Proposition 53K2144

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 17 janvier 2003 concernant les recours et le traitement des litiges à l'occasion de la loi du 17 janvier 2003 relative au statut du régulateur des secteurs des postes et télécommunications belges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 5, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive EC Regulation public sector postal and telecommunications services appeal

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR VB

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 ¶

June 21, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to report on the discussion of the draft law on the telecommunications package. The proposed draft translates the telecom package into Belgian law. The draft was prepared by the previous government, the government in ongoing affairs. It was approved in November 2011, but was revised during our discussion in the committee. The draft modernizes the Telecommunications Act of 2005 and the BIPT Act of 2003. During the discussion, three bills from the CD&V group were added to the draft.

The discussion lasted several meetings. The draft consists of 131 articles and 104 amendments were submitted to the committee. I will try to give a brief overview of this.

First, there was the explanation by the Minister of Economy, Consumer Affairs and the North Sea. He embraced his statement by stating that the BIPT will get more bracelet. Previously, the Council of Ministers could suspend all decisions of the BIPT. This is now restricted. Belgium complies with the European rules on this subject. The independence of the BIPT is increased compared to today. The Minister believed that the government should be able to continue to make a number of decisions, insofar as they comply with European regulations. Parliament will also be able to seek advice directly from the regulatory authority.

Consumer protection is an important part of the present draft. There will be clearer rules for consumer information, warnings to prevent bill shocks, and so on. Innovation and investment will be encouraged. National coverage is a requirement within the framework of universal service. For houses that are far away from the cables, it will be possible to work with cheaper technology. The social tariffs will no longer only apply to fixed and mobile phones, but also to the Internet. The shorter transitional periods are, according to the Minister, justified given the fact that the prevailing termination modalities were already announced more than a year ago.

The Minister also showed himself in favour of regulating net neutrality but apart from the present draft. He recommended that the proposed legislation be submitted to the European Commission for advice.

The transposition of the Data Protection Directive has currently been applied in few countries, given the risks to privacy. The Minister therefore called for the necessary caution in the transposition of the Directive.

I come to the presentations. Mr Clerfayt found numerous dysfunctions in mobile telephony and submitted a number of amendments in this regard.

Mr Roel Deseyn was pleased that the proposals, which his group has submitted to Parliament in recent years, were effectively incorporated into the bill. He briefly presented the three bills. These include the expansion of the social tariff to the Internet, the permission for the BIPT to advise on bills and the indexation of telecom tariffs in order to avoid the possibility of dampened price increases.

He also stressed that there is a need for a stronger and independent regulatory body, which must be responsible for its own actions. With the design, he says, third parties can also build a tariff simulator. However, this should not be an excuse for the regulator and the operators not to continue to do serious work of the besttarif.be so that it can become an effective instrument. The system of universal service is being modernised and the speaker also emphasized the general interest of access to emergency services.

Mr Peter Dedecker said on behalf of the N-VA that he is in favour of omitting the geographical aspect of the universal service, as Belgium is already roughly the closest cable country in the world. The N-VA also advocated the removal of the obligation of social tariffs, as this would be harmful to consumers and distort the market. The expansion to the Internet was not a good thing.

Mr. Dedecker welcomed the possibility of changing operator faster. He asked how to approach net neutrality and referred to KPN in the Netherlands, which charges certain internet services, in particular voice over IP, extra. He expressed express concern about the suspension power of the Council of Ministers and also referred to the European framework in this regard.

Mr. Tanguy Veys believed that the chosen option for the social rate is the right track.

Mr Balcaen of Ecolo/Groen highlighted the positive aspects of the bill. He had questions about the usefulness of the information sheets for products that would no longer be sold. He regretted that the bill does not contain measures regarding price policy. Removing the government’s ability to appeal against a regulator’s decision, he found a missed opportunity. It is necessary to make every effort to avoid the suspicion that the regulator is not independent enough.

Ms. Lalieux welcomed, on behalf of the PS, the final implementation of the European Telecommunications Package. The regulator is strengthened, the infrastructure is more shared, the consumer is better protected. The universal service is also being adapted and even expanded. Ms. Lalieux stated that net neutrality is an important issue. She welcomed the call-me-not register, but is actually more in favour of a call-me-well register. She argued that domain names should be managed by a public body, but did not find a majority in the committee.

Mr Christophe Bastin, on behalf of the CDH, believed that the bill is a fixed step forward in consumer protection and significantly simplifies the existing rules. He also welcomed the fact that consumer information will increase and become more transparent.

Mr David Geerts was pleased on behalf of sp.a that consumers will be given more freedom and will be able to change operators faster. He hopes that this will create more competition and that as a result the prices will fall. He argued that the draft law still contained certain gaps, including in relation to the protection of privacy. Together with the other majority parties, he submitted several amendments.

Ms. Valérie De Bue recalled on behalf of the MR that the telecommunications sector is one of the sectors in which consumers have the least confidence. She hoped that the design will lead to lower rates, which in comparison with neighboring countries are still much too high in our country.

On behalf of Open Vld, the chairman of the committee expressed hope that the bill will be able to create a new momentum in the telecommunications sector and lower tariffs. She expressed concern about the infringement proceedings that Belgium is facing due to the late transposition.

The entire bill, as amended by various amendments, was adopted by the Infrastructure Committee on 6 June with 12 votes against 4 and 1 abstinence.

The draft law presented today contains a lot of good elements. We must have the honesty to admit that.

Unfortunately, it also contains a number of points that are intangible for us. These elements force us not to approve this bill.

I overwhelm them for a moment. The good elements aim primarily at better consumer protection. For example, I think of the possibility of terminating a contract after six months and changing operator. This is really necessary in a rapidly changing market such as the telecommunications market.

The telecommunications market is extremely dynamic with constantly new technological developments and services. I think, for example, of the penetration of mobile internet that has taken a whole flight in recent months and that will do even further.

According to Eurostat, our country is in the fourth last place in terms of acceptance of mobile internet. It is therefore, in my opinion, necessary that consumers should be able to switch more flexibly to an offer that better meets those ever-changing needs.

I, of course, step into an open door when I say that, especially in the mobile market, the rates in our country are much higher than abroad. However, the BIPT announced today at a press conference that tariffs in our country have fallen.

This is true, but according to Eurostat, rates in our country per minute mobile calls are still the third highest in Europe. I think that says enough. A dynamic market with consumers who can change more easily should lead to lower prices.

The telephone renewal of contracts will also be restricted, which will also better protect the less assertive and less conscious consumer.

Also the standard file, I have already submitted a bill in this regard, which makes it easier to compare the different tariff plans, will be a step forward, just like the warning consumers receive when they are abroad.

Roaming charges can, especially for mobile data, exaggerate. Consumers will receive a warning, which I think is a good thing, just like the legal framework for the Robinson List or the Bel-me-not-register. These are things that we can very much welcome.

However, I come to the points that make the whole unconsumable for us. The first case is not so much substantial, but rather concerns the way this and the previous government, but in fact that is almost the same, deal with Parliament.

It is a 2009 European directive that had to be transposed in May 2011, which is now more than a year ago. As early as October 2010, then Minister Van Quickenborne, among other things on my question, proposed a quick treatment in the prospect.

The finished draft then stood on government tables for more than half a year, but the government didn’t even touch it. On December 6th, Sinterklaas Day, we received a beautiful gift here: the Di Rupo government. For the PS, the entry of the sp.a was, of course, an ideal argument to review everything in the telecommunications law. As a result, the design will remain in place for another half year and dust will be collected on government banks. More than a year after the deadline, Minister Vande Lanotte finally comes with the draft to Parliament, at a time when the European Commission has already gone to the European Court of Justice and demands a fine of not less than 71 000 euros per day for failure to transpose the directive. If we are already a year after date, of course, there is no longer time for thorough work: no hearings, no broad debate. Then there will be a walk with the people in Parliament.

Mr. Dedecker, as chairman of the committee, I would like to respond here to the timeline that you outline and to the criticism that you give as if the procedure in the committee had been handled on a draft.

As regards the timeline, there is the consultation with the Communities to which the Minister referred in the discussion of his policy note. He said that the text was ready in ongoing affairs and was re-submitted, but that a consultation had to be organised and awaited, to come to the Chamber immediately afterwards with the draft. This has also happened. The speaker has already talked about the treatment in the committee. We worked on this design for four meetings, with a very open mind I thought. I look at the Minister. I also look at the results, the amendments adopted by majority and opposition, after the many comments made, the answers given and the searches made. I do not accept your criticism that everything here was dealt with on a draft in the Chamber.

It is true that there were four meetings that systematically started late and ended fairly early. My criticism was mainly about the fact that my request for hearings was rejected. I can understand that it was too late to hear the entire sector, but a number of essential hearings seemed to me necessary. I think of a hearing with the European Commission. This was also the case with the implementation of the energy package. We saw how the Minister did not intervene against the comments of the European Commission. The results are in the newspaper today. The CREG appeals to the European Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court. Something like this is also possible. We could have avoided this with a solid debate and consultation with the European Commission. That debate has been tried to avoid while the government is responsible for the delay and the possible fines.

Not only the delay and the possible fines are the responsibility of this government. The majority submitted more than fifty amendments to correct all sorts of errors. This bill was more than a year to collect dust on government banks. This can only be described in one term: it is simply a knitwork.

A number of amendments from the N-VA group to correct some errors were approved, as colleague Van den Bergh noted, but some were rejected. As a result of the opt-in scheme, phone books will lose their advertising revenue. Without advertising, these books could be very expensive for the industry and consumers. The minister announced that he would replace it with a better and more accessible intelligence service via website and phone. However, because of our hasty work, it could not be converted into an amendment in a timely manner and it is not immediately put into practice. So it was an empty promise because the law does not allow it. As I said before, cutting.

We want to be constructive. This criticism of the method is not in itself a reason to vote against the content. However, there are many other reasons.

The first reason is that the model of universal service is not being revised and reformed. The way in which social rates have been implemented in our country leads to the endurance of the situation of weak consumers. 93% of these customers are still with the historic operator, Belgacom, which dates back to the time when there was only one operator. Meanwhile, however, there are cheaper alternatives on the market, cheaper for that consumer and cheaper for the other consumers who should contribute to that discount through a fund.

The alternative operators have already indicated that they will voluntarily offer social discounts. Most of them already do so spontaneously, although it is not yet mandatory. They do so without expecting any compensation. Therefore, competition also plays in the market segment of less capital-powered consumers.

But what does the government do? It consolidates the current situation and makes the discounts an obligation on all rates. As a result, the cheapest tariffs – which today are sometimes lower than the social tariffs – are threatened to disappear. Today, the cheapest rates are accessible not only to “social customers” but to all customers. In other words, both the “social customers” and everyone else can be severely impaired by the design.

Worse, the government performs a retroactive cost price calculation of the compensation for the social rates. The cost of the social tariffs, offered to customers now almost exclusively at Belgacom, is calculated on the basis of the tariffs of 2005-2012. These costs will have to be reimbursed by the sector. In short, the minister will travel with his collector bus for Belgacom with the other operators. I think that is the world on its head, and the omnipotence of the PS at the top.

The operators have set up commissions of several million euros for such possible costs. Those are waiting, those are sleeping on all sorts of savings accounts, while they can be better invested in infrastructure, in more competition, in new services. A good investment environment is something else. I would like to congratulate the government on this realization, especially our liberal colleagues!

Our main reason to vote against is that the government, with this bill, chooses to keep the regulator, the BIPT, even more under the knot and even play a mother-in-law over it. I think the telecommunications market needs a strong regulator, with more autonomy, a regulator that strengthens competitiveness in the market. More competition is really needed, especially in the telecom market, given the high rates especially in the mobile market. Unfortunately, today the government is doing the opposite.

With a few exceptions, the Council of Ministers will now be empowered to challenge and even suspend decisions of the BIPT. Politics has never gone away. Politics should strengthen its grip on the market. The economic success of the PS in Wallonia is extended to the whole country, with the cooperation of the Flemish and French-speaking liberals. There are, by the way, not many more present, I see, only Mr. De Clercq and Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu.

Second, the functions of the politically appointed, special contractors shall be retained. That is two people of PS and MR signature, equivalent to the members of the board, on the right to vote after. Here too, therefore, we maintain the political interference, again with the collaboration of the Flemish and French-speaking liberals.

A third point of criticism, the BIPT, a body that finances itself through all kinds of revenue from the operators, must continue to operate in a ⁇ strict steering line in functional and personnel areas. There is no autonomy in terms of personnel and budgets are cut down annually by the government.

A point that the European Commission also regrets in its report on the Belgian telecom market, a report published today.

Fourth, as if all that is not bad enough, the Minister himself may determine the priorities that have priority over the normal work of the regulator. This is really the introduction of a political mother-in-law.

It is my conviction, I think I am not alone in this, that it is not up to a government to determine how the scarce resources of the BIPT, which the government consciously keeps scarce, are prioritized for the ministry’s own dada’s and thus let the other objectives be undermined, let them undermine, let them lie on the shelf.

In my opinion, it belongs to the autonomous regulator, the BIPT, to determine in full autonomy, of course within the European and national legislative framework, the strategy and the strategic plan.

This requires a debate in the House, where accountability must be made, but there is no formal approval of the Council of Ministers, I think.

So again congratulate liberal colleagues for leaving something so important as regulating the telecommunications market to the priorities of a socialist. You thus crowned the Emperor of Oostende to the Emperor of the free telecommunications market.

In short, colleagues and in particular the liberal colleagues, we really turn the clock back in these.

Mr. Van Quickenborne, then Minister of Telecom, was ⁇ proud of being able to appoint the renewed BIPT Board through an independent jury. No more political nominations. Of course, he had to pay a price for this, but I think it was a defensible compromise, a step forward.

Today, however, this majority will once again strengthen the policy’s grip on the regulator. A greater detriment to the work of Mr. Van Quickenborne, the liberals in this majority today can really not do. We turn that clock back today.

I therefore sincerely hope that the BIPT has the courage to follow the example of its fellow regulator, the CREG, and to go to the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Justice to challenge this law. They can do it perfectly. The worst of all is that the Minister is also looking at that. He has said in the committee that he looks forward to defending his policy against the European Commission.

The BIPT could possibly challenge the law. For example, I look at this in the Standard of 30 May 2012. There is a lot about Dexia, which is a file that will come back soon. In addition to the aforementioned article it says: “Telecomwachound is not happy with the telecom law. The law is not in line with the spirit of European regulation.”

We consciously implement this law here today.

What is contrary to European Directives? That is not only the fact that the regulator in the present case will not be sufficiently autonomous. There is also the introduction of the social rate on broadband, financed by the sector and therefore by the consumers, which is completely contrary to the Universal Service Directive.

With this law, the government simply requests an appeal before the European Court of Justice and thus another shame for our country, which in terms of competition in the telecommunications market is now already the weak European brother.

Therefore, we have submitted some amendments that attempt to meet these European requirements.

For all clarity, I will make it easy for you. During the debates, I had quite a number of amendments that included a number of reforms. Specifically today I will limit myself to very few amendments. I will limit myself to a number of essential amendments that bring the present draft law in line with the European Directive. These amendments will involve a stronger regulator and will, of course, make us so conform.

You have the choice. In particular, I call on the liberal parties, whose mouths are always full of more Europe, to align themselves with Europe in this matter and to approve my amendments, thus avoiding a summoning of our country by the European Commission.

Colleagues, the alternative is to continue with the PS model of a weak and politically controlled regulator.

Liberal colleagues, I count on you and in extension on all members here in the House who support the importance of a strong regulator to strengthen competition in our country and drive prices further down.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker! There were no hearings because all telecom operators came to see us and see us again for weeks, before the debate in committee. Their requests were written in both languages and transmitted to the parties that determined their priorities in the telecom package.

That said, it is up to the European Commission to adopt directives and the European Parliament to vote on them. But then there is the authority of each parliament and the respect for the separation of powers that must exist between Europe and the nation-states. It is their responsibility to decide how to transpose those Directives. The contacts between the ministers and the Commission are permanent. And, for my part, I do not appreciate that a commissioner comes to say, in this parliament, how parliamentarians should work. No other country has taken such action.

Remember the debate we had about energy! The official we heard told us that this type of request had not occurred in any other country of the Twenty-Seven. There is no reason for an official or a European Commissioner to come and dictate our way of working. On the other hand, it is normal for us to transpose EU directives in so far as we are in favor of Europe. As a Belgian parliamentary, I want to be able to work as I want. This is the freedom I want to keep. The day I will be a member of the European Parliament – you never know! Things will be different!

But let’s be serious and go back to the third telecom package. It is true that we took some time to transpose it, but this is explained by the fact that we have been in common business for a long time and that, therefore, it was not possible.

I would like to remind you that the work is done correctly within the committees and I would like to say to Mr. Peter Dedecker said that just over 120 articles were discussed and submitted more than a hundred amendments. Therefore, it should not be said that there was no real parliamentary work. Not only have amendments been submitted, but they have also been voted. In other words, the Minister has not merely rejected them on the basis that Parliament has nothing to say.

I would like to recognize this work in which you have contributed greatly. Even though not all the choices have been taken back in this bill, for us, the result is very good.

I’ll go back on something that you probably dislike, namely the creation of a social internet rate. Through this third telecom package, we have chosen to create a social internet tariff. In the Socialist Party, we have been fighting for several years for this to happen. We are therefore very satisfied. Although the digital divide is still a reality for many citizens, it can be reduced through this measure but also through many other measures planned. You know how important it is for a student, jobseeker or worker to be able to pay for this internet connection at home. We have exceeded the minimum prescribed by Europe. On the social level, this is very positive even if you were against social tariffs.

Another important thing, which you have also supported, is the possibility to terminate any internet and telephone contract without notice if they date from more than six months. This is intended to facilitate competition between the different operators in a market where the price levels, compared to our neighbors, are still much too high. There is a willingness to open up and play the competition between all telecom operators and to make consumers less and less captive. This is a very good proposition that has been added.

Reading the Ombudsman’s recent report on telecommunications shows that the number of complaints about terminations has tripled. This law will provide greater clarity and reduce the number of consumer complaints. In this regard, the role of the regulator has also been confirmed. A tool for comparing the best prices will be available on the Internet. This will be adjusted in real time according to new offers and will allow for better comparison and transparency of prices. This is what we wanted too!

However, let’s not be naive, the prices of telecommunications are still very expensive in Belgium. We hope that this third package will reduce the cost. We will look at this closely because it was one of the commitments of this government and one of your battle horses.

Thanks to this text, beyond consumers, it is also citizens who see their rights to privacy better protected. For example, users will need to give their consent for information to be stored on their computer or smartphone or for access to such information to be obtained. To do so, users will receive clear and accurate information about the purpose of the storage or the purpose of accessing this information.

This refers to login cookies, i.e. cookies, information hidden and exchanged between Internet users or a web server and saved in a file on the user’s hard drive. Their prohibition a priori is a very good thing since these cookies can constitute a tool for controlling the activity of the Internet user without his or her knowledge.

In the liberalized and constantly evolving telecommunications sector, it was also important to strengthen the role of the regulator. I am convinced that its role has been strengthened.

It also strengthens the independence of the IBPT, in particular with regard to compliance with economic and market regulation rules. This independence is an essential condition for the credibility of its institution.

The bill fully assumes this strengthening of independence since, logically corollary, the IBPT sees its powers and means of action expanded, for example in negotiations between operators.

Thus, from all that I have been able to say, it is understood that the transposition of this third telecom package is, for the socialist group, more than an obligation: it is a real necessity. However, don’t let me say that we’ve opened and finished all the workshops!

We still have two projects, Mr. Minister. First, the reflection on the role of DNS (domain names) could not be carried out because it would delay the transposition of the telecom package.

Today this "be" is managed by the private sector. I think that is not okay. It should be a public authority that manages it because, today, there are no rules. If a Chinese company asks to have the .be extension, it gets it, because it is profitable! I believe that the .be is a guarantee of quality, image of the country and should therefore be managed tomorrow by public authorities. I am also considering filing an initiative in the field of domain name management, with my colleague of sp.a, David Geerts.

Next, the project also addresses the technological neutrality of infrastructures, which is a positive aspect, allowing to expand competition and put all operators on the same foot. The issue, which has been discussed extensively in the committee, remains the issue of internet neutrality. We have decided to disconnect this point from this debate, but the Infrastructure Committee will resume its work on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, you will understand: we will vote in favour of these texts, because we believe that they represent significant advances for both the sector and for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, today is a great day. The draft laws and bills were finally seized. It was a very long procedure. The proposals from my hand date back to 2003 and were submitted in 2005. I would like to anticipate the transposition of the Directives. They didn’t come so “quick”, unlike the Twitter posts of the previous competent minister.

So the design has gone a long way, but CD&V still finds some of its highlights back in the design, such as a strong, independent regulator, dialogue with its stakeholders. I will say something about this later, because some want to make it seem that it would be a downturn.

It is very good that we have strengthened the regulatory authority and opened it to some extent, but also that with the framework we can stimulate investments, that attention is paid to disabled and socially weak, that attention is paid to the public interest and internet security, that even small ⁇ will have better negotiating positions and that consumers are protected and informed. Therefore, it is obvious that we welcome the bill with great pleasure. We are pleased that ideas from various proposals, parliamentary questions and other initiatives have also found their way in this text.

As for the regulator, I think it is very good — I look at the colleague of the N-VA — that there will now be a more direct link between the Chamber and the regulator. In the past, this was very difficult; it was necessary to pass through the minister. You say that it is made dependent for a bit. It is clear, when it comes to all that ex-ante question, that it can also not for all regulator interventions. It cannot be about market regulation or disputes between companies.

It is just good that politics can still make a contribution when certain profound proposals for the market are launched. In fact, too often it is said that politics loses power and no longer takes hold of certain matters or that everything is outsourced – if I can use that word in that context – to the administration. This draft will also ensure that the discussions that will take place in the committee and in this hemisphere will also be very significant and it will allow politics to take another position in it.

Also important is the international setting of the regulator that engages European, and also in the Benelux Association. The mayor of Kortrijk will be pleased that we have actively advocated that the regulator takes a role in the cross-border story. A telecommunications union, a zone where uniform tariffs can be generated, will of course lead to greater participation of citizens in innovative initiatives such as the cross-border cooperation Kortrijk-Rijsel-Doornik.

The regulatory authority should justify its decisions and justify its priorities in relation to users and operators and in the public interest. On that motivation and the preparation of those decisions we will still be able to conduct good discussions. It is important to report to Parliament on a regular basis.

In connection with the operators and the universal service, I would like to highlight the part of the tariff simulator. The update of the data in the tariff simulator is an old very, but it is important that we can create a beacon for the benefit of the consumer.

In connection with the phone guides, the opt-in regime, some problems have already been pointed out, but one must especially ensure that people who do not have the latest technologies can find the information. There should be a good alternative, such as a telephone consultation or the telephone request from a paper carrier. However, we must also, and this has ⁇ been a little less discussed, make the most of the electronic path. The content offered in a digital way can be enriched with geographical information, photo material, route calculation, and so on. It should not be limited to merely transferring a telephone book to a digital medium, but should maximize investments in enriched content. The e-government also plays a major role in this regard.

On the social rate, some colleagues say that it is not in accordance with what is allowed in Europe. We must also dare to pioneer in this area. I am very pleased that it is in it, although it is a pity that we could not bet on both categories, telephony and broadband internet. Maybe it was a bridge too far. If it could, as well as a cumulative discount, that would be good.

For the target group, about 300 000 people, this is, of course, a new element in the spending pattern. It does not affect certain costs of mobile telephony which, ⁇ in the fixed/mobile combination, may have increased in their totality. In addition, there has been a new issue that is indispensable for individuals, for families who wish to fully participate in society. This diversifies between operators with or without a turnover of 50 million euros. It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable burden imposed on the sector.

It is always in the public interest that we ensure that certain categories, including persons with disabilities, have equal and full access to telephone and internet. I think this fits very well with our slogan “Everyone Included”.

Mr. President, Mr. Deseyn, I am pleased that you stress the importance of access to telephony and internet for people with disabilities. It seems to me very important to make full use of the possibilities of the means of communication to close as far as possible the gap between deaf, hearing impaired or people with a speech problem and the unrestricted people.

However, I find it ⁇ regrettable that this was not discussed in the Senate yesterday. My colleague, Helga Stevens, has submitted an excellent amendment in this regard to build that bridge with disabled persons. I am very sorry that you did not follow that path.

Mr. Speaker, I will give my general answer later, but this is an uncompromising comment to which I would like to respond immediately.

Mr. Dedecker, in order to guarantee access to telecommunications services for persons with disabilities, we have approved an amendment submitted by a member of Ecolo, aiming at the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications (BIPT) making us the necessary proposals in this regard. You have approved this amendment. Subsequently, Mrs Stevens submitted to the Senate a new proposal, very specifically with regard to deaf and hearing impaired, which determined how to do something.

As we have said to Mrs Stevens, the BITP is required by law to provide a concrete solution, including for the problem in question. We will also implement this effectively.

You tell yourself all the time what the BITP should offer. Now you say that we are not interested in the fate of people with a speech problem. That is really not correct. You have approved the amendment that calls for proposals to the BITP. Mrs Stevens went a little further. We are waiting for the BITP.

Now you say to the majority that she has no ear for people with speech problems. That is simply not correct.

Indeed, the BITP was asked to make a proposal.

The proposal of colleague Stevens is already in practice in Sweden, the United States and other countries. The BITP should indeed be autonomous but within a legal framework. Without a legal framework on financing, the BITP cannot implement its proposals. The legal framework we need was proposed by colleague Stevens.

I absolutely reject the claim that there would be insufficient attention, witnessed by the parliamentary questions, documents and resolutions. In the debate on the opening of emergency services, we called for special initiatives for deaf and hearing impaired. There was some restraint because the SMS technology could fail and because there is no guaranteed succession. However, we see how technology through email and others is constantly evolving.

Sp.a has asked questions and suggested initiatives. Therefore, one cannot argue that the majority would not pay attention. Concrete commitments have been made. One should not be misguided, because that one proposal is not 100% elaborated. Attention to the target group is guaranteed.

We must keep in mind the vision that the infrastructure should be as wide as possible for all kinds of content.

In other words, an end user would not have to choose a particular medium or hardware or subscription to access certain generally shared channels or content. He should be able, whether through the cable, whether through the copper wire, to unlock his information as much as possible.

That brings us to the discussion about opening the cable or the last mile. There should be no taboo on this. The industry needs to get all the oxygen. One should not be deprived of certain information by a certain technological choice. In the further development of the legislative framework, that should be an important guideline or principle.

It is excellent that the regulator will be able to impose binding Internet security instructions on BIPT. The Telecommunications Act of 2005 required an Internet application for mail traffic. Initiatives were also taken at the source, at the provider’s level. What it meant to guarantee internet security was questionable. I rely on the professionalism of the staff of the BIPT. If they say that there is technology, which must be implemented by the operators, that is a step forward and internet security does not depend on goodwill or goodwill. The BIPT can thus, in its own view, work a little stricter.

There has been discussion about the domain names and the position of DNS. I do not think it is absolutely necessary to emphasize that aspect. What works well needs to be supported. Therefore, it is not that everything goes well. I have been critical of this in the past and have expressed in the committee certain problematic aspects of domain name management. Then it is important that from the relevant public services, the FOD Economie and Fedict, through for example government commissioners on behalf of the government, they have seats in the board of directors and supervise it. In this way, the dialogue proceeds to the maximum and in both directions. Whether one should act disproportionately and take it over and integrate it into the administration, it seems to me a bridge too far, even given the very specific expertise and the cost-effective method there.

Mr. Deseyn, I am pleased that you are concerned about this. I also supported an amendment on this subject. It is logical that we create a framework for this. I am also pleased that it does not have to go further for you and that there can be no nationalization of DNS.be. However, the PS group has announced it, and ⁇ the minister too. So I assume that you will never support such a proposal.

Let it be clear: there is a role for the government. Let’s take the decisions of the CANN conferences, the player that determines the rules of the game worldwide in connection with the award of standards and domain names under review. However, it requires a certain delegation from the government. I think that delegation is perfectly possible with the current player, who observes the matter and who has grown from the academic initiative to a vzw, to DNS.be.

The bridge between government and DNS will be strengthened. Therefore, we can rightly cultivate mutual expectations. In my view, an updated model provides the best guarantees for a smooth and dynamic domain name market, in which everyone’s role must be respected and in which no speculation should be made. The final consumer should also be aware of the source price and how much the reseller or operator charges for it. This can be done in all transparency. Because of the role of the government, it can also be better communicated about it. The Minister may then be questioned.

Mr Deseyn, you are talking about a bridge between the government or the public sector and the domain name administrator. Today there are indeed certain bodies in the board of directors of DNS.be but DNS.be is a 100% private institution. If those persons are included in the board of directors, this is done purely by their own free will. Do I hear here now that you will still propose a change and take a legislative initiative that obliges the domain name administrator to include representatives from certain organizations and bodies in all sorts of boards of directors? You will not propose a hundred percent nationalization, but a seminationalization or a partial nationalization? Is it that?

In the general assembly, but also in the board of directors, people can act on behalf of the government. I ⁇ do not advocate for nationalization, but it is statutory stipulated that there must be a delegation from the supervisory authority.

One should not pretend that one is suddenly taking a private initiative hostage. It is a privilege that was granted implicitly because the federal government has never taken an active position in this, formerly sometimes to my annoyance, with all the excesses thereof.

One can discuss certain investments or about the distraction of funds to certain projects, projects that, when it comes to closing the gap, absolutely have their merits, but which, of course, were not the corebusiness of a domain name administrator, where the primary was to invest in securitization and back-up in the latest technology standards and protocols.

This is how I come to the consumers. Maximum freedom of choice, knowledge and information are the key words there, as well as a stricter enforcement of what already exists.

Now we have a new regulatory framework that is being expanded, but enforcement is very important. Who can, if he finds his telecom bills on it, say that he has been very unambiguously proposed the best rate from his operator in the last year, though a legal obligation?

Also the layout of the invoice, the rubrication, the ability to make a comparison via the simulator and the automatic generation of a profile are very important points of attention.

If there is a need to be paid, this should also be without big surprises, so that one does not get a bill shock anymore. I hold my heart fast just before the summer, when people face roaming charges.

I hope that the operators will comply very quickly and that implementing decisions will come very quickly. There are still a few hundred missing, including from the past. Therefore, there is a lot of work to be done for the government to strictly implement the regulatory framework.

It is good that there will be an information obligation, that consumers will be able to have more control over certain spending, such as data volume or belkredit.

I would like to draw attention to one problematic aspect. We have long waited for the establishment of an ethical committee. It has now finally arrived and the procedure has been legally anchored, but we see that the short call remains problematic for certain consumers. It has been completely reversed by the reversed billing. Now you pay for receiving a SMS. The worthy word that one needs to send back SMS to get rid of it is “STOP”, but there are not always closing guarantees, and most people don’t quickly find the way to the Ombudsman’s office or to the operator. The helpdesk then says: “This SMS comes from a third party and falls outside of our authority.” We must ⁇ zero incidence in the facts.

Our proposed bill on the price increases has been squeezed into the bill. The inflation spiral in the telecommunications sector. There will be no more discussion about indexing. If the price changes, the consumer decides whether to stay with the operator or not.

In conclusion, we can say that this is a balanced agreement, taking into account the interests of both the operators and the consumers, the big consumers and the socially weaker. As a party that is very concerned about the public interest, we can therefore support this bill in full peace of mind.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I thank the rapporteur, our colleague Van den Bergh, for summarizing this complex dossier in a record time.

We are facing a bill that will take a long time to become a reality, but which will ultimately be a beneficial advance for all telecommunications users.

I will not return to the deadlines, already discussed by my colleagues.

The contacts with the industry were sufficient, but we played bad luck: the case was penalized by the period of current affairs.

My Group welcomes the meeting of several elements of the text that will increase competition between operators and, in turn, give users the opportunity to ⁇ savings on their telecommunications consumption bills.

But we know that telecommunications is a sector in which Belgian consumers have the least confidence, ⁇ due to a lack of information on a topic that may seem complex to most of our fellow citizens. In any case, it is our duty to give a strong signal to restore this confidence.

To ⁇ this, some advances are important: the exemption of termination fees after six months will represent a famous step forward and will force operators to constantly want to be competitive.

Another advance will be access to information for consumers: operators will be required to produce standardised sheets, which will bring transparency allowing for objective comparison of the various tariff formulas established; the customer will be free of choice, but will have in hand all the data necessary to use the solution most suited to his consumer habits.

Then everything will have to be done in a formal way, such as the obligation to notify in writing the end of a contract between two parties, which will promote transparency.

The commercial call for some large-scale advantages often caused large budget damage to customers who did not pay attention to small contractual details. Too often, users fell into the panels of a tacit subscription renewal that exploded the amount of some of their invoices without the slightest opportunity to change their package. Once consumer habits are well-founded, it is difficult to change them overnight.

Many of our fellow citizens are regularly overwhelmed by the cost of their invoice and receive a bad surprise at the end of the month.

This may be due to a lack of information or a lack of general awareness, no matter, but the consequences are often difficult to assume. The consumer will now be able to set a limit beyond which an invoice cannot be exceeded. This is good news for the customer who will be able to manage their monthly consumption more optimally.

Then, the role of the IBPT is strengthened. Greater independence is another important element of this reform. Therefore, I do not fully agree with the viewpoint of the colleague of the N-VA who challenges this independence. Therefore, Mr. Minister, as you confirmed in the committee, it is necessary to do everything to ensure that the regulator can ⁇ its objectives.

I sincerely believe that we are going in the right direction in protecting consumers, as we open telecommunications to more competition and significantly improve the information given to users.

There is still one area that is problematic for us: the higher prices in the telecommunications sector. Will this change reduce them? We can hope it. You know, Mr. Minister, compared to other European countries, the tariffs of telecommunications are still much too high in Belgium. We know your willingness to worry about this situation and we will closely follow the results of ongoing studies to compare prices and evaluate the steps that will be taken to make these rates more attractive.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this draft is the first major draft addressed by the Infrastructure Committee. It is a book of almost 600 pages. Almost 140 amendments were also submitted during the discussion.

It was not an easy design because of the technical content and, as Ms. Lalieux has already said, because of the great involvement of the players from the telecommunications sector who drew our sleeve in time and probably also the sleeve of the minister in the preparation and handling of this design.

It was also not an easy design due to the time pressure imposed by Europe.

Nevertheless, the committee has managed to address this draft in four meetings in a critical and in-depth way, Mr. Dedecker, with amendments where necessary, in an open dialogue between majority, opposition and minister.

I’m glad that you knock.

As chairman of the committee, I would therefore like to thank all my colleagues of majority and opposition, the minister and his associates, the representative of the BIPT who was with us during the hearing, as well as the committee secretaries for the cooperation.

Mr. Minister, during the discussion of your policy note you indicated that the previous government – in ongoing cases – had approved the text, but that consultation with the Communities had to take place and that the timing of submission to us depended on the course of that consultation.

The consultation continued and the draft was submitted to us in early April. Today, June 21, it is here in the Chamber for approval.

Mr. Minister, in the committee I have asked you about the possible infringement procedure that our country could possibly hang over the head. You said there are close contacts with Europe. You know the work that is happening here. They know our timing.

Today I would like to ask you again about the state of affairs. Is the situation still under control? Or is there a risk of a penalty? Can you clarify this?

Colleagues, it is evident that my party, the Open Vld, supports the goal of this reform, namely the gradual introduction of additional competition in the sector, while retaining the possibility to impose a number of universal service obligations on operators.

Today I would like to emphasize seven accents that are important for the Open Field.

First of all, the simplification. The termination of a subscription will be much smoother and easier from now on. A registered letter is no longer needed. An ordinary email, for example, will be enough.

Second, a new dynamic. The reforms will undoubtedly give the sector a new momentum, resulting in lower tariffs and better service and protection for customers.

Third, it is beneficial to our economy, as we believe that this design also contributes directly to a better economy, in the form of improving the purchasing power for consumers and improving the competitiveness of our companies.

Fourth, we are also satisfied that this law provides greater legal certainty in terms of the compensation for the provision of social tariffs within the framework of universal service. We were faced with a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 January 2011. Taking into account that judgment, the BIPT will now examine whether the provision of the social element constitutes an unreasonable burden for a provider. In that case, the operator will be compensated for that service with an amount corresponding to the net costs incurred.

Fifth, the obligations of universal service are harmonised, either because they no longer have a reason to exist – think of the telephone cells we talked about in the committee – or because they are carried out by other means. I think of the telephone guides.

Sixth, the point of entry into force. We are pleased that it has been taken into account the legitimate demand from the industry to provide for a transitional period that allows each operator to flexibly adapt to the new rules, for example in terms of IT applications or the provision of information to the customer.

Seventh, it is positive that the BIPT, the national regulator, will work more closely with the European Supervisory Authority BEREC. I think nothing has been said about this today. The activities of a sector such as telecommunications are increasingly less bound by national boundaries. The regulatory framework must therefore be adapted to this evolution. European cooperation is therefore very important and needs to be further developed.

Finally, there is the positive evolution that the regulator will from now on periodically report to Parliament for the growing responsibility it carries within a well-functioning telecommunications market.

Ladies and gentlemen, you can guess. Open Vld will approve the present draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bills submitted to our vote have been the subject of intense and lengthy discussions in committees around more than a hundred amendments. That is to say how much the matter has attracted the attention of the Infrastructure Committee and helped to correct some shortcomings of the project.

This should enhance competition and strengthen consumer protection in electronic communications. Indeed, even today, the Belgian customer is often disadvantaged compared to consumers in other European countries in terms of transparency of offers and prices of services, for example.

I quickly return to a few positive points to be remembered for our group: greater transparency in the supply by providing standardised information sheets, which will allow the end user to compare the offers of different operators; the removal of the termination compensation due by the consumer after a six-month subscription period and an increased ease of changing operator; more precise and binding provisions on bill shock, which should avoid bad surprises when receiving the invoice at the end of the month and, finally, the introduction of a social tariff for the internet.

I will obviously add the new provisions – they have been mentioned for end-users with disabilities –, provisions reinforced by the adoption of an amendment of the Ecolo-Groen Group, which should allow people with disabilities to benefit from the same services as the majority of end-users but well adapted to their disability.

Here is a series of advances, Mr. Minister, which have been anticipated by some operators in recent weeks – I think in particular of the abolition of termination compensations – but also some occasions missed by the government and the Commission to further improve the text.

I will address three of these points. The first of them is related to the independence of the IBPT, the independence of the telecommunications regulator. In this regard, I must express my disagreement with the statements held by some on this profession of belief, according to which the independence of the regulator would be strengthened by coming out of this bill.

First, there is the possibility for the government to suspend the execution of certain IBPT decisions, with the exception – it is true – of decisions relating to the regulation of the exempt market and disputes between operators. This situation already existed and is ⁇ ined. However, you will agree with me, Mr. Minister, we are faced with a paradox: where directives insist on the independence, competence and transparency of the regulator, we are able, by applying other directives, to limit this independence.

I know that the State Council opinion was not in favour of a suppression of this government intervention. However, I would like to return to one of the passages of this Opinion, where it clearly warns: “It is ⁇ unnecessary to also consider the fact that the maintenance of a guardianship in respect of certain IBPT decisions in the field of electronic communications could be perceived as having the effect of ⁇ ining a system of indirect ‘pressure’ or ‘intervention’ in relation to the other decisions of the Institute in the field.”

These statements are not innocent, especially since, both in the postal sector – which is also concerned – and in the telecommunications sector, it will be somewhat difficult not to give rise to some suspicion of a power that still holds the hand over the historical operator, both in the telecommunications sector and in the postal sector.

Beyond ⁇ ining the principle of this government intervention in certain IBPT decisions, there are the modalities. At this point, it must be acknowledged that the project goes much further than what already existed. The new regime introduces a greater freedom of intervention of the government. Thus, under the former regime, the government could suspend decisions taken on a list. Under the new regime, it can suspend any foreign decision to both exceptions without any other form of limitation. Under the old regime, there was the lock of the adoption of the list by a royal decree. Under the new regime, there is no longer a lock because there is no longer a royal decree to fix the list, but only a list to fix possible other exceptions.

As if it was not enough to force the regulator on the decisions that it should be able to take in full independence, the government will now also intervene in advance, in particular in fixing the policy of the regulator with the risk of changing the priority objectives of the IBPT. Thus, under the former regime, the IBPT elaborated its strategic plan in full autonomy. Under the new regime, sector ministers are given the opportunity to communicate their priority objectives.

Under the old regime, no passage of the strategic plan by the government. Under the new regime, the government will take note of the strategic plan of the IBPT. We can see to what negotiation all this can lead between the regulator and the government. In short, we are moving from a light parliamentary control to a strengthened government control. And far from reinforcing the independence of the IBPT, as many of the speakers have said, you "rogged the wings" to regain the expression of the edito of L'Echo of this day. It should not be surprising then to see the effectiveness of the regulator decrease at the expense of consumers.

The second point is the issue of telephone delivery and, therefore, unsolicited communications, real wounds for individuals but also for companies. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that unsolicited communications made for direct prospecting purposes are not permitted, either without the consent of the subscribers or users concerned, or with respect to subscribers or users who do not wish to receive such communications, the choice between these two solutions being governed by national law, with the knowledge that both solutions must be free of charge for the subscriber or user.

If there are provisions, directives that do not suffer any dispute, here, Mr. Minister, you had the choice of the model. However, the government has expressed its preference for the most complicated but above all the most ineffective option for the end user, that of proactive registration in a register, the Robinson list, also managed by the Belgian Direct Marketing Association.

For us, it would have been better to choose the opposite logic: we do not receive these calls, we are only disengaged by phone if we voluntarily sign up on a list. In other words, as I said in commission, one is harassed only if one expressly says that one wants to be harassed.

The third point concerns the level of prices. This was discussed by a number of other speakers. Even though the IBPT just welcomed today a drop in fixed and mobile telecommunications prices in 2011, these price levels remain ⁇ high in our country, compared with neighboring countries, for example, for the "multiple play" offer. The comparison of "triple play" offers (telephony, internet, TV) with those of neighboring countries shows that the most interesting offers in our country are up to 50% more expensive than comparable offers abroad, especially in France.

I think the opportunity to launch the movement towards a sharp price drop has been missed, even though I agree that the provisions of the bill may help accelerate things by improving consumer information and mobility. I recall that we had filed an amendment that, while involving the regulator, allowed the government to intervene to lower prices. This amendment was rejected.

The ball is now in your field. You have announced measures and we will be attentive to this commitment. We expect actions, even if we are aware of the fact that the path is narrow between all the provisions of European directives. It is first and foremost the independence and the means of the regulator that will allow to sustainably evolve the bills down.

We will re-depose the amendments submitted in the committee on three points: price level, telephone distribution and operator independence. We hope – we can still dream – that the adoption of these amendments will allow us to vote in favour of this draft.

When I hear the most speakers, I find that everyone is very pleased with the result and the work done. I can partly agree with the words of Commission President Lahaye-Battheu, who said that the committee’s work has yielded fruit.

The method may not have been optimal, and in that respect I can partially understand the criticism of colleague Peter Dedecker. However, a choice had to be made, given the timing that Europe had imposed on us. These are European Directives from 2009 and are now June 2012.

It is true that the competent minister only in December 2011 found in some closet the ⁇ urgent telecommunications law. I immediately add that former responsible minister Van Quickenborne left that file in his closet for so long that it was polluted. Other colleagues also mentioned this. The term “quick” in his name ⁇ did not guarantee a quick and efficient handling of the file. This is a little strange, because in the past, when he was Minister of Administrative Simplification, everything had to go quickly and everything had to be simple because the citizen would only benefit from it. Think about the anti-café law.

And when a law could be passed that would enable people to change telecom operators much faster and much easier, have a much clearer view of the various telecom bills and be able to compare the various subscriptions more easily, that file remained but left. However, it was the ideal file with which Minister Van Quickenborne could have scored. We can suspect Minister Van Quickenborne of much, but not of scoring urge! So I was surprised that this file remained so long.

One can also put it on the government in ongoing affairs, although I recall that it is a European regulation from 2009.

The Minister had enough time to submit a draft law to Parliament, but he did not. I can only regret that.

After this draft came to the Consultation Committee in November 2011, it apparently went ⁇ quickly, ⁇ even a little too quickly, because we have seen another battery amendments pass, which colleague Geerts has, by the way, defended with verve. I was always a little jealous of Peter Dedecker who profiled himself as an autonomous operator in this file. However, colleague Geerts ⁇ did not have to subdue for him. After the railways and Defence, telecommunications no longer know secrets for him. The fact that there are always cabinet members carrying strategic posts next to him would have been pure coincidence. That colleague Geerts, in addition to reading the motivation for certain amendments, was very carousel in his explanation...

I thank my colleague for the words of praise, but when it comes to reading and substantial interventions I mean I still have to say that it is also important to listen to people with the necessary expertise. You have been talking for ten minutes now, Mr. Veys, and I still have heard you say nothing substantially.

If you have some time, I will definitely give your opinion on the substantive aspect.

I talked about committee work. I think the Chairman of the Commission correctly referred to this. If it had been up to me, it would have been even faster because it is primarily the consumer who has all interest in the telecommunications law. This should have been done much faster.

I am, by the way, not alone with this vision because the European Commission demands famous fines from Belgium. The amount is 70 353 euros per day. Minister Vande Lanotte was questioned on this matter this week. However, he is quite reassured. The procedure was initiated at the European Court of Justice, but according to him, everything will not go so fast. There was not yet a transition to saisine and, in addition, he was assured at Foreign Affairs that it will not go so fast. However, I think it is too early to say now that all this will go smoothly.

Particularly because Belgium itself has already started to join Europe to get a postponement. It should be remembered, however, that the delay was originally scheduled for 25 April 2012. I heard this week the minister say it is intended to land around 20 July, after treatment by the Senate and publication in the Belgian Official Gazette.

I would like to remind you again, I can’t paint it enough, that it is a European regulation from 2009 to make the consumer and therefore also the GSM invoice much clearer, more transparent and hopefully also cheaper. Every month lost here is a month in which one was still faced with untransparent tariff structures and faced with storm-high GSM bills. From the consumer’s point of view, this is a very bad thing.

Mr. Minister, I have said that Europe did not wait, but apparently certain telecom operators did not wait either. On May 15, BASE published a so-called charter for the free mobile consumer, in which it clearly states that the legislation will not wait, will already meet the principles imposed by Europe and will ensure that the customer already receives freedom and transparency. That was a good signal from the telecommunications industry.

In any case, the telecommunications sector will be thoroughly changed in the coming months.

Regarding the substantive aspect, Mr Geerts, I have mostly approved the amendments, because we naturally support the principle of this reform. Most elements of the reform are good, I refer, among other things, to the contract duration, the way contracts can be terminated or the fact that one can terminate the contract after six months. The satisfactions to the customer are very fundamental and very profound, but they were also necessary.

The question is, of course, why Europe had to impose rules first. Why did Belgium not take on its responsibilities so much earlier? In the meantime, however, large periods of time have been lost without doing anything about it.

Don’t worry: it will eventually be fine.

Secondly, an important element of why we have been substantially behind the debate here is the aspect of social rates. It is good that the knot has been cut through. As regulated here, this is a good thing: this benefits the consumer. The consumer, or the citizen in general, is often confronted with a government that only communicates via the Internet: all sorts of form requests and documents, it only happens via the Internet. If one obliges the citizen to inform himself digitally, to sign up digitally, to communicate digitally with the services of the government, it is good that we make this lower threshold by providing with social rates.

The latter aspect, the so-called call-me-not-register. Rightly, the stake and stake is placed on practices where people, in their enthusiasm or by the sympathetic or joyful lady of the call center, are convinced, in practices leave gardens which one afterwards regrets greatly. The creation of this register would be a good thing.

When we look at some elements of the telecommunications law, there are still some “but”. These “but” will ensure that we will not approve the Telecommunications Act in the plenary session. A particular pain point is, first and foremost, the special contractor. Despite the beautiful words of then Minister Van Quickenborne, I cannot get rid of the impression that the promise that the BIPT would become apolitical are empty words. Here, too, another chance is missed to get rid of the special contractors forever. I remind my colleagues that in 2009, when Europe came up with the new regulation on telecommunications, it was also Minister Van Quickenborne who sturily declared that from then on the new board of directors would be appointed for the first time independent and non-political. We therefore regret that through a backdoor the creation has come, in order not to use the word “creatures” of the special commissioner. In this, I do not share the analysis of colleague Dedecker. He proposes not to target those two people, those two PSs. Sorry, I’m targeting those people. Those people are there not because of their abilities, but because of their party card.

I hear you make this mistake several times. There is a difference between the person and the cause he stands for. The fact that a function has been created to nominate two persons politically goes against every possible deontological rule and every rule of good governance. For the sake of clarity, I do not refer to the person in question, but to his function and political appointment in itself. There is a difference in respect.

You try to get rid of it easily. The report of colleague Van den Bergh is, as always, very solid. I quote: “Mr. Peter Dedecker clarifies that he hasn’t minded the people who hold this position.”

That you have not lowered yourself to personally attack the people involved or throw them all kinds of personal accusations in the face is correct. But we can make it clear that these people are not there because of their telecommunications skills. In recent years, their presence in the board of directors has not brought any added value. They are there thanks to their PS card. That is essential. As for their personality, they have made a political choice. Their administrative or technical skills are not relevant. You are trying to distance yourself. I also refer to them as PS. In an apolitical body, a party card should not be relevant.

We just talked about the positive developments such as those related to roaming rates. Europe also has its influence here. The consumer will be able to reap the fruits. Unfortunately, I repeat here that Belgium will adhere to the European regulation without first implementing it itself.

We will again submit an amendment to abolish the special contractor. We are pleased that the N-VA has been on the same track as the Flemish Belang since this legislature. I hope that Parliament will still use the amendment to correct something.

Furthermore, the number of contracts in which contractual obligations can be terminated in a very flexible manner would be limited to five. It is ⁇ that the FDF would propose to increase that to six. However, I think we should make a distinction. I can imagine few families where there are five similar GSM subscriptions, where everything is centralized and negotiated. We must distinguish between commercial subscriptions for entrepreneurs, SMEs and self-employed persons on the one hand and those for private use on the other. The limit of five is already very high. It can be said that we should also include it for the small medium-sized and small SMEs, but in fact it is always about commercial contracts, for which all sorts of fees apply. We must bear in mind that it is primarily the final consumer, the ordinary user who faces difficulties with switching. If necessary, we can also see over time if that limit of five was a good choice.

We will approve most of the above amendments, including the N-VA. However, I still keep in mind that it is a number of decoration operations. This is not a value judgment. After all, even if they are not approved, that does not mean that we should reject the entire telecommunications law. We will abstain at the final vote.

With more than a year of delay, we have reached the end of the parliamentary process of transposing the two European directives on electronic communications networks and services.

The main objectives of this bill are to strengthen consumer protection measures, harmonise economic regulation and simplify the universal service regime.

My Group is ⁇ pleased with the necessary and important advances in consumer protection, for which my colleague Vanessa Matz has submitted several bills to the Senate, already in the previous legislature. Some of these proposals are included in the Telecom package and we welcome them.

Among the benefits for consumers, I highlight four.

First, the operators will produce a standardised information sheet, which will provide subscribers with a whole set of clear, transparent and easily comparable data on the services offered. This leaflet, attached to the contract and easily accessible via the Internet or the operators’ points of sale, will serve as a basis for consumers for an evaluation of the different offers on the telecommunications market.

Second, the end of compensation for breach of contract once the six-month commitment threshold has been reached. This measure is very positive for consumers, especially since they will be able to terminate their contract by any written means, thus including by means of a SMS, and at the time chosen by them, even immediately.

Third, any extension or modification of the contract must necessarily be made in writing, the telephone call being therefore no longer considered as valid.

Fourth, in order to combat over-debt and bills far beyond normal consumption patterns, subscribers will now have the opportunity to set a free financial ceiling on the basis of which warnings, also free of charge, will be sent to them in case of overconsumption.

This is a series of measures aimed at increased consumer protection and greater transparency of the services offered. Certainly, progress still needs to be made in the areas of tariffs and prices, but the current project is an excellent first step in the right direction, which we fully support.

The opening to competition of the telecommunications market has revived a sector that was ⁇ sensitive to monopolies and duopolies. In any case, it includes a very small number of players. The European institutions then adopted legislation in line with technological progress and the requirements of the telecommunications market.

As we heard in the Commission, Europe has adopted a new regulatory framework for electronic telecommunications. The aim was to strengthen competition by facilitating the entry of operators into the market, to stimulate new investors in the sector and, of course, to improve consumer rights and protection. I therefore look forward to the translation of this Directive into Belgian law in order to transcribe several advances that we have been waiting for a long time. And I welcome those we find in this bill under discussion.

First, it is true that this text improves transparency in the telecommunications sector by obliging operators to offer consumers a sheet that will enable them to truly compare prices. The project satisfies me in part in that it promotes product harmonisation, which is necessary for the establishment of healthy competition. In economic theory, in order for pure and perfect competition to play, the good or service concerned must be comparable in terms of price, be identified and identifiable, divisible, certain and known to the consumer.

Secondly, I can only rejoice also that the majority has decided in a committee to retake the idea defended by myself, even though it has rewritten the amendment in its own way – but it doesn’t matter: the interest of parliamentary work is to develop proposals and see them repeated by the majority. I mean talking about the obligation for operators to compensate subscribers in case of service interruption. Because it is a shame to know that it did not exist until today!

Thirdly, I also support the various measures envisaged by the project, which relieve mobile telephony contracts. However, I regret that the text does not go further. There are a number of missed opportunities in this transposition of the Directive into Belgian law. Therefore, we submit three amendments and we support the one that Ecolo submitted regarding the independence of the IBPT. But I invite you to read ours before going to the vote, because they seem to be of great importance and would allow a significant improvement in the project we are discussing today.

The first concerns exit barriers, which keep the consumers of these telephone operators captive. This is an obstacle to healthy and free competition. This is one of the elements that ⁇ explains the excessive profits of telephone operators and the excessive spending of households on their telephone subscriptions. Therefore, there is a too high cost of telephone charges for many users.

Others have said it before me, the Belgians are tired of excessive costs for terminating contracts, and they have also made it known. The number of complaints about termination fees requested by telecommunications operators has tripled in the past year. This is a sign of consumer dissatisfaction in this regard. We can only hear this bullshit. That is why we have decided to submit an amendment to further promote competition between operators by reducing to three months the period beyond which a consumer can change an operator or a tariff formula without paying compensation to its operator. The government’s choice to maintain a six-month period of consumer captivity is an obstacle to free and healthy competition and will be one of the criteria that will make prices not fall as much as one wishes. I regret that this six-month rule is ⁇ ined and that the consumer is not allowed to compare more freely the offers offered to him and, after three months, to terminate his contract.

I would also like to say that the government has missed the double opportunity that was given to it in the context of transposing this European directive. We do not want to miss this opportunity, so we submit two additional amendments. The first concerns the price of telephone consumption and the second concerns the establishment of a dispute commission. In our opinion, the government is not taking enough advantage of the opportunity to lower the prices of mobile phones. Everyone who spoke before me at this tribune recalled that the prices of telephony were too high in Belgium. They all hope that the provisions discussed will increase competition and that the latter will only serve to lower prices. I think we can go much further and guarantee much stronger price drops for all consumers, or almost all.

by Mr. Balcaen dared to say a number of things in commission when considering this bill. It is unacceptable that Belgians continue to pay more for their domestic telephone communications than for their international telephone communications. Consumer organizations have denounced this: we pay more in Belgium for a SMS or phone call sent from one province to another than when we send a SMS or phone call from abroad to Belgium.

It is nevertheless incredible and unexplained for the citizen that a phone call or an intrabelge SMS is more expensive than if it is made as part of roaming.

The argument put forward by the Minister of Consumer Affairs for refusing to touch the prices of electronic communications testifies, in our opinion, to the lack of will shown by the government in this case.

While the European Union and in particular your colleagues in the European Parliament are making real advances at this level, advances that will also be applied at the end of the month, you limit yourself to answer us that the discussion on prices is postponed to the end of the year.

By then, Belgians will continue to pay their bills 25% more expensive than the Dutch and four times more expensive than the French. At the same rate as the Netherlands, each Belgian household could therefore save 110 euros per year. At the same rate as France, each Belgian household could therefore save on their mobile phone bill 330 euros per year.

It is, in my opinion, scandalous that this issue of lower prices is not addressed and that it is not sought, through the law, to impose simple rules that allow prices to be lowered so that the telephone bills that consumers in Belgium complain about can be reduced.

To put an end to this intolerable and incomprehensible situation, a situation that feeds the significant profits of telephone operators in Belgian territory, we propose to set a simple principle. It is not a matter of intervening on the prices themselves, but of establishing the principle that the prices practiced on the Belgian market cannot, under any circumstances, be higher than the prices practiced in a roaming situation. In this way, an intrabelge SMS will not be more expensive than a SMS from Germany to Belgium and an intrabelge phone call will not be more expensive than a call from Spain to Belgium. I repeat that it is inconceivable and incomprehensible that certain tariffs for calls or SMS intrabelges are higher than when calls or SMS come from abroad.

This brings me to the second missed opportunity, which, in turn, relates to the rights and protection of consumers. According to the Universal Service Directive, “Member States shall ensure that transparent, non-discriminatory, simple and inexpensive extrajudicial procedures are available to resolve unresolved disputes between consumers and undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Member States shall take measures to ensure that such procedures allow for a fair and prompt settlement of disputes and may, where justified, adopt a system of refund and/or compensation.

The bill deposited by the government, discussed in a committee, such as heavily amended by the majority or the government – not very well known – does not allow the implementation of such procedures recommended by the European directive.

The telecom mediation service faces such structural problems and an imperfect definition of its tasks that it cannot currently meet the requirements of the directive. Therefore, I regret that we did not seize the opportunity to create a dispute commission.

We do not wish, on our part, to wait for the deadline more than the vague and uncertain announced by the minister, "in the coming weeks, in the coming months. We will talk about it later," to move things forward in such a crucial area. Therefore, we are submitting an amendment to supplement this bill in the spirit of the European directive in order to allow the King to create a dispute commission.

Here is my comment on this bill. We hope that the amendments we have submitted in the direction of defence and better consumer protection can be heard by all of you here. They are on your banks. Read them quickly. If you adopt them to improve this bill, we will vote with you. In the other case, I am afraid that we will abstain from this project.

Please wait before you give us your reply. It seems that mr. Geerts has forgotten to register. Don’t apologize, he’s forgotten.

Excuse me, Mr. Minister, you will have to wait another hour, because I have prepared a great deal... No, I will keep my speech very short, because most has already been said. I would like to thank the reporter and the services, because what we have received from our banks is a very delicate piece of work.

It is true, Mr. Veys, that many employees – from every faction, from the cabinet, from the BIPT and from the FOD Economie – have assisted us in this project, which was a very technical project. It was therefore important that the members of parliament were well informed.

At the first committee meeting on this draft, I already said that we need to take enough time for this draft. Mr. Dedecker also insisted that he would receive a very broad treatment in the committee. The Chairman of the Commission has taken care of this. We kept our word and gave everyone the opportunity to intervene.

I share the criticism that there would not have been a decent work, then not at all. The majority has been very constructive to the comments of the opposition. We examined the amendments every time, and when there was an agreement, we submitted them together again. For example, we have fully supported the amendments of colleague Balcaen, and for the unadopted amendments we have justified why they could not be ⁇ ined.

In my opinion, it is hardly possible to work more transparently than the way Parliament has skipped this bill, given the many additional arguments and amendments.

I am indeed not an expert, Mr. Dedecker, but I do not understand your tenacity against the social rate at all. You have not been able to convince me of this. Today you have once again argued that the social rate is not necessary. In my opinion, however, it is essential for the protection of consumers who cannot see the forest through the trees. Let us protect them. I find it very good that the majority has insisted and the social rate has actually expanded.

Mr. Geerts, I find what you are saying now strange. I have proposed an alternative. I find it strange that you continue to stick to an outdated system of social rates, that persists people in their situation and that keeps the market as stiff as possible. 93% of these customers are at Belgacom. The alternative operators have offered to take over those customers under the same conditions, without the other consumers having to obtain compensation for that. I find it bizarre that you continue to stick to the current way of working and that you keep the rates so artificially high for all other customers.

Everyone is an ideology. You have a right-wing conservative ideology. I do not, so I do not share your opinion on this.

Finally, as regards the treatment of this bill itself, there has been criticism that no hearings were held. Each of us has noticed that there is a very active civil society and we have tried to meet some of the desires of that civil society. For example, we said that the entry into force will not be until 1 October.

Are there no more imperfections in this text today? I think yes. Regarding the domain names, Mrs. Lalieux has already said that we will take an initiative in doing so. It is good that there has already been a discussion between colleague Deseyn and you yourself on this subject. We will submit a text after the recess and then carry the debate to the bottom.

The fundamental question is whether there are improvements in this text. I think everyone should answer affirmatively. The debate is whether these improvements go far enough or not. Everyone has a duty to play their part, and I have no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly outline some elements that we believe are the improvements.

A first element is the fact that there is no more breakdown compensation for a transition after six months, and this from 1 October. I think this should dynamize the market and give a push in the back.

Colleague Clerfayt has said that the rates in our country are too high compared to the countries around us. Colleagues of the Balkans had insisted on this during the commission. I have asked the minister this week what initiatives he will take to get those prices somewhat under control.

We first wait for the study of the BIPT, but because the market will now become a little more volatile, I think prices will fall.

A second element is the fact that the contracts can be up to 24 months and that, if one wants to withdraw earlier, the depreciation value of what has been obtained should not be excessively high and proportionate in the depreciation.

A third element is the fact that one can switch when prices rise. I think it is important that this is also stated here. It was done with the Bill shock. Everyone of you has heard stories, or ⁇ experienced on the spotlight, that the children’s mobile phone bills are being discussed at the breakfast table and that one was surprised that they are suddenly so high.

We have said in this bill that there must be a notification SMS so that ceilings are created.

Finally, there is the standardised information sheet so that there is clarity in the information about the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think it is important that this law is adopted today and can enter into force as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the rapporteur, the President and all colleagues.

Mr. Dedecker, I’m sorry that you express yourself here in a negative way, but well, it’s a plenary session. In my opinion, we have had a good and in-depth debate in the committee, and I think you are doing this wrong.

You say that the government has allowed this to "sudden" for half a year. However, it can be seen what you mean by “suddening”. The government began on 6 December and immediately seized the Consultation Committee. The Flemish government, of which your party is also a part, had requested that this be brought before the Consultation Committee and that has also happened in early February. You know that one cannot come into the Room until this has happened. We also requested the advice of the Privacy Commission, which was also an important element in our work. Therefore, there is no specific question of sudder.

According to you, the bill was submitted, while Europe had already gone to the European Court of Justice. That is not correct. The European Commission has not yet appealed to the European Court of Justice. The European Commission is also not planning, given the current evolution, to go to the European Court of Justice soon. These are the facts. One did not go to the European Court of Justice because one has noticed that there was continued work on a correct one.

The deadline was late July. Meanwhile, a first committee meeting took place in the Senate and on Tuesday there will be a vote in the committee in the Senate. We will be able to vote at the end of July, after which publication will follow a few days later. Unfortunately, ratification will be too late, but this is not the first time. In any case, there will be no proceedings before the Court of Justice and no penalty.

Until then, the points on the I's. I understand the concerns of various members on this subject, but through our way of working we have avoided having to undergo infringement proceedings.

I also disagree — and by this I defend all my colleagues in the committee — when it is said that many amendments were submitted as a result of knitting. If there are no amendments, you say that the majority has chased it through, and if there are amendments, then it is because of knitting. Say immediately that it will never be good. Then at least you are ready and clear. You have that right.

Some amendments were submitted, among other things, on the basis of the opinion of the Privacy Committee. During the public meeting, it was asked to take this into account. Is it not logical that this happens?

I think you are doing this work a little unfairly. I think there has been good work done in the committee. You should not always agree. A committee serves precisely to discuss something. It has been worked in a very correct way. We have no longer held hearings, but we also know that the different operators have established a lot of contacts. It can also. There was a lot of preparation. Therefore, I think it makes no sense to hold one or several hearings soon.

Various criticisms have been issued about the IBPT and its independence. What is the current situation that has not been juridically criticized by the European Commission? The current law allows the government, by royal decree, to block or cancel any IBPT decision. It was not implemented, but the government could have blocked any IBPT decision. The new law specifies that it can only do so for certain decisions, in particular those that are not ex ante market regulation or when there are conflicts between operators. These terms are accurately embodied in the Directive.

We have literally taken the words from the directive, which stipulates that the BIPT is independent and that the legislature or the government cannot intervene when it comes to these two matters. This is literally stated in the law.

If we effectively offer the BIPT the opportunity for even greater autonomy, then we will find that the Council of State effectively notes that there is a problem in this regard. In fact, there are elements that advocate for an autonomous body, which, however, also means that that body in the public administration is controlled by no one, neither by Parliament nor by the government. This creates a democratic deficit. Indeed, the decisions of such an authority will not be based on European directives it implements.

If the BIPT adopts a position on privacy or consumer rights, you argue that no one would be involved in the matter, although the BIPT would not have implemented a European directive.

This is a problem that you have repeatedly pointed out. After all, whenever there are decisions of the BIPT, you question me about it. This means that you want parliamentary control. Parliamentary control is only possible if a government can do something, which you can then punish the government.

Therefore, we also agreed that the government can set priorities. You have to talk to the government about its priorities. If you find that the government is not allowed to prioritize, then you should stop doing what I have been experiencing all the time, in particular that you come all the time asking the minister to prioritize a particular case. Each committee meeting is asked what the government will do as a priority. At the same time, you argue that the government should not do anything as a priority. It is one or the other.

You point out that you are submitting legislative proposals on matters which you at the same time note that the BIPT should address the matter and therefore not the Parliament. If you want an autonomous BIPT, this means that neither the government nor the Parliament can exercise control over the BIPT.

In all the discussion about autonomy, you must leave the slogans for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I understand that you want certain tasks to be carried out priority, faster or otherwise by the BIPT. There are, of course, many tasks for the BIPT.

The problem is that while defending this, you are at the same time consciously keeping the BIPT under the knot in terms of the financial and operational framework, as well as the staff framework.

Sweden, a country similar to our country, has an economic staff of 200 employees at the national regulatory authority. We have 60 staff members.

If you set certain priorities, you will allow other work to be renewed at the same time. You can set priorities, but then give the BIPT the necessary autonomy in financial management and in human resources management, but that’s exactly what you miss today.

Funding is the next point that I would like to emphasize.

Mr. Dedecker, I disagree with what you say. We have told the BIPT that it can do a staff upgrade with ten university graduates instead of ten executive staff.

You say that the BIPT finances itself. This is of course not the case. How could the BIPT do that? The BIPT has income because a number of rights have been allocated to the BIPT, but the BIPT does not own those things. These are, for example, monopoly situations where waves and frequencies are rented and allocated. The BIPT generates income from this, but those frequencies are not the property of the BIPT. We have allocated them. Part of that income goes to the Federal Treasury.

The BIPT also lives from the contributions of the operators, but the BIPT does not itself determine the amount thereof. This applies not only to the BIPT, but also to the Private Safety Audit Body, the CREG, the Mobility Control Regulator and other similar bodies. I advise you to assume that these audit bodies should be able to decide independently on how much money they should dispose of. If that were the case, you would ask for a law here with N-VA within two weeks because the BIPT would have demanded too much from the operators, which are paid by the consumer.

Mr. Minister, if you had brought the law to Parliament in time and had taken the time to organize hearings, as I have suggested, then you would have heard from the operators that they are asking party to give more resources to the BIPT. It is true that the operators pay the resources, but yet they are the demanding party for a more qualitative and more autonomous regulator. Therefore, the argument that we would be against it does not apply, on the contrary.

Mr. Dedecker, that is easy to say. In that case, the operators say something different to you than to me. Moreover, it is not the operators, but it is every customer who pays.

A good organ does not necessarily mean the most expensive organ. This seems to me quite clear. The quality of the BIPT is more than decent at the moment and I think we can set priorities.

If we ever see that some things can’t be done, we will fix it. If we do not, you will ask me that in another way, which is also the right of Parliament.

Then we come to the whole discussion about the social rate. I think this is the most interesting discussion. We have two positions here. One statement is that we do not need legislation on the social rate, because the market will regulate it. If there is no social rate, then, according to that statement, the operators will ⁇ offer a very low rate. People with social needs can then request that rate and the consumer should not pay with it. It is fantastic. A few centuries ago, an Adam Smith defended this statement as well. The invisible hand would control all this; the social category would find it all by itself.

But the reality is different. The reality is that this has never happened anywhere in an adequate way before. Moreover, if we do not automatically allocate that social rate – which, unfortunately, still does not happen for telecommunications – it is not even allocated. Not only did we have to impose a social tariff in the energy sector, we even had to provide for automatic allocation, because otherwise the stakeholders would not be reached. Therefore, between the theory of an ideal working market and the reality of a society with people of different rank and stand, knowledge, training and access, there is a huge difference. No matter how theoretically correct that model may be, practice implies that a very large social group will then have no right to its social rate.

Therefore, the present bill proposes not only the maintenance of the social rate, but even its extension. There will be no additional social tariff for the internet; we leave the choice of whether one wants a social tariff for the fixed phone, the mobile phone or for the internet. We give people a choice, but at the same time regulate the market so that the social rate is not a theoretical fiction but a reality. This effectively imposes costs on the whole community; other users effectively take advantage of it. That is so. They are limited, but effective costs for the entire community of users, so that individuals who can use a social rate have better access to telecommunications. This is the choice of the draft law. I assume that you do not agree with this. That is your good right.

You introduce a theoretical model in which the social categories do not enjoy a social rate and do not support it.

Can I ask you to remove your device?

I put it on the side.

Mobile phones are disrupting discussions.

This, you have not replied every time that it sounded but it is true that it is disagreeable. It is easy: he interrupts me, I answer and we can start again.

Ms. Lalieux asked a question about neutrality. We will have a discussion on the subject, Mrs. Neutrality is a big debate, which will ⁇ lead to many consequences, but we still don’t know which ones. We will need to pay special attention to this, but we agreed to discuss it as soon as possible.

I go back to the prices. by Mr. Clerfayt intervened vigorously but it is a shame to regret his absence during the committee sessions. He presented himself for five minutes to declare that prices were an important element, he left and let others do the work. It is easy! It is also interesting to see Mr. Clerfayt rushed now when between 2007 and 2011, when he was in government, he strictly did nothing about it.

Why have we not yet acted on prices, have some parliamentarians asked?

There are legal reasons for not acting faster. In fact, the EU directive prohibits intervention in the level of prices for families unless it can be proven that it is necessary. Evidence should not be provided by a parliament or government, but by a regulator.

That is why I ordered a thorough study a few months ago to serve as the basis for a discussion and a choice of measures to be voted, capable of passing the examination of the European Commission. To intervene on prices without being sure of their acceptance by Europe is a decision that I will not make. This study is carried out according to the same formula as for energy prices. After the study, we will take reliable steps that will be able to overcome the legal criticism of the European Commission. This is the only acceptable methodology.

I have indeed said that I am not afraid that the European Commission will criticize the social rate for the internet. I am not afraid of that. I believe that we are in accordance with the regulation, namely with Article 9 § 3 of the Directive. If we introduced the social tariff for mobile phones, it was also predicted that the European Commission would not accept it. The European Commission did not support this, but we persuaded the Commission. And now the same will happen.

I have said in the committee that there is still an appeal option if the Commission does not agree, namely the European Court of Justice. It is not because the Commission, as the executive power, does not agree that a country must always say yes. We have a legal system in Europe and the Court of Justice has already regularly followed the country and not the Commission in the field of consumer protection. In December, it passed a very important ruling in the field of energy. However, I think the Commission will accept this because I think we will be able to convince them.

I think above all that we are right. I need to explain the following. There may be a social tariff for fixed telephony. There may be a social tariff for mobile telephony. However, for some major European rule, shouldn’t people be allowed to choose between a social rate for telephone, mobile phone or internet? What is the logic of this? These are three services which can hardly be distinguished as the three carriers are used for the different applications. We will try to make this clear to the European Commission. If they do not agree, I think we must defend this position before the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice can then decide on this, and then everyone must submit to it. This is the normal course of affairs.

I would like to make a final comment on the domain names about which there is a lot of discussion. There are various views on this subject. I have said in Parliament that we will engage in this debate. I didn’t talk about this or that direction. I know at the moment one thing very certain and this is that the current regulation is not conclusive enough. At the moment, anyone can ask their “.be” questions. I note that according to the Economic Inspection, there are currently 1307 Chinese domain names with a “.be” extension. With the current regulation, we cannot do anything against this.

We note that people think that the .be domain name somehow falls or may fall within our jurisdiction. Quod not. For this reason, the European Commission, of which you are a strong supporter, has stated that the .eu domain name is only assigned to companies residing in the European Union. For the .be domain name, we want the same.

In case of problems with consumer protection against e-commerce and the like, we can turn to one of the other countries of the European Union. This is a proper information and consumer protection. If we do not, we will be rightly asked here why we do not provide rules for this. I do not understand why this organization would not take that at heart.

It is necessary to enable the organization to perform a certain verification. One cannot assume that one can switch to acquisition because they cannot carry out adequate verification. We need to work in an intelligent way. This can be done through a compensation from the government by, for example, unlocking the national register through a third party or through the Crosspoint Bank. At the time of registration, the essential data can be verified immediately. Now this is not possible, with all the consequences of this, if a dispute procedure or a complaint is initiated later.

The government should facilitate, support, and control, but should not take over the corebusiness of DNS.

I have never said that. It’s not because Mr. Dedecker claims that I said that too. I did not say that. I also have no ambition to take over it, but we should not pretend that there is no problem. Since December 2011, 1,300 Chinese companies have received a .be domain name. There is contact between the economic inspection and those services. We are constantly receiving complaints about clothes, shoes and all sorts of products sold through such e-commerce systems, while we can no longer do anything about them. We must take this into account in the debate.

I do not have the impression that you are claiming the opposite, but stakeholders should be allowed to do so, because at the moment this is not happening. The European Union has provided the same for its own domain name. Why shouldn’t we be as wise?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am pleased that you are apparently suddenly a fan of the European Commission when it comes to domain names. I would like to see that for the rest of this bill.

The [...]

If they are wise, in other words, if they follow your line. You may have to stand up for the European elections.

As for the social rate, you say that I propose a theoretical model, a fictional story. No, I have suggested a lot more. I have proposed a practical model and submitted a concrete amendment setting out a tender to which operators can subscribe. They will also do so at the lowest price, even free compensation, not on the cover of other consumers.

I find it very unfortunate that you hold a ⁇ conservative line in this, and stick to a bullshit model that favors only the historical operator Belgacom. Per ⁇ there is your true motivation.

As for social rates, you talked about people with a limited budget. I have asked you a written question regarding the average revenue per customer at the telecom operators and, of course, I have informally also looked at some here and there.

The average revenue of the operators of those customers does not appear to be so much lower than that of other customers, including that discount. Moreover, these are typically customers who take additional packs faster, such as a football subscription. So it’s not so bad there, as they drop additional services from an operator.

Moreover, such a standard social rate is counterproductive for some people. Look at the living wage. All subscribers receive a social rate. What prevents them from entering a vacancy if they not only lose their living wages, but also a lot of other benefits?

Our country has the largest percentage of beneficiaries in terms of social rates, four times more than France. They will receive a reduction of 8.4%. For those who really need it, such as the disabled, for whom we have developed an alternative proposal that really helps them, you voted against in the Senate. I can only regret that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very quickly to the Minister’s response.

Mr. Minister, as regards the independence of the regulator, you do not necessarily reassure me of the policy of the government, but of the reading that I have of the policy of the government.

You have been heard as well as many parliamentarians say today that the regulator’s independence was strengthened. But the words you just said in the tribune are going in the opposite direction! You said that you wanted to touch the regulator’s independence, that you wanted the government to intervene much more than before in the regulator’s policy. We must at least acknowledge this fact.

Obviously, it is important to find a way of balanced relations between the regulator and the government, but let’s not forget that we are in a liberalized sector! Therefore, a minimum of trust must preside over these relations between the policy and the regulator. However, some assessments tend to weaken this confidence in the IBPT.

On the other hand, you have a good game of referring us to our possible contradictions of parliamentarians who would regularly question you about what there is to be done in the sector. This is ⁇ due to Mr. Geerts said that an amendment reintroduced in the bill the fact that the regulator had to come to explain before the parliament. This provision disappeared from the bill. There is a role for Parliament, but we must be able to safeguard it.

As regards prices, I would like to remind you that our amendment goes in the direction of your concern, Mr. Minister. You say the road is narrow. I told him about it at the tribune recently. That is why we are introducing an amendment that allows to take this into account by associating the IBPT with the decision to be made (the IBPT analysis of the current state of the market). Therefore, the amendment proposed by the Ecolo-Groen Group in this regard is a first step that will allow you to move faster in your intentions regarding price regulation in the sector.