Proposition 54K2884

Proposition de résolution visant le développement de l'économie circulaire et la lutte contre l'obsolescence programmée.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Gautier Calomne, Caroline Cassart-Mailleux, Benoît Friart, Isabelle Galant, Benoît Piedboeuf

Submission date

Jan. 10, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection sustainable development product life environmental protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

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

Full source

Mr Johan Klaps, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the relevant ministers, those who have been associated with the work in committees, be present for the discussion of this proposal for a resolution. They were heard in both committees. I wish, and I suppose I am not the only one, to be able to address them during the following debate.

Mr Nollet, I have to tell you that this is a proposal for a resolution. It is therefore normal for the government to be represented in the homicide. The Minister is there. If you mean that Mrs. Minister Marghem should be present, I have to tell you that she is apologized for this Thursday. This was announced at the Conference of Presidents.

Two ministers are competent. Both were heard in the committee. These are Mr. Minister Peeters and Mrs. Minister Marghem. Both had plans on this. Although Ms. Marghem is not present, Mr. Minister Peeters was present just recently.

I am sorry, but the government has to respect the parliament at least a little. On matters which, of course, are of parliamentary initiative, but whose extremely important issues affect the government; and while the government refuses the idea of working on the basis of a law and holds to a resolution; it seems to me, even if only by courtesy, necessary that the competent ministers be there. I hear for Mrs. Minister Marghem, but on the other hand, as regards Mr. Minister Peeters, who is the other competent minister, it seems to me that, a minimum of respect for Parliament, he should be present.

Mr. Nollet, you have the right to request the presence of Mr. Peeters according to the terms of the Rules. But I must say that we are accustomed to discuss resolutions in the presence of the government. The Minister is there. I myself will not ask for the presence of either Mr. Minister Peeters or Mrs. Minister Marghem, who is also apologized for today.

The agenda includes a resolution and a bill that has been recalled. For a bill, I imagine that Minister Peeters could at least return for a dossier, on which we have been working for more than two years, with hearings in the committee where he was present as well as in the public health committee, where Minister Marghem was present. I hear that she is apologized. I take note of it. Maybe the planned obsolescence is already beginning now?

I would like Mr. Peeters to be present.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, Mrs. Marghem is apologized for the day. Mr. Peeters, apparently, is not available. I must first say that I fully support the request of my two colleagues. I think it is essential that the competent ministers are present to discuss this. What we could ⁇ do is postpone the point to next week and ensure that the relevant ministers are there. It would, I think, be a constructive way of solving the problem that occupies us.

Dear colleagues, with all the respect that I owe you, it must be quite clear.

First, this is a resolution. This is a matter of parliament. It is therefore normal for the government to be represented here in the district, as is the case with Minister De Block.

Secondly, Mr. De Lamotte, I think you are mistaken. Yes, this is a project but within the framework of Article 88 of our Rules of Procedure, for which the presence of the government is not required.

I must tell the colleagues who ask that they have the right to ask for the presence of a minister – we will see well – but in the meantime, I propose to continue our work.

I am surprised that there is no response to the proposal of Mr Laauouej. I agree with the suggestion he makes. It seems to me a good tone beyond the question of the regulation or not of the regulation.

I would still like to inform you on the subject, as you have not been able to follow the whole work in committee and that is normal. If we are busy discussing a resolution and not a bill, it is because the government has considered that it was not appropriate, not appropriate, not necessary, not desirable to legislate. This is the core of the debate: yes or no, do we legislate on the issue or are we satisfied with a single resolution? This discussion must be conducted in the presence of at least one of the relevant ministers, which is why it is necessary to accept the proposal of the colleague to postpone the debate for a week, not ⁇ eight days.

Mr. Speaker, if the groups do not object to the postponement of the point, why not do it? Why not get back to the common sense of all the groups?

We cannot change the agenda of the plenary session, except with the agreement of a majority of the members present. We have not requested any changes to the agenda. I therefore have no right to change it: it is accepted first in the Conference of Presidents and then in the plenary session.

I would like to ask for the presence of the Minister if you really want to. The Rules provide for this possibility. As long as this question is not there, I suggest to simply continue the work. In addition, we have the tradition of satisfying ourselves with the presence of the government when discussing resolutions. The government is present.

I have tried to make clear to Mr de Lamotte that Article 88 of the Rules of Procedure relates to the proposal of a committee to reject a draft law or proposal. This is not about a minister who has to come to defend a bill. Clearness is therefore required here.

I understand that they are asking the question, but I suggest that we stick to our agenda, as agreed, and thus proceed to the discussion of the draft resolution.

Mr. Speaker, mevrouw de minister, dear colleagues, I see that the subject interests and passionates the assembly and this is important since, for two years, our Economy committee has been conducting work on this complex topic that is programmed obsolescence.

As a reminder, it is for a manufacturer to deliberately reduce the life of a product. This may include the voluntary introduction of a defect, a fragility, a scheduled shutdown or the non-availability of spare parts.

This issue is important because it actually concerns every citizen. That is why we have decided to file this resolution calling on the government to take action. In particular, make spare parts available by the manufacturer, in a minimum time and at a proportionate price. To provide consumers with information about the life span of a product, as well as its possibilities for repair.

But it will be especially crucial to take these measures in coordination with the European countries in order to be able to apply them to all Member States. We need coordinated initiatives at European level in this area.

Mr. Friart, I hear you well, but France, what has it done? She decided on her own by a bill before the French National Assembly. They didn’t wait for Europe. They have decided and appeals are beginning to fall before French courts. So your argument, Mr. Friart, excuse me, but it doesn’t last anymore. Why wait for Europe when our neighbors did not do it and decided on their own. Is this frilance on your part?

Dear colleagues, we must know that France is a large producer of materials that can be targeted by this programmed obsolescence. This is not necessarily the case in Belgium, a country that imports large amounts of this type of equipment that may be affected by programmed obsolescence. So it is really good tone and very useful that our country can benefit from a reflection and a law at European level.

In any case, we should also remember...

For a brief moment, Mr. Calvo asks for the word.

Collega Friart, I can tolerate a lot, but if someone here on the floor comes to say that Belgium is only a small country, then I still tend to take the word.

Do you really mean that? Is that the only answer you can give when you find that some countries are taking the initiative, regulating themselves, and engaging in the struggle with embedded ageing? Is it really the answer of the MR, of the ruling party by excellence, of the party that delivers the prime minister, that Belgium is only a small country? Is that the argument that the MR will use in this debate to keep the boat away from a legal framework that has been discussed for years in the absence of your ministers, who, by the way, are absent today for this debate?

The answer to this question is that Belgium is a small country. Is that the argument of the MR, Mr. Friart, that we are a small country, while you stand there with the tricolor flag uplifted? Indeed, colleagues, Mr. Friart stands there with the tricolor flag as a pin on his costume. This shows you, Mr. Friart, that you are a proud Belgian, but on the floor you say that Belgium is a small country and cannot take the lead.

Well, our group is totally disagreeing with this. Our country is capable of great things and should play a leading, dynamizing role in this.

In Belgium, we have few producers of objects that can be targeted by programmed obsolescence. These are generally products imported from other European countries, hence the interest to legislate here at the European level.

It should also be remembered that the legal arsenal ...

Can I ask you to let Mr. Friart go on?

Mr. Friart, I’m sorry, but after more than three years of serious work in our committee, we can’t accept to hear this. This is really a social betting for employment, the environment, a new economy of repair and recovery that is a major betting, even in our country, which is a great country. We can show the example.

We cannot let you say that! You are laughing at the work that has been done in the commission. I ask you to reconsider your position. It is a comedy! This is a tragic end to what happened in the committee: we are stripped of the power to decide at the parliamentary level and the ball is returned to the federal government and to Europe! Now we can take action in our country.

I think my colleagues are right.

I suggest Mr. Friart to restart his speech by removing this part. One forgets what has been said and he begins to speak again on the bottom of the dossier, which I think is much better.

I continue my reading.

There will be a vote afterwards. The majority and minority will have the opportunity to speak.

I think the introduction of Mr. Friart’s speech is completely displaced.

Mr. Speaker, you presided over the opening of a Repair Café in this Parliament as part of the fight against planned obsolescence. At this inauguration, three weeks or a month ago, members of the MR applauded to break this initiative. And then, when it comes to transitioning to a legislative text and not to a resolution, one goes back in the face of the obstacle. Mr. Speaker, I find that Mr. Friart’s speech is insulting for the activities you have conducted yourself as the chairman of the assembly for the Repair Café.

I do not agree with your point of view, so I give the floor to Mr. Pellegrini.

Mr. President, I thank you.

I would like to recall that the existing legal arsenal on unfair commercial practices already provides a response to the phenomenon. In fact, provisions have also been introduced in the Code of Economic Law in order to give more powers to the inspection services. With sufficient evidence, they may impose the burden of proof on the manufacturer and compel him to have his product analyzed by an independent laboratory. Products may also be withdrawn from the market.

Finally, our group wants to reflect on the repairability of goods in the context of the circular economy. We believe that this repairability has several advantages. It has a positive impact on employment in Belgium; the European Commission estimates that repair measures would create 1,300 local jobs in our country. Then, repair is not relocalizable; it develops in the region where consumption takes place. Finally, repairing allows the consumer to ⁇ long-term savings.

Finally, dear colleagues from the majority and the opposition, I would ask you to support our proposal for a resolution. It constitutes a realistic approach to a problem whose solution does not necessarily or solely lie at the national level. I thank you.

I understand that the role of Mr. Friart is not easy since he is sent as a kamikaze to defend the indefensible. So I understand this very well. This debate is not very glorious. There seems to be a willingness to legislate in this area. Mr. Friart says that a reflection will be open, but it has been open for three years. I think civil society is waiting for answers to the questions of planned obsolescence. We should no longer be thinking about the subject, but being legislative, as France has done.

I would like to remind you that at certain times, the majority has requested procedural votes so that we do not proceed in the examination of the bill proposals, on the grounds that they were waiting for a study. After long waiting for it, we received it. Then, very interesting and enlightening hearings were organized. In this way, we learned about the best practices in certain companies, whether at home or in France.

Then, the majority drafted a resolution proposal, submitted by the MR, in order to save a little time. The same party announced to us in a committee that an initiative would be taken in the form of a bill, in order to reach consensus within the majority. Unfortunately, we must note that he was not found, despite the expressed will of the MR. As in other cases, in the absence of consensus, we do not move forward, we block and we turn around. This is what we are doing at the moment.

The MR has therefore failed to convince its partners of the majority of the need to progress on a legislative text, in the elaboration of which we were all ready to participate beyond the majority-opposition split. The desire to move forward was there. Since a majority proposal could not be submitted, we are returning to a rumored resolution proposal, which returns responsibility to Europe. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we will not support it, because of its inanimity.

Honestly, this is an unglorious debate. The time, Mr. Friart, is no longer at the beginning of a reflection, but at the action of legislation. Unfortunately, the majority will not do so.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister De Block, I am sincerely pleased to be here with you to address an extremely important issue: that of planned or organized obsolescence.

I am sure you have witnessed organized obsolescence phenomena. Indeed, who hasn’t had, for example, his grilling bread that stopped after eight months without being able to repair it? Who hasn’t had a printer determining at a given time that the cartridge was empty, while there was still ink there? Who hasn’t had a clothes that deformed after two laundry; a washing machine with a roll blocked but making any repair impossible; a dishwasher that stops after 2,500 cycles; a gsm that just slows down because it’s updated?

Since Mr. Peeters and Mrs. Marghem have delegated you here, I am convinced, Mrs. Minister, that you have also encountered organized obsolescence situations, as our colleagues have encountered.

Mr. Miller, I’m really happy that you are here. Like me, you will remember a debate, on 7 October 2015, in a committee, during which you shared with all colleagues your own experience in the matter. Do you remember this situation? This is stated in point 1.17 of the Commission report. You said at the time: "Mr. Nollet is better when he approaches the issue in a general way without stressing himself to question Mrs. Marghem." As I can’t do it today, I use it to recall with you what you said to me at the time. I quote the report: “He raised an aspect that needs to be taken into account. Organized obsolescence is a real problem. I will tell you an anecdote. Two months ago, as I am very attentive to my laundry, I bought a washing machine. When I asked the seller if the device would work properly – being a man alone, I must take care of my affairs myself – the seller replied that, anyway, we would see each other again in three years because this device contains a chip.” And you ended your speech in commission by saying, “I was a little surprised.” At that time, I came to see you and said, "Mr. Miller, this is an extremely important topic that a priori did not seem political but that allowed to consider a political solution to your problem of man alone in the face of your washing machine."

The [...]

Mr. Miller, you will intervene later.

I thought: Let’s work together; there is a way to have an ambitious vision for Belgium. I didn’t even think of Mr. Friart at the time. I thought that there might be a way to develop a legislative arrangement similar to what France imagined, imagine, on the basis of a proposal from the UMP, this right-wing party in France.

The UMP planned to introduce in legislation the elements that you refuse to introduce today. This is obviously a shame because it will not solve the problem of Mr. Miller’s washing machine. This is what I hold on to and I still wish to take advantage of this last moment in the plenary session to try to convince you.

There is Mr. Miller’s problem, but it is not the only one. If we look more globally, Test-Achats that you know well, Mr. Miller, conducted a survey and opened a kind of call center in the matter so that all the gentlemen and ladies in the world can report situations of organized obsolescence.

Do you know how many denunciations, problems have been ⁇ to him since Mr. Miller’s famous statement in parliament? There are 7,321 problems similar to the one you have experienced, Mr. Miller. You are not the only one who has suffered from this organized obsolescence. This is – I think – a quantitatively important reason enough to make you reflect and support the idea that a resolution is insufficient.

This problem of obsolescence – you were right to say it – is not new, but the importance of this problem is increasing and, above all, the acceleration of the processes of organized obsolescence is only confirming from year to year, including in the increasing subtlety of the mechanisms that are introduced, whether it is a mechanism to prevent any form of easy repair, a mechanism, for example, that prevents the replacement of batteries of certain electrical devices, a mechanism that accelerates aging, a mechanism that reduces the robustness of different devices, a mechanism that causes dependence or that organizes, one by a chip, obsolescence after three years or even a mechanism that makes incompatible previous versions. All these phenomena exist. Test-Buyers have recognised them. They obviously lead to a whole series of extremely important consequences.

Every year in Belgium, 111,000 tonnes of electronic waste are collected. This is about 10 kilos per capita. Globally, the annual consumption of raw materials is 60 billion tons. This figure has increased by 50% in thirty years. The OECD estimates that with such growth rates, the reserves of copper, lead, nickel, silver, steel or zinc will not exceed twenty to thirty years. This means that it is time to tackle this problem to legislate and act.

Every year, what is called the Overhoot Day, that is, the time when the planet uses the reserves accumulated over millennia and goes beyond the annual resources, shifts over time. In 1970, it was December 23; in 1980, November 3; in 2000, October 4. Now we are at the beginning of August! If everyone had to work with our consumption and production patterns, we would need four planets. We do not have them.

Organized obsolescence causes a triple damage. Prejudice to nature: over-exploitation of natural resources. A harm to consumers: this greatly reduces their purchasing power because it forces them to have to regularly purchase dishwashers, washing machines or other devices that could last much longer and that, in the past, would last much longer. This also reduces localized jobs in our country as organized obsolescence promotes the relocation of employment. In short, obsolescence is a source of waste, pollution, loss of purchasing power and relocation.

For a government that defends so much the principle of employment with its "jobs, jobs, jobs", I am surprised that it is not as attentive to the numbers that I cited in commission and that I will recite here, so much they seem important to me. For 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill, this is a job. For the same 10,000 tons of waste in the recycling sector, that is 36 jobs.

But 10,000 tons of waste in the reuse and repair sector account for 296 jobs. So, make the choice: small bracket, like Mr. Friart? Ten thousand tons, a job. The middle bracket? 10,000 tons, 36 jobs. Or follow our ambition for employment, through the relocation of certain forms of production and certain forms of repair: 296 jobs for the same amount of waste. In short, Mr. Miller will not be the only one who wins. A large number of young and less young people who are looking for employment in such sectors will also gain from it.

The ministers conducted a study on the subject. Has the government received it, Mrs. De Block? Ministers Marghem and Peeters, in order to save some time, as the president recalled recently, had asked PriceWaterhouseCoopers to conduct a study on the circular economy, and in particular on what organized obsolescence brought in this framework. Imagine that the figures have impressed, including the Economy Commission, which is yet accustomed to the numbers.

If the entire system of the circular economy were deployed in this small country, as Friart says, or in this large country as we consider it, the added value could be 7 billion 300 million by 2030. Moreover, this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 48%. Winning-winning, win-win, and this is the government study. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that you have received it, even though you were not the competent minister. I hope your colleagues will tell you.

The key is, by moving from a linear economy to a circular economy, a potential of 100,000 jobs. It is signed: PwC. I think this would deserve something else than a simple resolution. Today, only 40% of faulty devices are repaired. Imagine employment at the key. This struggle against organized obsolescence is ⁇ even more a struggle for job relocation. This requires a paradigm shift. It is a lever to get out of a hyper-consumption society. We would move from the linear – in which we extract resources, use them and throw them away – to a circular system, in which we reuse materials that have already been in the circuit. You may not necessarily own the devices anymore, but you can use them. Then they are repaired. This is the circular economy as it should be imagined.

Organized obsolescence is one of the necessary devices, at the very heart of the current model of hyperconsumption, which must be re-interrogated, both in its production and consumption aspect. It is probably for this reason that today the MR silences on the idea of a law and advocates the adoption of a resolution, which is a disappointment and a betrayal. Politically, it is a heavy act that you make, giving up a legislative arrangement, while in a committee meeting you said to think about it. This attitude is marked with a lot of hypocrisy in relation to all the speeches held.

Different statements were made during the processing of this file, including, on the creation of a legal norm, the introduction in the law in Belgium of different provisions. I will return to the Senate discussions of 2012. Mr. Laaouej will remember because he was, at the time, an actor in the Senate. Here is the speech of the Open Vld representative, Mr. Daems. I choose this parliamentary because Mrs. De Block is in front of me. Mr. Daems was speaking with his group, already facing the MR group leader, to try to get him to change his position. We will see if, at the level of the vote, its taking of speech will be followed by effects. In 2012, it was the beginning of the official work around a resolution on the subject. Mr. Daems said this: “The next time, I will ask the authors to be even more ambitious, because the concept of environmental assessment is not sufficiently anchored, in our legislation.”

Mr. Daems spoke well about legislation already in 2012. Mr. Clarinval, you who are next to the minister, let yourself be convinced by what the minister reminds you and by what I, I remind you here on the tribune, namely the speech that Open Vld held in 2012 already saying: "Next time, be more ambitious! Imagine something within the legislation itself!"What was true in 2012 is a fortiori even more so today, especially since other countries have introduced in their legislation, this kind of device. Mr. Daems concluded at the time: "The Open Vld therefore has no objection to a partial limitation of these planted profits in order to cover the cost that society has to bear due to obsolescence." Why is what was true in 2012 no longer true today in the head of the Open Vld? This is where I speak of betrayal, but this is not the only element.

If Mr. Peeters had been there, I would have recalled his statement which is more recent, but which is also the demonstration of a betrayal. His statement date 16 May 2017. Invited by the RTBF, he said this: “I announce to you for the summer – therefore for the summer 2017 – a law extending the extension of the warranty and a real possibility of repairability of these products.” Has it come to the government? Have you blocked it? You say “No.” This reassures me! It was not you who blocked it, but then, why is this law announced by Mr. Peeters not there? It is also a form of betrayal.

We are still working on it. This project has not yet reached the government. This must first pass through the AW.

It is soon summer 2017! The Minister announced this for the summer of 2017! Soon we will take a step back! This is somewhat the ambition of Mr. Friart: small country, step back. As far as we are concerned, great country, go ahead! Let us vote on this bill today! Let us vote today for this ambition and let us not suffer the phenomena of betrayal!

I come to the words of Mrs. Minister Marghem, since she was also an actress and volunteer to find a solution to help Mr. Miller in his daily difficulties. Here is what appears on the website of Minister Marghem. When you look at the documents and archives published in May 2017, you find a document entitled "Combatting Programmed Obsolescence Through Reparability", on the website of Ms. Minister Marghem. “This finding encourages our federal government to develop the development of a stable legislative framework.”

Where is this legislative framework now? It is in a resolution proposal that does not require a legislative framework. This is unacceptable. This is a form of betrayal towards all those who trusted the Minister’s word, the MR’s word, the fact that a legislative framework was needed. Where are you today compared to this commitment you have made to consumers and associations? This is currently on the Ministry’s website. Why is it that there is no achievable legislative framework today, when it is there, on behalf of the government? It is a betrayal!

There are others more personal. I read in Le Soir du 27 septembre, the day of the feast of our beautiful Wallonia-Bruxelles Federation, that Mrs. Marghem said this to the journalist of Le Soir who questioned her. It is in Italian, so it is his own statement: "In addition, Jean-Marc Nollet and I, we are joining together on improving the repairability of certain common consumer objects. For example, companies would be forced to keep spare parts to allow for further repairs." And we agree, she said.

So why not text? I signed with my colleague Ms. Meyrem Almaci a proposal. Others did, too, with their articles. Mrs. Minister Marghem, on 27 September, a holiday in the French Community, emphasized this positively. Why is what was true then not true today? If it is not because there is a betrayal, a weakness, "a small spirit, a small country", to quote Mr. Friart, but I do not share his opinion.

Second excerpt from this important interview with Minister Marghem: “A series of measures make consensus between the liberal minister and Ecolo-Groen group leader. This includes the extension of the product warranty. It is also about repairability and displaying in the matter."Where is this today? Nowhere in the text of the law. This is a form of betrayal. It is more personal but it is equally important, I think, compared to the commitments made in this article.

Dear colleagues, I also address you: the Health Committee met under the chairmanship of my colleague Muriel Gerkens, at the request of the Economy Committee, to examine these different bills - there were three: one of the CDH, one of the PS and one of Ecolo-Groen. She was arrested to give an opinion. This committee unanimously issued a favourable opinion on the objectives pursued by the three bills. Not by a resolution, but by the three proposals of law! Mrs. Gerkens is there, she can confirm it. This date is 4 October 2017. The President of the Commission is there and the report, you all have it. Why is what was true unanimously in the Health Commission, not only for the MR, no longer true today? I wonder about the source of this betrayal.

I will end in this list – I still have a lot to say – of forms of betrayal by the proposition that, for me, was the clearest, the most engaging of Minister Marghem. When we were working again in the Health Committee, on the texts themselves, it was said, and I quote the report in the eyes of the President, in "point 2. Methodology", in the replies and replicas of the minister to the arguments of the parliamentarians: "The minister believes that the present case should be dealt with by overcoming the traditional divisions between majority and opposition." I repeat, Mrs. De Block: she has no doubt that her position is shared by the federal government!

The following sentence is even more cingling: "A consensus pre-exists to the drafting of legislative texts."This is what Minister Marghem tells us. A consensus within the government preexists on the drafting of legislative texts. Not a resolution, Mr. Friart. Interrupt me if I do not say what is in the report! This is what the minister committed to, and this, on behalf of the government, reminding that there was a consensus within it.

Mr. Fraser, your silence appeals to me. This is exactly what is in the report. The minister ended with that phrase which, for me, is today a complete disapproval: "There remains the objective of drawing the legislative framework under this legislature again." Not a resolution.

What is said here is not what the opposition says. This is what Minister Marghem said. Not on its own, but on behalf of the government. "A consensus preexists in the drafting of legislative texts," she says. Where is this consensus? Where is this legislative text? I am asking.

What a betrayal compared to the commitments of Minister Peeters, of the majority in the Health Committee, of Minister Marghem in the committee and previously of the Vld when he was in the Senate discussing with colleague Laaouej! So, indeed, the associations are disappointed and that is legitimate. Yes, citizens, consumers are disappointed by your lack of courage and the ability to simply translate the commitments you held, to put this into a text of law.

It is not only Mr. Miller who, tonight, will go home saying that he has not been able to get what he was looking for. I believe there are many people who will be disappointed and saddened by this betrayal and who will put their hopes only in those who continue to bear the claim of a text of law. My colleague Almaci, but also others, as well as myself, we will be there in this parliament because our texts will continue to exist. We will bring them back, Mr. President.

Because this commitment to have a legislative text before the end of the legislature, we must be able to realize it, especially since the government has, itself, carried out another study.

The government has carried out many studies: in 2014, a study of its own public service, the SPF Economy, during Minister Marghem; in 2015, the PwC study of which I spoke to you; in 2016, the study of ministers who file 21 measures; in 2017, the RDC study, the author of the main study that says what there is way to do or not.

In this study on obsolescence commissioned by the government, the authors recommend taking arrangements at the Belgian level, Mr. Friart! I’m sure you have a computer in your eyes that allows you to follow the link to this study, which has been made public thanks to the president and the services of the House. It is accessible on the room’s website. I invite you to look with me at his synthesis table: it states the levels of power where the different measures that are in the texts of the Socialists, the CDH or the Ecologists must be taken, either at the European level or at the Belgian level.

There are four measures, among others, that the author of the government-sponsored study points out as being of preferential application at the Belgian level:

- first, the display of the degree of repairability on the basis of an objective assessment methodology;

- secondly, the extension of the legal warranty period, depending on product categories, to two years of the burden of proof for manufacturers;

- third, make mandatory the availability of spare parts, product plans, tools necessary for repair with a delivery time, a period of availability and a reasonable price;

- fourth, require manufacturers to display the period during which they commit to supply spare parts.

What is the use, Mr. Friart, of ordering studies if it is not to take them into account at the time of conclusions? This study makes it clear that these four measures must be decided at Belgian level. These proposals are found in the three texts of bills that have been submitted to parliament and that have been discussed. Why, on these four measures, could we not hear each other today?

Mr Freeman, I am addressing you. I see that, obviously, there is no argument to oppose this. I understand this because the studies commissioned by the government tell us to do so.

In addition to the second column, the last column is very interesting. This is a column that Mr. Laaouej, other colleagues and myself would like to see in many government devices. This is the level of feasibility. There is both the level of power where this must be done but also the level of feasibility. For three of the four measures I mentioned, the level of feasibility is high. What else do you need as an argument? And for the fourth, it is an average level. There is the very low, low, medium and high level. Three of the four measures are to be taken at the Belgian level and are of high feasibility, say the authors of the government-ordered study.

But, God, wake up to Mr. Normally, you should worry a little about the purchasing power of consumers: reduce their obligation to have to buy appliances and this, not only for the environmental aspects, also for the purchasing power, for the jobs that are at the key, for the relocation of employment, for the fact that, for 10,000 tons of waste, there are much more jobs in repair than in landfills. I try to convince you, but obviously all this goes over your head! These are objective, factual, numbered and given arguments by the authors of the study commissioned by the government. However, it seems that you are not able to take this into account.

You will then understand, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, that we will vote against this resolution text that has no meaning. There is no sense! Otherwise, I am convinced that Mr. Friart would have interrupted me here. And I understand the sadness of Mr. Miller who, tonight, will return home without being able to tell his relatives that he will have the possibility of having tomorrow a bill with guarantees that what happened to him will never happen to him again. Mr. Miller, I tell you: it won’t end tonight! There are texts of law there, including the text I signed with my colleague, Ms. Almaci. It is still time, during this legislature, to take into account the proposals we are making. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, allow me to highlight a paradox of this majority that cries – and it has already been heard often – “jobs, jobs, jobs”.

We have here a file that represents, for Belgium, potentially 1,300 new jobs. It’s not me who says it, it’s the European Commission. Strong measures against planned obsolescence would create between 45,000 and 87,000 jobs in Europe by 2050, which corresponds to approximately 1,300 jobs for our large and beautiful country.

Nevertheless, the federal majority is about to reject the bills of the PS, CDH and Ecolo that are on the table to fight programmed obsolescence. How can we understand this contradiction?

In addition to the loss of 1,300 jobs, the burial of the programmed obsolescence file will have several important consequences while measures could have been taken very quickly at the Belgian level.

Let me mention a few consequences.

First, there will be no prosecution in Belgium against malicious manufacturers. In France, prosecuting Apple for irreversible updates that reduce the performance of iPhones or prosecuting ink cartridge manufacturers that stop working while they are still half full has become possible since the Hamon Act. In our view, this is truly consistent with the idea of economic justice. In fact, it is not normal for the consumer to pay expensive for items whose lifetime is artificially shortened. But this will unfortunately not happen in our country because the majority prefers to send a message of impunity to malicious manufacturers.

Second, there will be no reinforcement of the legal guarantee, nor transparency on the lifetime of the objects. This is a shame because these are simple measures that improve the quality-price ratio of consumer goods, and therefore the purchasing power of citizens.

Third, no aid will be provided for the repair of defective objects. The hundreds of citizens engaged in the country’s Repair Cafes or recycling stores must convince themselves that, for the current government, screws in non-compliant format or inaccessible batteries – all a technological inventiveness deployed to make repair unlikely – are and must remain normal phenomena for you. This is very regrettable.

Nearly 111,000 tonnes of electrical and electronic waste are collected annually in Belgium. I don’t know if we realize exactly what this means in volume, but it’s equivalent to two or three Titanics swallowed every year by our country. “Thanks to” the majority, this amount will unfortunately not decrease.

Dear colleagues, I come to my question: why does the majority reject proposals that are both beneficial for employment, the environment and the citizen’s portfolio? Of course, for my group, this decision seems totally absurd and taken despite all common sense. That said, my intuition is that it is, in spite of all, coherent. It is primarily with the minimum policy that the government has applied since the beginning of the legislature in terms of consumer protection. It is then with your constant political line, which consists in not undertaking anything in favor of the latter, except by translating into laws the European directives. And again, always at a minimum.

To see the majority cling to the – false – idea that any advance in consumer protection equals a threat to Belgium’s competitive position on the European market is a truly disappointing spectacle. There is another thing that touches me in this case. We can sincerely wonder if the MR did not play the comedy during the three years we worked on this issue in commission. Indeed, throughout this period, you have let us know that there is still a chance, a hope that we can accomplish. I will only recall one statement, among a kyrielle of others that we could find in the accounts rendered.

I think Mr. Nollet has already mentioned a lot of them. I will quote one that is really worth it. It was in 2017. Minister Marghem pointed out in the Health Committee that: "The programmed obsolescence dossier must be dealt with by overcoming the classic divides between majority and opposition. I have no doubt that this position is shared by my colleagues in the federal government. The objective remains to draw a legislative framework, still under this legislature.” What a hypocrisy! In what game are we still playing today, when this is an important social debate carried out by many citizens? I still regret the absence of competent ministers, whether it be Mr. Peeters or Mrs. Marghem, for a matter of society of such importance.

Today, the majority will vote on a simple resolution that moves the whole debate to the government and to the European Union. What a return! It is in fact the same type of resolution proposal that the PS group had submitted to the Senate in 2012 and which had been adopted unanimously. This is a return back as we have texts on the table, ready to be voted. These are the texts of the CDH, which will be expressed in the next item of the agenda, of the PS and of Ecolo. Our two political groups have wanted to keep them on the agenda, because I do not despair that we will return to the subject and that we will finally be able to reach a positive outcome, accompanied by concrete measures for the citizens of this country.

We remain at the starting point of 2012 as citizens call for strong measures to combat planned obsolescence. You will understand that obviously we will not vote on this text. This resolution by Ms. Cassart-Mailleux is actually an imposture, which has only one purpose: to bury the file of programmed obsolescence.

When we wait, we go straight into the wall. We regret it!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, what hope existed when in January 2016, several bills were deposited on the table of Parliament to try to study and solve a problem that concerns all citizens of Belgium, all consumers of Belgium. All of them have been confronted more or less, depending on their situation, with programmed obsolescence. Minister Peeters, in charge of Consumer Protection, was quite interested. Minister Marghem also offered to reflect because she, together with the government, launched studies.

Our goal was really to be able to move forward legislatively, resulting in a number of rights and obligations towards the world of production to meet consumer expectations. The issue has been put on the agenda of the Economic Committee more than ten times. Each time, the groups had a willingness to move forward. We had lectures and auditions. We have had the opportunity to present texts, while being open to amendments, open to the ability to improve things so that we can find a common goal for common work, responding to the demand of consumers.

The ultimate problem is that the consumer is losing. The consumer, the first interlocutor we need to talk to, is the loser. The examination of this point on the agenda today is the examination of the denials that we have actually found in the leadership of the majority, because we were ready, at least as far as I am concerned, and we have demonstrated it to others, to continue to move forward. The road was long and full of difficulties. I would simply say that if I was the co-signator of this bill, Vanessa Matz had co-signed it first, but you know her personal situation, she was unable to defend her text.

This proposal would lead to a change in consumption mindset. To be honest, I was very surprised to see that we were followed by all the groups and the government. Not surprisingly, Minister Peeters has appeared several times in the press. He first mentioned it to announce that he wanted to extend the warranty period of the products.

I have also collected a number of quotes. I'm going to tell them to my friends of the CD&V. Minister Peeters stated: “We need to know how well manufacturers program the aging of their devices. And to fight these alleged programmed obsolescences," he plans, among other measures, said Minister Peeters, "to extend the warranty periods during which spare parts must be available."

It overpriced in March 2016, which is more than two years ago. “The idea of indicating life expectancy is interesting and we are in favor of this track,” Minister Peeters said in an interview. I continue to. On 28 October 2016, Minister Peeters became the leader of the circular economy.

“The ambition is to make Belgium a leader in the circular economy, one that aims to make the most of the reuse of raw materials and products. The political ambition is to adapt what is necessary because the single-use economy will no longer be profitable."This new quote by Minister Peeters has led to the possibility of hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in this sector.

In February 2017, Minister Peeters, in charge of consumer protection, spoke in an interview. The journalist asks him: “And with regard to programmed obsolescence, is there not also matter to legislate?” He answers directly: “It is not acceptable that the consumer is so poorly informed of the reasonable lifetime of a device he buys. I would therefore like to require manufacturers to clearly mention on the packaging this estimated lifetime, as part of a normal use of the device."If we do not call this favorable to a project on programmed obsolescence, it will need to be explained to me.

On May 12, 2017, he surpassed. It announces a law extending the extension of the warranty and a real possibility of product repair. He said: “Longing the life of products will also produce less waste. The reinforcement of the “repairability” factor could also lead to the creation of some 1,300 jobs in Belgium.” For her part, Minister Marghem also does not hesitate, she says: "I have presented 21 measures in this regard, together with the Minister of Employment, Economy and Consumers." One of the provisions proposed to develop recommendations to combat programmed obsolescence, which the study of the RDC Environment Advisory Office, which participated in the meetings of the Committee of Economy and Public Health, presented, with the unanimous conclusions of all members of this Parliament, to work against programmed obsolescence.

Last quote, in September 2017, Minister Peeters wants "an extension of the extension of the warranty of these products, an extension of the life of these electronic devices, which is obviously a good thing for consumers". The longer the timeline stretches, the more parliamentarians are in favor of legislation. It does not stop here! Each year, 111,000 tonnes of electronic waste are collected in Belgium, or about 10 kg per capita.

The two ministers, clearly, say: “show the expected life of the product based on an objective evaluation methodology to develop.” I turn to my colleagues of the MR who listen, if they want to. Both ministers say it is necessary to display the degree of repairability, show the duration during which manufacturers commit to supply the spare parts, extend the legal lifetime.

Today, all these statements are collapsing. The blowdown has fallen back from the decision to vote on a resolution proposal in 2018. In 2012 a resolution was passed in this direction in the Senate, the immediate effect of which does not appear obvious.

I can also note, and I would still like to attach a little fancy to this, that in September of last year, we had the right to a great statement by Minister Marghem. She announced in the press that she was working on a law in concert with Mr. Nollet. The press made statements. I thought to myself, "Here is an idyll born between Mrs. Marghem and Mr. Nollet."I was a little surprised by the fall of this idyll, Mr. Nollet! What is the idyll on this subject? It is finished. Tinder, Mrs. Marghem and you, it’s over! There were cracks in the contract.

This need to legislate against programmed obsolescence is even more pressing today, after the scandals that recently hit Apple and Epson companies in France. Investigations are always open. France is a pioneer in this field. There is a law in France to combat programmed obsolescence and premature obsolescence. Appeals are made before the courts. During the hearings, manufacturers and producers were not afraid of this, because they well understood that it was necessary to work on reusable products, with a certain guarantee, and to work on short circuits, also within the framework of the collaborative economy.

When we talk about this, it is not only about consumer protection but also about the environment and the production of waste. Natural resources are not extensible in view of what we try to produce in our society.

When the bills were submitted, it was with the will to legislate, to create a framework, to fix tags. And today, the potatoes! What happened that prevents a solution that allows everyone to receive, as a consumer, the guarantees of buying a solid and healthy product?

We simply demanded extended warranty periods, let market participants take care of displaying the product’s lifetime on the instructions of use and on the box when selling, and guarantee the lifetime of their product. All this fell to the water.

There was also the possibility, within the framework of regulation, that the Parliament could incriminate, with sanctions in support, attitudes where obsolescence was truly programmed. You all have home, not only household appliances, but also printers that no longer perform their function while there is still ink in the cartridge.

We wanted to sanction this programmed obsolescence policy and it seemed normal for us that the legislator act through the noble mission that is his own, that is, that of doing law by creating laws.

We really wanted this incrimination in our text. Today, we are faced with an over-the-counter resolution that does not even serve to save the face. It is a resolution that tries not to lose the face to the MR, but admit it is a blow in the water! The guarantee is no longer there to avoid the premature discharge of consumer goods since it is not extended.

Let us remember all these reflections carried out together. They were the result of a long serious work in commission, a long work, listening to consumers and producers, listening to the people who handle waste.

When Minister Peeters came to the committee — you can go to see the reports — he said it was time to act under this legislature to promote a circular economy that favors both employment and consumers. This motivation of Minister Peeters was unanimously approved by the members of the Public Health Committee.

Today is the day of the rejection of the majority while we could have done a heavy legislative work. Today, it is the run forward to not lose the face.

I address all members of the majority: you have no right to be proud of what you do. This is an act of cowardice towards consumers.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, when I submitted my first proposal, then with Mrs. Snoy and Mr. Balcaen, I had the hope that this Parliament would soon realize the need for progress in this area. In the meantime, we are ten years and a wear stroke within this majority, a wear stroke that has yielded zero results. There was a repair café in the peristylium where the chairman spoke nice words and then a total lack of results at the time we had to move forward.

I still remember that Mr. Janssen noted Kris Peeters here because he was not ambitious enough. He found that the extension of the warranty scheme, with which CD&V had so struggled, was not sufficient. I saw in the Flemish parliament N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld knocking on the chest about circular economy and saying that Flanders should move forward with it. I see zero progress in this Parliament. The question is who is actually blocking it. No response from this government. Who is blocking it here? After all the beautiful words in the press with which each party wants to beat themselves on the chest, who blocks it?

It is a fact that this majority has tried hard to market itself after ten years as a champion of the sustainable economy, with a Wouter Beke absent here expressing his appreciation for Kate Raworth and the donut model in the studio of Terzake but then here can not take a step forward, no step, even no minimum, to limit that waste flow, in which our country is proportionally world champion in. I do not see even the stimulation of the repair professions that N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld have called for in the Flemish parliament. Even that is not there.

There is zero ambition. It is a slashing blow. The majority would not agree, but would like to walk with the plugs. This is unimaginably shameful. So it is not surprising that Jos Delbeke comes on television to say how bad we score internationally in all statistics. This is not the ambition of this government because it does not exist. This outcome, both internationally and domestically, in terms of the environment and the failure to start a circular economy is entirely due to you, entirely. You may knock on your chest because you cannot take a step forward in the most crucial times of our history. No one step!

The next time a repair cafe is organized, you will undoubtedly all be on the photo. You also succeed in just asking questions for ten years to bloke each other and block each other in the government. It is beautiful!

It’s not because it’s almost 22:00 that this isn’t relevant. Every time this majority comes out on this topic and says they mean it right, I will laugh well and then post it on Twitter, because that is apparently a bigger hobby than solving things.

There is no agreement, but a blockage. There is total hopelessness and a total lack of willingness to change. It is a cinema. Belgium does not stop the planned ageing and Europe is stepping on the ground. Where a small country can be big! What a small government can be big in! I see only after-envy for each other and forgetting what is possible.

The next time you say in the Flemish government that you want to help stimulate the repair professions, I will also remind you of what a sad result here today predicted. I want to make progress over the next ten years. Maybe it’s already starting to happen a little, but that climate change is a fact. We have no more ten years!

The next time someone here pretends to have some ambition, I will again point out the most embarrassing outcome in a domain where we could have created a lot of green jobs. It must be done! Good done, best CD&V, N-VA and Open Vld!