Proposition 53K2488

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 30 mars 1995 concernant les réseaux de communications électroniques et services de communications électroniques et l'exercice d'activités de radiodiffusion dans la région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 12, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Brussels region EC Directive audiovisual industry services of general interest provision of services electronic commerce mass media advertising telecommunications regulation of telecommunications cable distribution television access to information transmission network universal service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, given the advanced hour and since the report was subsequently placed on the banks, I refer to the written report.

However, I will briefly – as usual, you know me – take the word in the general discussion.

Colleagues, in front of you lies a draft law whose impact can be called, to say the least, limited. The broadcasters are, in fact, a competence of the Communities, but even here the federal level still has a very limited competence, namely the broadcasters that do not belong exclusively to the French or Flemish Community.

Additionally, for the recognition of those broadcasters, an agreement was made that either the Flemish Community or the French Community. We are behind that. It is the basis of confederalism. Although the impact of the federal government in these matters is limited, that does not, of course, mean that the transposition of the Directive does not have to be done correctly. It is therefore ⁇ difficult to conclude that the conversion took place correctly and quickly in the Communities, but that the federal level had to wait very long. Even a judgment from the European Court of Justice was needed to correct the problem.

The design does not have much impact, but there is one delicate and ⁇ interesting point, namely the must-carry story. Must carry means that certain broadcasters are mandatory to be distributed. In Flanders, for example, the VRT, the RTBF and the NOS. These should be distributed on the analogue cable of Telenet and on the digital platforms of Telenet and Belgacom. In itself, this is regulated by the Communities, but in Brussels, of course, there is a separate situation.

In Brussels there are two communities active. Of course, every community has its rights. It is very important that both Communities can fully exercise and exercise their rights in this regard and that they can fully serve those who belong to their Communities as it is appropriate, with a cultural and informational offer, tailored to the wishes. I look at the situation of the flames in Brussels.

The Flammers in Brussels are an important but limited minority. Certainly for them the guarantees regarding the supply are very necessary. In this sense, the following point in the draft law is not enough for our group. According to the draft law, only public broadcasting should be mandatory. Other broadcasters may submit a request to the Minister, who will either approve the application or not. We have received the commitment from Minister Magnette that he would quickly handle such requests and that the major Flemish broadcasters would quickly get a must-carry status.

I appreciate that. I also have full confidence in it, Mr. Minister. Only you will be the mayor of Charleroi in a few weeks, for which my congratulations. What comes afterwards? What guarantees are there for the Flames in Brussels? We believe there is no guarantee.

Therefore, I am proposing a new amendment. It is not the same as in the committee; it is a new amendment aimed at ensuring that broadcasters which have achieved a market share of at least 5 % in their language area in the preceding three years automatically receive the must-carry status in Brussels, subject to the derogations set out in a royal decree consulted by the Council of Ministers.

Why automatically? I do not want to experience that at the time this law appears in the Belgian Staatsblad the minister has left, or is occupied, or whatever, and that the Flamings in Brussels must determine that they do not re-bind VTM or VIER on their cable. That pressure is certain. There are certain operators in Brussels who have indicated that they would be too happy to get VTM from the cable. I think the Flamings in Brussels would be deeply regretted if their basic offerings were so reduced.

This cannot be for us. Hence this amendment to allow derogations only if the Council of Ministers fully supports them. Only in this way can we safeguard the rights of the Flammers. Only in this way can we ensure that there is a parity between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people when discussing and making this decision.

Is this possible? of course . There are precedents in which the situation in the Communities has been looked at. Recently, for example, a proposal from the CD&V group was approved in the Senate, allowing the police council, which is clearly a federal matter, to apply the same rules as in the municipal council, while those rules are determined by the counties. I do not understand why we should not rely on the rules and practices of the state.

I do not see any reason why some groups would vote against this amendment. Moreover, for any Flemish faction that wants to call itself Flemish after the approval of this bill, it is an absolute must to guarantee the rights of the Flemish in Brussels and to guarantee the cultural and informational offer to the Flemish in Brussels. All political groups should approve this amendment. Not approving this amendment, colleagues, is actually the same as saying that the Flamings in Brussels do not care, a signal that I would deeply regret. I therefore expect a broad approval of this amendment, in particular by the colleagues of CD&V.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it even shorter than colleague Dedecker.

Colleagues, this is a rather technical issue, especially if we come up with terms like must carry. I think many at this hour of the evening think of something different than the must-carry rule. However, this is important enough to bring here today.

First and foremost, I would like to point out that we are dealing with this draft law here with the highest urgency. That high urgency was invoked because the government in ongoing affairs – your predecessors – apparently failed to implement the European regulation that dates back a long time, especially from 2002, within a respectable timeframe. Therefore, we must quickly approve this draft at a late hour.

It is, on the one hand, a strange situation that something like the supply of television channels is still dealt with here within this Federal Chamber. That is an anomaly. Europe, however, has so wanted it, and we have to play our role here. However, according to Vlaams Belang, this should not be a residual competence. It is positive that VRT, RTBF, Télé Bruxelles and especially TV Brussels are truly anchored as a must carry. However, Vlaams Belang considers that this should be extended to other broadcasters. I then look at parties – Open Vld and CD&V – which in their name have the word Vlaams while in the lakmus sample unfortunately, however, it turns out that this Vlaams is quite easily wiped under the mat. Today they have the opportunity to prove that the V in their party logo not only stands for under the mat – the V of vegen – but also effective for Flemish.

The Flemish presence in Brussels is essential and an important element is ⁇ that public broadcasting. Therefore, we have already said with enthusiasm in the introductory discussion, in blind confidence, that we would support the amendment of N-VA that responds to it. The amendment as presented here is substantiated, responds to it and is essential. Vlaams Belang therefore makes the call to be awake not only to your television but also to the Flemish presence in Brussels. Approve this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to highlight two points.

First, beyond the must carry, I will recall that the application of these Directives also concerns broadcasting organisations which are not directly dependent on either of the Communities. Yesterday, I was surprised at a committee to find from the government representatives the lack of knowledge about these televisions which, today, fall well into the residual competence of the federal state because they broadcast, for example, in both national languages.

Thus, beyond the must carry and what has just been said by the other stakeholders, it seems to me important to remember a series of direct implications for broadcasting organizations on the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, therefore also issues in terms of control, authorization of broadcasting that fall here under the IBPT, remind him, and, therefore, the means given to the IBPT.

In addition, Mr. Minister, I had a question regarding Article 30 and the placement of products. Indeed, the device and the entire text seemed to put on the same foot “product placement” and “theme placement”.

We have collectively been unable, until yesterday at least, to determine what a “theme placement” was. You promised to investigate, to check closer. I don’t want us to vote today on a text without grasping all of its endorsers and endorsers. Allowing the placement of products is already one thing, allowing a placement of themes of which we do not know exactly what the expression is seems to me even more delicate.

So I expect from you the most accurate answer possible and a definition of this "theme placement".

Mr. Speaker, we asked a very competent lawyer’s office, but it could not answer.

I would like to clarify that, although the European legislator found it useful to regulate the placement of themes, in all humility, we considered that we should follow the European legislator. It is not about permitting it, it is about regulating its use; and it is prudent to regulate its use.

I must therefore see, beyond the somewhat ridiculous character of history, that the government comes up with a text that accuses years of delay, but on which floats an uncertainty regarding certain topics – this is the case to say it here. This concerns me, however, a little and it can only encourage us to remain on our position expressed in committee. We will therefore abstain from voting on this text.