Proposition 54K1114

Projet de loi portant confirmation de certains articles de l'arrêté royal du 4 avril 2014 modifiant l'arrêté royal du 16 juillet 2002 relatif à l'établissement de mécanismes visant la promotion de l'électricité produite à partir des sources d'énergie renouvelables et de l'arrêté royal du 19 septembre 2014 fixant, pour l'année budgétaire 2015, les modalités particulières pour le calcul de la redevance de médiation pour le financement du service de médiation de l'énergie.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick, Griet Smaers
MR Emmanuel Burton, Benoît Friart, Kattrin Jadin
N-VA Bert Wollants
Open Vld Tim Vandenput, Frank Wilrycx

Submission date

May 27, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

electrical energy energy supply financing renewable energy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP 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 11, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, on behalf of my group, in this file, I would like to express my support on the basis of the royal decrees confirmed by this bill.

I regret, as we regretted in the committee, that an amendment submitted, allowing the confirmation of the entirety of the royal decree of 4 April 2014, was rejected by the majority. You mentioned the reason in the committee. It relates to Articles 10 and 11. It should be noted that at that time they entered into force retroactively, so that if these provisions were confirmed, the confirmation of the other provisions of the said royal decree would be endangered.

It is not so much the retroactive entry into force at the publication of this royal decree that is problematic but the fact that these provisions should have been confirmed before 1 January 2015. As a reminder, I cite the principle of legislative technique of the State Council: “In matters which the Constitution has reserved for the legislator, the latter may confer an authorization on the King only under strict conditions, in particular under the condition that the decrees issued under this authorization must be confirmed within a relatively short period of time and that in the absence of confirmation in time, these decrees are deemed never to have produced effect.”

Furthermore, given this legislation, we know well that the publication in the Belgian Moniteur will take place after the date of entry into force of this law and that the majority still had to act urgently and therefore did not file a bill and effectively requested the opinion of the Council of State. This is a legally ambiguous project.

To conclude, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Friart, who is the author of this proposal, it would have been more reasonable for the majority to seek the opinion of the State Council on this issue. It will therefore have to assume responsibility in the event of a problem related to the non-confirmation of certain provisions. We will abstain from voting on this bill.

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, 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.

However, Mrs. Minister, I would like to ask you a question in order to know whether your position has evolved since the work that took place in the committee.

I want to make sure that the methodological problem that has arisen here will not be repeated in the future. So, can you assure me that, when other laws come to confirm royal decrees, you will no longer submit a bill, but that you will respect the deadlines and institutions, especially the State Council, and that you will submit a bill? Can you now make commitments in this regard?

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have no problem on the substance of the project, namely on the subsidies granted to offshore wind turbines and on the financing of energy intermediation services.

But, as usual, the problem lies at the level of the working method. The work is still being carried out in an emergency. A bill instead of a bill was submitted. The opinion of the State Council was not requested. We are faced with uncertainties regarding articles that have not been confirmed within the framework of the said bill, uncertainties that will once again contribute to the establishment of legal uncertainty with regard to subsidies.

This is the second time we are faced with this kind of practice when it is only a question of confirming royal orders. That is why, even if we have nothing to say on the substance, we will abstain when voting on this bill.

I would like to make a little clarification on these articles. They have no tax scope, do not fall within the scope defined by the State Council and therefore should not be taken back. This was stated in the discussions in the committee.

I would like to respond to Mr. Mr. by Friart.

I want to be sure that he will not have to correct his words later. I propose to give him a second chance.

Mr. Speaker, it was up to my predecessors to confirm the whole of this royal decree by a law in the previous legislature, which they did not. Thus, the articles concerning, in this royal decree, surcharges and tax measures must, in accordance with the opinion of the State Council which had been delivered at that time, be confirmed by law, which we do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure you that Mr. Freud did not correct his remarks.

I understand that the Minister has responded to your speech. I do not see the problem.

I confirm what I said and what the Minister indicated.

This is corrected.

I want to say something about the Minister. I was not able to attend the discussion in the committee, but I read the report. What has greatly surprised me here is the Minister’s statement that in the future she will work with legislative proposals of the majority even more often. In this way, it does not have to seek advice from the State Council and can work faster.

Collega Nollet has already mentioned this, but the Minister has not responded to it. Of course, Mrs. Marghem should not allow for misunderstandings about such things. Over the last few weeks, she has talked to the Parliament, ignored the Council of State and held back opinions. If it intends to work more on legislative proposals, Parliament has the right to know.

I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to correct that ruling and admit that it was an impulsive, temperamental statement in the committee. Then I take the record and we turn the page around. However, I would like to know her answer in the context of the present discussion, since there have been statements on this subject in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the Minister’s response that says that this is the fault of the previous government. This is a normal response from this government.

This ruling was made in April, while the government was in current affairs. So it was up to the new government, set up in October, to confirm. We knew it since October.

I wanted to make this clarification because I would not want there to be counter-truths in the report.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Calvo, I cannot force anyone to speak. If I ask if someone else wants the word and no one wants the word, then I naturally take note of that.

Of course, you cannot force eminent or less eminent ministers to speak.

Even the non-eminent ministers cannot be forced.

I agree with that.

I conclude from that, Mrs. Marghem, as you talk with your group fellow that you hold on to your statement in the committee. This is not an innocent statement, dear colleagues.

The minister said that in the future she would like to work more with legislative proposals of the majority, in order to go faster and not have to pass through the Council of State. After the last few weeks, I think that’s an important fact.

Mr Wollants and ladies and gentlemen of the majority, how long will you continue to tolerate that way of working of Minister Marghem? The minister says frank in the committee that she wants to make even more abuse of you. You will have to sign up often. She wants to work through Parliament so that she does not have to go to the Council of State. You agree that, as you also agree today, the Minister on the Federal Professional Commission for the Access to Environmental Information takes a step with the reality. This is a new incident today.

You think you like something like that. It has to stop, Mr President. Minister Marghem can no longer play with the legislation and the Parliament.