Proposition 53K3155

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

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 27, 2013

Official page

Visit

Subjects

electricity supply electrical energy energy supply nuclear power station

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. 12, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Willem-Frederik Schiltz, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, as regards the present bill, I have to go back to what we did a long time ago with the third energy package. We discussed this extensively with the predecessor of the State Secretary. Numerous amendments were discussed, but unfortunately they were not always listened as well.

I now find that it is necessary to return to numerous observations, including from my group, when transposing them through the Act of 8 January 2012. Indeed, we had submitted amendments on the subject of which we are dealing, on the fact that the federal legislator found it necessary to register measures in the field of energy efficiency and rational energy consumption.

We had also submitted this to the competent minister, but he did not even want to answer it, because the N-VA was looking again for nails on low water. As is always the case here, the members of the majority followed bravery.

Fortunately, we noticed in the Flemish Parliament and the Flemish government that a number of CD&V-ers and sp.a-ers sometimes listen. Consequently, a large part of what is now ahead is the result of an appeal for destruction by the Flemish government before the Constitutional Court. The special law was followed and the regions are indeed fully and exclusively competent in energy efficiency and rational energy use. It is a pity that they could not be heard at the time.

I hope we learn some lessons from this. Certain matters belong indeed to the competence of the Regions and the federal legislator must remain there. That is about what is stated in the draft submitted by the Secretary of State. Only his words were not cold yet or he stipulated again in his policy note that he would engage in energy efficiency. After all, he found that a nice matter, even though it was assigned to the West! Obviously, it’s fun, but the Secretary of State is best away from a subject assigned to a different level. We will continue to ensure that the division of powers is applied.

I know that you will not support our amendments and that you will not follow our explanation, but hopefully the Constitutional Court will make such a statement again next time.

Secondly, we note that a number of royal decrees are confirmed by this. Honourable, it was Mr. Schiltz who pointed out to the Secretary of State that the law requires that the royal decrees must be ratified by law within twelve months of issuing them, and that he was therefore too late.

Mr. Secretary, you did not meet that deadline. If I am not mistaken, the law states that if this is not done within twelve months, those royal decrees are deemed to have never had effect. I know you are bored with the situation. That is, of course, the reason why you would rather not go to the Council of State with those conscious articles, and therefore did not. You put the whole thing under pressure in this way. If you do not want to comply with the laws, Mr. Secretary of State... You do not listen, maybe I should call you?

I’m sorry Mr Wollants, we can do two things at the same time.

These are your words.

I think, Mr. Secretary of State, that you do not want to submit certain matters that are not entirely koosjer to the Council of State, that you are also too late, and that now questions come from the majority what this means in practice for the legal validity of the rules. You are in error. So I want to hear from you how you will deal with this in the future.

This is definitely not the first time that this kind of thing happens to the government. We have also seen this in a number of other cases, in particular the railway infrastructure, in which Mr. Van den Bergh had to wrinkle in all possible curves to submit up to three times a bill to settle the case.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are very clear about it. You write in the law that the confirmation has retroactive force, and thus you are off the shirt. I do not think this is a good way to do legislative work. I do not think this is a good way to conduct a policy. So I would like to hear from you what you will do in this area in the future.

You know that we will continue to come back to this. If you apply the law in this way, that part of the law can be better removed in its entirety, for then it has absolutely no meaning anymore. Thirty years from now, you can still ratify certain things with retroactive effect. This is not a coalition affair.

Colleagues, it is clear that the Constitutional Court has forced the federal government to resign within its own boundaries and to adhere to what lies ahead of it. I expect all colleagues to monitor the correct application of the allocation of powers. We have had long discussions on this. The fact that the sixth state reform makes the matter even more complicated is your matter. It implies that the powers conferred must be applied correctly. I hope that the parties that are part of the Flemish government, this and the next, will continue to monitor this, so that you, Mr. Secretary of State, must remain in your own jurisdiction. I hope that the Flemish parties will finally be able to exercise the powers conferred on Flanders in a correct and complete manner.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I just want to emphasize the importance of this bill containing various provisions and especially its Article 6, which will now allow distribution network operators (DRMs) to merge. This will allow, in the long run, the rationalization of the sector and the development of a greater capability for capital mobilisation for the energy sectors, which will be very needed in the coming years.

Law of 11 April 2013 on provisions for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and for the management of fissile materials irradiated in power plants. There was a misunderstanding about the change caused by various provisions. It was feared that the state, and therefore the citizen, would become the financial support of the producers, which was obviously unacceptable. The exchange of questions and answers in the committee helped to clarify this point; the minister reassured us.

I remind you all, and in particular the Chairperson of the Economy Committee, that we, several colleagues and myself, submitted a proposal for the Synatom Act to not have to palliate, in the future, the deficiencies of the nuclear sector and ensure that operators assume their responsibilities.

This proposal therefore contains an article stipulating that budgets will be directly required, at the request of the Nuclear Provision Commission, for the dismantling of nuclear power plants. It is important that this money is released immediately. I would like this proposal to be put on the agenda from January to remove any ambiguity regarding the management of Synatom and especially the mobilisation of Synatom funds.

I repeat, it is neither the citizen nor the state to assume the responsibility of the producers of nuclear energy!

Did you know that 60 people were excluded? He said he ordered the evacuation of the public.

For security reasons, Mr. Louis! It is my responsibility.

You do not have the word and you do not have to interrupt me.

(Intervention out of micro) Mr. Speaker, I ask that we acknowledge in the report of today’s session that you have decided, in total contradiction with democracy, to prohibit access to this parliament to more than sixty people, citizens who have come to see the political debates and to support me as part of the lifting of my parliamentary immunity, simply because these citizens do not defend the politicians you support. It is not normal that you arbitrarily decide to ban citizens from entering this parliament, simply because they love me! This is totally unacceptable!

I would like you to clarify in the plenary session the reasons why you are making such antidemocratic decision. We will act as a lawyer if necessary. We will call a lawyer to check for the presence of these peaceful people in the entrance hall of parliament. We have never seen such an attack on democracy. I believe that any president you are, you don’t have the full powers and you have to be accountable, at least to all the politicians who are here because what happens to me today can happen to anyone. I do not find that normal!

The security of the House is the responsibility of the President of the Assembly. Your guests have the opportunity to follow the debates in the projection room. Therefore, for security reasons, I decided not to allow the occupation of the 2nd floor. That is my only responsibility. They are in the projection room.

and no! Military police put them out.

We give them access to the showroom as supporters.

What are you afraid of?

I am definitely not afraid of you! It is one thing! The second balcony is not accessible. This is a decision that I will not return to. The people you have invited can settle in the projection room to follow the debates until your speech or even until the end of the session. This poses no problem. Let them settle there!

Please send the message to the police.

She will have heard it. Let us now discuss what is on the agenda.

There are some very serious things happening! It is always when it concerns me. It is still weird! I remind you the last time.

Do not tell us your story.

One person had a broken arm, simply because she had applauded. People can applaud.

No, Mr Louis The Rules provide that people can attend quietly without showing approval or disapproval. Someone who applauds is actually officially put outside.

(The Protests )

Today, arbitrarily, façade crime, if a person doesn't like you in the tribune: "Go, release!" If that's that, your democracy, well, it's beautiful! Honestly, she is beautiful! I am embarrassed to be part of this group. You are truly the last renegades of a power that is breathtaking and does everything to protect itself. But be aware that the people are watching. They are no longer fools. The [...]

Mr. Louis, can I tell you something? You are disgusted by this community. No one keeps you! You can always leave her. This is a first thing!

The [...]

And the second thing, Mr. Louis: there are certain words, like democracy, that you should avoid pronouncing, because you’ll end up getting hurt in your mouth by pronouncing them!

Your fans will sit in the showroom. The police are informed and the second floor is not accessible.

It is beautiful, democracy! Frankly, this is a beautiful example! All these people are marked for life by your behavior. The [...]

OK to OK! And those who supported me before may support me later, when you are no longer there!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, supporters of Mr. Louis in the projection hall, welcome to the Parliament. You have three months to think about campaigning for someone else. This as a margin note.

I am referring to the draft legislation containing various provisions on energy. Our group would like to emphasize three points during this plenary discussion.

These various provisions again do not shine out in energy vision, in energy volunteerism. It is a bit of bric-à-brac. It is a bit of having what is there. It’s a bit of murmuring in the margin. Therefore, our group will not support this draft containing various provisions.

Three more specific points, Mr. Secretary of State. I agree with Mr Wollants when it comes to the method.

First, in the law containing various provisions, royal decrees are transposed, but too late. Articles that are not submitted to the State Council do not deserve good points twice in the field of procedure. Then there is another amendment of the majority parties that would be submitted to the Council of State, but it still fails to get an opinion in time. It is not the most beautiful show.

If you would make your homework a little better, we could avoid such things.

Second, we regret the article in the bill containing various provisions in which you seem to further extend the powers of the energy regulator, in which you further seem to realize a shift of powers from the independent regulator towards the administration.

It is an article that stipulates that from now on production permits would be handled at the level of the administration. We thought it was a good idea to keep that where it is now happening, with the independent energy regulator.

Third, the most principled point concerns the prefinancing of the nuclear interest rate. Mrs. Lalieux has already mentioned this and we have had a discussion about it.

Apparently, Synatom, the nuclear commission company, is unable to pay the nuclear interest on time. She apparently cannot count on the willing cooperation of the producers, so Synatom must pre-finance that, so they are charged with additional costs, so in this law containing various provisions you propose to do so with the State and the taxpayer.

You have finally said – for us this is still not quite clear – that it will be done through an increase in the nuclear contribution, something that will be voted in the plenary session next week. This is not entirely clear.

In addition, the principle question remains. Can it be that Synatom must collect for the pre-financing? Is it possible that the taxpayer must collect for this pre-financing? Wouldn’t this have been arranged for a long time?

This was discussed yesterday in the committee, Mr. Secretary of State. Year after year, we continue to regulate the nuclear interest rate through draft laws containing various provisions at the end of the calendar year. There should have been a draft law on this subject for a long time and we could even support it if it was arranged in a good way and if the amount was sufficiently high.

However, we cannot support draft laws containing various provisions and a Belgian State that operates almost as a bank for the nuclear sector. You will understand the opposition of our group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I will not repeat the words of my colleague Mr. Calvo who addressed the three points that question our assessment of the bill under consideration. However, as Ms. Lalieux has done, I would like to insist on taking advantage of the three months of work that we have left in this Parliament to improve the management of provisions for the dismantling of nuclear power plants and the treatment of their waste via Synatom.

This is even more necessary as this company requests the government to assume the surplus costs related to advances it must make for the payment of contributions from the nuclear sector to the budget of the Belgian State while it is known that Synatom is fed by the provisions of nuclear producers, that it is a subsidiary of GDF Suez and that, ultimately, it is the nuclear sector that benefits from these reserves. It should be noted, in fact, that the latter is the first user (75%) of the amounts provisioned within the said company. It is therefore urgently necessary to make arrangements within this Parliament so that this body of management of provisions is no longer a subsidiary of producers, but an organ under the supervision of the State.

The control of the management must be made independent. It is necessary that the raised supplies benefit from what should replace nuclear power rather than benefit almost exclusively from nuclear power. Finally, there is no reason for the state to be responsible for the surplus costs associated with delays in the payment of nuclear contributions since normally the money must be available in order to be used, if necessary, in the service of nuclear power.

We have submitted legislative proposals. We strongly hope that they will be examined by the end of March and that we can thus repair these management bodies and the relationship between the state and nuclear producers.