service titles to finally move toward a real employment contract. It was adopted by the same vote.

Articles 124 and 125 provide for the establishment of a commission for the settlement of the employment relationship to combat the phenomenon of fake self-employed and fake employees. After discussion, it was adopted by the same vote.

Articles 126 to 129 initiate the possibility for workers – that is what I was talking about recently with Ms. Onkelinx, who was in charge of the part of the remuneration of these workers – the possibility to extend a postnatal leave beyond the mandatory leave.

They were adopted unanimously. On the other hand, the vote on Article 129 presented an abstinence. Article 130 relieves paternity leave in terms of the time within which it can be taken. The sp.a had submitted an amendment to extend this paternity leave but this was rejected. It was necessary, according to Mr. and good! The article was adopted by 9 votes for and 3 against.

A new article 130bis was subsequently inserted as regards the paternity leave of bateliers, which took the same measure. The same amendment, as introduced by the sp.a in article 130, was rejected in the same way. Article 130 and a new Article 131a concerning the entry into force of these provisions were adopted unanimously.

I come to the third part of the report, which again concerns Ms. Onkelinx, in her competence as Minister of Public Health, but which essentially deals with the price of medicines. These were articles 150, 154,156 to 164. Since it is very technical, it was essentially discussed about the mandatory reduction of the price of medicines and the basis for reimbursement of pharmaceutical specialties.

An amendment to Article 154 was submitted by a majority, by my colleagues and myself, in order to clarify that the companies concerned by the economy to be achieved are those that market the medicinal product on 1 January 2009, even though it is based on the 2007 budget. Finally, a refund date was specified for firms that market generics. If the savings exceed the 1.95% taxed as compulsory savings, the refund was compulsory before 28 February 2010.

This is the end of my speech. I tried to go as quickly as possible.

I thank you for your report.

I am likely to be a little longer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, the Public Health Committee examined, during its meeting of 2 December 2008, the provisions of the draft program law submitted to it, namely Articles 132 to 149, 151 to 153, 155, 166, 178, 220 to 240, 243 to 260 and 271 to 272.

Regarding articles 132 to 134, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health specified that they tended to create a chronic disease observatory. Mrs Avontroodt asks how the associations that will be called to sit in the observatory will be chosen. Ms. Salvi believes that it will not be easy to select among the many associations active in the field. The Minister indicates that the manner in which these associations will be represented will be settled by royal decree.

Ms. Gerkens considers it regrettable to call doctors to the scientific section. For this reason, it submitted an amendment specifying that the Observatory is composed of representatives of insurance agencies, representatives of doctors and patient-representative organisations. The Minister stresses that nothing prevents insurance organizations and the patient-representative organizations comprising the advisory section from inviting to their work the actors, doctors or others concerned by the agenda of their meeting.

Amendment No. 2 is rejected by 11 votes against 1 and 1 abstinence. Article 132 is adopted without amendment by 11 votes and 2 abstentions. Articles 133 and 134 are subsequently adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstinence.

With regard to Articles 135 to 137, the Minister indicates that, in accordance with the National Cancer Plan, they aim to extend to all beneficiaries of health insurance the possibility of reimbursement of the smoking cessation aid, so far reserved for pregnant women and their partners. Assistance with withdrawal may be taken care of by a doctor or by a tobaccoologist.

by Mr. Bacquelaine welcomes the fact that the help with smoking cessation that entitles to the refund can be taken care of by a general physician or specialist and not only by a tobaccoologist. However, he questions the amount of the proposed reimbursement that he considers exaggerated compared to the reimbursement of a consultation with a generalist.

Ms. Van Daele is surprised at the amount of budgetary appropriations for tobacco assistance, which is more than substantial compared to the amounts reserved for palliative care in daycare centers. In addition, psychologists can be recognized as tobaccoologists, while their own title is not even recognized in Royal Decree No. 78.

Ms. Salvi asks whether the refund is only for individual take-offs or whether it is possible to extend it to collective sessions. The Minister responds that taking care is individual, but it does not close the door to this possibility.

Mrs Avontroodt would like to know the number of pregnant women who have applied for the refund of the smoking cessation aid. On this point, the minister stresses that there were 200; this number may seem marginal, but it is partly explained by the obligation to attend at least eight sessions.

I pointed out that in some provinces, the number of general physicians is insufficient to meet the demand. Therefore, the recognition of tobacco scientists allows to discharge them from part of their work.

Ms. De Maght believes that the recourse to the doctor should be privileged.

Is the recognition of the tobacco scientist not, moreover, at risk of discouraging doctors and reducing the attractiveness of their profession?

The Minister recalls that the provisions in the project provide for the refund of patient care by a doctor or by a tobaccoologist; only the latter, if he wants to be recognized, must have met the tests of a specific training in tobaccoology.

Ms. Van Daele is surprised that psychologists also have to undergo these trials while they are often specialized in behavioral science.

Ms Gerkens also asks whether generalists should not also receive additional training in this area.

The articles containing all these points up to point 139 were adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstinence.

As regards Articles 140 and 141, the Minister explains that Article 140 contains a legal basis empowering the King to lower the moderator ticket for C packages from 15 to 10 percent, i.e. heavily dependent patients.

Van Daele notes a contradiction between the statement of reasons referring to packages B and C, and the text of Article 140 which concerns only package C. The Minister justifies the choice made by budgetary considerations. Articles 140 and 141 are adopted without amendment by 12 votes and 1 abstinence.

Articles 142 to 149: the Minister lists the various measures contained in these articles that concern the maximum to be invoiced (MAF).

by Mr. Bacquelaine makes some reservations regarding the mechanism that ensures the free of charge of benefits beyond 450 euros. This system could have perverse effects in so far as it succeeds in bringing chronically ill and hypochondrially ill on an equal footing. The interviewer considers that it would be better to define the exact lists of diseases in the long run.

The Minister recalls that it is obvious that such a list of chronic diseases would have certain benefits. It is also true that chronic diseases cover multiple pathologies that differ profoundly from each other.

The INAMI Working Group is currently working on three types of lists: the first concerns orphan diseases, the second concerns chronic diseases that can be considered incurable or degenerative, and the third list should guarantee some legal certainty for victims of other chronic diseases.

However, it is difficult to define a chronic disease. This is why, while waiting for the execution of the Plan for Chronic Diseases, the Minister wishes to temporarily retain the MAF counter that plays the role of a safety net allowing them to be taken into account. These articles were adopted by 12 votes and one abstention.

As regards Articles 151 to 153, the Minister specifies that the subsection containing these Articles introduces an extension of the in-depth reference refund. These articles were adopted by 12 votes and one abstention.

Regarding Article 153/2 (new), Mrs Lambert et consorts submitted Amendment No. 1, the purpose of which is to ensure that the reference refund and the price reduction measure are applied at the same date. This amendment was adopted without amendment by twelve votes and one abstention.

Article 155 provides for the possibility of extending the system of cheap prescription of medicines to certain therapeutic classes in the outpatient sector. by Mr. Bacquelaine observes that we come from a compulsory quota of 27% for generalists while the actual percentage is 42%. If the principle is to evaluate the quota according to the result achieved, a quota of 100% will eventually be achieved. If variable quotas are fixed depending on the therapeutic class, this also risks complicating the doctor’s task in his daily practice. Ms. Van Daele recalls that her group has always been in favour of fixing a percentage of cheap prescriptions. Furthermore, it is essential that the behavior of doctors in matters of prescription is subject to effective monitoring and, if necessary, can be sanctioned in the event of misrepresentation. This article was adopted by 12 votes and one abstention.

For articles 166 to 178, the Minister notes that they all concern the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products. Avontroodt considers that the Dutch version of Article 172 should be revised in so far as the term "contribution" is used to translate the French expression "contribution". Having regard to Mrs Avontroodt’s observation, the Commission decides to replace the term “contribution” with the term “bijdrage”. The Commission supports this proposal. Articles 166 to 171 are adopted by twelve votes and one abstention. Article 172, as amended, was also adopted by twelve votes and one abstention. Articles 173 to 178 are adopted without amendment by twelve votes and one abstinence.

For Articles 220 to 240 and Annexes 1 to 8, the Minister of SMEs, Self-Employed Persons, Agriculture and Scientific Policy informs that at the budgetary conclave of 25 February 2008 and in the Government Agreement of March 2008, it was decided to increase the allocation of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain in order to guarantee its budgetary and financial balance as well as to reduce the contributions and remunerations charged to sectors.

The first section of Chapter 8 of the Programme Act aims to implement this decision by adapting the current funding system, resulting in a reduction in sector contributions by a total amount of €5 million in 2009 compared to 2008.

Simultaneously, bonuses and malus to be applied depending on whether operators have a validated self-control system are reviewed.

Chapter 9 aims to create the legal basis for authorising the granting of compensation at the expense of the Plant Fund to owners of plants or plant products contaminated with harmful organisms, not only in the case of destruction, treatment or processing of contaminated products by order of the authority, as was already the case so far, but also in the case of plants or plant products that have become unusable and worthless after an official temporary ban on the transport or use of them.

Chapter 10 aims to amend the mandatory contributions of the poultry sector to the Fund for Animal Health and Production.

Regarding the general discussion, Ms. De Bont welcomes the reduction in the contributions paid by the sector as part of AFSCA financing. She has always personally advocated for public funding of the Agency and refers to the bill amending the Act of 9 December 2004 on funding of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain with regard to contributions (doc. No. of 1407.

Ms Muylle also welcomes the provisions in the project, but specifies that exclusively public financing damages accountability and prevents the development of self-control systems. The speaker asks what happens if a partially certified operator in 2009 partially stays in 2010: will it be subject to the 120, 160, or 200 rule? The system of self-control should therefore be applied to all sectors including the horeca.

I have noted the negative opinion of the State Council concerning articles 210 to 224 of the preliminary draft and articles 227 to 230.

The Minister confirms in her responses that the responsibility for the safety of the food chain remains a shared responsibility between operators and public authorities. A better balance is needed.

All these articles were adopted by nine votes and one abstention. Articles 228 to 234 were adopted by nine votes and one abstention. Articles 235 to 237 were unanimously adopted, as well as articles 238, 239 and 240. Annexes 1 to 8 were adopted by nine votes and one abstention.

For articles 243 to 260, the Minister of Social Integration, Pensions and Grand Cities specifies that the chapter containing articles 243 to 258 of the draft program law relates to the heating allowance granted by the CPAS within the framework of the oil social fund. The heating period taken into account for the award of the allowance is no longer the period from 1 September to 30 April, but a calendar year. In addition, this chapter devotes the government’s decision to accommodate the heating allocation for the fourth category under the flat-rate reductions granted by the SPF Economy by analogy with the reductions granted for natural gas and electricity.

Mrs Muylle notes that the chapter under consideration is inseparable from the provisions relating to the flat-rate reductions returned to the Economic Committee. She recalls that the group to which she belongs is supportive of a strong social policy in the field of energy, providing the CPAS with the tools they need. Therefore, the extension of the heating period should be welcomed. However, there are still differences between the first three categories and the fourth.

The scope of the heating allowance under the oil social fund is wider than that of the social tariff for gas or electricity. However, it would be appropriate to harmonise the scope of application, regardless of the energy source used.

Mrs Muylle then notes that the number of people using the oil social fund is relatively low compared to the aim pursued. This low participation rate is regrettable. Finally, it asks how much the sector contributes to the fund funding.

Ms. Gerkens would like to know if there is a willingness within the government to harmonise measures regarding gas, oil and electricity and to create, for example, a social "oil" tariff similar to what exists for gas and electricity. The Minister indicates that the provisions under consideration constitute a legal basis that will enable to elaborate a royal decree by which a number of things will be settled.

It is also true that, among potential beneficiaries of the oil social fund, one in two people do not request their intervention. The extension of the heating period to be taken into account will undoubtedly increase the number of beneficiaries. Finally, the establishment of a social tariff for oil is difficult to ⁇ given the number of suppliers.

Ms. De Maeght points out that her group has always regarded the oil social fund as a patch on a wooden leg. It would be better to choose a structural solution. It is of the opinion that there could also be a reduction in excise taxes and VAT perceived on all energy sources. The Minister recalls that as Minister of Social Integration, she is responsible for the oil social fund and for the increase of the integration income. The determination of VAT does not fall within its competence. Articles 243 and 248 were adopted by 11 votes and 1 abstention.

In Article 249, Ms. Pécriaux notes that the application for a heating allowance must be submitted within 60 days from the date of delivery. It considers that this deadline may pose problems for a number of potential beneficiaries residing in multi-residential buildings. It is possible that the syndics or supervisors for the filling of the common tanks do not provide the documents necessary to support the request in time. Would it not be possible in this case to provide for an exceptional additional timeframe?

The Minister is sensitive to the question raised by Mrs. Pécriaux. However, it seems difficult to create an exemption scheme that would further complicate the task of the CPAS. The bill was adopted by 11 votes and 1 abstinence.

Articles 250 to 258 are not subject to comments and are successively adopted by 11 votes and 1 abstinence.

As regards the policy of big cities, the Minister specifies that Article 259 provides that, for 2009, the program of big cities will be made on the basis of an annual convention and not as in previous years on the basis of a multiannual program. This provision is justified by the need to ensure the continuity of the initiatives without prejudice to the outcome of the ongoing negotiations in the context of the Community-Community dialogue.

Gerkens notes that such an approach, however, hypothesizes the sustainability of these projects for 2010. It therefore deposits Amendment No. 3, which seeks to replace Article 259 with a provision as follows: "As a derogation for the year 2009, the King designates previous multiannual conventions which are extended."

Lambert stresses that she is also in favour of ⁇ ining a multiannual approach and notes that the current situation does not allow for a multiannual approach for 2009. Furthermore, 2009 is a transitional year; the conclusion of an annual convention is an opportunity to give new impetus to the policy of the major cities, taking into account three axes privileged by the minister in its general policy note. Mrs Gerkens’ amendment, if adopted, would prevent any reorientation.

In the light of these arguments, Mr Gerkens, Chairperson, withdraws his amendment. Ms. De Bont affirms her hope of seeing the policy of the big cities regionalized.

Articles 259 and 260 are adopted successively by 9 votes against 1 and 2 abstentions. All provisions of the draft law-programme returned to the committee are adopted by 9 votes and 3 abstentions.

Articles 271 and 272 concern the Minister of Climate and Energy. It emphasizes that these articles relate to financial support for climate change initiatives. Through direct contact with a targeted audience, these grants contribute to a growing awareness of climate change. There is a growing demand for such initiatives. The maximum grant amount is 500 euros, but the amount may be lower. These articles were successively adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstention.

Do other speakers want to speak?

Regarding the subjects covered by the Internal Affairs Committee, I refer to the two written reports.

A great idea. You just made a brilliant report!

Mr. Speaker, as regards Articles 30 to 52 of the bill on various provisions in the field of national defence, I refer to the written report.

I agree with the two previous colleagues.

I am referring to my written report.

Regarding the various provisions covered by the Public Health Committee, I also refer to my written report.

I have three speakers for the general discussion, in particular Mrs. Almaci, Mr. Nollet and Mrs. Smeyers.

We agreed at the Conference of Presidents with the group leaders that the opposition has two hours total speech time for all speakers. The majority has one and a half hours of total speech time for all speakers.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, a storm is blowing over the world. Everywhere the sails are attached to prevent the ship of the economy from sinking. The government is being looked at to resolutely and with action bypass the cliffs of the economic crisis. After all, when it storms on the sea, we need a captain who radiates confidence and tranquility, to guide us through the waves with firm hands.

In the United States, the newly elected President Obama, through his serene and persistent action, has now hopefully gained more confidence than the resigning president. In England, France and Germany, we see Prime Minister Brown, President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, respectively, all three center-right politicians, throwing away the previous criticism of their policies and on their person, by coming out with new, daring plans and putting themselves over their own, ideological beliefs. This gives governments a role in regulating the economy.

Colleagues, in Belgium, the government parties are dealing with the non-designation of the three mayors. Colleagues, in Belgium, ministers Van Quickenborne and Magnette fight over energy policy and Minister De Gucht and Secretary of State Michel fight their quarrels about Congo in the newspapers. Colleagues, in Belgium, the government pretends to have its nose bleeding.

Dear members of the government – the prime minister is not there – you will undoubtedly answer, not true, that we as a small country must remain modest. After all, it is not in Law Street 16 that the global economic crisis will be addressed. That is true. In addition, this will ⁇ not happen in the current Law Street 16.

Mr. Verherstraeten, however, it is not because we as a small country must remain modest that we must be passive. Efficiency, ambition and dynamism could be radiated by the current government. She could even believe it if she wanted to.

Colleagues, our country needs a new project, a project that results in a true ecological and social change of our policies, a project that reforms the economy to a more stable, more sustainable, and greener economy, a project that brings together people, families and associations, companies, investors, trade unions and also governments to come to a Green New Deal.

Unfortunately, instead of such a visionary project, Belgium receives an outdated budget, a budget with a deficit of 2% and no initiative to reorient things.

Colleagues, the events of the last few months draw the attention of the government. Our citizens are having trouble. Companies are dismissing more and more people. The economy is in recession. Already months ago, our citizens were faced with rising prices and high bills. At that time, the Green group drew attention to the problem, but the government was still too busy with community quarrels to listen. In the meantime, the problem has become urgent. People expect the government to act now. Act Now, to say it with the words of The Big Ask.

A big question not to be misunderstood is indeed, in many areas. We must act now, because we are at the crossroads of several major crises. There is the food crisis, with another increase of 40 million people starving in our world this year, bringing us further than ever from the Millennium Goals. There is the financial and economic crisis, you know enough. And there is the climate crisis. All three are the unprecedented challenges: systemic and overwhelming.

We must not freeze with fear. We must not try to think the way. We must not let ourselves get caught up in defaitism. On the contrary, we must take the crisis as an opportunity to bring real change. There are indeed solutions. We can do something about it. There is hope.

It all revolves around one important concept: sustainability. A Flemish newspaper published yesterday – I hope you read it, Minister Reynders – a column by the American economist Thomas Friedman, yet not directly a left class fighter. He asked, “What will be the title of the book that our children will write about us? Will it be the worst generation? Will it be the self-satisfied generation? Or will it become something like the subprime generation, whose political and economic rulers have thrown themselves a financial bail of salvation after they have paid their expenses with my cents?

I am afraid Friedman will hit the nail on the head here. Young people all over the world are getting angry at the generation that is now in power everywhere. They get angry because they see how the current generation of rulers is wasting the natural resources of our planet. They get angry because they see how the financial air castles are built up and blown up again and how the account is then transferred to the taxpayer.

They get angry because they will face the terrible consequences of global warming. And they look at us. They look at this government. They ask only one simple thing: do something; but also: do not do anything. We should not repeat Roosevelt’s New Deal: building kilometers of highways or launching megaloman projects.

Dear members of government, the responsibility that rests on your shoulders is crushing. The next four to ten years, during your legislature, are already described as crucial years for tackling the crises. It is now or never.

But what do we see? Nothing in the preceding documents is chosen for a real green new deal. Nothing provides structural resources to invest in the sectors of the future such as renewable energy, ecological innovation and research, green jobs.

Moreover, the financing of the offshore wind farm is even threatened by the lack of a favorable investment climate for renewable energy projects. However, Europe wants to encourage such projects. For this purpose, it will even specially relax the state aid rules. What are you waiting for?

and green! He has long advocated for a structural tax on Electrabel’s mega profits. In addition to a few ballons in the press here and there, we find in the program law only a faint decoustion of the proposal: a legislative amendment for the Synatom Fund, 250 million euros with which one will even finance a lot of different things, so one wants to make us believe, among other investments in nuclear energy.

It is surprisingly quiet. We can no longer look at the other side. Our group has already made 20 proposals to better regulate the financial sector and the banking sector. The proposals aim to reconnect the defeated financial economy with the real economy through more regulation and better control of financial practices. The special committee that will examine the management of the financial crisis in Belgium will, in any case, produce interesting ideas for the introduction of better regulation of the financial world into laws.

We have also submitted a climate law, which must finally work out a modern, bold and ambitious climate policy that must lead the fight against global warming and that will create new, green, local and above all sustainable jobs.

and green! and Ecolo have also submitted a battery bill proposals that should help people with financial difficulties. This is a problem that we fundamentally want to address. In our view, this can only be achieved if improvements are made both in terms of income, energy factories, health care and in terms of financial services.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Committee on Public Health and the Committee on Social Affairs are currently debating the Green Bill to lift all social benefits above the European poverty line. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. Not less than 15% of all Belgians today live below the poverty line. In times of crisis, this becomes even more striking. Such a situation is unacceptable for a modern country like ours. Where is the response from this government?

Meanwhile, we, the Greens, want to automatically give people access to the OMNIO Healthcare Status. With our proposal on consumer loans, we want to put an end to the woeker interest rates that push people even deeper into the debt spiral. This proposal does not cost the government anything. We want to unite the various government funds that support the payment of energy factures into a large fund that is strong enough to provide a tailor-made solution for people with payment difficulties.

Dear colleagues, these are not sotternias. This is not unnecessary luxury but answers to the legitimate questions of concerned citizens. These are triple dividend answers, if you wish, that are appropriate to address a three-dimensional crisis, which will create more jobs, higher benefits and lower energy and health bills, and provide solutions that make us energy independent and more environmentally friendly.

This is giving people hope again, dear colleagues of the majority. This is our duty as politicians. Let us not fall collectively into cynicism. Let us not unnecessarily increase the debt burden, and above all let us not think that it will all run out.

Colleagues, the political debate of the last few weeks is actually only about spending. However, I would like to point out that before a budget, you can also look at revenues. Here we see a number of interesting things again.

The government is currently throwing billions over the bar by still allowing the notional interest deduction system without any clear job creation facing. The fact that our governments have made capital injections in troubled banks now even has purely perverse effects, in terms of the notional interest withdrawal. My colleague, Nollet, will soon give dismal figures on this. We have also submitted a bill so that it can be better regulated. What are the other socially sensitive parties waiting to approve it?

What is the government waiting to finally make work, real work, the fight against tax fraud? There are billions of euros waiting for you: ten to thirty billion. As a government, you can already conduct an economically sound policy. These are not our amounts, which I would like to clearly admit: they come from serious investigations which, by the way, have already been cited by the CDH group in the Committee on Finance, the party that provides the State Secretary for Budget.

We now need an economy based on ecological foundations such as sustainability, justice, solidarity. and green! Ecolo and Ecolo today demand a definitive change of course: a green new deal that commemorates the foundations of our economy, reworked, to create prosperity and well-being in a responsible way. This is a first and necessary step.

Our Prime Minister said in an interview with a Flemish newspaper on September 15: “We must abandon the naive optimism that everything will go by itself and that we can still do anything.” He loves the notion of “keeping the word.” We ask you to put this into practice once again.

Neither in the program law, nor in the law various provisions, nor in the budget we find that belief that this government can do something. The documents are business as usual. The country is in the midst of an economic storm but the government is issuing a budget that comes right from an ivory tower.

Let it be clear: no one expects miracles from this government, but everybody is the eternal interconnection and the total stopping.

My colleagues from the Ecolo-Green group! We will soon go deeper into the many missed opportunities of this program law. We have missed the opportunity to set up a comprehensive insulation program. One has missed the opportunity to give the inexhaustible energy sources a push in the back. We have missed the opportunity to resolutely pursue a social energy policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can take a chance today. and green! Ecolo and I, together with Mr Nollet, have submitted an amendment concerning the state guarantee for loans provided by the National Bank of Belgium, that famous law that this Parliament pursued on 14 October. Through that state guarantee, the government bears 100% of the risks, but since the National Bank of Belgium consists of 50% of private shareholders, at the moment the interest returns from those loans, the government will have to share the interest. This is unfair, there is no other word for it. We take the risk as taxpayers, but when we get the benefits, the government remains in default.

In this way we reward a system that fails and our amendment aims to correct that. You have the chance to correct the mistake you made today. Not doing that would witness extensive cynicism and no longer stand with the feet on the ground and in reality.

We are in the middle of a multi-crisis. However, this government is still unable to act. Ten percent of our Belgians suffer from depression and this government is apparently determined to increase that number even further.

We do not live in a parallel universe. We are not all blind and deaf. We know what is happening in the world, in Europe, in our country. So let’s do better. Let us not succumb to this crisis. Let us not fall into defaitism. First of all, let us not enter history as the self-satisfactory generation.

and green! Ecolo and Ecolo today therefore demand that the call of the population for solutions and proposals be answered with a voluntary project, with a radical change in policy, with a real green new deal. With fewer, dear colleagues, we are not satisfied.

For practical reasons, I suggest that Mr. Brotcorne present a brief report on the Committee on Finance that has just taken place. Then we continue with the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I intervene at the request of the Government, which deposits an amendment to the law containing various provisions, inserting an article 125 which aims to meet a particular situation. Many public authorities have become accustomed to paying December salaries in the course of the following month, i.e. in January and therefore the following year. Some of these authorities now want to pay in December the salary of this month but, for this, it is necessary to ensure the tax neutrality of the operation and avoid that people, who will thus have during the year thirteen monthly remuneration instead of twelve, are taxed on those thirteen. This is the subject of the amendment submitted by the government, which has met with the approval, and I would even say, the enthusiasm, of all political parties. It was explained to Mr. Potter said that this was in no way about a possible thirteenth month, but rather the situation where remuneration would be paid thirteen months in the same year in order to correct a mistake of the past. This amendment was voted unanimously by the members of the committee minus one abstention.

The word is for mr. Nollet in the context of the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully inserted following the intervention of my colleague, Mrs. Almaci. Mr. Secretary of State, I will return to two very precise points that we have already discussed, in part, in committee but which continue to pose problems.

I will start with the question of the National Bank but I will wait 30 seconds because I see that you are very busy!

The [...]

We had talked about it in the committee, but since he had to go hurriedly to Egypt, we could not analyze the situation in detail.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Finance Committee for accepting to treat the amendment as quickly and efficiently that will allow to pay in December a certain number of officials, in any case the teachers of the French Community.

Obviously Mr. Nollet is looking forward to the participation of the Secretary of State in the Budget. I will allow myself to leave you. If at any time there is a question about finance, I will gladly come back.

As always, you are at the disposal of the room.

I am at the disposal of the Chamber, but obviously Mr. Nollet does not want to address me at the moment!

I usually have in the plenary session the logical follow-up of the discussions I have in the committee.

When I ask you a question, you do not answer. I find it easier to continue the discussion with others.

I can repeat the debate we had in the committee in plenary session with you. As you said, during an interpellation, that you would no longer answer questions, I do not feel obliged to question you.

Mr. Nollet, I just wanted to be kind to you and wish you a nice afternoon.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to come back with you on the issue of the National Bank. I told you that I would take the time to analyze your response in the committee. In this answer, there is nothing.

I will then make a summary of the problem. The Belgian State guarantees, by the law voted here in urgency, a series of loans made by the National Bank and which will allow banks, mainly Fortis, KBC and Dexia, to find some form of stability and return to serenity. This is the goal that was assigned to the law that we voted here in record times (in 24 hours, passing to the House and then passing to the Senate).

The problem is that only the public entity, only the state takes the risk in the event that one of the banks concerned for one of the loans concerned should no longer be able to repay. The possible profit derived by the National Bank from this risk, which is taken by the sole state partner, shall be distributed among the different shareholders of the National Bank. Mr. Secretary of State, when you look at the huge amounts that have been mentioned – this exceeds 170 billion euros – it seems to me at least normal that the one who takes the risks is the only one who can benefit from the possible remuneration related to this risk.

The answer you made in commission is simply reading the current status and current distribution. But it does not cover the new situation created by the equally new device that you had to set up to participate in this banking rescue. It is unacceptable that while the state takes the risk alone, it must share the remuneration for this risk.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to hear you on this subject, to deepen what could not be in the commission, since you have been content to read the information that came to you by email or SMS. Today, can you guarantee us that on that part, which is linked to a commitment made by the public authority alone, there is a guarantee that the remuneration will return 100% to the public shareholder?

Why am I entering into this discussion? Because we are submitting an amendment in connection with this provision. Otherwise, how do you want this issue to be addressed? You said everything was fine, everything was covered. But, according to our analysis, there is a fundamental problem. We have prepared an amendment, which has not yet been submitted. Who knows if your response will not reassure me more than in commission?

That said, I can also address the second point of my speech, and you will answer on the whole.

The agenda concerns the law-program and the law containing various provisions. We discussed this issue in the framework of the budget discussion. There is no article in the present text that relates to this element.

I can understand that the opposition wants to submit amendments on all themes, introducing new budgetary elements, within the framework of the program law and the law with various provisions. So we open the field to discussions about everything that is possible and imaginable.

This is just a part of the budget discussion. I do not understand why mr. Nollet talks about this now, especially since we talked about it in a committee on the occasion of the budget debate and not the debate on the program law or the law containing various provisions.

This has already been discussed in the committee at the time of the review of the budget.

Based on the statements made in the committee and the problem raised, it is indicated to introduce an amendment to the program law. I will not wait a week, while the law-program will already be voted, to submit an amendment, Mr. Secretary of State! Do you understand the logic in which I am entering? I don’t see how to do it differently.

Unlike other years, we do not discuss the law-program and the budget at the same time. The two topics will be the subject of two separate meetings. I would just like to submit an amendment to the program law in connection with the budget of course. I don’t know how to do otherwise than discuss it today.

More important than whether it should be discussed today or next week, it matters to me whether, in essence, this amendment is necessary. This is my only question regarding this part.

Can you guarantee us that, when the State is alone taking the risk, through the mechanism set up and which passes through the National Bank, it is indeed the State alone that benefits from the remuneration related to this risk. This is not an unthinkable question!

I have the impression that the squeezing to know if you can answer or not, the caucus, the calls, the invitation to ask the question next week, are only pretexts because you do not want to answer the question. I just ask you to answer this question. That is all!

Mr. Nollet, you often ask to be heard! I told you that I will answer on the substance in general later. I just talked about the question of form and I am surprised that you are addressing this topic now. Listen also to what you are told!

I am talking about my second point and listening. There is no problem!

He responds whenever he wants, Mr. Nollet!

Of course, he responds to everyone. The problem is the organization of the discussions. The work is divided by chapter. The agenda was approved. We are in the discussion of the general part. The amendment I want to introduce is of general nature, since it concerns revenues! I want to make sure that a response will actually be provided to me at the end of this chapter.

I will take care of it!

I have no other concern than to make sure I get an answer to this question that I find important.

The second question is actually my last question that I wanted to address in this general discussion; it relates to the same dynamics, to the same reflection not in connection with the National Bank but with the question of notional interests. I know that other colleagues are sensitive to this: Mr. Brotcorne, who submitted a question to the committee, as well as a colleague from the Socialist Party, is currently absent.

What reflections underlie this question?

The Belgian State, the Luxembourg State and the Dutch State intervened massively to recapitalize various banks. These banks have therefore benefited from an extremely significant contribution, amounting to several billion euros, in particular from the Belgian state. Is it normal and acceptable that, on the basis of this massive contribution, these same banks, which have become French ownership for some, can activate, in addition to capital contribution, the mechanism of notional interests on the basis of the contribution of public interventions alone?

Clearly, at first, the State puts 4.7 billion at Fortis; this bank considers this contribution as an ordinary recapitalization, which allows it to increase its deduction in notional interest. This issue deserves to be addressed. It is also a question of whether it is necessary or not to submit an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the question. I hear the discomfort due to the absence of response, but I will quietly return to my place waiting for this answer. Depending on the answer, I will submit amendments.

How to do otherwise?

It all depends on the degree of satisfaction that the answer will bring. As you suggest, Mr. Brotcorne, if the banks cannot activate the mechanism in such a situation, I will not submit the amendment. But, until proof of the contrary, since you are not on the government banks, I must wait for the response of the government, which I intend to do wisely, Mr. President, by joining my place.

Therefore, it may be unnecessary to hold a vote on the amendment provided we can reassure us about this.

Admit that beyond the criticism commonly addressed to notional interests, beyond the necessary amendments, despite a substantial debate on this topic promised for months by the Socialist Party but still not realized in commission, beyond all this, in the present case, it must be admitted that we are facing an inconsistency: the state intervenes massively and quickly in favor of a bank that, becoming BNP Paribas, then benefits 118 million euros, in full years, of a mechanism simply related to the fact that they had to appeal urgently to the banks.

Mr. Speaker, I will remain there, I will sit down and listen to the immediate response of the Secretary of State, since I believe I am the last speaker in this part of the debate. Then I will eventually return to defend the amendments or present them as a replica to this part of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I could be very long into every detail of the program law and of the law containing various provisions, but it would be of little benefit. I experience that substantial arguments in the “Leterme Un” government always end up on a cold stone. I do not intend to waste a lot of breath.

I will simply speak very briefly about something that interests all Flemish parties in the majority or should at least interest. Indeed, both in the budget and in the law containing various provisions or in the program law, we see that the federal government repeatedly fails to limit itself to its own powers. I am not the only one who is upset about this. I have a document with me, called “Definition of the position of the Flemish Government on the federal proposals of the program law and the law containing various provisions”. It is clear that the Flemish government does not agree with certain points, in particular because the government is again taking measures in areas for which it is not competent. That document is worth reading, value Prime Minister and other government members.

CD&V and Open Vld, you are in that Flemish government? I assume that, after reading that position statement, you will also take it into account and will not approve the draft laws. Or do you have two parties within one party? Mr Tommelein, is there a Flemish Open Vld and a Belgian Open Vld? Mr Verherstraeten, is there a Flemish CD&V and a Belgian CD&V?

There is only one CD&V, the Flemish.

No, there is only one CD&V and that is the Belgian CD&V. There is also only one Open Vld, the Belgian Open Vld. You prove that day in, day out.

The N-VA, however, is for amnesty; we can forgive. Therefore, I offer you the opportunity to prove the opposite: these bills, as the Flemish government demands, are not valid.

Another concrete example is the flat-rate reductions for natural gas and electricity. The government wants the flat-rate reductions for natural gas and electricity supplies to be granted directly by the FOD Economie, based on the customer’s request. The Council of State correctly notes that since in the new system the discount no longer comes from the producer, but from the State – the FOD Economie – it can no longer be considered a system of price regulation, for which the federal government is competent under the BWHI, but that it is an assistance to persons. This is again an excess of competence, because the assistance to individuals belongs to the Communities.

I think all this is heavenly. CD&V and Open Vld apparently do not think so. The government constantly mourns that it does not have a nail to scratch her... but nevertheless there are always initiatives taken; there are always spending made in areas for which the government is not competent.

In other words, the spending and measures are illegal, but they are mostly inefficient and counterproductive. The measures cross the state policy, mainly the Flemish policy in the same area of competence. Not only does this government therefore lack respect for the Constitution and the laws distributing powers, but it especially has no respect for the Flemish taxpayer and the useful spending of the Flemish tax money.

The federal budget, like the federal government, shows increasing deficits. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to take policy measures and finance in areas of competence that have already been transferred to the counties in previous state reforms. This is mainly due to the fact that the relevant powers were either transferred to the provinces but are not exercised by those provinces. I am especially concerned with the states across the language boundary. For example, the French Community rarely pursues a policy on prevention and looks telkenmal to the federal government and to the federal treasury to take policy measures in this regard. In Flanders, these federal policy measures always cross the Flemish policy measures that have been taken in this regard for a long time. Thus, there is a growing gap in which the federal government takes policy initiatives alongside and even against policy initiatives of the Flemish government, especially in the field of prevention.

Later, in the discussion of the budget, we will come back to that. As regards the program law and the law containing various provisions, we already explicitly ask the government "Leterme Un" to stop this excess of powers and to engage in its own powers, which already proves to be difficult enough. Focus on it and stay away from the jurisdictions of the states.

Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Nollet has asked you a question. You are free to answer during the afternoon.

As I have already said to Mr Nollet, I think his second question is addressed rather to the Minister of Finance. This question will be asked him during his intervention during the course of the debate.

I would like to say to Mr. Nollet, instead of conducting a debate on the National Bank this afternoon, said that the government adopted a bill on December 5 about the way to redistribute the dividends of the National Bank. This bill will be deposited and debated in Parliament, as it is a modification of the 1998 Act on the Statute of the National Bank. Within that framework, Mr. Nollet, you will have all the leisure to submit all the amendments, all the mechanisms of distribution of dividends and all the elements of discussion you want.

Mr. Speaker, I find it much more appropriate to conduct a debate on this project, which has already begun in a committee and for which I have already given my response. I had announced that this issue might be the subject of a decision at the government level. A decision was made in the Council of Ministers on December 5 regarding the Statute of the National Bank.

I would like to say that this modification of the statutes is obviously not alien to the period we have just known, ⁇ exceptional in every sense of the term and out of the ordinary in relation to banking activity. We had to adapt a number of mechanisms. I explained to the banks Fortis, Dexia, KBC in full transparency as this had happened in commission. With regard to the National Bank, the government has just adopted a change. This is an amendment to the law, so it will have to be discussed in this hall.

It would be interesting to have a time limit for Mr. President’s response. Reynders, provided that Mr. Wathelet wants to focus solely on the National Bank. It was with him that this debate took place. With regard to the organization of the work, ⁇ we will be able to determine within what time we will receive the answer to this question, also asked by my colleague Meyrem Almaci.

Mr. Wathelet, regarding the National Bank, you tell us that a bill has been adopted in first reading in the government. For having had the opportunity to take a look at this text – it is not for nothing that you are not talking about the substance – I confess that it does not answer the question I ask you and the guarantees I ask you. If I am wrong, say it now. Can we guarantee that the coverage given by the State on the various loans and the profits resulting from them will be exclusively returned to it? In the arrangement as you adopted it to the government and as I had the opportunity to see it, this is not the case! If, today, you use the reference to a later discussion on this text, it is because you do not dare to face the bottom of the issue today.

Can you guarantee that the funds made available to banks by the state, otherwise bearing the sole responsibility for a possible bank failure, will be returned to it? This is the fundamental issue that I would like to address with you. In this regard, you refer us to a further discussion.

The government’s response is part of the bill.

The government’s answer can be found in the bill.

In conclusion, you can submit your amendment.

I will submit my amendment. This is the only possible solution to have a choice on the bottom. On this occasion, Mr. Brotcorne and other colleagues will be able to position themselves in order to force the government to go in the direction I consider necessary. This would be the least of the things given the enormous effort that has already been made.

Mr President Mr. Nollet quoted me, I want to say that my rhythm is not necessarily his. I have put a question on the agenda of a committee. I am waiting for the information that will be given to me by the relevant Minister. Texts can be elaborated and changes can be made depending on the answers given. Not everything should be settled within the framework of a program law or a law containing various provisions. We often complain about the fact that these laws are all-out laws in which we find everything and anything.

Colleagues, there are no speakers registered for the Foreign Affairs chapter.

We initiate the discussion of the chapter Mobility and Environment.

We start the discussion of the Mobility and Environment component.

There are four speakers registered: the De Padt, Lavaux, Van den Bergh, and Van Campenhout.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, with your approval, I would like to intervene on chapter 2 of the law containing various provisions, where it concerns an amendment to the law of 22 February 1965. This law allowed municipalities to introduce parking fees for motor vehicles.

First of all, I stand here to wish the government good luck. In particular, I congratulate the State Secretary of Mobility for having succeeded in an attempt to respond to the legal uncertainty created by some judicial decisions. It has taken several years, Mr. Secretary of State, and it is your merit that you are trying to put this right. We, as Open Vld, will of course approve that chapter because it is a step – but not more than that – in the right direction, taking into account the legal uncertainty that currently prevails among municipalities, concessionaries and citizens following various judgments in which the collection of parking fees by private parking companies was annulled.

Nevertheless, we believe that there are doubts as to whether the proposed solution is legally as conclusive as is claimed or desired.

I am referring to the burden of proof in relation to parking infringements identified by private parking guards, who do not have any proofworthy determination authority. I also think of the impossibility for private companies to collect parking fees from the municipality if they do not meet the same legal obligations as the municipal recipient.

More fundamentally, Mr. Secretary of State, questions can be asked when filling out the new concept “parking fee.” For the citizens provides that, in our opinion, no longer guarantees regarding the limitation of the amount, as opposed to the remuneration where one must answer how much one asks. There is also no guarantee that one can object, as is the case, for example, with a tax. In short, a number of safeguards appear to be missing in terms of the concept of parking fee.

Collega Van Campenhout has already set up a little bit about this: also the question must be asked about the legality of the provision that prescribes that only the holder of the number plate of the vehicle can be held responsible for the payment of parking fees.

You will know, or not, that many municipalities have written in their regulations that the owner or driver of the vehicle must be able to be addressed. This provision will in fact make this impossible, while communists like me doubt the authority of the federal government to establish the innings or settlement rules.

Some will later ponder that this Parliament has exceeded its powers in this area.

We must therefore realize that a closing legal framework on paid parking is not simple and therefore cannot be regulated in its entirety within the margin of the bill various provisions. After all, there are several domains involved such as mobility, domestic affairs and justice, and powers such as the federal, regional and municipal powers.

In this regard, I would like to refer to a recent opinion of 26 November 2008 of the Committee for the Protection of Privacy which states: “The legislator should know that this bill only deals with a partial aspect of the whole problem ... must, among other things, and that will be a whole task, still be dealt with exceptionally. The DIV itself does not yet have a legal basis. The disclosure of personal data from the DIV must be authorised and the possible conditions shall be included in the public procurement and the concession agreements with the concession holders in order to comply with the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data”.

Those are three comments from the privacy committee around which we have a lot of work to do.

In this latter context, I think it is also necessary that we ask questions about the legal qualification to be given to the private company that takes up the parking fees. According to the Privacy Commission, these companies fall within the scope of the law of 10 April 1990 on private and special security.

Even if these companies are exempt from the licensing obligation, then, according to the Privacy Commission, they must comply with article 8, chapter 3bis of the aforementioned law which imposes the prohibition for such companies to “track persons concerned, verify identity, obtain additional information or interrogate persons”.

We are there with a double split. When it is assumed that the private concessionaries should indeed be considered as surveillance companies, it is always forbidden for them to find out the identity of a person and therefore a situation arises in which one law – the one that is today announced – would allow to control the data of the DIV, while another law – the law on privacy – would prohibit that.

You will be surprised to hear it from us, but ⁇ we should even dare to engage in an ideological discussion and ask ourselves how far the legislator can go with the privatization of public order. We must therefore ask ourselves from when the individual civil rights are compromised by the exercise of commercial interests of private companies. The Court of Saint-Niklaas was in its judgment of judgment that, I quote, "the rights of citizens are shamelessly sacrificed for flat trade".

Open Vld also wants to take responsibility for all this because we realize that the problems arose at the time when the depenalization in the traffic law of February 2003 was implemented. The legislator, we were there, then failed to develop a fully legally organized and regulated procedure for the benefit of the municipalities.

I therefore think that it is necessary to re-establish a thorough debate, possibly in the Committee on Traffic Safety, on the identification and recovery of deployment of traffic offences, involving all civil society actors such as the Privacy Commission and the VVSG, with the intention of finding a coherent, legal solution with a wide range of support in the short term. We are willing to collaborate on this.

First of all, I would like to welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State. It is concerned with the observance of the timetable for air transport.

The flight over the areas around the Brussels National Airport is a concern that my group and my party especially follow and which we care about. The introduction of administrative and even criminal sanctions was more than necessary. So far, no airline that violates the regulations on night flights has been sanctioned. The proposed measures are going in the right direction. I hope this is the beginning of a new era with regard to Brussels National Airport. As you know, my group is ⁇ demanding a well-shaped overflight plan based on objective standards. I use this to thank Mr. The Secretary of State for the goodwill he demonstrated in the management of the file while reminding him that we have been waiting for several months for this plan to disperse flights around Brussels-National.

It is Christmas time, and I must confess that a dispersion plan in line with citizens’ expectations would be a welcome gift. So I dare to hope, and hope is also a season virtue, that this plan will soon be finalised and that we will very soon be able to look at the issue in commission of the Infrastructure. This is our most precious wish.

Another project completed by Mr. the Secretary of State is the one concerning the administrative fees to be collected by the municipalities in the context of parking. Like our colleague De Padt, I can, as mayor, only be satisfied to see the existing legal void finally soon filled. As you know, some of the contested fines could not be collected, in particular by private operators who operated on behalf and on behalf of the municipality. This legal void is about to be filled, although some aspects still need to be settled.

Furthermore, in the field of transport, I would like to emphasize the government’s willingness to maintain combined transport subsidies. This will be discussed in the budget debate. Although these grants are slightly reduced, they will continue to apply for the coming years, which is good news. Sustainable mobility is a fundamental objective and these grants allow each year to reduce road transport for the benefit of the rail. In these times of financial crisis, it is pleasant to see that the state continues to invest in sustainable transport.

With regard to the SNCB Group and public enterprises in general, my group and I can only support the initiatives that are being taken for better functioning. Indeed, the imminent opening to competition for rail transport, with the arrival of new operators, requires a complete independence of the infrastructure manager from any railway operator. The amendments made by the Program Law of 21 March 1991 are therefore aimed at improving the functioning of the system in place. However, it can be regretted that the Minister did not take advantage of this to propose other provisions following the recommendations of the Berger report.

I believe that the SNCB Group should be more efficient both in its internal functioning and in its relationship to users. In these areas, efforts are still needed. I do not doubt, Mrs. Minister, that you will have the heart to hand over the work on the profession and to propose this in commission.

In conclusion, we can only support the various bills that are being submitted to vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to stop for a moment with Chapter 3 of the Program Law, Articles 17 to 21, relating to the promotion of combined rail transport. A new subsidy scheme is being proposed to remove containers from the road to be transported by train. This starting point, namely more sustainable transport of containers, is of course a starting point that is fully supported by our group.

We fully support further subsidization in the future, but this subsidy scheme must not result, Mr. Secretary of State, that transport that normally runs over the water will now be processed by the rail. Collega Lavaux also pointed out that sustainable transport should be encouraged, but that should not result in false competition between water and rail.

So I have a very concrete question. How will the government avoid, in its implementing decisions, that containers that are normally transported by ship – I’m talking both of sea ships, inland ships and short-sea boats – be dumped as close to the coast as possible and put on subsidised freight trains. I assume that the purpose of this scheme is to remove containers from the road, but not from the ship.

Mr Van Campenhout has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Dear colleagues, I can fully assist Mr. Van den Bergh. I will be a little more extensive. In fact, this is a distortion of competition. A few years ago, I think, I asked in the Chamber Minister Vande Lanotte, who is not accidentally from the coast, whether this is not just a covert subsidy of the port of Zeebrugge. Is this not an anti-competitive, discriminatory intervention by the State, for the benefit of the port of Zeebrugge and to the detriment of the inland and maritime shipping?

I have asked this question in the committee, like other colleagues. In the past, this subsidy has actually resulted in the introduction of containers for inland navigation on the rail and in the reduction of containers delivered to Antwerp by sea ship. They were transported by rail between Zeebrugge and Antwerp. It is indirectly an anti-competitive subsidy of the port of Zeebrugge.

I will give you an example. Colleague and group leader Tommelein, you are also from the coast. A container ship arriving in Zeebrugge and a container discharged transported to Antwerp-Linkeroever, the distribution centre, will receive a subsidy.

A container that arrives to Antwerp by sea ship, much more environmentally friendly, which is loosed on the right bank and goes to the same left bank, will not receive subsidy. That is totally absurd. Thus, of course, we subsidize rail transport at the detriment of inland and maritime transport.

I asked you in the committee to bring the convenient rule contained in it regarding the minimum distance of 51 kilometers to 30 kilometers. You have not entered into that. Nor is it a coincidence. If the minimum distance would be reduced to 30 kilometers, then the intra-port transport in the port of Antwerp will also be eligible. Now that is not considered.

I also asked you what was the result of that subsidy in the past. Well, 95% went to B-Cargo, de facto went to subsidize rail transport between Zeebrugge and Antwerp and is therefore indirectly supporting the operation of the port of Zeebrugge.

Like my dear colleague Jef Van den Bergh, I therefore ask you the question. A committee shall be established by means of implementing decisions to monitor the distortion of competition in the fields of inland and maritime navigation, as well as the distortion of competition between ports.

It is also not coincidental. The Flemish government considers a level playing field between the seaports of great importance. It is no coincidence that the Flemish government has not yet given advice. The Flemish government carries a level playing field between the seaports high in its flag. I would expect the federal government to do the same.

I insist once again on bringing that minimum distance from 51 to 30 kilometers, because de facto that is a convenient rule to exclude the port of Antwerp from such a subsidy.

Like my colleague Van den Bergh, I have high expectations from this committee. I conclude that this provision is a discriminatory and anti-competitive provision.

There are no more speakers registered in this chapter Mobility and Environment. Do ministers want to answer?

I will try to answer the questions in chronological order.

Mr De Padt, through the discussions in the committee, you have once again highlighted the cornerstone of the municipal mobility policy, in particular the parking regulation. You know my view on this. At the request of many municipalities and cities, I can only try to provide an adequate solution to a problem that many of those municipalities and cities face today. They make financial efforts for the construction of parking spaces, at the expense of the local taxpayers, and then must find that there is frequent abuse of the accommodation by people who have nothing to do with the municipality. For the sake of a good policy towards their residents, it is therefore logical and normal that the municipalities and cities want to be paid for it. The local police today cannot always adequately control. If municipalities want to sort out what they want to give substantially to their parking policy, they are obliged to issue a concession and order it to be granted to a private company or a municipal company. Only then can they get a good answer to what they have worked out.

Today, many breaches in the area of parking regulations are never actually punished. In your speech you explicitly referred to a decision of a police judge in Saint-Niklaas. It is correct that the actions of the municipality concerned were destroyed. However, you will have to admit with me that in 95% of cases where a process-verbal was drawn up, the police judge does indeed positively follow the process-verbal and proceeds to punish the offenders. I’m finally trying to adjust a handcuff. With the new provisions, we offer cities and municipalities the possibility to give control of the parking regulation in concession to a private company or to a municipal company.

Responsibility continues to play. Keep in mind that the control takes place under the supervision of the municipality or city administration. With the measures I propose, some things are given a suitable outcome.

You refer to the opinion of the Privacy Commission and ask if that provides sufficient security. The proposal we have formulated has gone to the Council of State and we have not received any negative comments on it. You rightly say that the Privacy Commission still places comments against, for example, the possibility that the DIV has, to provide this type of information.

As I also said in the committee, we will give the DIV substantially much more possibilities in terms of information provision and ensure that it does so effectively.

If that is still a problem, we will make all legal arrangements so that the DIV can exercise 100% of the authorization you suggest. Thus, we will have absolute certainty that a private company, a concession holder or a municipal autonomous company can act correctly in the name and on behalf of the municipal administration. We will ensure that the information of the DIV in no case raises legal problems and that there is no negative case to be expected in this regard.

I do not dare to claim that the scheme is 100% closing, but I think it is a very important step in the direction desired by the municipalists, of which you are one. We may not close the large front door, but at least a set of rear gates that allow certain persons to avoid paying parking fees.

Mr. Secretary of State, you refer to the opinion of the State Council from which you deduce that no comments were made on the lack of legal basis for the DIV.

I draw your attention to the fact that the State Council – which, by the way, was said with so many words in the opinion of the Privacy Committee – had already formulated that comment in 2001. You were not there then.

I will not hide behind it.

We are pleading for a bit of guilt. We have spent eight years providing that legal basis. I now note that a bill has been submitted on the authentic source, which was also submitted to the Privacy Commission.

In the opinion of the Privacy Commission, I read that work could be done on that legal basis for the DIV. That authentic source would actually replace the DIV. Thus, it gives perspective on the manipulation of that collection of data. Now it is almost dormant. If a clever lawyer, as there are occasional runners around, would do this work at the moment that something would come before the court, he has a chance to get right in that. After all, when one draws from the data of the DIV, it could be argued that there is no legal basis for this, which makes it unlawful to extract those data.

Mr. De Padt, you naturally felt, when I referred to taking any measures, that it is precisely about expanding that central file of vehicles and drivers. Indeed, within that framework, we would have included exactly those possibilities. This is the next step in the clarifications that we want to develop for the whole of the parking problems.

Mr Lavaux, I would like to thank you for your reflection on the orientation of the proposal on parking.

That said, with regard to the flight dispersion plan, as I think I have already mentioned in the commission, we are establishing contacts with the interlocutors. I do not despair of being able to formulate a final proposal to the government, if not in the coming days, in the coming weeks.

In addition, I have to tell you that, as far as the use of the tracks is concerned, a consensus is about to be found. Moreover, you do not ignore that the proposal I have drawn up provides for a greater severity in terms of noise damage caused by engines. In addition, I would like to reduce the number of take-offs and landings at night, i.e. between 23:00 and 6:00 in the morning. I also want the nights of the weekend to be quiet. For now, I continue to try to extend the number of silent nights from three to five. But, in this regard, I have not yet been able to get gain of cause. I would like to draw attention to the fact that I have the will to take into account as much as possible the opinions given to me by the associations directly concerned.

As for the establishment of the routes to follow – this is exactly what it is – I do not hide from you that long negotiations still have to take place with the representatives of Belgocontrol and the military airborne needlers. In this context, I will also have to take into account the point of view of the services of the neighboring countries. Indeed, you may not ignore that, given the area of Belgium, everything that we want to establish in this matter must be in consultation with the said countries.

Parking, as I said to Mr. From Padt, we have, in my opinion, taken a step in the right direction in order to fill the legal void. If, subsequently, it turns out that certain uncertainties persist in the context of the modernization and widespread registration of vehicles and the development of the central database, we will look, where appropriate, at the legal basis in order to enable this service to benefit from the information necessary to give to public services and authorised services, while respecting the established scheme in respect of privacy.

Mr Van den Bergh, I come to your questions about the combined transport, which also allows me to immediately answer the questions of Mr Van Campenhout who has decided to have to make a few precisions to what was already requested. After all, you both point to the same thing.

First, as regards the competition with the waterway, the following. I am fully aware of the observations made to me from the Flemish Government regarding the possible distortion of competition that could exist between railway and waterway when one moves to this subsidy. Not only the Flemish government, but also the European Union has made us aware of this. We have said clearly and clearly that the special committee that we want to set up and oversee it must investigate the possible complaints of distortion of the conditions of competition between waterway and railway.

I have also stated in the committee with all clarity that if the evidence is provided that a railway connection granted subsidies for combined transport is actually competing on the waterway, that subsidy scheme will undoubtedly be abolished. I even went further. I have made no doubt that, in the event of a parallelism, the possible fee for the transfer of that transport to the rail may be up to half the normal fee, so that the competition between waterways and railways is not defined as distorting.

Nevertheless, I am somewhat surprised, my gentlemen, that you are cultivating the competition between waterway and railway. I will not defend that there may be distortion of competition, but in essence our concern is to overturn the transport that currently runs by road but could easily run by railway or waterway.

We have not yet reached the first increase and I already notice a tension between railway and waterway, while, after all, three quarters of all that transport goes by road and it is the intention of the government to bring as much traffic from the road to the railway or waterway as possible. That is the general principle.

Mr. Van Campenhout, under the mat, there are of course other concerns, and I would like to address that. Competition distortion between the Flemish seaports must of course be avoided, but the location is fixed. We cannot blame Zeebrugge for being close to the sea and thus providing an advantage for some megacarriers. One cannot blame Antwerp for being located 80 kilometers inland, from which the city also draws a competitive advantage. Can I point out that the regulation in this regard is very clear? It is about transferring traffic to the railway. Zeebrugge and Antwerp are treated in the same way. Now, according to the questions asked by you and Mr Van den Bergh, an element has been added. You do not start at the departure station in Antwerp-Nord. We say clearly and clearly that we start at the place where the container is placed on the railway wagon. In the predetermined minimum distance of 51 kilometers, we will calculate the distance within the port of Antwerp. It is therefore not an element of competition distortion between Antwerp and Zeebrugge. On the contrary, we assume that Antwerp and Zeebrugge are treated in exactly the same way and that the possible distance between the left bank and the right bank, between the terminal on the left bank and Antwerp-Nord, will be included in the subsidy scheme that will be drawn up. The level playing field that you carry so high in the field will be respected. We will monitor this.

We are not the only ones who will take care of this, Mr. Van Campenhout. The European Commission will also check that it is not a competition distortion element, not between the Flemish seaports, but between the Flemish seaports, on the one hand, and other foreign seaports, on the other. That is the reality we are facing.

Mr. Van Campenhout, I give you the word for a replica. Then we round this chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I have high expectations in the committee that will be established and also in the European Commission. In recent years there has been a distortion.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are absolutely right, in the sense that the advantage of Antwerp is also the disadvantage. The port of Antwerp is indeed located deep in the interior. This is an advantage, but also an environmentally friendly advantage. Containers travel by sea ship, which is cheap and environmentally friendly. The advantage of Zeebrugge is the disadvantage. The containers arrive cheaply and no longer need to travel domestically. However, they will then have to travel expensive – by road, inland waterway or rail – to Antwerp, for example. This disadvantage is artificially eliminated by this measure. In recent years, there has been a shift from domestic shipping to rail transport.

I know that you will incalculate the intra-port transport. However, if you do not want to harm a container that arrives in Antwerp by sea ship and is therefore transported in an environmentally friendly and inexpensive way deep within the country, you should increase the minimum distance from 51 km to 30 km.

Mr Van Campenhout, I know the ambition of the Port of Antwerp. I have discussed the whole matter with the economic services of the port administration. I also know the problem of the thirty kilometers.

If a car or container is transported from Antwerp by train, the distance travelled will in any case be more than 25 or 30 km. The minimum distance of 31 km, which is also the pre-transport within the port, will in any case be accounted for. Where can the problem still lie? One does not go from Antwerp to put a car or a container on a train wagon in order to carry it only 10 km further? We have clearly and clearly informed the members of the port administration that we are willing to contribute the distance within the port to the total distance eligible for subsidy.

We cannot go further. It is also the correct interpretation of what we should do. It is also the only way to avoid distortion of competition between the two largest sea ports for containers.

We initiate the discussion of the chapter Public Enterprises, Agriculture, Economy and Energy.

We begin the discussion of the Public Enterprises, Agriculture, Economy and Energy section.

The following speakers are registered: Mr. Laeremans, Mr. Crucke, Mr. Clarinval, Mr. De Padt, Mr. Henry, Mrs. Van der Straeten, Mrs. Partyka, Mr. Steegen and Mr. Schiltz.

The first speaker is Mr Laeremans.

Mr. De Padt, would you like to talk about the previous chapter?

Mr. Speaker, it will be your pleasure to hear that my registration as speaker for this chapter is a lapsus.

And a lapsus? thank you .

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you. I see that Minister Magnette has arrived in the meantime, but are ministers Laruelle and Van Quickenborne in the meantime?

I called them, but I do not know if they are coming. Per ⁇ you can already start with the chapter Energy that you had prepared. You may be able to return when the other ministers are here.

Mr. Speaker, in itself this is not a problem, but it is the case that Minister Van Quickenborne since Monday has also become partly Minister of Energy and therefore actually should have been present at this debate.

That is already part of your presentation, probably.

undoubtedly .

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Colleagues, Mr. and Mrs. Minister, my presentation during this discussion of the program law is limited to the famous tax for the nuclear energy producers, the so-called distribution contribution of 250 million euros, which Electrabel and SPE on the valley, just before the end of the year, are still imposed for 2008, for the mere reason that they produce nuclear energy and because, because of the depreciated investments, they have made many profits.

A lot can be said about this tax. In my opinion, there is probably no opposition in the hemisphere. It is clear, in any case, that this tax has nothing to do with a coherent and forward-looking energy policy, but on the contrary. This mandatory contribution is intended solely to help fill the many gaps in the budget of the current year. The Minister has clearly acknowledged – I have read the report for a moment – that that income does not go to a special fund or part of the budget to promote one of the many listed energy objectives – for example, security of supply or price control – but simply disappears in the state treasury. It is a purely budgetary operation in which money is knocked out of the pockets of those who have made excessive profits, but which is not associated with the slightest control or adjustment.

There are good intentions in the law. Among other things, I am talking about “the country’s energy consumption”. Can you find a more archaic term? These mentions are, in any case, nothing more than camouflage, nothing more than a hollow phraseology to give the impression that an energy policy is being carried out.

Even worse, the truth is actually distorted. It is said to invest in nuclear energy, while the opposite is done.

Precisely because of the extremely flawed, unreliable and inconsistent accountability of this tax, it is very likely that the tax will be successfully combated – it will be combated, as we have understood – before the Constitutional Court because of its almost punitive character. It is clear, in any case, that with this type of exceptional taxes – a tax that, by the way, will double next year – the government takes very large risks on a very specific segment of the industry. Therefore, it is that money is taken from the Synatom Fund, which is intended to finance the cleaning of nuclear power plants in the long run, in a almost perfidious way. This money is definitely available, the rest is not.

If it would eventually fail in the Constitutional Court, if the producers could cancel this tax, then there would be no new hole in the 2008 budget. Then it is only our children and grandchildren who are planted with an additional deficit and who cares about it now, about those children and grandchildren, who cares now that the debt burden will eventually be further increased? This tax is therefore a symbol for the day-to-day policy of this government, for the short-term policy of the government-Leterme. However, it was CD&V who once swore that the Synatom Fund would not be hit. Today, however, this is happening and another promise is broken, Mrs. Minister.

Colleagues, that this government does not carry out a coherent and ⁇ no forward-looking energy policy, could not be better expressed than by the statements of VLD Minister Van Quickenborne, who last Monday suddenly spelled out a much more punitive tax to tackle Electrabel: not 250 million euros, Mr Schiltz, but 750 million euros this time, and recurrently also, that is, year after year again, to force Electrabel to take away about half of its production apparatus. Yesterday it turned out that this “quickidee” was not discussed at any time within the government but that it has come out of the blue down in the media, as a blue balloon was thrown in the news, apparently only with the intention to work this minister in a cheap way in the attention and to ridicule, ridicule the modest success that his PS rival Magnette hoped to ⁇ today.

We are with this, colleagues, and few will be able to contradict it, ended up in a flat bidding policy between the government parties, another proof also that this government shows no coherence, does not form a squad and hangs together like loose sand.

Yesterday we had the pleasure of experiencing that Minister Q in our committee during the discussion of his policy note received all sorts of accusations, not from the opposition this time but from his own coalition counterparts. They accuse him that he was deloyal, that he provided for a total cacophony, and that with his hidden plans of expropriation he proclaimed exactly the opposite of what he had always worshipped and confessed. It was a magnificent spectacle, a suddenly hilarious spectacle, which we ⁇ with full pleasure.

At the same time, of course, everything remains intricate. It is intriguing that in such an important matter the most disparate signals the ether are sent by politicians who are only engaged with their own image and who in the far distance are not engaged with the public interest, who are only engaged in an announcement policy without concrete acts, who are engaged in instant policy, with “quickie policy”, without sense of responsibility and courage to lead a long-term policy and actually bring about change. The courage to change, that was one of the VLD slogans of recent years. In terms of energy, I have never been able to conduct a more conservative policy than today under this government.

Furthermore, in the present circumstances, the “quick-tax” is an absurd story. In fact, how can one encourage Electrabel to sell a substantial part of its production fleet when it is absolutely impossible to determine its value today, due to the blame of this government?

As long as this government continues to keep up with decisions to reverse the completely irresponsible withdrawal from nuclear energy and as long as it does not create clarity about the future of nuclear power plants, no power plant can be determined the current or future value.

This government, with its indecisiveness and its destructive nuclear policy, is itself responsible for the total immobilism in which the energy market is today. This kakofonic government, this government which does not know what it wants, which constantly presses all decisions for itself, which does not bring forward any positive project, ⁇ not in the field of energy supply, and which, for the rest, rolls roaringly on the streets, is in the first place itself responsible for the persistence of the monopolies and therefore of the high prices.

However, it could have been very different. Anyone with common sense who follows the debates on the CO2 issue, on the world’s energy consumption and supply, on the associated energy costs and the expected increases resulting from the CO2 stories, anyone who follows the developments in renewable energy and its possibilities, knows that we will need nuclear energy for many generations to come. This is necessary not only to keep prices for ordinary men and women affordable, but also to ensure that our energy supply is secured and that our employment and wealth level can remain at a level.

Furthermore, choosing to maintain nuclear energy, colleagues, could provide the State Treasury with far greater financial prospects than the amounts today demanded from producers.

A confidential note to the former Minister of Energy, Marc Verwilghen, from March 2006, which we could put in hand, shows that an extension of the lifetime of nuclear power plants by 15 years could provide a net yield of between 30 and 50 billion euros. A reasonable tax on this could result in a multiplication of the taxes that are being discussed today. In addition, this could lead to greater competition in the electricity market and, consequently, lower prices.

Vlaams Belang considers it unimaginable that this government does nothing with this valuable information which it naturally knows and does nothing with the clear warnings of experts in the Energy 2030 report on the dramatic consequences of the shutdown of nuclear power plants for consumers. On the contrary, she continues to crack in the margin, as this is happening today, only to give the impression that one tackles the big boys of Electrabel firmly, while in the meantime, behind the scenes, she gives hundreds of millions of euros to the parent company Suez in the window of the Distrigas story and the gas transit. Hypocrisy is gradually becoming the trademark of this government.

I will speak on two topics. The first concerns Minister Magnette, who announced the arrival of an energy mediator. This is a good thing. We hear too often here that we would do better to take care of our competences and not those of federal entities. This measure is also expected in the regions.

His regional colleague, Mr. Anthony is waiting for him. He had pointed out that Minister Magnette did not yet have a mediator, and that there would be one in the Region. Mr. Wathelet, you praise the competence of Mr. Antoine, but I’ve been with him for three years and I didn’t find him so competent. I understand that you do not share this opinion, we can be supporters from time to time.

As Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, I can tell you that we are receiving requests in this regard. I think this would resolve conflicts and clarify the legislation. The mediator is not always there to decide, but rather to facilitate understanding.

My second speech concerns economic matters and Minister Van Quickenborne. This issue has caused a debate in the committee. It seemed to me that there was unanimity, but I understood that was not the case at the end of the debate.

It was about the use of musical partitions in teaching. This may seem very banal. The federal will here come to help the Communities to be able to use a short partition fragment because authors, being extremely cautious about the use that is made of their work, tend to multiply the procedures. That is why we end up no longer using the partitions in teaching or in research, where one could make a good use of them, for fear of having an appeal before the courts.

It is unfortunately the number of appeals that has caused the government, the minister in this case, to react, allowing from now on a sort of cultural exception for the use of these partitions. Under well-defined conditions, teachers, students and researchers will be able to use the partitions without being claimed by after rights disproportionate to the usefulness of music teaching.

All parliamentarians in the Economy Committee have received letters from associations or copyright protection companies arguing the danger of putting in difficulty their prerogatives. It is a liberal who tells you this, and the more easily as one can advance in this case, even on an intellectual level: there is a false debate between what would be an absolute right to the property of the author on what he created and a right to remuneration that would be less absolute. I would rather speak of an absolute right to remuneration and a relative right to property.

To think about it, the interest of an author is to be read, heard, understood, studied. I do not see where it can be done better than in teaching, whether it is general or artistic. It is because we have learned to love these works that we will read more later. If we do not, it will be the generation of the computer and game consoles but we will no longer study those who take a lot of time to produce a work.

There is therefore a common interest that should make this cultural exception accepted by SABAM and the authors. Furthermore, does the world of education not have anything better to do than to reflect on the trial that one could bring against a teacher because one has done useful work by enabling children to have a proper education?

I will stop here. In the French community, other discussions are currently being held on the registration. Today, the French Community must be very proud to be able to rely on the federal government and a Parliament that leave a door open to the cultural exception and therefore to the use of musical partitions.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on energy matters, the MR group welcomes some measures that resolutely commit our country to the future.

First of all, I’ll simply quote the government’s blow to the development of offshore wind power. Next, I will highlight the necessary adaptation and simplification of the energy cost reduction fund, in particular so that its action, mainly through the CPAS, is more efficient and coordinated with instruments such as energy tutors, energy social bureaus, instruments to combat overindebtedness, and above all so that the financial responsibility related to the loan no longer has to rely almost entirely on local actors.

Finally, I will only mention here the important temporary financial contribution granted to the IRE of Fleurus in order to allow it to overcome the difficult period it is currently going through. This contribution was set at 9.621.000 euros. This amount is intended solely to restore a sound financial position to the IRE so that it can deploy its investments and its operation normally without having to bear a heavy burden due to the index that defrauded the chronicle.

Moreover, this investment does not leave the other actors present in our country because Mr. Did the Minister specify that other financial mechanisms were planned to support the CEN?

On the other hand, our group remains relatively concerned with respect to two topics addressed in the two present laws.

First, we are relatively concerned about the federal contribution for the creation of the flat-rate reduction fund for natural gas and electricity heating. The federal contribution is due by the final customer located in the Belgian territory for each Kwh he takes from the network for his own use. The network operator is responsible for collecting the federal contribution without applying exemption and degressivity measures.

For this purpose, it charges the surcharge to the holder of an access contract and to the distribution network operator. In the event that the holders of an access contract and/or the network and distribution operators do not consume the Kwh collected from the network themselves, they may charge the federal fee to their own customers until that surcharge is finally charged to the person who consumed the Kwh for his own use.

In short, in other words, we have a cascading tax system that is in the end supported by the final consumer, that is, citizens and ⁇ .

The changes made in the method of collection of this contribution should, according to Minister Magnette, bring 10,000,000 euros extra. In fact, Mr. The Minister told us that the collection of the tax was not made optimally and that it was possible to find this amount without increasing the amount of the said contribution. Our group is quite skeptical about this amount of €10,000,000 that should be perceived painlessly for the final consumer.

In any case, our Group will resolutely oppose any increase in this contribution that would contradict the government’s will to lower the price of energy for citizens, on the one hand, and for ⁇ , on the other.

Second concern for our group: the supply of the flat-rate reduction fund for natural gas heating and electricity. This fund will be used to finance the reductions provided for by the program law of 8 June 2008 and will be fed by the federal contribution on the consumption of natural gas and electricity, on the one hand, but also through the budgetary appropriations present in the reserve funds BP1, BP2 and Belgoprocess, i.e. EUR 2.65 million of the working fund of the Belgoprocess and EUR 3 million of the passive fund BP1-BP2.

In other words, we draw here from previously accumulated reserves to finance social rates. This habit of emptying reserve funds is not new. Like the Court of Auditors, our group regrets the fact that, on the other hand, the Minister also removes the financing of the Nuclear Passive of the CEN on the one hand, and the buildings of the IRE on the other, or about 18.7 million euros in 2008 and 2009 through the adjustment and budget that we will talk about next week.

These various decisions will result in a postponement of these amounts, or about 25 million euros on the shoulders of future generations, which is clearly regrettable, Mr. Minister, for a Minister of Sustainable Development!

Furthermore, in the commission, you announced that you had many ideas to feed the reserve funds you just empty. I confess that these statements have not failed to arouse some concerns in the ranks of members of our group. Mr. Minister, as we are at the dawn of the third energy revolution ⁇ well described by Ms. Lauvergeon, I think you must take into account the concerns expressed here by our group so that the social energy policy you advocate is fully based on the three pillars of sustainable development: social, environmental but also economic.

Here, Mr. Speaker, are a few words and, limiting myself to the two laws presented today, the positive and negative comments that our group makes regarding energy policy.

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. There will, of course, be other things to say next week as part of the budget discussion. In fact, I noticed that there was confusion between the two debates from time to time. That is logical!

First of all, the reductions. It is clear that the energy bill of households is a major problem. We have already talked about this many times. The electricity bill in particular, and the electricity bill in general, increased at a time when purchasing power decreased.

Furthermore, today we do not see the impact of the decline in raw materials on the final price of energy paid by citizens. Action is therefore necessary in the short term, even if there is only consumption control that allows structural and sustainable action on the energy bill. It is not about starting again every year, but about carrying out an action that will have a structural effect from year to year. We are aware of this. This has been said many times, but it is always worth repeating. Therefore, we can only regret that at this stage, government policy is not yet followed by many effects. Certainly, some advertising effects have been made. We will see what will happen. This debate will take place next week but, at this stage, there has really been no effect of a voluntary policy on the actual control of household consumption.

In the short term, we need to take action on the household bills. This is what we have accepted before as well. However, we feel some regrets about how this measure was arranged in the program law. First, the complexity of the system, since two additional funds are created again. Here are many categories, many different funds, all of which lead to a complexity of the system, in which few people find themselves. Households entitled to the flat-rate reduction will have to advance the money before undertaking the administrative procedure in order to obtain the refund.

In our view, this is only another difficulty for the precarious targeted audiences. This is the opposite of a social approach. It is enough to talk about this with any social worker facing precarious audiences to realize that this type of approach constitutes a barrier to the application of such a measure. It will lead neither more nor less to limit the actual effect of the measure. It would have been possible to develop a simpler and more automatic system that avoids households from having to advance money.

Secondly, there has been a lot of discussion about the taxation of nuclear energy producers. Since the beginning of this year, we have witnessed a real leaflet. We have seen almost everything! Each week brings its lot of statements and announcements in the press. I recall a few episodes.

A few months ago, a voluntary contribution from electricity producers was announced, an announcement that lasted a few hours. Following the failure of the discussion with Electrabel, the government decides to tax, in the amount of 250 million, the undue profits made by electricity producers from nuclear power plants, power plants that have been largely amortised by consumers. This taxation is therefore, for us, entirely legitimate, even though a sum of 250 million remains relatively ridiculous – especially since it is not a structural measure – compared to the surplus profits accrued for years by these same producers and which are reflected in the household bill also for a certain number of years.

In addition, in order to carry out this collection, the articles of the program law provide for the use of the Synatom Fund as a financial vehicle, which is normally planned for the dismantling of nuclear power plants. In my opinion, this choice is not at all appropriate and constitutes an unnecessary weakening. Initially, we did not understand the reason for using this fund, apparently justified for tax reasons, such as Mr. Reynders could confirm it. In fact, it is not about 250 million but a much smaller real amount for the state finances.

This week, a new step was reached with the Minister of Competition, Mr. Van Quickenborne, who has just detected a possible problem of competition in the energy market, due to a somewhat monopolistic situation. It is good! We are progressing at the level of observations. However, it is a shame that this flash of lucidity did not occur a little earlier because I think you could have acted through the program law and the budget to take measures that concrete this will for additional taxation. It can still be done, amendments can still be envisaged. It is the Parliament that will vote at the end, so we can see how the different groups will position themselves.

I would like to say that we have gained something this week: it seems – if I have heard the various statements in the commission – that everyone agrees that 250 million taxation for electricity producers in amortized power plants is not serious. This is not at the level of the situation. Mr. Minister, if we add your 750 million theoretical, we will be a little closer to what we had defended.

We proposed a completely different mechanism. Your thesis is to say that there is a competition problem and that it is enough that there is one or the other new producer to lower prices and prevent excess profits. This analysis seems to me too theoretical. This is strongly related to the Coué method. On our part, we have another proposal that is structural. It starts from the fact that very large “sur-benefits” are realized, that they are not legitimate because the power plants have been amortised by consumers, and that, in addition, they are easier to realize in a monopoly situation. Our proposal is to consider that a very large taxation must take place on these profits. We start from the fact that there is a cost of production and a reasonable profit. Anything that goes beyond is not legitimate in the energy market organisation scheme as we have known it for 20 or 30 years. It’s not like we’re in a healthy market, with different producers, with costs, supply and demand. In fact, it is well known that it is not the cost of nuclear production that determines the price of electricity.

Therefore, we do not have the same analysis at all, even if we ultimately have the same willingness to get a significant return from electricity production.

I skipped another step in my listing of the leaflet: the blocking of prices.

Mr. Minister, you recently announced that, given the sharp rise in consumer prices, there would be a blocking of production prices. This blockage has never occurred; it would never even have been mentioned within the government. Now you are announcing to us that if prices continue to rise, ⁇ this blockage will be considered again. This proposal has not even been discussed within the government and is apparently unacceptable. In any case, your colleague does not seem to care about it.

What does this method of government mean, then, where the ministers, one after the other, on the field of energy and the problem of the taxation of amortised power plants, allow themselves to make successive, contradictory statements, without presenting their proposals to the government, and launch threats that appear impossible to concrete?

Who wins in such processes? The existing monopoly, which is strengthened and which multiplies its profits. This situation is extremely damaging.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is not too late: today we will re-depose amendments aimed at reintroducing our proposals for taxation of these amortised power plants, which result in the type of amounts that you mentioned, Mr. Minister, but which I think we can discuss. If you have other amendments, we can also consider them. But it is now that we can position ourselves against all these important tax announcements. Our group will be perfectly clear, as it has been so far.

My third point concerning energy relates to the IRE center of Fleurus.

It is difficult to silence the planned investment of 9 million euros, justified by the occurrence of the serious incident that occurred, resulting in damage and indispensable investments according to the follow-up study of the consequences.

For me, this situation presents a real problem: a discussion in parliament took place just after the incident; it allowed to highlight various important points and actions expected from the government. That is why, for us, there is a real problem when we announce such a large budget without receiving clarifications from the government on how these actions will be undertaken, whose findings will be stopped in such a way as to prevent such an incident from happening again. Indeed, what happened in August was a serious incident, which undermines confidence in nuclear security, in the reliability of institutions, in the response that must be brought by the government.

We have the right to wait for answers. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a committee, I have allowed myself to address many points that resulted from this discussion; without bringing them all back here, I would like to address synthetically some elements on which we do not feel like we have received a response. Maybe we will have them today.

The Minister of Public Health announced a national epidemiological study, starting with Fleurus, in order to study the health effects of the habitat’s proximity to a nuclear power plant or an institute such as the National Institute of Radio Elements (IRE). What is the state of progress of this study?

The Minister of Energy promised to continue the investigation into the causes of the incident by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (AFCN) and external services. Where are these investigations? Is there any new light on causes and responsibilities?

The Minister of Energy also promised the urgent implementation of the IRE master plan concerning all measures to be taken following the 2007 audit. What is the follow-up of this plan?

The Minister of the Interior considered that the procedures governing alert cases should be revised, as well as the procedures for permanent control by the AFCN. He also asked about the functioning of the AFCN and that of the Telerad system. Where are these assessments? Have actions been taken?

These are serious questions, on which we are entitled to receive answers in the face of the seriousness of the incident that took place and in the face of a very significant investment proposed by the government. These are the points on which I wanted to speak regarding the energy part of the program-law. We will also discuss energy as part of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to briefly address a number of points, on the one hand the Program Law and on the other hand the Law on various provisions. I will begin with the law on various provisions.

In the committee, we stopped for a moment on the Elia tax. It appears that the chapter of Minister Magnette in the Act on Diverse Dispositions only concerns some technical adjustments relating to the Elia tax, the transposition of the Electricity Directive and the Gas Directive and a number of transpositions of a number of European measures. What is stated in the law on the various provisions is, in my opinion, largely insufficient.

First, with regard to the Elia tax, it has been shown in the committee and also from debates in the Flemish Parliament – I have used the time between the committee meeting and the plenary session today to find out what has been said about it in the Flemish Parliament – that the two ministers are line-right opposite each other. In this, Minister Magnette and Mrs Crevits have an entirely opposite opinion on what should be done with the Elia tax and, more specifically, with the advances paid by the distribution network operators.

I notice that Mr Versnick is not here, but otherwise he could have talked about it in his capacity as President.

However, there is still a debate about how exactly the status of the advances paid is and how they can be recovered. You say that this should be considered at the Flemish level. Mrs Crevits, however, says that the federal government must remove the legal uncertainty there.

If the two ministers remain opposite in line, there will be no solution out of the bus. The result will be that the different DNBs will continue with their current practice, namely that they will charge completely different amounts in completely different ways. I think this is not a form of good governance. This is not especially good for the consumer.

You have an agreement with the energy suppliers that the energy invoice will be simplified, but this type of invoice is not used today. For consumers, therefore, it is ⁇ unclear what they pay and ⁇ how it is with the Elia tax and the advances paid and recovered by the distribution network operators.

However, I would like to insist on a slightly clearer answer than you gave in the committee, namely that it is necessary to consider later, especially in the Flemish Parliament, what needs to be done. Couldn’t it be that this can be solved relatively easily if you take the initiative yourself? I therefore regret that you did not seize the opportunity at the time you wrote your chapter in the law on the various provisions to clarify the matter once and for all.

Second, in the law containing various provisions, a number of translations are also carried out. I think this is ⁇ scary. I am even a little bit bitter about it. I have already told you at various times that Belgium is a really bad pupil when it comes to the transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directive. Belgium is even so bad that a procedure has been opened before the European Court of Justice in which Belgium is sued for an incorrect transposition.

I know that you argue that some things would not be correctly translated. However, I do not think that there can be a dispute about a case, in particular about the dispute resolution body. Initially, it was found in both the Electricity and Gas Law. If I remember correctly, it is about Article 23 of the Electricity Directive. Your predecessor, Mr. Verwilghen, has deleted this. However, it is only a small effort to put that article back into both the electricity and gas law. This could have happened in a difficulty with the law containing various provisions. These are relatively simple things. I also think that there is little discussion about this, unless that discussion exists in the government with the Open Vld. In fact, this party considers that that authority should not exist. Then I think it would be clear and convenient to implement those provisions. At that time, the procedures currently in progress concerning those articles will also suddenly cease to exist.

As for the program law, of course, it is a little difficult to discuss it today because this week has proved to be the following. When it comes to Electrabel and a tax to encourage them to behave more morally in terms of competition and profit, the water is not so deep and at the same time it is well. The committee showed that across all party boundaries it was agreed that something had to be done. It also showed that the different political parties have different proposals. Therefore, it may not be so difficult to find a compromise on this subject.

I also noted at the committee meeting last week with Mr Van Quickenborne, who is not here now, that he also had a problem with the 250 million euros.

The [...]

Sorry, Mr. Minister, I had overlooked you for a moment.

I have well understood, Mr. Van Quickenborne, that you have a problem with those 250 million because you think this amount is not clearly objective. You said that the tax of 250 million is in the program law, but in the event of an extension this will have to be linked to the discussion about the extension of life life.

I assure you that this is not the case at the moment. I am happy about that. A tax on profits made on depreciated nuclear power plants and in addition a monopoly profit is given the situation of Electrabel on the market, should not be linked to an extension of life. Colleague Laeremans, I think you mentioned this too. I do not think that is the right reasoning. I do not understand why this for Electrabel, which has actually accelerated the depreciation of nuclear power plants and thus made a large profit that it has not transferred to customers, should be linked to a lifetime of the nuclear power plants.

One is actually separate from the other. I have said that if that withdrawal is reversed and the lifetime is extended, one can ask for a much larger amount. At that time, the revenues for society and for the products are much greater. For example, if one gives away half of it as tax, one has a multiplier of what one now asks. It is interesting for the consumer, it is interesting for the sector concerned and it is ⁇ interesting for the state treasury. Instead of 10 billion in old francs, one could ask for 40 billion. This is much more interesting for the budget.

What is missing in this discussion is the following. Continued commitment to nuclear energy is the biggest threat to renewable energy. At European level, agreement has been reached on the renewable energy targets. For Belgium, this is 13%. This can be a tremendous boost to our economy. If we ⁇ those targets, it could create 26,000 additional jobs for Belgium alone. They are just those opportunities that we miss and do not exploit by continuing to invest in a form of energy from the past. No one has been able to convince me today that there is a solution to nuclear waste. From a sustainability perspective, I do not see how one could decide to permanently subsidize this form of energy and continue to give them all the opportunities while clearly having a limited added value for society.

In the brief speech you have now held, you have clearly indicated where the dispute lies. We will target 13% renewable energy by 2020. That is good. I think everyone is for that. That ambition may even be too low. Hopefully it will become a lake. By 2025, the last nuclear power plants will close, according to your exit scenario, nuclear power plants that currently provide 55% of our energy. The difference between 13% and 55% is not resolved. Suppose we move to 15% renewable energy by 2025, then you’re in a 40% shortage of electricity that you can’t replenish unless by picking up expensive nuclear power from abroad. That is the problem.

Colleague Laeremans, you are rationing again from a scenario for the past. You argue from a business as usual scenario and from standstill. You assume that today’s energy demand is the same as the energy demand that will always be there.

There will be more.

That is not realistic. The energy crisis we face today and the climate problem we must address today imply – as evidenced by all studies, including the Commission 2030 study by Mr D’haeseleer, which you so gladly quote – that controlling energy demand is ultimately the answer. In the end, controlling energy demand is not so difficult.

If we are speaking specifically about electricity, we find, for example, that our devices in stand-by account for a consumption on our electricity bill from ten to fifteen percent. If one can ensure that stand-by consumption is drastically reduced, one actually takes a measure of purchasing power that amounts to about ten billion.

Mr. Magnette, that is a very simple measure. We are in the law on product standards. I agree with everyone that it is a European matter, but if Europe says we need to ⁇ 20 percent more energy efficiency by 2020, that measure is the easiest to ⁇ . I wonder why we can still buy devices in the store that consume too much. If, through such simple measures, by imposing standards, one can ensure that energy demand decreases and becomes manageable, then we no longer need those nuclear power plants. One is tied together with the other. If we want a modern, competitive energy market, for example in the field of electricity, then the nuclear exit scenario is the most convenient way to do so. I do not understand the opposition to this, unless one wants to make Electrabel-Suez – and especially Suez – a great pleasure.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, I think you are still hanging too much in the past. You do not take into account new applications of electricity. I’m referring to something that could be very important in the next ten years, and that other parties are also backing up. If we succeed in producing energy in a cheaper way for hydrogen and for batteries to start driving on electricity and hydrogen, then it would mean a huge improvement for the environment – you as an environmental party should still be sensitive to that – it would mean a huge improvement for the environment. If we can transform our fleet over a period of ten to fifteen years into a fleet that no longer emits diesel and gasoline pollution but can drive on electricity produced in a responsible way, then that is a huge asset for the environment. We will have to produce more electricity. It will be one or the other. If it can be done in a clever way, with nuclear power plants of the new generation, then for me that is definitely defensive. In that scenario, you will need to go to more electricity, but not to less like in your dream. You remain stuck there in the past and you remain dependent on fossil fuels. I don’t understand that for anyone from the environment party.

Mr. Laeremans, I still do not understand how nuclear energy can be spoken of as a clever form of energy.

Go look at the places where uranium is mined, to the health consequences for the people who live near those uranium mines. Nuclear energy cannot be said to be a good form of energy. If there is no solution to the radioactive waste, which still exists, it is impossible to speak of a clean form of energy.

CO2 is not the only problem that needs to be solved. It is also not a solution to replace CO2 with radioactive waste. In terms of raw materials, uranium, like for example coal, is a raw material that will be exhausted. The scenarios in this regard vary, but in about sixty years there will be no more uranium. Nuclear energy is not the solution.

What is a solution is to generate our energy in a different way and especially use our energy in a different way. We need to focus more on efficiency and more on very simple measures, such as through product standards to ensure that there are not only cheap but above all good electrical appliances on the market. The same possibilities exist in the industry.

In that sense, when it comes to the scenario of nuclear departure, it is wrong to focus only on the way we produce our energy. On the other hand, we need to look much more at the way we use our energy. We need to reduce the demand for energy, which can be done without problems without loss of comfort. We only need to think creative and out-of-the-box.

Before we get there, we are with the nuclear power plants, which will be shut down one by one. At the moment, the gradual disconnection is the scenario I’m assuming. This is the current legislative framework. Consequently, it is only logical to impose a structural tax on the mega profits that Electrabel can collect through production. The argument in this regard is based on two findings. First, the power plants were depreciated and the reduction of the corresponding costs was never transferred to the consumer. Second, Electrabel has a monopoly profit.

My position is not that Electrabel should not make a profit, on the contrary. I only oppose the part of the profit that is unlawful. It would be good to use the part in question to encourage investments in energy, energy efficiency and energy savings.

So I have problems with the profits that Electrabel makes. The above is a statement that everyone agrees with. I have trouble with the competition. Competition between political parties is not bad, nor in a parliamentary debate. That the competition struggle now appears to be played between two protagonists in the government, namely the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Competition, that is bad. After all, the whole discussion thus falls flat and falls into a robbery fighting over whether one has called the other or not.

This does not bring us a step forward.

Both ministers are present. In the committee they came after each other, but at this plenary session they are both there. Well, I repeat what I said in the committee, knowing that I am the requesting party to organize a debate with Mr. Van Quickenborne and Magnette, responsible for Competition and Energy, as well as with the Council for Competition and the CREG. If we then conduct a fierce debate in which it is not a problem for me to bite each other’s throat – to quote someone who would like to see such a fierce debate in the context of the European elections, yesterday night – let the ideological contradictions only emerge. I have no problem with that. I would like to conduct the debate.

I've got a little lack on it to always just have to respond to one and then the other statement in the press if it turns out that people have not called each other or have called each other or what is just totally unclear. In the end, the situation remains what it is and no one gets better from it. So, gentlemen ministers, I urge a meeting with both of you, together with the CREG and with the Competition Council, to see how far we can go with a parliamentary majority that I think surely exists when it comes to addressing the monopoly situation of Electrabel and doing something on the part unlawful profit.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that my intervention will not be as high as that of Tinne Van der Straeten.

I want to talk about the reductions. In itself, this is, of course, very good news, although they remain a little worried child for three reasons.

The first reason is the financing. A separate organic budget fund will be established. The flat-rate discounts have a cost plate of fifty million euros and thirty million euros of which we will look for other positions that were actually not so financially healthy. The Social Warming Fund has a structural financing problem, but still money is drawn out. From the Belgoproces, 6 million is collected and the Niras too, although I do not think that those institutions could lack those funds. This is therefore not immediately a structural solution, unless the flat-rate discounts are a temporary measure, as announced. 27 million will come from the budget of the FOD Economie and 5 million finally from federal contributions, for which we will once again set up a separate CREG fund.

The program law also deals with those federal contributions that are apparently also a problem. From a report that the Court of Auditors would have published or made and that the minister already has, but we unfortunately not yet, it would show that the federal contributions of the electricity suppliers are paid by the consumer. The customers pay that fine, but the electricity suppliers would not transfer them to the CREG in twelve percent of cases. This is neither more nor less than fraud. It’s almost a avoidable tax, something that’s in fashion today.

In the new system, which you propose in the Program Law, there are hopefully sufficient guarantees to ensure that the suppliers pay those contributions. If we ever get to see the report, we will definitely return to it, to ensure that that federal contribution can be properly collected from now on, because it is not possible that it simply does not collapse in 10% of cases.

Mrs Partyka, do you mention a report from the Court of Auditors that would have been drawn up on this subject?

This is mentioned in the Program Law.

I don’t understand if it’s a report from the Court of Auditors. It has always been made clear to me that the Court of Auditors works for Parliament. This seems to me to be completely contrary to what you say, namely that the government or the minister would have a report from the Court of Auditors that Parliament cannot have.

I think they get it in advance to check it, that it then goes back to the Court of Auditors and that it is then published and available to us. However, I do not know at what time we should look at this.

That is strange.

I want to get into that yet. We have been talking about this in the committee for a long time. Two points are referred to the report of the Court of Auditors. It was then requested on behalf of the committee to forward those relevant chapters in advance to Parliament, as they are documents that have been the inspiration for certain elements of the Programme Act.

It is indeed a bit of a problem that in the program law a solution is found for something that the Court of Audit has sued, while we do not know what the Court of Audit has sued. Therefore, it is difficult to judge the solution. That is why I also say that we must definitely come back to that.

The second point I would like to point out is the legal basis for the payment of the flat-rate discount. The present program law is a repair of the July program law. For 2008, however, this leads to a discriminatory solution. Anyone who received his invoice this year before the end of June will receive a discount of 105 euros. Anyone who is lucky enough to get his invoice between July 1 and the end of the year will be entitled to 155 to 180 euros. That is a substantial difference. I think that kind of coincidence is actually unacceptable for what should be a social measure.

Finally, I would like to say something about the flat rate reduction as a social measure. Mr. Minister, you know, we have already said it a few times, that our group is a party asking to streamline the social energy policy, in order to thus effectively reach the target group that needs that measure the most. We are asking for an integrated social energy policy instead of a multitude of funds, contributions and measures, which are not always equally effective.

Mr. Minister, once again we are talking here about a program law and a law containing various provisions on energy.

Recently, the debate really broke out. Thanks in part to the intervention in the media of my party colleague, Minister Van Quickenborne, the affairs are slowly being sharpened.

I will no longer argue with you about the details in your program law and the law containing various provisions, but let’s look at the general lines.

Energy should be cheaper. It is very expensive now. I think everyone agrees on this. This is one of the major goals that are ⁇ pushed forward in times of crisis.

Well, the energy cost consists of three components. First is the production. Second is the distribution. And third, there are all those taxes. There is a whole amalgam of charges, like a kind of gas cloud, to stay in the terminology of the subject.

In part, you are not responsible for this. In part, this is a regional competence. The nations smuggle everything in it. Mr. Minister, I have repeatedly asked you in committee meetings, implored, yet please do something for the transparency of the distribution sector, insofar as you are competent to do so. After all, Mr. Minister, I cannot get rid of the impression – and I grow in that belief, day after day – that the price of electricity in our country is not the price that one pays for the product, but a hidden tax levied in order to be able to do redistribution.

That may be a choice, but then that choice must be clear. If it is up to me, in times of crisis, I would rather use that energy in a clean structure and clearly instruct those charges. You pointed me on your fingers and said: Mr. Schiltz, simplification must not be a fetish; it must be played in different ways in order to meet the needs of the social categories. It can be, but let us then consistently and above all transparently manage it by the government. Let us clearly communicate to the citizen how much money is spent on those categories, because now that is not clear.

With regard to production, about which Minister Van Quickenborne has made statements, budgetary measures have been announced and entered into the program law: we will raise 250 million in that sector. I hear Mrs. Van der Straeten, with her usual martial language, again talking about biting heads and waging war.

Unfortunately, with dead ministers, the country cannot be governed. Now that I’m talking about you and your group, I want to point out that you must be consistent. Either you turn the chicken with the golden eggs, being Electrabel, the neck around, or you bite her throat off, and then the beast is dead, or you choose to let those eggs fall into your basket year after year. However, choosing both is impossible.

You say they need to stop, but you want to get taxed.

Mr. Laeremans, I hear you say they should remain open because we can get so much more money from them. In part you are right. It is one or the other. You cannot save the goat and the cabbage.

Mr. Minister, your counter-minister responsible for Competition wants to split production, remove a piece from the monopoly and ensure more competition. This leads to a drop in prices, at least for a portion of the price. It is either that or one must allow another player in the energy market to rebuild another production site. I see Ms. Van der Straeten already justifying and calling for more green energy.

Ms. Van der Straeten and Mr. Van de Velde asked for the word.

I do not know if there is also red energy, colleague Bonte. This is an illusion of the Socialist Party.

Mr Schiltz, I am truly convinced that we need to make a transition to a more decentralized energy market. Whatever the percentage of renewable energy will be, it will always be decentralized energy production. I think we all want a supergrid in the North Sea, but we also know that it will not be there in five years. We need to move towards a more decentralized energy market. Unfortunately, our production system today is highly centralized, with mass electricity production by nuclear power plants.

If one wants to give renewable energy all opportunities, then we will have to work on decentralization. What can be done the easiest? That is one for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Even if you or your party may then be in favor of an extension, I think it is also in your interest to advocate for a phase out, ⁇ at the beginning, to prepare the market for renewable energy. Now continuing to advocate for keeping all nuclear power plants open and prolonging their lifetime, the throat is cutting off renewable energy.

Since the Greens have been for the ritual slaughter, they have become very aggressive.

Mr. Schiltz, I would like to point out the fact that you, with your ministers, have been ruling or playing government for 10 years. You come here today to tell Minister Magnette that his policy draws to nothing and that your Minister Van Quickenborne must resolve it. I think that is pathetic. Mr Schiltz, you have had the opportunity for ten years to design competition and a better energy market in a flawed way. Nothing has happened. So I would like to suggest you do your homework, instead of coming here to tell you how it should be. You are in the government. Solve it up.

Mr. Van de Velde, that is, of course, very easy to say, because you are in a party that has not existed for ten years, let alone that it has existed for two years. In that case, it is very easy to exercise that criticism. If you participate in a government, there will always be victims on the side of your ideological beliefs.

However, I partially agree with you. There may have been mistakes made in the past. Should we then every day, until the end of time, until the day of judgment, beat ourselves on the back with the carwats, the balls of which are then paid by Electrabel? I did not think.

I would rather embrace the initiatives that are being set up now, today, in the new constellation of also my group, together with the group of Minister Magnette and possibly with some support from Mr. Tobback – he is now gone, otherwise we could write some amendments together – or together with Minister Van Quickenborne, and even with the support of the Greens, to design an energy policy that is coherent. Mr. Van de Felde, this is now being done. I understand you: you are from the opposition, of course. Opposition is to oppose. But my duty, as a politician, is to reform.

I suggest that this debate be left aside. We have been persecuted, for a hundred years, by that argument.

Mr. Speaker, I have to defend myself against such a flagrant attack on my conviction.

Yes, but you did it well.

I return to the case.

I am not blaming, I am just making a comment. I have stood here several times and every time I asked for the vision of Minister Magnette, so that we can collaborate on it. I understand that this is not easy in our country, which is still partly held in a wreckage by Electrabel. I am pleased – with the nuances involved – that Minister Van Quickenborne has thrown the stick in the chicken cage and has come up with a proposal that is not unattractive. That proposal provides at least the space to move forward in that dossier.

Mr. Van der Straeten, I am also pleased that you do not completely copy the competition story.

Now, however, I think we need to cut down the buttons. What happens to nuclear energy? I think Mrs. Van der Straeten wants to know the answer equally. Let’s pull out the plug, right? I personally, together with Mr. Laeremans, think that is impossible.

Of course, our group also advocates the reduction of energy needs. We also applaud when Flemish Minister Crevits takes initiatives to reduce energy consumption, especially among private individuals. Very very sure. But that will not be enough to fill the share of nuclear energy in our daily needs – and thus also in those of companies.

So yes, I agree with you. Let us urge our fellow European MPs to revise product standards to reduce stand-by consumption, agree. But that is not enough.

In the meantime, we must cut the knot and decide what to do with nuclear energy. Then we must organize the market in such a way that the price can effectively fall.

Because, Mrs. Van der Straeten, more green energy, that is the future, very sure. Decentralization is OK. You speak of “super grids”, but that’s not in five years. You rightly note that distribution accounts for 30% of the total price of energy.

If a super grid or even a smart grid needs to be built, I see the price of the distribution not fall over the next five to ten years.

How can we reduce the energy price? To begin with, we might be able to look at whether we can remove the system of federal and county contributions and those smuggled taxes and organize that in a different way. Minister Magnette, I insist on this.

This is rather a debate that I want to organize, Mrs. Van der Straeten. Instead of having two ministers with knives or teeth, I would rather look at how we can organize that market a little more efficiently.

If in the future you want a network that allows for decentralized energy production - and therefore also a greater share of the green electricity generation - we can now only lower the price by installing more competition on the production or, a significant consequence, by increasing the supply of nuclear or other energy, preferably not carbon-rich.

Will we overcome the debate on nuclear energy once again? This has already happened here numerous times.

This is not about nuclear energy. However, I would like to accept the outstretched hand of colleague Schiltz on the distribution.

Your comment is partially correct. Investments in renewable energy will indeed also generate additional costs, but they should not necessarily be diverted to the distribution. In fact, the European Climate and Energy Plan precisely provides that much more state aid is possible. I have understood from both the Prime Minister and Minister Magnette that they want to fully support this.

That’s not the only reason why the distribution rates are sometimes so high. I think we can find one in a composition on the existence of all those different DMBs. It would be better if we had one or three power plants or a limited number of distribution network operators, and that we stopped that political interference in them, so that they can operate in a more efficient way.

I do not blame you personally, but your party, however, somewhat that it has drawn up in the Council of Ministers a royal decree on the tariff structure, in such a way that the direct consequence of it is that the tariff proposals submitted to the CREG have increased.

I think the DMB story is a story of more than just renewable energy, but also of the organization of the various intercommunales, and not least the political interference in them.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, I am very grateful to you for making my unspoken thought on the Chamber worldwide.

You are right and I would like to encourage the Minister to cooperate with this. However, I do not think that with so many words in the law various provisions are cited.

Mr. Minister, Mrs. Van der Straeten has made the discourse for me a little sharper.

You have heard everything I have to say. I hope that you and Minister Van Quickenborne do not want to bite each other’s throat, but that you can and want to come together with the government to a coherent policy so that our country in the future can have a safe, cheaper and above all performant energy policy.

Mr Schiltz, Mrs Gerkens had asked for the floor.

I would like to intervene. The object of our discussion today is not to position ourselves on nuclear, even though this topic is ubiquitous in our discussions.

Pax Electrica I, Pax Electrica II ... was a negotiation between the government and Electrabel which became Suez. Competition and measures put in place to promote the diversification of producers and to reduce the monopoly of Electrabel engage both the government and Electrabel-Suez.

I have to confess that I have been shocked by what I have heard in the last few days. To say that the rules of competition are not sufficiently respected and that, as a result, we will lift some kind of tax or impose fines that will bring back money, is to acknowledge at the same time that the government no longer respects its obligations regarding Pax Electrica. It would have had to hold another speech and say "with my colleagues, I will apply to make the content of the agreements respect."

As for Electrabel-Suez, it is true that we are often in conflict with them because they make a lot of profits on the back of consumers. Thanks to these profits, they grow, they depreciate their costs faster and apply the tariffs we know.

Politically it is understood, we will never say of Electrabel-Suez that it is a "chicken with golden eggs" and that, from time to time, we will take him a few million euros. In this way, the government does not take responsibilities.

It is simply to say that, in a fair and fair manner, we will take a contribution on the profits of amortized investments. At that point, we get to a recipe of one billion a year and it is legitimate, explained, structural, honest and fair.

Mrs. Gerkens, I do not feel called to respect me better than the minister himself to give an answer to this. You may later ask the question again to Minister Van Quickenborne himself. He will undoubtedly give you an answer.

In any case, Mrs. Gerkens, you will not have heard anywhere in my argument that it is my intention to calmly let Electrabel vegetate and let profits enter and occasionally, if the budget is not right, let it hit. I have not said that anywhere.

That is not true. That is a structural measure that is very clear: sell or pay. If you do not want to, you have to pay annually.

It does not exist yet. This is not carried out by the government.

This is a proposal for measure. I would like to comment on this, Mr. President, but I am not right here. Ask this question to the Minister.

You do not even have to answer, Mr. Schiltz.

I have said.

Mr Vijnck has the word.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I may repeat a little what the previous speakers have said. I have closely followed the discussion of the program law in the committee. You answered some questions and some did not, but I remain hungry. Therefore, I would like to formulate a few comments and questions.

First, I regret the choice of the flat rate reduction for heating and electricity. This is another example of the government’s marketing policy, the PS at the forefront, where, under the guise of a social policy, gifts are given to some parts of the population, namely the electorate. A genuine social policy is not limited to the target groups but benefits everyone. Therefore, we believe that there should be a VAT reduction on gas, electricity and fuel oil.

Energy is no longer a luxury product. We want a reduction to 6%. In addition, Belgium ranks third in Europe in terms of the VAT rate on gas, electricity and fuel oil. More and more people have trouble paying their electricity bills and more and more budget meters need to be placed. The gas crane is also becoming more and more tightly twisted, which will require budget meters for gas in the future.

A VAT reduction will ⁇ not solve the problem of purchasing power, but it is a first, clear signal from the government that it is concerned about purchasing power.

Second, I have the impression that many studies are ordered to gain time in certain files, not least in the file of the planned nuclear departure. In your policy note, you sometimes give the impression that you are more minister of Study than minister of Climate and Energy. The word study is used thirty times. You love studies. In the file of the nuclear withdrawal, the Commission’s study 2030 has been on your desk for a year.

So you know very well that if we decide today to keep the nuclear power plants open, you should not look for a contribution of 250 million euros from the energy sector. You know that in that case there will be a cash flow, an amount between 12 and 55 billion, and this depends on the duration that the nuclear power plants remain open, which is a minimum of 12 or 30 years. That would be a good measure. However, the government is anxious and divided to carry out this because there is yet another state reform that Ecolo may be needed. Therefore, you absolutely do not intervene and want to wait until the last minute.

Third, the contribution of the energy sector. I would like to reiterate that the government originally planned to submit a separate bill on Synatom. Why was it then decided to hide this in the program law? Can the Minister respond to the comments of the State Council on this contribution? The Minister did not give a response in this regard at the committee meeting. The contribution goes to the budget and not to a fund so that no guarantees can be given about the use of the resources? A fund could be created, but the majority chose a different solution. What is the motivation for this?

In general, I would like to point out, finally, that the system of social measures provided by the Minister is unnecessarily complex. Of course, this is the result of historical evolution and step-by-step approach. As the minister himself said at the committee meeting: “It is an old house around which all cottage buildings were built.” A minister who really takes his job to heart would instead break those cottage buildings and choose a thorough renovation or possibly even a new building.

The Belgians deserve more transparency and a responsible policy.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to express myself briefly on the issue of energy and the problem of independent workers.

In terms of energy, we are currently experiencing an economic crisis that is the result of the fiscal crisis. However, the consequences should not be exaggerated or minimized.

Exaggerating them would lead to the introduction of a form of fear that would result in investors and individuals deciding to delay a series of investments. This would in some way lead to collective impoverishment. However, the impact of the crisis should not be minimized. It should be answered by taking into account the aforementioned consequences with the precariation of a whole series of people already partially in difficulty because this crisis carries – and the inflation that we have known last year proves it – on products of first necessity.

Therefore, it is necessary to target the measures – which appears to be done in view of the bill-program under review even though the government’s reflection should go further, if it is not already the case – not by linearly reducing VAT on energy products, but by providing assistance to everyone and in particular to the most disadvantaged, in order to respond to the situation facing our citizens.

So I come to my second observation, which relates to the supply problem that has just been mentioned. This issue was discussed in the report. In this regard, I think it is necessary to recall the priorities.

In terms of energy, I think it is necessary to convince the population of the need to reduce consumption and respect four priorities. First of all, there is independence in terms of supply. Without this, we will be vulnerable tomorrow. We must also ensure that the price of energy is affordable for our citizens and our ⁇ in an extremely open and competitive market. In addition, it is necessary to use energy that does not exceed acceptable standards at the level of CO2 production. Finally, there is the issue of security.

I would like to draw attention to the need to have a “architecture” in terms of price to maintain, within the government, an energy strategy in the coming years. This seems to me to be one of the main points of the policy to be put in place.

I am not opposed to the strengthening of the powers of the CREG but I believe that everyone should have their place and, when it comes to weighing on prices, it must be done while keeping in mind the risk that this involves. Investments may no longer be made and we may find ourselves in a precarious situation in the future, compared to the priorities I have set. Each actor has to play his role.

I come back to another competence and wonder if we should not also take radical measures. In fact, we see, in our market, that the elasticity of lower prices is not what one could legitimately expect. We want a strategic state, capable of making decisions and responding to the current concerns of our citizens, especially in terms of purchasing power.

I would also like to give you two comments concerning the independent sector. I had already formulated the first one in the committee and a partial response had been given. A number of positive measures have been taken. They are all the more meritorious as they were taken in a difficult budgetary framework. It would have been easier to take them here six or seven years ago than to take them today! It should also be taken into account that these measures may still need to be encouraged or enhanced. By the crisis we know, the poverty threshold will rise and it should not be that, tomorrow, more people are in a delicate situation.

I welcome these measures. I recall, however, as I did in the committee, that if small risk financing was acquired in the previous government, it was funded only in the current government.

The second observation in this area concerns the problem of the participation fund. In a crisis situation, it is also important. I still read today in the Journal of the Middle Class: “Problem of liquidity, no availability. All energy is mobilized to meet the challenge of a possible economic crisis.” It seems to me important that self-employed persons, individuals, entrepreneurs, who due to work find themselves in a situation where they cannot realize their social objective, give work and have a sufficient income, are properly compensated.

The new system appears to be better than the previously established system. However, I still ask myself a small question about the scope of one of the provisions. We discussed this in the committee. I understand what “major force” is. On the other hand, the manifestly unfounded character is always a problem for me and I am concerned about the interpretation that will be given by some municipalities.

These measures are therefore positive and I encourage the government to continue on this path, to respond but also to make strategic choices for tomorrow, especially in the field of security because investments in this area must be taken now for five or six years, or even for the next ten or twenty years!

We have heard all the speakers in this chapter. Do ministers want to have the word?

I will try to answer some of the important questions that have been raised. I will not comment on Mr. President’s proposals. from Quickenborne. I simply confirm that these are personal opinions of Mr. Van Quickenborne and that no consultation or discussion has taken place in this regard, neither in the government nor in any prior work framework.

That said, as much as it matters that the government adopts a clear line, as it seems to me normal that a member of the government, in an interview with the press, gives his personal opinions, as long as they are presented as such, on these matters, as I did when speaking of transitory ceiling of prices in anticipation of a situation of competition.

The debate could be held on this subject. However, I’m not sure if this is the place and time to take it. I think – and these are the general guidelines of the government – that it is necessary to move towards more competition, because a problem, if not price fixation, in any case price level arises today. It would be important to provide more transparency in this area.

We may differ on the measures to ⁇ this. However, measures such as those proposed by Mr. Van Quickenborne may not have any immediate effect. Other measures are needed in the meantime. The government’s line is that a levy must be made to finance energy-related measures. This levy is clear, fixed and justified, on the one hand, by the undue profits of the two producers of nuclear energy and, on the other hand, by the needs of the State in the field of energy policy. This is clearly stated in the budget of the previous government. It has been constant since then and is not questioned by anyone.

A few words of explanation on federal contributions and flat-rate reductions. The Court of Auditors’ report, which is referred to in the statement of reasons, has, in my opinion, not been published. However, the CREG and myself have been aware of this. There was a problem of perception of this contribution, the CREG having issued the suggestion to recentralize perception, so that it is more effective. We were able to estimate that, out of the 17 million unperceived, one could expect at least 10 million better perceptions and consequently affect them.

For the rest, it is true that we used reserves (passive BP1 and BP2 and Belgoprocess). These are obviously not the preferred budget options when it comes to balancing, but you will remember that when we closed the 2009 budget, we were still in a logic that we didn’t want to go into a deficit. To finance these measures, therefore, as in many other aspects, certain reserves had to be used. We are aware that this is not the optimal solution and that we will need to find other budget solutions for next year.

The system of flat-rate discounts may be a bit complicated, but we are moving toward automation of social rates. With regard to the reductions, we have sought to simplify and harmonise them as they are based on an income criterion and no longer on a status criterion. This income is identical, whether it is oil, gas or electricity and the procedure is as simple as possible. The form is sent to the domicile of potential applicants; it is sufficient for them to fill it out and send it back to SPF Economie, which performs all necessary administrative procedures on behalf of the beneficiaries. It can hardly be done simpler than that!

That there are different modalities of financial interventions depending on the case, this is the very principle of the social state. This is the way that social security has been built and that social policies can effectively ⁇ their purpose or, to take the terms of Mr. George is targeted.

Madame Partyka, I also regret that we have an intervention of 50 or 75 euros in 2008 and 105 euros in 2009. I obviously prefer the 2009 solution that has the merit of being both harmonised and higher. We made this other decision as part of the 2008 budget with budget data that did not allow us to do more. Certainly, some will benefit from an intervention of 50 or 75 euros in 2008, but they will also benefit from an intervention of 105 euros in 2009, depending on the date of arrival of their regularization invoice. This is the principle of the annual budget that leads us there.

For IRE, I don’t think this is the place or time to hold a debate. We will be able to return to it if questions are asked by members of the Chamber. I would simply say that this contribution was justified by the cessation of the production of the IRE and by the substantial investments that were made by this Institute whose mission is fundamental in order to ensure its total security, which was controlled and validated by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control before the resumption of its activities.

Regarding the Elia tax, Mrs Van der Straeten, I confirm that the issue of advance payments can no longer be settled by the federal, since there is no longer a federal legal basis. What we do here is simply to provide, with retroactive effect, a solid legal basis for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2007, under the Government of Verhofstadt II. Subsequently, this issue falls within the relations between the GRD and the Flemish Region.

As regards the transposition of certain elements of the Gas and Electricity Directive, I assure you, Madame Van der Straeten, that this is contained in the law on various non-urgent provisions, which was adopted in first reading by the Council of Ministers and which is currently for opinion to the Council of State. We will have the opportunity to come back.

Here, Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the great theoretical considerations on the energy mix, of which we will still have the opportunity to talk a lot, some elements of more precise answers to the questions that have been asked to me.

Yesterday we had a debate in the committee of Mr. Laeremans. A lot has been said, but I still have a few concerns.

First, I am, of course, involved minister because a lot of companies are rightly complaining about the high electricity bills they have to pay. There has, of course, been a month-long increase in oil prices, up to a triple increase. Then the energy producers were there like the chickens to say that the bill should also go up. Since August this year, the price has been divided by three but the invoice unfortunately does not. The bill has barely dropped, although a small drop is now announced. Since August, the flashlights are red and something needs to be done.

Second, in the past, as one of the few in politics and often to the dissatisfaction of some colleagues in this room, I have said that the distribution prices in this country are too high. Then I also said that the increases requested by the distribution network managers are often on the high side. I am pleased to find that the CREG has not responded to the last request of the distribution network operators on both sides of the language boundary to raise the price by 10%, 15%, and 30% to 38% respectively in the south of the country. It would be too cynical that where prices should fall, local governments would indirectly raise them.

A third point is my proposal for a avoidable tax for Electrabel. The government must keep the word. In the government agreement of March this year, it is expressly stated that there must be room for more competition in the field of energy production. In the past, work has been done on a voluntary agreement in which Electrabel had promised to give up a certain production capacity. To this day it has failed to do so. I can understand that the merger of Suez and Gaz de France has taken some time to make other matters wait, but I want the majority to hold the word on that point. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I was moved yesterday by the support I received from the opposition. Now it is my job to convince the colleagues of the majority. Then the file is round.

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to speak longer than the only member of Parliament who has addressed the problem of self-employed and SMEs. I would like to thank Mr. George took this point into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I wanted to react because I am shocked to hear that it is normal to speak as a federal minister in the press on a personal basis. I do not want to repeat the whole debate about energy. First, it has already taken up a lot of space and, moreover, it must take place in a committee; this has been planned for several months, following the hearings.

However, on principle, we are faced with a law-program on which we are asked to take a decision. As parliamentarians, we are waiting for responses from the government, not a personal response from one or another minister. Now, from the government, for the moment, we have what is written in the law-programme, that is, a levy of 250 million.

Then I heard about most banks that it was very insufficient. Finally, what is the government’s position on the various hypotheses, on the blocking of prices, on the 250 million, on the additional levy of 750 million? At this point, we have no answer, which I find unacceptable.

The Minister of Economy, as the Minister of Economy, gives his little idea in the press; the Minister of Energy, as the Minister of Energy, communicates his little idea in the press: all this is not discussed in the government, is not coordinated. In my opinion, such attitudes strengthen the government and the state in relation to the energy sector operators, extremely powerful operators. It does not seem to be serious. To hear that one can afford to work this way without engaging anyone else, I find it serious!

It is regrettable that we do not now receive a response from the government on these different assumptions.

Mr. Speaker, this simply means that we will come there tomorrow, at the time of the vote, when the Prime Minister will be present or when the representative who can speak on behalf of the government will be there. Indeed, for now, as Philippe Henry says, we are facing two different versions without getting a response from the government. We will return to it tomorrow.

I would like to note that Mr. The Minister confirms my concerns regarding the fears I had expressed. The 10 million unreceived revenues relating to the federal contribution are hypothetical, the 18 million of the unplanned UNDRAF have indeed disappeared, the 2,6 million for Belgoprocess will be consumed, as well as the 3 million for BP1 and BP2. In large terms, this gives us a total of 35 million euros that will be missing in the budget for next year.

As you have confirmed, you have a lot of ideas to fill those 35 million, but I remain concerned about those ideas. I absolutely don’t want to propose tax increases or contributions next year to deal with these missing funds and this rather random management.

We can close the chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something to Minister Van Quickenborne, because he was not present when I spoke thereafter.

I have very much addressed you, Mr. Minister, in connection with your statements concerning the 750 million and the like. I would like to tell you again personally that you are actually asking for the impossible through your own immobilism. I explain myself more closely. You say that Electrabel should distribute and sell its production fleet as soon as possible so that we get smaller players, but that is totally impossible at the moment because there is absolute uncertainty about the fate of our production fleet, of our nuclear power plants. As long as we do not know whether these nuclear power plants will be allowed to exist longer, no one can estimate the value of any production plant in this country. As long as this uncertainty persists – if it is Minister Magnette’s responsibility, the uncertainty will persist for a very long time – no sale or estimate is possible. Your government is responsible for the inability to make certain sales.

You want to force Electrabel with all sorts of taxes, but you would much better trigger them in a different way to do so. Through swaps, it is quite easy to set up a number of structures from abroad, so that Electrabel gets a smaller distribution or production park. The way you do it, through flame-flame or “Quickie” policy, in which you quickly release a balloonnet and not even consult with your colleagues – as has just been confirmed – you damage your own image and damage the image of your government. You ensure that there is an impression of total chaos and of a very disparate policy. There is no coherence here. This has been demonstrated again today, also from the intervention of Mr Schiltz. There is no coherent policy in this government and you are contributing greatly to that lack of coherence.

We initiate the discussion of the chapter Social Affairs, Public Health and Pensions.

We start the discussion of Social Affairs, Public Health and Pensions.

The following speakers are registered: Mrs. Burgeon, M. Gilkinet, Mr. De Vriendt, Mrs. Becq, M. Prior to M. Bacquelaine, Mr. Bonte and Mrs. De Maght.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will focus my speech on the discussions of the law-program that took place in the Public Health Committee. They focused on health-related topics but also on food chain safety, social integration or energy and climate. As part of the “Public Health” section, I will limit myself to a few essential points.

The national fight against cancer as defined last spring continues. We can only rejoice. I will address in particular the extension to all of the measures relating to smoking cessation, measures so far reserved for pregnant women and their partner. Their support will also be expanded because in addition to doctors, psychologists who have passed the tests of a specific training in tobaccoology will also be able to provide this follow-up.

This decision is to be put in parallel with that recently announced by the Minister in the field of awareness-raising and prevention policy. I will quote for example his desire to see printed shock photos regularly updated on all tobacco packaging, which is not yet the case or even the generalization on these same packages of the mention of the number of "Tabac Stop". These initiatives are not unnecessary, given the unfortunately growing number of smokers in our country. The percentage of smokers has thus dropped from 27% in 2007 to 30% in 2008, which is worrying as it falls back to the 2000 figures.

Should we remember that tobacco is identified as the cause of one in four cancers and that it is imperative not to lower your arms? Repression and deterrence are ⁇ indispensable policies, but we must especially help those who want to get rid of this poison.

In terms of better treatment of chronic diseases, cancer is also becoming a recurring illness. It should be noted the installation of the observatory of chronic diseases which, by its composition, will allow the sick to be perfectly represented. For my group, this is a crucial point if we want to effectively pursue a policy that truly takes into account the expectations and needs of these patients.

With regard to the MAF, the establishment of the legal basis for lowering the ceiling set today to 450 euros when the beneficiary has reached it for several consecutive years is a measure to be included in a policy of better care. Sometimes it is very expensive to take care, the purchase of medications that require the treatment of a chronic disease. The term used by Ms. the Minister to illustrate this system is clear and fair: this safety net should allow to replace patients who may be overwhelmed by the costs incurred by their illness, without however raising lists that will establish in the future as best as possible what should be understood by "chronic disease".

A list is, by definition, exclusive. It is therefore important to take care not to leave on the road a patient who is in real suffering.

The bill also transcribes economic measures to be implemented on pharmaceutical specialties as announced in the Minister’s general policy note. The extension of the reference refund and the adaptation of this system up to four times a year are elements to be encouraged.

For the patient, this reference refund system results in the reduction of the moderator ticket when the prescriber opts for a generic drug. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the doctor is effectively aware of these cheap prescriptions so that the system does not turn in the end against the patient who could pay more for his moderator ticket if the prescriber opted for expensive medications.

The corollary of this policy is found in another provision of the project, the one that gives the King the possibility to extend the cheap prescription quotas to different therapeutic classes.

My group is clearly in favour of these initiatives that work for the sustainability of our health care system, which tends to empower prescribers while ensuring the interests of patients.

Finally, with regard to the social integration component, we can only welcome the extension of the heating period, which will now be annual. This element should introduce a little more flexibility in the system. The consumer could also win by choosing more freely when he decides to fill his tank, which could correspond to a period of fall in the price of the oil.

Furthermore, on the part of the shippers, this scaling on the year made possible, requests for tank filling should be welcomed with relief. My group takes the opportunity to remind that too many people, who yet meet the required conditions, do not yet benefit from this aid. We hope that the annualization of the heating period will allow more potential beneficiaries to use this heating allocation.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Dear Colleagues, the few considerations that I wanted to formulate in relation to this law-programme in its public health part.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak first of all about the measures taken with regard to a number of financial institutions in Belgium, including recapitalization and the consequences of these decisions on the application of corporate tax. I would like to point out first that, if we intervened in a number of institutions, it was in order to avoid the cessation of payments and bankruptcy situations that could occur in this matter. In terms of corporate tax, we have for a long time preserved the ability to still collect this tax by ⁇ ining a number of financial structures alive.

Sometimes we intervened in capital purely and simply, alone or with partners. In the example of Dexia, other public partners and existing shareholders also participated in capital. Sometimes we have been involved in different transactions that are considered to be close to a capital, for example for KBC, the formula that was taken was also used for ING in the Netherlands. We also intervened in loan, with the loan operation of three billion euros with respect to Fortis Group to allow it to still maintain payment capacity and to comply with its financial obligations.

These operations were intended to try to bring these different groups back to a better fortune with as a priority goal the protection of savings.

For the future, before seeing how the corporate tax will be applied, it will be necessary to verify that the various companies concerned produce positive results that allow, in a number of cases, to cover the losses accumulated eventually in previous fiscal years.

That being said, I confess to you that I do not see why not apply the rules of corporate tax in a quite comprehensive way to these companies, as to any other. Especially when we become shareholders. We will receive, as these files evolve, dividends paid to shareholders. We also hope to benefit from added value once companies return to a better fortune.

The purpose of notional interests was, in the first place, to strengthen the own funds of these different institutions. Doing so through capital participation, it would be ⁇ surprising to exclude companies receiving public funds from an advantage that benefits companies receiving only private funds. A number of public companies benefit from notional interests. If I have well understood the meaning of your question, we should ⁇ end this system for companies such as the SNCB, bus transport companies, or even the National Bank of Belgium, which also benefit from it.

I believe that notional interests are a measure unanimously welcomed by the representatives of companies in the social consultation we are conducting today. We have decided to maintain the measure in the 2009 budget and it will have to apply to all companies, including those in which we have just intervened in capital. I confirm to you that we hope that all these mechanisms will allow us to recover a significant portion of the investment we have placed in this sector through the surplus value and the dividends granted.

This is the simple reasoning that can be made on this subject. I am willing to examine any other reasoning but I do not see why companies with public participation should be excluded from the benefit of a mechanism that applies to all companies.

I would like to thank the Minister for coming back and giving a comprehensive answer. Unlike my other intervention, I received a response on the substance, even though I disagree with the whole reasoning.

From the moment that this device exists and public companies have access to it, why not? We have a general criticism of the arrangement and we have submitted a bill. This debate should have taken place at the entrance and we have not yet had it. I hope that we will soon be able to hold it.

I did not want to bring the general debate, but a very precise debate within the context of specific and, I dare hope, exceptional interventions – this is the term you used at the time of the initial intervention – which leads to a total paradox. Indeed, the State must intervene at this point in a banking system that has always wanted to regulate itself, which already benefited widely from the notional interest system and which benefits in addition to the return of the investment made in urgency by the State.

We submitted an amendment and I think we did well given the Minister’s response. We’ll see what happens in the vote tomorrow. I think mr. Coëme has submitted a question on this subject but it will be dealt with only next week. This is the proof that I was able to awaken a concern that could be shared by others. We will see it tomorrow at the vote. For me, your answer, which is to say that one could retouch a small part through dividends, is completely unsatisfactory, when one knows the extent of the reduction granted through the intervention and when one sees the partial dividend that could be retouched.

In addition, you say that you will first have to see if this is profitable. Remember that your own system allows you to postpone on seven years – if I remember correctly – the arrangement. There can be hope in this regard. I hope for the shareholders that will be the case. I have done an approximate assessment on this subject. For example, in the current state of affairs, it is about 170 million euros for Fortis, Dexia and Ethias. I did not take into account KBC as there was no conversion of shares and therefore recapitalization. These 170 million euros are, in my opinion, the demonstration of the ultimate paradox of the device that will – I hope – be the subject of a discussion in a committee session.

I would like to thank Mr. Nollet for his confidence in the intervention of the government which has taken participations in various institutions. Indeed, Mr. Nollet, you clearly start from the idea that these interventions will be conclusive and will allow these companies to produce, again, positive results, to pay corporate tax, to distribute dividends and, probably, to realize surplus-value. I must say that in the last few weeks I have rarely heard such a vibrant plea to congratulate the government for its interventions. I am even more touched by this, because it comes from a member of the opposition whose will I know is to lead a constructive opposition. As far as I know, this has rarely been the case in this parliament. I am ⁇ happy about this.

Furthermore, I do not understand why a derogation, for example, of notional interests, would result in penalizing all small shareholders present in a number of financial groups. In fact, I recall that we intervened through operations at the level of the Fortis Group. Now, I have often heard you, usually at a family lunch, advocate – I am delighted because this is a new fact – the situation of the small bearers of a number of societies. How do you want to be able to reward these small shareholders otherwise than through dividends or surplus-values? If one wishes to give them a hope of one day recovering dividends, or even surplus values on shares, one must, of course, avoid introducing derogatory rules under which the State would confiscate, by a tax somewhat exceptional in comparison with common law, the profits which could be destined to the small holders.

With this answer, I hope to make you understand, Mr. Nollet – this means, as you have pointed out, a broader debate on the subject may be organized – that the application of corporate tax in all its rules constitutes one of the best protections that can be offered to all shareholders and, in particular, to small holders of a number of groups to which you are ⁇ attached, which demonstrates well that beyond your will for a constructive opposition, you also manage to open the field of reflection within your group on the role of capital in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the humorous attempt used by the Minister to not respond to the objections formulated here, he is ⁇ misplaced to evoke the fate of small shareholders. Given the disastrous consequences of actions taken as part of crisis management, I think it should be more reserved when talking about small shareholders, which is more here, with the mechanism that I denounce. Indeed, the historic shareholders of Fortis do not find themselves there at all, since it was taken over by Paribas. Indeed, those who were and are still shareholders of BNP Paribas could find themselves there for a part!

[...] is interesting. But it is in the text of these laws that you will find the arrangement concerning the famous coupon 42, which we have, on 3 October, with a maximum of 5,000 shares, reserved for small holders of the Fortis group who participated in the operations until the capital increase of the end of June, translated into operations until 1 July. In short, this means that the small carriers, not only received the guarantee of the existence of Fortis Group, through a loan of 3 billion euros, which is nothing, but we have them above all - it is a purely discretionary decision of the State through Parliament - guaranteed a possibility to participate in the future results of BNP Paribas.

Mr Van de Velde asked the question in the committee – he will probably repeat them in the plenary session – why this has not happened with Fortis Bank.

Fortis Bank is a subsidiary of BNP Paribas Group. We are in the same whole. But if we want that one day, this coupon gives a real right to shareholders to participate in this return to better fortune, it must obviously not, by other state-discretionary measures, diminish the ability to realize surplus values and receive dividends. However, any measure consisting in increasing the corporate tax, exclusively for those companies, would be contrary to the interests of small carriers in particular.

I admit that we are engaging in a much larger debate, but I thought I understood that you had asked a precise question about notional interests. If you were to deviate from the rule regarding these companies, you would be totally against the aim pursued, in particular through the text that is submitted to you today, granting a coupon to small carriers of Fortis Group. If I am talking about these, it is not by chance! These are the ones you talked about very often during this period too: the small shareholders of Fortis Group. We have established a mechanism that enables them to participate in the return to better wealth. If you aggravate the tax situation of these companies, you will take away from them, for the benefit of the state, a part of this possibility of interest.

This is a difficult arbitration between shareholders, on the one hand, and taxpayers, on the other. Through the proposals you make on notional interests, you try to strengthen the taxpayers – I can understand it, being myself very concerned with their fate – in relation to the small carriers. I just make the observation!

Last word for M. by Nollet! Then Mr. Van de Felde will have the word. But I would like to limit it to the question you have asked.

The debate is interesting. I have no problem with pursuing it, but I also agree to limit my intervention to the essential.

The cost of this measure in favour of the three concerned banks was estimated at EUR 170 million. Mr. Minister, you can absolutely not guarantee that a part, even a slightly majority, of those 170 million euros will go into your coupons system. In this case, who will primarily benefit from this measure? These are of course the shareholders of BNP Paribas, of which you represent only a small portion. The main shareholder is considered to be alone.

We have 11.7 percent. This is the double of the second shareholder.

I’m going to say that the remaining 89% will already be lost by the passage and will not return to small shareholders! This is the reason for this demonstration. That’s why it seems to me more useful – and I end with that – that this financial manna can be used for something else, in particular to improve the fate of those who have been victims of misconceptions within the government! That is why we submitted this amendment that would allow us to regain manoeuvrability for these measures instead of giving 88 or 89% to BNP Paribas shareholders who have already served themselves well in the transition.

Mr Van de Velde, please limit the debate to the question asked by Mr Nollet. If we start with the whole problem of the banks, we have left.

Mr. Speaker, please be calm. This debate will be conducted later.

There was one thing that came to mind during this mini-discussion. In this regard, I have a brief question for Mr Reynders.

Mr. Minister, what evolution do you expect in the next two years of the equity of our companies in general? How do you expect your own capital to evolve?

Through a recovery plan, we will attempt to implement a number of measures to improve the approach to the equity of many companies in Belgium. However, I will not here give an estimate of the evolution of equity in the coming years. It makes no sense.

However, we can agree that the equity of the companies will be under pressure in the next one-and-a-half to two years. It would be wise to rethink whether notional interest deduction is today the best method and best mechanism to keep our economy running.

Today we would do a much better move by lowering the nominal rate. This also eliminates the current debate. I am not completely on the same line as Mr. Nollet. I partially understand his reasoning.

Given the economic situation, it is wise to allow the notional interest deduction to take a different form in the next two years.

This is not the comment of the VBO, of Unizo and other representatives of the companies. However, it is possible to have a advice that differs from the advice of the different business managers, also in Flanders. I met with the representatives of VOKA. They advocate the notional interest deduction. However, you may have a different vision than the business leaders themselves.

With the notional interest deduction, we still exclude 50% of our SMEs.

Unizo, for example, is now advocating an extension of the notional interest deduction. However, you may have a different vision than the business leaders themselves.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, I would like to highlight various points that we find fortunately in the law-programme and which we accept, on which I wish to insist. I would also like to highlight some points that we regret not to find there. Indeed, it seems to us that, compared to the initial declaration of this government, certain steps are not met within this law-program and we wish that they are not forgotten and that we can return to them later. Indeed, it is for us that these objectives, well evidenced in the government statement, are achieved.

First, a word about the social status of self-employed workers, especially that the minister is well present among us. We welcome the continuation of the objectives set in the Government Declaration, which merely continued what had been well undertaken in the previous legislature.

We highlight various measures clearly identified in this law-program, which are part of the topics we will vote tomorrow, including progress on malus pension. We gradually erase the injustice towards self-employed workers by removing this malus pension, especially after 42 years of career instead of 43 last year.

Again, we continue the revaluation of self-employed pensions, with an increase on 1 May 2009 of 20 euros, followed by a new increase in August of 3%. It is about moving toward the goal clearly supported by the majorities of the last legislatures and this one, under the impulse of Minister Sabine Laruelle and the MR in particular, who have always attached a particular importance to this matter.

I also welcome the various simplifications and amendments to the law on self-employed victims of work in the public domain. I am especially sensitive to this as a mayor. All municipalists face dramatic situations experienced by some independent workers as a result of public works.

In terms of social security, I welcome the measures that affect single-parent families. There is an improvement in the situation. Similarly, for children with disabilities, family allowances are increased. The law-programme leaves a place for these matters.

On the other hand, in the field of pensions, Mrs. Minister, we regret that a number of points are not found in the program law, in particular the solidarity contribution. I cannot go through a debate of this nature without addressing this topic, not because it is an obsession but rather a flagrant injustice for people who have contributed all their lives and who are asked to continue contributing even though the distribution system, to which you are attached, should normally avoid this type of collection.

The Government had set itself this goal when it was established and I regret that we are not continuing the path that was initiated in the previous fiscal year, moving towards an increase in the amount of pensions from which the solidarity contribution is taken. There is something to catch up.

Regarding the permitted working ceilings, I think we have made good progress in recent years. On 23 May last year, the government had decided on a further 25% increase in the limits of permitted activity for pensioners. We expected to continue in the same line, advancing linearly to reach total elimination. The budget impact is very small, 19 million per year. In addition, there are significant return effects in terms of personal tax, social contributions and control costs.

With regard to persons with disabilities, the process of removing the “price of love” of which we have talked a lot is in progress. A first step aimed at abolishing the “price of love” was decided on March 20, 2008. But this is only a first step and there too we wish that we can move forward and completely abolish this system that seems unfair to us. We also want that, for the calculation of integration, the total immunization of the partner's income with which the disabled person forms a household is quickly a reality.

With regard to public health, a field in which I had the opportunity to discuss constructively in committee with Ms. Onkelinx, I look forward to the creation of the Observatory of Chronic Diseases.

The MR has been advocating for many years for the recognition of chronic patients as such. Outside the MAF, whether social or fiscal, it seems important to recognize a MAF specifically dedicated to chronic patients because they are the ones in our society who suffer the most in terms of health. They deserve special attention.

We now know that our healthcare social security system is probably very efficient, but for the most serious diseases, even though the sick have relatively easy incomes, the fact of having to deal with the expenses involving a chronic disease is extremely difficult and threatens the financial balance of many families.

Therefore, we want to make more progress in the MAF "chronic sick". This is a first step today, but it seems to me a bit simplistic, since it starts from a principle of free beyond 450 euros of moderator ticket. In fact, chronic patients and hypocondrial patients are placed on the same foot. This is what I said in the committee. It is enough to consume a lot of care to be categorized as "chronically ill", which obviously does not seem to me the best of the formulas.

Instead, it would be appropriate to define lists of chronic diseases as in France, which allows the granting of special aid. This is much clearer and it allows us to move forward and help more those who need it most.

I would like to be able to move forward on this issue in the coming months in the Health Commission to respond more effectively to the needs.

In terms of medicines, a number of savings have been decided. I did not understand very well some objections regarding the prices of medicines. Amendments were submitted and then withdrawn. Because of this, we have not been able to ensure that patients are offered better treatments at lower prices, in the end, since we have included in the price reduction of non-generic medicines, which are not manufactured by generic firms and which retain particular forms that require certain diseases or certain patients.

This is an opportunity to improve access to healthcare. This is probably a topic that we will need to return to soon. I am referring to Article 154 of the draft, which details the mechanism that allows to concrete the fall in the prices of medicines and the fact to include in this fall in the prices of special specialties that concern very small volumes and special diseases that require greater attention from the public authorities.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I have a precise question for you. For ten minutes now I hear you list all sorts of important files of which you say that it is a pity that one has not reached further, that it is a pity that you cannot do more, that it is only a first step.

Do you not regret, as a group leader of a government party, that the Minister of Social Affairs is not present to explain to you, if any, how this is done? You know that you can insist on her presence to reveal your aspirations.

The [...]

Oh the . So, it is not necessary for the Minister to come? I just asked myself.

I have no problem with this. In the Health Committee, we had very intense and very interesting discussions on the whole matter. I do not have the habit of translating in plenary session exactly what was done in committee, it does not seem to me to be the best method of work. I am pleased with a fairly massive presence of the government today.

I wanted to recall in the plenary session a number of principles on which we are ⁇ vigilant, while knowing that the Minister of Social Affairs and Health has participated in a constructive exchange on these matters in the committee. I know that it is attentive to a good development of the files in this context. My role here is to recall a number of cases to which we are attentive.

I would also like to emphasize one last point: therapeutic freedom in terms of prescribing medicines. I have had the opportunity to remind the Minister of Health that the process that is being started in terms of prescription quotas is a bit perverse. General doctors are required to prescribe at least 27% of cheap or generic medicines. They went much further than the quota they were proposed and reached 42%. As they were good students, they were told that as they reached 42%, the mandatory quota will become 42%. They will probably go above 50 and then they will be told to go above 50. If we continue this reasoning to the end, we reach 100% of compulsory prescription of cheap and generic drugs. Therefore, any possibility of prescribing innovative medicines is removed. This seems to me quite perverse and it is necessary to put a limit to dirigism and authoritarianism in matters of prescription in such a way that one can consider that therapeutic freedom is a good for the patient above all.

Here are some of the comments I would like to make on social and health issues.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have understood that at the moment we discuss here, all kinds of important decisions are being made elsewhere and compromises are being sought on employment policy, on the salary agreement – in which we are eagerly expecting a response – and on the investment programme that needs to come in order to get a start to respond to the economic crisis and the daily reports of new collective dismissals and shutdowns, which should concern all of us.

I have a little feeling, Mr. President, that we are doing a ritual here. We must vote here on a law that implements a policy plan that implements a budget. At the same time, new agreements on employment policy are being made outside here, but we will not be able to hear them until tomorrow morning or maybe tonight, unless Mrs. Minister can inform the Chamber about what exactly is happening in the field of employment. In any case, it could provide clarity in this debate and ⁇ also in the debate on the two bills we are discussing now. Per ⁇ the Minister can say something about this later.

I would like to point out briefly that in the Chamber Committee I had the opportunity to present a number of tables related to the economy, economic growth and employment transformation. I had the impression that no one argued that the assumptions on the basis of which the government has drawn up its budget and, therefore, on which the Program Law is also based, were too optimistic and that there should therefore be an adjustment. Since we want to talk here primarily about the provisions of both draft laws, in relation to labour market policy, I would like to refer first and foremost to the political question. The political question is whether these bills – the program law and the law various provisions – contain answers that can provide adequate response to the economic misery in which we face.

I referred to it. The unemployment figures are rising. The figures on temporary unemployment are historical. We measure historical peaks. The loss of jobs, especially in some industrial sectors, is very large.

Meanwhile, the first figures are related to the loss of jobs that normally employ people over 50. Mrs. Minister, I advise you to look at the very recent figures on unemployment and you will find that my prediction from a few days ago is already noticeable. The inflow into the unemployment rate of 50-plus people becomes excessive; the inflow is situated above the level. That means, if we do not pay attention, that we will organize structural unemployment for those over 50, while we all know that it should be our ambition, also in the context of financing the aging, to make precisely that group occupational.

That is what is happening now. The group of 50+ is apparently at the forefront of restructuring and dismissal. We know that the economic outlook is poor. However, I do not find any answers to these two proposals. At that point I will ⁇ return when I talk about the IPA, the salary agreement and the government’s attitude towards it.

As mentioned, there are few provisions in the draft program law and the draft containing various provisions, which even with the greatest creativity have any connection to those socio-economic challenges. This is also quite logical if one knows that the policy letter of the minister is full of measures and ideas that the government pushes into the social consultation, under the name of respect for the social partners.

Colleagues, the truth is that the majority hardly can reach agreement on a file in the area of socio-economic policy. Today, however, we need a strong socioeconomic policy.

In this way, it is almost obvious that the wage consultation and social consultation are difficult. They must cut through the difficult knots that no longer can be cut through in politics. Then, of course, it is indeed frustrating when we have to say something later about the inter-professional consultation and the reaction that the government apparently is still breeding.

Mrs. Minister, since we have come into virtual politics, I would like to limit myself to five proposals that we also here want to submit again and defend with, because from the opposition we do not want to share the responsibility with those who are there to watch without doing anything about it. We want to effectively make five proposals that we think are important for our economy, for our employment.

These are not revolutionary proposals. The proposals, by the way, are largely based on what we read in your policy letter.

One of the first amendments we will also submit at this plenary session is the amendment aimed at increasing benefits for temporary unemployed. At the moment, we do not know the fate of the salary negotiation. Contrary to what you and a part of the majority informed us at the committee meeting, raising the temporary unemployment benefits is not part of the IPA, so it is not part of it. It is on the list that the tripartite, as it is called, should be resolved. In any case, to those games no one has a message. Today we have a historical record of 118,000 temporary unemployed who have to deal with a much too low benefit. Our amendment aims to do something about this. If there is no government or social consultation, let us take the responsibility here to bring the temporary unemployment benefits together to a human-worthy level.

A second amendment, which we are also submitting again, concerns another vulnerable group that today is massively the victim of the economic downturn, namely the temporary workers. Much has already been said about this too. A few months ago, the government announced that it would strengthen its position. The only thing we have seen is that the economy has gone further and that there has been absolutely nothing done about better regulation or better protection for temporary workers, not even in the context of social consultation.

Mrs. Minister, I think that, beyond the ideologies, we should be allies when it comes to better protecting those who are struggling today on our labour market and who get the bill thrown on their shoulder. Therefore, we would like to make an attempt again here to enhance the status of temporary workers. It costs nothing; it does not contain the budget. It is simply the reinforcement of a statute, which, by the way, could create additional income for social security.

The next and small element, to which a limited group in society attaches importance, is the adoption leave. You also refer to this in your policy letters on equal opportunities, Mrs. Minister. I have noticed that almost all parties, including majority parties, have submitted legislative proposals on this subject.

I am talking about adoption leave. This too has been discussed for months and also in that regard we see nothing moving, except some shimmering discussions in the Senate. Therefore, we want to use the discussion of the draft law containing various provisions to allow everyone to knock on it. Also for this, Mrs. Minister, we have not made a border proposal that differs greatly from what other groups say about this. It is simply the legal regulation of what we think of as consensus to notice from the words, but today unfortunately not yet from the deeds.

The fourth and preliminary amendment we have submitted concerns a support measure for the group that is dear to us and, apparently, to you, the low-income single parents. The State Secretary of Poverty Reduction will be able to explain to you the major risks that this group faces in terms of subsistence insecurity and poverty. Over a number of years, Mrs. Minister, the group of low-income single parents who have fallen into poverty has grown almost exponentially. If you know the situation, you know that we need to help that group. Hence our proposal. As the service cheque system is being reformed and partly adjusted, improved and strengthened – if it is good, we also want to emphasize that – we would like to take the opportunity to help that vulnerable group, for which the State Secretary of Poverty Combating, together with you, telkenmale calls attention. Let’s effectively give those people access to the service checks and support them through a few free service checks per purchase of ten.

A fifth and last amendment, colleagues, concerns the general liability.

The Minister, the Minister of Social Affairs, who is really concerned and must be concerned about the income of social security, has been advocating for years and days and also for the last few weeks in the committees to introduce the total liability absolutely to protect new workers in our economy. The Minister of Labour also says at the same time that we must absolutely do that. Your predecessor has, by the way, in part linked the fate of your party to that. He said: I will never enter a government if the CDH does not have the certainty that the general liability will be introduced quickly. Now, Mrs. Minister, at a time when our social security is under ⁇ severe financial pressure and when the social inspection services indicate that the working conditions of foreign workers in our economy are no longer controllable without that general liability, and despite the statements of the Minister of Social Affairs and the Minister of Labour that we need it to maintain order on our labour market, our proposal on this subject is easily wiped out in Parliament. I really do not understand that.

We continue to insist. In the micmac, as part of the ongoing consultation between the social partners and the government, you may still be able to carry out a forcing. In any case, in this way, we want to point out everyone’s responsibility and re-submit the amendment, because we know that it must ever come out of it, and for us, rather today than tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, before I say something about poverty reduction, I would like to make two strange findings at the end of the long debates in the Committee on Social Affairs, both on social security and on employment.

In view of the fact that Mr. Bonte does not want to move to another subject of his speech, I would like to point out to him, in telegraphic style, that the figures of temporary unemployment are, at this stage, accurate. The figures provided by the ONEM for October indicate a further decrease in the number of unemployed. I fear, unfortunately, that this will not last long, but the latest numbers in our possession always tend to decrease.

In terms of improving the situation of economic unemployment, proposals that can only satisfy you are being developed. We are working hard on this and you will be informed soon.

The status of interim workers is currently being discussed at the level of the social partners. They will end up towards an improvement that tends in the same direction as what you propose.

Regarding adoption leave, I sat this afternoon in the Senate committee. She will begin to analyze the proposals in the coming weeks. Some of them seem to deserve to be supported.

With regard to your proposal on single-parent families and service titles, a budget of 1.5 million is allocated to social initiatives on service titles. This is a proposal that we will consider very carefully, because it is really interesting.

Regarding social responsibility, I agree with you. We hope to reach a governmental agreement as soon as possible.

No news about the main liability?

So far not.

If I had bad intentions, I would be able to see how many times something has already been announced at press conferences or in committees. It is repeatedly announced. It is time for the knots to be cut.

That was exactly my point in my introduction. Given today’s economic situation, we should have cut the knots yesterday and not reference it again to the Greek calendar. With the listing you provide, a number of things will be referenced again to the Greek calendar.

I do not say that simply. One of the comments I wanted to make is exactly related to that policy of announcing. I would like to inform my colleagues that last week in the committee the Minister of Labour, Ms. Milquet, announced that a breakthrough in student work could soon be noted. The issue could be discussed at the Council of Ministers on Monday.

When we communicated the good news related to student work on the following day in the same Social Affairs Committee, Ms. Onkelinx, knowing that in the policy plan it is stated that everything will already be informed, communicated, sensitized before 1 January, she replied that we should forget that it would not come on the government table.

In other words, the games and the playing of the black pit ...

Mr. Bonte, I had a meeting with Minister Onkelinx yesterday. We have formulated a proposal. We will present the proposal soon. We have made progress.

If you say “shortly” every three weeks, “shortly” becomes very long. I would like to point out that January 1st is also “in the near future”. The workplace needs that transparency in order to be able to do everything in the right way. Students who want to do student work also need clarity.

I hope this time will be especially soon. We will remind you of this especially soon.

What worries our party most in the entire discussion that is currently being held between inter-professional negotiators and the government about, among other additional measures, is that the great fear for the fifty-year-olds in our labour market is not removed at all.

I have subsequently referred to the situation of those over 50 who are now overly affected by restructuring and unemployment. If I look at the draft interprofessional agreement and more specifically the burden reduction measures in that interprofessional agreement, then you really need to get your services to figure out the impact on the labour market of that simplification of job plans. It means that significant burden reductions for those over fifty will be abolished. These people immediately become more expensive and the social partners in their quest for simplification have injected the budget that serves it into the linear burden reduction. This is the old, faithful, blue proposal: the “linearer”, the better.

The result of this, Mrs. Minister, is that at this time the government is threatening to agree to a scenario in which this will mean a salary cost weighting of 5 to 10% for the 50+ people on our labour market and this at the detriment of other groups, youth groups and lower earning groups on our labour market. I do not need to predict the effect. I will, by the way, in the committee and here in the plenary very regularly point you to the situation of the fifty-plus. If that measure is implemented, we can forget the discussion about financing the aging because then we are actually engaged in the organization of the leap and mass of fifty-plus from our labour market.

This threatens to happen. We would like to warn you about this. We also want to advocate that the government, in consultation with the social partners, removes this disaster from the agreement. After all, it will be a catastrophe that we all will have to pay, but especially the people who come after us. Those over fifty who have been unemployed for a number of years will not be able to work even with the best activation. This threatens to happen. Do not say that this is not your responsibility. I think the government should do everything in its power to avoid this in any case.

Finally, on behalf of my group, I would like to submit an amendment concerning poverty alleviation. We want to counter specific forms of lending.

I mean the so-called continuous credit and the credit cards.

The State Secretary for Poverty Reduction has begun a courageous struggle against it. He, rightly, never fails to point out that the ongoing loans are not only the result of people who are in financial difficulties and seek refuge, but are also the cause of poverty. He also has a scientific report on this. That was encrypted. The CSB of the University of Antwerp has compiled a good report on this.

The only thing we determine, Mrs. Minister, is that neither in the program law nor in the law containing various provisions nor even a single measure was included from the beautiful and ambitious poverty plan of colleague Delizée. This is especially true for continuous loans. No measures are provided. That is why we find ourselves compelled, in an attempt to be yet convincing, to submit an amendment also for that.

For all clarity, Mrs. Minister, I am not talking about the amendment that refers to a bill I have submitted on this subject, because that goes a lot further. It is about the amendment that has been drawn up by the civil society and refers to a bill that the PS has been defending here for years and days.

I think that, in order to avoid the shame that there is nothing about poverty reduction in both drafts, we must also here have the courage to address that problem through the push of buttons, because it is a very real problem, of which, unfortunately, more and more people, even according to the figures, become the victim.

Colleagues, the essence is that tomorrow we can know much more than we know today, if I hear what is happening outside. In any case, tomorrow we can learn more about the difference between words and actions in some colleagues and groups. That is why, on behalf of my group, I wish to submit these amendments.

Ms. De Maght has the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, ministers, during the discussion of the program law and the law containing various provisions, we have unfortunately been able to re-establish again and again that the proposed measures are in fact very secular, targeted proposals and that they are not intended for the entire group of people.

An example of this is the Social Oil Fund.

I also made my comments in the committee, and I thought it was very right. However, I would like to repeat them here again. After all, I hope that I can convince you that we should take a measure for everyone and not for certain groups of people.

The Social Oil Fund is a fake solution. It does not provide a structural solution for the rising energy prices, nor for the rising heating costs.

Today, it is once again apparent that the legislation in force in this area is being adjusted to the potential stakeholders involved.

Colleagues, what it means is that according to the government-Leterme, those who do not heat with fuel oil – Mrs. the minister has confirmed to me that, by the way, in the committee – can stay in the cold. They do not receive any additional financial incentive.

A genuine social policy is not carried out on the cap of the needy. Let that be clear. A genuine social policy is first and foremost aimed at everyone. Those involved should not be hit again by bringing them into a damn corner.

We can therefore only argue that the aforementioned scheme is not efficient, not transparent, susceptible to limited use and ⁇ not social and, in our opinion, is in fact discriminatory.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said in the committee, people who do not heat themselves with oil in the cold are not left. We try to harmonize the funds of oil, electricity and gas. In the field of electricity and gas, flat-rate measures that allow intervention on gas and electricity bills have been taken. Therefore, we do not abandon people who heat themselves on gas and electricity! However, it is true that we are touching the people who are less affected and who are experiencing the most financial difficulties to warm up.

What you say is correct. This discussion has already been conducted with Minister Magnette. There are, indeed, measures, but in fact it remains a blunt form of taxation if you leave the VAT as it is. There are then alternatives. I can hardly describe it as good governance. If one, as a government, wants to do something for the high-increasing energy costs, one should think about the measures that one takes in this will and not stick patches on a wooden leg.

List Dedecker believes that a legislative initiative, as I have just pointed out, for VAT reduction from 21% to 6% is ⁇ justifiable since energy and heating sources today are in fact no longer a luxury but a basic need. In addition, the form of assistance is not limited to the target group in our proposal, but it really benefits everyone, including those who heat with electricity, coal and gas. That is, in our view, social policy.

Today, the possibility exists, among other things, through the OCMW. This is already applied, apart from this VAT reduction. I also cited that example. Within the current legislation, they can take appropriate measures tailored to the interested parties themselves. That is already happening, heating allowances are already being awarded. That is all and surplus.

I give an example of the absurdity of this Social – I dare ask a question here in places – Stock Oil Fund. In order to enjoy what the federal government wants to grant here, some OCMW clients will have to take a interest-free loan with the OCMW which they will then have to repay on an annual basis. The repayment from the Social Stock Oil Fund represents in fact one tenth of the interest-free loan that they must repay to the OCMW on an annual basis in order to be able to submit the invoice in order to recover the costs. This target group policy, as proposed here today, is entirely at the expense of the taxpayer.

I also have a few comments on public health. It is a pity that the Minister is not there.

After the discussion in the committee, I would like to make it clear again that, in our view, the appointment of tobaccoologists is an unnecessary measure. Preference should be given to the family doctor as a first-line aid provider. For the patient, after all, he is the trusting person, the one who is closest to him, the one who is most accessible. He will have more impact when it comes to advice on quitting smoking than a tobaccoologist that is much less accessible. In addition to the fact that a number of tasks belonging to family doctors are already fragmented – the press has already confirmed that this profession is no longer attractive at all – we will here give a signal and plus. We question what they are doing and we are going to remove some more tasks from the general physicians, which makes it no longer attractive to become a general physician. In addition, I would like to add that last year – which we were informed during the committee meeting – only about 200 people applied to the 132 existing tobaccoologists. Today, an unjustly very expensive expansion of the target group is proposed to justify the appointment of the Tobacco Tour. This is an unnecessary expenditure where a lot of money is opposed in the budget. This is not efficient. We advocate for more structurally substantiated measures using the existing offer, with regard to tobacco scientists, i.e. the general practitioners.

We are very pleased with the initiative to engage in the fight against social fraud. We would also like to emphasize that access to health care – I would like to say this clearly and that is by no means the purpose of our amendment – must be ⁇ ined for all. However, the proposal as included in the draft law containing various provisions is not something that should be possible. The proposed measures are far from sufficient to really speak of a fight against social fraud. The current draft would ensure that sometimes high-priced medical care provided to persons at the expense of the rightholder could not be recovered from the rightholder who committed the fraudulent acts, even if the fraudster would prove to have sufficient assets.

We are therefore obliged to re-submit our amendment from the committee in order to extend this proposed measure. Indeed, it cannot be that persons charged by the fraudster who have opened rights at the expense of the fraudster are entitled to unfair medical care and these costs are not to be reimbursed. In order to prevent the rightholder from withdrawing from the obligation to reimburse him, her and the persons under his or her responsibility, we explicitly ask you to approve this amendment. We want to engage in the fight against social fraud au fond and not adopt a half-sacrific measure.

Within the framework of public health surveillance, we understand that the vaccines for castrating pigs and pigs – it is really from one extreme to the other – are composed of antihormonal substances whose effects on public health are not known today. We ask ourselves whether it is advisable to lift the prohibition of prescribing and administering them. Are we sure that there are no harmful consequences for humans? Regardless of the livestock farmer’s free choice to use these vaccines or in whatever way he wishes to conduct the castration, I have not received any confirmation or denial that after eating vaccinated meat this will have no effect on humans. Another product example is the pill where only after fifty years can one properly estimate what possible consequences this would have or has on humans.

Finally, we would also like to emphasize once again that the use or consumption of medicines increases every year. A qualitatively responsible prescription behavior is very important. It would be irresponsible to frequently prescribe cheap drugs instead of restricting the prescription of more expensive drugs. I continue to advocate, together with our group, that the quality of the medicinal product should prevail over any other consideration.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the plenary meeting is an opportunity for the Ecolo-Groen Group! highlight some important elements in terms of the objectives pursued. It is also an opportunity to clarify the reasons for our interest in certain provisions, but also the reasons why we regret the absence or weakness of some others in the two laws that are subject to us today.

The members of the Health, Environment and Social Inclusion Commission, where seven ministers come to defend their budget and their general policy note, have a rather cross-sectional view of the population and government policy. In this committee, we associate poverty-fighting policies and health policies, for example.

In view of these elements and the significant economic crisis we are experiencing, we regret the absence of provisions which I will call “stronger” in terms of health realisation and provisions in the 2009 poverty-fighting plan.

I allow myself to intervene because I hope that it may be possible to take action, before June 2009, as part of the budget adjustment. Thus, for example, in the poverty-fighting plan, the need to facilitate access to health care is highlighted. It is a matter of being able to use more systematically or more easily the third party paying, the maximum to invoice and the OMNIO status. Intentions are expressed in this sense, at least for people with the lowest incomes.

However, it must be noted that these intentions are not concretized in the draft law-program or the draft law containing various provisions. That is why we have submitted a bill in which these different aspects are covered. We would like this proposal to make these automatic remedies possible to be considered, which would avoid having to advance exclusively the argument relating to chronic diseases. In this case, a number of traps may arise. And I have to say that after hearing Mr. Bacquelaine, my fears are even greater.

Onkelinx has opted for a chronic disease plan to allow more patients access to long-term care coverage mechanisms, complex care that involves taking medications previously referred to as "comfort", but also to combat pain or secondary symptoms resulting from treatments for certain serious diseases.

It is a strategy that can be interesting, unless it is necessary to determine how to differentiate the patient "chronically ill", which risks to supplant the case of the patient with low incomes, for which it is necessary to facilitate access to health care and avoid paying large sums; which does not mean wasting and not controlling the supply of care.

When Mr. Bacquelaine tells us that it will be necessary to determine a list of chronic diseases, there is a risk of a problem. If we enter into this logic, we will exclude a whole series of people. On the other hand, if you work on precise criteria, such as the duration of a treatment, then you enter into the objective criteria of chronic symptoms or discomfort.

by Mr. Bacquelaine intervened in the committee saying that it must be real diseases and not psychosomatic diseases. At the limit, it doesn’t matter. If it is psychosomatic diseases, people who suffer from it also need treatment or therapy. This factor should also be taken into account.

I know that the minister is hesitant and tries to act as best as possible. Therefore, it seemed important to me today to try to meet different objectives: not to exclude, be open and determine clear and gathering criteria and not to forget people with low financial means in order to allow them access to this care.

Another point related to the fight against poverty mentioned in the committee is that of maintenance claims and the established income ceiling, giving right to advances on unpaid claims. In the proposals of Mr. In 2009, we are talking about raising the ceiling. This notion of ceiling should be removed. Indeed, a person to whom an alimony claim is owed following a judgment has, de facto, the right to receive it.

It is not paid; in order to be entitled to it, it must demonstrate that it has incomes below this ceiling. In terms of fairness and recognition of the law, this is not justified! Regardless of the person’s income level, when she finds herself alone with children, she experiences difficulties. Her standard of living will probably be lower than she had before. It risks to find itself in a situation of precariousness only because it does not touch this advance on unpaid debt. In my opinion, Minister Reynders should have realised this measure now in the program law or in the law containing various provisions, in order to remove this completely unjustified and unfair element that risks putting into precariousness and/or poverty a person who, by his income, was not there yet.

A third element is the allowance for people with disabilities and the "price of love". I was shocked not to see the “price of love” completely removed in the provisions for 2009. An increase of 2% is expected, but it is due to this famous link to well-being. Now, at the beginning of this legislature, while the Socialist Party announced the time of one day a potential future majority disappeared the next day, I remember parliamentarians sometimes in favor of government measures making, at other times, proposals corresponding to their program. They probably wanted to show that they were concerned about certain files. This is a good war! This is part of the games of the parliamentarians in this hall.

On the other hand, one Thursday, there was an emergency request to work on a bill aimed at removing this "price of love" for the allocation of benefits for people with disabilities. At the time, I had intervened saying that we could not function like this with these people. The press would probably have published an article on this subject and all persons with disabilities would have been informed of the abolition of the "price of love" and the implementation of this measure through this or that person. Now, it was clear that its achievement was not so obvious and that there had to be enough agreements within a government in formation as well as an agreement on the budget that it represented.

It can thus be observed that, for 2009, and at the end of 2008 in the program law, the measure is actually not realised. Therefore, I advocate caution; we must be careful not to use the people, who are the most disadvantaged to defend themselves and claim their rights, in political statements. If statements are made with respect to them, we are obliged to apply them as soon as the opportunity arises. This was not the case today, although Ms. Fernandez-Fernandez was of the same party as the one who had called for the emergency at that time.

A final note, which does not criticize the measures you have taken regarding the Oil Fund, its access and the amounts to which this fund will give right, simply to link it with the energy and energy saving measures that citizens can accomplish.

Every year, for three or four years, the attention of the population is drawn to the best way to enable them to ⁇ energy savings. Every year we come back with the same theme. Funds have been put in place. However, either they were poorly elaborated, or the political will to implement them is not present. Consequently, the citizens could not take advantage of it.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish this oil fund. And in every discussion about its application, the increase of its resources and the extension of its conditions of granting, the Parliament recalled that the increase of these resources would help people to survive, to pay for their heating. But we do nothing!

The current conclusion is again the same. Certainly Mr. Magnette announced the revision to lower the cost of energy. We want to believe it, but this is the sixth time we hear this proposal. I truly hope that this will be the last time I will have to intervene in this direction and that the machine, taking advantage of the relief plan and the declared involvement of governments to act in this matter, will really take place and that your Oil Fund will be able to serve, subsidiarily, for those who will still experience difficulties, but not to replace the other measures of economy that could have been proposed to a large number of citizens who, unfortunately, do not have the means to invest themselves to reduce the cost of their energy bill.

The social chapter is closed.

We are now opening the discussion of the taxation chapter.

We are starting the discussion of the tax issue.

Er zijn twee sprekers ingeschreven, by Mr. Brotcorne and by Mr. Clerfayt. Is he still? By Mr. Wathelet in by Mr. Brotcorne zijn er. This is volstaat.

Mr. Speaker, I am therefore one of the last to intervene in this chapter where we have much to welcome what the government proposes to us, in particular when it comes to the extended limitation periods, both within the framework of the Income Tax Code and in matters of VAT.

The lessons we can already learn, among other things, from the Tax Fraud Investigation Commission show that, very often, these deadlines are far too short to be able to carry out effective actions that require time. The provision is therefore interesting, but ⁇ it would be necessary for the government, together with the Parliament, to reflect on a harmonisation of the existing deadlines in tax matters (VAT, income taxes, stamp duties).

It is interesting to note in the proposals the extension of the debt compensation mechanism between income taxes and taxes assimilated to income taxes, the value added tax, to absorb the fiscal backward. Today, it is decided to extend this compensation to non-tax claims, in short, to all that is dealt with in terms of recovery by the SPF Finance. It is also a good arrangement for the collection of taxes.

In the meantime, we will also welcome the upward revision of allowable costs for travel between home and workplace; in any case, they will now be subject to indexation.

In particular, I would like to congratulate myself, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretaries of State, dear colleagues, that the Law of 22 May 2003 on the Organization of the Budget and the Accounting of the Federal State will finally be implemented, at least in part. Usually, laws-programs or various provisions invited us each year to propose to postpone the entry into force by one year due to the unprepared. This time, we will be able to move to the higher speed and apply this famous legislation of 2003, the new accounting platform called "made as in the jargon", so developed.

Only five SPFs will immediately be able to use this accounting platform, but at least the machine is launched and the other SPFs will quickly, I hope, join those that will thus serve better transparency, better readability, better appreciation of the state's financial and budgetary policy, thus better management. This will, of course, facilitate the work of Parliament’s control. We can only rejoice.

I would like to report it even though the time is late. My speech on this chapter will end here.

No one is registered anymore. Mr. Van de Velde had already registered. I have been looking for him for tens of minutes. I miss him. In other words, I pretend. I propose that we end the general discussion of the Program Law and the Law containing various provisions I and II here.

Tomorrow we must give the colleagues, who still want to explain their amendments, the opportunity to do so. Some, by the way, have already done this.