Proposition 54K3135

Projet de loi instaurant un taux de TVA réduit pour les bicyclettes et bicyclettes électriques.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Stéphane Crusnière, Frédéric Daerden, Laurent Devin, Gwenaëlle Grovonius, Ahmed Laaouej, Karine Lalieux

Submission date

June 7, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT VAT rate tax law two-wheeled vehicle

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

Voted to reject

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

April 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr Calomne and Gilkinet, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as environmentalists, we can only look forward to the prospect of a measure that favors the purchase and therefore the use of bicycles, with the prospect of a VAT reduction proposed by the Socialist Party colleagues for whom I thank, even though there are bicycles of all kinds and at all prices.

Since the announcement of the adoption of this measure, many citizens have contacted me to know when it will take effect and whether they should delay the purchase of their bicycle. I actually had to tell them that this VAT reduction must get the agreement of the European Commission, which is therefore conditioned to a green light from Europe. This is stated in the text after amendments. We’ll see what will happen and if that will translate into reality.

But Europe, like us, must be coherent. We are engaged in a merciless struggle to save the planet, to avoid warming it by more than 1.5°C or 2°C that would have enormous consequences. To do this, we need to reduce the number of kilometers travelled by car and thus promote alternative modes of mobility, including bicycling.

Mr. Van Rompuy, it is clear that this measure will have a cost to the public finances, like other measures that will be discussed today and that you point out precisely for their budgetary impact, but in climate matters, the cost of inaction will still be much higher than those measures that should encourage and support our fellow citizens to choose, for example, other modes of less polluting mobility, to insulate their homes or to support renewable energies. That’s why, in terms of reducing the cost of buying bicycles through a reduction in VAT, we are enthusiastically supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as a liberal party, we are of course positive in the face of any possible reduction of taxes, so ⁇ also here in terms of VAT on the purchase of electric bicycles. We also supported this proposal in the committee.

There was an amendment by Mr. Laaouej and Mr. Devin to approve the proposal now, but to submit it only after it has been approved by Europe. This was clearly a PS amendment, following the intervention of Ms. Smaers in the committee. We then noticed that this is actually the reverse way of working. Normally, it is first considered whether a VAT reduction is possible. You should know, colleagues, that the reduction of a VAT rate is not always obvious. It cannot simply be carried out. Europe has a number of tables with forks within which Member States are allowed to operate for the reduced rate, the ordinary rate or the increased rate. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly check whether such a VAT reduction is possible for Europe.

You will say that for other proposals that have been approved, we have not done that review either. Indeed, we did not do so, but only because certain countries had already requested that review. Let me take the example of digital prints, which will later also be on the agenda. There, we place the VAT rate for the printed version of a publication at the same level as its digital version. Europe was already asking the party to reconcile these two tariffs and had given the order to do so.

Here, in this case, however, it is a new way of acting that our commission is sticking to. We can now adopt the proposal, but we cannot say to the sector when the reduction will take place, or whether it will ever take place, because we depend on the approval by Europe. I have already observed in the committee that this creates an incident.

For the traders of the bicycle sector it is currently a peak period. It may be surprising that I say this as a liberal, but it is in good families a tradition that the meter or the peter at a shape self party, or someone of the family at a spring party, offers a bicycle to the children. I’ll give this only to demonstrate that the bicycle sector in the months of April and May generates its largest revenue. The reserves for this are already established.

It is right to read in several newspapers today that this measure is feared. Individuals and companies who want to stimulate the movement between residence and workplace may want to wait for Europe, because it is a 15 % difference. It may take three, six to nine months before we get a definitive exclusion from Europe. We have already warned in the committee that this problem could arise in the market. This is also mentioned in several newspapers today.

That is why we made some reservations. We are, of course, in favor of the approval of the VAT reduction for electric bikes. However, the method we have used in the committee is the reverse method. First there is approval in the plenary session and then we ask for approval from Europe, with all its consequences. We find the coupling of these two a dangerous instrument and it currently actually sets the sector lamb.

You could read it today in The Standard, personally I am confident that Europe will approve this. You know that home-working traffic with alternatives to the car should be encouraged and that the bicycle is the healthiest or most appropriate alternative. Therefore, it seems to me logical that Europe will turn the light on green to encourage people to buy an electric bike or a comfortable bike.

I do not agree with the industry, who says this is fake news. I think Europe will approve this, provided that there is a good motivation. Now, however, we are going to get the opposite. After the approval, there must be a reaction from Europe, which will ponder that this is not the method that parliaments should use, with first a conditional approval, after which Europe can do nothing but say yes or no.

In principle, we will be able to withstand the examination of Europe, and I have confidence in that. However, I fear that the current method of pushing this legislature too soon – without consequences for the market, because let’s be honest, there will be no solution from Europe before the end of the season – will only slow down the sector and will have the opposite effect of what this law aims at, in particular: get as many people on the bike as possible, as an alternative to residential-working traffic, as an alternative to commercial cars. That is the essence of my argument.

I repeat that we are in favor, but we would like to take into account the criticism that the proposal is first approved here and only then notified to Europe. The date of entry depends on the approval by Europe.

Mr. Speaker, the advantage of a two-step discussion, first in the committee, then in the plenary session, is that you get the time and space to reflect on it a second time. I would like to use this possibility.

Our group would like to apologize because I think we approved something wrong in the committee. I do not mean that the intention is wrong, anything but even, because implementing the burden reduction is a very praiseful initiative. You will always find in us a partner to implement load reductions, especially if they have an added value in terms of stimulation, job creation, ecology and sustainable mobility, because these are of course very good things.

We made a number of comments in the committee. First, the choice of opportunity. Much of the budgetary costs will go to the discount on expensive racing bikes, while those have nothing to do with sustainable mobility. A 2,000 euro electric bike is different from a 10,000 euro racing bike. In that regard, an opportunity-choice could be made, but further, the path of burden reductions is a good path for us. Second, we also commented on the necessary approval by Europe. On that, a creative and legalistically correct solution from colleague Laaouej has come to allow the law to enter into force only after its approval by Europe. Colleague Van Biesen explained the technique correctly.

Nevertheless, I am afraid to see more closely that there may be a problem. In fact, I am not as optimistic as colleague Van Biesen on the approval by Europe. We have seen, for example, how long a change to the VAT Directive took for the VAT on e-books, digital publications and digital news media. That has been a very long path of suffering, even though it seemed to be an obvious equalization. This procedure has taken several years.

I think the threshold for this proposal is much higher. The amendment of the VAT Directive requires an initiative of the European Commission. It is not the Member States or Parliament that is taking the initiative, but the European Commission. It has the right of initiative in this area. After that, all 27 EU member states must agree. If the Commission does not take the initiative, that amendment will not take place. If a Member State opposes, that amendment will not take place. So let me be a little more skeptical than colleague Van Biesen regarding the potential approval by Europe.

What is the possible effect? You can see the impact of the proposal in the press: there is an announcement policy. A burden reduction is announced, which may come later, or may not come at all. That’s a bit like what economists always fear when they talk about deflation: the delay behavior. When people expect that their money will be worth more later, that they will get more value for the same money later, that they can buy a cheaper bike later, they postpone their purchase. This could have a very negative impact on the sector and not promote the purchase of electric bikes and sustainable mobility.

Therefore, I ask you to send the proposal again to the committee for further reflection on this subject. Otherwise, our group will not support the proposal, not because we do not agree to an effective tax reduction, but because we fear the unintended, negative impact on the sale of bicycles. This is contrary to the legitimate purpose of the initiators of the proposal. We do everything we can to make the communication very clear.

Mr. Dedecker, I hear that you request the transmission of the proposal to the committee. Do you have an amendment to this or can you designate an article for it? I would like you to discuss the technical way to be able to request the return to the meeting.

We unanimously approved the proposal in the House Committee on Finance. This has not occurred at one meeting; we have held two meetings about it. All sorts of pro-arguments have been raised, including in response to an amendment calling for waiting for Europe’s approval, which could have a short-term effect on sales.

I read the press yesterday and noticed various reactions. Some bike dealers say they have a huge stock and that people will now wait with the purchase, while they do not know how long they will have to wait. Other bike dealers say that someone who wants to buy a new bike in the spring does not wait months for a VAT reduction to pay 15% less. If consumers want to buy a bicycle for a solemn communion, they will not wait one and a half years for a possible VAT reduction. This is not how it works, of course. I do not think this is a valid argument.

Everyone is talking about the environment. Just look at the climate protests, which advocate a different mobility. The electric bike is now being promoted in all possible ways. Even Lucien Van Impe says he prefers to ride an electric bike rather than a regular one. Bicycle use is now, rightly, encouraged. However, bicycles are becoming more and more expensive and the VAT reduction can therefore have a positive effect. There is a democratic aspect.

Mr. Dedecker pointed out that some electric bikes cost 10 000 euros and more, to which the VAT reduction will also apply. Of course, this is always the case with VAT, you cannot link income conditions to it.

We will continue to support the reduction. I think we should be consistent in this. Newspapers about Parliament, which would spend as much as 160 million and play sinterklaas, bother me.

Mr. Calvo, we will not start here about the budget. You can finance all that with your $8 billion tax increase, which is perfectly possible, isn’t it? If this is not possible, then we will print green money. Why not ? The helicopter is flying over Belgium and spends pockets with green money to pay for climate action. All the madness on a stick, let’s not start that discussion, Mr. Calvo. (Protest by Mr Calvo)

Mr. Calvo, you do not have to worry about the subject. That is your tactic. The green money can be used to finance the VAT reduction. Why not ? For me that is good. There is no need to print money to finance the reduction. The measure is perfectly possible without anyone being disturbed by it.

Today a calculation was made. Whether the VAT reduction costs 60 million euros, I do not know. It can also involve a change in behavior. People may buy even more bicycles and the reduction will therefore ⁇ earn more. It is often not the case that a reduction costs less. This is a liberal position. The liberal statement is that the less taxes there are, the more people will consume and the more they will charge. Everything will repay itself. I read that statement even yesterday. The party chairman of Open Vld and the deputy prime minister, Mr. De Croo, are forecasting tax cuts that will fully repay themselves. Mr Van Mechelen gave one good example, namely the registration rights. In other cases, however, this cannot be done.

Parliament is not irresponsible. We have, all together, in the Committee on Finance – I speak now very broadly, namely including various files, such as legal aid, the Alimentation Fund and the land lease, on which it can be built – ⁇ reached 100 million euros, although now we are talking about 160 million euros.

However, who in the government can teach us here about the fact that we would approve bills for 100 million euros, while the High Council of Finance states that in 2019 the deficit will be 8.5 billion euros?

Mr. Dewael, all the beets help. Here in Parliament, the Finance Committee has no lessons to receive about budget deficits. In 2021, 11 billion euros will be needed to reach the budget balance.

How can one then begin to harass, as I call it, about certain measures, of which the cost is not yet known and of which the social relevance is great? We reduced the VAT on plants a few weeks ago; that was a proposal from Mrs. Gantois and Mrs. Muylle. The reduction costs 29 million euros. Open Vld also approved this proposal. Will we discuss this reduction again in the committee? The proposal has already been unanimously approved here in Parliament, without many objections being expressed against it.

If the Parliament does something, we are so-called irresponsible, but if the government takes certain measures... We have here approved the tax shift for 8 billion, without knowing how the compensations were. Yes, I have approved it. Yes, we approved the tax reduction. We also approved a number of compensations, but they never came. There were also some savings, but I am not going to conduct that debate here now. Our group has approved matters in the committee. We will keep our word. There are also other proposals that may be less in our line, but we also approved that.

Luk Van Biesen becomes the record holder of legislation in this Parliament. He and Mr Piedboeuf have ⁇ submitted eight to nine bills to the committee, which have been approved and which also have a cost. We don’t talk about it because it comes from the government. I would like to advocate for some consistency.

Do you refer this to the committee again? We can refer everything to the committee. It will not be the possible 59 million euros, I am convinced that it will be much less, which will disperse the budgets.

We are being pointed to irresponsibility, while there are budget deficits in this country, Mr. Dewael. You will still sit in this Parliament in the next legislature. You will then need to find a little more than 100 million euros to ⁇ the budget balance.

You can laugh at it. You say we are irresponsible. I do not take it. The bicycle VAT proposal is good for the environment and for the little man, because he will have to pay less for his bike. I think that is really capitulating for voting making in the media by a sector that is currently booming.

Mr. Van Rompuy, all the unfriendly things you have said about the government in ongoing affairs I leave for your account. You have given a lot of interviews in the last few days. You give many statements, but my mother always said: whoever does not honor the small, does not respect the big. It doesn’t stop saying that this is just a few tens of millions, while one in the government is facing a deficit that one would have caused and that would amount to many billions. After all, that is also a collective responsibility, including your party, which is also part of the government, Mr. Van Rompuy.

Second, I think there is a warning in its place. We now have a government in ongoing affairs because no government could be formed. As a result, the Parliament has experienced a great deal of freedom and has enforced a number of laws that we can still be proud of. I think that we should be careful to simply take all the initiatives ahead, a few weeks before the elections, regardless of whether their cost is in the millions or in the tens of millions.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason I think it is good that the Chamber stops its activities slowly, because otherwise it becomes an offer of one against the other, which does not adorn the Parliament, because, in my opinion, that is a misunderstood independence.

Mr. Speaker, the PTB welcomes this bill and we will fully support it.

Indeed, the reduction of VAT on bicycles is a good thing, as specified in the developments of the proposal. The benefits are numerous: physical exercise useful for improving health, reducing problems due to traffic congestion and environmental benefits. However, you know that the PTB prefers – rather than following the voice of the penalizing environmental taxation – to positive measures: promote large and free transport and promote the use of the bicycle.

At the national level, it is true that Wallonia has some lessons to learn from Flanders in this matter, although it is true that the relief there may be different; I want as proof the situation in my own municipality that resembles Switzerland more than the flat country.

What is even more interesting in this bill is that it also suggests the reduction of VAT on electric bikes, very good alternative ⁇ a little less efficient in terms of health, but in terms of road congestion and the environment, just as beneficial as the non-electric bike.

In this context, the PTB introduced an amendment. As much as it is good to reduce VAT on the purchase of electric bicycles, so much it is still necessary to know how to ensure their use. In order to use an electric bike efficiently, it must be charged. Therefore, electricity must be used. Our amendment therefore also aims to reduce VAT on electricity to 6%. In general, in addition to the discussion about bicycles, the 6% VAT is a social necessity. VAT is the most unfair tax on basic necessities such as electricity: it seems to us that it is imperative to reduce it to 6%.

PTB has gathered tens of thousands of signatures in a petition calling for a reduction of electricity VAT to 6%. It is not normal to pay the same VAT rate on caviar as on electricity, which is why we introduce this amendment to an excellent bill.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, Dear colleagues, time wasted in endless traffic jams, air pollution, noise... The list of negative effects attributable to excessive use of an individual car is long and well known to all. In the face of the negative environmental impacts, we must offer alternatives to citizens and encourage the use of bicycles and public transport.

According to the European Cycling Federation, about 13% of the Belgian population uses a bicycle every day. The popularity of bicycles is growing across the country as the use of bicycles is good for health and good for the climate. Good for health because the daily practice of physical activity, even moderate, is positive, notably in terms of prevention and management of chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity and osteoporosis.

This activity is also good for health as it reduces air pollution. In this regard, the European Environment Agency regularly reviews the exposure of the European population to air pollutants and denounces the influence of road transport in the onset of serious diseases such as heart disease, respiratory disorders and cancer.

Bicycling is good for the health of the human being, but also for that of the planet, as it naturally reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduction is indispensable, knowing that transport is one of the black spots of our country’s climate policy. Transport emissions now account for 22.5% of Belgium’s total emissions, up from just 14.3% in 1990.

The number of vehicles has increased by 59% since 1990. Currently, there are almost 6 million vehicles in the country. To meet Belgium’s climate commitments, it is therefore essential to limit sources of air pollution, including by pursuing policies to reduce the use of personal cars and by investing in greener mobility. Using the bicycle to go to work, for example, contributes to decongestioning cities as the user leaves his car in the garage.

For short journeys, the bicycle is often a faster means of transport than the car. In our country, drivers lose a precious amount of time every day, trapped in traffic jams, especially in Brussels and Antwerp, as I mentioned in the commission.

Excessive traffic density also has a negative economic impact. Recurring traffic jams are wasting time for workers and money for companies. The competitiveness of the Belgian economy is affected.

In view of the health, environmental and economic challenges associated with road transport, it is therefore essential for public authorities to promote alternatives to limit the use of individual car. For this, there is no single solution. This must go through multiple coherent measures taken at all levels of power.

My group, well aware of the many benefits of practicing bicycle, decided to think about solutions to encourage its use. One of them is the reduction of VAT on bicycles, electric bicycles and Speed Pedelec. This idea has been defended for many years by the ASBL GRACQ and its Flemish fietsersbond. Both organizations advocate for a fairer and more incentive tax on bicycles. One of their priorities is the reduction to 6% of the VAT rate applicable at purchase. My group believes that this would encourage the practice of bicycle and make it more socially accessible.

A 15% reduction in the cost of buying a bicycle will attract more citizens to this efficient and environmentally friendly means of transport. This would also allow a greater number to have access to electric bikes that are, of course, expensive, but excellent alternatives to individual car for short or medium distances while allowing as many people as possible to pursue a sporting activity despite reduced physical resources.

As you said, Mr. Van Hees, this may have less impact, but it is strong to the extent that it allows people who are no longer cycling, because it has become too challenging, to be able to consider putting themselves back in the seat.

You will have understood, this text is therefore intended to reduce the VAT rate applicable to 6% for the purchase of cycles, motorcycles or Speed Pedelec as defined in the general regulation on the road traffic policy, with the understanding that motorcycles and Speed Pedelec only come into consideration when they are powered electrically.

I would like to thank Mr. Van Rompuy, Chairman of the Commission, for enabling a constructive debate where everyone was able to speak out.

The Commission mentioned the fact that VAT is a prerogative of Europe. We have therefore submitted an amendment linking the entry into force of this text to the European agreement to lower VAT. After this text has been voted, the government will have the task of negotiating with Europe to obtain either a derogation or a general amendment to Annex III of the VAT Directive, which deals with the exceptions to the normal rate of VAT.

Mr. Minister, the ball is now in the government’s camp to act as quickly as possible so that this reduced rate is quickly applied.

A second text is attached to this proposal to lower VAT. It allows to grant a tax reduction for the purchase of bicycles, electric bicycles up to 25 km/h and Speed Pedelec up to 45 km/h. Currently, a tax reduction is only for motorcycles, tricycles and quadricycles powered by an electric motor but it excludes – and it is a shame – bicycles, electric bicycles and Speed Pedelec.

Without questioning the relevance of these provisions, it seems inconsistent to propose a tax reduction for the above categories but to exclude from it bicycles, electric bicycles and Speed Pedelec which are equally beneficial for the environment and mobility and whose purchase price may also amount to several thousand euros in the case of electric bicycles and Speed Pedelec.

The annexed bill allows to correct this inconsistency in order to encourage a modal transfer from individual car to bicycle. This bill, unfortunately, has not yet been able to obtain the approval of colleagues from other groups. It is nothing. We will return there. In the meantime, I am pleased with the debate launched on the relevance of a reduced VAT rate for bicycles. Thank you for your contribution to the debate and vote that will take place today.

I wish you a nice round of Vlaanderen. I wish you a good Tour of Flanders on Sunday. I think there will be many of us watching it. For having already traveled twice the Tour of Flanders by bicycle, but as an amateur, I saw all the inscriptions when you return to Brakel. I wish you a lot of fun on the roads of the Tour de Flanders if you participate on Saturday. I wish you a lot of fun in front of your TV station and on the Flemish coast on Sunday.

Meanwhile, on 6 and 7 July in Brussels and on 8 July in Binche, in the city of which I am the mayor, I hope to welcome many of you to celebrate, all together, the hundred years of the yellow shirt and the fifth anniversary of the first victory of King Eddy Merckx in the big loop. Long live the bicycle!