Proposition 53K1725

Projet de loi portant modifications de la loi du 29 avril 1999 relative à l'organisation du marché de l'électricité et de la loi du 12 avril 1965 relative au transport de produits gazeux et autres par canalisations.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Sept. 2, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive consumer protection electricity supply electrical energy energy supply gas market stabilisation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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. 15, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Suddenly it goes very fast.

( ... )

Mr. De Croo, thank you for trying to make me even more nervous. This is my first role as a rapporteur. I must confess that I have never very much liked to report on meetings. In addition, we are facing a bill that deserves a lot of debate and reflection.

My proposal would therefore be to refer to the written report and immediately initiate the debate on the draft law. It is the Magnette bill, now the draft law of Secretary of State Wathelet.

It is a pity that the former Minister of Energy is not present today. Mr. Secretary of State, it is still somewhat his draft, if I can say so. It is a draft to which Minister Magnette has been drawn and which has been drawn for some time.

In the meantime, we have been almost a year late with the transposition of the directive in question. The transposition of the third energy package should have been the goodbye in beauty of the former Minister of Energy, which unfortunately has not become. It has not become a goodbye in beauty, not only because of the outcome that lies ahead here today, but also because of the trajectory that the bill has taken.

I already talked about the delay. I will give a few figures to indicate the quality of the bill.

71 amendments were submitted. Mr Wollants is largely responsible for this number of amendments. He removed a certain legalist nonchalance from the text, for which we should be grateful to him. After the trial in the committee, the legal service put another note with as many as 124 comments on our table, which says something about the quality of the present bill. It also says something about the commitment and commitment of the former Minister of Energy in drafting this bill.

More fundamental is the following. We held a series of hearings on which you could consult the written report. Colleagues, during the above-mentioned hearings we have been able to conclude that no one, but therefore no one, is enthusiastic about what is going on here today.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, on what we may vote today, no stakeholder with whom we have talked about this bill over the last few weeks said that it contained good measures that were a step forward. On the contrary, one by one, together with us, the Ecolo-Groen! group, they have been able to establish that it is a bill dating back to the Magnetic Age and that has the same quality as the energy policy of the past years.

It can be seen very clearly, it was also seen during the discussion, that here a political compromise was made between, on the one hand, a number of fundamental, red socialist grievances and, on the other hand, a number of blue vetoes, comments and proposals.

That gives this result, a result that does not always respond to employability and to questions in the sector itself. It may contain some candy for every political group in this Parliament, but no one stakeholder – you are trying to reach another one that is enthusiastic, but you will not find one – is enthusiastic about the transposition of the third energy package that has been drafted by the government-Leterme, by the Minister of Energy Magnette, and so in fact a little by this government because only the colleagues of sp.a have been added to it.

Mr. Secretary of State, saying goodbye in beauty is not permitted to the former Minister of Energy, but it would be good if you could make a good start. A good start is half won. You can immediately show, as you have just done, that you have been cut out of the good wood, that you are putting in practice the good intentions you are formulating today in L’Echo even at the first legislative possibility.

I must say that I found it a very good interview. You laugh very well on the photo. It is with that charm that you will have to try to draw Joke Schauvliege over the strip of the European climate ambition.

I read some good things in that interview, for which the Ecolo-Green group! In the meantime for years. Mrs. Lalieux can bear that because she has constantly struggled to protect her minister. You mentioned a number of things that the Ecolo-Groen! group has been talking about for years: pacifying the sector, creating a confidence climate, of legal certainty, diversifying the supply, greening the supply. It sounded like music in our ears.

Congratulations on your first interview, Mr. Secretary of State.

Mr. Calvo, that is your presentation. That is not the report.

I finished my report ten minutes ago, Mr. Speaker. This seems to me too colorful for a report.

This is your intervention! I was deceived on the goods. This is good for once!

The [...]

I had announced it, Madame Lalieux, even before my intervention!

Continue on, Mr Calvo!

I would like to congratulate you on your first interview. I would like to ask you to already today propose to your new majority, this Parliament, to put into practice the intentions you express in the interview in l’Echo.

This can be done through a number of Ecolo-Green amendments! approve, or at least, in the less ambitious scenario when I will ask you a number of questions later, by indicating that you will work on it in the coming weeks and months.

It makes no sense to discuss the debate in the committee altogether. I will limit my content feedback to a number of points.

Let me start with the positive. Mrs. Lalieux will be pleased that I mention it. The original bill contained nothing or almost nothing about consumer protection. This has caused justified indignation from trade unions and Test-Buy. It has ensured that the majority, reinforced by a number of amendments from the opposition, today submits a bill incorporating consumer protection. It works from a legible standard invoice that will further increase consumer mobility. The amendments by colleague Wollants and myself have further reinforced this story. They ensure that a breakdown compensation of a maximum of 50 euros can be charged only once. It refers to independent price comparison tests that will make even more people move away from that annoying historical supplier who may organize fun events like tonight but further blackmails us, threatens us, and runs with our wealth to France.

Consumer protection has been further developed. As constructive as we are, we want to name them today.

There may be some questions and concerns before moving to the amendments, Mr. Secretary of State. I take the opportunity to address, in addition to a few points of criticism and the amendments, two other concerns. For the former minister, the story of price control, price regulation and the safety net mechanism was very important. This was his last political trophy. He paid a lot of attention to communication. We are again pragmatic in this regard. We do not spread the ideological radicalism of the gentlemen Schiltz and Clarinval exhibits. We have no fundamental problem with this. This is a legitimate instrument. We can use it if necessary. It is good to introduce it temporarily. During the hearings, we also noticed that a number of smaller suppliers have warned about that price control and that safety net mechanism. It could sometimes become inoperable and, in the longer term, reduce competition in the supplier market.

I am pleased that colleague Schiltz receives our intellectual honesty with applause. Price control can be interesting. It may also be necessary in our market conditions. It may sound crazy but I would like to ask you to monitor it properly and to ensure that the instrument does not have the side effects that no one wants, whether you are a socialist, liberal or ecologist. No one wants less competition in the supplier market.

Let me be clear: it is not a miracle remedy to reform our energy market, it is not a miracle remedy for the purchasing power of our society. One will have to fundamentally invest in greening the supply, one will have to fundamentally invest in increasing the competition. There is the big work to be done, rather than in terms of price control and price regulation, because that is – – I apologize to the PS colleagues – just an end-of-pipe solution, I think.

Second, Mr. Secretary of State, in your interview you said: “C’est aujourd’hui à nous de créer ce climat de confiance.” You want legal certainty and confidence, so you can convince investors to invest here and not elsewhere. That is very important. In the present draft law, a new regulatory framework is designed for offshore. The regulation is not substantially updated or reorganized, but it is suggested that the regulator can now recommend annually to update the support for offshore wind farms.

During the hearing, I have already heard suppliers and players in the energy market admit that the possible annual updating of support mechanisms does not create such an interesting investment climate. You can probably imagine something about it.

Suppose you are investing in a capital-intensive project to build windmills on the North Sea. This is not a 100 or 200 euro project. If there is the possibility that public support is regularly updated, you are creating uncertainty. Mr. Secretary of State, I ask you to pay close attention to this. There is no clear definition of what future projects are. This could create a lot of uncertainty.

The government has already created a lot of uncertainty among builders and growers on the one hand, and among SMEs working on the insulation of homes, on the other. It would be a second blow to the green economy if you create a climate in which no one still wants to build an offshore wind farm in the North Sea.

This is a second focus of our group. We have not submitted an amendment to this, but we hope that in your reply you will give feedback on a concern, which we sincerely want to share with you, Mr. Secretary of State.

Our group submitted three amendments. We have been selective. We propose to make of this bill, which is one from the previous era, a bill for the new era. We suggest that you put your interview in L’Echo into practice today. You have the chance. The Ecolo-Green! group gives you the chance to do it on at least three points. I will put them in a row for you.

First, we would like you to give Elia, the transmission manager, a limited capacity, a point that was pressured during the hearings and in the committee.

The people of Elijah have almost begged to allow it. They are now in a very unpleasant situation as they have to look for capacity for their support services and are faced with the same players over and over again. Those players engage the conversation very heavily and conduct it based on their terms. Those market conditions could be reduced if Elia could have limited own capacity, not to commercialise.

The Socialist Party has spoken in favour. Mrs. Lalieux, you said that you are for your own capacity for Elia. Mr. George, you have also stated to be in favour. Moi, je suis ouvert pour ce débat-là I heard in one of the committees.

Your party delivers today the Minister of Energy, who gives a very strong interview in which he says, among other things, that it will green up the supply, it will have to support new players, and it will have to monitor purchasing power. Well, giving Elijah own capacity meets those three goals.

Mr. Minister, today there is an amendment to Ecolo-Groen!, which allows you to immediately put that good interview into practice.

Second, supply security was also an important focus in your interview this morning. We find it interesting to include the information obligation, which already exists today in the technical regulation, in the present bill, which was submitted by the previous minister. Paul Magnette indeed suggested that a player who closes a central should communicate that.

However, the provision is too non-binding. Our energy regulator also warns of this. Still, players are able to decide, based solely on economic considerations and their profit balance, whether they will close a central or not.

Today we make it possible for players – and they are not always the most sympathetic players – to use a shortage strategy and take power plants out of rotation to ensure that the cash machines, which are the oldest nuclear plants, and which we, as I read in L’Echo, all want to shut down by 2015, remain needed.

The second amendment we present today aims to strengthen the information obligation contained in the legislation through a permit. If Electrabel or any other player today wants to shut down a power plant for this or that reason, one should ask the regulator whether or not, for the safety of the network and for the security of supply.

At first, this seems to be a communist measure. I am waiting for colleague Schiltz to bring fundamental liberalism into the debate. Again we are pragmatic. We look at the market situation and, since we consider supply security very important, we argue that a licensing procedure should be introduced at least temporarily and in this regard the players should not have the freedom to use a shortage strategy.

Mr. Calvo, I must first and foremost congratulate you on the maturity of your speech so far, but now you are going a little out of the curve. We have held the debate on this issue in the committee. You launched that argument there. Contrary arguments were raised. Fairness commands to store the bazooka with which you are now shooting, and recognize the efficiency and feasibility of the system included in the bill.

It is clear that there will be an obligation to report to the regulator when one intends to close. Then the regulator and the government, including Parliament, Mr. Calvo, you and I, can take measures to respond appropriately in the interests of the country, in the interests of our energy policy. Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the operators are working hard to build power plants in Belgium, provided that the necessary regulatory framework, which is also provided in the present draft, is provided.

The threat you are referring to will not come.

Colleague Schiltz, you have been able to listen with me to the representatives of the CREG, who were quite strong supporters of such a licensing procedure. I think they have good arguments for that. The arguments for not doing it, I think, weigh a lot lighter in the current market situation.

You use the metaphor of the bazooka. What is stated in this bill is not basooka. It is a water pistol and our players in the market require, even temporarily, other instruments.

The licensing requirement could be a good measure for the equipment plan announced by the government. You do not have to wait for weeks or months. There is today the Ecolo-Green amendment! to integrate it. The text of the amendment, by the way, is not ours, but of the energy regulator. I invite you to do it well again.

A third point of criticism and also a third amendment of Ecolo-Groen! concerns the competence for the prospective study. Mr. Minister, I think you can very well, together with us, establish that a pacification of the sector is one of the major challenges for the coming months and years.

The hearings as we have experienced over the last two years have exposed a war between institutions, with amendments and notes from institutions, which were actually inspired to strengthen their own position. This is what we do today when we invite someone from the energy world. There is a war going on between administration and regulator, between market players and regulator, and between traditional political parties and individuals in charge of our energy market. That is the war that is going on today, Mr. Minister. You will have to pacify.

Do you agree that there is a need for pacification in our energy market?

The [...]

Sorry, I was still looking for confirmation. We have often read from the former Minister of Energy in L’Echo that the energy regulator was important. So you understand why we today in Parliament once again ask the new minister to confirm his interviews in L’Echo. We have become a little bit suspicious, Mrs. Lalieux. This is the experience we have gained in recent years as a group in the opposition. What the majority says in the newspapers and does in the energy practice, there are sometimes kilometers between. I am sorry for insisting on a few points today.

I have a small question to Mr. Calvo. I looked at the agenda. It is possible that I was mistaken, but I thought that the discussion of the Energy Minister’s policy note was not on the agenda today. I think the third package was on the agenda.

Of course, today we are talking about the third package. Mr Schiltz, do you know that the competence of the prospective study is in the third package? You know that, right? I find your interruption therefore somewhat bizarre for a member of parliament who praises everyone for his knowledge of the dossier. You know that the prospective study and its competence are included in the bill. On this I hold my argument.

Mr. Minister, you confirm that pacification is important and you confirm that your predecessor has done insufficient work on it. You crave and I am happy about it. You say that the previous government and the former Minister of Energy have not worked hand in hand that pacification and even made it impossible.

Mr. Calvo, if necessary, I will, of course, confirm what I said in the interview. It is my habit not to say anything other than what I would have said in an article. But you must not put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. You just said that the fact that there was no pacification in the sector was the fault of the former Minister of Energy. I ⁇ would not say that. You also know that if one wants to go to a pacification of the sector, trying to blame one or the other or trying to give one good points and the other bad, ⁇ not the best way to get to the pacification in the sector. Maybe be a little wiser and really try to go to a pacification. A pacification involves looking more to the future than to the past, to the previous culprit for some difficult moment in that sector.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your wise explanation. I understand that it is necessary to pacify today, but that nevertheless there is no problem of pacification in the energy sector. That’s a little bit ambiguous, but I give you the chance for the coming weeks and months to work out and make concrete.

I came to the third point of criticism. The competence of the prospective study has a strong connection with pacification. Our group has taken a clear position in the committee. It then submitted an amendment, and is doing so again today, to delegate the competence of the prospective study and the monitoring of supply security to the regulator.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lalieux wants to say something.

Mr. Calvo, you make the questions and the answers. Or c'est moi qui dirige, ce n'est pas vous! You address to the Assembly. And you will give the word to the colleague who demands it. For the moment, you n'ai vu personne le faire! Each has its role. You continue to.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik heb natuurlijk geen ogen op mijn rug, but ik had de indruk dat u niet in staat was om de lichte armbeweging van mevrouw Lalieux op te merken. Bovendien had ik de indruk dat u helemaal niet in staat was om vast te stellen dat mevrouw Lalieux eigenlijk wel something wilde zeggen. Er is evenwel of cohesion in de socialistische familie in die overwint alles, even good parliamentary zeden. (The Rumor)

The [...]

Continue your speech, Mr Calvo!

Would you not intervene, Mrs. Lalieux? Did you say nothing? Did you say nothing while Mr. Frédéric was talking to someone?

Mr. Calvo, it’s when you want! If you have finished, you return to your place and we continue the agenda. There is no problem! I ask you to stay focused on the essential! And with regard to compliance with the Rules, I will ask you to be a little more thoughtful in your positions. You will not teach me the Rules.

I will no longer be distracted by interruptions by the PS group, no problem.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when we asked the former Minister of Energy about the competence of the prospective study, he responded rather laconically that if he decided today to let the CREG carry out those studies, they would hire a expensive foreign consultant to carry out that study and that would not be interesting. That is the pacification version-Magnette.

Our pacification is another. Our pacification is to follow the European directive, which stipulates that the monitoring of supply security is primarily the responsibility of the energy regulator.

Mr. Secretary of State, if you think the pacification is really important, there is the amendment of Ecolo-Groen!, which proposes to give the energy regulator, ⁇ not the most servile institution but an objective institution, the power to judge whether there is a problem of supply security. This is the proposal of the Ecolo-Groen!.

I hope that the factions that often speak with the desire to strengthen our energy regulator, as they do today, will not again leave a boulevard of several kilometers between what these traditional parties, this majority, say in the newspaper and what is now legislatively put into practice.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, finally, I have already said, I found it a very inspiring interview. Today we give you the opportunity to translate it. Even with the approval of the Ecolo-Green amendments! There is an incredible amount of work in our energy market. In our group you will really find a constructive partner, who wants to reform on the basis of numbers, on the basis of arguments with which he is involved.

However, we will only do so if this majority actually does what they promise. Today you have a first chance to truly do what you promised in the government agreement, what you say in L’Echo, in Le Soir, in The Last News and in The Standard. Today is the first opportunity.

Please do not wait weeks or months, as you already do with the exchange plan, to approve a reform of the gas and electricity market. If you fail to do so, our Ecolo-Green! group will vote against it with great conviction and with great enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here we are gathered to examine the famous bill called "third energy package", which aims to transpose into Belgian law two directives and three European regulations that will deepen and improve the liberalization of the electricity and gas market.

First of all, I would like to welcome the way this project has been discussed in our committee. It must be realized that the transposition of this heavy package of legislation is late compared to the European calendar and that it is therefore a government in ordinary affairs that has presented to Parliament a text that the MEPs have been able to modify in a very constructive way. We were able to demonstrate our sense of responsibility and we were also able to improve the text to almost general satisfaction.

I would like to thank mr. Minister Magnette, who is not there, who has accepted that we amend his text. I would like to emphasize that he even accepted amendments from the N-VA, the opposition. This is relatively rare and it should be said.

Regarding the substance of the dossier, at the MR we can only congratulate ourselves on the different chapters that transpose the European texts. This will improve the security of supply. This will deepen unbundling, it will interconnect our networks internationally. International cooperation will be improved. This will also bring more independence to the regulator. The MR can only support this positive trend for the creation of a more fluid electricity and gas market.

However, it is worth stopping on four chapters that are on your table, but which did not originally appear in the European texts.

First, the increasing responsibility of our House of Representatives in the control of the market in general and the regulator in particular. We will have to be very insightful in our new mission and in our new responsibilities, especially in the level of regulatory control.

Second, the strengthening of our transmission network operators, Elia and Fluxys. The text presented today strengthens our successful public companies in the energy sector. In the present circumstances, it should be emphasized that this will favor consumers and also shareholders of these companies, which are local authorities on the part.

Third important point: the tariff policy. During the hearings, we heard that the sector was demanding greater stability, a long-term regulatory framework, especially in terms of tariffs. In this regard, we welcome very favourably the information given by the new minister at his first committee meeting. He announced that the network tariffs would be extended on the basis of this text. This positive progress was not achieved at the beginning of the review of the text in committee. Parliamentary hearings and debates may have helped settle things. There is no doubt that Mr. The Minister will be able to conclude this file before the expiration of the deadlines desired by the CREG.

Fourth, these are the amendments we have been able to make to the basic text. I mainly hold three. The government amendment, which we have very actively supported, aims to provide a more favourable regime for entry into the network. If we want more competition in the energy market, it is important to give a little boost to the new players.

The second amendment is also very positive. It is about consumer protection. The six parties of the new majority supported it. And I even think it has been reinforced by amendments to the N-VA. He proposes a series of small favorable gestures in this area. I think of the simplification of the invoice, the reduction of the rupture costs in case of contract change, etc. These contributions will be directly perceived by consumers.

A third amendment I would like to present here concerns social tariffs. This issue has been stagnant for many years. Significant amounts were blocked by the CREG, while they were theoretically intended for GRDs or suppliers. This text will also allow to solve this problem and transfer the amount of money due to the proportion of the contracts that are in order.

Obviously, there are a few points on which we could not gain cause. I think of the procedure for settling the "irrevocable", the revision of the federal contribution, the issue of exemption from the contributions to the Kyoto Fund and denuclearization and the lack of consideration of the explosion of green certificates for consumers and ⁇ .

These four issues could not be addressed in this text, but are part of the government agreement. I have no doubt that the new minister will be keen to accomplish these challenges in the months and years to come.

In conclusion, this text is balanced. As Mr. said. Calvo, some points went more to the left, others more to the right. Finally, the text contains positive elements for everyone.

Therefore, it will be with enthusiasm that the MR will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the implementation of the Third Energy Package is finally put to the vote in Parliament. This transition was actually supposed to be completed on 3 March 2011, but due to circumstances this point is only now, though too late, on our agenda. However, we are not the only ones who have not completed the transposition of European directives in time. Seventeen other countries were also not yet ready with this serious package.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the former Minister of Energy, Minister Magnette, for the pleasant discussions in the committee. He is not present at the moment, but Mrs. Lalieux will transmit it. I was extremely pleased with his consent to add to certain important points for consumer protection. The various hearings that have taken place following this debate and the many written opinions have clarified a lot of matters and have given us the opportunity to adjust or improve the text of the draft law where necessary. Important for the SPA is, of course, the luke consumer protection.

I would therefore like to point out the fact that colleague Renaat Landuyt and I had submitted a bill on this subject. Our bill contained three key words related to the consumer protection chapter, namely information provision, transparency and breakdown fees. A large part of our bill was included in the transposition of the Third Energy Package, and I am very pleased with that.

Since the liberalization of the gas and electricity market, many consumers have complained about unclear invoices and complicated general conditions. In the FOD Economy, complaints about invoicing are still the most common problem. It is very difficult for the consumer to understand the current invoices, let alone to check whether the invoices are correct. The sp.a is therefore pleased that the gas and electricity bills must now contain a set of data that provides a clear and transparent overview of the tariffs and consumption.

The standard invoice sets minimum requirements for suppliers. Test-Buy fully supported our proposal and therefore called on all members of Parliament to work together on this point. I am pleased that our colleagues have chosen to improve our consumer protection.

There were already a number of measures to protect the user, such as the safety grid method that involves a priori control by the regulatory authority for household end customers and SMEs. The existing sectoral code of conduct, which focuses on consumer protection, will be strengthened at the request of the legislature. For example, the legislature considers that energy suppliers must notify when tariff formulas are changed and that in that case the consumer has the possibility to terminate his contract without compensation.

The sp.a is ⁇ pleased that the double breakdown compensation charged by the suppliers in the case of a combined contract for gas and electricity is finally put in place. Such fees are often the result of problems with switching from one supplier to another. Consumers often buy gas and electricity from the same supplier. Although there is usually only one agreement concluded, some suppliers consider it to be two contracts. In case of breach of the agreement, they charge the maximum compensation twice. In addition, the maximum breakdown compensation is now 50 euros instead of 75 euros.

Those aspects the sp.a wanted to see realised at all costs and we are therefore very satisfied with the text that prefaces. We therefore hope that the measures contained in this bill will generate a dynamic in the energy sector and that the consumer can undoubtedly take the step towards a cheaper supplier. In the light of the necessary liberalization of the energy market, the sp.a is sure that these are important steps.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the floor for a question to Mrs. Vanheste.

Mrs Vanheste, I almost fully share the analysis you made in your speech. However, I note that the sp.a. group speaks only on the chapter on consumer protection, which has been added in Parliament. Do I understand from this that the rest of the draft law for the SPA is not good? For example, I mention not pacifying, not strengthening the regulator. Is that not important for the SPA, or do you support the entire bill? This is not quite clear to me.

The [...]

Sorry, Mrs. Lalieux, you understand that it is for us as a green group...

Mr Calvo, end your speech!

I have finished, Mr. President. I assume, Madame Vanheste, that you are not going to launch a controversy! Madame Lilly, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Given the urgency and importance of this transposition, our commission has ensured that the project is dealt with quickly, but also and above all dealt with in depth. The various hearings organized by our committee and the numerous debates that fueled our reflection, Mr. Calvo, testify to the committee’s willingness to work quickly and well.

That is why I would like to congratulate, from now on, the President, unfortunately absent today, as well as all my colleagues, the many speakers, but also all the employees and services of the House who helped us ⁇ this goal. Obviously, these thanks also include the previous minister and his team as well as his successor to whom I wish the best in his new assignments.

Let us return to this project. There is unbundling, i.e. the dissociation of electricity and natural gas transmission network operators as well as natural gas storage facility managers. This unbundling has been extended for Elia, Fluxys and LNG. The only transposition is the certification.

The increased independence of the regulatory authority’s powers has been the subject of a highly supported debate. Nevertheless, I repeat and I am convinced, the bill significantly strengthens the objectives, competences and powers of the CREG, in accordance with the requirements of the Third Energy Package.

In particular, it invests the CREG of the competence to fix the tariff methodology. This will no longer be fixed by a royal decree. There will no longer be a possibility of suspension by the Council of Ministers. However, some voices, although few, suggest that the independence of the CREG was not yet sufficient.

What does the bill actually mean? That the CREG will only be responsible before the parliament. Parliamentarians will exercise the "tutelage" of the CREG, since it will have to give us a report and get its budget voted by parliament. This is no longer a matter of a regulator. This regulator has an independence, sees its tasks increase as well as its objectives.

We received an independent study that was sent by the administration. It shows that compared to the countries around us, we are one of the best students in terms of regulatory independence. You have the documents.

Strengthening supply security has been a long debate. The powers of the CREG are also strengthened as there is greater intervention both at the level of prospective studies and in the annual reports of gas or bi-annual electricity required by the European directive. The same voices regretted may be or still regret, if I have heard what was said here, that the minister of guardianship ⁇ ins what should be called a “regal power” in terms of security of supply.

Our debates also served to remind us that the role of politics was to ensure the vital needs of our fellow citizens and not a regulator, whether in energy or other areas.

Finally, I will end with the strengthening of consumer protection without entering into details, as Mrs Vanheste repeated it before me. It was obviously fundamental for the Socialist group to strengthen consumer protection in a sector that is now fully liberalized. It is true that an amendment was submitted by a majority to reinforce a number of points.

One point was ⁇ important to me since we had submitted a bill on this subject, namely to separate the end-of-year regularization invoice, even domiciled, from monthly invoices. During the previous two years, a huge number of families found themselves in embarrassment: the energy had increased and some of them received a domiciliation of an amount of 500, 700, 1 500 euros, money that disappeared at the end of the year from their account. Within six months, the sector will have to agree. Otherwise, it will be up to us or the Minister to impose it by law. This bill contains considerable advances in consumer protection.

Of course, this project is a balance. Of course, I regret some points in this bill and I said it in committee. Then I will join Mr. Calvo since I also regret that there is no own production capacity for Elia. This could have advanced the work and it could have been a signal given to the market.

I would probably have preferred a somewhat stronger, somewhat stricter security grid, with better price control a priori and not a posteriori. Mr. Schiltz, I know the government statement, and I believe that we can work together on this control, this control of energy prices.

I obviously have some regrets but, as my colleagues have said, this Energy project is a major advance. Mr. Minister, together with the Economy Committee, we also have big plans for the next two years, since the government statement has many elements to advance the energy sector in our country.

I do not know if you have already understood what we are talking about today. Of course, it is about the transposition of a package of rules and guidelines, which some members have already referred to. I will not explain them extensively.

In short, it comes down to a stronger regulator, to the disconnection of those who produce electricity and those who transport electricity and to the certification of those who manage the networks, because they have a monopoly. Finally, it also refers to consumer protection.

Colleagues, much work has been done in those three domains, although it was somewhat a calvary journey to reach the intended result.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

So, colleagues, we will have to wait to see if this piece of work really represents a balanced balance – a pleonasm – and also whether it works.

I am convinced that it will be very active in a large number of areas, that it will take our country somewhat out of the paria position in which it has long been, at least on the energy market, and that it will put our country again on the front banks. Among other things, our network management is constantly getting European and global envergures. So it would be nice if, with this legislation, we could finally release our expertise in the energy market and give Belgium the dignified and working energy market it deserves.

Mr Calvo regrets that there are red demands, blue vetoes and ⁇ other ingredients in the design’s pudding.

Mr. Calvo, it would be a sad democracy and an even more sad energy market if one single political conviction would make the weather of the day and determine what should be one and the other. Of course, the design is a compromise, which you may have heard. Mrs Lalieux regrets, in fact, that there is no substantial price control, that there is no a-priority notice and that the safety net is not even tighter, while other members, including myself, of course, do not regret this.

Mr. Calvo, however, we also do not throw as a pair of dogmatic idiots but a little wind on each other, to then let something fall out of the air. The arguments used are rational. There are arguments for and arguments against. We let them collide with each other and try to get something out of it that is good for the people and for the energy policy of our country. That result has also come. The text embodies this.

Moreover, Mr. Minister, the texts in the government agreement, which also refer to this text, will have to complement the momentum that is now deployed with actions.

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity, I am the last to give up the organized dissent in this country. As far as I am concerned, in addition to the blue and the red elements, there should ⁇ have been a number of green elements in this bill.

Mr. Schiltz, what I would like to say is that a number of things are noted, including the discussions in the committee, that there was sometimes some dogmatism.

I have warned myself, and that is a relatively surprising viewpoint for someone on the left, for the operability of the safety grid mechanism. You applauded for that. It is clear that this was an important requirement and question at the end of the legislature of the outgoing minister. Very very symbolic.

There has been a battle between blue and red in the government. The result is a system that stakeholders have big questions about. I think we pay a price for ideological dogmatism and symbolism. I fear it. Let us wait for the future.

I give another example of dogmatism, which may be a too heavy word, let me call the fear of cold water, inspired by the traditional arguments in the debate, a particular capacity for Elijah, which the blue families clearly opposed.

Look at the arguments of Elijah. One wants to keep that very minimal because in this way one can press the Eliatar Reefs. The suppliers are indeed not ⁇ happy with this, but if that is good for the consumer, why should that traditional scheme take the practical consequences? It would have been a good thing.

I can immediately give a response. These are not only my concerns and ⁇ not dogmatic.

You are talking about the capacity of Elijah. For the colleagues who were not present at the debate, every moment of the day, Elia must take account of network losses. This is electricity that is not purchased by anyone, but it disappears and must be compensated. Energy is also needed to balance more smoothly, to accommodate a sudden dive or increase in energy demand or supply.

The debate that has arisen in the committee, of course, concerns whether Elia, which is responsible for the balance of the network, should have its own capacity that can be activated to capture those net losses or disturbances in the balance.

You hear that Mr. Calvo is now left, then right, now red, then blue. I don't know what color that gives, but not always as green as you would like, Mr. Calvo.

The discussion has been conducted on this. Indeed, the left side, if you would like to call it so, sp.a and PS were strong supporters of own capacity. I was not so for it. Not because it is a dogmatism, but because I think it is not so efficient.

Elia is a network administrator, not a producer. There is no expertise in production. If it needs to restart a production capacity, start operating a plant, then it needs to acquire and build expertise. That takes some time. In the end, the result will be the same, Mr. Calvo. They shall pay the same price as they can get by exercising regulated drawing rights on already existing production sites.

Mr Calvo, you remember very well the presence of Mrs Beernaerts, who during the hearings in the committee, although officially, represented the European Commission, and more specifically the Directorate-General for Energy. She pointed out with some caution that if we let our network administrator again exploit a production capacity, we actually cancel the unbundling – which Belgium as one of the best pupils of the class is rightly proud of – through the back door. If we reunite operator and network operator again, we get an operator under a monopolistic network manager.

As a liberal, I am more sensitive to this. Am I dogmatic? No, my faction in the energy dossier is not dogmatic, but rational. It puts other priorities ahead than other parties.

In short, colleagues, balances have been sought and found. I am very pleased that the former Minister of Energy realized in time that without a fixed parliamentary interference he would never get the text through, especially in ongoing matters. That was a blessing. Not because it went faster, but because the debate is now conducted more thoroughly and openly. We had to take our time for it. We organized a number of hearings. It was very useful that everyone could take an informed position.

I regret somewhat that some elements have not been further investigated, Mrs. Lalieux. I myself had suggestions regarding the interconnection with abroad. Colleagues, you know that if we want to realize Mr Calvo’s great green dreams, and the necessary additional investments in green electricity, the interconnection with abroad must be strengthened. In this regard, I think this text is not going far enough to give Elia the opportunity to take advantage of marine networks with other network administrators.

But well, Mr. Secretary of State, I assume that you have no objection to the fact that I will submit a number of bills in the coming time, not with dogmas but in order to strengthen my sincere conviction.

What should we expect from this project, colleagues? Consumer protection has been strengthened. It is not a socialist monopoly, Mr. Calvo, it is a concern that should go to the heart of the whole hall, especially in times of crisis. When the energy bill absorbs an increasing percentage of the household budget and when renowned Belgian companies are crumbling under heavy energy burdens, I find it very normal that we invest heavily on energy.

It honors Parliament that this amendment came from Parliament. The measures included in this chapter are good. They are not left and they are not right, they strengthen the mobility of consumers. Consumers will be able to read their invoice more easily, will be able to compare suppliers with each other more easily, and will be able to change suppliers more easily. This applies not only to the small families, but also to SMEs, bakers, lawyers, doctors, who are more busy with their activities than they have time to compare complex energy factors. Through this legislation, they will reach cheaper energy tariffs faster. That is what it is for us to do. Therefore, we will support this bill, although under the modest warning that there is still a tooth to be added on European harmonisation.

In that regard, I would like to see the initiatives of the State Secretary for Energy, and I will also submit my own legislative proposals.

Mr Schiltz, is this bill a balanced balance? You say that. It is a very late balance. In fact, the third energy package should have been transposed into national legislation by 3 March 2011, Mr Vanheste. You say it’s because of circumstances. I would say that, according to good Belgian custom, it did not happen on time.

The objectives have already been discussed, so I will limit myself to the main points. It is primarily about the disconnection, the unbundling of the electricity transmission network operator, the natural gas transmission operators, the operators of natural gas storage installations and LNG installations. Second, it is about increasing the independence and powers of the regulatory authorities. It was, of course, also about strengthening consumer protection. This was added later.

Together with many colleagues, I attended the many hearings. I listened carefully to the various comments and objections. It must be of the heart to me that there have been rightful and very pertinent objections on this bill from various sides. There was the final meeting. There were more than 70 amendments. There was the final vote in the committee. The Legal Service had 124 comments on this bill. So it was a hectic path that took several years. It is a very technical file. Some of you have gone deeper into it. All possible technical details have been discussed extensively in various hearings. So it is useless to discuss them here again.

I will limit myself to a few political conclusions. Your predecessor, Minister of Energy Paul Magnette, has concluded that the liberalization of the energy market in Belgium has failed. In March 2011, there was a Panorama broadcast on the failing energy policy in Belgium. You may remember that. That broadcast has caused a lot of dust. In response to this, the international web blogger Energy Blog released its analysis. I will give you some relevant points of criticism, published by Energy Blog, on energy policy in Belgium.

His first point is that politicians populate the boards of governments of energy intercommunals. “The close connection between politics and the energy sector leads to a lack of comprehensive politics.”

The second point is that the federal government has lost all its power over the sector in recent years and has been forced to step back to Electrabel again and again. Instead of imposing structural measures, our politicians have repeatedly set themselves up with some pocket money to fill the budget gap. Next week we will have the same discussion again.

A third point of criticism on Energy Blog is as follows. The fragmentation of the powers in Belgium only makes things worse.

The fourth point is that the necessary improvements to the high-voltage grid are lacking.

These are four points that can count.

In the hearings we heard a player like Febeliec speak. Febeliec spoke in her commentary on the division of powers in regards to the regulation of networks between the federal and the Western governments, on a very sensitive point. Mr. Minister, even now the government is relieving itself by providing only for non-binding consultation between the federal and regional authorities.

We have spoken in the committee in favour of the amendments of the N-VA although they do not go far enough for us. We have voted in favour of these amendments because they want to require at least a formalized and structured consultation between the regions and the federal government. For us, the entire energy policy should be transferred to the regional level as quickly as possible.

I know that the transposition of the Third Directive does not imply a state reform. This may not be directly or directly related to Community affairs, but it cannot, of course, be seen separately from the institutional framework in Belgium. Moreover, there are quite a few commentators who hold the institutional turmoil, which Belgium is for a large part, for a large part responsible for the failing energy policy in Belgium.

We will not approve this bill. Not because we are in principle against separation proposals, but because it could have been better. I regret having to say again that the correct comments of the CREG have been taken too little into account. In the hearing following this bill, your predecessor, Mr. Minister, said in the committee, among other things, that unbundling is the crucial point of energy policy and this must therefore be realized urgently. I was inclined to follow the minister in his reasoning, but then the control of the separation, which must be exercised by the CREG, should be given sufficient bracelet.

It should have been made much stronger, for example in terms of certification. The regulatory authority should be the body that ensures effective certification in order to ensure that those TNBs permanently comply with the conditions. The draft law presumes that these conditions are fulfilled. For us, this is not sufficient. At least I was not alone in this; several other colleagues shared these views.

There was, of course, also the issue of federal contributions, which we did not fully get out of, yet not in the sense we would have wanted. Indeed, colleague Schiltz, there is a question of interconnection with the overseas that has also been insufficiently or not at all solved. Ladies and gentlemen, you know that, in the meantime, a community pact was negotiated, giving some small powers to the West. Too much too little! There are still no homogeneous powers packages.

We cannot approve this bill. Collega Calvo has already said it, it is ⁇ not a miracle remedy. We will not approve this, despite a few small good measures such as making impossible the double breakdown compensation and the readability of the invoices. It would still be missing, that there are not even some good things in it. For us, however, this is not sufficient. Mr. Minister, you have not passed this first test.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the matter of electricity and gas is a sensitive matter, because it represents a significant cost for our fellow citizens and for our companies, for which it is an element that sometimes places them in a competitive disadvantage.

This issue is also sensitive in other aspects. First, because a change in balances in this sector involves a risk to the situation of a number of actors, at least partially. During the discussions of this bill, we had the opportunity to hear the representative associations of one and the other speak out and express various wishes, often contradictory on the part of one towards the other.

Another preliminary note is that it was appropriate to correctly transcribe what Europe demands of us. It will be with a slight delay, but, compared to the calendars of others, we remain in the lead peloton.

I hear Mr. Calvo who takes on his account what I said in commission: I insisted on the circumstance that, in my opinion, the essential element is to stop legal wars. Indeed, in the previous situation, incessant wars were intertwined with actions in justice.

I read what I said in the committee: “They went, many times, to the courts of appeal (the Brussels Court of Appeal) and had even concerned the lawyers of our Constitutional Court. But this way of resolving conflicts is not a good way, because it is always a failure – the appeal to justice is always a form of failure. Often, conflicts were due to approximations, errors in concepts that were contained in the old law.

For the public opinion, these appeals were mostly incomprehensible. Citizens simply saw their bills rise, raising the question of who, ultimately, would pay all these appeals, if not themselves through their bills.”

The goal of the Third Energy Package, as it has been said enough, is the dissociation of network operators, the increase of independence; we added to it a touch that seemed to us essential: the strengthening of consumer protection.

The CDH will vote on this bill brought by Minister Magnette, whose final signature you assure.

We will remind that this bill includes the security of supply since a pre-information mechanism is provided for the eventual shutdown of a production unit, which would guarantee the security of supply.

Regarding the distribution tariffs, you sent this Tuesday a very good news to the commission: with the regulator, you have found the solution, the regulator agreeing to operate on the basis of transitional distribution tariffs, waiting for the competence to be transferred to the Regions.

This is the outcome of a peace that was so much awaited.

As for the price of energy, I remember asking the question of whether it was possible to transcribe in our state the principle of the safety net on the basis of the Dutch model. It is there! I also recall, in this regard, the successive reports of the National Bank that show sufficiently that the price of energy in our country always fluctuates upward but obviously does not have any elasticity to fluctuate downward, which is obviously very appealing. This is a mechanism that can ensure better control of electricity and gas prices and can effectively reduce the weight in the portfolio of households, small and large enterprises.

In addition, consumer protection has been added. A year ago, I had submitted a bill that aimed to introduce, in the head of gas and electricity suppliers, an obligation to inform customers of any change in the gas or electricity tariff formula. This seemed to me to be a completely normal approach. Imagine that one of your co-contractors unilaterally decides to change one of the rules of the game and get you to bear a surplus, without you being aware of what he has done. I took note with satisfaction that this amendment was taken back into the disposal of the future law, along with other amendments from the other groups of the majority and the opposition, with which we have been able to work for weeks.

This seems important to me because, in addition to the provisions already contained in the Code of Good Conduct, key points will need to be the subject of a new agreement, in particular with regard to information on previous consumption, the evolution of consumption, the problem of domicile – which is ⁇ painful for many of our citizens – and a final invoice that is debited from the office in very short time. An agreement will also need to be reached on the fact that the sectoral agreement provides that there will no longer be a breakdown compensation, in any case not a double compensation in case of early breakdown of the contract and joint contracts relating to the supply of gas and electricity. Finally, I said, there is the amendment I had proposed, namely that when the tariff formula is modified, the consumer must be notified and he can terminate the contract without compensation, the change must appear on the invoice. This is capable of increasing transparency, achieving better competition in the sector and ensuring a more efficient functioning of our liberalized market.

Here, Mr. Secretary of State, are all the reasons that push us unreservedly to vote in favour of this project.

I will give the floor to Mr. by Wollants. I was surprised that he was not included in the debate since mr. Calvo and Schiltz were. I would like to remind the members, and Mr. Wollants in particular, that the best way to have the certainty of being registered is to come to do it here or directly at my home instead of going through intermediaries or emails that end up being lost and that create bad surprises. Nothing like direct contact. I accept all registrations but I ask you to avoid passing through your services, through your secretaries, through emails. Nothing like direct contact. You are registering and you are sure to pass.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have recently expressly requested your deputy deputy, Mr. Frédéric, to register for me, and apparently this has not been achieved. I didn’t just count on that email.

It has had some feet in the earth, but yet I am here now to say my thought.

I will not overlook the whole debate in the committee here. I will not submit the new Secretary of State to a flurry of questions on this subject. Mr. Secretary of State, I would recommend you to read the report of work carefully. In my opinion, in that report on the presentations you will find all or almost all that needs to be done in the field of energy policy in the coming years. Mr. Secretary of State, so it is wise that you go through that well, because on the basis of that you will have to conduct the energy policy for the next few years.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have not been involved in the formatting of the text; only on the foremost page will you play in the story for the first time. So it will be Mr. Magnette, whom I will take a little under fire here.

Colleagues, we have had a lot of hearings, we have discussed a lot of points in detail. If we put together the testimonies of all the actors we have questioned, they all demand the same thing, namely legal certainty. They ask that it be ensured that they can do their thing, that they can produce, that they can supply, that they can transport and that they can consume. This is about it.

The very first step towards legal certainty is a correct transposition. Unfortunately, we must note that the present text does not do so. We say that not only, but also the CREG and – Mr Schiltz has already cited it – the representative of the European Commission say that. This will bring us into trouble in the shortest time.

Colleagues, I talked, among other things, about the certification of the networks, which was clearly seen as a problem. Minister Magnette replied that the only one who can judge whether the directive has been transposed correctly is the European Court of Justice and that it was not present there.

Minister Magnette has admitted that the text is the result of a political compromise. That is logical in my opinion, but of course one can only make political compromises on matters about which one himself has something to say!

One cannot adjust a European directive at discretion, because one does not agree with it. This means that in the short term we may have to do some of the homework again. In order to align with the European story, we will have to start again. I think this is a missed opportunity to do it right from the first time.

We have been waiting for this for a long time. At the end of last year, the committee asked where the draft remained. Both the majority and the opposition had actually wanted to start the draft and had wanted to take their time for it. They did that too. However, we had hoped that since we were seven months late with the conversion, that time would have been used to draw up a truly closing design, where the errors would have been removed.

Mr. Wollants, I find that a little naive.

Mr Schiltz, you are right. It is naïve to think that the majority would handle it well.

Mr Wollants, before the report, I would like to clarify my judgment. I have not said that you are naive in thinking that we do a good job. I have said that it is naive to think, because we have spent seven months thinking that it would become what you expect from it.

It did not become what I expected, but I had hoped that the European Directive would have been transposed correctly.

However, I know that the government is not always high on European directives or recommendations. Considering those guidelines as a source of inspiration is fun, but whether that is always responsible, I don’t know.

From the opposition, we acted constructively. Mr Calvo has already spoken of the 71 amendments submitted, of which N-VA delivered a small majority, with the intention of raising the level of the present draft a little. Initially, eleven amendments were approved, but there was a small misunderstanding in the banks of sp.a. In the end, 10 amendments were passed.

I must say that I feel a little liberal today: I got a very bad design and I was able to make a bad design of it. So simple is it.

The Legal Service has also made its best to submit 124 additional comments. Now something is arranged. The text ⁇ contains a few good provisions.

For example, it is ⁇ a good initiative that examines how to support offshore policy and regularly adjusts the amounts in this regard. It was, by the way, one of my first questions, which I asked here in Parliament to the then Minister of Energy. We had to do this urgently, because the costs were completely out of hand and running.

Mr. Wollants, I do not want to extend this exciting debate endlessly, but I do not fully agree with you. You have begun your presentation with the claim of each party for certainty, clarity and stability. Nevertheless, you are radically opposed to the comment I made. You may have noticed it too. You say that the above-mentioned measures related to offshore are a good thing. I think you are mistaken on the subject. It is good that we look at how we can avoid over-subsidisation, but do you really think that more legal certainty is offered when we adjust the amounts annually and, therefore, when we repeatedly put future projects back on the slope and refer investors to the bank? Or is your plea for legal certainty only for the French monopolies and not for the North Sea exploiters?

Mr. Calvo, that is nonsense.

Mr Schiltz has the word.

Mr Wollants, I thank you for the hand stretched out. You say that the offshore passage is probably another of the better pieces. Mr. Calvo, I just let you interrupt, but what you say now is manifestly wrong. It is not because the aid is adjusted annually that the framework would be unstable. The linking of the price to the electricity price and the compensation of the difference in investment need ensure a very stable financing and results in a business plan that allows anyone to step into a bank.

At certain committee meetings there was more people than there is here today. The focus on energy is slightly diminished.

It is correct that we adjust the support every time, but we must, of course, give the investors certainty. That does not mean, however, that today we must record support for all projects that may ever come, ⁇ not when we are talking about technology that is in full development. The price varies constantly and actually goes down.

This is the case for windmills, but for solar panels I even have the figures with me. In 2004, the price for installing a watt peak was $3. In 2014, it will be 50 cents. That is, the technology is evolving. Then at least make sure that, at the time it is installed, it is invested and that the support is correct. I think that is a good translation for the tariffs and that it is a heart under the belt for those who find it harder to pay for electricity and for companies that depend on electricity to be able to function.

Other things are not adapted for the time being. We have also submitted a number of amendments to ensure that, for example, the quality of Dutch in the texts improved a little. On Tuesday we have heard several times that the cabinet employee of Mr. Wathelet said: “Mais monsieur Wollants, le français prévaut.” I hope that’s not the style for the next few years. Flemish minority governments may bring that with them, but I think we can demand that legislation be written in a good way, also in the language of the majority of this country.

In addition, Minister Magnette has admitted on a number of other points that there may be problems. There have been amendments announced that ultimately did not come. For example, I think of defining SMEs. We will ⁇ return to this in the future. Again and again, we collide with that wall of political compromise that should prevail over everything. Mr Schiltz also walked against that wall on Tuesday. But this is something that we may still be able to correct in the future.

A third important point is consumer protection. I think almost everyone has already talked about it. It is good that there has been a chapter to ensure that we are in a market operation, but that the consumer is protected. That is the only way a free market can work. This should never be at the expense of the consumer, but only in the benefit of the consumer. We are therefore satisfied that we have found a majority, if it was not unanimous, including for our N-VA proposal on the breakdown compensation, which is limited to 50 euros. That is a step forward to ensure that mobility in that market increases and that prices improve on the part of the suppliers — Mr. Calvo will probably look me dirty — by making the monopolist a little smaller, and preferably a lot smaller.

Mr Wollants, I only hope that you will take your position not only when it comes to the breakdown fee and the standard invoice, but also during the fundamental debates. I also hope that your bills, aiming at giving the French monopoly a gigantic gift by keeping cash machines open for a period of another ten or twenty years, will be left in motion. I hope that in the real debates you will also choose the side of the Flemish SMEs. Then you will find an enthusiastic ally in our group.

Mr Calvo, in the meantime we know what the consequences of such a nuclear withdrawal are. We also know how the nuclear departure is calculated. The CREG also calculated what, for example, the German nuclear withdrawal brought with it. I do not know if this is in the benefit of the Flemish SMEs and families.

In addition to the consumers, there are also the slightly larger consumers. They are also important in the whole story. Therefore, we had hoped that we could have made a step forward, for example, in the field of federal contribution.

It’s a discussion that has been going on for a long time, and it comes down to the fact that at the current federal level, companies are still encouraged to consume more electricity in order to print their bills. The federal government thus encourages stakeholders to obtain guarantees originating abroad and thereby, among other things, to subsidize French green electricity, while we ourselves here need such guarantees. Thus, the invoice is pursued the amount, without there being a good reason for it.

In 2010 there was an amendment concerning CDH. We discussed the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wollants, you know that we have the same view on the federal contribution and on other subsidy schemes through the electricity price.

You will also remember that the debate on the federal contribution, which you are referring to now, just before the dissolution of Parliament led to very intense discussions in the House. You also know that on the various questions you and I asked the former Minister of Energy, he replied that the government was in ongoing affairs.

I suppose you have read the government agreement. You will undoubtedly have noticed that precisely that problem is prominent in it. So it is a debate that will be more appropriate, when Minister Wathelet will present his policy note, than now here during the discussion of the Third Energy Package.

However, it is good that you support the cited position.

Mr Schiltz, above all, we have been waiting too long to do something about the situation.

You accused me in 2010 of being impatient. We are now a year later. It is very difficult to answer to the companies that we have still done nothing to address the situation.

I will participate in the story. I can even execute part of your government agreement. My bill on this subject is ready.

I invite you to look at it. I think Secretary of State Wathelet will find very interesting things in this. The former minister, Minister Magnette, was able to tell us that he found it a very interesting idea to work this way. Per ⁇ I can help you in this area. Nevertheless, I find it my duty to present it still because we need to do something about this problem as soon as possible. Especially at a time when the competitiveness of our companies is declining so much, we cannot afford to postpone it to next year. We cannot do that!

Colleagues, in summary, this design contains both good and bad elements. It is absolutely inappropriate to carry out a poor, incomplete transformation that will ensure that we will be flooded back through Europe in the long run. The legal certainty is gone. This cannot be supported by our group.

The former Minister of Energy said at the beginning of the project that this was the most important draft in the field of Energy, during that legislature. He is largely right in this, but I am certain that this design was his pipe field. He does not get good points for it. He has now changed direction and hopefully he can get a better result there, because for Energy that will not succeed. I would therefore like to fully support Mr Wathelet to do better, to succeed in the field of Energy and to ensure that we finally move toward the energy policy that we have been in need for years. We will continue to formulate constructive proposals — think of that federal contribution — but now it is urgent to start with them.

I would like to remind you that these discussions have already taken place in a committee and that, normally, it is thirty minutes per speaker in a debate like this. I do not apply this article of the Rules, but at some point, it will have to pass, if it continues like this.

Submission of an amendment to the committee

Submission of an amendment to a committee

I received an amendment No. 3 from Ms. Vienne and consorts on the bill on various provisions in matters of justice (No. 1953/1). I would like to send him back to the Justice Committee.

I have an amendment no. 3 of Mrs. Vienne cs received on the draft law containing various provisions on justice (nr. from 1953/1). I suggest that you send this amendment back to the Justice Committee.

It will be so.

Thus is decided.

I just saw the chairman of the Justice Committee who immediately meets his committee.

I will try to be brief. I think that’s the mission you just gave us!

Mr. Calvo, I am very pleased that I gave an interview with L’Echo. So I gave you a little food for your presentation. This is the first debate, but it will ⁇ not be the last, I understand.

I told Mr. I would like to remind you that I am in the asylum and immigration committee.

Mr. Wollants, it is true, my associate has often referred to the French-language text of the bill. I hope you will not blame my colleague. Just to make the translation of the text more clear, we came to the committee on Tuesday. The French language version was indeed the basic version, but I can assure you that for some other texts the basic text will be Dutch language.

Whether the basic text is in Dutch or French, what matters is the clarity of the texts, and the perfect translation of them. We know how technical this matter is. Clearness is therefore very important.

I would like to thank all speakers for their constructive arguments. I have said that I wanted to come to a reconciliation of the views, so I will emphasize the positive aspect of the various arguments. I also wanted to show how the text introduces the necessary compromises.

For example, with regard to Elia’s own production capacity, I heard Mr. Elia’s position. Calvo who says that it is necessary to be able to allow Elia to possess his own abilities. But I draw your attention: if we want to make sure that a network manager is himself a producer, is it healthy to speak then of a real differentiation of the professions? We must all accept that, in this kind of subject matter, there is rarely a clear answer to all the questions posed. It is often more nuanced.

Shouldn’t Elia’s position be improved when it was going to supply itself on the different tenders? The tenders were a little too wide and allowed or in any case made possible too dominant, too important positions of those who issued the tenders. By reducing them, and also allowing the authority to intervene if necessary, we have made the system more operational.

Mr. Calvo, is that the best solution? Is that what we had to do? I think we will review this together again because this is something new.

I would like to thank Parliament for the amendments to the text. I would also like to congratulate my predecessor for accepting, as a member of a government in ongoing affairs, to conduct a thorough debate in Parliament. He changed his own text in the right direction because he was convinced by various amendments.

I think this is a good example of a dossier in which compromises were made in both directions.

Another example, Mr. Calvo, is that of certification. It is true that the certification of current managers is "confirmed", especially at the level of transport, but under the control of the CREG. The Commission may, upon the entry into force of the text, evaluate these different certifications. This means that we do not weaken our network managers by granting them certification. They are not allowed to take a certain number of risks in relation to their rating, in relation to their financial position or in relation to their market position. But they are told that the certification has been clearly entrusted to the CREG, which will ⁇ not fail to evaluate the elements related to the certification of the different network managers.

Again, we could have taken the atomic bomb, withdrawn the certification, requested them to undergo a whole procedure that weakened them and jeopardized their rating. We could have also purely and simply confirmed them in their position and not put them under the control of the CREG. No, the text proposes the right compromise between the two, which allows real control of the CREG with real latitude while ensuring stability and strong network managers.

These two examples demonstrate how balanced, nuanced this text is, which requires this ⁇ complicated matter. It is important to be clear with the members of this committee who want to move forward on these highly technical matters: we know that this is a step in the right direction and we must continue in this direction.

by Mr. Clarinval, in particular, cited the issue of federal contribution. Ms. Lalieux cited the issue of better control and better price transparency. by Mr. Schiltz also listed a set of points that are still pending at parliamentary level.

I am sure that Mr. Calvo also has a lot of ideas on this. Mr Wollants also cited several elements.

These are all steps in the right direction: consumer protection, a strengthened and independent CREG, a unbundling, but that is not the ultimate goal. We must continue to work and I hope we will do so.

I would like to return to an important element, the security of supply. I will be very clear. There are still a number of elements that must depend on the political authority. We need to make sure that we, managers of the state, are able to ensure the energy supply of our population. This is the responsibility of the government and the government.

As parliamentarians, who would you call in case of a deficit in energy supply in Belgium? That would be the government, and you would be right!

So it’s also my responsibility to have the capabilities to influence the subject and to make my estimates on supply security for the country.

Mr Calvo, I will not accept to be responsible for things that I have no control over. We know that this important debate will be dealt with during the next six months; you also read it in the article of L’Echo. I repeat, these are elements that I want to have some control over as a politician.

Mr. Secretary of State, a short pause in order not to create confusion. Let it be very clear that, in terms of supply security, our group is not in favour of outsourcing the decisions to any authority. This is not our plea today. It is the politics that must decide what the energy mix looks like and when a particular power plant will close or not. That is our position.

It depends on who carries out the studies. In our opinion, the draft law-Magnette and, if I understand you correctly, the draft law-Wathelet makes the wrong choice. The directive clearly states that this is primarily the responsibility of the regulator. It would also perfectly fit into the strategy of pacification. Your predecessor did not do this. In that debate, he has even more provoked the regulator.

As a member of Parliament, we are talking about an inflation of studies. You will soon, or maybe already, be confronted with it. The inflation of supply security studies is terrible. The administration conducted a study. A year later, an update followed. The regulator also conducted a study. The Minister did not order a mix. There is a backcasting scenario of 100 % renewable energy. This inflation must be stopped because it is also a form of uncertainty. Hence our plea: make it clear and report it to the regulator! However, the decision lies in the Parliament and with you.

Mr. Calvo, this debate needs nuance. You have read the text of the regulation. Mr Wollants just advised me to read the report of the discussions. This discussion formed a large part of the report.

I can see that the debate on this in the committee has been a very long debate. I think the final decision made here is the most reasonable. That is, there is a task of politics and administration, but also the cooperation of and various consultations with the CREG are required. I think this is perfectly consistent with the text of the European Directive.

Mr. Speaker, I come to my decision. This is a step in the right direction. I want to thank my predecessor because I find this a fantastic work base. However, it is only a basis. There is still much work to be done in a pacified atmosphere over the next two and a half years. I hope that this will continue and that we will be able to prove it together.

I would like to comment on the agenda, Mr. Speaker. I would like to report in public session what is happening in the corridors to ask for some explanations to the majority, if there are explanations... Both in the Committee on Justice and in the Committee on Social Affairs, Finance or, possibly, Economic Affairs, we are faced with dozens and dozens of last-minute amendments, which fundamentally change the nature of texts. I imagine that they are all signed by majority parliamentarians in order to avoid government amendments. After all, it is your right. I would like to ask you the following question.

In the opposition, we are counted, despite our sometimes spectacular differences, at fifty. Therefore, it will be possible for us, in public session, when this text comes – even if I do not have your knowledge of the Rules – to request the opinion of the State Council, since this text has been amended. So what is the intention of the majority? It’s about moving into stoemelings – but, at that point, it’s failed! – in commission of texts that differ entirely from those that have been distributed to us in advance? But then, what will you do when they arrive in a public session and we – we fifty – eventually ask for the opinion of the State Council? We would like to know what this way of working is, so that things are clear and explicit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support Mr. Deleuze’s plea at 100%, especially because the course of affairs is contrary to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber. The Rules of Procedure of the Chamber stipulate that amendments submitted must relate to the main draft or main proposal. This is not at all the case here.

In the Social Affairs Committee, parts of the minimum pension reform introduced by the government are introduced as amendments to a law containing various provisions. This is in flagrant contradiction to the Rules.

I would like to ask that either the Conference of Presidents be convened and we discuss it, or that you, as President, decide to stop it and give that debate some oxygen.

We have proposed in the Social Affairs Committee to stop the work and continue on Monday or Tuesday, so that the opposition groups can properly prepare. Since the majority did not want to comment on this, we are now undergoing a real amendment strike. That is not our intention. That is not our intention. We would like to follow that debate in a sensual way, but if the majority does not give room for a sensual debate, we will behave in the same way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to intervene in such a way that the debate can be conducted in a decent manner.

I do not discover anything new. A draft law containing various provisions pursues an objective, including the execution or the provision of a budget. We have a parliamentary majority and parliamentarians can or may not submit amendments.

Mr Deleuze’s comment is a regulatory comment. Fifty members of our Parliament can oblige the Speaker of the Chamber, if I can say so polite, to consult the Council of State. However, there are other possibilities. Mr. Speaker, you also have the authority to consult the State Council, in your wisdom, that is your right, that you can do.

The fact that an amendment does not amend is a subtle question of Mr Jambon. I have seen many examples of the opposition where an amendment adds something to a draft or a proposal. When one has a text that pursues a given purpose and which is not a kind of summary of various subelements, that argument may be considered. When one has a number of data, I take for example the name of the law itself, namely various provisions, the amendment can consist of adding various provisions to various provisions. It may be a little more subtle than you think.

I’m not saying that, because I’ve been to your college, whose name everyone knows, but I think you’re in a lost battle there.

The amount of amendments and their pace are very high. Apart from those who wrote them, is anyone able to tell us what the overall picture of all this is? How do you want us to make an opinion if, every time I come out of this room, a member of the Ecolo-Groen commission! There is an amendment here, there is an amendment here.

As anyway “we” – either you or us – will ask for the opinion of the State Council, do you not think that it would be more reasonable and rational that you ask for the opinion of the State Council on these amendments? This would leave us time to examine the overall picture, rather than having to pronounce ourselves little by little, without even knowing whether we are in the middle or at the end! (The applause)

I invite you to convene the Conference of Presidents at the end of the session.

In the meantime, do the committees continue to work ...?

We will vote soon. They will stop and come to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Conference of Presidents should not take place, but you have heard the request. You can ask for the advice of the State Council on your own authority and then we will support that decision. If the majority allows you to do so, then it is immediately decided by them, and then the Conference does not have to meet on this.

I would like to add the following.

We are facing a very important period in our Parliament. There will be a budget in January and a state reform in the months following.

If one is seeking a confrontation with the opposition in the House now here in the present case, it is not for me to be left, but I would advise you as chairman anyway.

I am not a man of conflict. I therefore propose to convene the Conference of Presidents at the end of our session and then to have a discussion with the heads of groups. We conclude this, and then we will gather the Conference of Presidents. Ok to OK? (with the consent)