🇵🇹 Daily Portugal news for expats & investors — FREE Subscribe

Two Bills to Cut VAT on Fuel and Food Reach Parliament on 24 September, and Neither Can Take Effect Before January

Article 167 of the Constitution bars the opposition from cutting state revenue in the current financial year. That is the fact underneath a fortnight of PS and Chega accusing each other.

Two Bills to Cut VAT on Fuel and Food Reach Parliament on 24 September, and Neither Can Take Effect Before January

Parliament votes on 24 September on two Chega bills: one cutting VAT on fuel from 23 percent to the intermediate rate of 13 percent, the other applying a zero rate to a basket of essential foods. Whatever the result, neither can reduce anyone's bill this year, and the reason is written into the Constitution.

Article 167(2) of the Constitution bars members of parliament, parliamentary groups, the legislative assemblies of the autonomous regions and groups of citizens from tabling bills or amendments that involve, "in the current financial year, an increase in state expenditure or a reduction in the state revenue provided for in the Budget". It is known in Portuguese politics as the lei-travão, the brake law, and it is the structural fact behind an argument that has otherwise been conducted as a straight exchange of accusations.

Why nothing lands before January

The Socialists' parliamentary leader, Eurico Brilhante Dias, made that point at a press conference at the party's Lisbon headquarters. The Chega bills, he argued, take effect only in January, and will not even reach a final global vote until after the 2027 Budget proposal is known. He called them "pure ineffective propaganda".

His explanation of the constraint was blunt. "Portuguese people have to understand that, once the Budget is approved and in force, the opposition parties in Parliament cannot reduce revenue or increase spending. So nothing Parliament does, from that point of view, has an impact on the lives of Portuguese people in 2026," he said. That, he argued, is why the PS has used resolution proposals, which recommend action to the government rather than legislate it: they are "the possible effectiveness of opposition parties".

He also said the measures cannot wait: "The Portuguese cannot take it and will not take it until January. The Portuguese need help with fuel and with the food basket today. And today is already late."

Two parties, one policy, four vetoes

The dispute is over authorship, and both sides have a factual case. The PS secretary-general, José Luís Carneiro, speaking on arrival at his party's national local government convention in Leiria, said the Socialists proposed cutting fuel VAT from 23 percent to 13 percent three times, and that Chega voted against the first two. He accused Chega of "trying to deceive the Portuguese", and said the AD parties, Chega and Iniciativa Liberal had all voted down Socialist proposals on fuel, electricity, bottled gas and essential foods.

André Ventura, speaking at Chega's headquarters in Lisbon, returned the charge. He said that on 10 April 2026 parliament debated two Chega bills, zero-rated VAT on the food basket and a temporary cut in fuel VAT to the intermediate rate, and that the PS voted both down. He said the Socialists then produced a recommendation instead, and that the parliamentary record shows the PS "did not table a single bill on fuel or zero VAT". As he put it: "VAT does not come down by recommendation. It comes down by law."

What actually changes, and when

For households the practical position is unchanged for now. Brilhante Dias would not say how the PS will vote on 24 September, and did not rule out approving changes to VAT on fuel and essential foods during the 2027 Budget debate if the government has not acted by then. "The situation many Portuguese families are living is one of emergency," he said, "and so the PS does not rule out that support and does not rule out those proposals in the budget process."

He also called the two measures the prime minister has announced, an extraordinary supplement for pensioners and an IRS reduction, unfair to workers on wages low enough that they pay no income tax and would be reached by neither.