Proposition 54K2838

Logo (Chamber of representatives)

Projet de loi concernant l'instauration d'une allocation de mobilité.

General information

Submitted by
MR Swedish coalition
Submission date
Dec. 15, 2017
Official page
Visit
Status
Adopted
Requirement
Simple
Subjects
tax relief fiscal policy sustainable mobility vehicle

Voting

Voted to adopt
CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB
Voted to reject
Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB
Abstained from voting
Vooruit

Party dissidents

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.








Bot check: Enter the name of any Belgian province in one of the three Belgian languages:

Discussion

March 15, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source


President Siegfried Bracke

I give the floor to Mrs. Dumery.


Georges Gilkinet Ecolo

Mr. Speaker, I am the speaker and I would like to make a clarification.


President Siegfried Bracke

You are actually the rapporteur with Mr. Lachaert, Mrs. Dumery and Mr. Piedboeuf.


Rapporteur Georges Gilkinet

I will not specify the political position of each of my colleagues. They will ⁇ do it in the context of the general discussion. I will do it too.

I would like to make a quick reference and honor to the hearings held prior to our political debate in joint committees of Social Affairs and Finance since we started our work with the hearings of representatives of the National Labour Council (CNT) and environmental associations represented by the Bond Beter Leefmilieu.

Remember that the CNT had submitted to the government, in the past few months, an advance bill on the same topic, and that the CNT representative, Mr. De Groote, had explained to us that there had been a unanimous opinion of the CNT on this mobility budget. It cited several prerequisites for this: encouraging a change of behavior towards more sustainable mobility; ensuring workers the same level of reimbursement of travel costs as those currently applied, within the framework of budgetary neutrality; facilitating multimodality; encouraging the promotion and development of the offer of public public transport, the offer of private public transport and the offer of shared transport.

The FEB representative confirmed this viewpoint, highlighting the goal of decongesting traffic as much as possible and stimulating behavioral changes, and emphasizing that the CNT proposal goes ahead of the government.

We have heard the trade union representatives. Mr. Christophe Quintard, for the FGTB, pointed out that the views of the social partners on the subject were unanimous, which is quite rare. He also cited studies that showed that congestion problems could almost be solved by removing 10 to 15% of cars from home-workplace traffic.

Then we heard Bond Representative Beter Leefmilieu who was more critical of the bill and the National Labour Council Pre-Draft, estimating that remuneration should be paid in euros, not in car and diesel. And by highlighting the problems generated by corporate cars that are more powerful and more expensive, which are often diesel vehicles and travel a larger number of kilometers. The speaker concluded by proposing to combine different measures. The introduction of a mobility allowance for all workers and the freezing of the number of corporate cars.

Our committees continued the political debate, but I wanted to highlight the hearings that took place and the fact that those who were heard mobilized quickly. We debated in two readings of this text and the official opinion of the CNT, which largely confirmed its preliminary hearing, occurred between the first and second reading. I give the floor to Mrs. Dumery.


President Siegfried Bracke

I am the one who gives him the word. But I thank you for your report.

The floor is given to Mrs. Dumery.


Rapporteur Daphné Dumery

There are several rapporteurs. I refer to the written report. This was indeed part of various committees with hearings. The colleague already explained extensively what all happened in the committees.

The current bill concerns the mobility allowance. We are not talking about the mobility budget. Many colleagues cannot distinguish between mobility allowance and mobility budget. For all clarity, the mobility budget is currently being discussed in the government and I am also looking forward to the outcome of it.

What is prominent is the mobility allowance, in which we give an employee with a business car the opportunity to exchange his business car for a fee. He can freely choose what he will do with this remuneration. The draft law, therefore, has no ambition at all to replace the system of commercial cars, but rather to offer workers an alternative to their commercial cars. And even if there is only one car less in the file, there is already something achieved of the ambition to reduce the faults. Our ambition is precisely that there are fewer cars on the road. That is the advantage of this bill, with the ecological benefits associated with it.

In the committees there was a lot of discussion about whether it is a well-thought-out system or not. If you read the bill, you will see the cascade of measures to avoid abuse, to reach the intended target audience, and so on. What is very good is the choice that is offered. Many actual possibilities are taken into account, such as having multiple commercial cars or changing jobs. All this was calculated.

The freedom of choice of the employee is therefore the crucial factor in making this succeed. He or she knows what is the best option for his living environment, a business car or something else.

The N-VA supports this proposal and says fully yes to the cash for car scheme, because the voluntary basis exists, both for the employer and for the employee; because the scheme is budget neutral for the individual employer, the employee and the government and, very importantly, because the scheme is administratively simple for the employer.

I hope that this bill will be unanimously approved.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Mobility is not present. We are talking about mobility. I asked for his presence in the committee. I am the Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Flahaux. I had pledged that we could see him and hold joint meetings. When it comes to mobility, we obviously hope to have it. He talks about it all the time and he talks about it well. This is to demonstrate to you, dear members of the government, how much this project will do nothing in terms of mobility. I think this has just been demonstrated here. It may be a bit of taxation, it may be a bit of social, but it will not fix anything in terms of mobility, since the Minister of Mobility does not even bother to come and discuss with us. I had questions for Mr. Bellot. I think he will not be able to come.

We have discussed this in the committee for a long time. This bill comes from the negotiation of the 2016 budget adjustment. Reynders, who is also not the Minister of Mobility, had announced that all workers – at least those who have a corporate car, which is far from the case for all workers – would receive 450 euros of pocket salary in exchange for their corporate car. This was the announcement by Mr. Reynders in 2016. I repeated his words. He’s not here to confirm them, but that’s what he said.

The idea is obviously to exchange the company car for a sum of money, which will be granted as a surcharge, without social contributions, with a very advantageous taxation, according to the regime of company cars.

What are all the criticisms we have heard? We have heard almost only criticism, except on the banks of the majority. But otherwise, Mr. Gilkinet just recalled, all the people we audited were totally critical.

The first thing is that the company is not obliged to accept the employee’s request. Madame Dumery, you talked about freedom. No, the worker has no freedom! He will not have it given that if he wants to exchange his company car, the project provides that if his employer says no, it will be no. I do not know where the freedom of the worker is. This is clearly in the bill unless the ministers contradict me in a moment. He will therefore not have this freedom since it will be answered that he will not be able to benefit from the mobility allowance.

This sum of money is calculated according to a formula defined in the law but will never reach the value of the car. We are also talking about a sum of 450 euros, as Mr. Reynders had announced loudly, but about 200 euros. Little lies about the “gift” offered by the government! Overall, this will not compensate the company car at all.

This amount should not necessarily be allocated to mobility. I understand that the Minister of Mobility is not present since, with these 200 euros, you can go to the barber instead of buying a subscription to the STIB or the SNCB. You can do what you want. This is not a mobility allowance. This is one of the major weaknesses of this text.

As for the State Council, you will tell me that this government is accustomed to receiving murderous opinions from the State Council. Here, he really is. I read: “It is very doubtful that this is an adequate means of achieving the objective pursued in terms of sustainable mobility.”

The latter made murderous remarks to which the government did not respond at all:

- the current advantageous status of corporate cars is ⁇ ined in the state;

- the measure is based on the free consent of the employer and the worker;

- the choice to convert the advantage of a corporate car into a mobility allowance is not irreversible;

- the worker, when he has several commercial cars, will be able to have the mobility allowance for one car and keep the other. Mrs. Dumery said it and it is already an aberration, Mrs. De Block: the same worker who has several corporate cars, yes, it exists! We will go to our home! Frankly, this will not help mobility in our country! You cannot drive two cars at the same time; do you agree with me, Mr. President? You totally agree with me, I thought so.

There is no relationship between the mobility need of the worker concerned and the amount of the allowance.

- He can freely dispose of the allocation, I said, without turning it into sustainable alternative transport.

Here is a series of murderous remarks made by the State Council, to which we have not received any response in committee.

The Council of State concludes that it is permissible to seriously doubt the relevance of the proposed measure in view of the objective it aims at. There is therefore no relationship between the measurement and the goal aimed by it since, in fact, everyone will be able to keep their car.

The SPF Mobility made a small analysis: between 3 and 9% of owners of a corporate car might be interested in the government project. Between 3 and 9 percent. Yes, you are right in raising your eyebrows, Mr. President! That is, nothing at all. This, of course, will not solve our mobility problems.

Mr. Gilkinet wanted to pay tribute, of course, to the CNT who came to the hearing ...


Marcel Cheron Ecolo

The [...]


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

I would not say that, Mr. Cheron!

I would like to emphasize again the way the government does social concertation. He sends his bill on October 4th, Mrs. De Block, to the State Council. The State Council says that, for this type of project, except for urgency, it is necessary to first seek the opinion of the CNT.

When does this government ask for the opinion of the CNT? At the end of December! He had probably read the opinion of the Council of State which raised this obligation. The worst thing is that then, the government tells the CNT that it has time to give its opinion, but it comes to parliament, mouth-to-mouth, ask for the urgency on this project so that it can vote on it within fifteen days!

Fortunately, the opposition did not accept all this! Fortunately, there was a second reading and we are here in March, with this bill before the assembly.

From the very beginning, the CNT was despised. He is told to write his opinion comfortably, that he has four weeks to do so and that, anyway, we will not touch the project. It also makes fun of social partners. The worst thing is that, for once, ladies and gentlemen ministers, the CNT had issued a unanimous opinion! For one time, you had a nice consultation between social partners and they agreed. This unanimous opinion is not intended to support the government’s project but rather to say that this government’s project will not solve the problem of mobility, as the State Council confirms. But it does nothing. It was announced. It is in a balance, in one of your many balances that do not look much like in relation to the workers. Therefore, we do not want to give up anything and we do not want to change the bill.

Why is this bill meaningless according to the CNT?


Eric Van Rompuy CD&V

Mrs. Lalieux, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, I received a letter from the National Labour Council on 22 February stating: "In this opinion, the councils urge the government to ensure that there is a mobility budget in addition to a mobility allowance." The Council did not object to the vote on the mobility allowance.

In the committee, however, several members have confirmed and the minister has committed that we will come to a mobility budget based on the NAR draft. I hear that the discussion on this in government circles is in the final phase and will be published in the course of the coming days.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

[...] in the coming days?


Eric Van Rompuy CD&V

Yes, you should ask the government. Minister De Block is also present at the moment. The mobility budget is part of the government meetings of recent days.

It is not contradictory, it is not contradictory. We discussed this in the Finance Committee.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

Mr. Van Rompuy, let me express what I was going to say.


President Siegfried Bracke

Madame Lalieux, before you answer Mr Van Rompuy, I pass the floor to Mr Lachaert.


Egbert Lachaert Open Vld

On the same subject.

I would like to agree with what the Chairman of the Commission said.

Mrs. Lalieux, your speech surprised me. I wonder if you followed the work? All the same discussions have been discussed. We held hearings at the request of the opposition, in which the social partners were present. They have said what Mr Van Rompuy said at the time, in particular that they do not oppose this draft and that they can support it if a mobility budget is also drawn up. The government is now taking the last hand. The continuation is ⁇ ly on the agenda for tomorrow, but we will learn more about it later when the government responds.

During the hearings we also heard the Bond Better Living Environment. What surprises me most about you and Mr. Gilkinet of Ecolo-Groen is that you cite the arguments of the automotive lobby, but that the Bond Beter Leefmilieu is apparently not listened to. The Bond Better Living Environment says that it prefers the cash for car scheme, the mobility fee that the government now wants to introduce, over the mobility budget, because it encourages people to move less and they keep cash. That’s what the Bond Better Living Environment says, Mrs. Lalieux, and what Mr. Gilkinet and you are against. I think this is very special and honestly I don’t understand it well. You will have to explain it to me.

I have been listening to you for five minutes. You have a lot of criticism, but what is your alternative?


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

I will tell you.


President Siegfried Bracke

I would like to give the word to Mr. Geerts.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

I had not finished yet.


President Siegfried Bracke

Mr Geerts asks for the word.


David Geerts Vooruit

Mrs. Lalieux, you can ask colleague Lachaert what interpretation he gave to the presentation of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu. I am very surprised that he would now become a spokesman for that. I have that presentation here in hand and I think the possible new spokesman of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu has experienced a different hearing than I did.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

Mr. President, you stopped me when I talked about the CNT.

My first point was to say that the cash for car project only makes sense if a mobility budget is introduced at the same time.

You demonstrate very well that the government submitted its text in January and that the CNT’s opinion arrived on February 22.

We agree except that, according to the law, this had to be requested before submitting the bill to parliament. Respect for social partners is a minimum.

Mr Lachaert, you are asking us for our alternatives. A bill has just been submitted. This is what the CNT proposes. We are presenting a bill today with the SPD.

But whenever we offer you an alternative – ⁇ a bit relevant – you reject it because it comes from the opposition. Stop asking us for alternatives. You will never accept them, not even any amendments.

If you were really convinced and if you really followed the CNT, you would have had a little patience for this bill and put both in parallel. We would have voted both in parallel. It makes no sense if the two are in parallel.

Mr. Van Rompuy, we do not have the mobility budget. What you are proposing is not an alternative. What you are proposing today is not an alternative to traffic jams. The state council said it, the CNT also said it. Mr. Van Rompuy, you are only confirming what I say.

I would like to ask a question to the Minister, but he is not there. If you are convinced that you need both in parallel, why do you want to vote for this project in a hurry? I hope to get a reply soon.

I still had a question for Mr. Bellot, but maybe one of the two ministers could answer me. Mr Bellot said many of the comments of the State Council were well-founded. What are they according to him? What is the estimated number of cars removed thanks to this device? I had asked this at a committee meeting to Mr. Bellot, who had told me that he would bring figures later. I’m still waiting for them, but the problem is that he’s not present at this session.

We can still delay the vote on this bill. Our goal was that the government bind the two projects and that they enter into force simultaneously. At present, no mobility budget is announced, even in the first reading. In any case, I haven’t heard of it, unless you tell me it’s already written and it’ll come to the government on Friday. Is the mobility budget draft already drafted?

Mr. Lachaert absolutely wants the PS and sp.a. to propose alternatives. We are always very pleased with this, Mr Lachaert. So we have laid out the only way to try to reduce congestion and congestion in our country and really move to sustainable mobility: the mobility budget. Mr Lachaert, we can ask for an urgent vote on our bill. As the majority is calling for alternatives, I hope that they will vote with us on the urgency so that we can work on the mobility budget in committees from next week. Mr. Van Rompuy, I am sure you will be glad to put it directly on the agenda of the committee meeting.


Benoît Piedboeuf MR

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill under consideration is based on the finding that our country is facing a mobility problem, mainly due to a blocked road traffic and a significant congestion of our roads. The project does not aim to replace the company car system but to offer an alternative to workers who have it, in order to reduce the fleet of cars. Whether you like it or not, this is the first initiative taken in this area, and it is worthy of welcome.

This will soon be added, as the President recalled, to the mobility budget, on which technical discussions are ongoing. It will be two complementary systems, of which it will be necessary to ensure the best articulation. This project acts in the short term on the role of the corporate car: it proposes an alternative entering into competition with it. Only a financial incentive can encourage workers to voluntarily exchange their car for other means of transport more appropriate to sustainable development.

Concretely, this mobility allowance aims to allow workers to return their car for a sum of money having the same tax and social status that applies to commercial cars. The mobility allowance has three main characteristics: it must be established voluntarily, both for workers and for the employer. This freedom of choice is important to us. It has a tax and social status equal to that of the company car, to avoid discouraging distortion; it is budgetally neutral, both for the worker and for the employer, but also for public finances and social security.

I would like to mention a few statistics that Minister Bellot gave in commission. According to the analysis conducted by the SPF Mobility and Transport, 3 to 9% of people would be willing to give up their wage car in exchange for a mobility allowance. This would represent an average of ⁇ 25,000 commercial cars that would be removed from urban or suburban areas. This figure is not negligible: each car less helps to solve part of the mobility problems. It is a beginning.

I take advantage of this to remind that the government is also taking many initiatives to improve sustainable mobility and reduce CO2 emissions in our country, ⁇ through investment in rail.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the expectations of our fellow citizens regarding mobility are many. There need to be concrete answers. For our group, the mobility allowance represents a cost-effective alternative to the use of the company car, while guaranteeing the freedom of choice of each of the parties.

We are aware that the work is not finished. The mobility allocation is a first step; the mobility budget is the next. This is a first step that deserves to be welcomed.

For all these reasons, MR Group will enthusiastically support the bill on the introduction of a mobility allowance, Mr. Cheron.


Jef Van den Bergh CD&V

Mr. Speaker, dear ministers, colleagues, the mobility allowance, in the meantime better known as cash for car. I’m not going to hide that we – I wick my words – in the beginning had some mixed feelings about this measure. It seemed for a moment that this mobility allowance would be the fulfillment of the passage from the government agreement that envisaged a mobility budget. This mobility budget was to become a full-fledged alternative to business and wage cars.

Against the limited fulfillment of this goal we are opposed. The mobility allowance cannot be regarded as a full mobility budget as we already intended it. The aim of the proposal that we developed in 2013 was to break through the “auto-matism”. Breaking the automatic reflex to start using the car for almost every move.

Several studies show that more kilometers are driven with the business or wage car. Mr Gilkinet has already mentioned this. This was also discussed during the hearings. This is not unlogical, of course. This car runs more when you drive more. Breaking that logic by developing an attractive alternative that responds to the mobility needs of workers and must by definition be multimodal was the goal of the proposed mobility budget as we presented it in the previous legislature.

However, we can agree with what is stated here. In fact, it is even an important breakthrough. However modest, for the first time, an alternative to the commercial car is offered. Employers who make the commercial vehicle available will be given the opportunity to include the mobility allowance in the wage package they offer to their employees. From now on, employees will be able to refrain from this business car. To stimulate this, the mobility allowance receives the same tax and socially beneficial status as the commercial car already has today, namely the benefit of all kinds.

What the employee does with this remuneration is free of charge. However, since his means of transport is lost, it can be assumed, or it must be assumed, that the compensation will at least be used for his movements and/or to move closer to work. Nor is it insignificant.

Of course, the conversion of extralegal benefits, such as the business car there is one, to cash is not so obvious. I do not need to remind you of the debate about the ecochecks and the meal checks. The opinion of the State Council also referred to this. There are also numerous anti-abuse provisions that clearly align the scope of application. They should avoid using this instrument for wage optimization or for further consolidation of social security. It is also important that the mobility allowance receives the same social and fiscal status as the car, but that it will not evolve with the employee’s career.

All this can, of course, lead to the fact that the attractiveness to effectively replace the commercial car and, consequently, the success of the measure will be rather limited.

Is that a reason not to support the proposed measure? Certainly not ! Some estimates have already appeared: 3 % to 9 % is sometimes said. The committee meeting talked about 40,000 cars that would disappear. All in all, it remains to be seen, of course, how many commercial cars will disappear. In my personal opinion, there is definitely a public for this. A small public, especially urban people. People who live, for example, in Antwerp or Brussels, or maybe in Leuven, Mechelen and so on. People who have enough alternatives at their disposal, people who live close to their work but who often have trouble getting the car they got parked. Buying a place to park is also not evidence in a densely built area. For those people, the commercial car is not only an extra-legal advantage but often also a burden. For that target group alone, this design, however modest, ⁇ enjoys our support.

It is also important for us that after this modest step the bigger step will follow: the full mobility budget. Since then, this has already been discussed. This is being worked hard within the government. We may be close to an agreement, in line with the unanimous opinion given by the social partners in the committee. The NAR, the CRB, the employers and the employees, presented a unanimous opinion on this subject. It is good that the government is working on implementing this agreement.

During the discussion of the draft on the introduction of a mobility fee in the committees, the various ministers involved have therefore explicitly confirmed that work will be done on the announced draft law on the introduction of a mobility budget, which was announced in November 2017 and which will offer workers a choice from a wide range of means of transport and transport services. Alternative modes of transport, such as public transport, bicycle and part-car, will be encouraged in that draft by an exemption from RSZ and taxes.

Such a mobility budget provides an even greater incentive to make more sustainable mobility choices. We therefore expect that the introduction of that attractive and full-fledged mobility budget will be done quickly.

In this regard, I agree with the words used by the Chairman of the Committee on Finance during the sessions. He suggested that before Easter 2018 we should be able to see a bill on the introduction of a mobility budget.

We look forward to an agreement on this. My only question to the ministers is the following.

What is the state of affairs? When can we expect results in this regard?


Egbert Lachaert Open Vld

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we stand here, regardless of the criticism, for a revolutionary step.

For the first time in decades, since the system of commercial cars exists, an effective alternative to the commercial car is being offered. Given the history of the file, if we had to start from scratch, no one who is concerned about the environment and public health would still make the choice for the current system of commercial cars. However, the system is there. The problem is that in the meantime hundreds of thousands of workers in our country enjoy the system. Unfortunately, its abolition from day to day would be a punitive violation of the wages of the persons concerned. On the net wage, that abolition would be a drastic intervention that we cannot defend against the public opinion.

Mr. Geerts, you did somewhat narrow about what the Bond Beter Leefmilieu explained during the hearings and to which I refer. I added the quotations that Mathias Bienstman gave during the hearings.

He stated, first, that the Bond Better Living Environment as an environmental movement is of course not happy that the system of commercial cars exists. The first concern of the organization would be to simply abolish the system. However, she realizes that the abolition is very difficult or not defensive.

During the hearing, he said that if the opposition to the idea of an abolition is too great, the introduction of a mobility fee, also called cash for car, is the second best solution. You can read this in the report, from which I literally cite.

Mr. Gilkinet, you are actually opposing the Bond Better Environment.


President Siegfried Bracke

Mr Gilkinet, are you asking for the word?


Georges Gilkinet Ecolo

I would like to speak briefly.

My will is not to draw things in length but Mr. Lachaert interpells me a second time on the viewpoint of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu.

Indeed, the Bond Beter Leefmilieu and all environmental associations share the same critical point of view, including on the CNT proposal. However, they aligned arguments for and against this system, considering that this proposal was second best and a step towards a system that would freeze the system in terms of “car-wage” and would offer all workers a mobility allowance and sustainable, non-polluting alternatives for travel.

But you can’t consider that Bond’s Beter Leefmilieu speech in front of our commissions was a support for cash for car. In my opinion, this interpretation is not correct of what was said by the very sympathetic and competent representative of this very important association in our society. He ⁇ had a critical point of view on the CNT proposal but it was just as, if not more, compared to the cash for car project.

I will conclude, soon, with my own explanation but your interpretation is, I think, not correct.


Egbert Lachaert Open Vld

Colleague Gilkinet, I did not target you specifically. However, I found it interesting to follow the quotes of Mathias Bienstman again. He says literally: “If the resistance to this reform” – that is, the complete abolition of the system – “is too large, the introduction of a mobility fee (cash for car) is the second best solution.”

What is also interesting is that he actually answers three bad arguments against the mobility fee, which I keep hearing again.

First, it refers to the opinion of the State Council on inequal treatment of workers. I am also a lawyer and I have some practical experience. The State Council has taken that into its opinions since the discussion on the ecocheck. In fact, I think they are on the wrong track. It is the legislator who provides a certain framework and that framework should be equal for everyone. Every Belgian should be able to enjoy the legal framework but we do not create inequality. The inequality lies in the negotiation between employer and employee about what one includes in a salary package, not in the fact that one A enjoys and the other B. This is ultimately an agreement between employer and employee, which is exactly included in a salary package.

I personally consider that the State Council — I have been critical of this since the opinion on the eco-check — is on the wrong track that is now repeated in various opinions. Mathias Bienstman of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu also returns to this. He says this is actually a bad argument. If one wants to use that argument, he says, then the mistake is actually already in the business car itself, because there are people with and without a business car.

Mr Bienstman also replies — I can share that view — that this will lead to workers buying a car themselves. We also heard this during the hearing. Vacature.com has conducted a small digital survey. The representative of the CRB has taken that back. He said that 18% of employees with a business car are interested in cash for car and would accept that scheme. Half of them, 9%, would buy a car, the other half ⁇ ’t. The representative of the CRB said that if only those 9% are assumed, 30,000 cars will actually be removed from the road. Mr. Van den Bergh has already said that it has a limited effect on itself, but it is still about 30 000 cars. The CRB warns us that these cars will disappear from traffic. The Bond Beter Leefmilieu also says that the other half of those 18%, so 9%, would also choose to own a car, which is also a good thing because they at least do not have a fuel card with which no matter how many kilometers they drive. After all, with such a tank card, one drives at the expense of the employer in a very favourable way. In fact, a study at the time showed that people with a business car travel more kilometers, about 6,000 more a year, than workers without a business car. No matter how limited you want to see it, there is also a positive effect in that regard.

The third counter-argument that is often raised, he has also answered, and I also share that view. There is often criticism of the cash for car draft because it ⁇ ’t be focused on mobility. That’s actually a somewhat strange reasoning, because that counterargument would mean that the car should be replaced for something that should be focused on mobility. The strange thing about that counterargument is that traveling by public transport also creates an environmental footprint. What we want is that people move less. When the system is focused solely on mobility, mobility consumption is partly encouraged. For this reason, the Bond Better Living Environment prefers this solution, as the second best idea, over the idea of the social partners.

I am not against the idea of the social partners. I remind you that our party developed a plan two years ago, consisting of the following four loops.

First of all, cash for car.

Secondly, a mobility budget that can be managed by the employer – which, by the way, we are fully in line with Mr Van den Bergh’s group. This was also suggested by the social partners. Therefore, we are not at all opposed to the budget as the social partners have advised. Like colleague Van den Bergh, we want this to be added to the debate and quickly become a reality.

Third, we also think, Mr Gilkinet, that everyone should be able to enjoy a mobility budget. Our call to the social partners was to incorporate, in the two-year IPA agreements on wage negotiations, the transfer of residence and work to a basic mobility budget and to increase it to the level of a middle-class car every two years, so that everyone can enjoy it in the long run. This is a gradual process that needs to grow in wage negotiations.

Fourthly – this was also reflected in the opinion of the social partners – since we know a system of commercial vehicles, we are strongly in favour of drastically greenering it by ensuring that commercial cars, which are often the forerunners of the private second-hand market, become greener. In ten years, commercial cars should be zero-emission cars.

These were the four pillars of our plan. We are delighted to be able to approve the first leak today.

Colleagues from the opposition, who expect a rapid mobility budget, we also count on it and hope that it quickly becomes a reality within the government. Per ⁇ the ministers will be able to say more about this later.

I have summarized it in broad lines.

Our group has always been in favor of a quiet revolution, not a fierce revolution, but a revolution in which, in addition to the commercial car, we finally offer choices in the wage package, in the wage package. It should be budget-neutral for the employer, the employee and the government. With this design and the design that hopefully comes soon, we will succeed. It is a system of freedom of choice.

Mrs. Lalieux, we do not believe that one can unilaterally decide to implement this in a work relationship. You must understand that. Suppose that many employees of a company that has dozens of commercial cars choose to do so, then that company has a problem with a fleet of cars that it can’t do much with in the coming years. We have always said that the budget should be neutral for everyone, including the employer. This is a choice that the employer and the employee must make together. This is also the case in the opinion of the social partners on the mobility budget.

I mean, I have said everything. We are very happy that we can take the first step. If the second draft follows and hopefully gets unanimous support, our group is in favor of working on the implementation of the social partners’ advice as soon as possible.


David Geerts Vooruit

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I will not go into the treatment of the case, because colleagues have already done that. I will immediately move on to the content of what is being discussed.

My fundamental consideration is: what is the purpose of the design? Normally, we look at the title or the memory of explanation. The title reads as follows: "Draft law on the introduction of a mobility fee." In the explanatory memo under "to address congestion problem" it reads: "File problem in Belgium has a serious impact not only on the mobility and environmental aspects of our society, but also on the well-being of citizens and on the Belgian economy." Then I ask myself the fundamental question whether the legislation we vote today offers a solution, as stated in the explanatory memo?

I participated in all the hearings. Yesterday and today I tried to read the various articles written on this subject. I also read the responses of the ministers. Mr. Lachaert says that this is now a revolutionary step, but I must say that not many people are convinced that this is now the great step forward.

On Monday I read in the newspaper something more about windowdressing: “The mobility budget will be approved. It doesn’t make much difference on the road, but it’s useful to give the impression that the government is addressing the mobility fiasco.”

Mr. Lachaert and other members of the majority, that is my fundamental criticism of this whole method of work, that they let us treat this as an independent file and then hope that we will approve it.

What should the mobility budget be?

I have understood that the government will come up with a proposal before Easter. What is the message that I can give to the Paschaeas? I went to look at literature. The mobility budget is actually a mobility budget as a guiding principle to promote sustainable alternatives to the commercial car. That’s a mobility budget and that’s not what we see here today.

The literature also asks whether a wage disability should be solved with commercial cars, even if they are green commercial cars. That is the fundamental question to be asked. I know that the file has grown for decades.

For all clarity, our faction is also in favor of no one losing wages, but if we want to preach the revolution, Mr. Lachaert, then we must dare to ask that question, ⁇ with regard to the well-being of the future generation.

I have already said in the committee that we do not see the cash for car principle as the big solution. Numbers were already given. According to studies, people with a wage car drive 6 000 kilometers more, 2 800 kilometers more in residential-work traffic and almost 3 000 kilometers more during their leisure spending. The joint costs amount to 905 million euros. The tax costs for the government amount to 1.2 billion euros.

It is said that this is a small step, but the growth of the number of registered commercial cars in 2016 and 2017 was 3.6 and 3.2%, respectively. It is said that on 445 000 cars there is a potential of 30 000 commercial vehicles less, but if one fundamentally changes nothing in politics, then the sewing with the crane opens, because the anticipated decline is canceled after two to three years.

It also referred to the opinion of the State Council. It is not always necessary to take this into account, you may have doubts about it, but I will still quote the last of the seven points of the report. The State Council says that the explanation of the draft does not contain reliable elements that suggest that there is a demonstrable link between the proposed measure and its intended objective, namely to bring fewer vehicles into circulation and thus ⁇ a reduction in traffic congestion and the related health, economic and other problems. According to the Council of State, there are therefore serious doubts as to the relevance of the proposed measure in the light of its objective. I can only quote what the Council of State points out in these.

I am not the spokesman for one or the other lobby, but there seems to be a risk. I think you cannot deny that. We could read in the newspaper this week which types of cars would receive a financial benefit. People will exchange their commercial car, but then probably buy a more polluting car. This does not reduce the car park on the road. It only becomes less sustainable.

You have just given the argument of the meal cheques and the ecocheques. I repeat the quote of a chairman of the Cyclists Federation, which I also gave in the committee: “To believe that this form of mobility budget will change our behavior is as naive as to believe that the meal cheque helps against obesity.”

That is what lives in the middle. The midfield is very skeptical of this measure, despite the euphoria created by the majority.

I would like to refer again to the presentations we have received. This is worth a fundamental debate. Who has a salary car? The highest decibel of earners owns 50% of the wage cars and if I look at the ninth and tenth decibel, I get to 71%. That is to say, there is a massive subsidisation from the middle class to the best-earned, due to the fact that the tax cost of commercial cars is 4.2 billion. This means that 2.1 billion will be allocated to payroll subsidies for the best earners.

The Minister of Mobility stated with certainty and firmness that he wanted to keep those commercial cars because otherwise our companies would not be competitive and that one should effectively give those people a commercial car. That may all be true, but I only assume that subsidization in wage formation – that’s what it comes down to, because one then wants to attract people in another form of wage subsidies – costs two billion. Globally, this goes from the general resources to the 10% best earning.

The question must be asked whether we should pursue a wage policy that also has an impact on the environment. I talked about those 6,000 kilometers. People are more likely to drive the car because they have that commercial car.

After several hearings, they reached those 30,000. Both employers and social secretaries wonder what administration will need to be designed to make this system succeed. If one says that we have a mobility budget on Easter, I wonder to what extent this legislation will not be outdated against its effective implementation.

The committee also provided examples of companies that today already on their own initiative allow their employees to apply a mobility budget as it should be in the definition. These companies already exist today, not to mention Proximus.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this hemisphere agrees that the flies must be addressed, just because of what is in the memory of explanation. For my group, this must be done in a different way, with a global mobility budget also effectively supporting other forms of mobility, such as part alternatives, part cars, bicycles, public transport and the like.

Therefore, the following runs.

This week we also held the debate on the investment allowance of both NMBS and Infrabel. The MR will, of course, say, as long as it provides the competent minister, that it is not true. But that will be the task. If we want to effectively reduce our congestion, we must increase the share of public transport in residential-working traffic during the peak to 15 to 20%. This means that there must be invested in it.

Just putting this forward and saying that it is a revolutionary idea is not correct and I find that regrettable. We are in favor of a mobility budget as it should be effective. A mobility allowance seems to us quite memorable. However, investments in public transport must be ⁇ sustainable in order to reduce congestion.

Per ⁇ the Pashashashas exists according to the majority. To be honest, I no longer believe in it. We will therefore abstain from voting.


Georges Gilkinet Ecolo

Dear colleagues, despite what the government and the majority are trying to make us believe, we are not here, with cash for car, in the presence of a bill that would have the effect of significantly reducing the number of public cars in circulation. Even if a few workers will take advantage of this opportunity, the number of new commercial cars that will be registered within the same deadline will ensure that this cancer, this problem for society and for health that corporate cars constitute, will continue to spread. This is the real difficulty we face.

It took four years for this government to come out of this text and act. He does it halfway, with an insufficient level of ambition in relation to the issues, without listening to the solutions put on the table by some interlocutors. I obviously think of the CNT or the Bond representative Beter Leefmilieu, who also spoke on behalf of Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Inter-Environnement Brussels. It also does not take into account the remarks made by the State Council, but we are used to this.

Once again, this government announces the objectives we adhere to. If the goal is to reduce the number of corporate cars, you will find us as partners. However, the government does not have the means to ⁇ this goal. Cash for car is a pleasant ad, but its effects will not be verified in reality. There is nothing worse than a disappointed hope among citizens.

These corporate cars are a cancer and I will develop this idea.

For us, environmentalists, this is a crucial future issue. What are the issues?

The issues of mobility, congestion of our roads, but also the questions of wages. Workers have the right to be paid in euros rather than diesel or by means of cars.

It is a question of financing of social security. We know why the company car system has developed. It grows at the expense of social security.

It is a matter of social justice and equity among workers. If we analyze the distribution of corporate cars by salary decile, and the type of corporate cars obtained by workers according to their salary, we see that they benefit primarily the workers with the highest salary levels.

This is also a public health issue, and I will develop it.

This is also a climate issue related to CO2 emissions.

It also ignores the issue of energy independence of our country. This propensity of the governments, yours and the previous ones, to favour the car, to favour the car of society makes us increasingly dependent on countries that have in their basement gas or especially oil. This has a significant influence from a geopolitical point of view, in terms of peace and war in the world.

I clarify that, in this debate on public cars, we, ecologists, want to make a distinction between "tools" cars used by their beneficiaries as part of their work to carry out numerous movements (trucks, trucks) and "salary" cars that replace a salary. We say this clearly with environmental associations, we must stop paying workers with cars and fuel. All workers deserve a real salary and the rights resulting from it in terms of social contributions and social rights.

It is urgent to disengage our roads to leave them to those and those who need them to work. Traffic congestion costs every year hundreds of millions of euros, or even more than one or two billion euros, according to the analysis of the FEB, to economic actors who are stuck on the road rather than access to their construction site, to their workplace.

We need to reduce the number of cars on our roads because, I said, they consume oil that makes us dependent on countries that have them in their basement and they emit CO2 that has an impact on our climate. We have committed ourselves in Paris and elsewhere to avoid this global warming of more than 2 degrees. This should encourage us, by all means, to reduce our consumption of oil, carbon in the broad sense and to release less CO2 into the atmosphere. What is completely neglected is that they release fine particles that themselves cause cardiovascular diseases and have effects on the development of the fetus, on the development of the brain of our children.

Like me, you are aware of the study presented yesterday by Greenpeace Belgium whose results show the impact, in terms of CO2 and fine particles, of car traffic around schools. This environment in which our children have to develop has become bad for health. This situation, more than it worries us, convinces us of the need to act urgently.

It should worry you as much and push you to act. I don’t have to remind you either that every year, Belgium is shown by the European Commission because of its regime far too favourable to commercial cars, almost unique in Europe. I cited this figure in the commission and I repeat it: from 2007 to 2016, their number increased by 54%. Another key fact: 80% of commercial cars have a diesel engine, whose peculiarity is to diffuse fine particles; which represents a major public health problem, ⁇ in urban environments. This situation should encourage you to opt for something other than this homeopathic measure.

Before continuing, I would like to say a word on one aspect that I think is primary in terms of good public management and which has been raised during our discussions. This is the absence of official statistics regarding the company car. The figures I quote come from external investigations to public authorities. In my opinion, no public policy – ⁇ in fiscal terms, since such a measure has an effect on state revenues – can be developed intelligently without having annual statistics. This organized blindness in favor of the company car is really problematic.

As some have welcomed, this is the first time that we will take action in this area. Nevertheless, I think you are doing this because of a greater social pressure than ever before, which I welcome. I could also look forward to this first step, but the company car remains a taboo. It is as if the government was afraid to take it seriously. I repeat, this system will only have a marginal effect in terms of reducing the number of public vehicles. The studies of the SPF Mobility and those conducted by private offices show this. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the allowance that will be paid to the worker as a net salary will be used for mobility. I do not even speak of the case, raised in commission, of workers who have two corporate cars and who, tomorrow, will retain one, plus a net advantage; which is totally incomprehensible.

It is urgently necessary to reduce the number of cars, and therefore the number of commercial cars, to reduce the number of kilometers traveled by these cars and the pollution emitted by these cars; and for this, to build a credible alternative of mobility open to all workers. For example, in the form, which is now being developed at the initiative of private firms, a multimodal card that could be used by workers to meet their daily mobility needs. A shared car; public transport with a subscription or a one-time trip; possibly a taxi to accomplish the last kilometres; possibly the rental of an office or a coworking space near the home to reduce its mobility needs; the purchase and maintenance of a bike and the equipment related to the use of that bike. There are really things to invent, which are also creating economic activity and jobs; but in a model where the car is not the center of the world.

The CNT proposed, already many months ago, a text that is better than your bill. Indeed, it proposes a cascade system, which effectively drives workers to abandon their corporate car or to choose a corporate car model of lower cylinder, therefore less polluting. A mobility budget would be made available to workers. It should be allocated to mobility expenses, and not to everything and anything. The unspent balance would be allocated to the worker at the end of the year, but would be subject to a social or tax contribution – it would be a gross final salary.

This proposal is not perfect. As said by Mr. Lachaert, it ⁇ ins a form of inequality between workers, between those who benefit from a corporate car and those who do not benefit from it. It is true that if you keep a corporate car, even with a smaller cylinder, it is always a corporate car. But we see it as a step, as a way of proving that it is possible to do otherwise than pay the workers with corporate cars and let our streets and roads be filled with a large number of cars.

I still do not understand why the government has not made this proposal. It has been on the table for many months. It was presented in meetings of the Social Affairs and Finance Committees as part of the CNT hearing to which I referred when reporting on this text.

You tell us that the proposal is still under discussion. Mr. Lachaert and Van den Bergh say they are optimistic about the possibility of achieving rapid results, as one can say optimistic about the conclusion of an energy pact or a solution for ARCO or on other "sympathetic" matters today on the government's agenda and which are not moving forward.

But why didn’t you seize a text that made consensus between social partners, workers’ representatives and employers’ representatives? Is it a lack of listening, a chronic lack of respect in the head of government towards the social partners? and yes! It is as if there was, in your head, an intellectual delight to do the opposite of what the social partners offer you. Is it the conviction that you can be right on your own, that you are smarter than all the organizations we regularly consult, a lack of willingness to change, a conservatism, a deficit of imagination, a disinterest in environmental and public health issues? I feel like it’s a bit of all that, and it’s absolutely regrettable.

We have proposed, in committees, amendments that incorporate in your text that of the CNT. We are presenting these 47 amendments again today, in public session, hoping that they will receive the support of a majority this time.

But be careful! We consider this, if necessary, only a step towards a model where public transport financing is a priority for that government that has begun – Mr. Cheron might remind you – by linearly reducing rail mobility budgets, by abolishing this car-wage system, by granting every worker a mobility allowance and by developing multimodal mobility solutions that would make sure that the car does not take a central place in the political choices that are being made.

It is urgent to reverse this heavy trend that makes sick, pollutes and damages the climate. We must work on modern alternatives that will also create jobs, Mr. Nollet, will improve our quality of life. We need to have imagination and political courage. Unfortunately, you lack all of these qualities.


Benoît Dispa LE

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, Mr. Speaker. It has also been described by the Bureau of the Plan in quite sensible terms. This is a 2016 study that said: “The tax regime applicable to corporate cars presents an interesting remuneration alternative for the company and the employee, compared to gross wage. However, this regime also represents a significant subsidy to the possession and use of the car as a means of transport which is not without economic, environmental and social consequences.”

Everything is said. There is a gain for the employee and for the employer but there is a collective cost, an economic, social, environmental cost, hence the need – and above that, one can join – to revise the tax regime that today constitutes the company car. This is also a belief expressed by the government in its General Policy Declaration, as it read: "The government creates a legal framework for a mobility budget in order to enable its rapid and easy implementation."

It was in 2014. We are four years later and that point of the government statement is still not implemented. Indeed, the majority parties have agreed that what is subject to our review does not correspond to what was announced by the government at the beginning of the legislature.

Since this government statement, the speech has been somewhat fluctuating. Reynders announced, in 2016, with some fairness since the facts gave him the right, that the option would be cash, for an amount of 450 euros. It was corrected by some majority partners who said: "No, it will not be cash, but a real mobility budget, that's what we want." Finally, today the cash solution was adopted, and not a range of possibilities, as for example the CD&V had proposed. All this for cash. When we talk about cash, the liberal parties are necessarily happy, but the others have a little more trouble, are dissatisfied with the solution adopted, because the account is not quite there. This dissatisfaction is finally shared by almost everyone. Who is finally pleased with the proposal submitted to the government? and no one. It is ⁇ not the social partners, unanimously considering that we were here in the face of a missed opportunity and a completely ineffective solution.

The social partners have shown, in this area, a lot of patience, pedagogy, pro-activity. They submitted a proposal, as early as September 2017, a text transmitted through the National Labour Council and the Central Council of Economy, which had the ambition to introduce a mobility budget. Today, you want to give the impression, little or nothing, that you are inspired by this approach, but in reality, the social partners have been very virulent in the opinion they have given about the government project. They made it clear that the mobility allocation makes sense, from the perspective of sustainable mobility in any case, only if a mobility budget is also introduced. Objectively, the mobility budget does not exist.

The CNT therefore concluded that its solution was simpler since it develops especially better depending on the worker’s career and is therefore a happier solution, more relevant than the mobility allowance. You have also made the distinction between the mobility allocation and the mobility budget. It is not the same thing. In reality, it is not a mobility allowance; it is only a replacement allowance compared to the company car.

You actually have two options; there is a real alternative. On the one hand, the solution of the social partners, which is a comprehensive, intelligent proposal that really encourages another mobility and, on the other hand, the government’s solution that is ineffective – everyone is aware of it – which aims only to the short term – as this has even been said earlier by Mr. Piedboeuf – and which ultimately has the sole goal of validating the balances intervened within the government last summer.

You had an alternative: on the one hand the minimalist proposal of the government and, on the other, the proposal of the CDH that aimed at establishing a real budget for quality of life. But sometimes, what comes from the opposition doesn’t have much interest in the eyes of the government and I can understand it. You also had the proposal for CD&V, which dates back to 2014. It was a really interesting proposal, but the government objectively did not pay much attention to it. And you had the opinion or proposal of the CNT.

None of these three proposals found thanks to your eyes and it remains, objectively, incomprehensible! How could you sweep the proposal of the social partners who, in this case, were unanimous and who had gone very far in the preparation of their text? How could you finally satisfy yourself with this conversion of the mobility budget into a cash transaction?

That says a lot, ⁇ this is one of the lessons of this debate, about the little consideration you give to the social partners. You first adopted the preliminary draft without even asking for their opinion, and then the State Council reminded you that it was still a formal obligation. So you finally agreed to request the CNT’s opinion, but you first wanted to vote quickly on the text in the committee, without even taking the time to receive this opinion. On the side of the opposition, we have a little "played the clock" so that this opinion is really on the table.

Finally, the vote will take place only after receipt of the opinion. Obviously, you didn’t read it or you didn’t want to take it into account. This demonstrates a form of contempt for social partners. You try to hide it by suggesting that your proposal is a first step, that will announce others, that it is complementary to the CNT proposal. You are playing with words.

The mobility allocation is not complementary to the mobility budget. To demonstrate this clearly, I would like to refer to this CNT opinion which reached you on 22 February. On page 4, it says: “The mobility budget encourages multimodality, unlike the mobility allocation.” It is not written “complementary to the mobility allowance”, but “contrary to the mobility allowance”. So there is a real difference.

The CNT, in this opinion, lists the points on which its proposed mobility budget responds well to mobility issues, unlike the government’s mobility allocation. I cite these elements here because these arguments discredit the government’s proposal.

1 of 1. The mobility budget gives workers a greater incentive to make sustainable mobility choices than the mobility allocation.

2 of 2. The mobility budget encourages multimodality, as opposed to the mobility allocation.

3 of 3. The mobility budget encourages sustainable mobility choices both before and after the grant of a corporate car.

4 of 4. The mobility budget fiscally discourages workers from exchanging their corporate car for a private car.

5 of 5. The mobility budget generally promotes more sustainable travel.

At the arrival, there is no possible confusion: there is, on the one hand, a proposal that fits in a logic of sustainable mobility and, on the other hand, a proposal that is somewhat riquiqui that simply fits in this philosophy, which is yours, of granting cash without too worrying objectively about mobility.

If the social partners do not find their account, it must be honest to see that all mobility organisations have also expressed their disappointment. The Febiac, Renta, Traxio, Touring, all these organizations considered that the government project no longer corresponds to the original philosophy. They said that it was much more necessary to talk about a replacement allowance than a mobility budget.

The Plan Bureau also expressed skepticism as it considered that the system would not have an impact on road congestion because, probably, too few employees would opt for the amount of cash you propose.

You have therefore decided to move forward a little alone in your approach by neglecting the opinions of all bodies authorized to formulate a proposal in this matter.

What surprises me most is that even the opinions expressed by the FEB, you have not taken into account. The FEB is not enthusiastic. On the contrary, she considered that the options offered by your project are too limited. The worker must completely abandon the company car to benefit from a mobility allowance, so this is the principle of "all or nothing". This project may be of interest to couples of citizens who already benefit from two public cars. In any case, this is a project that may not be of interest to the world, it is the FEB who says it.

It is then a project whose scope is too limited because it is only aimed at workers who actually benefit from a corporate car. Employees who can claim for the first time to a company car as a result of a promotion or a change of employer, themselves, are a priori excluded from your scope.

The FEB demonstrated that this project does not take into account the reality of the companies. I guess this must be hard to hear for some of you. Thus, the mobility allowance, says the FEB, is determined according to the last car that the worker abandons; it is a fixed amount that does not evolve over time. This is not in line with the expectations of employers. In the event of a change of employer, the amount of the allowance will remain fixed according to what happened to the employer with whom his company car was exchanged, regardless of the policy applicable to the new employer. There is no flexibility.

The tax benefit of social security contributions is determined according to the last car returned.

Finally, last point in the eyes of employers, the one-year deadline that appears in your bill is an absurd deadline in several ways, in particular because it does not take into account the fact that a leasing, which companies usually use, lasts on average 48 months and that the costs are very high in case of early break. So, the companies themselves do not find their account there.

I would like to return to the opinion of the State Council.

Mrs Lalieux has already explicitly taken up the comments of the State Council but they are so negative that I cannot prevent myself, in my turn, from emphasizing that the State Council has expressed its doubts as to the relevance of the proposed measure in view of the objective you claim to pursue.

Seven elements allow the State Council to demonstrate that the mobility allocation will not ⁇ the objectives set:

1 of 1. The current advantageous status of corporate cars is ⁇ ined;

2 of 2. The project measure is based on the free consent of the employer and the worker;

3 of 3. The choice to convert the advantage of a commercial car into a mobility allowance is not irreversible;

4 of 4. If the employee has several utility cars, obtaining a mobility allowance for one utility car does not exclude the use of the other cars;

5 of 5. There is no relationship between the mobility needs of the worker concerned and the amount of the mobility allowance which is based on the catalog price of the last company car;

6 of 6. The free disposal of the mobility allowance does not guarantee the effective use of sustainable alternative modes of transport.

7 of 7. The exhibition accompanying the project does not contain any element that acknowledges the existence of a demonstrable and demonstrated link between the project measure and the objective it claims to aim, namely to reduce the number of cars in circulation and, consequently, to reduce traffic congestion and the economic, health and other problems resulting from it.

The objective will not be achieved. This is the forecast of the State Council. This was confirmed by the SPF Mobility, which conducted an analysis showing that only 3 to 9 percent of those affected would be willing to give up their car-salary in exchange for a mobility allowance. Where has the ambition to truly change behaviors gone? Has this ambition ever existed? You can doubt it.

During the commission exchanges, and given the quality of the presentation of the social partners in particular, the majority realized that the account would not be there. We were therefore told that the long-awaited mobility budget would come later.

Honestly, Mr. Minister, you were not very enthusiastic, and I did not perceive a very firm commitment on your part. Rather, you mentioned the need to provide for anti-abuse provisions, and you expressed your doubts about the budget neutrality of the social partners’ proposal. He was not very enthusiastic about all this.

I hear that we should have the government’s decision for Easter. If it is not for Easter, it will be for the Trinity! We will wait to see it to really believe it. It is still that in the current state of the texts deposited, we can only come to one conclusion: the account is not there. Since you want cash, I will tell you cash: the CDH will not vote the proposed text.

We consider that you have committed yourself to the wrong path while there was a credible alternative. Maintaining this bill is showing minimalism and no ambition. There is a risk of having a fixed system for a few more years. At best, it will coexist with another system that you are going to create. Where is the administrative simplification? Honestly, we can ask the question. You had the cards in hand to transform the service car scheme into a mobility budget that meets the needs of workers, inspired by practices that already exist in several large companies, and guaranteeing objectives in terms of mobility, environment and health. You have given up this ambition and it is incomprehensible to us.

That is why, I repeat to you, the cdH will oppose your cash for car project, in which the attraction of cash is stronger than a real solution in terms of mobility, simplification for ⁇ or social concertation.


Minister Johan Van Overtveldt

Mr. Speaker, during the committee discussions a large number of points have been addressed regarding the calculation method of this proposal, the fiscal implications, the labour law discussion points and also the budget neutrality. I will not repeat this in detail in the response of the government.

I would like to limit myself to a few general observations that I think perfectly match the observations made at this plenary session.

First, the origin of today’s discussion about wage cars.

Regarding “salary” cars, the origin is obviously the growing difference, in the past, between gross wages and net wages.

Too high gross wages made it almost impossible for employers to give wage increases without affecting their competitiveness defensive. At the same time, the net income of that gross wage was increasingly under pressure. This is the origin of the wild growth of commercial cars that has indeed been there.

I still want to emphasize that this government has worked on the two points I mentioned as important in the development of “salary” cars. We have slowed the growth of gross wages while increasing the net output of gross wages.

That is to say, the basic incentive to provide commercial cars, namely an alternative form of remuneration, has at least been reduced by the other measures of the government. At the same time, the Government acknowledges that commercial vehicles, even though they “but” grosso modo 10 %, not even yet make up the total of the vehicles circulating on our roads, have contributed to a mobility problem that is at least significant today. The mobility allowance is therefore a logical response to both the origin of this discussion in terms of wage formation and the problem associated with it, on the one hand, and to the mobility issue, which is of course very much discussed, on the other.

A second general observation concerns the effect of the mobility fee on the number of vehicles on the road.

We currently have only a few estimates. In fact, we must wait for the reactions to the exposition of the reasons we have just submitted in this bill.

I see in the studies figures ranging from 15 000 to 40 000 cars. Within that fork it will in any case be a not insignificant contribution to reducing the number of cars on our roads.

Third element that took a lot of time during the interventions: the discussion on, on the one hand, the mobility allocation and, on the other hand, the mobility budget.

I would like to inform you that the government is very close to an agreement on the mobility budget. We will soon be able to discuss this in more detail.

I would like to emphasize Mr. Van Rompuy’s words. The letter he received from the CNT clearly indicates that there is complementarity between the mobility budget and the mobility allocation. I am sure that both can perfectly live together, which we will demonstrate in the days and weeks to come.


President Siegfried Bracke

Thank you Mr Minister.

Does anyone ask for the word?

I apologize, Mr Minister, I give you the floor. You had to wait so long.


Minister Maggie De Block

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you did not let me speak and now you do not give me the word.


President Siegfried Bracke

But I have nothing against you.


Minister Maggie De Block

It is not our day!

Mrs. Lalieux asked us why we received the CNT’s opinion so late. First of all, we were waiting for the Council of State. Then we adjusted our bill. This is the latest version that we have sent to the CNT. In short, the deadline of February 21 was normal.


Karine Lalieux PS | SP

You sent it two months later.


Ministre Maggie De Block

Yes, but we have waited for the notice. Finally, so is it!

It is important that not only tax, but also in the social security the cash is treated as favorably as the car. The mobility allowance does not follow the wage and is therefore expressly excluded from the concept of RSC wage. This means that neither the employer nor the employee are owed ordinary social security contributions. Of course, the monthly solidarity contribution remains to be paid on the mobility allowance, which is identical to the contribution also charged on a commercial car. We also believe that this will be budget-neutral.

Indeed, we are very close to an agreement on the other loop, and people will therefore have more choice depending on their family situation or their work situation, depending on whether they live in Brussels or outside Brussels or in other cities, to decide on an option.