Proposition 53K2097

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 8, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive work incapacity for work occupational accident paid leave security services collective dismissal collective agreement veterinarian electrical energy medicinal product genetically modified organism family benefit trade licence agricultural policy market intervention environmental protection public safety organisation of health care older worker public administration civil service quasi-fiscal charge pension scheme police mutual assistance scheme social-security contribution social-security benefit social security criminal law penalty crew organisation representative of local or regional authority early retirement food safety public health training leave white-collar worker maritime shipping self-employed person health insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD

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 ¶

March 22, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

by MM. Thiébaut and Schiltz are not there, they refer to their written report.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have to submit a verbal report because there was another meeting of the Public Health Committee this afternoon. I will keep it short.

I would like to present the report on the law containing various provisions, document no. 2097, for the Public Health Committee. It addressed several aspects, including those within the competence of Minister Laruelle. The first point concerned hobbyists who will now be exempt for aquaculture from the annual charges of the FAVV and the period within which they can set up the self-control systems and have them validated by an audit. It is extended from six to twelve months. The organisation of the controls by the FAVV will be further improved, including in the fight against the pharmacologically active substances in the food chain, to the extent that it falls within the powers of Minister Laruelle.

I now come to the points in the law that fall within the competence of Minister Onkelinx. An OCMW may charge the personal contribution due for its chairs and their deputy chairs, whether or not appointed, after their mandate. This is the case for all those involved and not covered by the social security system of self-employed or self-employed persons.

A second point, on which there was some discussion in the committee, is the possibility for the pharmacist to import a medicinal product, in execution of a prescription, from the country where it is authorised and registered, provided that the doctor of the patient declares that the patient really needs it and as long as there is no medicinal product with the same composition or form on the Belgian market or when it would not be available yet. A lot of questions were raised, both from the majority and from the opposition, especially on the problem of possible abuses in the context of both stock management and the parallel circuits that could arise. These questions were partly answered by the technicians present.

There are also articles referring to the eHealth platform, the Criminal Justice Directive on the protection of the environment and the fact that veterinary students are allowed to commit acts that are not criminal as part of their training.

I would like to come to the last point on which an oral report was necessary. The committee met again this afternoon. This point concerns the adaptation of existing laws to the Social Criminal Code. In the committee, several amendments were submitted by the N-VA, mainly on the legal and technical level. The technicians who were present in the committee were then unable to formulate sufficient answers to it. The amendments were not approved in the committee. The amendments were submitted to the committee in two areas.

The first amendment concerns Article 38, where the word "officials" is replaced by "social inspectors". The explanation for this is that this terminology is aligned with that of the Social Criminal Code, where the concept of social inspector is defined.

The second amendment concerns the introduction of a new article 39/1, which removes the overlapping between articles 46 and 62 of the same law. On the administrative level, the audit will be carried out exclusively by the Administrative Control Service, the DAC, and its social auditors.

Both amendments were unanimously approved.

The vote on the full draft was repeated and the result was 14 votes for and 4 abstentions.

“Social Affairs and Public Health”

“Social Affairs and Public Health”

Last week, in the Economy Committee, we voted on the provisions amending the social status of independent workers. I would like to congratulate the Minister for taking these measures aimed at aligning the status of self-employed workers with that of wage-workers in terms of early retirement, and especially those aimed at easing and partially eliminating malus.

Depending on the gradual increase of six months in six months from 2013, the age condition for anticipation, malus rates of 25% and 18% will be modalized. In addition, from 2013, the malus is abolished for retirement pensions at 63 or 64 years of age. It also no longer applies if the person concerned has a career of at least 41 years, instead of 42 years currently.

This measure is therefore an important step towards the elimination of this discrimination that constitutes malus, applied only to early pensions of self-employed persons. This must be emphasized.

I would also like to emphasize the steadfast work of the Minister to result in the measures taken regarding the social status of self-employed persons. With each new measure, Madame the Minister, you are shaping the law in such a way as to give our self-employed workers, which are the engine of our economy, a strong social security in relation to the respect that is due to them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, my question relates to Article 39 of the Law containing various provisions. I wanted to draw your attention to this article that contains an amendment to Royal Decree 78 with regard to the eHealth platform. This provision is in fact intended to enable the Directorate-General for Primary Health Care and Crisis Management of the SPF Public Health to provide the eHealth platform with data on professionals in electronic form in order to enable them to authenticate those professionals when they access the platform’s applications.

The aim is obviously to be sure, when a provider connects to an application, that one is in the presence of a given provider of care and to be able to verify his professional qualifications. In principle, this does not pose any problem as it increases the security of information exchanges.

As for the form, we had planned, when voting for the eHealth law, locks in privacy protection. Among these, there was the need to obtain the opinion of the Health section of the Privacy Sectorial Committee on all changes and data communication authorizations. It was necessary to be able to dispose of this opinion which, I have no doubt, if it had been asked this time, would have been positive. I do not know if it was requested. In principle, I repeat that we have no objection to the amendment proposed by this Article 39.

You were not in the committee when it was examined. The answers that were given to us did not allow us to know whether, yes or not, this opinion had actually been requested. If it has not been asked, I think it is a mistake because it bypasses the spirit of the law a little. We have submitted this amendment to obtain, with your consent, this guarantee regarding the protection of privacy. I think it would be useful to ask for a posteriori opinion on this amendment to Royal Decree 78, so that we all have our consolations regarding the protection of privacy.

I suggest that the Minister respond globally.

I asked the same question as Mr. President. Backlink today.

We were somewhat surprised to see a provision concerning eHeath included among the various provision bill.

Article 32 provides that the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission is requested.

For my part, I do not wish that an opinion be required a posteriori since we all voted this bill in committee. However, this is a first step towards expanding data transfers. If other steps were to be frankly taken, it would be necessary to pay attention to the question.

In any case, we would like, for our part, that draft laws relating to the protection of private data be filed within the framework of the eHeath Act and not within the framework of the various provisions. In this way, the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission could be requested.

With regard to Article 39, the law provides for the establishment of a User Consultation Committee, a committee that is not yet established for various reasons, in particular due to the length of the current business period that we have known.

I would like to remind you that we want this committee to quickly become effective so that it can play its role in the deployment of the various applications of the platform and possible future expansions.

As you know, this issue is quite sensitive. We therefore ask you to be ⁇ attentive to this.

Mr. Speaker, I would have wanted to return to one of the majority amendments submitted during the work on the draft law containing various provisions: it concerns the ALE.

Obviously, there was no consultation with the sector on this amendment. Indeed, the majority of the people I had the opportunity to question since this amendment suddenly arrived in the commission fell from the clouds.

In order for everyone to understand what it is about, this amendment was submitted by the majority in session. It aims to allow ALE agents to be used as ONEM controllers. The ALE workers with whom I discussed are really surprised: these are completely different logics.

Work is currently underway on future regionalization. Asked in this regard, the EEA and their agents hope to continue to contribute, in a not negligible way, to the reintegration of the unemployed into the labour market and, more specifically, of those who need it most. They inform unemployed people daily about opportunities for training and employment. In reality, they consider themselves to be people working with the unemployed most distant from the labour market to offer them activities for a limited number of hours at the beginning, with more modulable schedules, in specific sectors of activity.

For example, many AALs have title-services sections, many work with community services to join them with workers, gardeners, slashers, with prevention services for prevention agents, park guardians, with schools for supervisors and maintenance people, with ASBLs for administrative aid, etc.

Everything is done on a voluntary basis and on the building of trust relationships. This is far from the control of unemployed, as proposed by the amendment. Since I spread this information, the concern has reigned among ALE agents.

My question is concrete: when would this operation be carried out? When could ALE agents agree to be asked to become unemployed controller?

Is this initiative not strange when these ALEs are in full reflection on their future regionalization, on the transfer of competences? The ongoing work is carried out with the Regions to determine which place would be best suited to them in all the players of the labour market.

I would like to understand the logic: is it just budgetary? Taking engaged workers for work in the ALE and charging them with controlling the unemployed would only be interesting from a budgetary point of view. That is the only logic I can see. There is no need to look further into the reason for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the comments of Mr. Speaker. Bacquelaine and Mrs Schyns on eHealth. Before that, I would like to thank Ms. Muylle for her excellent report as well as Mr. Courard replaced the minister in commission. Several relevant questions were asked, but he was unfortunately unable to answer them.

It seems to me that a conflict of interest could arise between the role of the administrator of the eHealth platform and the other mandates he holds. When it comes to the protection of the privacy of the patient and the healthcare provider as well as the respect of medical secrecy, transparency must be placed. Unfortunately, in the case that we are dealing with, the administrator is also the delegate administrator of the Smals. This means that it sits both at the head of the accommodation structure and the "pipe". This poses an ethical problem, especially since he is also the general manager of the Bank-Course of Social Security, but also – although he does not have a deliberative voice – administrator of the Commission for the Protection of Privacy.

Therefore, I ask that this be taken into account in the future, because there could be a conflict of interest. Again, transparency is rigorous in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, concerning the “back to work” provision, aimed at helping people with disabilities to return to work more easily, I would like to recall our suggestions for future royal orders. First of all, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the procedure. Then, it is necessary to avoid making it labyrinthical, at the risk of misleading people with disabilities and counseling doctors. Finally, it is important to determine a maximum number of days in the issue of the authorisation.

And then, I will allow myself to establish a report between the Social Affairs and Health Committees through the thematic of eHealth. Some have rightly approached it. It is urgently necessary to establish the concertation committee as provided for by the law of 2008. But, above all, it is necessary to prevent eHealth from becoming a tool that would generalize employment wrongly and through. I think of a recent committee debate with the Secretary of State in charge of Combating Social Fraud. He claimed to use eHealth for this purpose.

When it comes to me that, in addition to the step that is taken today, others could follow to extend its missions, this triggers in me a small alarm signal: one can obviously not afford to disregard data that belongs to patients.

Everything is focused on eHealth.

As Mr. said. Bacquelaine, we increase the security of access to eHealth platform services by authenticating providers. All control measures are implemented to ensure optimal identification of care providers and thus ensure secure access to services offered by eHealth.

The various speakers talked about respect for privacy and data confidentiality; these are key points. All projects proposed by eHealth are negotiated in consultation with the various stakeholders, namely the management committee, the sectoral committee within the Privacy Protection Commission, the user consultation committee, the latter to be established soon. An omnipresent consultation and control work is carried out by the Privacy Protection Commission.

Furthermore, whenever these projects are submitted to me, I review them because since the creation of eHealth, I have been questioned, rightly, on this notion of respect for privacy. We look at them from the perspective of respect for privacy, professional secrecy and informed consent of the patient.

I also insist on the fact that the eHealth platform has no access to health data. Note it well because it is essential: there is no access to medical data. The article that is submitted to you today is in reality only intended to ensure that only the providers or healthcare organizations having a therapeutic relationship with a patient will be able to access personal data.

In order to allow access, the person must be identified as a healthcare provider and must have, at the given date, the right to exercise, the title and the qualification necessary to access such eHealth service. eHealth’s access to the health care provider cadastre as a validated authentic source enables precisely to meet these two conditions. The reliability and integrity of the data used as well as the security of access to the eHealth platform are thus ensured.

I hope I reassured you. There is no question of expanding the powers of eHealth! It is not a matter of allowing access to medical data, but of controlling that those who surf on eHealth to view medical data are indeed healthcare providers and actually have the ability to exercise when they browse the eHealth platform!

I have no need to be reassured. In fact, I believe that this provision does not involve any risk with regard to the protection of privacy. This is not my word!

The problem is that it is obviously necessary to introduce a kind of automatism in relation to the spirit of the law, namely to formally request the opinion of the Health Committee of the Sectorial Committee Privacy, because that is what was decided by the law of 2008.

Therefore, the prescriptions must be automatically complied with. This is a lock decreed to ensure the protection of privacy. In the state, the disposition we are talking about does not involve risk, but I think it is worth adopting this habit.

I can imagine that the answer to my question was not prepared. I launched the notion of conflict of interest and I did not get any response on this subject. This means that I will return to it, of course, in the committee, because I remain convinced that the problem is whole and that transparency is not rigorous for now!

I have not received a response from the Minister of Employment.

As for the ALE, I wanted to know when the measure would come into force. Will ALE agents be able to be used as ONEM controllers from 2013 or not?

We will start examining the files from 1 July. We want to quickly help people who are currently waiting to find a job.

For each EEA, has a certain proportion of the agents to be devoted to this control work been determined, or is this the whole?

We will select people who have the necessary skills. A list will be established, determining which officials have the skills to help job seekers find a job.

There are no more speakers for this part. We will then be able to open the chapter Economy.

Volet “Economy” / Leik “Business Life”

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we all know that the freezing of energy prices is the pony of who today was called the true Minister of Energy, namely Mr. Vande Lanotte.

In the overview given recently, it became clear that Mr. Wathelet was competent, but a lot of people saw at the feet of his chair. We have heard that Minister Van Quickenborne is doing this. Minister De Crem also had a number of ideas related to Energy last month, but which further was not addressed. In the course of this legislature, ideas can of course come up. Ministers, please do not interfere. I think Mr. Wathelet would like to see his policy supported.

This file was hunted. There was little room for debate. I am referring to the amendment which could only be submitted at the very last moment, despite Secretary of State Wathelet’s promise to submit it as soon as possible. The majority was able to study the amendment throughout the morning. I was fortunate to be sitting right behind Mr. Schiltz so that I could already partially melt. However, it was difficult to deliver this to the opposition.

I wonder what things were wrong in the amendment, things we could not find. I would like to praise some members of the majority. They did their utmost to ensure that we were able to hold at least the hearings that belong to this draft before voting. Mrs Dierick and Mr Schiltz took the initiative to ⁇ this. Unfortunately, this was immediately pushed to the head by the deputy chairwoman, Mrs Jadin. It was clear that there had to be an absolute vote and that there should not be a single little debate. No one was allowed to change their minds because this could put the government on loose screws.

The freezing of energy prices would take place for nine months. It is a proposal from the CREG but it is not supported anywhere. During the hearing, we questioned the CREG about this and found that they do not hold on to nine months at all. According to them, it could be done much faster, namely a three-month period.

I would like to hear the answer from the Secretary of State. How does he stand in front of that? Is he willing to limit that to three months as the CREG proposes? If it depends on them, they will need less time.

Mr. Secretary of State, how do you see it? Are you willing to shorten the deadline and are you now willing to put a deadline on it?

What we talked about in the committee is that lower prices will only be achieved by increased competition. The best way to fix a low price is by changing supplier. These prices already exist today.

The CREG issued another report last month, following the report ordered by Mr. Wathelet and Vande Lanotte, which states that in Flanders at the moment you can get prices that are lower than the regulated prices of 2004. That is, whoever chooses correctly can actually take advantage of liberalization.

There is also some numerical work involved. Those who make a good switch today as standard users can save 500 euros per year. That is 500 euros compared to the contract used by the CREG to calculate the difference with our neighbors. That is, therefore, a very different figure from the figure used by the government, namely the 117 euros that this freezing of energy prices should bring.

I think the solution lies primarily there. Another contract encourages that. I think we will go much further than what you do here.

Of course, the government’s action also has consequences. It creates danger. At present, the smaller suppliers offering the sharper prices are most affected by this measure. They have smaller margins. They take risks to attract customers with that sharp price. What the government is doing today makes those suppliers become the asshole of the story.

We received Eneco’s figures during the hearing. If gas prices on the international market actually rise by 20%, the losses will go to those small suppliers.

Mr. Secretary of State, if the government can ask the suppliers at any time to raise the ceiling, in the future, if new contracts are made and new suppliers are coming, if they are still coming, they will no longer take the risk of putting their prices so sharp that the government can push them down at any time. However, that is what is happening.

That is, we punish the active consumer who makes our market move and become mobile, the solution according to approximately everyone who is active in this file, because he will not be able to use those tariffs anymore because they simply no longer exist. That consumer is the ass.

Many of us have already come to this conclusion, not in this debate but long before. Many can no longer say it today. All that is then heard is: the cool lovers of the story, the dick of the government agreement – I have a slightly different version, ⁇ Mr. Schiltz must deliver it to me – not to say that we are not doing a good thing about this.

In fact, a lot of people are opposed to this, but this is simply wiped out, just because Minister Vande Lanotte wants that so much.

There are other problems. In this way, it would be better to look abroad. In Spain, a similar freezing was carried out with the producers. At the time of implementation in Spain, however, producers and suppliers were still the same, as the market in Spain was not fully liberalized at that time. It was not fully released until 2007. What happened in Spain? The losses incurred there went to the Spanish government after a trial. That has, meanwhile, amounted to 25 billion euros, which the Spanish government now puts in trouble.

If a similar case occurs here, it means that the taxpayer still turns up for all those losses. I do not think that is a good thing. I do not think we should work that way.

Mr. Wollants, if a cow was a cat, then you could milk them under the stove.

Thank you for that wisdom.

I only mention the point that our former Minister of Energy, Mr. Magnette, has gone over the wall to look at the Dutch to develop a safety net regulation. Then it was stated that it can in the Netherlands and that it works there, so that we would also introduce it.

Today we see a freezing of prices. We look over the wall, but see a catastrophe. Suddenly, cows and cats are something different.

Mr Schitz, excuse me, but what you say is very short-sighted. The CREG has not studied this in detail. Therefore, the measure involves a risk. You know that very well. All members of the majority know that, but yet they continue with it, because it is a pure measure of perception.

There is one big advantage. There is a light point in the file. It was rush work and rush work occasionally makes mistakes. I mentioned the mistakes. Thus, it is forgotten that, if one enters the provision into the law of 8 January 2012, no definitions are applicable. Nor are sanctions applied, nor is the CREG competent. Mr Camps has confirmed in the committee that there is a problem with enforcement if it is registered in the law in this way.

You will understand that I don’t care so much if there is a problem with the execution. Therefore, I am pleased that you have left that provision and that you will approve the text in such a way that the suppliers, who are under heavy pressure, who will no longer offer that price in the future, have a way out and can get out of the scheme.

Colleagues, I must conclude that the government has purchased perception. They absolutely wanted to score with the energy prices by holding something ahead of us, by holding the energy prices like an elastic. I can only say that we will pay that very expensive in the future.

We keep the file in the eye. That it is wrong is already written in the stars.

The energy prices in our country are much higher than in most neighboring countries. Several studies have already demonstrated this and we experience it ourselves every day. This has, of course, negative consequences not only for the purchasing power of citizens, but also for the competitiveness of our companies.

It is therefore good that the topic is ultimately on the political agenda of the government. Moreover, it is even a priority! The freezing we propose is only a temporary measure, which is necessary to work on more structural measures in the meantime.

As a result of the government’s bill, the supplier’s formulas will now have to comply with a set of criteria, which will be fixed at KB. This will make the tariff formulas of the suppliers more transparent and simpler.

The more transparent formulas will make it easier for consumers to compare suppliers. As a result, the consumer will hopefully also switch faster from one supplier to the other.

The freezing of prices is a temporary measure, which is necessary, but which, in our opinion, is also preferably kept as short as possible. After all, we believe that the freezing is quite detrimental to the smaller suppliers, who operate with low margins and offer the lowest prices on the market. We should not abandon these suppliers. This would not benefit the functioning of the market and the competition.

The investment climate is also beneficial for as short as possible freezing. After all, new players need a stable climate and transparent legislation.

Our conclusion is therefore: the faster the KB comes, the better. We heard the CREG in the hearings. It takes about two weeks to come up with a list of criteria. There is, of course, an extensive consultation of the sector. We therefore urge the competent Secretary of State that this should happen soon.

The freezing that is ahead, and the refining of the tariff formulas, of course, are a first step. We are also looking forward to the draft law that will address the breakdown compensation. That will hopefully encourage even more consumers to make the comparison between the different suppliers and make the switch.

However, we believe that much more will be needed to wake up the sleeping customers. We ask the Secretary of State to take additional initiatives, in cooperation with the Regions and regulators. During the hearings, a number of pistes have already been provided for this.

CD&V will ⁇ support this bill and we will ensure that more structural measures are taken and that the government agreement is implemented.

I will be very brief.

We have been talking about the price of energy in this commission for a long time. Already during the vote on the Third Energy Package, this issue had been studied in length and wide.

It was therefore after a very long debate within the government – ⁇ a little shorter within the parliament, of course – that it was decided to proceed with the freezing of prices. This means that it will simply allow the CREG to study the formulas and criteria that will be set up by the royal decree to prevent tariffs from rising more strongly than in neighboring countries.

For a liberal, it is difficult to admit that it is necessary to intervene in a fair manner within a liberalized market, especially since the segment that is targeted here, that of supply, is the segment that has evolved the least upward. The other segments, the public segments, have increased the most. So it is surprising that we are focusing on this segment...In short! This is what we have decided to do.

If we want this gel to be effective, we will have to act on the three segments. Here, the CREG will act with the minister on the liberalized segment. There will also be action on the distribution-transmission segment. It is clear that in this matter, regional actors have a part of the work to be done. I will not insult you to remind you that you must also act on federal contributions. I count on you to act on the Kyoto funds that will need to be removed, on the reform of the contribution on offshore wind turbines and on the social funds that have been stigmatized by the CREG because it finds that they are the most generous in Europe.

If we act on all three segments, we may have a positive impact, at least a reduction in electricity costs.

I have only one question on the subject. The others were discussed earlier.

After hearing last Tuesday’s hearings, there is one point I would like to return to: the negotiation procedure with suppliers.

I thought I understood that the CREG would start the negotiations, at least try to have negotiations with the suppliers, and that you would be there to make the necessary arbitrations. From what CREG has announced to us, within fifteen days, it will have completed its draft royal decree and it will be you who will have to negotiate with the suppliers and proceed to arbitration. Is this the way things are going to happen?

I think the timing could be shorter. If we have an agreement before January 1, could you unlock the freeze before that date?

Mrs. Speaker, dear ministers, colleagues, I also return to the part that weighed the most heavily during the discussion of the various provisions in the committee, namely the measures the government wishes to take to keep energy prices in our country under control.

As Ms. Dierick said, everyone knows that gas and electricity prices in our country are substantially higher than in our neighboring countries. Gas and electricity prices have increased significantly since 2007 and between 2010 and 2011 by as much as 17 %. The rising energy prices account for half of the 2011 inflation, while the share of gas and electricity in the index is limited to 11 %. To address this problem, the government wants to intervene in three areas: energy prices, net rates and taxes and taxes.

Regarding the final price, the government intends to freeze the upward indexation of the variable energy prices for nine months from 1 April to 31 December. Of course, price reductions are still possible. In the meantime, the CREG will be given time to draw up a list of relevant and objective parameters in order to come up with better indexing formulas. Regarding the supplier market, the government wants to increase consumer switching behavior. Therefore, early cancellation compensation is prohibited with respect to the cancellation period. For fixed contracts, the fee is a maximum of 50 euros. The government, together with the OCMWs, will take the initiative to encourage accompanied persons to switch to the cheapest possible contract formula.

Mrs Vanheste, you read all sorts of things about the measures that will be taken. However, they are not all in here. The only thing here today is the freezing of energy prices, nothing more. It is very pleasant that you announce that your minister will do all that and then put it on Mr. Wathelet’s desk. Today, however, we see nothing of that. This is a one-sided measure, purely the freezing of energy prices. I think we are talking about that.

Mr. Wollants, I want to express the cleanness of the government’s work because your group does nothing but be negative and I want to be positive, that’s all.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to assist Mrs Vanheste. This, however, testifies to what evil will after the debate we have had here during the questionnaire and where even majority parties have explicitly asked the prime minister for a commitment to implement the overall package of measures.

You now say that this is not all on the banks here. No, that is true, Mr. Wollants: we are not so miraculous that we could suddenly throw the whole reform of the energy market on the table. By the way, if we were to do so, then Mr. Calvo stood on the other side and cried that he had not enough time to study everything.

Let’s be, this is a first step, in which you have rightly made some critical concerns. They were defeated and tortured by the government. A commitment was made, also by the party of Mrs Vanheste and mine, to present the whole of measures correctly. Saying that this is half work because it is not on the banks is really pulled out of the pot.

Mr Schiltz, the progressive understanding comes to you very quickly! Not less than a week ago, you asked the committee itself to deal with the entire package. At that time you were reluctant to address only this part. You may have received the commitment, but if we want to explain the overall package here, then we should be able to discuss the overall package as well. Here we have only the text about the freezing. We can be assured of this alone, but we must know that this is an advance to the entire debate, and that of all the rest it must be shown afterwards whether or not it will happen.

I know that very often you will have to question the government to get the full package to get what you call “a dick of a government agreement” implemented. At the moment, only the socialist measures go through it. Your concern may also be mine, because I think that only those measures will be effective on the ground. It is about that.

Mr. Wollants, we have been listening to you for a few minutes. Sometimes your evil loyalty is really surprising. Sometimes you question whether there has been no debate in the committee. In the committee, I myself said that if there were only the measure on indexation, I would not even have presented it. That is not a sufficient measure, but a transitional measure that is necessary to take all other measures in terms of competition, in terms of social rates, in terms of federal contribution. I said it and explained it.

We need the transitional and temporary measures to take all other measures and to fully implement the government agreement. I have said it and can repeat it again. Nevertheless, you come here to say that there is only that measure, that it must be isolated and not linked to those other measures. I have said the exact opposite in the committee and will repeat it again.

This is also confirmed by Mrs Dierick, Mr Schiltz and Mrs Vanheste, all members of the majority have said it. We are all convinced that more than these measures are needed to do something to make the energy market a real market.

Mr. Wollants, I will now continue my positive note.

Regarding net tariffs, the government has taken note of the intention of the CREG to freeze the current distribution tariffs for gas and electricity until regionalization.

The federal contribution is also undergoing changes. Thus, the contributions to the financing of the CREG and the OCMWs will be nominally frozen until 2014 and the contribution to the Belgian Kyoto Fund will be abolished until the end of 2012.

In addition, the Kyoto Fund exemption for green electricity end-consumers will be abolished from 1 January 2013 and the remuneration for suppliers delivering to protected customers will be reformed. The change in the system relating to the social rate means that suppliers also have to take part. In this way, everyone contributes their stone and not everything goes to the consumer.

Support for renewable energy is also being transformed through various measures, such as the reform of the green power certificate system.

It is good that the government supports an integrated approach to the production market. For example, a repartition contribution on nuclear production is introduced of 550 million euros per year — in 2011 this was another 250 million — of which 40 million euros are provided for offshore. It will also explore the possibility of making part of the nuclear production capacity available to the market. I believe that the government has shown a willingness to deal with the situation in a good way.

Sp.a will fully support and vote for this.

Mrs. Vanheste, I do not want to delay the party of Mrs. Vanheste, but she will rather categorize my argument as negative. I will announce that.

My ideological motives may differ from those of Mr. Wollants, but I understand that he is using this debate once again to confront the Secretary of State and the government with the challenges facing our energy market.

This week there was a hearing in which you were also present, Mrs Vanheste. You have faced the various guests with sharp and important questions. You concluded with me that, outside this government and outside the cabinets of Secretary of State Wathelet and Minister Vande Lanotte, no one is really enthusiastic about the measures taken in the short and long term by this government. New investors who pull out their neck feel for the time being missed and that in a ⁇ difficult economic context. If you have been careful, you will make that determination together with me.

I understand that there is such a thing as political communication. Minister Vande Lanotte is also ⁇ strong in this. Our citizens, however, have other needs than mere perception policy. Launching temporary measures to bridge the municipal council elections and to be able to tell during that campaign that measures have been taken is not enough.

Ideologically, I have no problem with the temporary blocking of energy prices. No one can have a problem with simpler and more transparent tariff formulas. I also understand that our energy regulator needs some time for this.

What makes it a little annoying is that this measure has received a lot of attention on the communications departments of this government. The measure is proposed as an important solution. It sounds different in the commission than in the newspapers. The blocking of prices is proposed as a very important measure, while it is a very limited measure, which, as colleague Wollants rightly stated, may involve a number of threats.

Mr. Calvo, I understand from this that you are against blocking the energy prices?

I really did not expect this question, Mrs. Temmerman. What a clever question! Would the green opposition dare to resist the beautiful plans of Professor Vande Lanotte!

I ask you to answer whether or not you are against the blocking of energy prices? A simple answer with “yes” or “no” is enough.

If your commissioner in the Committee on Business had a good link back to you, as the leader of the group, you would know that our group...

We are here in the plenary session, Mr. Calvo.

...that our group this measure...

I am in other committees. Do you want to give me an answer now?

I was working on this, Mrs. Timmerman.

Are you for or against blocking energy prices?

I was working on this, Mrs. Temmerman. I was telling you that our group supports this measure.

and ha!

Yes, our group supports this measure. The surprise! As if the Ecolo-Green group would otherwise never support measures that are good for our citizens!

Do you want to hear it again? We have no problem with what is going on today. I have another big problem, Mrs. Temmerman. Sorry, but that nuance is difficult for you. The problem is more with you than with me. I have a problem with the fact that what comes ahead today is for the time being the only thing this government proposes to Parliament. This measure has some perverse...

This government has only three months left.

In the meantime, you have been able to take a number of measures on pensions, and on the labour market, measures that you, as a socialist, are normally unable to skip. They have already passed the magazine. Everyone has already been able to vote. In terms of energy, there are only a few temporary measures.

That is the problem. Sorry, but we feel a little uncomfortable about that, Mrs. Temmerman. This is unpleasant for the sp.a. faction and I understand that. After all, we are trying to blow through the balloon of Minister Vande Lanotte as if the temporary blocking of energy prices would be an important solution for our energy market. It is not!

Allow me to take up this debate to once again refer to the measures proposed by the CREG. Don’t just take the low-hanging fruit, don’t just choose the symbolic policy.

The [...]

Mr Schiltz, it bores you, but, frankly, it bores me too. However, I find it necessary to continue to bring this message forward in this Parliament.

Mr Calvo, I will surely say to those who are still struggling to pay their energy bills that you find the blocking of energy prices until the end of this year a symbolic act.

Mrs. Temmerman, that is fantastic. Imagine a green politician questioning the socialist dogmas and the ideological trophy of the socialist party in this government, and the shit is too small! I would suddenly be in favor of higher energy prices.

Mrs. Temmerman, I only say that the communications service of the sp.a cabinets on energy is more active than the study service that has to teach real measures and that this is too small. If you are genuinely committed to the energy factories of consumers and SMEs and not just winning the municipal elections and saving your face, you would also submit other proposals here today. That is the problem and allow me to confront you from time to time, not because we like to bully or plague or put the friends of sp.a in the corner, but because we are sincerely convinced that other measures should be taken in this country as well.

What could this government do, for example? During the discussion of the policy note, I proposed an alternative policy note with ten points. I then suggested that you write it out and work out it. This was not necessary at the time, but you could note a few points. They were suggestions. I found that Eneco people did their homework very well yesterday and suggested you a lot of concrete measures. I have found that the energy regulator in his studies suggests a set of measures.

Colleagues, it is not about inventing hot water, but about carrying out what the whole sector, after that damn monopolist, asks and for which he almost begs to this government and also to you, Mrs. Temmerman, because he likes to see systemic reforms in this energy market. I will give a few examples to make it more concrete.

Per ⁇ it was a consumer who was already angry at the fact that the Ecolo-Groen faction dares to question the ideological dogmas of the sp.a. faction and the PS mandators in this government.

Mrs Temmerman, what I miss is, for example, the nuclear tax. I have faced this with the Prime Minister. Once again, the regulator says that only if a tax of €1.2 billion is put on the table, only if the Parliament approves that measure, we will get real competition in the energy market. Again, we are talking about nuclear departure. Today we have a big problem, a monopoly of one player, one technology. A more diversified energy mix would automatically create more competition and lower pressure on prices.

It can even be punishable! It would be convenient if this government, with its representatives in the various boards of directors and committees, would no longer distribute gifts to the common boys, the big players in the energy sector. For example, what is your reaction, Ms. Temmerman, when it turns out that the Nuclear Provision Commission, in the presence of four to five government representatives who at that time had a majority in the meeting, gave a reduction of approximately 230 million euros on the contributions for nuclear commissions to Electrabel? In the second instance, that government must therefore appeal to the Council of State to request that operator to contribute to those nuclear provisions.

There, despite the active perception policy, you still have a credibility problem, you as a ruling party and this government in its entirety. You must dare to deal with the big guys really and stronger than today.

The second issue is consumer mobility. This is a very exciting debate because there one is confronted with insights from the economic science and gets an insight into the psyche of the consumer. There are really a lot of measures to be taken to encourage this transitional behavior. This week, a number of suggestions were made in the committee such as a large campaign or the obligation of the historic player to inform his customers about the offer of other suppliers. There is also the proposal of Ecolo-Green. For example, in order to promote intra-supplier mobility, suppliers could be required to inform their customers annually about the best rate. These are measures that we can and should take.

Then I get to a third track. Energy will never be cheap again. We can make great statements about this and we can take measures to bring down pressure on prices, but energy will never be cheap again. The only structural, social and ecological way to pressure the energy bill over the long term is to invest in energy saving. Mr. Secretary of State, you have made a number of proposals in this regard, but it is to make that energy saving more difficult.

Colleagues, we have no problem, neither ideologically nor politically, that simplifying the tariff formulas will take several weeks or months. However, we have a problem with the fact that this is the only measure presented to us today. A number of systemic reforms to really open that market are not being taken. I hope that such comments can still be made in this Parliament.

Of course, it will never be enough for the opposition. We cannot expect that. Sometimes we can hope for that. When we do meaningful things, we may hope that, but unfortunately that hope has gone away and gone away today, Mr. Calvo.

Colleagues, I have recently taken the word to show that you can hardly expect that here today stands the entirely new architecture of the energy market. I am guilty, because the previous governments have failed to do so. In the government agreement, we boldly put our hand in our own belly and looked at where the mistake went.

Now the government is taking vigorous measures. Of course, the liberal group has looked very carefully at these measures. We have expressed some concerns about this, absolutely. But, as is always the case, after mutual consultation it has become clear that the measure in question will be temporary.

The thus threatened small players that the opposition likes to talk about and which I am quoted as being, will be the first to escape a frozen price because they already work with gas-based contracts and not with oil-based contracts. This is one of the many measures that the CREG refers to. The small players will be able to escape within three months, within one indexation period, if they show a little goodwill, immediately under the yoke of price freezing.

I would like to be quoted by all of you. I find that very pleasant.

To the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Vande Lanotte, I asked why only he communicates about the price freeze, while State Secretary Wathelet ocharme has to wait for his equipment plan and is working hard to elaborate a number of other measures. Minister Vande Lanotte has apologized for his communication.

Today, the Prime Minister has reassured me and the whole meeting. We don’t have to worry, because the government won’t stick to the price restrictions alone. Again, the equipment plan was mentioned. We will address the producer Electrabel, where the biggest problem lies, both through a system of deployment and a nuclear interest rate, which is already being imposed today.

Mr. Calvo, please stop now with your story, as if only that 1.2 billion euro would be blissful. We have spent months in our hemisphere, in the current and previous reigns, determining the amount of the nuclear interest.

There is no consensus, neither politically nor scientifically. Let us then count a combination of legal, political and economic reasons together to reach the optimum, Mr. Calvo. That’s why I’m doing politics: to reach an optimum, that works. If the secretary of state tells you that you would rather have 550 million euros in your pocket than 1.2 billion euros somewhere on a leaflet with a claim before the Constitutional Court, then I must unfortunately follow him and rather say 550 million euros in the pocket. Moreover, a large part of it will be used to pay for more renewable capacity without having to subsidize it on the consumer’s cap.

Mr Schiltz, in the meantime we have had the pleasure of having a considerable number of discussions on the subject. Therefore, you can honestly say that the Ecolo-Green Group proposes more than just a higher nuclear interest rate in order to reverse our energy market. I just referred to the speaker to the ten-point plan, an alternative policy note. That ten-point plan did not consist of a ten-fold nuclear tax of 1.2 billion euros. If you highlighted the necessary nuance on the speech floor, you would also acknowledge that.

I am here to explain the government’s policy plan. So forgive me for not raising your policy plan to the highest good. I have only countered a criticism from you on the nuclear interest rate. This is all I do: argument, counterargument, and replica. So allow me to conclude my argument, then after the replica of the Secretary of State you can still take the word, as much as you want.

Allow me to thank the Secretary of State for the work he has done with the committee and for the openness he shows to the committee. Mr. Secretary of State, I especially hope that in the coming months we will soon be able to work on those other measures, so that we can prove the opposition wrong.

Mr Schiltz is spontaneously applying for the chair of Parliament. I was in the middle of my speech. Colleague Schiltz, I just want to point out that there is a whole series of legislative proposals from the Ecolo-Green group and that there is more than the nuclear tax.

You say that there is no scientific or political consensus on the level of the nuclear interest rate and on the answer to the question of how much we should pay for it.

I find that the consensus among the energy regulator and even among employer and worker organisations is relatively large. This tax concerns 250 million euros net. 550 million euros gross means for Electrabel 250 million euros net, a fraction of the woeker profits.

I notice more and more the consensus, colleague Schiltz, that many people find that too little and unfair. It does not give us the means to give the new players wind in the sails. I see that consensus. I note that you are biologized by the consensus of the three traditional parties. That is something else.

Mr. Calvo, I think I should go to your glass maker because I’m really stunned by the way you look at reality.

Colleagues, I have understood: what Mr. Calvo wants is not a correct tax reduction or correction of Electrabel. No, he just wants to get as much money at Electrabel as needed to pay for his dream picture of renewable energy. You have heard it, I have heard it: I rest my case.

Mrs. Speaker, I will speak from my bench since many things have already been said, especially by the opposition, even though this has been done in a very blatant way, since some say that one does too much and others say that one does too little! The government has taken its responsibilities.

For several years, the general sentiment of the population of a steady increase in the price of energy has been objectivated by a series of data. As I said before in the committee, the CREG ⁇ this evolution of the price of energy by our suppliers, in particular between July 2003 and December 2009, an increase ranging from 50 to 70%. However, the CREG is not the only one who has made this finding. In fact, all reports from the National Bank indicate that prices are constantly evolving upwards. And even when the price of supplies is down, the price of energy does not decrease for the consumer. In terms of economy, elasticity never plays only upward.

Furthermore, if we consider the data provided on debt, we find that the three main debt factors for our fellow citizens are the rental price, the price of mobile phone, and the price of energy ... and the price of energy ... and the price of energy.

In the face of this situation, we could not remain without reaction. The government must therefore intervene in the market because the market does not self-regulate, because suppliers do not rely on acceptable criteria. This is especially the role of parliament, of public power. If a market does not work, we need to change the rules, impose a framework while allowing competition to organize around that framework.

During the hearings we conducted, the CREG effectively confirmed that the government would set up and impose criteria in relation to internal costs, rather than criteria that are based on coefficients known to have no connection with reality.

This measure will take effect from January 1 next year. Meanwhile, it makes sense for the government to take a blocking measure, which is never pleasant.

However, it is necessary for three reasons. First, the purchasing power of our citizens was undermined. The energy budget is increasingly heavy and leads to over-indebtedness. Second, it weighs on the competitiveness of our companies in a situation of competitive imbalance with producers established in countries where prices are lower. Finally, it’s the influence on inflation; it’s important, because it plays on the whole Belgian model. If prices rise, there is inflation, which drives wages up and brings competitiveness problems.

This is why we must take the evil at the root. The measures that apply are measures among others. Some claimed that various nuances escape us; nothing escapes us and we can argue about it. Today we are talking about this and nothing else.

Therefore, I can provide the CDH’s support for these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief.

First, I repeat that other measures will also be taken over the next nine months, such as social rates and the suspension of financing from the Kyoto Fund. These two measures will enter into force in the course of April. That is pretty quick. The change of the system of offshore payment into the federal contribution should enter into force before 1 January 2013. These are all calendar measures that will come into effect during this government period.

Mr Schiltz and Mrs Dierick referred to the equipment plan. That is important. I do not yet have the results of that plan. I have sent questionnaires to all possible producers in Belgium and have also returned them. I told them that I will come with that equipment plan before the summer vacation. This is also the government’s commitment. I think we are on schedule to respect that deadline.

In the case of Mr. Clarinval, it is possible that the royal decree has already been taken and promulgated before January 1, 2013, but, I insist, the CREG makes a proposal, on the basis of which a royal decree should be established after consultation with the sector. The discussion is not planned in the text, but it will take place, I guarantee you! This is the procedure!

If all is ready before 31 December 2012, some suppliers may request to use the new indexing parameters. If they use that mechanism – they are not obliged to do so, they can do so – and provided that all conditions relating to the publication of the Royal Decree are met, an ex ante control of the CREG will be exercised. If, on the other hand, they do not use it but enter the new system that will apply from 1 January 2013 (compliance of parameters, etc.), the control of the CREG will be an ex-post control with greater penalties.

Mr. Wollants, there is another thing that I cannot leave without answer. You say that what we do is only a matter of perception. That is not correct at all. Try to explain to companies, SMEs, citizens that the increase in gas bills by 20% in 2011, that of electricity bills by 12% in 2011, is only a matter of perception. By the way, these are the averages quoted by the CREG itself. It is not a matter of perception. The amounts are important enough to take clear measures.

I say it again: we do not limit ourselves to freezing prices. You say that the competition in Belgium should be able to play more. You think that is the most important measure. You are right, but we must recognize that competition is not working right now. Even with lower prices, consumers do not change suppliers enough. Therefore, we take additional measures, such as those relating to breakdown compensation.

I actually communicated a lot. Mr. Calvo just said that the government communicated about everything. Mr. Calvo gave us a small lesson on communication. He himself claimed that his speech was not ideological. So now we know that Mr. Calvo does not do anything about ideology. Now he says we don’t communicate. That goes a bit too far, Mr. Calvo. At some point you need to stop, otherwise you get a credibility problem.

We need to communicate about energy. We must tell the Belgians that they should let the competition play. They need to change suppliers. They have to compare. I did it myself. I have already said that. Maybe a little late, but I did it, and I think I made a better choice now than I did before.

The Belgians have to do that. We need to communicate about this. Freezing is essential and temporary. It is a transitional measure. I undertake to apply the other measures in the coming period. Only then will we be able to evaluate the hopefully additional competition in the market with the impact on the costs for our citizens and SMEs.

Mr. Secretary of State, if I say that it is a measure of perception, it is especially because prices are driven by the international market. We have all received Eneco figures of gas prices in the international market. You may not have received them; someone from your group will deliver them. In this regard, an increase of 20 % is foreseen. You can indeed freeze those prizes today, to release them again in January, but then we won nothing. The registered deficits are automatically returned to those rates. What you do is postpone the matter.

You say that the competition in the market is not working sufficiently and that we need to do something about it. What you do is just targeting the suppliers who are trying to do something about it. They try to get customers in by coming over the bridge with good rates. If your solution is to break the legs of just those suppliers, then you are doing the wrong thing.

Per ⁇ Mr Schiltz is the fifth Minister of Energy. He undertook the commitment to deliver the Royal Decree within an indexation period so that the smaller suppliers with the sharp prices can effectively have approved rates. Do you confirm that commitment?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, the question raised by Mr. Wollants is a very important question.

Mr Camps said during the hearing that the draft royal decree would be ready within two weeks and that it would then be up to the government to consult.

If you give today a clear, clear signal that it can be done faster than in nine months and that we are committed to having a good consultation with the sector in the short term, it would remove a lot of trouble. I want to hear you about it. A clearer commitment in terms of time would already do a lot of good.

Mr. Calvo, in the committee, I gave you the deadlines of the CREG. On this basis, I will consult and a royal decree will be determined. I do not commit to a deadline. I prefer a good list, a good royal decree and a healthy consultation rather than a date on which I will have to commit myself. We have a period of nine months. If we can do it faster, we will do it, but I do not commit myself to intermediate deadlines.

This is what is said! Did you understand, Mr. Calvo? Do you agree with the answer? I disagree, but you have heard the answer.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, ik heb het antwoord van de staatssecretaris mogen beluisteren. I regret it in i think that quite what players that together with me do. The net is over. The [...]

The regrets are eternal! And we will see!

The [...]

Mr. Calvo, this game has been long enough! The debate is over. You have had enough time to comment on this issue.