Proposition 53K0771

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Dec. 9, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive EC Regulation Greece excise duty administrative check administrative formalities administrative sanction civil servant bank deposit budget health care profession seizure of goods foreign national civil defence consumer credit direct tax customs sustainable development energy supply financing financial institution financial solvency guarantee database medicine medicinal product dangerous substance indirect tax tax on income nuclear power station credit institution armed forces air transport metals environmental protection environmental standard motor fuel civil service public borrowing police prices production standard national budget damages indebtedness welfare social security penalty tobacco residence permit indemnification inland waterway transport land transport maritime transport pipeline transport rail transport insurance public health employment policy self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 23, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the Social Affairs Committee met this morning and afternoon to discuss and vote on the government’s draft to extend the anti-crisis measures by one month. The committee agreed to give an oral report on its work at this meeting.

First, several speakers from different political groups have intervened on how this extension is handled, how the parliamentary functioning is handled, and that this shows a lack of respect for Parliament.

The Minister of Labour, Ms. Milquet, explained that the anti-crisis measures have already proven their usefulness in reducing unemployment in our country as much as possible. At the express request of the social partners, the Government proposes to extend the anti-crisis measures for a very limited period. The Government proposes to do so until 31 January 2011. This extension should allow the social partners to continue their negotiations in order to reach an interprofessional agreement and a unified statute for workers and employees.

Ms. Laruelle, Minister of SMEs, Self-employed and Agriculture, indicates that this bill also extends the anti-crisis measures in favor of self-employed persons.

Ms. Kitir drew attention to an amendment aimed at ending discrimination against certain workers who are victims of bankruptcy or restructuring.

Mr Gilkinet declares to agree to the proposed extension in the light of the exceptional situation, but also regrets the procedure used to reach this extension.

Mr Bonte advocates a three-month extension and explains his amendments. He also promised to do this extensively for this meeting.

He submitted his amendments.

Ms. Fonck responds to Mr. Bonte that the question of the social partners was not yet clear at the time of discussion of the draft law in the plenary session of yesterday.

Ms. Vienne emphasises the importance of anti-crisis measures, which have protected our country – better than other countries – from the crisis. She believes that, in the longer term, a number of measures should be given a structural basis.

Ms Demir argues that the anti-crisis measures are part of the social consultation on the unity statute. She hopes that the social partners will quickly find a solution to the employee status. She will also support the extension. If the social partners fail to reach an agreement, it considers that Parliament itself should initiate discussions to resolve the problem.

Mr D’haeseleer states that the social partners will likely need a long time to reach an agreement on the unity statute. He does not believe that there will be an agreement on this subject by the end of January. He also calls for Parliament itself to take the initiative in the absence of an agreement.

Ms. De Block states that one simply cannot be opposed to allowing the provision. In the previous discussion, Mr Bonte and Mrs De Block themselves have already explained in what terms that happened, but Mrs De Block will therefore also, together with her group, approve the extension. She regrets the way this is done, but she believes the fundamental problem lies in the fact that there is still no full-fledged government that can govern with full responsibility and which would be a full-fledged interlocutor for Parliament.

Mr Clarinval says that his group agrees with the proposed extension so that the social partners will have extra time to reach an agreement. However, he regrets that other measures, such as in construction, were not extended.

Mr Mayeur, as President, also regrets the way in which the extension is carried out in Parliament.

Your servant claims that his group also agrees with the one-month extension, because apparently there was no agreement possible to ⁇ a longer extension.

He also asked the Minister for confirmation that the increased temporary unemployment benefit would also be extended by one month.

Finally, Mr Bonte once again supported his amendments.

Minister Milquet stated in her response that the total additional costs of the extension, including the part of the Closing Fund, would amount to approximately EUR 4.7 million.

Minister Laruelle noted that the extension would cost the self-employed about 600 000 euros.

Finally it was voted. All amendments were rejected. The whole draft was adopted with fourteen votes for and three abstentions.

I hope that I have provided a report of the work as faithfully as possible.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that you invoke the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber to no longer open the general discussion in this regard and to limit us to the article-by-article discussion?

Mr. Speaker, I ask you the question. Of a draft that we had to re-examine just then in the Chamber Committee in globo and in which we agreed to limit ourselves to the discussion of a number of articles, do you now say at the beginning of the discussion that there is no need for general discussion anymore?

Maybe I can lose something about the procedure.

Collega Vercamer gives a correct report on the presentations of the various factions, after a few details, which I may remind. Per ⁇ you and I have been able to find that everyone, both in the majority and in the opposition, complained about the way Parliament works here.

So far we have heard many reasons why a government is urgently needed. We then heard from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers that a government is absolutely necessary for asylum policy, budgetary policy and socio-economic policy.

I will add a thorough reason. After all, the way Parliament works indicates that in the absence of a government, the institutions are also headed. Not more than twenty-four hours ago, a draft is approved here, while the amendment to extend the crisis measures is rejected, by chance from the opposition. However, it is known that an amendment with the same direction has been submitted. The Senate should then deal with the discussion on a draft, just like we do. This is not quite parliamentary work. That a government in the ongoing affairs is hesitant, I can assume. The fact that the majority of the people’s representatives, who follow the whistleblowing, is so blatant, we must think about it. It is not possible for a member of Parliament to reject an amendment, knowing that he will adopt a similar amendment the next day. If that is the consequence of a government in ongoing affairs, then that is ⁇ the strongest argument for having a government very quickly.

Dec. 21, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We begin the discussion of the national defense component.

We initiate the discussion of the Land Defense component.

Mr Wouter De Vriendt, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you very briefly that we have had an interesting debate in the committee on the aforementioned articles of the bill. Some colleagues have insisted on holding another second meeting in order to deepen the problems. Unfortunately, they were stopped and we were not able to do so. With some emotion, I must acknowledge that the government has taken into account the remarks of the State Council, which I have courteously made my colleagues feel. My group will approve this.

Applause to all banks.

We begin the discussion of the Interior, General Affairs and Public Function.

We initiate the discussion of the section Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service.

Jacqueline Galant, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to talk about some elements of the law containing various provisions, which address the immigration problem. The law containing various provisions contains a number of limited, not to say very limited, measures that respond to the problem that is somewhat discussed in the media today.

These measures, or at least their limited impact, clearly demonstrate that the government, and more generally the traditional parties, do not recognize the seriousness of the case.

First, I want to outline the broader framework. Next year, the population of this overpopulated country will rise to 11 million. This increase has two reasons. First, the hypermigration of recent years. Second, the high birth rates among the foreigners already present here. In some municipalities, we are gradually being replaced by immigrants. Indigenous Flamings and also French speakers flee away from the growing ghettos towards peripheral municipalities. Among other things around Brussels, however, they are also increasingly dealing with alienation. If the salmon does not change immigration policy, then the autochtoon will one day, unfortunately, have to fix: flights can no longer.

How have we come so far? Let me give you a brief overview of the last ten years.

In 1999, the VLD chooses, of which party there is now no one to spot... Ah, yet Minister Turtelboom. But, Mrs. Minister, in 1999 you may not have been a member of the VLD.

The [...]

What I say is intended first and foremost for you.

In 1999, the VLD, the sp.a and the Greens! This is the first mass regularization.

It was about 50,000 illegal foreigners who received papers. In their search, we received another 60,000 asylum seekers. The absorption effect is known in this middle, I hope. The suggestion effect of that regularization campaign means that tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the years that followed also dared to try in Belgium.

A few years later, those regulated illegals, of course, also want family reunification and naturalization, as my colleague Goyvaerts will ⁇ beam. For many years, the Commission for Naturalizations has been dealing with the files of all those illegals who at that time received papers from VLD, sp.a and Green!. If you are naturalized, you also get the right to vote. This is an important element, because of course the political weight of that group is increasing. During Verhofstadt, as one will remember, the right to vote for foreigners was introduced.

His successor, Mr. Leterme, announced a second mass regularization in 2008. Mr. Leterme received on the Flemish side the votes of CD&V of course, again from the Open Vld, which is therefore the party that currently calls for a tightening of the immigration legislation, but also of the N-VA. The N-VA is also sick in the same bed. They now complain about the asylum crisis, but first they have given the signal that there would be mass regulation.

All those parties, however, could know that the number of asylum applications would immediately increase. This is the obvious consequence of such a decision on regularization.

This was under Verhofstadt I. In the two years following its decision in 1999, it was about 60 000 asylum seekers. Well, this year it will be about 30 000 asylum seekers. So think before you do such things, colleagues from CD&V, Open Vld and N-VA.

Meanwhile, the suction effect has turned out to be so great that even 20 000 shelters for asylum seekers are not enough, and the government now even has to rent hotels and pay fines up to 500 euros per day for asylum seekers who were not given shelter.

I would like to make here, by the way, a parenthesis that is not without importance for the Flaming who is currently dying angry at the asylum crisis. In fact, it is only because the election victories of the Flemish Interest have come to an end that the other Flemish parties now dare to do so. With a much stronger Flemish Interest, that would not have been true. But right, the voter has disposed, for the time being, and the voter is always right.

Colleagues, I gave you a brief note of the catastrophic policy options of the past decade. The consequences are there. Under Verhofstadt and Leterme, no less than half a million foreigners will have obtained the Belgian nationality, with all material advantages, for them well understood. There have been more than 200,000 asylum applications in the last ten years. There were around and around the 150 000 regularisations of rejected asylum seekers and illegal foreigners.

There were more than 100,000 so-called family reunions, actually family formations, which apparently must always take place here. In Denmark, the situation is different: both partners must prove that their relationship with Denmark is greater than their relationship with their country of origin.

We visited the Foreign Affairs Service about 10 days ago. The service Foreign Affairs says that only this year between 20 000 and 25 000 illegal persons will be regulated and thus can claim a living wage. For next year, there are another 30 000 dossiers in the pipeline, which then again represents 40 to 50 000 people. Our OCMWs are falling under the enormous costs of the tens of thousands of immigrant support trailers.

Mr Vanhengel, this will interest you, the cost of all that is huge. The medical costs for the illegal workers have been multiplied by ten. Next year, according to Fedasil, which we also visited a dozen days ago, at least 3 million euros will be needed to pay the fines to the asylum seekers who were not allowed a seat in the reception centers.

Mr. Vanhengel, that is, of course, but beverage notes compared to the big posts. Next year, you will have to subscribe more than 400 million euros in your budget for Fedasil. I have the document here.

Mr. Vanhengel, I do not want to interrupt your intimate conversation, but if you have some time... I read here – if I read it correctly, because I am, of course, but a Flemish Interested – the following: “The increase in the dotation for 2011 by Fedasil will amount to 25 million euros” – rounded 26 and I do not exaggerate much – “do not exceed.”

If I’m not mistaken, we are spending 330 million euros this year on asylum seekers, on Fedasil. This could increase by 26 million euros.

However, the difference between expenditure and revenue will be financed through the financial reserves, including unavailable reserves if necessary.

Then I think the blow on the firepile will come, but you can always contradict me. I quote: “Fedasil’s unavailable reserves in 2011 will not exceed 25% of the amount of the 2010 grant, which is 80 million euros.” If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Vanhengel, that is a substantial increase in the already huge budget of Fedasil.

This has not yet been done, colleagues, because Fedasil will bear part of the costs of the asylum crisis. A further sum must also be allocated to the OCMWs, which will need the 300 million euros next year to capture the foreigners in the municipalities. If I count that to the 400 million euros, the amount that Fedasil believes will need for the reception in their centers, the Red Cross and so on, then we get to 700 million euros.

I hope I can count better than Mr. Muyters, but that seems to me about 28 billion Belgian francs, which we spend in this country because of a ⁇ lax asylum policy.

Why does it cost so much? That element is always silenced. That’s because we don’t have an immigration policy that supports a vision. We simply import mass support trailers, people who make little or no opportunities in the labor market in this country. They come from a different culture. They do not know our language. It can also be said that on average they are slightly less intelligent than the population that is already present here. So we pay for people who cannot participate.

The responsibility of the traditional parties is crushing. It is high time for kordate measures.

What a wonderful moment to see Minister Daerden come in. He always laughs kindly.

So it’s time for kordate measures, Mr. Prime Minister, and not for some splash in the margin. What is stated here in the various provisions is not really a response to the crisis that has been going on for several months now. The Flemish Interest has issued a full programme on this subject. We believe that a number of strength lines urgently deserve a real debate. I know you are here now because you have to. A debate will not come out of it, because it is from the evil. I give you, Mr. Leterme, for what it is worth, the strengths of our program.

First, in the case of family reunification, we must, of course, apply much stricter rules. We have some of Europe’s toughest rules. We need to move towards a system such as exists in Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland and many other European countries.

Second, the host labour contracts of almost forty years ago that this regime concluded with Morocco, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia and Yugoslavia – now taken over by the various components of the former Yugoslavia – must of course be cancelled. Now, with an army of about 700,000 to 800,000 unemployed, we have no need of host workers.

Asylum seekers must be welcomed in their own region. By the way, the budgets that are spent here on asylum seekers and illegal persons – this may be a humane contribution – can be much better used in the regions of origin. I refer again to the costs that must be made here to accommodate people in hotel rooms, to impose fines of 250 to 500 euros per day because there is no shelter. Well, those gigantic sums we spend anyway can be used much better and much more efficiently in the regions of origin.

Of course, it has been our position for a very long time, since the seven-point program of twenty years ago, that asylum seekers and illegal foreigners are only accepted in closed centers. Refused asylum seekers and illegal persons must be effectively deported. It is, of course, ridiculous to have our police services, who may have a better job to do, write about 30,000 paper orders here every year, stating that one must leave the territory. With these papers, of course, only a good laugh is made.

It is also true that we are absolutely opposed to collective regularization. It is called one-time. In 1999 it was one-time and in 2008 it was again one-time under Mr. Leterme. This is two times one-time. My logic is lacking. Again, with a small Flemish Interest understanding, I cannot do that. The VLD gave us a quick-Belgwet gift. Well, it must be abolished, because to this day hundreds of thousands of foreigners without any integration condition receive the Belgian nationality, again with all material benefits from it. The Flemish Interest also rejects multiple citizenship. We believe that one can only be loyal to one country.

I could continue for a long time, because of course we have a very long range of solutions, dozens of solutions.

and seventy!

No, not 70 more.

The [...]

Mr. Jambon, as you know, we were convicted in 2004, among other things because of that seventy-point program. Therefore, we have removed a number of things.

Mrs Vervotte, we have done so because parties like yours have taken over some of those points. Ten or twelve points from the seventy-point program – I can give you the list – were taken over by the majority at the time. The truth has its rights. Since then, a number of issues have been taken over by the traditional parties.

The last proposal, of course, concerns criminal aliens. No matter how you turn it or turn it, that crime is celebrating in this country is still partly due to the presence of an enormous number of non-integrated foreigners. Well, if one finally wants to give a clear signal there, then one will have to start with criminal aliens expelling the country. Only that is what they are afraid of. They are not afraid of the ankle band or cleaning seven buses on a Saturday afternoon.

Therefore, they must be expelled from the country. That is the most probate means, Mr. Minister of Justice, to deal with those scams that day after day – one must really be blind to not see it in the newspapers – our people are attacked, robbed, and so on.

I have already said it, colleagues, and I say it with a mixed feeling: with a weakened Flemish Interest, there is no more stake behind the door and the other Flemish parties can today limit themselves to some false manoeuvres, to some couriers am Symptom, to some limited technical measures. Some argue that a government today, without the fullness of powers, can hardly act, and can not do much more than some morrowing in the margin. I would like to note, however, that Leterme I’s foolish government, which swept from one misery to another, has succeeded in announcing that second mass regularization. That was apparently possible then, Mr. Leterme, but that happened, of course, on the orders of PS and CDH and then everything is possible in this country.

The Flamings have then and back, if I can say so, put a number of demands on the table. There was a question. One will remember Mr. Vandeurzen, who before the elections loudly called for a tightening of the rapid-Belgwet. Mr Vandeurzen made himself strong and knocked himself on the chest for a tightening of some immigration rules. Since 2008, Mr. Leterme, we have heard nothing about it, nothing! The French speakers got what they wanted and what was on the menu on the Flemish side was removed. That is, Mr. Leterme, your first responsibility. It is peculiar, colleagues, for the slave attitude of the other Flemish parties, which, in between, have been wasting our precious time since the summer of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, our group leader said: “If you are new to Parliament, you must take the word during the discussion of the various provisions, because then the hall is not full and then you are less nervous.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, dear ministers, dear colleagues, migration is today at the heart of the political spectrum. The non-policy of recent years has caused the social support for a positive migration policy to disappear like snow for the sun. People are asking for change.

The proposals in this bill are therefore not too early. The Constitutional Court’s ruling on the medical regularization period is now more than a year old. The asylum crisis has been ongoing for several months. The waiting rows are endless. Many live in uncertainty, in a grey zone or on the street. The changes proposed by the government provide an interesting first step, but at the same time ignore the core of the problem. There are still small adjustments and some of them, we will be honest, such as the change of the procedure for the Council for Foreign Disputes and the introduction of a standard medical certificate for medical regularization, we will ⁇ support. We are a requesting party and we will surely vote for it.

Other proposals are, in our eyes, a step backwards, while the public opinion in Flanders, especially in Flanders, more and more storms against the loose Belgian immigration policy. My group therefore proposes several amendments for improvement. These amendments aim to re-center the coherence within the residence law and eliminate abuses. Let me briefly explain the amendments.

This is about the essence of the case: we disagree in principle with the equivalence between the statute of medical regularization and the statute of subsidiary protection. Mr. Secretary of State, you know that we also discussed this issue in the committee. This equalization does not exist anywhere in the world and is, for all clarity, also absolutely not mandatory by Europe or by European directives. It is unique in Belgium.

The Government could also perfectly respond to the Constitutional Court’s ruling by cutting off the link with subsidiary protection and choosing to make medical regularization an internal, Belgian, national procedure. In this way, we would do what all our neighbors and all other countries in Europe do. But no, Belgium should be able to do it again in its Belgian.

What is the problem, I hear you think. Well, the problem is that by equating the procedure of medical regularization to subsidiary protection, the identification obligation is greatly eased. The government still defines how the applicant can identify itself, but it goes especially loosely with this. They no longer require a passport or identity card. From now on, a set of other documents may give rise to identification.

In addition, this equalization of procedures also means that applicants are allowed to be at the border. The current medical regulation also differs from the subsidiary protection.

Concretely, Belgium is thus becoming the mecca of every deadly ill foreigner, the hospital of the world. That may sound hard, but it is not N-VA who says this, but top lawyers foreign law. You can read this in the Journal of Foreign Law.

N-VA clearly wants to discard the equalization between medical regularization and subsidiary protection as a statute. N-VA wants to make the medical regularization an internal Belgian procedure, just as this is also regulated in the other EU Member States.

N-VA wants a clear identification obligation through the presentation of the identity card or passport. N-VA does not intend to allow applications at the border under any circumstances and wants a receptivity phase that excludes abuse from the outset.

For example, applications that clearly can never give rise to medical regularization, the so-called apparently unfounded applications, should be able to be handled quickly and easily by the doctors.

Let us not forget that the medical regularization last year accounted for 8,500 applications, of which only 8% was approved. I do not have to tell you that the first victims of mass procedural abuse are foreigners who wish to obtain a residence in good faith and in a proper manner.

Mr. Secretary of State, after all, the files of seriously ill foreigners who deserve our support more than deserve, today disappear in a mass of abuse by incorrect requests. You write that yourself in your memory of explanation.

Our third amendment introduces a ban on parallel applications. Now almost every asylum seeker, just before a definitive final judgment, in more than 80 % of cases a definitive negate on their asylum application, needs to apply for medical regularization. This allows them to avoid the obligation to identify themselves. You cannot bet on two horses at the same time. You are either in the asylum procedure or in the regularization procedure. It is one or the other.

Finally, we have serious concerns about the adjustment to the OCMW legislation that is being carried out at the request of colleague Mayeur, chairman of the Brussels OCMW. This fits into the Public Health loop, but I will also address it here because it is primarily about migration.

From now on, the Brussels OCMW will be exempted from assistance to asylum seekers, if they are registered at the address of the service Vreemdelingen Affairs or the Commissariat-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

The PS is once again served on its tips in this law. The OCMW of Brussels is explicitly dismissed. This OCMW has refused in practice for months, illegally, to provide support to thousands of asylum seekers without a shelter, thereby trying their luck in the OCMWs of the surrounding municipalities and in the Flemish Rand.

With this political manoeuvre, the PS reinforces its demand for the introduction of a financial spread plan. As you know, it is a spread plan that spreads 88% across the Flemish OCMWs. N-VA will never agree with this.

The N-VA wants to abolish the amendment proposed in the bill. The N-VA wants the government to reserve the existing capacity in the asylum centers for the asylum seekers themselves before shifting the burden of the asylum crisis to the municipal OCMWs.

In addition to the EU and budgetary, migration is also a hard note to crack. The contradictions between North and South on this topic are hardly overcoming. Nevertheless, we will continue to try to do so, respecting each other but above all respecting the fundamental rights of every refugee and respecting the obligations that Europe imposes on us. I thank you for your attention.

Mijnheer Francken, proficiat voor uw maidenspeech in de Kamer. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, these few words to welcome the measures taken by the government in order to combat the theft of metals. My colleagues and I had submitted a proposal in this direction in September. It can be seen: every time prices rise, it is the feast of the metal thieves for whom the smallest goat turns into massive gold. Gunners, electric cables, road signs, zinc roofs, drainage spots, everything goes by!

While these thefts sometimes result in non-substantial material losses, they often result in significant economic damage. Thus, the SNCB is one of the main victims of these thefts. In the first nine months of the year, theft of metals would be directly responsible for more than 15,000 minutes of delay on the rail network.

These thefts also pose potential risks to the safety of users. Theft of drainage stains on public roads can, for example, cause relatively large damage to the vehicle but can especially have dramatic consequences for motorcyclists and cyclists.

The obligation of identification during the resale of metals had largely proved. It allowed to deter the resale of metals from the sector while allowing the police to more easily trace the thieves. This measure was also effective in discouraging thieves in the small week.

Unfortunately, the royal decree organizing this measure had been repealed due to the absence of a legal basis. The draft law with various provisions corrects this error and thus allows to sustain this effective measure widely recognised by the police and the entire sector. We can only congratulate. However, this measure, in order to be truly effective, must be accompanied by a reinforcement of police controls but also of the Belgian customs.

Finally, the recovery sector must also be closely involved in the fight against metal theft. Being in the first lodges, he is most able to prevent the sale of stolen metals on Belgian territory.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Dufrane, you remercie and you congratulate for your first intervention in this room. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers and Secretaries of State, the Program Law contains provisions that interfere with foreign law. The aim is to make the procedures more efficient and faster. By itself, provided that fundamental rights of defence are not compromised, we could take part in it as a Green Group. The Senate Home Affairs Committee has already made several recommendations in this regard in December 2009.

However, the current draft contradicts the philosophy of the Senate Recommendations. After all, the problem, colleagues, is that these adjustments do not frame in a thoughtful view of the needs of the asylum procedure. No, they frame in a panic response from a government that, after the introduction of the system of material support in the reception, remained in failure to carry out a policy on the matter, resulting in a shameful reception crisis where men, women and children must now spend the night on the streets for the second winter in a row. A real shame that, fortunately, is slowly tackled with emergency care.

I have already stated in the committee that the amendment proposed in the bill several provisions I related to the identity documents in the procedure of medical regularization, will result in people in an emergency situation who are entitled to this status will not get it. That really worries me.

As a lawyer, I also agree with the fact that this proposal makes an unfounded distinction between subsidiary protection applicants claiming a serious illness and other subsidiary protection applicants. Colleagues, if you approve Article 179 nevertheless, it is very likely that the Constitutional Court will subsequently destroy it for discrimination. Fortunately we still have that court, I think.

In the draft law various provisions II we are proposed some measures that only serve to give the impression that the government is speeding up the procedure for the Council for Foreign Disputes. Well, various changes, on the contrary, make the procedure more complicated and will also slow the procedure. This is in particular the case for the following interventions: the establishment of a role right, the examination of a request to obtain the pro Deo, the examination of the need to submit a replica, memory or synthesis memory, the sending of a decision that the procedure will be handled without a session, the handling of the requests to be heard and the arrangement of a session for imposing a fine.

All these new interventions provide the Council for Foreign Disputes with more work than before, thus increasing rather than decreasing the backwardness.

The approval of the bill will therefore have the opposite effect of what is officially intended.

Mrs. Brems, we see each other several times a week in the committee. We try to work and think together around a number of migration themes.

Your chairman says in several newspaper interviews not so long ago that the Green! group – I suppose he speaks on behalf of his party – is in favor of a stricter migration policy and also wants to participate in a stricter policy.

I must say that I am somewhat disappointed by what I have heard from the Ecolo-Green! group. Or, after all, they ensure that the committee cannot meet: Mrs. Genot wants to always move it to the next week. They are absolutely not a requesting party to work on this. That is one.

Second, when I hear one thing, it’s about discrimination or inhumanity. Our proposed asylum law is inhuman and discriminatory. Our proposed law on family reunification is inhuman and discriminatory. The bill on various government provisions is inhumane and discriminatory.

I wonder what is green. What if they say they want to tighten the migration policy? What exactly do you want to strengthen, because that is not clear to me?

Mr Francken, I have the impression that you want to talk as much as possible about the proposals of the N-VA. Today, of course, we are talking about the government’s draft and not about your proposals.

As stated by the High Commissioner for Refugees this week, we are ...

Contrary to what Mr. Francken, we are not opposed to work. We are opposed to working in a manner contrary to the Rules. There is a Rule in this Chamber, it is made so that one works and that everyone finds himself on an equal footing.

You’re trying to impose your rules, but it’s not how it works. There is a Rule and we intend to comply with it, because this is how we work effectively. I think, by the way, it’s because you’re trying to work badly and quickly that your proposal was scrapped last week.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my statement.

The government’s bill will aim to have the opposite effect of what it says.

I would like to illustrate this through the introduction of the role right. First of all, this is a false measure, as an estimated 90 % of applicants will not have to pay a roll fee because they can get a pro Deo.

What happens when the pro Deo is requested?

Mrs. Brems, you say that 90% will not have to pay a role right. Do you have figures of the number of pro-Deodosiers submitted to the Council for Foreign Disputes? If you have numbers, give them to me. I do not have them.

Mr. Secretary of State, that 90 % is a figure based on conversations I have held with lawyers in foreign law.

Is it a personal estimate?

It is not my personal estimate. These are estimates of experts who work with them every day. But if you want, I can also talk about “the majority”, or “a very large number” that the role right will not have to pay.

In any case, the Council will have a lot of work to do to verify this. After all, if someone asks for a pro Deo, it is necessary to check whether the necessary evidence is present. If this is not the case, the office must inform the applicant which documents are missing. It should then be verified whether they were communicated to the Council in a timely manner.

If the pro Deo was not requested, then the Council must inform the amount of the roll right and check whether it was paid on time. This timing can be controversial. To avoid this, applicants will be inclined to come in cash to pay at the office. This creates additional workload for the Council for Foreign Disputes, and therefore delays the procedure.

Furthermore, due to this additional workload, a provision in the Foreigners Act, introduced by the Act of 10 July 1996, which allowed the King to provide for a role right for the appeals submitted to the Standing Professional Committee for Refugees, has never been implemented.

For all these reasons, we maintain our amendments to abolish the role right.

For similar reasons, we ask questions when imposing fines in case of apparently unfounded appeals. The practice at the Council of State, where that provision has existed for years, teaches that the application is so problematic that the provision is never applied. This would also aggravate the workload of the Council for Foreign Disputes. How this can lead to greater efficiency is not very clear.

I will not discuss the government’s proposal in connection with the written procedure, which we believe affects the rights of the defence.

In order to make it clear that it is our goal to reach a high-quality and rapid procedure, I will here examine our amendment to Article 39, paragraph 3 in more detail. As the explanatory memory correctly determines, in a large number of cases, the replication memory in the procedure does not contain new data, making it a superfluous piece of procedure.

This is the result of current legislation which always makes the replication memory mandatory, even when the counterparty has not communicated a note with comments. In the absence of timely submission of a replica memory, the applicant loses his interest. Therefore, we propose to make the submission of a replica memory a possibility and not an obligation. This has the advantage that reduces the workload of the Council for Foreigners Disputes because the judge does not have to check for all appeals whether a response memo can be submitted, as provided in the draft. In addition, it is also essential that the applicant always has the opportunity to submit a replication memory or a synthesis memory. In the other case, the rights of the defender are severely restricted.

The UN refugee agency UNHCR warned last week of hasty changes in Belgian asylum legislation, for the wrong reasons, as they said. It is remarkable that UNHCR is positive about the Belgian asylum system as it is anchored in the legislation. They stated that the problems facing our country are more related to the enforcement of the law than to the legislation itself which, again according to UNHCR, is one of the most solid in Europe. Therefore, it is not a good idea to rush to work with changes to this legislation.

Mr. Secretary of State, it is right to provide additional staff for the asylum services. The most urgent and weakest files are rightly given priority. It is also important to work towards a more efficient return policy. This is more important than the murmur of the asylum procedure you present here.

I thank Mrs. Eva Brems and congratulate her on her first speech in the plenary session.

(Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene on Article 158 concerning the assumption of the aid granted by the OCMWs. This is a proposal that was already submitted by the PS in the previous legislature.

I would like to explain why my group cannot support this article of the law on various provisions.

The Chairman of the Commission considered that we should be solidary with the Brussels OCMW. Solidarity has become the fashion word. We would rather be solidary with the real political refugees who today no longer find shelter due to the totally disengaged asylum policy. It is those who today ask to relieve the Brussels OCMW who are responsible for the numerous abuses made of the asylum legislation.

Worse yet, we have been able to notice during the special meeting of the Public Health Committee on Friday that both the PS and all French-speaking parties and the left have no ear at all to the necessary adaptation of the asylum and reception legislation.

Article 158 ⁇ has an effect on a particular symptom of the disease, namely the overload of the Brussels OCMW, but it is absolutely not an intrusive and ⁇ not an effective treatment. The other symptoms will only worsen, especially if, at the same time, one wants to reopen the door for the possible provision of financial support to the candidate refugee.

The burdens are spread, but also the other OCMWs – for the time being only in the big cities, such as Antwerp and Gent, but soon also in the medium-sized cities – get the water to the lips.

It’s too late for this prick in the margin. It is too late for such a repair legislation.

The whole asylum and migration policy, both national and international, must be urgently adjusted.

My group has long conveyed this message, this warning. The asylum crisis is not of today. We have been talking about this throughout the previous legislature.

We have long submitted the necessary legislative proposals for the shortest possible, qualitative reception of candidate refugees during the entire duration of the asylum procedure in closed asylum centres. Combined with a significant simplification of the asylum procedure and the allocation of more persons and fewer resources to the receiving authority, this would not only reduce the duration of the asylum procedure, but would also result in a serious decrease in the number of inappropriate asylum seekers. The Brussels OCMW would also be completely discharged.

The approval of Article 158 may hide the problem in Brussels a little again, as it has always been tried to wipe out under the mat, but as a whole it will continue to grow. By supporting this article, one provides no proof of solidarity, but a proof of enormous short-sightedness. Thank you to our group for such an appearance.

I would like to address two points of this note of various provisions.

The first point concerns the provisions relating to the improvement of the legal protection of police officers and the transfer of military personnel to the federal police. With the proposed provisions on improving the legal protection of police officers, the government respects and concrete its commitment to police unions following the attacks that our police forces had been victims of.

During the March 2010 budget control, the government had taken a series of commitments. By submitting the provisions in the draft to the vote of the parliament, the government finalises the implementation. As a reminder, the government had pledged to take measures to allow for the replacement of 300 full-time equivalents of the federal police through the transfer of 100 military personnel and the reinforcement of 200 civil servants through mobility or external recruitment.

The phase for the reinforcement of 200 civil servants is underway. The transfer of 100 military personnel to the federal police can now be carried out following the adoption of the proposed provision. The resources allocated in the framework of budgetary control were also to contribute to improving the safety of the staff by providing each aspirant with a bulletguard. The public procurement procedures for the acquisition of the latter have been approved by the Council of Ministers.

An amount of EUR 7 732 000 was released to encourage recruitment policies in police areas facing a severe staff shortage. The draft royal decree on the allocation of an allocation to encourage the recruitment policy in the police zones for the year 2010 was approved by the Council of Ministers on 15 December.

By proposing the proposed provisions, the government respects not only its commitment to police unions in terms of improving the legal protection of police officers, but also the commitments made during budget control. The government’s speech in current affairs has been held.

The second point I would like to address concerns the provisions contained in the headings dedicated to immigration and asylum. To remind, the provisions in the project aim to:

- to change the procedure for obtaining a residence permit for medical reasons;

- provide for the possibility for the Office of Foreigners to proceed with the notification of decisions relating to applications for residence submitted pursuant to Articles 9bis and 9ter of the Law of 1980 by recommended fold to La Poste as well as by fax, when the foreigners concerned have chosen domicile with their lawyer;

harmonise and uniformise the time limits for appeals;

- simplify the procedure before the Council of Foreign Disputes;

- remove the obligation to file a memo in replica in cancellation procedures;

- provide for the deposit of a summary memorandum ordered by the chairman of the chamber or the judge appointed by him who has found that the case to be examined is very complex;

a purely written procedure, with the possibility of being heard.

The provisions in the project are obviously necessary and constitute advancements. However, they will not be sufficient on their own to resolve the situation we are currently facing. These changes are progress.

That is why we will support these changes. Nevertheless, we continue to ask the Secretary of State responsible to continue to work on the possible pathways to act on the input on asylum applications, to continue to accelerate the processing of such applications by the relevant authorities and to execute orders to leave the territory as soon as possible.

Applications for intervention on this part of the project are exhausted. Does a Minister wish to provide additional information?

There have already been various debates in the committee. In connection with Mr Francken’s reasoning on a subsidiary protection procedure, I say that we are asking for the identity documents imposed by the Constitutional Court. The previous government made a choice. An article 9ter was submitted. The medical regularization is handled by the Foreign Affairs Service and not by the CGVS, the institution that decides on subsidiary protection. According to the Constitutional Court, Article 9ter is a form of subsidised protection and therefore the conditions regarding identity are so-called different from the conditions for ordinary regularization. We respect the judgment of the Constitutional Court. You may blame us for this, but we ⁇ do not act unfairly.

You also had amendments to include an admissibility procedure in Article 9ter before a decision comes from the doctor and to make it possible that only a 9ter procedure can be submitted after the end of the asylum procedure. I have made arguments on this in the committee. These two elements would extend the procedure. I thought that the purpose of the provision was to shorten the procedure and to reduce the number of applications for that procedure. The two proposals will only extend the procedure. I can absolutely not agree with this.

Mrs. Brems, I have already answered the problem of identity. We do not agree with this. You think we are going too far. For Mr. Francken, we are not going far enough. Per ⁇ we are in the right direction. You also say that the procedure will be even more complicated. I can absolutely not agree with this. A role right is intended as a preventive measure, so that there are fewer requests to appeal to the procedure. The fact that no replication memory becomes possible no longer makes a procedure ⁇ not more difficult but easier. You know that no new element can be submitted to the replication memory. So it was useless. The persons can always be heard again and at least during the session. This makes the procedure even easier.

Finally, the ability to be heard remains ⁇ ined. At the same time, everything will be facilitated thanks to the written procedure. Those elements will therefore facilitate the procedure and not make it even more complicated. By the way, all this was discussed with the RVV itself, who from practice knows very well how the procedures run. It is of course on his recommendation that we have incorporated all those elements.

Asylum seekers who need a pro-Deo lawyer do not have to pay a role fee. I said it in the committee, but you apparently didn’t hear it and therefore I repeat it here. We will make a royal decree to clarify what elements the petition must contain in order to be exempt from the payment of roll right. This will be further detailed in a royal decision.

I want to answer your questions, Madame Galant. I fully agree with you regarding the objective of continuing the execution of orders to leave the territory.

You know that, as part of the "return" plan, a number of measures have been adopted to further improve relations with Justice, Police, Municipalities and Fedasil. The aim is to execute orders to leave the territory as quickly as possible and in the best possible conditions. But you know like me that the proper progress of the procedure depends largely on the country of origin. And it must be acknowledged that with some countries the results are better than with others with which things are more difficult.

With regard to the input, we continue to conduct a number of prevention campaigns abroad and, more specifically, given the circumstances, in Albania; indeed, as you know, since December 15, a visa liberalization is applied in this country. We have therefore made sure that the information elements and controls in both Albania and Belgium are as effective as possible because this liberalization should not lead to abuses.

Our ultimate goal is to limit as much as possible the flows to Belgium through effective prevention campaigns; if fewer people flock to our country, fewer files will have to be handled and orders to leave the territory that will have to be executed. It is always in this logic that we work.

Finally, I take the opportunity, Madame, to thank you for your support in relation to the other elements of the text.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I do not intend to resume the discussion as in the committee. As I said, it is true that the government, with this bill, complies with the ruling of the Constitutional Court and responds to it. But that is the principle discussion. The core of the case is that we say that the Constitutional Court reasoned from the philosophy that subsidiary protection should be seen as a kind of subsidiary protection. That is precisely the essence of the case. No, disconnect that, make medical regularization not subsidiary protection and make sure that it is an internal Belgian procedure, as in all of Europe. In this way, we can make some things work better. That is of course the essence of the case. However, I am eager to discuss this with you as soon as the formation on migration begins.

I come to the extension. I have a lot of respect for you. You say that I often suggest very good elements, but you know as well as I do that the argument of the extension is a very faint argument on the subject. You know better than I know that asylum seekers only at the very end, just before they receive a definitive nnt from their lawyer for their asylum application, all submit a mass application for regularization. That is an extension of one to two days, maybe a week, no more. But what is the advantage? What is the net profit that this brings? That they will have to identify themselves and that they will no longer have the exemption from identification. That is the essence of the matter, and you know it as well as I do. The net profit is therefore much higher by filtering the abuses out than the one-week loss maximum.

In connection with the receptivity phase, there must be something from my heart. You say you are not in front of the receptivity phase. The N-VA now again submits an amendment to introduce the receptivity phase in the medical regularization and you are against it. It is a copy-paste of the receptivity phase that the government wants to introduce in the context of family reunification. It is a copy-paste of Article 12, § 3 of the Family Reunification Act. It is exactly the same phase that we want to introduce now. So that is exactly the same. I like the punishment that you say you are against it. You perform exactly the same procedure for family reunification. You have to explain it to me.

I would like to explain this. It is absolutely not the same. In this case, a doctor must intervene. If the decision of the doctor only counts for the admissibility of the procedure, it makes no sense. Why Why ? It is exactly what we need to make a fundamental decision. When we know the doctor’s decision, it’s not about the receptivity phase. One only needs to handle the file and say whether that person falls under 9ter or not. It is not necessary for the same doctor to treat the same file twice in a row. This has absolutely no sense.

What we do is the following. We require people to submit a standard medical certificate during the reception phase. When a doctor intervenes, it must be a final decision. There is no new receptivity phase which extends the procedure by submitting the dossier twice to the doctor. It makes no sense. It only prolongs the procedure, and that’s exactly what we don’t want.

You said that people will have more difficulties in submitting their application for regularization because the asylum procedure is closed and they will then have to present identity documents again. You know, Mr Francken, that when a regularization file is handled and the asylum procedure is concluded, the DVZ always checks whether that person has submitted the identity documents.

This is happening now. You may know the DVZ better than I do, but I find that a strange reaction.

Now it happens so. Someone gets an asylum file. The file is being handled. During that asylum procedure, that person shall submit a regularisation file. If the asylum procedure is terminated before the end of the regularisation procedure and if the regularisation file is handled by the DVZ, while no identity document was submitted in the regularisation procedure because an asylum procedure was pending, after the end of the asylum procedure, it shall be checked whether the identity documents are in the file. This is happening in this moment.

I also asked my administration to apply the procedure in this way.

That is why what you claim is not correct. It would have been correct if the regularisation procedure was dealt with on the basis of an asylum procedure that had been submitted in advance, knowing that at that time no identity document had to be submitted. However, when the file is handled by the DVZ and the asylum file is closed, the identity documents must be in the file.

Mr. Secretary of State, I have heard that, and you have already told me that. I think that is against the law. However, I am pleased that you apply the procedure so late.

Regularization is literally stated in the law that when a person submits an application for asylum and subsequently a request for regularization, he or she is not required to prove his or her identity during the entire asylum procedure.

If you instruct the DVZ to still have the identity proven from the moment the asylum application is completed, I am in favour. I have legal concerns. Nevertheless, I am in favour, because I believe that identity must be proven anyway.

Mr. President, the above is an interesting proposal from Mr. Francken.

Mr Francken, what you want is that, once an asylum procedure was initiated, the identity no longer needs to be proven by a person who then initiates a regularization procedure. You go even further than Mrs. Brems!

Mr. Secretary of State, I will explain my words again. If you have not understood it after five times, I would like to explain something again.

Our proposal is that it is not possible to bet on two horses. Either someone goes for an asylum procedure, or he goes for a regularization procedure, but he cannot go for both procedures. Someone cannot be in an asylum procedure and, in addition, submit an application for regularization. One must be completed before the second can be started. This is a very healthy principle, especially not to bet on two horses at the same time.

Extension is not possible.

Certainly there is still something to be discussed. However, I suggest that we stay there for today.

We begin the discussion of the Economics section.

We initiate the discussion of the business sector.

Ms Karine Lalieux, rapporteur, is apologized. It refers to its written report. I suppose Ms. Kattrin Jadin is doing the same.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, Mr. Francken spoke about three major challenges: budgetary, community, asylum and migration. For my group, the energy issue is also a fundamental challenge. The train of green technology denders further. It would be a deadly sin to miss that train because of a political impasse and months-long negotiations. That is what I think is going to happen. At a time when we should plan a second zone of windmills in the North Sea, the government of ongoing affairs decides to limit and reduce that seventh domain concession. This concession has not yet been granted. After the Cancun conference, we should sharpen our climate effort, but the government of ongoing affairs decides to remove and not extend the tax incentives for floor and wall insulation. While we should invest heavily in the energy efficiency of our industry, in the creation of green jobs and in an energy future, we must compelledly limit ourselves in Parliament to discussing three chapters of the law containing various provisions.

We agree that we need to step up the next phase in the energy debate as soon as possible. Hopefully the Christmas period will provide for a community agreement, so that we can conduct the energy debate to the bottom around the Easter clock.

Mr. Minister, in the committee you may have noticed that our group is not enthusiastic about what you put down today. The problem is in particular with Articles 168 and 169 on the contribution of the nuclear operators, a contribution that is far and far too low for us. We have already had an exciting debate in the committee. You already laughed at that time: I have a déjà-vu, Mr. Deleuze, Mr. Calvo and Mr. Schiltz, because we have held this debate three or four times.

That is correct. This is not the first time the Ecolo-Groen! group has called for a fairer operation of the Belgian energy market. This is not the first time that we are advocating to address the wage profits of nuclear operators and to really reduce them. This is not the first time that our call in deaf minds seems to fall on you and other parties in Parliament.

With regret in my heart, I note that for the third time we are messing in the margin and through the law on various provisions we collect a limited contribution from the nuclear operators. For a long time, a structural, transparent taxation that addresses this problem must be incorporated into our legislation. We have submitted the Green Bill on this subject again this year. The bill was not approved in the previous legislature. You now have a second chance. The proposal takes into account the evolution of electricity prices, a system that we really need.

Indeed, the Greens fall in repetition. The debate is not new. The real déjà-vu exists with SMEs and consumers when they pay their energy bills. The real déjà-vu exists when we find in the energy market in our country that there is still no fair competition and the nuclear operators enjoy huge advantages. That déjà-vu is less joyful than yours in the committee.

The contribution we collect today is a smaller commitment than the contribution requested in 2009 from nuclear operators. Then 250 million euros were requested through the law containing various provisions, as you are proposing again today, but there was also a second scheme of 250 million euros via green funds. There is a lot to say about these funds. I think this is a mistake, a bad mechanics. We note, however, that in 2010 there is less demand from nuclear operators than in 2009, while you yourself indicate in your explanatory memo, and I quote: “The perverse effects of the low production costs of the operators have only increased over the past year.”

Mr. Minister, our group is ⁇ empathic. We have a lot of understanding. I understand that you cannot provide for a new legislative framework in current matters today, but the Parliament, of course, can contribute.

We will submit an amendment again soon – colleague Deleuze will tell a little more about it – to increase those contributions sensibly, to bring the contributions much closer to the 1.7 to 1.9 billion euros of profit that nuclear operators make today through the depreciated nuclear power plants, to which your generation and the generation before it – I slightly less by my young age – have all contributed in the past decades. We propose to decide here in Parliament to significantly increase that contribution.

I have heard the Prime Minister call this week to save more with the government of ongoing affairs. Why should we in Parliament not seize the opportunity to raise additional income, to which we are entitled? That would be an important signal. It would be a signal of a parliament that is powerful and that in this difficult political situation deals with things as they need to be dealt with.

There are limits to our empathy and understanding. The way in which you in the committee tried to reverse the proposal for the higher contribution of our group was new and unseen. About the figures of the CREG, 1.7 and 1.9 billion euros, you said: “That’s theory. This is for the rubbish. The real interest rate is much lower.”We were allowed to forget the study of the CREG. You referred to the National Bank’s studies based on figures from 2002 and 2003. This was ⁇ remarkable for me.

Meanwhile, probably all colleagues in the Committee for Business received a letter from the CREG Board of Directors, which, like me, was very shocked by your explanation in the committee.

I don’t know if you received that letter, Mr. Minister. I will send you a copy later. It is ⁇ interesting reading. This is a very fundamental debate. It is about how much we could collect from the nuclear operators. It’s about the CREG that doesn’t understand that you question their studies, their calculations.

I would like to quote: “It is not correct to say that the profit margin, calculated by the CREG, would be of theoretical nature. For its calculation, the CREG used real market data.”The same letter also states that the estimate of 1.7 to 1.9 billion euros is of a conservative nature.

Mr. Minister, of two things one. Are you mistaken or are you mistaken?

As far as I am concerned, I have ⁇ much confidence in the energy regulator and you are mistaken.

It is also a very expensive mistake, which we may still suffer for a while. By questioning the calculations of the CREG, the Minister sets himself or his successor a firm tail. You have already undermined the negotiating position of your successor by concluding a nice gentleman agreement overnight, with four pages that emphasize the energy future of our country.

Today you put your successor again a second hook by saying that one better forget the studies of the CREG. You also read the newspaper today. Electrabel says immediately: “The minister is right. The studies of the CREG are of theoretical order.”

The negotiations promise to be even more difficult, thanks to your communication.

Mr. Minister, that in ongoing matters you cannot prepare for the future and do not take structural measures, our group understands. We have that empathy. However, that you still mortgage the future in ongoing affairs is incomprehensible for us. I absolutely do not understand that of a socialist Minister of Energy, who would have to move other beacons.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, with Ecolo-Green! We continue to support the increased contribution of nuclear operators. We have again submitted a bill for this purpose. That bill also aims to allocate the profits we collect to a renewable energy policy, a policy of energy saving, which we think is a wise choice.

In anticipation of those structural choices, we will abstain from voting on Articles 168 and 169, as we think it is a much too low contribution of the nuclear sector, a nuclear sector with a ⁇ great responsibility when it comes to the energy debate in our country.

Mr. Minister, you are very stoic. That disappoints me. You do not answer the question of whether the CREG is mistaken, or you. I find this ⁇ regrettable. Per ⁇ we can hold this debate again in the committee meeting, ⁇ not. In any case, you made a ⁇ big mistake last week.

Mr. Calvo, congratulations on your maiden speech in the plenary session of the Chamber. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I let Mr. Calvo come forward because it was his maiden speech.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the levying of a contribution to the nuclear operators is legitimate. The nuclear power plants were acceleratedly depreciated over a period of twenty years and in a context of regulated prices that accelerated depreciation was borne by the Belgian consumer through the electricity price charged to him. When nuclear power plants were depreciated after twenty years and prices had to fall, the market was liberated. As a result, the prices were no longer determined by the Control Committee for Gas and Electricity, but by the market, thus by the marginal costs of the most recently deployed power plants, usually a gas power plant in Belgium.

Consequently, the consumer has never received the price reduction to which he was entitled. Nuclear operators have been able to make such significant profits and still do so by producing cheap electricity and selling it expensive with depreciated nuclear power plants.

In the present law, a repartition contribution of 250 million euros is charged to the nuclear operators. Some do a bit of shame or compassion about those 250 million euros: it’s only 250 million. Can I point out that the government will collect that contribution for the third year in a row and that one has only managed to get some empty promises from Electrabel on paper in the so-called Pax Electrica I and II? Today, for the third year in a row, we write this contribution into the law.

The law also stipulates that nuclear operators may not transfer the contribution to the final customers. We ask the Minister to strictly monitor this, so that our ⁇ and families do not have to deal with even higher electricity prices.

The provisions in this Act are identical to those concerning the distribution contribution in the program laws of 2008 and 2009. We therefore believe that nuclear operators will not be able to challenge the repartition contribution before the Constitutional Court. The Court has already ruled on the legality of the 2008 contribution. In its judgment, the Court stated that the repartition contribution does not excessively burden nuclear operators and does not fundamentally impair their financial situation.

With a government in ongoing affairs, which cannot take structural measures in this regard, it is therefore a very good solution to collect the redistribution contribution for 2010 according to the same modalities as in 2008 and 2009.

Thus, we are assured that the contribution of 250 million euros will also be collected for 2010.

Does the foregoing mean that it is sufficient to include a redistribution contribution in a law containing various provisions at the end of each year? Our group says no. Structural measures are needed. There is also a need for a law that allows that contribution to be of a recurrent character, so that we do not have to re-inscribe a new provision in the law every year.

When drawing up a structural measure, the amount should not be taboo. We should be able to discuss the amount. Mr. Minister, it is not because the Court does not consider 250 million euros excessive that we must assume that a higher amount will be rejected by the Court anyway.

In a letter I received yesterday as Chairman of the Committee for the Business of the CREG and which was now distributed among the members of the Commission through the Secretariat of the Commission, the regulator once again states that the annual profit of the nuclear operators on the production of electricity amounts to 2 billion euros.

The letter was a response to a ruling by Minister Magnette in the business committee that the CREG assessed the nuclear interest rate far too high. After all, the regulator would follow a purely theoretical approach rather than an economic approach. Therefore, it has been asked – there has also been an urgent call to the CREG in this regard – to make a realistic calculation.

The deflation of the nuclear interest rate is independent of the extension of the life of nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, there must be urgent clarity about the direction we want to go with our nuclear power plants. The uncertainty over this weighs on investments in the energy sector and puts the future of our country at risk.

Only a full-fledged government can make a decision about our nuclear power plants. There is urgent need for a government.

With this I conclude my presentation in the Committee on Business on the part for which Minister Magnette is competent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the federal government’s energy policy must pursue four key objectives: affordable prices for our citizens, energy independence of our country, reduction of CO2 production, but also the safety of our fellow citizens. Our parliament has already debated it extensively in the previous legislature, since we have discussed the Energy 2030 plan, we have heard a lot of experts, we have deepened a series of questions and finally guidelines appear to have been taken by the federal government.

We find ourselves, during this legislature, with a government in ordinary affairs. That is why my colleague Ms. Fonck and I have submitted a bill whose source we do not hide at all: it is in fact inspired by the program law that was adopted on 23 December 2009. It was appropriate to tax, to capture part of the nuclear rent caused by the accelerated depreciation of nuclear power plants; the government took it back in its bill containing various provisions.

The current affairs government obviously does not have all the capabilities that would be its own if it were a government legitimized by a vote of confidence. I understand the caution that can be taken when it comes to making a provision that indirectly targets a few well-targeted taxpayers. I would like to remind you that the Constitutional Court, in March last year, removed the Damocles sword that threatened the collection of this pension. The nuclear producers had brought the case to the Constitutional Court, which validated the tax of 250 million euros raised by the Belgian state in 2008 against them. It should be noted, and this seems to me to be an essential element, that in order to justify the legality of this tax, the Constitutional Court took into account the circumstance that the amount collected was reasonable in view of the objective pursued.

It is in this context that a contribution of 250 million is planned to be borne by nuclear operators. I think we need to make this choice, which I think is the right one. Other initiatives will need to be taken. In fact, other debates revolve around nuclear power. And I think in particular of the problem of radioactive waste and also of the extension of the lifetime of nuclear power plants. The figures that are communicated to us by the CREG are elements that will ⁇ need to be taken into account in the near future. In the current state of affairs, I understand that legal certainty has required to take into account the 250 million euros, that is, the amount recovered and validated by the Constitutional Court. But we will ⁇ , in the future, have to verify and evaluate in the best possible way this rent due to the accelerated depreciation of nuclear power plants in order to ensure that it can be returned to those who financed it, namely our fellow citizens.

That is why, especially affected by the nuclear issue, I repeat often that I understand that my Brussels colleagues, especially in the Commission, are ⁇ interested in this issue. Indeed, they have many power outlets, while my garden leads to three nuclear power plants. Our situation is therefore very different.

In this case, it is necessary to know how to keep right, but also to make decisions. We will vote on these bills, insisting on the fact that it will be about bringing the work back to the profession and, in a short time, to take definitive guidelines for nuclear power plants, for radioactive waste, but also for a taxation of a nuclear rent, this time calculated on the basis of real profits.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Energy Package that the Government proposes in ongoing matters contains a number of necessary adjustments, which is true. Per ⁇ I must say: it was intended to make some necessary adjustments. In the last few weeks – we see it on the pre-design – this component, however, has followed a crash diet, is my impression. I will return to it soon.

What it can still do – the previous speakers have explained in smells and colors where it comes from and how it comes together – is the so-called redistribution contribution for 2010, which is to be paid by the operators of nuclear power plants. In short: the famous contribution of 250 million.

Over those 250 million have already flooded a lot of ink in recent years. This arrangement was, among other things, part of the CREG’s study work, now for the second time; there have been hearings in the Parliament; there have been judgments by the Constitutional Court, and so on.

When I put it all in a row, I think we can learn one thing from it, namely that those 250 million is really a base. As the Constitutional Court has already said, this contribution is not unreasonable, but – as Mr Schiltz cited in the committee – it is also not said that it cannot be higher.

We note that those 250 million are still independent of environmental factors. The amount of 250 million is cited, but it is actually not linked to environmental factors such as the method of production, the effective cost, and so on. The link to the market is unclear.

The gap with the figures of the CREG – first 1.75 and in the meantime 2.28 billion – is very large. Even when we look abroad – including the Swedish and German systems – it seems like we are giving away the advantage that the nuclear producers have at the moment for a spot price. That may not be the intention.

Regarding the link to the market operation, my group has drawn up a proposal. We have proposed to the Commission to update the regulation. In this way, we can make an objective accounting and also answer why it should be exactly that amount. We are rather a fan of a tax on the thermal capacity of nuclear power plants, specifically to link with the gains earned on the energy produced by nuclear power, but equally to ensure that power plants that are improved – and where more electricity can be produced with the same thermal capacity installed – are stimulated.

If we review our proposal, we will actually set a new minimum. Based on the prices that exist at the moment and since it is an advantage that continues to continue and not just about the past, as Ms. Van der Auwera has said, we suggest that 750 million is still realistic and reasonable, given what is ahead at the moment. I agree that this amount may need to be adjusted in the future. Electricity prices will continue to evolve. This is a fixed fact. We just need to look at how we can properly map that advantage.

The argument I have heard in the committee for the preservation of those 250 million is actually mainly that we have received that amount and the Constitutional Court has not said that it is an unreasonable amount. However, I would like to insist that in the future we look at what exactly can come out there and that we let the CREG calculate what is realistic, but with all the parameters on the table. If we now put aside some studies of the CREG because they would not be realistic or have little to do with reality, then I think we will not get there either.

I would like to point out one last point in this regard. If we give away the advantage that nuclear operators currently have at a price that is too low, we must not forget that this is also a form of benefit and therefore actually a form of state aid. We must definitely pay close attention to this.

I’m back on my crash diet. In the original version there was also a whole scheme for the federal contribution. For the lay among us: the federal contribution is actually a tax that covers a number of costs, including the operating costs of the CREG, the Kyoto Fund and the denuclearization of a number of nuclear sites. This is a contribution that is degressively constructed and plafoned.

At first, this was a good thing, but in the meantime we see that the federal contribution has steadily increased in recent years. Recent figures from the CREG indicate once again that we will go to 5.26 euros per megawatt hour next year. If we then count that over and look at the ceiling as it is currently registered, it means that those who consume at least 250 000 megawatts will be placed at 250 000 euros. Those who consume less, therefore, will only be able to use the degressivity of the scales as they are provided. This means that at the time you consume more than 80 000 megawatts, you will pay more than 250 000 euros. Furthermore, if we see a number of companies that use electricity as a raw material to make products that are used abroad as basic products, we must still be very careful that we do not install taxes that exceed the carrying capacity of those companies.

At the moment, the only option for these companies is that they will consume massively more energy. We are not so long back from the debate in Cancun, it may come back a few times. Meanwhile, however, we have a scheme that encourages certain companies, especially when they are just below that limit of 250 000 MWh, to consume just a lot more. Anyone located just below the border will have to pay almost 750 000 euros next year under the current scheme. The ceiling is 250 000 euros. Therefore, one can consume all the electricity to reach that ceiling. We also discussed this in the committee. We think the proposal as it was in the pre-design was ⁇ not perfect, but it is a basis for moving forward and discussing how we can create a total package that can correct that anomaly and a number of other things. To my surprise, there was some consensus. Despite this being removed from the design, many people seemed to acknowledge that there was a problem there and that the solution proposed for that anomaly was not bad. The unanimity was so widespread that people agreed not only from Upgrimbie to De Panne, even from my own town of Lier to Huy at Mr. George, everyone agreed. CdH itself has submitted an amendment that provides almost the same solution to the problem. It was accepted, but unfortunately it was not approved. We have some problems with that, especially because it is the companies in the category above 80 000 MWh that will pay the bill for it. I think it is somewhat surreal. I therefore propose that we, as a group, re-submit our amendment so that we as Parliament together can take a step in the right direction.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going around. There are several provisions in this law that go in the right direction. It is important that we get those 250 million. That’s below the basis for which we want to go, but if we don’t get them in, we’re even further away from home. I find the motto used by many of our colleagues here, namely that Parliament can do its work, very good. Only that is sometimes not completely rime with what is happening here. Therefore, I am ⁇ looking forward to the vote on the amendment that we are submitting again.

Our group will approve these articles. It is a first step, but that step is far from large enough. We ⁇ want a lot more here in the future.

Collega’s, we can also congratulate Mr. Wollants with his maiden speech. (The Applause)

This will not be my maiden speech.

Mr. Minister, you know that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the CREG has, in writing, challenged your claims that the assessment of the official regulator of the nuclear rent was virtual and not real. The CREG now estimates this rent to 2 billion while the study of the National Bank, to which you continuously refer – which is surprising to me – estimates it to about 800 million euros.

Could you explain why you repeatedly refer to a study that is challenged by the official regulator that the law has set up? You give the impression of seeking the lowest assessment of the undue profits of the operators of nuclear power plants to justify the peanuts that you ask of the electricity producers while a law, derived from the European Directive on the gas and electricity market, a Belgian law, officially establishes a regulator whose task, precisely, is to carry out this type of assessment. This regulator, once in May and once last week, disputes the National Bank’s study because it refers to prices from 2002 and 2003. Now you remain attached to this study of the National Bank while your regulator refuses it, while the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the CREG refuses it in writing, I repeat! He says the number is much higher than that.

If it was just a curious behavior, we would go beyond, but since we have to find an impressive number of billions of euros to ⁇ a healthy budget management, all the euros that you will not go looking for there because you strive to refer to a contested study, you will have to go and look for them elsewhere! Here, we do not agree! The difference between your 250 million and the one-and-a-half billion we propose, this difference would allow you to go for less money elsewhere or conduct better public policies.

And yet, you stick to this controversial study of the National Bank. We said in the committee that we would ask for the opinion of the CREG, for the third time. This is very good, I am in favour of the fact that, for the third time, the CREG is asked to estimate the nuclear rent. In May 2009, it was 1.7 billion; in December, it rose to just over two billion for questions of price fluctuations; we will see, once again, the evaluation of the CREG.

That was the first point of my speech. Therefore, we have filed an amendment with that one and a half billion and, once again, Mr. Minister, the money you will not seek from nuclear operators (while the accelerated depreciation of their power plant has been paid by the consumer, as Febeliec has repeated again today), before the market is regular, it will have to go and look for it elsewhere. This would be profoundly unfair to those who paid this amortization between 1974 and 2000.

The second amendment we submitted concerns the funds that are supplied for future dismantling of power plants and the management of radioactive waste. The current law provides that a group of six people (plus three; I will return to it) – that is, a committee – performs the rating of the nuclear sector and that depending on this rating, the amount of money that can be borrowed from these funds varies.

Since then, two things have happened. First of all, a previous government (not yours, the previous one) considered it necessary to put in this monitoring committee the people themselves of the sector, which created an absolute confusion of interests. Then came the 2008 financial crisis. We were then all able to see – and I suppose we will mostly agree – the failure, and therefore the necessary questioning, of the rating agency system. The reason for this failure lies in the fact that these agencies are both judge and party, firstly because of the identity of their shareholders and their customers, and secondly because they can be mistaken like everyone else.

Following this event,ONDRAF, during its board of directors in June last year, said that the system needs to be revised and that there can no longer be dealing, due to this event of 2008, with a system by which money is re-loaned to operators on the basis of their rating. That is why we have submitted an amendment that provides that these amounts will be transferred to UNDRAF, so that they are no longer exposed to speculation or errors by rating agencies.

I suppose you will agree with this recommendation of the UNDRAF. And if you agree, I assume that this amendment will be adopted.

The therapeutic energy hour has indeed come back, after the committee, now also in the plenary session.

Mr Calvo, for you this is your first time, but as the minister rightly said, we have stood here many times.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, your fine touch on the Pax Electrica has not missed me. I understand that you want to put the plum for a certain progress in the distribution and elimination of an unfair competitive advantage of the old state energy producer on your CD&V hat, but on that point I want to contradict you and take in the tang.

I take you in the tang, Mrs. Van der Auwera, because the problem is not in Pax Electrica. Pax Electrica was a sample agreement that launched a global vision for market liberalization. The problem is that the players who stood on the other side of the agreement did not honor that agreement.

What must then be done? If someone does not fulfill their commitments, they must be enforced. This is what we are trying to do with the repartition contribution.

I agree with many colleagues who say that 250 million euros is not enough. For this reason, I sparked confirming words in the committee of the minister on the question of whether he and his party would ⁇ want to make this contribution recurrent. If we look until when that contribution is considered to run, that is, until when the advantage of the past, namely the accelerated write-off, will run, then we can count on eight-year collection of a recurrent amount. Suppose that we keep that at 250 million euros, then 8 times 250, an amount of 2 billion euros. We are there and at that amount. That is not the problem, my colleagues.

The question then was whether that would be more or less and whether that was enough or not. The minister says it is sure and definitely good, because the Constitutional Court has approved it. Could it be a lake? Maybe so. The Constitutional Court has not ruled on this.

It is clear, four years after I was able to conduct the debate with the minister, that there is a need for a concrete calculation that can be challenged. This has not yet been possible, as the CREG must then be able to gain insight into the concrete purchase and sales results of the various companies. The CREG has received that authority.

I also understood at the last committee meeting that there is a political will to instruct the CREG, the regulator, to make those calculations in concrete, so that we can mitigate the discussion on the numbers – which is now in fashion – before we can start the political discussion on energy policy.

Then in the committee the N-VA proposal falls out of the air: no taxation on assets or anything. They want to tax thermal. I found that very creative, especially since by the qualification of the thermal criterion the calculation of the tax is approximately 250 million euros. This is the world on his head. This is a wrong criterion. I would like to emphasize this: a tax on the nuclear players serves first and foremost to restore competition. Let us not forget this, Mr. Minister of Energy. It is and will always be the primary concern of the liberals to ensure that we have a competitive energy market in this country for the benefit of the consumer and that the service and prices will go the right way, contrary to what we now have to establish.

The second point is the transition to the green economy. I always say, “Think green and trade blue.”The solution is to launch the green economy as a full-fledged opponent of the traditional producers, much more because it is a movement that we cannot stop and that will be the future of the western country. Mr. Wollants, I find it strange to rate the thermal capacity. Friends of the Greens! And Ecolo, then we must open the debate and not just submit an amendment to put the tax suddenly at 1.9 billion euros, to bring the loot in one time and above all to mark that ear to stimulate the social, green economy. No, then we must dare to go further. Then we must dare to say that we will use the taxes, with the federal contributions and with the tax on green electricity certificates, which are paid by us all and by the companies the most – anomalies that we will solve in the future – as a consumer tax. We already do this in secret, but we do not dare to say it out loud. Or do we actually go for the tax shift, in other words the shift of the tax from labour to consumption? I fully agree with that. Then we can impose more energy taxes. That does not even have to be a thermal tax, but a CO2 tax or a consumer tax tout court. Then there will be no more discussion. Then our economy will finally get the oxygen it needs to save the green road. At the same time, the competition problem with which we are now struggling will be wiped out of the road.

My colleagues, I do not make illusions. We are in ongoing affairs. These fundamental debates can only be held preliminarily in Parliament. They also have a significant impact on the government, as such a shift in taxes will not go without blow or blow and has a huge impact on the way the government must collect and spend its budgets. I propose that we initiate this debate in Parliament and begin by submitting legislative proposals to the committees. We should also involve our colleagues in the Committee on Finance and Budget. We must work thoroughly so that we can convince the next government, when it finally comes, with a piece of work. In Parliament, we must not only appeal against this or the next minister, but deliver a truly substantial work piece so that the energy in our country will not only be green, red or blue, but also fair and clean energy for all.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the words of Mr. Schiltz. He praises my creativity. That’s very nice, but he shouldn’t do it. After all, he knows as well as me that this system already exists, works and is being approved abroad.

Mr. Schiltz, I would like to see your calculation of how you come up with our proposal of 250 million, and overcome it with you. However, you should remember that the power of nuclear power plants, as it is now expressed, is the electrical power and not the thermal power. If you use those numbers in your calculation, I think you get out somewhere else.

That is exactly what I wanted to say, in particular that we must stop talking about what criteria we will use. That is wrong.

The debates need to be much more fundamental. There should be a debate about the distortion of competition and the level of sustainability. I have often referred to the green economy, the CO2 emissions and the internalization of the total environmental costs, thus also the costs imposed on the environment by the transport and extraction of uranium and the like. We need to look more at the input from the output. That was exactly the essence of my argument, Mr. Wollants.

Mr Schiltz, of course, I am ⁇ enthusiastic about your ardent plea for the greening of our economy and the shift of the burden towards environmental pollution.

But can we, in anticipation of those fundamental debates, increase this year’s contribution and bring it closer to the wage gains of nuclear operators? If your party considers that this Parliament can do its full work on asylum and migration, submit plenty of proposals and convene committees, why should it not vote on a higher contribution from nuclear operators? That would benefit our budget, something that your party is very close to the heart.

It is obvious that I want to do so, but neither you, Mr Wollants, nor any other group, have submitted to me a proposal sufficiently accommodating such a comprehensive package. These are always small adjustments. In the meantime, you want to do a grey to something. I have sympathy for the minister who says that he is careful not to do this in ongoing matters himself.

Mr. Calvo, Parliament can do that, but we must know what we are doing. You can only get money once and spend it once. So, before you so quickly decide to take and spend it, I would rather have a broader agreement in this Parliament on how we see energy policy in the future. That agreement does not exist at the moment.

Thank you for your many responses, questions and suggestions. The debate sounds a déjà vu, indeed, and I say this with regret, Mr. Calvo. It is a regret to resume this debate because all problems have not been resolved and it can also be regretted that this proposal, limited by the context of current affairs, does not solve all the problems it should solve.

I fully understand and agree with the comments of Mr. Wollants on the problems related to the federal contribution, on this system of ceiling that today produces anomalies and on this system of exemptions that does the same. I had also formulated proposals to remedy those that did not obtain the approval of the majority because they had a budgetary impact and that we are in common affairs. But we also have an agreement within the majority that allows us to return to the parliamentary entry, at least for aspects without budgetary impact, such as the issue of tax exemption.

Likewise, I remind you that this contribution of 250 million is only a part of a broader system of ordering the energy markets, as I said from the beginning, and that included in particular what, in my view, constitutes a masterpiece of the device, a monitoring committee that must do all that is not done today and that must make sure that the nuclear rent benefits the Belgian society.

We will not repeat history, Mr. Deleuze. As you say, regarding the UNDRAF, the 2003 law is not firm enough, it does not enable to fully ensure the availability of nuclear supplies and I totally agree with your judgment, especially since you are the author of this law. I asked the UNDRAF how to strengthen it. She has advanced proposals and I will come, as long as I still have the possibility at the parliamentary return, with proposals in this direction.

As for this famous nuclear rent, without repeating all the historical, I will repeat it to you again and again: I have trouble with the reproaches formulated by ecologists in general. At one point you had the means to act and you did so according to a methodology that you defend and that I will not intellectually challenge. You asked yourself what to do at the time. There was the control committee that brought together social partners, public authorities, producers. Good year bad year, it did not work too badly: the rent was distributed among consumers, whether industrial or private, the investments guaranteed the security of supply and no one complained about it.

We are entering a new context, that of liberalization and market opening; therefore we need to do something else. What did you do, since you were in the manoeuvre? You say that you will lower prices and bring them back to the right level, since there was this indirect subsidy system, that you will set up a regulator and open the game to the competition. Intellectually, you can think it will work, I can follow you on this point. It can be said that as prices are brought back to this level, competition will replace the control committee in a certain way and that prices will remain at this relatively low level and therefore that it will work.

When I arrive, three years ago, day by day, on 21 or 22 December 2007, I have to see, unfortunately, Mr. Deleuze, that it didn’t work! This did not work because in December 2007, a producer still holds 90% of the production shares in that country, that prices have grown terribly and that the decline you had obtained in 2003 has melted like snow in the sun and it is not the consumers who have benefited.

The [...]

I will explain to you.

Therefore, there is no competition and sufficient level of control. What should be done? We must continue to open the market. Nevertheless, thanks to or despite the execution of the Pax Electrica – which, I think, is insufficient but has nevertheless had the merit of allowing a market opening – we passed from 90 to 62%. We have a more open market.

Furthermore, the regulator must be strengthened since at the end of 2007, early 2008, the regulator does not have, for example, the power to calculate production costs. It is strengthened and it is given the means and power to calculate these costs of production and therefore to calculate this rent. Finally, it is necessary to ensure that this pension benefits the Belgian society. I said it from the beginning! How to do it? With, on the one hand, taxation and, on the other hand, price control. This is my conviction that has been long to mature and also long to be shared by the partners of the majority. I recall, without polemic, but it is a fact, that the liberals, neither of the North nor of the South, did not want a tax on nuclear in 2007, 2008. It took long discussions and long battles to reach a consensus around the idea of taxing this nuclear rent, which exists and is legally consolidated now thanks to the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

Is it sufficient? No, I’ve always said that it should be accompanied by this monitoring committee to check the actual prices.

Mr. Calvo, I said in the committee and in the press, and I will repeat it to you in the plenary — I have no problem with this, — that the calculations of the CREG are theoretical calculations. It is not an offense to say that. I have the greatest respect for theory, I myself have been an academic and I have done lots of theoretical calculations in a previous life. These are theoretical calculations.

What does the CREG say? If 100% of nuclear electricity was sold at the market price, then the rent would be at that level. He is probably right in his estimates. But we know, whether we like it or not, that 100% of the nuclear electricity produced is not sold at this nominal market price, as shown here. First, because there are long-term contracts and therefore there are, in 2010, quantities that are sold at prices not of 2010 but at prices of 2009 or 2008 or 2007. Second, because there are various reduction systems. And therefore, what needs to be taken into consideration is not only what the rent would be if 100% was sold at the market price, but how much was sold at what price and then what is the actual margin.

Mr. Deleuze, we must be able to reconcile different economic data and then you can explain to me how it is possible to justify that there are 2 billion or 2.5 billion rent, if otherwise the cumulative turnover of the companies concerned, including the activities other than nuclear, is of the order of 1 billion, 1.5 billion or 1.3 billion. There’s something that doesn’t fit! This turnover, i.e. after deduction of costs from profits, is not explainable. Either there is an enormous fraud in the accounts but then it must be demonstrated or it must be recognized that between a theoretical calculation of the rent, very useful calculation I repeat but theoretical, and the actual calculation that we still have to do and that unfortunately no one has done since the control committee has disappeared, there is a difference.

It is on this basis that I come to estimates roughly equivalent to those of mr. by Wollants. Not, Mr. Calvo or Mr. Deleuze, by recycling an old study but by taking back the methodology of the National Bank, constantly updated with the latest figures, to try to make sure that, when international comparisons are made, when comparing theoretical calculations and turnover figures, the real profits of the companies concerned as well as the data available on a number of contracts, all this fits together and possesses a certain consistency.

Of course, this remains a work to be done. And we need, I am convinced, either that the CREG engages in this, or that this monitoring committee that I had proposed be created, which would allow to do so by involving the government and the social partners, while leaving to the CREG – which also has its role to play – its total independence that must be preserved and even strengthened.

And then, to answer the second question that arises: is it necessary to take 100% of this rent to the benefit of the government? This is a political choice. I never said that it should take the whole, but rather a third that would go in favor of individual consumers in the form of ⁇ ining a fair price. Another third would go to industrial consumers, in order to preserve the competitiveness of our companies, and the latter would benefit the government. This is how we made this estimate, so that the third assigned to the government is equivalent to the nominal corporate tax rate. I have explained it long before.

Now, a next government might decide to take 100% of the rent. very well ! But at the same time, we cannot say that we will maintain low prices for consumers. There must be a minimum of intellectual honesty.

Excuse me, I should have handed you the letter right away. Then your replica might have looked different. I will give you the letter now. In fact, again you make the mistake of attacking the figures of the CREG, while the CREG refutes that point by point in the letter.

You say that only the theoretical selling price, the market price known on the energy exchange, is taken into account. Well, you will read in the letter, if you assume a market price of 60 euros per megawatt hour, that it has already taken into account cheaper market prices awarded to industrial customers.

You also say that the study of the National Bank should be taken into account in particular. The study of the National Bank has exactly the same methodology as the study of the CREG. Both studies take the difference between the market price and the production price and multiply that by the amount of nuclear production. What is the difference between the study of the National Bank and that of the CREG? The National Bank assumes much higher production costs, assuming the costs of a new power plant. Our power plants are not new. In addition, the National Bank assumes the market price of 2002-2003, which was much lower than that of 2007.

Therefore, it is not a question of methodology, but rather of using correct numbers. You are based on a study that is much older and that deals with incorrect production costs.

Colleagues, it is a hallucinating thing to talk about which study. This is normally done by the committees. I just mentioned that there was a consensus in the committee to ask the CREG to calculate the effective benefits from the contracts sold, including any advantages granted to long-term contracts. I think any discussion is premature, as long as we do not know exactly how much Electrabel and others have effectively sold and received. Then we can fight a little robberies with the minister, whoever it may be, about how much and what should be done with that money. I think that it makes no sense to sweat off each other flying offshore here today about whether or not the CREG has made a correct calculation.

I agree with Mr Calvo that the CREG has rejected a number of things. On the other hand, he cannot deny that the CREG is based on general figures and averages. I will leave this discussion beyond me. I want concrete figures. Speculations about these or genetic models will not contribute much.

Debates about numbers and models are always useful.

I think it would be a good thing if we first reach an agreement on what exactly we should ask the CREG, with what parameters and in what way. If not, we will subsequently conduct exactly the same discussion on whether or not it was the right methodology. If we can first come up with a line on what exactly should be asked, and if in it all the concerns and concerns of the groups are expressed, then only then can we get a study that we all must stand behind and with which we can go on.

Mr Schiltz, you are talking about a baking line about numbers. You find it a little annoying that we are conducting this debate.

This debate for me is not a debate about methodology, study work or figures. This is a debate about the future energy policy in our country. This is a debate about the energy bill of our consumers and SMEs. We can take this debate in Parliament and spend some time on it! It is the minister, not the Ecolo-Groen!, who has opened the debate on the figures by questioning the studies of the CREG and who has thus mortgaged the future work that we all want to start. Today’s debate is thanks to the Minister.

We begin the discussion of the infrastructure component.

We will discuss the Infrastructure section.

Mr. Speaker, would you like to speak on this subject? This morning, the President invited the rapporteurs to hold their presentations, which does not prevent you from still enjoying this community with your presentations, Mr. Van den Bergh.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, the reason for my presentation is an aspect of the bill in question, in particular the amendment of the Law on the Operational Safety of Railways and of the Program Law of 22 December 2008.

With the present draft law, you claim to respond to the criticism formulated by the European Commission regarding compliance with a 2004 directive.

I believe that the present bill is insufficient. Instead, we should talk about a missed opportunity and overwork.

We need to go back in time, back to 2006, to the time of Minister Landuyt. He referred to it yesterday. The Service for Railway Safety and Interoperability, DVIS, was established.

It is clear that some of the shortcomings that this law is now attempting to remedy were already removed at that time, in my opinion, insufficient.

During the sessions of the special chamber committee “Railway Safety” several pain points related to the operation of DVIS have emerged. I don’t think the Secretary of State can go away from the conclusions that may follow in February. It is a missed opportunity to address this already.

I would like to point out to the Secretary of State that the explanation does not state that Europe is right. This is a alleged violation of the railway directive. According to Europe, DVIS would also not be sufficiently independent.

Nevertheless, I think that Europe is very clear and that the terms used here dishonor what is rightly accused by Europe.

I would also like to note that the Secretary of State should, in my opinion, reflect a little more on the Netherlands, where there is a fully independent research body.

It is not the first time that Europe touches our fingers, but in this case it is already the third time: in February 2008, in June 2008 and in October 2009. We are not in the class of exemplary students. Even now, in the present bill, there is only a transitional period. Furthermore, the question arises whether we can fully meet the request.

Only three years after this law comes into force, there is a guarantee that the top of DVIS would no longer have any connection with the NMBS.

My colleagues, this is a missed opportunity. I refer, among other things, to the report of the Court of Auditors, but there are also other reports that clearly show that there are many shortcomings. Something needs to happen urgently. If rail safety is at the top of the agenda, we should not wait until a disaster occurs. It is necessary to address, inter alia, the criticisms formulated by the Court of Auditors and the experts associated with the Special Committee of the Chambers. This is shown in the report of the European Railway Agency, ERA. As was also shown during the hearings itself, I am convinced that the Secretary of State is closely following the work of the committee, so that he knows very well what the pain points are in connection with DVIS.

One of those pain points is the shortage of personnel. For example, the Court of Auditors points out that DVIS can carry out numerous audits, but does not have an inspection or audit program. The Court also points out that DVIS does not have sufficient resources to properly perform its tasks. For example, the Court of Auditors also says that in terms of sanctioning DVIS has only one weapon in its hands, namely the withdrawal of the recognition or the safety certificate. A diversification of DVIS’s weapons arsenal is necessary, for example by imposing administrative fines which, depending on the breach, duration and repetition, can be increased.

Two is not the only problem. The second problem is the research body that falls under your own department and that occurs when disasters occur. Also there, it is clear that there are insufficient opportunities to work with external experts and to attract them in the context of an investigation. In connection with that research body, I also refer, for example, to the Annual Report 2008, which would normally be published in September 2009. According to the Court of Auditors, that annual report was still not published on 30 April 2010. It is not enough that the research body can analyze, following a survey, what was at the base, it must also make recommendations. However, the investigating body is not able to verify the extent to which the parts of the railways that have implemented the recommendations.

In this way, of course, one can continue to work in the wild and make hundreds of recommendations without them being effectively implemented on the ground.

Another point I would like to address is the Staff Statute. This forms somewhat the essence of the present bill, namely that the staff currently employed at DVIS still enjoys – you can literally take it – the staff status of the NMBS, because of course that staff status of the NMBS is much more advantageous. That, of course, constitutes a serious disadvantage to fully build such a service and ensure that you also have the right people there. One of the critical comments of the European Commission is that this must be addressed. It makes no sense if a so-called independent investigative body employs staff members who belong to an entity to be investigated. A complete separation seems to me much more logical.

In the present bill, you are in fact limited to the top. In the foreseeable time, you will ensure that two people from the top of DVIS and the research body no longer have any connection with the NMBS. However, it is much more important, as has also been shown from various hearings, that this is also achieved on the ground and that the executive staff can also enjoy a staff status that falls under the FOD Mobility. For this, of course, you need to make an effort. For this, you must release the necessary resources. Apparently, however, at the moment one is not able to do so or does not want to choose a better status under the FOD Mobility.

Another element is ERA, the European Railway Agency. I have already mentioned that ERA, by its reputation and staff status, attracts the more competent employees. For those who are active in the sector in our country, it is much more enjoyable to work at ERA. In my opinion, there is still some work to be done for you, even in a government of ongoing affairs.

The plea for more staff is not new, of course. Even DVIS has pointed to this in its various reports. For example, it was already clearly stated in 2009 that the service needed a total of 34 staff members, while only 26 staff members were available. The Court also notes that, in fact, only 14 of those 26 are responsible for the controls, inspections and audits, which constitutes the work on the ground. When we look at that exactly, we are only talking about 4.5 full-time equivalents.

As far as the work on the ground is concerned, DVIS therefore has a shrinking shortage. I refer to the figures on controls, inspections and audits. In 2007 there were two inspections, in 2008 two inspections and in 2009 one inspection. In terms of audits, 2007 and 2008 were virgin white, while in 2009 there was one audit. Of course, controls are carried out, but it is precisely the inspections and audits that prove the added value of DVIS. The figures indicate that this is a significant deficiency.

The demand for more personnel was already raised in 2007 and 2008. It seems a bit that DVIS has thus become the mess of railway safety in Europe. I hope that was not your intention.

Another point concerning the staff problem is found in the research body itself. There are currently two researchers and a servant. Both in the Infrastructure Committee and in the hearings, we have therefore noticed that there is a huge lag in the follow-up of accidents. When we look at the publication of the reports, a serious collection operation must also be carried out there. The investigation body itself claims that the requesting party is for three additional researchers and a servant. In this way, it can at least also follow up on whether its recommendations are effectively implemented. It is very important that we can have such an independent investigative body in the field of rail safety, which is fully operational and has sufficient instruments. Unfortunately, so far this is not the case. I would like to point out that, for example, as regards that succession, it is very clear from the reports that it has no knowledge of the succession by Infrabel and the NMBS, which is, however, essential.

As regards the breach order by the European Commission, you limit yourself to adjusting the top of DVIS. In the past, there was, among other things, criticism of the preferential treatment that the NMBS ⁇ from the DVIS. You have already made some hints on that too. For example, I refer to the homologation of the train driver training institution. You also have to do something later on. This proves again that one speaks of a messy plan to build DVIS.

According to the analysis in that special committee, it is very clear that the ERA, the railway safety authority that determines the standard, has carried out the analysis itself. It follows that the DVIS, although they have the status of prosecutor, which to date have never applied. Apparently there is also no proper training for the staff. The DVIS is also accused of working only with a limited investigation process. They advocate a much more sophisticated research process. It is also said that there are not sufficiently clear agreements between court and police and that there is no monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations. However, it is logical that when recommendations are formulated by the research body, the DVIS is the best partner to see if they are effectively followed. There is still work in the store.

The committee clearly feels that the relations between DVIS, Infrabel and the NMBS are not as they should be. The DVIS, however, should be a full-fledged and well-developed player, but is still not that at the moment. We even learn that the NMBS-Holding has deliberately delegated its weak people to the DVIS so that they would not get too much to deal with an intrusive service. That ratio currently ensures that, in terms of safety, the NMBS cannot knock too hard on the table because Infrabel cannot be floated back by the DVIS. The essence of my plea is a call for a much stronger, more independent and better developed DVIS than it is now. I do not read that in this bill.

In the committee we heard very clearly that the functioning of the DVIS, as formulated today, is not realized on the ground. The company needs more and better staff. He could be the best game distributor between various entities within NMBS. So far, there is no such thing at all.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the views expressed by the Court of Auditors, ERA and the experts in the committee. Even the Council of State is wondering whether this bill responds sufficiently to the criticism of the European Commission. I quote: “It cannot, however, be considered that the proposed amendment can completely refute the arguments raised by the Commission. In fact, this amendment applies only to the directors of the safety authority, while the Commission also refers to the staff of the FOD Mobility and Transport, who exercise hierarchical authority over the safety authority.”

The second observation is that this amendment will not take effect until three years after the entry into force of the draft law.

These are two serious comments from the State Council, which I would like to contribute to.

I end up holding this plea once again for a full-fledged independent research body, a little by the example of the Netherlands. Mr. Secretary of State, you could even turn to the Netherlands for your mustard. There is a huge need for this.

Therefore, we will not approve the present draft law in that regard, because today it is a clear case of a missed opportunity and of overlapping.

Mr. Speaker, as a reporter, I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Veys’ presentation today takes longer than all the statements in the committee during the discussion of this bill together, but this side by side.

I regret a little, also as a reporter in the committee responsible for the investigation of rail safety, that Mr. Veys is now taking an adjustment which was urgent and which has thus been incorporated in the law containing various provisions, to make the whole process of the DVIS, while that is actually an evaluation that we are trying to make in the special committee on rail safety and which will have to lead to conclusions at the beginning of February. I regret a little that one of these groups already makes an advance reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to give some answers to Mr. Veys’ presentation.

This is not the first time I point to this. In 2006, my predecessor, Mr. Landuyt, had to respond to or comply with the European Union Directive on railway safety by letting his choice fall on the staff of the NMBS itself. His choice was largely and ⁇ even decisively due to the fact that in the field of railway safety the specialists in our country, outside the NMBS itself, are hardly to find. Without a doubt, it was obligatory, given the organization of the services, to do with people who were dispatched from the railway company.

Mr. Veys, I do not share the appreciation you give in this regard. You declare that NMBS-Holding has sent its weak elements to the service concerned. You follow the railway affairs sufficiently closely to know that, for example, an action with regard to railway safety is taking place very closely. When the authorisation was refused to use, for example, the infrastructure for the high-speed line north of Antwerp, which was located there and in which it was invested, this occurred because DVIS, in its view, had not yet sufficiently guaranteed that the technical requirements were adequately respected and that the safety arrangements were adequately respected, in particular with regard to the equipment. Even in terms of infrastructure, the DVIS has demonstrated the appropriate restriction.

You are talking about functioning. I must emphasize that we have ensured that this entity is no longer dependent on the NMBS. It has full autonomy, including budgetary. On an administrative level, it still has links with the department and the Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport. For the rest, it operates completely independently, thus also from the NMBS.

However, it is true that we not only cannot, but also do not want to send back to the NMBS itself the people who work there and who in the past were dispatched on the basis of the conditions that were set in 2006. Those persons have given up their previous job and have linked to their posting conditions requirements in terms of ⁇ ining their existing status. I can give all the understanding for that. It is only drop-down, as there are vacancies, that we can fill the frame with individuals who do not come from the NMBS or who are willing to drop their NMBS status and fall back on a status that is actually a variant of what the other government staff has.

Their independence is official anyway. There is still a link with the NMBS, but as I emphasized, in this proposal we have clearly and clearly underlined that already within eighteen months the management, the director and the deputy director, in any case, should no longer have a connection with the NMBS. This is included in our proposal. As regards the composition and strength of both DVIS and the research body, I must point out that in our proposals on budgetary level we have provided room for further growth. This should lead to an effective number of 35 persons at the end of 2011 and of 40 persons over the course of 2012, which would ultimately have to ⁇ the effectiveness that was anticipated.

So I believe, Mr. Veys, that we are on the right track and that we are thoroughly correcting the 2006 starting position in the direction that the European Commission calls for. Moreover, you have correctly pointed out that in the past, for the possible penalization of the company that would not comply with the safety requirements, only the withdrawal of the safety certificate existed as a sanction. That is, for example, an impossible sanction for the NMBS; we cannot stop the whole railway traffic from day to day!

Therefore, we have opted to provide for a series of administrative sanctions that can be applied progressively and that will hurt financially the companies, not only the NMBS, but also the others who do not properly comply with their obligations in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments in Chapter 7, Articles 101 and 102 relating to rail transport are fully evolving towards what the European Commission demands. In this way, we will slowly but surely ⁇ the independence that we must ⁇ .

I know that there are countries that have already started this earlier. I do not want to blame anyone for the current state of affairs. The most important thing is that we are actually evolving in the direction that the European Commission asks of us.

The independence and proper functioning of DVIS and the investigation body and the substantial reinforcement will be of such nature that they will be able to carry out their work within a predictable time as expected. I hope that these articles can be approved without problems.

I would like to speak to Mr. Van den Bergh on the following. If there are other matters that need to be adjusted, we will see that at the time when the work of the committee that is currently examining the elements of railway safety will be completed. The necessary conclusions must then be drawn from this and then we will examine whether other adjustments are necessary.

Until then, with this proposal, we will in any case have taken an important step in the right direction.

Here is my response to Mr. Veys’ statement.

Mr. Speaker, a short response. Regarding Mr Van den Bergh, I would like to note that his presentation today was also longer than his intervention in the committee. The second point relates to what has been put forward in the special committee “Railway Safety”. The Secretary of State did not need that special committee to know that there were deficiencies in terms of staff and operation in the DVIS. All I have done is try to convince the Secretary of State that he urgently needs to do more work on this. I think he just needed that extra push. However, this is not enough, and we must wait for the February report. A last point. Mr. Secretary of State, you refer to the staff problem and say that there is a solution. In 2011 DVIS will have 34 staff members and in 2012 it will even be 40. However, I would like to point out that they were already in 2009 a requesting party for 34 staff members. If they have to wait two years each time for the necessary personnel, then it is rather a procession of Echternach than a high-speed train ship.

If there are no further presentations, we will meet again this afternoon at 14 o 15 for the discussion of the sections Social Affairs and Public Health, Finance and Budget and Justice.