Proposition 53K1957

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière d'énergie et de développement durable.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Dec. 14, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

natural gas special tax competition sustainable development electricity supply electrical energy energy policy price of energy energy production energy supply nuclear power station socially disadvantaged class security of supply

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.
• 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. 22, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Ms Vanheste, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we discussed this bill thoroughly, but in fact we should not have done so. What is on the table today is exactly the same as last year, in particular the fact that we are again counting on the nuclear interest rate at 250 million euros. We know that the Constitutional Court does not find this amount unreasonable, but we also know that the Constitutional Court has not said that a higher amount would be unreasonable.

Colleagues, the Parliament has given all its support to reach a good outcome and to properly map how the nuclear interest rate is formed, how much it is and how we can best calculate it. The Parliament has done its utmost to provide different methodologies for how we can best do this on a legally-technically secure basis. In my opinion, this is not included in the current arrangement because we evolve to a higher amount. In spite of all this, today we must conclude that there is nothing.

We can only conclude that Secretary of State Wathelet still has a lot of work to do. After all, we know that the 550 million, which is stated in the government agreement, is a target amount and that we need to move towards a system that is as stable and objective as possible. In order to ⁇ that, I think we must always make the link between effective production and effective cost to ensure a maximum support level. At this point, you must especially take care, Mr. Secretary of State, that in the coming weeks and months we can come up with a draft law that we can substantially discuss. We have completed the preparatory phase. We know very well what we want. We know that this must be addressed in a proper way to ensure that it can withstand all criticism.

Mr. Secretary of State, I think we made a pretty good proposal. This proposal has been reviewed together with the proposals of colleagues by the CREG. I think we should land in the shortest possible time. One must finally admit that there must be a higher rounding of interest rates. This should be used to temper the costs, which will be included in the invoice in the coming years. One can look abroad, but if the government itself puts those costs in the invoice, then it is responsible for it itself. There may still be a lot of telephone questions, but we are responsible for the majority of that invoice and we need to do something about it.

Mr. Secretary of State, I expect a bill from you. We will assess this and see if it can pass the test of reasonability and credibility.

Mr. Speaker, my library provides some animo in the hall. I brought all those documents to show what work has been done over the past weeks and months by this Parliament, by colleagues from the majority and the opposition, on this topic.

I also noticed that my presentation in the committee on Friday, which was filled with some outrage, could not convince my colleagues. I will thus throw it over another arc today and try, with objective information, to move this Parliament still to some social justice in this debate.

Mr. Secretary of State, I have two more remarks before entering into the actual debate.

First, I would like to congratulate you once again on an important political fact. On Friday, you have managed to enthusiastically get all majority parties on line for a bill they have been fighting together with the opposition over the past few months. This testifies to the great political creativity of the colleagues in the committee, but also to their enormous conviction. On what Mr. Schiltz, Mrs. Lalieux to a slightly lesser extent, Mr. Tobback and others have struggled with in the last few months, they were very enthusiastic on Friday. They were all ready to counter the arguments and the outrage of the Ecolo-Green! group. Congratulations on this, Mr. Minister. There is a government that is tied to each other, but unfortunately not always for the right things.

Second, I understand that the tenacity of our faction in these works on your nerves. I also noticed that Friday. My colleague, Ms. Almaci, is faced with the same phenomenon when it comes to the bank tax or, in case of extension, across the entire dossier of the financial sector. This majority finds it a little annoying to be constantly confronted with its own shortcomings.

Mr. Vanackere, do you not find that annoying? I understand that. After all, you are by far the most empathic minister of this government. However, I invite you to the Committee on Business, where empathy and serenity are sometimes slightly more limited. You can inspire your colleagues, both Members of Parliament and Members of Government.

Why are we standing on the barricades? Because here today there are things that are very close to our hearts. Today there are a number of things at stake that we consider very important.

Thus, there is competition in the energy market, Mr. Minister, but not only that, but also the credibility of this Parliament.

I have had the pleasure of working on this dossier since my parliamentary debut. These turbines have been published. These turbines were presented to us during various hearings.

We have – I think Mr. Schiltz will be the first to acknowledge that – gone a long way in that dossier. We all know more today than we knew two years ago.

There has been a political consensus, for example, around the calculation method. So, there has been a nice work. If we do not implement that today in legislation, then we play with the credibility of this Assembly, of our sector, of the political company. Allow us to consider that important, to consider important, in addition to the fair competition in the energy market, also the credibility of our profession.

It is not always shown that politicians have been cut out of the good wood by talking about parliamentary pensions. This is also done by saying: we have worked for a year and we learn our lessons from it.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is not just about the credibility of this Assembly, it is also about the credibility of a number of colleagues who are close to my heart. I would be sorry if colleagues who have worked hard and invested in the file today for the sake of a French monopoly put their personal credibility, their chances of re-election at risk.

I am sorry that Mr. Tobback is not present today, but the first quote I want to share with you is one of him. It is a quote from on this speech stand, from Thursday 28 April 2011 and it has delivered this article: “This government is driving for Electrabel. Mr. Tobback calls on citizens to pass the tax bill with their brown envelope to the National Bank. Then they will all be rewarded with a halving of their attack. Mr Tobback also condemned the government’s attitude towards the CREG, the regulator on the electricity market.”

I could ask the sp.a. group about its voting behavior, but I have already done that in the committee and that has caused such a great silence that I will not repeat it.

If this has been said in the committee, it should not be repeated here.

I am trying new elements. Believe me, these are all new elements. I will no longer talk about the press release of CDH, because I have already done that in the committee. I only add new elements.

A new element, it was not discussed in the committee; on June 8, your predecessor announces: “We are working on a compromise.”

“This government of ongoing affairs that has taken a number of other decisions will also take a decision around the nuclear tax.”

Unfortunately, for the time being not translated into the law containing various provisions, although in the meantime there is a government with full powers.

Another, Mrs. Temmerman, you will be pleased that I am paying so much attention to your group.

On 20 October 2011, I read in a fascinating interview with the newly elected SPA chairman: “We as Social Democrats, we consider that social justice in this country important, we aim at 850 million euros.”

Mr. Calvo, we are, of course, voting here on something that still has to do with the past. You know that very well. You also know very well that thanks to our contribution to the negotiations and thanks to Mr. Tobback there will effectively be a nuclear tax, not of 800 million, but of 550 million euros. Why just 550? Because there are two other conditions attached to it. You know that very well.

I repeat that this is not the subject of discussion today. Today we vote on a piece of the past. Yes, we will approve this design, because otherwise we will have nothing. This is very clearly explained in the bill that is now being presented. We cannot do otherwise. Did we want more? Yes, absolutely, but thanks to us there will be a lot more next year, the double of now.

It will be a ⁇ productive Christmas period for the socialist family, as they need that Christmas period to really go for fair competition in the energy market.

Colleagues, there is no objective reason to ask for a different amount for 2011 than for 2012. I confirm, Mrs. Temmerman, that you will also approve various provisions containing this law. I find this ⁇ regrettable, especially for the credibility of colleague Tobback, who has been constantly present in the committee for business in recent years to act against that amount of 250 million euros, with a lot of assertivity, as we know Mr Tobback.

The [...]

We will ⁇ still have the opportunity to exchange thoughts on the other aspects.

Mr. Minister, my outrage did not work on Friday. I therefore try, as announced, to refute the argument built up by the majority as objectively and serenely as possible. I have selected five points, to keep the core. I think it is important not to make the plenary session too short, because then there are no trains, but I will not speak too long.

I selected five arguments that were quite popular in defense with the majority parties.

First, I have so much admiration for colleague Deleuze that I consider it my moral duty to take up the defense for him too. The first argument of the majority parties in the committee on Friday was: in the Greens era, in the period from 1999 to 2003, nothing was asked. There was also a nuclear tax. At the beginning of that legislature I was 12 years old, dear colleagues, but I was confronted with the fact that from 1999 to 2003 nothing happened.

I come to a very popular argument, especially from the Christian Democratic parties, in particular the CDH. He uses that argument regularly, including in electoral debates and television debates.

Mr. Minister, I have for you a study updated on 26 January 2009. In this way, you do not have to rely on the documents of the study service of Ecolo or the statements of colleague Deleuze, for it is a study of our regulator, which says the following: “During the period 1999-2003 tariff reductions were approved for 25 billion Belgian francs.”

Mr. Minister, you will still have to eat a very large amount of butter hammer to match the performance of colleague Deleuze during the period 1999-2003, before the series of hearings, before the maturity of common sense.

I forgot a piece of the quote. “With the discontinuation of the control committee, the tariff programs were also discontinued.” So, colleague Deleuze’s commitment from 1999-2003 has not continued afterwards.

In 2008, the wire was picked up again: 250 million euros. The first argument of the majority is therefore beautifully wiped off the table.

Secondly, I come to the argument of sp.a. This argument is that we will ask for more in 2012.

Colleagues from sp.a, I still have not heard any reason why it is justified to ask more in 2012 than in 2011. Apparently all sorts of measures can be taken through the bill containing various provisions, but look at the pension reforms. Only a thousandth of the time has been talked about pension reforms compared to the nuclear tax. Therefore, the dossier of the nuclear tax is a lot more mature.

Why is there a different amount to be requested for 2011 than for 2012? (Protest by Ms. Karin Temmerman)

I see that Mr Schiltz is asking for the word. He will take on the defense of the Sp.a. colleagues.

Mr Calvo, I will still respond in detail to your presentation, but you are asking a question, so I will answer them.

The answer is that we are now at the end of 2011. As a lawyer, I do not have the habit of approving retroactive tax laws.

Colleagues, then I really wonder why ministers in the period of ongoing affairs, in June, said they will tranche.

Allow me to find the thumb of the traditional parties no tough and no valid argument. What is requested in 2012 could have been requested from the operators in 2011, colleague Schiltz.

It annoys you a little, I understand that, but I don’t have the force of conviction – I’m honest in that – that Mr. Mestrallet has in relation to you. I try it in a different way, ⁇ with a less dynamic speech, but persistently, again and again, in every debate where it can, to convince you that a higher amount is needed. It is not enough for the Ecolo-Groen! group to give a ten-minute speech to the Belgian governors to persuade them. This honour is given only to Mr. Mestrallet.

Mr Calvo, I give the word, not you. I explained it to you last week! I have a good vision, like yours. I also think that if everyone is allowed to get involved in the debate, we will still be there in three days. This is the purpose of Mr. by Calvo. This seems obvious to me, but the colleagues obviously do not realize it. You can all, one after another, react to provocations.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that we actually held the debate in the committee last week. Mr. Calvo has been joking for a whole week that he would try to stretch his presentation for an hour today. Apparently, time stretching is also a sport.

Mr. Calvo, you apparently didn’t want to listen at the time. After all, you should not convince us that the amount to be charged must be higher.

Mr Calvo, it has been clear in all the groups – your group was at the forefront of the matter – that a higher amount is needed. However, we are not so naive to talk about higher amounts here on the floor. It is also about being able to legally collect higher amounts, to then work for the future.

What you are doing here fully matches the style in which I was able to get to know you about the debate on the subject.

Mr. Calvo, I thank you, but I do not want to say too many words about rubbish.

Mr. President, Mrs. Van der Auwera, I thank you for your very factual explanation.

Let there be no misunderstanding. It is also our ambition to realise the amounts. We want to go a little faster than our colleagues. Given the path that our group has taken in the present file, it is a little bit more credible than the traditional parties in the Assembly.

Mr. Schiltz, we are only a little bit more credible. Long before I came into Parliament, our group was already asking for a fair debate on the matter. Since 2008, the traditional parties have been trying to close the debate every week before Christmas by holding a revolver against the head of the Ecolo-Green! group, calling for a vote now and that they will address the issue differently the year after. Now, however, we need to vote, and if we do not say yes to the contribution of 250 million euros, then we are irresponsible.

We may fall into the trap once, but not four times.

Mrs Temmerman, I wish you congratulations. On the content of the government agreement, I will also say something later.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have taken over the metaphor introduced by our group.

We are at the third note; you have noted them correctly? After all, I consciously number them very structured, so that you can give a complete answer to our comments. We try to strengthen each other in this regard.

You have taken over the image of the “Christmas Gift” that our group introduced. You have said: “The greatest Christmas gift for Electrabel is the amendment of colleague Deleuze and colleague Calvo, because it will be destroyed by definition.” That will in any case make you shine out. It seems like the government asked for advice from the Constitutional Court, during the government negotiations, at 2 or 3 o’clock at night, when they were looking for 550 million euros.

You say that 1.2 billion is exaggerated. You have said, “We know why we are asking for 550 million euros next year and now 250 million.” I have been looking for your arguments in the government agreement, in the bill and in the protests of my colleagues in the committee, but I honestly did not find them.

To demonstrate that we consider this document sufficiently important and to support our amounts, I explain to you our argument for that 1.2 billion. We have not built this argument ourselves, our energy regulator has built it.

The energy regulator says that if we round 1.2 billion, a fair margin of 10 euros per megawatt hour remains for the operator. It is no one’s ambition – not even of the Ecolo-Green! group, despite our negative experiences with the operator – to hunt the operator into bankruptcy. No, they produce electricity, and electricity is important for our economy. We say that 10 euros is a fair margin for us.

Why, Mr Secretary of State? I can refer you again to a study of the regulator. Ten euros is the margin that existed before the sector was liberalized. It was the margin used in 1999 within the control committee. There is an objective ground for 10 euros per megawatt hour.

Let us also make the international comparison. You could follow the reform in France. The same margin is used for EDF. So it is not only the Ecolo-Groen! group or the Belgian regulator that uses this margin as an objective criterion, but also France – the guide country on nuclear energy – does so.

Fourth, I would like to talk about the secret contracts that colleague Deleuze and I have been able to look at and about which we have received a friendly letter from Electrabel. The price agreements made for the Pax Electrica include the same margin of 10 euros per megawatt hour.

In short, my colleagues, behind our amendment there are objective, numerical arguments. I have not found such an objective argument in the accountability of your bill. Who is credible in this document?

Moreover, this government plans to increase the uncertainty, to undermine the legal certainty that is considered so important. After all, you indicated in the committee that one cannot ask for 550 million today because one is looking for another mechanism and that this requires some additional study work.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues of the majority, the only mechanism validated by the Constitutional Court is the mechanism of the repartition contribution, the mechanism that opens today. I am going to do another study again. There are two mechanisms with which this majority plays, first, the uranium tariff. Mrs. Van der Auwera has disappeared in the meantime, otherwise I could ask her to lighten the criticism of the energy regulator on that mechanism. In any case, we can read that the introduction of an excise duty on nuclear fuel ⁇ does not have negligible disadvantages. I’m not going to list them all, but if you play with that mechanism, you’re working to make legal uncertainty and then the repartition contribution of a much higher amount is a lot more legal as it has been validated by the Constitutional Court.

The second mechanism with which this government plays is the single buyer, the ideological trophy of the Social Democrats in the government agreement. Mrs. Temmerman, you use that to argue and support those 550 million. That single buyer is burned down on twelve pages in the advice of our regulator. So allow us not to find that 550 million, not to find the argument today and not to accept at all that you say that we play with legal certainty because we want a higher amount, while you yourself suggest mechanisms in which everyone puts questions. Who really wants to work with legal certainty? They are not the traditional parties of this country. I agree not to talk about the Electrabel Party.

A fourth argument from the government and the traditional parties in this country is that one wants to keep the word. One has more or less suggested that in 2011 one would not ask for more than last year and that in 2011 one would ask for only 250 million euros. One wants to keep the word because one keeps the word. This is one of the arguments I have heard in the committee. Do you not, Mr Schiltz?

Mr. Calvo, you have the word. Continue to continue.

Sometimes I try to breathe too.

The [...]

Thank you, Mr Vanackere. You are a sympathetic minister.

In the Christian-Democratic family one should be careful about this, but we are genuinely pleased with empathy, Mr. Vanackere. You really should not get upset about it.

I continue my speech. Keep the word, that’s what it was. Two hundred and fifty million euros were promised, and ⁇ no more could be asked. This is the strategy of pacification. You want to pacify the imminent conflict with Electrabel. This element is suggested. I only note that you are not using the same strategy of pacification with respect to another key player. Mr. Wathelet, unfortunately I do not have time to follow your media appearances closely, but an attentive citizen emailed me that I should look at what you said this week during your chat session at Le Soir.

The Secretary of State therefore visited Le Soir and chatted there. He was asked a question about the nuclear tax. I now look at my colleagues in the majority, in particular colleague Schiltz, who has been very involved in the debate on the calculation methods. Well, Secretary of State Wathelet has underestimated the CREG calculation method, which we have been working on for a year to get on the same line, this week on Le Soir chat. What was he referring to? To the report of the National Bank, on which we have worked together for a year to reduce that, because it did not have the necessary credibility. That is your pacification, Mr. Wathelet. You say the CREG is wrong. You seem to quote the great poet, the great political scientist Paul Magnette. It would be the National Bank that should inspire us when it comes to the nuclear tax! We are taking a step back a year in time.

Mr. Calvo, I allow you to breathe. Mr. Secretary of State, you have the word.

Mr. Calvo, I disagree with the elements you are advancing, but I let you speak. On the other hand, I can’t let you say anything and put in my mouth words that I haven’t said!

I can let you riddle, try to arouse the debate among others. I can let you say wrong things, with which I absolutely disagree. I can let you say anything and anything, even on judgments of the Constitutional Court. This is the political debate.

But at some point there are lines to respect, Mr. Calvo. First, who speaks in parliament, it is the president who decides, not you.

The [...]

It’s not me either, Madame Genot. I asked for the word and I got it. This is what happens in Parliament. You’ve been there long enough to know it.

Second, Mr. Calvo, you had, at first, the intellectual honesty to say that you had not read it, that you did not know what it was about. But you put words in my mouth that are false!

Allez revoir sur le site du Soir le chat et on and reparlera après, parce que vous aurez la bonne version. But arrêtez de dire des choses qui sont fausses et arrêtez d'avoir cette attitude qui se veut provocante pour essayer d'avoir une réponse! You all descrédibiliser the whole of the arguments that you invoke. And you all descrédibilise and render non pertinent the whole of your reasoning. I hope this is not what you are looking for! (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Wathelet, I thank you for your political advice. I always find it important that colleagues with so much experience and so much antiquity give a little feedback. I will take it, Mr. Wathelet, I will take your political advice au sérieux and I hope that you will take the substantive advice of our group even au sérieux. Your predecessor has not done that in the last three years, which is why we insist on this point.

Members of the government, so you keep the word, you pacify against Electrabel, you doubt again the figures of our regulator. In particular, I would like to invite you to review all the agreements that have been concluded with that operator in recent years and to ask who has held the word. Was it the Belgian government that did this systematically? Or was it the operator?

You will then find, along with me, that the Belgian government in recent years has often negotiated like a chicken boy with a gang of sharks – sorry that I put it so sharply. Again and again, they have made agreements with the government, and then they have clashed with them. I invite you to make an analysis of the different paces electricae. Again and again you will find that the word from Paris has not been kept.

I invite you to take a look at the functioning of the renewable funds, which come from the Programme Act of 2009. You need to look at what happened to it, how much of the 250 million that was then requested has been effectively invested in renewable energy, and whether the structure that was supposed to meet about it has already come together. I invite you to look at it.

I really do not understand that you are not ⁇ angry about this and I invite you to review Electrabel’s presentation during the hearing of 9 February 2011. The operator then came to the Parliament to tell, colleagues, that the nuclear gains are actually not woeker gains, but only 652 million euros.

With those people you are talking today. You want to pacify those relationships. The result is that we, as a society, as a political class, are being shaken over and over again. We want to protect you from this.

A final argument is relatively successful in political debates and therefore important to refute, namely that, if the Ecolo-Green! amendment is approved, the tax will be transferred to the consumer. The answer is always that, in order not to unnecessarily complain to the consumer, no higher tax should be levied. This reasoning is often heard.

(Protest by Mr Willem-Frederik Schiltz)

Mr. Schiltz, in the last few months we have jointly fought against these calculation methods. I am surprised that you have not noticed that, for example, Mrs. Lalieux of the PS repeatedly said at that time that she understood why Mr. Magnette did not ask for so much tax, namely because otherwise it would be transferred to the consumer.

It will again be the selective outrage of our group.

Inadequate competition can only be eliminated with a substantial tax. After all, it ensures that today only our consumers and our SMEs are affected.

Which group has submitted bills that want to return the nuclear tax to society in a smart, green way? The Ecolo-Green group! We want a substantial tax to finance offshore, to finance energy savings. What does the majority do in its great concern for the consumer? It should be put into the budget and not reinvested in energy policy. That is again the big difference between the traditional parties – I will not say Electrabel parties, because that would be too short by the turn – and the Ecolo-Green! group.

How can the government, on the one hand, say that its safety net mechanism, its system of price regulation will change the world, and, on the other hand, that we should not charge a higher tax, because it is transferred to the consumer? Would the safety net mechanism of the PS protect us from this?

I have come to 5.3 of my argument, the last point.

Our group likes political compromise. This is in line with the philosophy of our daily operations. We have no problem with taking position X to the negotiating table, looking at the points through red and blue glasses and then ultimately defending a certain outcome. What we have been proposed today and last week is not a political compromise, as it should be, but a compromise between traditional blue and traditional red.

If you do not care, Mrs. Temmerman, it would decorate your group to say that with so many words and not support the text. What we see here is not a valuable political compromise. It is the fourth time you say that you will do it next year. Our group continues to fight against such political compromises, with a lot of assertivity and, if necessary, for some time on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot approve this lean compromise, after approximately one and a half years of hearings with all possible actors in the energy world, ranging from the entrepreneurs to the trade unions, from the National Bank of Belgium to the CREG, Test Purchase and so on. We have really heard and seen everyone who had something meaningful to say about the nuclear interest rate and the repartition contribution.

We can impossiblely approve this bill after we, after so many difficult meetings in the committee for business, finally saw a political majority grow around the very well-founded figures of the CREG, the energy regulator.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the nuclear interest rate has been the subject of countless debates, all of which aimed to finally, on a reliable basis, obtain a quantified amount of the nuclear profits of the energy producers, and in the first and most important place of GDF Suez, on paper, so that the nuclear profits could be correctly calculated and taxed. That was the purpose of the hearings that took up one and a half years.

I do not force the truth when I say that the political majority could gradually find itself in the CREG’s redirected calculations. An amount of 700 million as a repartition contribution seemed politically and economically feasible.

That has, and colleague Van der Auwera has, sadly enough, fled, nothing to do with political naivety.

Unfortunately, the compromise à la Belgique has succeeded. This bill has not reached more than 250 million. This is a contribution, Mr. Schiltz, which one cannot actually describe otherwise than a bad compromise, a compromise that will come next year with a contribution of 500 million, we know for sure.

This should not be doubted if the political majority comes to tell us that here. I am very curious.

The 250 million euro compromise was defended by the six political parties, in my opinion not by everyone in the same, convenient way. The amount of 250 million euros was defended with the argument that the Constitutional Court assessed the contribution of 250 million in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 as reasonable and proportionate. The amount of 250 million euros for this year will therefore be approved by the Constitutional Court in case of dispute.

As a lawyer, however, I still sit with the question of how it is with the amount of 500 million euros. Mr Schiltz, you say that the proposal of the Greens! The amount of EUR 1.2 billion is unthinkable and unthinkable, unreasonable and disproportionate. The proposal of N-VA, 750 million euros, is also called unreasonable and disproportionate. The proposal of your majority, 500 million, will be considered reasonable and proportionate by the Constitutional Court. You must explain to me how this is right. Why should this not be regarded as equally unreasonable and disproportionate, when we know that the Constitutional Court has ruled that 250 million euros is a reasonable and proportionate amount?

Our group will not approve this bill. It was now the excellent opportunity to cut through nodes and to put on paper and have a substantiated, balanced nuclear distribution contribution approved. What the majority does is sending a Christmas gift to France.

Mr. Minister, you know that the French government is a majority shareholder in the electricity company GDF Suez, Belgium’s largest nuclear producer. France sends greetings and comes back very cheaply, thanks, among other things, to the Flemish parties that have approved this draft.

Our group cannot approve this. We will vote against the bill with great conviction.

I am speaking to the Minister for Sustainable Development. Mr. Vanackere, I think it is you. I hope it! I hope there is a Minister in charge of Sustainable Development in this government. I actually have some doubts about whether you are really concerned with this fundamental question of sustainable development.

I am referring to article 6 of the bill that has been submitted to us. In this article 6, it is stated that the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development, which is fixed by a Royal Decree of October 2004, remains valid until the next plan is fixed. What does this mean? This seems to us very worrying. Does this refer to the Greek calendes or does it mean after 2014?

As you were not in the committee, Mr. Minister, I address you now and allow myself to remind you that in Belgium, the 1997 Act is one of the pioneers in Europe to establish a more comprehensive policy system in the field of sustainable development, in order to make government policies more coherent. This system is envious to us throughout Europe, and in international institutions, including the UN, it is cited as an example. It is indeed a very beautiful architecture but, unfortunately, previous governments have not used it or have used it too little.

However, a whole series of interesting mechanisms are being implemented. First, there is a permanent consultation of civil society. This is the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, with social partners, NGOs and scientists who, quite frequently, give opinions on a set of topics, either on request or on initiative. Then, an interdepartmental commission connects the different federal administrations, with officials charged each with checking how sustainable development is implemented in their department. There are also these four-year plans, these planning mechanisms, which have been in force since 2000. The first Sustainable Development Plan 2000-2004 was the work of Mr. and Deleuze. Then there was the plan 2004-2008 and, in 2008, Mr. Magnette, who had Sustainable Development in his attributions, considered it preferable to do what he called the "Printemps de l'Environnement" on the French model of the Grenelle Environnement. To do this, he mobilized the entire civil society and forgot the federal plan for Sustainable Development that could have been the cradle of this social debate.

Now, since 2010, the law is amended; this is the only positive point I recognize to the policy of your predecessor. A long-term strategy for sustainable development has been established. It claims to give Belgium a vision of what will become our country in 2050 by following the lines of sustainable development both economically, ecologically and socially.

A committee of our Parliament follows this strategy, chaired by Mr. Flahaut by himself. We work there, it appears; we monitor elsewhere and we collaborate with those who work.

This small article included in the various provisions indicates that you report sine die the plan already prepared and ready to be submitted to public investigation. This way of doing seems to indicate that this is the last of your worries.

The Rio+20 conference will be held in Rio next year. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. How will Belgium be able to justify abandoning its beautiful system, with a broad social base? Yes, it suffers from some problems of popularization and implementation. Moreover, several opinions of the Court of Auditors have already blamed the government for not taking this architecture seriously. Social partners may even want you to worry: they probably feel like they are working for nothing.

Personally, I would like to get an answer from you: How do you plan to react to this planning?

We submitted an amendment. He gives you one year of time. It proposes that, by 1 January 2013, a four-year plan for sustainable development be established. I was answered that this amendment could not be accepted as we were in the period of establishing the long-term strategy.

I was ⁇ that you answered my Senate colleague, Jacky Morael, that you would implement this plan. In this case, why don’t you give yourself a deadline? That is why I allow myself to insist: we therefore re-submit this amendment to the plenary. I hope this time you will be convinced of the importance of setting a precise deadline. It would give us the guarantee that this process did not fall into the limbs.

Colleagues, there is so much mist sprinkled here over the nuclear interest rate dossier that I almost fell over the staircase and couldn’t find my way to the speaker.

At first I thought to keep my argument very limited, because today we are discussing a bill repeating the repartition contribution that was levied the year before and which was homologated by the Constitutional Court. It is, in a way of speaking, almost an act of daily administration or ongoing affairs. However, since Mr. Calvo has set the fire on the roof, and since I cannot simply let such untruths pass by, I must still correct a number of things.

The fact that the majority would be excited about Mr Calvo’s interventions in the committee may have to do with the fact that he throws more into it than he actually debates on the substance of the case and on concrete, real matters. Mr Calvo, the amount of documents produced, indeed, indicates that the Parliament is working seriously, but for me that is not a measure of what the outcome should be. More or maybe fewer documents are produced on other topics, but that has little to do with the relevance of the dossier.

I’m sorry that you didn’t quote me, because if you did, Mr. Calvo, you would have noticed that my quotations in the press are consistent and consistent and go in the same direction. However, I have never made advance deductions on a concrete amount. I have always turned back on the dossier and less on spectacular communication. That is also what we are talking about today, Mr. Calvo; no big promises, no empty screams in the wind, but funded amounts in a well-founded legal truth.

You asked me a question directly. I answered you directly from my couch, but you lost the north. I’ve told you that I’m not going to tax the past. That is the best guarantee to have such a draft law disappear. It is about legal certainty, about legal certainty, Mr. Calvo: today the same amount as yesterday.

We are getting used to, you are provoking each other!

I could not let that pass!

and OK . Not least, it’s a technique to take time and have fun, but let’s still try to move forward!

Mr. Speaker, I will take the invitation of Mr. Schiltz on the evaluation of the style of debate of me or of other members ...

The [...]

The floor is for mr. by Calvo.

Mr. Mayeur, I am outraged when I see how the current majority concludes the present file. However, I am shocked to find that the Socialist Party does not seem to find the debate on the nuclear tax and on justice in our energy sector worth discussing it thoroughly.

Mr. Mayeur, it is about more money that is not caught in the nuclear operators, but in the pension reform that your party fully supports, against the social consultation. I want to put everything in the right perspective. So don’t be sorry if the environmentalists want to discuss this.

Mr Schiltz, again, you consider it necessary to make an evaluation of the way I or my group conduct the debate. I will not engage in the controversy on this subject.

But what is the big problem with retroactivity?

Protests by Mr. by Major)

Mr Mayeur, Mr Calvo has the word. Mr. Clooney, you have finished your presentation and then the word is to Mr. Clooney. by Schiltz.

I wanted to be very short.

Mr Schiltz, I don’t understand what you say about retroactivity. When the government decided at the end of 2008 to ask for 250 million euros for the first time, where was the argument of retroactivity? What makes today’s recovery of 550 or 750 million euros more or less retroactive than 250 million euros? It’s also about last year, isn’t it?

Mr. Calvo, that is to say, you install tax rates that a company can expect and not face afterwards.

I will help the world out a few more falsehoods that are being circulated here. Competition can only be restored by a redistribution contribution. That is not true. In the government agreement, we clearly inscribed two possible pistes. You scream here murder and fire that the single buyer has been burned down. The term “single buyer” does not appear in the government agreement.

For all clarity, colleagues: today it is not about implementing the government agreement, but about finishing the 2011 budget. Intention processes or evaluations of the government agreement, I would like to do them together with all of you when the Minister presents his policy note and his budget for the coming years.

National Bank Report: I’m not going to say anything about this dirt. Even if you state that this majority does not in any way want to collect or spend a redistribution contribution in a green way. That is clear nonsense, Mr. Calvo. No legislation or draft legislation has yet been submitted. If you were to read the government agreement, you would know that such intention processes are completely premature. However, it says that the amounts collected will be used to limit the green flow at sea and the energy expenditure of federal buildings.

Collega’s, which is voted here today, is no more or no less than the budget for 2011, repeating an amount that was also levied in previous years and that has been approved by the Constitutional Court. All the rest you hear here today, Mr. Calvo, that’s soldees: it’s Christmas season, but it’s already soldees in populism, in air castles and in baked air.

Many things have already been said. The bill aims to determine the financial contribution of the nuclear sector during the year 2011 to 250 million euros, as is the case since 2008 and, in the end, this is what may be a bit annoying, since the government regularly delays the fixation of the next federal plan "Sustainable Development".

In the development of these bills, I note that on page 12, in the statement of reasons, it is stated: "It has indeed been found that the distribution contributions received in 2008, 2009 and 2010, charged to the taxpayers, were not sufficient to address the dysfunctions of the energy market in terms of security of supply, spending and investment in nuclear energy. [...] On the contrary, it appears as further developed that these malfunctions have continued to worsen during the year 2011.”

In recent years, there has been consensus that nuclear operators and companies with a share in the industrial production of nuclear electricity have benefited – and still benefit – from what could be called a favourable situation resulting from the difference between production costs that are fairly low and market prices that remain very high.

I would like to enter quickly into a number of numerical considerations, since the National Bank, in 2011, carries the correct figure of the rent between 800,000 and 950,000 euros. For its part, the CREG brings the figure to an amount between 1.75 billion and 2.3 billion euros, while Electrabel itself plans on a figure of 750 million euros.

Members of the FDF group intend to position themselves in relation to each other’s proposals that recommend Parliament to fix an additional financial contribution from the nuclear sector to the state budget. The former finance minister proposed to increase this pension to 500,000 euros, but opinions differ on this level. If I refer to the analyses and conclusions of Professor De Keuleneer – and I encourage those who are interested to read his analyses regularly – he makes an estimate of between €1.6 and €1.8 billion, taking into account information on nuclear rent and the profitability of the electricity sector in Belgium.

There are a lot of numbers, but we also have to see the consequences for taxpayers. I also confirm my estimate of the profit on the Belgian electricity production of Electrabel, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 included, at a level of 2.7 billion, without taking into account their considerable revenues and surplus values on participation in other parts of the electric sector in Belgium. I know that these figures will be denied by Electrabel. It must be remembered that Electrabel, in 2007 and 2008, was not sufficiently ⁇ , strongly claimed that there was no nuclear rent. She now argues that only 900 million were subject to rent as such.”

Recently published figures confirm that Belgian consumers, on average, pay far too high prices for their electricity. We need to return to reality.

I wonder if the solution does not lie in the establishment of a progressive rent in time, which would be oriented in 2013 on the basis of the proposal made by the government to reach in 2015 to a rent that would be closer to the reality of the operational profits declared by Electrabel, or an amount that would end at around one billion euros, or a rent that would simply fit between the position of the former Minister of Finance and the position that was presented by Ecolo, but which, in terms of progressivity over time, does not seem applicable or in any case seems overestimated.

It would be a first thing to consider this rent in a gradual manner over time. This is just a proposal. We said we would try to lead a constructive opposition. This is what we are trying to do. Unfortunately, we regret to point out that, even if we can understand your current position, as long as this progressive index is not introduced in your proposal, we will not support your bill.

I would like to address Mr. and Thierry. I have heard with great interest this proposal for a progressive tax on the nuclear rent. When the Secretary of State (FDF), Deputy Minister of Finance was in business and for several years, there was talk of nuclear rent with proposals rotating around 500 million. Why did the Secretary of State not make this proposal at the time? So I am surprised that today your proposal is about one billion, though we have never heard of that amount before. Minister Reynders’ position has always been 500 million. I am surprised to see this suggestion come today.

Mr. Thiéry, sorry to interrupt for a moment, but now I almost fall backwards. The MR who dares to intervene to responsabilize the FDF colleagues because they, ocharme, delivered the state secretary in support of the Minister of Finance. Ultimately, for traditional parties, it is always someone else’s fault. It was the fault of Mr. Deleuze, in 1999, ...

Mr. Calvo, please do not resume the debate.

It was the fault of Secretary of State Clerfayt and later it is the fault of consumers and SMEs. The culprits in this case are the traditional parties, Mr. Reynders, Mr. Wathelet and Mr. Magnette. That is where the problem is.

Mr. Calvo, if you attack everybody, you will never have an ally again.

Mr. Thierry, you respond to Mr. Clarinval if you want. Then I will give the floor to the Secretary of State and the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked.

I do not know the comment of Mr. Clarinval requires a lot of comments. I simply find that the responsibility rested on the shoulders of a certain minister and not of a certain secretary of state. Therefore, it is necessary to review internally what you have decided instead of blaming others.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I have already responded in the committee.

Approving that amendment over 1.2 billion would be the most beautiful Christmas gift for Electrabel, as it is certain that it would be revoked by the Constitutional Court. Mr. Calvo, I did not have to call the Constitutional Court. If you looked at that correctly, you would immediately see that this would be cancelled by the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Calvo, new in your reasoning is that you say it is 1.2 billion, based on the system of the Constitutional Court, in particular the distribution system. I repeat that the Constitutional Court has accepted the distribution system on the basis of a sum of 250 million euros. You are talking about five times more here and that, of course, completely changes the system and the proportionality that is linked to the amount of 250 million euros. That is why you create that uncertainty. Therefore, you create a Christmas gift for Electrabel. I thought I understood that this is not your habit, but apparently that has now changed a little.

Mr. Calvo, finally, when it comes to a system of distribution, as it was applied to those 250 million euros, it also applies to the other actors who would have to pay for it. You may say that I am the friend of Electrabel, but you have now demonstrated that you are the friend of Electrabel by submitting such an amendment.

If we applied your proposal to the other nuclear energy producers – I’m not talking about Electrabel – they would ⁇ be in trouble. If those who now produce on the basis of nuclear energy and which produce 25 % of the nuclear energy were to pay on the basis of the same distribution as that which was disputed before the Constitutional Court, then they would surely be in trouble.

The result of your amendment is that Electrabel receives two Christmas presents. After all, it would be destroyed and if it is not destroyed — I am sure it would happen — it would ⁇ destroy all competitors who use nuclear energy, because they are not able to pay such a sum.

Therefore, your reasoning is absolutely incorrect. You made a show, you did it pretty well. You wanted to provoke to create such a debate, that I now understand well, but with that game I do not play.

I will be very brief because this issue was discussed yesterday in the Senate committee. It is true that I was not present in the House committee, but not having the capacity of ubiquity, my absence cannot be interpreted as a lack of interest, quite the opposite.

In the Senate, I made known my intention to present a strategy, as of October. This is why Mr. Morael decided to withdraw his amendment.

I propose you to accept, today, the text as it is formulated, knowing that even if a deadline is not set, there is a firm political commitment. This is probably worth more than a deadline stipulated in a law that can be postponed later. I undertake here to develop a strategy within the time given and, then, to accompany it with a plan as soon as possible.

We heard this kind of talk last week. I do not understand the contradiction. A long-term strategy is a work of a different nature that is, by the way, already begun.

The four-year plan should highlight the current work of the services of the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development. It must be supported and monitored by the Federal Council for Sustainable Development. These institutions, somewhat misguided in recent years, are waiting. They are not entrusted with the tasks they are entitled to.

I do not see any contradiction. Give us a date. You talk about your commitment, but if it’s real, why can’t you give us a delay? Why can you not adopt our amendment, which aims to provide for a one-year deadline and which is in no way contradictory to the development of a strategy? The strategy, you have to develop it because it is in the law. It would be simpler and safer to set a deadline in the law, also in this case.

Mr. Minister, I would like to congratulate you, because you managed to immediately increase the nuclear share of other players than Electrabel during the first two weeks of your ministry. I invite you to review the numbers you are using. I assume that if this really had happened, you would have spread a press release about it. Look at your numbers again. The argument of competition will also disappear if this government takes real initiatives and proposes another distribution key. The player invites you.

Second, you really don’t listen. I think this is especially, especially unfortunate. This is such a fundamental debate. I gave you three objective criteria for the 10 euro per MWh fair margin. You don’t give any. You do not even say that you will look at this and that you will come up with a bill within two months. You do not make any commitment. So understand the outrage of our group. It is the fourth time in a row that Santa Claus of the traditional parties puts the same Christmas gift under the tree.