[ad_1]
The House’s retroactive approval of a major increase in climate bonuses has sparked a debate over government communications and procedural transparency despite overwhelming legislative support.
The so-called “supplement” to the “climate bonus” program was retroactively approved in the House of Representatives with 59 votes in favor and 1 against. As explained on the House of Representatives website, the new law provides for an increase in the replacement bonus from 30% to 50% for upgrading fossil fuel boilers or electric heating systems to more energy-efficient alternatives. In addition, beneficiaries who choose to use the energy for their own use or join an energy community will receive a 25% subsidy for photovoltaic installations. A 25% subsidy is also available for sustainable energy renovation projects.
The law, which was due to expire at the end of December 2023, will now be extended until the end of June, and Environment Minister Serge Wilmes stressed that a further extension is planned until October 30. The new scheme will take effect from October 1.
Despite the overwhelming support, the government’s communication with the Chamber of Deputies has sparked considerable discussion among MPs. MP Claire Delcourt noted that the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP) initially doubted whether six months would be enough time to develop a new plan. Their motion to extend the draft bill was rejected by the majority.
“It is surprising that only three weeks later the Prime Minister was able to detail the new climate incentive scheme, which will come into force on October 1,” Delcourt commented. She questioned whether the environment minister delayed the Prime Minister’s announcement or whether the government was unsure about the scheme until the last minute.
David Wagner, MP of the Left Party (left) criticized the government for allowing the House of Representatives to vote on a law that had already been in force for six months. Minister Serge Wilmes countered that the House of Representatives had been informed during the State of the Union speech. However, Green Party MP Sam Tanson (green) oppose this form of information policy.
Tansen criticized this approach, arguing that the duty of MPs is to monitor the government, not just to receive information. She stressed that this monitoring function will fail if the government only provides information without engaging in substantive dialogue. Tansen pointed out that during the State of the Union address, MPs asked many questions, but none of them were fully answered.
The Green MP also disputed Minister Wilms’s claim that he was never invited to the parliamentary committee meeting, calling it “untrue” and “disrespectful”.
During the parliamentary session, The Pirate Party proposed three amendments In the form of a handwritten note, it was proposed to immediately extend the bonus until the end of September. However, these proposals were rejected by the majority.
[ad_2]
Source link
