Proposition 54K0875

Projet de loi portant modification de la loi du 17 janvier 2003 relative au statut du régulateur des secteurs des postes et des télécommunications belges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 5, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive national implementing measure postal and telecommunications services regulation of telecommunications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 5, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, my speech will obviously not be in the same direction as the previous one, through which I supported you in your actions. I do not agree with the objective of the bill that is being submitted. In a democratic society, rules of general scope are produced either by an elected assembly or by persons responsible before such an assembly. In other words, in a democracy, no general laws are enacted without publicly justifying such a responsibility. This is the principle that guarantees, of course, the preservation of the general interest.

Until now, the IBPT’s power to lay down general rules was legitimized by government control. Although no government has ever changed any decision of this body, this principle seems to us to have to be ⁇ ined. Tomorrow, it will only be the IBPT that will judge what is in the public interest. However, this is not consistent with the principle of independence as envisaged by the European Commission.

It is clear that the IBPT’s mission is to regulate a liberalized market and that a government should never intervene when a conflict arises between operators. This is not about it, it is only about the public interest.

I also regret, Mr. Minister, that you took advantage of submitting the postal sector to your project, while the Commission had not addressed this issue.

Finally, this bill is entirely based on a letter from the European Commission – as is the opinion of the State Council. I have asked you to send this letter to us as an advisory letter. But we did not receive it. To vote for a law that is based on a message from the European Commission that we have not read, I do not call that transparency or democracy. I think that’s a bad way to work. Therefore, as we have done in the committee, we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, unlike Mrs. Lalieux, I will express my satisfaction with this bill.

For me, it offers a look back to three years ago, when the Telecommunications Act was amended. I had a lot of criticism at the time about the sliding politization at the BIPT. We turn the clock back, I said. I am pleased that we are now correcting the mistakes of the past. I also warned Minister Vande Lanotte at the time that it was not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the European Directive and that the European Commission would not accept that politization. I said then that we must guarantee the necessary independence. Minister Vande Lanotte did not see the problem, and if there was a problem, he would like to fight in a robbery with the European Commission. I found it a rather irresponsible attitude for a minister in office, looking forward to a thief fighting with the European Commission before the European Court of Justice. This is not the most responsible attitude.

I got right. The European Commission has effectively prosecuted Belgium. Fortunately, this government is taking responsibility. It will ensure that regulations are in order and that independence is guaranteed. It will also ensure that there is no longer the possibility of intervention by the Council of Ministers to suspend decisions of the BIPT. That is all obvious, I think. I am indeed glad that after so many years I got right and that we now, together with our colleagues, work on it.

I would like to justify my abstention. We abstained and we will abstain here.

If it can be understood that the European Commission has considered that certain articles violated the Regulatory Independence Directive, it seems to us that two elements pose a problem. While the Minister could and can rely on the opinion of the Council of State on electronic communications, as I recalled in the committee, on the other hand, on the issue of postal services, the State Council itself notes that the European Commission has not expressly ruled on this issue so far and simply considers that the reasoning that has been followed for one could apply to the other.

There are a number of differences between electronic communications and postal services. We questioned the minister in the committee on the issue of universal service and the danger that the approval of this text without the data could pose.

As Mrs Lalieux said, whom I like to quote, we did not have the opportunity, as a committee, to consult the various emails that we might have needed to study the problem.

Therefore, on the basis of all these elements and with these concerns with regard to the issue of postal services, we will abstain from the project.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is not because I climb on the tribune that my presentation will be much longer than that of my colleagues. I think it is easier to talk.

I would like to intervene to say that this bill seems good at first sight. Who can now stand against a more independent regulator? However, the moment I started reading the bill, I got more and more concerns. I also said this in the committee. In the end we voted against.

What still disturbs me, Mr. Dedecker, is that you are talking about the sluggish politicization of the regulator. If you speak of sliding politicization, I think that the division of powers is a sliding politicization. In my opinion, it is absolutely not good that within a government a minister is competent for the BIPT and at the same time for Belgacom and bpost.

You will tell me that this was also the case for Minister Daems at the time. In the cabinet there are logically people who were dispatched from the BIPT. At the same time, in that cabinet there are also people who come from Belgacom and bpost. In the framework of independence, one must then in principle be able to demonstrate that there are “Chinese walls”.

If one pursues independence in this way, I find that the major mistake was made in the distribution of powers in this government. That is fundamental.

If I then look at the present bill, I find that Minister Van Quickenborne proposed the same at the time. However, the opinion of the State Council at that time was negative. Also today, the State Council says that the amendments to Article 15 are not necessary, according to the European Commission.

You have always talked about a robbery fighting with the European Commission. However, you should read the State Council opinion. With regard to ex ante checks, the present draft proposal does not provide an adequate response to the comments of the European Commission. What really disturbs me, therefore, is that in this text it is read that the opinion of the Council of State is fully followed. That is not true.

A second element has already been cited by Mrs Lalieux and relates to the postal services. Nothing in the texts of the European Commission states that this legislation should also apply to postal services. I shall therefore remain with my fundamental question, why is this supervision of postal services actually abolished, where neither the European Commission nor other bodies have invoked it? The answer was that there was no distinction. If I look at the energy sector and the like, then we really need to cross the line of the measures taken there, also in regards to regulators and independence.

I would like to emphasize here again that our group will not vote against because we are against a more independent regulator. Absolutely not. However, I cannot accept that the government appears to have no problem with the division of powers and has not taken into account the fundamental observations of the State Council. That is why we will vote against, absolutely not because we are against a more independent regulator.

Mr. Geerts, you come up with something that you clearly have a problem with, namely that the minister responsible for telecommunications is now also responsible for the public companies Belgacom and bpost.

If I listen to your argument, it seems to me that just – in all confidence with the minister – a reason much more to strengthen that independence of the BIPT. It is just one more reason to avoid that the minister who is also responsible for Belgacom and bpost itself could take initiatives to suspend certain decisions and to impose priorities on the BIPT which threatens to undermine other matters than due to a lack of resources. Your plea is just for a strengthening of the BIPT. I can of course agree with this element.

That is true, but ultimately here legislation is produced which I do not think is good legislation. The core of the problem in the window of dependence is actually in the fact that within the government the same minister is competent for the BIPT and for Belgacom and bpost.

The fundamental observation remains. You also know that, according to the rules of the European Commission, you should build a Chinese wall between the two. This is purely legislative, I am not saying it is so. I think this is a more fundamental discussion than what we want to do here today.

Again, an independent regulator is important, but one cannot ask us to approve the law that precedes here, ⁇ not based on the opinion of the State Council. If we did this, we would be conducting absolutely bad opposition.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the urgency was requested by the government on the grounds that the European Commission would open an infringement procedure against Belgium if the possibility for the government to suspend IBPT decisions and the obligation to submit the strategic plan to government approval remained anchored in the law for the telecommunications sector.

The conclusion of the State Council Opinion of 5 February 2015 stipulates: "Therefore, taking into account the various elements implemented by the European Commission, and in particular those relating to the interdependence of the tasks of a regulatory authority, the proposed provision may be admitted in so far as it aims to repeal the control of custody on IBPT decisions in the field of electronic communications."

The Council of State continues as follows: “Even if the European Commission has not expressly expressed itself on this issue so far, the reasoning that has been followed by it may justify that the legislator also considers it necessary to abolish the custody control on IBPT decisions relating to postal services.”

The CDH group therefore supports the Telecommunications component of this bill, but would have wanted to take time to reflect before establishing the independence of the IBPT in the field of postal services, especially since the European Commission did not impose it.

For the CDH, it is also essential that universal service and compliance with social standards are preserved in the field of postal services. Thus, we share the conclusion of the State Council opinion on the independence of the regulator, but we would have wished to benefit from all the guarantees regarding the observance of the universal service.

Therefore, our group will abstain when voting on this bill as it did in committee.

This bill is another step in the process of liberalization.

Directives are implemented that organize the opening of the market for the benefit of ⁇ and consumers. If the benefit for ⁇ is clear, it is far from the case for consumers. Indeed, if we draw a balance of all sectors that have been liberalized in the last few years, or even a few decades, we find that the service has decreased as the price increased.

Here, more specifically, the abolition of the government’s tutelage on the IBPT is organized. This means that if the IBPT violates the law or hurts the general interest, the government is disarmed and can no longer do anything. This is a rather surprising depreciation of the power of the state.

Another aspect concerns the strategic plan, which no longer needs to be approved by the government. I knew the responsibility of the government. Here, I find that government irresponsibility is organized and that strategy is something that does not interest the government.

Finally, this poses a democratic question. by Mr. Dedecker says he is pleased to witness a depolitization. It is true that there are politicizations that exasperate us, but, in this case, when we speak of depolitization, it is, let us not be mistaken, a democratic deprivation!

It is observed that this additional step towards liberalization is a democratic hold-up since it is the European Commission, not elected, that puts Belgium at home, with in addition a good dose of opacity regarding the documents that it has communicated to the government. The European Commission is already very strong in terms of liberalization. The government adds a layer to it because it goes beyond what it requires! It’s quite challenging, but I’m not surprised by this very right-wing government.

I would like to remind you that in the current social movement, there are four points of breakdown for trade unions. There have been two discussions recently, the pension and prepension and the index jump. The third is the attack on public services. The government is very strong in this area and, today, it surfs beyond what is imposed by the European Commission.

It is clear that the PTB will vote against this bill.

Thank you for all the presentations.

As mentioned, the European Commission had initiated a procedure before the European Court of Justice. This procedure was temporarily suspended in anticipation of the pending bill. The purpose of the draft law is to strengthen the independence of the BIPT in accordance with my policy statement.

In essence, it is about two elements, namely the fact that the government can no longer remove decisions from the regulator and the fact that the strategic plan can no longer be influenced. The only form of supervision, which remains, is the accountability of the BIPT to the people’s representatives.

I am a little surprised that there is so little enthusiasm among some about giving Parliament an additional power here and taking a power away from the government. I expected a little more enthusiasm. It may have been a bit utopian.

Some ask why we do the same for the postal sector. It is correct that the Commission has not commented on this, but the State Council says there is no problem to follow the same reasoning for the postal services. I do not understand why we should not do so, especially since the Council of State has no objection to this.

I decide .

The masks fall off: some parties prefer to see that a regulator cannot work independently. I think that is the conclusion of the debate. We are in favor of a free market, which can function completely freely. In order for it to function freely, one needs a regulator that can be completely independent. I note that some apparently still dream of the period when politics could intervene in the telecommunications market. That is a bad thing. We want to take a step ahead.

Mr. Minister, to answer your last words, I have made it clear that our group is for greater independence from the regulator.

You say that the reporting to Parliament is being questioned. I would like to point out that the government has chosen to make one minister responsible for the BIPT and for the public companies bpost and Belgacom. Some, you think, would argue about the influence of the government on the decision-making of the state companies and the regulator, but just that measure proves that the government is also putting that dream into practice. You should not shoot the opposition. It is this government, which has put two powers under one cap, that is its responsibility.