Proposition 50K0602

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2000.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

May 9, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) 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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

June 21, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, your committee examined the draft budget adjustment during its meetings of 16, 23 and 30 May 2000. As part of this review, it heard, on 23 May 2000, two representatives of the Federal Office of the Plan concerning the study that this body has published on the medium-term economic forecasts, i.e. for the period 2000-2005. She also heard four interpellations and questions from Ms. Van de Casteele and M. M. Bultinck, Poncelet and Peeters were all related to the proposal of the Minister of Budget on the hedge fund. She also asked for the opinion of the Justice Committee and heard the report of Mr. by Guy Hove. The written report contains, apart from the tables, more than 125 pages. This means that your committee has examined this budget adjustment in depth. To prevent you from having to sit up to undue hours, I will refer to the written report for a whole series of questions that I consider more technical, to attach myself in my oral report to questions of more political order, while acknowledging that the boundary between the two is not always very sharp and that there will, consequently, be a minimum of inevitable subjectivity on my part. The introduction of the project to the examination was made by Mr. Vande Lanotte, Minister of Budget. The main lines of the introduction are as follows. Mr Vande Lanotte first recalled that the motto that presided over the initial presentation of the 2000 budget was an ambitious but cautious project. For the preparation of the 2000 budget adjustment, the government applied the golden hamster principle, which will constitute the red thread of fiscal policy for the rest of the legislature. Under this principle, achievements are fully taken into account, while the surplus is based on prudent starting assumptions. If, during the budgetary control, certain assumptions prove to be more positive than during the preparation of the budget, they will not be implemented. On the other hand, we take into account the proven reversals. In addition to the latest economic budget, a conjunctual buffer of approximately 30 billion Belgian francs was established. In 2000, the financing balance of all public authorities will fall to 0.7% of GDP. Consolidated federal government and social security revenues decreased by 0.5% of GDP between 1999 and 2000. Federal government and social security primary spending decreased by 0.2% of GDP between 1999 and 2000. As for the most recent developments, interest charges tend to rise slightly more than estimates based on forward rates. Price changes could lead to a surpassing of the pivot index in 2000. Tax revenues are progressing at a very sustained rate. The adjustment of the 2000 budget was made on the basis of an increase of 2.8% in 2000. In the first quarter of this year, however, tax revenue increased by 8%. This far exceeds the forecasts. In concluding his introductory speech, Mr. Vande Lanotte said that, given the method followed, i.e. the golden hamster principle, and in view of recent developments, it is right to say that the government has shown great caution in assessing the evolution of public finances in 2000. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, made a presentation focusing on the economic context, revenue and financing needs of the State. Regarding the international economic context, the Minister of Finance noted that within one year, the widespread fear of a deflation in the world economy had turned into a fear of inflationary tension. In its most recent forecasts, the IMF even predicts that this year and next year, growth is expected to again exceed trend growth. For 2000 and 2001, it forecasts growth of 4.2 and 3.9 percent, respectively. The GDP of industrialized products is expected to grow by 3.4% in 2000. In the eurozone, the economic recovery has become significantly stronger since last summer. While real GDP growth was only 2% on an annual basis in the first half of 1999, its growth rate was close to 4% in the second half of 1999. As for the Belgian economy, in the first quarter of 1999, Belgium saw its GDP increase of 3.4% on an annual basis compared to the previous quarter; in the second quarter of 1999, the growth was 4.3%; in the third quarter, it was 6.3%; in the fourth quarter, it was 4.5%. For the whole year 1999, GDP increased by 2.5% in volume compared to 1998. Everything therefore seems to indicate that this improvement will be sustainable and that the synthetic indicator of the conjuncture of the National Bank of Belgium also reached a record level in February last year. In this context, the government’s decision to take into account in the adjusted 2000 budget only revenues resulting from a real GDP growth not exceeding 2.5% must be considered cautious. Regarding revenues, the Minister of Finance said that they were revalued in progress of 53 billion Belgian francs at the level of total revenues, resulting from an increase of 45 billion Belgian francs in total tax revenues and an upward revision of 8 billion 100 million Belgian francs in non-tax revenues, this for 1999. Furthermore, the comparison between the adjusted current revenues 2000 and the achievements 1999 shows a growth of 75.3 billion Belgian francs, i.e. 2.8% in tax revenues and 19.3 billion in non-tax revenues, i.e. a total increase of more than 94 billion. All this is detailed in the written report between the different types of taxes. I am grateful for all these details. Finally, for the financing needs, the Minister of Finance ⁇ that the net balance to be financed for this year was revised downwards and passes from 160 billion Belgian francs to 128 billion. This decrease from the amount of the initial budget is largely due to the additional revenue expected this year, following the additional revenue from last year which, of course, served as the base. Last year, public debt increased by 195 billion to 9,954 billion. In percentage of GDP, however, public debt decreased last year from 107.4 to 106% of GDP. The Court of Auditors has made a series of observations on the draft budget adjustment. For the details of these remarks, I refer you to the written report, pages 24 to 45. Finally, on 23 May, your committee received two representatives from the Federal Bureau of the Plan, on the economic outlook for the period 2000-2005. The study of the Plan Bureau not only covers all aspects of economic development: evolution of overall growth, exports, consumption, inflation, interest rates, etc., but also the evolution of employment and unemployment as well as the evolution of CO2 emissions. To summarize the statements very schematically, I believe I can say in summary that the medium-term economic prospects are very good, that the prospects in terms of employment are positive, though already less good, but that the environmental prospects, on the other hand, are frankly bad, especially in terms of CO 2 . Many questions were asked on all these aspects by MM. Lenssens, Tavernier, Poncelet, Dirk Pieters, Leterme, Borginon, Desimpel and by your rapporteur. Questions and answers can be found on pages 52 to 57 of the report. I refer to you here, as well as for the interpellations and questions of Mrs. Van de Casteele, of Mr. Van de Casteele. Bultinck, Poncelet and Peeters to the Minister of Budget on the ageing fund. This reference to the written report allows me to come to the debate on budgetary adjustment itself. In the general discussion on the budget adjustment, Mr. Dirk Pieters first spoke to express that the budget margins calculated by the Minister of Budget are largely insufficient to finance all initiatives announced by the government. He also believes that, in most cases, these are initiatives of isolated ministers. by Mr. Pieters then comes for 2003 to measures amounting to a total amount of 168 billion Belgian francs, which is far higher than the budget margin. He concludes that this government can continue to clarify this series of empty promises at most until the next municipal elections. by Mr. Hagen Goyvaerts observed in the budget adjustment that for several departments, appropriations are shifted from statutory personnel to non-statutory personnel. He asks for the reason. The speaker also asks about the removal of appropriations provided for the computerization of the Ministry of Finance. The speaker also notes that three new credits are included in the adjustment sheet for Euro 2000. by Mr. Jean-Pol Poncelet asks what the government thinks of the fact that the Federal Bureau of the plan has made a technical adjustment in its forecasts regarding the evolution of healthcare spending by raising the expected annual growth from 2.5 to 3.6%. He is also not satisfied with the Minister of Budget’s response to the Court’s observations on the Airbus program. Is this an extension of the Airbus A340 program or the A3XX program? He finally raises the question of how the government thinks it will be able to limit to 2 billion Belgian francs the cost of moving the Melsbroeck Air Force. Finally Mr. Poncelet believes that an additional oil price rise of $10 per barrel would be sufficient to melt all the budget margins available during this legislature. by Mr. Eric van Weddingen believes that it is obvious that reducing tax pressure must be the top priority of the current government. With regard to the additional crisis contribution of 3%, Mr. Van Weddingen advocates that the government honour the promise it made in December 1999 and continuously submits a bill removing this contribution for all income categories. The speaker refers in this regard to the study of the Bureau of the plan. by Mr. Van Weddingen concludes his speech by briefly addressing the rate of the euro. Although our exports undoubtedly benefit from this passing weakness of our currency, the speaker believes that Belgium will need to take an initiative during its EU presidency. For your rapporteur, the possible reduction of the fiscal and para-fiscal pressure cannot be done at the expense of the redistribution of the available income. He believes that better tax collection also contributes to an increase in revenue and insists on the creation of measurement instruments to clearly highlight in statistics the impact of this better perception. He believes that the KB-Lux case and the obligation to report accounts opened abroad had the effect of repatriating some capital. In conclusion, the upcoming tax reform should primarily protect the lowest incomes. Ms. Trees Pieters is interested in the credits of the Agriculture and Middle Class section. She is surprised that the credits related to the Cabinet of the Minister of Agriculture and the Middle Class are increasing by 17.5 million Belgian francs, despite the imminent transfer of part of the department’s competence to the regions. The current minister has repeatedly stated that he intends to improve the social status of self-employed persons and has clearly stated that he intends to eliminate the distortions between the status of self-employed persons and the status of self-employed persons. Ms. Pieters is in favor of these measures announced by the minister, but she questions about how they are funded. The Minister of Agriculture and the Middle Class said that neither the social contributions of self-employed workers nor those of companies would be increased. by Mr. Borginon raises the question of how to make gold reserves of the budget margin. by Mr. Borginon observes in this regard that of all the possible options, only that of an accelerated reduction of the public debt has few supporters within the government. He believes that the establishment of the ageing fund would present no technical advantage that accelerated debt reduction would not have. by Mr. Dufour noted that while the tax pressure is, in fact, excessive, it is, above all, poorly distributed between the tax on natural persons, on the one hand, and the furniture prepaid, on the other. The current government must therefore ensure that, in the future, all income categories contribute equally to tax revenues. He asks if it is true that, due to the lack of personnel and means, the investigation judges are unable to prosecute the major tax fraudsters and asks what the government will do to remedy this problem. by Mr. Vanpoucke examines the credits of the Interior Section and specifically of the General Directorate of the General Police of the Kingdom. He asks what are the overall credits available for the information cycles dedicated to the reform of the police, what are the credits planned for the promotion of the police zones, on the one hand, and the organisation of Euro 2000, on the other. He asks the Minister of Budget whether the total amount allocated to the reform of police services will be 8 or 10 billion Belgian francs. Mrs Greta D'Hondt is interested in the department of the Ministry of Employment and Labour for social affairs. According to the speaker, these are the sections most affected by the mass of promises made by the government. It is unfortunately every year that the healthcare expenditure incurred during the first months of the year eventually exceeds the budgeted expenditure. This budget surpass will probably be postponed, once again, to the next year. Regarding the problems relating to the alignment of the social status of self-employed persons with that of wage workers, the speaker notes that the Minister of Social Affairs wishes to conduct an exchange of views on this subject, within the framework of the Cantillon Working Group and the Social Affairs Committee. Given that this detailed study of the problem will not be completed before the end of this year, Mrs D'Hondt thinks it is logical that no additional credits are provided for this purpose within the framework of budgetary control 2000. She insists on the fact that she is in no way opposed to the improvement of the social status of independent workers. However, it would be unconscious to take very short-term measures without waiting for the outcome of the above-mentioned study. by Mr. Leterme also considers, as well as Mr. Borginon, that the budget adjustment to the examination is rather modest. As in previous years, Mr. Leterme is also irritated by the lack of rigour, as evidenced by the preparation of budget documents. For some departments, the comment provided about the adjustments is very summary, he says. Furthermore, it is important to note for the Department of the Interior, that many appropriations had been undervalued in the initial budget. In the case of the Ministry of Defence, reimbursements of expenses of less than 100 million Belgian francs increased to more than 800 million Belgian francs. He asks why. The revenue from royalties from the sale of F-16 aircraft to third countries increased from 0 to 400 million. Why Why ? Interest due to the State from abroad increases by more than 850 million francs. The share of the state in the profits of financial institutions decreases by more than 3 billion (from 10.5 billion to 7.3 billion). Why Why ? The product of the domains increased, for its part, from 520 million to 1,260 billion. Finally Mr. Leterme also notes that the dividend paid to the State by the SNCB increases by 750 million Belgian francs. He asks if it is true that this is the first time since the creation of the SNCB. Regarding the product of mobile phone licenses, it raises a series of questions, for which I refer you to page 79 of the report. For the answers to both the questions asked by the Court of Auditors and the members, the Ministers of Budget and Finance made the following clarifications: For the financing of the Communities and the Regions, the part attributed to the income of the value added tax, it was answered that, in anticipation of the results of the audit of the Court of Auditors, the provisional fixation of the parts attributed to the income of VAT was logically based on the distribution key of the previous year. Regarding Airbus, in 1999, a proposed cooperation agreement was submitted for approval by the federal entities. The amounts mentioned in the proposed cooperation agreement relate only to federal funding. But we are still waiting for the decision of the Flemish Region regarding the overall distribution of the amount of 2 053 million. In response to questions about the first youth employment, it was answered that in order to respect the budgetary impact of the obligations imposed by the law, additional appropriations are needed, likely to amount to 500 million Belgian francs. Regarding the social status of self-employed workers, the government decided to create a working group, the Cantillon Group. In anticipation of its results, the Government has, on 26 May, given its principle agreement to a set of measures that improve the social status of self-employed persons, including the increase from 1 July of the disability allowance for self-employed persons, the reduction of the period of lack of disability for work, the granting of an annual revalorisation premium to beneficiaries of an self-employed pension, the increase of 600 Belgian francs of the basic amount of the benefits for the first child. As regards the dividend of the SNCB, in 1999, the SNCB made a profit of 3,550 million. The SNCB has not distributed dividends for a long time. In fact, when previous financial years resulted in a profit, the latter was intended to cover past losses. The appropriations for Euro 2000 are as follows: 199 million to the gendarmerie budget, 92 million to the Interior budget and 300 million additional provisions to cover the costs of ⁇ ining order and finally, 48 million for various other operating expenses. Regarding the cost of the police reform, the minister replied that it was still starting at an amount of 8 billion. In the 2000 healthcare budget, a deficit of 5 billion Belgian francs was taken into account in 1999. The amount remained the same as during the budget control due to insufficient elements. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, made clarifications on the following topics: the evolution of succession rights in relation to the mediated cases of tax fraud, the discrepancy found in terms of the evolution of floating debt, the revenues of the National Bank, the evolution of the revenues of the Domaines, the fight against tax fraud for which he gave indications on the missions and means of the AFER, the ISI, the Anti-Fraud Committee and finally on the problem of the value of the euro. Your committee also took note of the favorable opinion of the Justice Committee on Section 12 Justice by 8 votes against 4. Finally, the government introduced five amendments, which were adopted by 9 votes against 3. And the overall project was adopted by a similar vote.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Rapporteur, for the very important report you have just submitted to us, of which you have developed the essential elements. I would also like to thank the staff of the room.

by Jean-

As the first speaker after the reporter, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Viseur, and to the Commission Secretariat. I thank and congratulate them for the excellent report they have brought about our work. During the meetings of the Committee on Finance and Budget, I also formulated some key points of criticism of the submitted documents and the budget control. I don’t think it’s a good waste of our time and energy to bring the same story here without a doubt. In addition, I would like to emphasize the essential points once again. Therefore, I will present these points in a concise manner. I have three points of criticism. First, I would like to address the plethora of promises compared to the limitation of budgetary margins. Second, there is the government’s reluctance to address the short-term tax discrimination of the married. Third, the budget figures are misleading. Our main finding relates to the first point, in particular the budgetary policy. This is not apparent from the documents, as there is hardly a future perspective embedded, but the entire budgetary debate is governed by the future intentions. Here is an overwhelming contradiction between words and deeds and between the multitude of promises, on the one hand, and the available budgetary margin, on the other. I will repeat the promises made. I also mention the budgetary impact at the end of the legislature, in 2003, if that end does not come earlier of course. The accelerated abolition of the crisis tax costs 37 billion francs. The deal in the non-profit sector costs 10 billion federal and 20 billion globally. The police reform spends a sum of 10 billion francs, subject to the additional costs to be borne by the municipalities, as Louis Tobback pointed out last week. The Brussels Regional Expressnet, which was again referred to a study, would have an impact of 8.5 billion at the end of this legislature. The military reform with social envelope and the move from Melsbroek cost 4 billion. Removing the discrimination of the social status of self-employed will cost 10 billion. Remember the ruling of Elio Di Rupo, who does not want a tax reform without refinancing the French-speaking education. I don’t want to add a number to memory. The reimbursement of pensions costs 4 billion. The proposal to make health care beyond a certain threshold free is not sufficiently specific to give an estimate. The modernization of the public office was mentioned here pro memory. For the expansion of the tax administration with 2000 officials, promised by the Minister of Finance, I did not even want to make the calculation. For the tax reform, including the elimination of tax discrimination against married persons, 120 billion francs should be allocated by 2003. The Silver Fund costs us 50 billion. This concludes my list, although we could add other points. Think of the abolition of the viewing and listening fee desired by one minister, but if we would count all individual wishes, the picture becomes entirely surreal. If I limit myself to my listing – with some listed pro memories – I already come up with an amount of 275 billion Belgian francs. In 2003, an additional budgetary space of 275 billion francs was needed to finance all these promises. How big is the budget space? There are various estimates in this regard, including those of the Planning Bureau, of the CVP group and the figures of the Deputy Prime Minister. The last two estimates differ little. The few billion differences are negligible in this debate. For 2003, the budget minister estimates the space at 50 billion francs. The CVP is attached to this. If you compare this 50 billion francs with the list of promises that will cost 275 billion francs, the budgetary space is five times smaller to fulfill the promises. The CVP can only protest. To make all sorts of promises in an election program is normal. The fact that a government makes choices, tries to balance the promises of the majority parties concerned and makes clear to the citizen what can and cannot be achieved is what one can expect. It is not normal for a government to get started and during the first year of the legislature to make one after another promise that is immediately flooded back or whose realization is delayed. The CVP protests because this is voter fraud. The contacts with the citizen teach us that the government does not do anything bad about image-forming. People, groups of discriminated, have high expectations and are convinced that the government will do something for them. What will this be achieved?! I fear a fifth. This means that four-fifths of the promises will have to be swallowed. When will this happen. The answer is simple: not before October 2000. After the municipal council elections, either nothing will happen because the majority does not reach consensus, or an agreement is reached and many promises are referred to the Greek calendar, or the government will do more than the budgetary space allows. For this latter scenario, the CVP has already frequently warned. The government must not put the achievements of the 15 years of hard work on the slope. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we are not alone with our fear. I will give only one example. Paul De Grauwe recently said, I quote: Herman Van Rompuy is right when he points out the danger of distributing too many gifts. Thanks to the favorable economy, you can accelerate the debt reduction and at the same time do something for the people. This favorable circumstance will not last. So you should be very careful with promises that are not one-time and which you will have to continue to pay for even in less good times. Colleagues, either one solves the problem of too many promises by – which the CVP fears – slowing down the debt reduction, or one will accept the Silver Fund and sit the government and its majority with a lifetime problem because they must swallow four-fifths of their promises. A second point that the CVP wants to address is its stake horse, the elimination of tax discrimination. We support the position that is accepted by more and more people. We must not only eliminate the tax discrimination against married couples, but all discrimination. SP Chairman Janssens also made a call in this regard. The government would also be involved in this. Mr. Janssens’ call was rejected with the argument that others are working on it. We will see what it gives. For us, it is essential that this is done effectively now. The previous government had started this, though in a modest way. The problem of tax discrimination has actually arisen from sociological developments in the 1960s and 1970s on the one hand and from tax reforms on the other. The tax reform of 1988 has eliminated two-thirds of discrimination by introducing the division and the decumul. In the 1990s, hardly any additional measures were taken to eliminate tax discrimination, except at the end of the previous legislature. At that time, the correction of the poor state of public finances was largely behind. There was also a small margin to do some fun things. One of those fun things was increasing the tax-free sum for the married. I remember the criticism very well. It was then said that this was too limited and that the government, under pressure from the CVP and the PSC, just before the elections wanted to take another step. This government does not even continue this limited measure, let alone it would increase this amount. The abolition of discrimination is proved to be a lip service by providing them for the future. Not only has the government abolished an existing measure aimed at reducing tax discrimination, it has also chosen to increase the discrimination even further. After all, the abolition of the crisis tax was conceived from the idea that lower incomes should be treated differently than higher incomes, but goes beyond the fact that for equal situations in the context of whether or not married, an unequal measure is taken. From this perspective, we can argue that the abolition of the crisis tax is structured in such a way that the cohabitants enjoy it faster than the married. Instead of reducing the tax discrimination for married people, the government has even increased them. In no case can we agree with this. However, if the government announces in its government statement that it will eliminate these tax discriminations, there is still a lot of doubt about this. Recently, Vice-Premier Michel – though literally and figuratively the government’s weight – has unambiguously stated that this is not really an urgent matter for him. The PRL is ⁇ not a requesting party in this case. He said literally: Maybe we can start with it. We strongly protest against this. Not only because we disagree with the restraint in connection with this problem, but especially because there are different signals here too. In practice, words are formulated, but actions go in the opposite direction. A third and final point of criticism relates to the misleading nature of the budget figures. A budget is initially an authorization of spending and revenue of parliament to the government on the basis of an estimate. This estimate should be made as accurately as possible. The revenue and expenditure should be estimated as accurately as possible. This is not easy, let’s be honest. Let us look at the past. While governments until the 1980s deliberately overestimated revenue and underestimated spending, which required new rounds of submission in budgetary control, they are now taking a more cautious stance. Indeed, nowadays people deliberately underestimate income and overestimate spending. As long as reducing the budget deficit is the first imperative task, it can be encouraged to work on the basis of cautious hypotheses. That was the case, because the Maastricht standard had to be met. We can then happily praise ourselves that the result will be more favorable afterwards. In the current situation, the gap between the cautious estimate and the figures in practice is growing. This ultimately leads to budget documents working with growth figures that no one believes yet. Please understand me: we are in favour of aligning fiscal policy with prudent figures and thus applying the gold hamster scenario. However, it is not possible that the documents only take this into account. I mean by this that in addition to the cautious figures, other factors must be taken into account, including real economic growth and the evolution of interest rates. In this way, we will be able to see the additional margins in the event of economic growth as expected by most conjuncture institutions. I will illustrate this with an example. In this document we still read that the government aims to reduce the budget deficit this year to 0.7%, while nobody still believes in it. Everyone knows that the figure will be much more favorable. The National Bank estimates the percentage at 0.5%, while the conjuncture institutions agree on a forecast of 0.2%. The OECD even expects the deficit to be completely eliminated. Of course, we are not unhappy about this and I wish the government congratulations. This event will help us to restore the debt faster. This is not my accusation. What I criticize is the fact that this is not or is barely taken into account in the budget documents. Therefore, I urge the government to pay attention to this from now on. We are not alone with our opinion. Once again I fish in the VLD pond and refer to a statement by Professor Vuchelen. This has devoted an entire article to it and even uses the term deliberate government deception. He apparently assumes that it is not just a technical hypothesis, but that the government is hiding behind too low estimates to avoid the debate about the use of the budget margins. I leave that statement to his account. I ⁇ ’t be surprised if this was true. Are there any other points of criticism besides the three I have put forward? Of course they are there, but, as I pointed out in the introduction, it is primarily intended to bring to the attention in the plenary session the most important objections we consider. For these three reasons – which we will also emphasize in our vote statement tomorrow – we will not approve this budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget, you exposed to the members of the Finance Committee, during the discussion of the project under consideration, which the government had applied, for the preparation of the adjustment to the budget 2000, the principle of the golden hamster. The principle of mr. The deputy prime minister constituted the red thread of fiscal policy for the rest of the legislature. Under this principle, achievements are fully taken into account while fighting for surplus, on prudent starting assumptions. If, during the budgetary control, certain assumptions prove to be more positive than during the preparation of the budget, they will not be implemented. On the other hand, we take into account the proven reversals. by Mr. The Minister of Budget confirmed to us at the conclusion of his presentation that, given the method followed and in view of recent developments, it is right to say that the government has shown great caution in assessing the evolution of public finances in the year 2000. Debates in the Finance Committee have demonstrated that the optimism displayed by the current government, however, rests on fragile foundations. Certainly, after years of fiscal consolidation, which the current majority has inherited without making the effort, our public finances have regained a more reassuring profile. A process of debt-freeing is now underway – it is the inversed snowball effect – which makes it possible to hope finally the appearance of margins for budgetary manoeuvres. The previous governments were the craftsmen. The current majority is harvesting the fruits. This is the game of democratic change. The government also benefits from an exceptional economic conjuncture; the figures are doped by current economic growth. The threat exists, however, to see, under the fervor of the current majority, that hope turn into a future nightmare. The metaphor of the golden hamster could be replaced by that of the ants and the cigaly. The results achieved by the ant that was the previous coalition could be totally hypothesized by the unconscious expenses and gifts that the cigary embodied by the current coalition proposes to do to the citizens to redraw its blason and meet the wishes of its voters. If this metaphor was to be realized, in time and very quickly, a new crossing of the desert would be offered to our fellow citizens. The outlook is not very attractive. However, during commission work, the federal office of the plan itself recognized that the estimated budget margins were optimistic (126 billion in 2003), and that the margins for the years 2001 and 2002 were overvalued by 0.2% of GDP. Furthermore, in its calculation of the estimation of the hypothetical budget margins, the Federal Office of the Plan did not take into account a number of elements that could significantly influence the release or not of budget margins for the future. I will cite a few of them. The impact of long-term interest rate changes has not been taken into account. However, budget margins are highly dependent on the evolution of long-term interest rates. The plan office itself estimates that the decrease in interest charges contributes, approximately, to 2/3 of the formation of margins until 2005. Nowadays, nothing makes it possible to establish with certainty that long-term interest rates will actually evolve downward in the coming years. The impact of the depreciation of the euro against the dollar and that of the evolution of the prices of petroleum products were not sufficiently weighed in the assessment of the budget margins. It would be enough for the price of the barrel of crude oil to rise by $10 so that almost nothing remains of the budget margins. Finally, the Bureau of the plan has not taken into account certain commitments of the government of which we are not yet known with precision the modalities of implementation. I think in particular of the reform of the police, which is estimated to cost 8 billion, the expenditure of railway infrastructure - the RER, the TGV - and other advertising effects such as the 35-hour week. Moreover, the government itself does not seem to measure the effects of some of its recent decisions. I will only cite one example, at least illustrative, of the irresponsibility of the coalition in power. The government has decided on a large-scale operation to regularize the paperless on the principle that we have subscribed to. This was only a measure recommended by our party, long before the current majority came to power. However, the current coalition has sinned in this matter by a total lack of coherence and consistency. Indeed, the Government did not accompany its decision with any accompanying measures and did not concern itself at all with the administrative and social situation of the persons concerned by the measure it advocated. Different work courses dealt with the problem have been pronounced recently. The courts believe that denying access to social assistance to those affected equals condemning them to begging, or even clandestinity or crime. The regulation measure will therefore have an impact on the federal budget. However, we find no trace of an inscription in the adjusted budget of an expense relating to the consequences of the measure of regularization of paperless persons. However, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to bear the budgetary or other effects of the measures it adopts and to reflect the cost in the budget it establishes. There cannot be a question of leaving the CPAS and local entities the responsibility to bear the budgetary impact of a measure in the decision-making of which they have not been a party. In the same order of ideas, Parliament voted, on the proposal of the current government, the amendment of the Code of Citizenship and the Act on the Accelerated Procedure in Justice. Means were promised to accompany the implementation of these new laws. What is the adjusted budget? Reduction of the judicial budget by 374 million. The extreme caution announced by the government is therefore all relative. The adjusted budget is not the exact reflection of reality and the promises made to citizens rest on a sandy ground. As for the issue of allocating possible budget margins, it seems even more delicate and more warning of dangers for the future. Within the majority it is to whom, like the cigaly, will sing the loudest and make the most foolish promises to its voters: tax reform, reduction of working hours with the 35 hours, security plan, accelerated procedure in court, mobility measures, etc. No arbitration is made regarding the priorities to be determined in the allocation of possible margins. Moreover, the majority partners fail to agree when it comes to defining these priorities. In this context, it is well imagined that each partner tries to get his share of the cake and that after multiple concessions and reciprocal gifts, the rare budget margins that will be released will quickly be exceeded and the spiral of debt appears again at the horizon. But the choice of the allocation of margins is primarily the definition of priorities and political orientations of the government. These guidelines are lacking and the new majority does not seem to have a real project.

Mr Lefevre, when discussing the budget adjustment, the question is not what the prospects for the near or distant future are. The question is whether you dare to say that the decisions now included in the budget adjustment are going too far and that the budgetary margins are being exhausted. Do you dare to say that in this budget amendment no choices were made and that decisions are simply taken in the wild way? There were discussions for the future, but also a number of choices were made for this financial year. Furthermore, the decisions taken now do not affect the budgetary space.

You may not have listened fully. I have told you that there are inconsistencies, indeed, in the adjustment of this year’s budget. I say that we want to regulate the paperless, and we do not plan any means to help them. When one says that one wants to change Justice, especially for the accelerated procedure, instead of giving it more resources, one reduces, on the contrary, its budget of 374 million. I see that there are contradictions with promises. Let me continue on the margins. This is the future, not the present debate. But the budget you make this year also prepares for this future. His guidelines are lacking and the new majority does not seem to have a project, or at least writing this project, in the current budget. The federal government’s action has become a thousand-time valse. Each of his members goes with his little idea. By interposed press, it gives the impression of an overflow of activity that hides, in fact, a lack of coherence, or even a certain absence of a company project. Moreover, promises made are never translated into budget terms. However, if it is an instrument of the implementation of a political project, it is indeed the preparation of the budget. Through the budget, the strength lines of the political project must meet. We can only see that the government continues to proceed by announcement effects without ever realising the announced choices in budgetary terms. Thus, the fight against tax fraud would be a priority of the government, while the credits granted to the Central Office for the Suppression of Corruption are reduced, as are those of the Central Office for the Suppression of Organized Economic and Financial Crime. I also cited the example of the reduction of the justice budget. Such examples are repeated in the review of the adjusted budget. Now, our goal, as a political party, is to lay the foundations for a model of society that will no longer be that of the 20th century, but will become that of the 21st. A model of society that will see emerging a more human society in which each person has its place and is recognized for its intrinsic value and for what it brings. We do not want a society in which the values of inequality, overwhelming success, money, competition, race to something, are the priority. We fear that in the minds, at least, of some partners of the rainbow, this last model of society is intended to be put in place. Far from me is the idea of criticizing all the ideas put on the table by the current coalition, especially when these find their origin in reflections conducted also by my party under the former coalition. We were so pleased to see a minister from a government party concerned about a real problem that will arise in the long term, namely that of the aging population. This should ⁇ be one of the priorities of the current coalition that could take advantage of the favorable budget situation to address this problem that had not escaped, either, the previous government. The future will tell us if wisdom has overcome the euphoria of the moment. I would not like to close this speech without reminding that our group also submits an amendment to the draft under consideration. This amendment aims to double the appropriations allocated to the Permanent Commission for Language Control. And forgive me, but it is not about raising the budget from 44 billion to 88 billion, but from 44 million to 88 million. Therefore, please correct these amendments in the amendment that is on your bank. At a time when the French-speaking parties of the majority insurge in all languages against the multiple harassment of the French-speaking citizens of the Brussels periphery and against the multiplication of violations of linguistic laws by the authorities of the Flemish Brabant province and the Flemish Region, we can only be surprised at the weakness of the budget granted to the Permanent Commission for Language Control. It is necessary to give him the means to exercise the skills and powers that are his own. And in particular its power to take in place of a failing authority all necessary measures to ensure compliance with linguistic laws when that authority has not complied with the warning addressed to it. That is why we are submitting an amendment that tends, as I have indicated, to double the budget of the Permanent Commission for Language Control, which would increase from 44 million to 88 million. You will have understood that the government has not convinced our group of the extreme caution it shows out loud. Our caution will lead us not to vote on the bills in discussion because we refuse to deceive the citizen.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not resume the discussion from the committee. Budgetary control remained essentially limited, notably by highlighting the favorable growth outlook. The discussion of the non-existent Silver Fund has also taken place in various discussions, parallel to the discussions of this budget. Since I am convinced that occasions such as this should be used to influence future decisions, rather than reflecting on what has already been acquired, I would like to limit myself to the prospect of decisions that will have to be taken in the course of the summer or more likely shortly after 8 October. First I will give a short summary. After years of crisis measures, savings, additional taxes and harsh cuts, there is again a little space. That space is claimed on many sides. The liberals want to decorate their palmares of anti-tax party. Socialists want to give away everything for free, which doesn’t matter. It must primarily be free. Agalev doubts between good governance, green taxes and additional spending for ministries of green ministers. Ecolo wants – I can assume that Mr. Boutmans wants to spend more money – more money for its clients, the French-speaking education and the welfare sector of the French community. Of course, the PS does not want to underestimate this. Vewilghen wants more money for justice. Duquesne will probably, sooner or later, forcefully ask for more money for the police. Frank Vandenbroucke notes that the spending in health insurance is still decreasing and, of course, the regions also have their financial and fiscal desires. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to give you three wisdom in the framework of the upcoming discussions. First, the trees do not grow up to heaven. Secondly, debts do not disappear by themselves. Third, with three refrigerators and seven microwave ovens you are not more prosperous or, in other words, money does not make you happy. First, the trees do not grow up to heaven. The growth outlook for this and next year is good, very good even. There are all sorts of factors that make it likely that this growth could remain positive for a while. The Americans have had a favorable economic development behind them for many years, and the European Member States have properly restructured their public budgets following the euro. Our companies are also going through a permanent process of scaling, internationalization and cost efficiency. There is the reverse interest rate snowball and a decrease in the cost of unemployment benefits, releasing money for more productive spending in the economy. So I acknowledge that it is going well and that it will continue to go well for a while. However, the stock markets, and especially the new economies, appear to be vulnerable. The price gains of recent years may prove to be soap bubbles. Nasdaq has already had a slight stroke in recent weeks and months. However, if prices generally begin to stagnate at realistic levels, this will inevitably have a shrinking effect on the economy. It doesn’t take much to get into a recession. The labour market is facing increasing tensions, especially in Flanders. Reports from companies that do not find people are daily cost, for example in Zaventem. The gap between offered and filled vacancies at the VDAB is growing. Rosetta-like plans appear to be completely superfluous in Flanders. Apart from the conclusion that there is even more than now the case is a own labour market policy needed for the regions, there is also the simple fact that the factor skilled, employable labour becomes a brake on economic development. Ms. Cantillon today in the newspaper recorded figures of 80 to 90% employment rate among the higher-skilled in Flanders against the European target of 70% in general. This shows that full employment, at least for the higher-skilled, is very close. The same applies to the space factor. Flanders is being built at a high rate. Business areas are becoming scarce and especially expensive. Interest rates are also starting to rise somewhat with negative effects on the government budget again in the long run. Remember that a single international incident can have a huge impact on the international economy. For those who thought such incidents were no longer present, it might be enough to look at Central Africa for a moment or the Chinese who are now apparently fleeing their country in mass for economic reasons. It is then realized that instability belongs to the essence of this world. I am a born optimist, so I assume that economic development will be positive in the long term. However, it would be a great foolishness to develop a policy that can only be sustained if the economy continues to grow by more than average over many decades. I am afraid that this is a real risk today. If one can give in to all the demands of the various parties, even though one knows that this is in fact only a few years affordable, why would a prime minister or a government make it difficult for itself? Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, be aware that all recurring spending mechanisms you create now and in the future will continue to work within five years, even if it goes less well. Trees do not grow up to heaven. A second wisdom. Debts do not disappear by themselves. My colleagues, I am doing an experiment. Like most of you, I have taken out a loan to pay for the construction of my home. I’ve been waiting for months until that blame disappears on its own. It really does not succeed. My personal debt rate improves from month to month and from year to year. Unfortunately, however, in the sweat of my face I will have to repay my debts. We are constantly looking at the decline of the debt level. Of course, this is not without importance as it improves the repayment capacity of this country. However, a debt level is always the result of two factors: debt and gross domestic product. The outstanding debt remains relatively constant. It is mainly the growth of GDP that reduces the level of debt. Concretely, this means that we still have more than 10,000 billion francs in debt. The troubling thing is that the past has shown that this is apparently a portable debt, for example, the situation in the 1970s. However, a combination of policy errors and a galoping interest rate could, in less than ten years, turn into a problem that surpasses all other policy margins. My political consciousness dates back to 1973. I was only seven years old at the time, but the first autless Sundays are still very clear in my mind. Since then, we have been talking about nothing but crisis and savings. Well, I absolutely refuse now that it is a little better to let my children ever grow up in the same atmosphere. We must now do everything we can to consolidate this. The temptation for the bankrupt to lease a BMW if it goes a little better is very large. The soul must also be struck. However, only further reduction of debt will provide real soil. Debts do not come by themselves and do not disappear by themselves. This should not be overlooked in the spending violence of the coming months. The first budgetary responsibility of this generation is to reduce debt and nothing else. Debts do not disappear by themselves. Money does not make you happy. This is a third wisdom I want to give you. It is not my intention to philosophically divide the importance of well-being against the importance of prosperity. For me and my party, of course, well-being is more important than prosperity. However, that is not the core of the case. Rather, I am concerned with the decreasing contribution to social happiness of a greater individual spending capacity versus collectively organized elements of prosperity. What would you do very concretely if I gave you 10,000 francs more per month? Will you buy a third refrigerator, a second cabrio, a seventh microwave oven, a funcar? Will you go to the Caribbean on holiday instead of to Fuertaventura? Maybe you’re going to buy a twenty-first crawl pack for your baby or a subscription to a video channel? These are nice things. However, the annoyances associated with your material well-being are not resolved by this. What extra benefits if the roads cannot swallow traffic and there is no collective money available to adjust the road infrastructure, if the air quality in which you live is of the kind that you prefer to go to the Ardennes or the coast as soon as possible on the weekend to simply breathe, if the bottom of the old factory in your backyard cannot be cleaned because of a lack of collective money, if the round point in front of your door cannot be built because there is no money, if the outdated neighborhood around the corner cannot be rebuilt because there is no money, if the streets are filled with paper and dogs poop and can not often be cleaned enough because there is no money, if the police staff is too low trained to track off criminals because there is no money for an attractive statuutut? Whatever one looks at, our level of wealth should not be confused with our level of consumption. Jan Modaal lives better today than Louis XIV, though it was only due to the increased quality of hygiene and medical care. No matter how rich Bill Gates is, our descendants will have more material comfort than Bill Gates will ever be able to afford. This is due to the fruits of technological development, the fruits of the collective quest for a better world. Of course, it is pleasant to hear from the Minister that taxes will be reduced. Everyone thinks the taxes are too high. Crisis measures from the past should be revoked. However, large-scale tax cuts are pointless if the entire public apparatus cannot first provide the services necessary to build a structurally sound wealth. Money in hand doesn’t make me happy if only the state can provide for what I want to buy. Money does not make you happy. We want more. Mr. Minister, the VU&ID Chamber Group will ensure that you include these three wisdom in the upcoming budget and that you do not place the short-term in place of the long-term.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today we are brought to express our reflections on the adjustment of the general budget of Expenditures for the fiscal year 2000 as well as on the draft law adjusting the budget of the Roads and Means for that same year 2000. On behalf of the Socialist Party, I would like to tell you that we approve of these two projects. In fact, this legislature has taken as a red thread the golden hamster principle. This philosophy is repeatedly reflected in the adjusted budget and my party is quite proud of this red thread. Let me highlight some points that testify to our presence in the government. First, the macroeconomic context has improved considerably in recent years. This situation will lead to employment growth in 1999 and 2000 of 49 000 and 51 000 units respectively. Secondly, it must be stated that the current government, on the one hand, encourages the adaptability of companies and their workers – thus, the status of part-time workers will be improved – on the other hand, the equal opportunity policy will be strengthened, which we welcome. Third, some fiscal measures have already been taken. We are moving towards a tax relief. The indexation of tax rates has been reintroduced, the additional contribution has been removed, VAT has been reduced in some sectors. It is true that we are looking forward to the draft comprehensive tax reform. Per ⁇ we will then have a debate on sharing the fruits of growth, but we are already in the right direction. Fourth, it should not be forgotten, the golden hamster is an intelligent animal. He never forgets to make the necessary provisions for the winter, less generous. This is what the government does through the voice of its Minister of Budget and also of its Minister of Finance. Finally, let me speak of a concern of the Socialist Party. Following the judgment of the Arbitration Court of 9 December 1998, there is a question of discharging certain pensions related to work accidents and occupational diseases.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today in the plenary session we are discussing the adjustment of the 2000 budget. To immediately fall into the door: in essence this is an inappropriate debate, ⁇ given the small presence of the majority parties. I explain myself more closely. In the summer of last year, a first purple-green budget for the year 2000 was drawn up. It took into account the expected revenue and expenditure for 1999 and the forecasts of macroeconomic parameters for 2000. Last spring there were enough indications that indicated very favorable results. Some of those macroeconomic parameters were therefore revised in a positive sense. Anyone who thought that this would be taken into account during budget control is wrong. Mr. Minister, you ignore the better growth outlook for 2000 and you firmly stick to the cautious growth outlook. The budget is therefore not a faithful representation of the expected public revenue and expenditure. Budgetary control has only a limited scope, which in fact gives rise to this unfair debate. You defend this attitude by referring to the golden hamster principle which is in fact a refined form of good home paternity. In itself there is nothing against it, but either the budget is a reflection of reality based on adjusted estimates and then the budget control serves to check this, or one uses – whether or not consciously – false predictions and then the budget is misleading. I do not think another possibility is possible. You, of course, use the metaphor of the gold hamster. This animal has a special characteristic. In fact, it crushes the food in its cheeks by comparing the food with the current higher incomes as a result of the better economic condition. You may ask yourself what this hamster will do with all this food. How and when should food be distributed? Will it store that food for later and consequently worse times or will it digest that food immediately? Here is the shoe. Excessive caution, of course, avoids the fundamental political discussion about the use of these budgetary incidents. In recent months there have been many ministers who have already seen the gold shining and therefore moved to announce new initiatives. In addition to the 75 billion francs of new initiatives already included in the budget, the pledge mechanism has not stopped yet. No month passes without a new minister announcing a new or expensive plan. Sinterklaas has nothing to comment on this, although, in my opinion, there was a legal suspension period of three months. Allow me to take a little bit of the wish list: free health care, adjusted pensions, extended career break, the 35-hour working week, free public transport, more money for the French language education, the abolition of the wage standard, higher social benefits for self-employed, better equipment for the army and finally also the demand for a tax reform. The latter means in fact a tax reduction in its most diverse forms. You know, all the discussion about cents or percentages. If I were Sinterklaas or Minister of Budget, I would scratch my beard for less. A child’s hand, of course, is soon filled, but with a cost plate of several tens of billions of francs, this is not so obvious. Of course, every minister thinks that he or she will be the first eligible for the implementation of his plan. However, the sum of the cost sheet of all claims is many times greater than the available budgetary space. This euphoria is further stimulated by the Planning Bureau’s forecasts for the coming years. Additional budget margins of up to 70 billion francs per year, or an amount of approximately 126 billion francs for the next three years and 266 billion francs for the next five years. This, of course, does the government water teeth. There is an adder under the grass. In its magical presentation, the Plan Bureau did not take into account a number of heavy files already on the table, such as the abolition of the crisis tax, the police reform, the announced reduction of the personal tax, the costs of the Provincial Expressnet, the modernization of the Public Office and so on. The euphoria of the increasing budgetary space could soon turn into a discouraging cold shower, because the budgetary space that the Planning Bureau predicts will not be sufficient to see the dada of the liberals, socialists and the Greens go into fulfillment. Then there is the whole discussion about the Silver Fund. The Flemish Bloc has nothing to do with the government’s savings behavior, but the idea you raised to create a savings pot of 4 700 billion francs by 2030, preferably still in government bonds, in order to cover the effects of the aging population, still calls for some remarks. In our view, this whole exercise around ageing is also a framework in the struggle for the resources released. Your colleague of Finance sees more in the immediate repayment of the state debt. It is strange, however, that the successive governments with SP ministers – think of Tobback as the model of social security according to the electoral slogan of 1995 and Colla as the Minister of Pensions – first gave the people the assurance that there was nothing wrong with their statutory pension, while now suddenly this guarantee is questioned. The Flemish Bloc considers that the purpose of the Silver Fund is to prevent the transfer of certain branches of social security to the communities and therefore to concrete at the Belgian level for the next thirty years. For the Flemish Bloc, the launch of the Silver Fund approximately five months before the elections is primarily a round of panicking around pensions. This recipe comes directly from the SP’s kitchen. The Flemish Bloc continues to advocate a complete division of social security and we also advocate that the government should work on family-friendly measures and a genuine birth rate policy in the same framework. Otherwise, fewer and fewer assets will have to surrender a greater part of their wealth. Back to budget control. In addition to additional resources for studies, information and all kinds of working groups and expert advice, this budget adjustment is also marked by its lack of political choices. 375 million francs will be removed from the justice budget. As a result, justice can still be difficult to identify as a priority policy item. Almost all the files on which there are disagreements in the current coalition are postponed until after the elections of 8 October 2000. In addition, we already see the community link of a number of dossiers growing. For example, the French speakers want to link the tax reform to even more money for French-speaking education. Flanders, on the other hand, have more tax autonomy on the wish list. It is obvious that removing the tax discrimination of married people is a forgotten theme for this progressive government. The discussion was delayed to a reduction in cents or percentages. For the Flemish Bloc, the elimination of tax discrimination against married persons should be at the top of the Sinterklaas list. We note that this government shows little willingness to talk about this and prefers to spend its time in other forms of society. We could hear this last week with a political bidding between SP and AGALEV. The Flemish Bloc therefore fears that the fiscal reform will pass the married, especially after Mr. Louis Michel - the true prime minister of this country - confirmed that this topic is not high on his wish list because the operation costs too much money. We are also convinced that this government, in its electoral offer for the municipal council elections of 8 October, cannot continue to make empty promises. After October 8, inevitable choices will have to be made and as you said in a newspaper interview and I quote, this will be a week of giving up in October. This predicts a fierce political autumn. We look forward to it with tension. Finally, I would like to say the following. During the budgetary control, it has been revealed that there have been quite a few misconduct in the documents and that there is quite often a run-off with the accountability of relatively important credit adjustments. I refer here to the observations and comments of the Court of Auditors. The fact that the government itself must submit amendments to correct its forgetting is enough. Fast and efficient is something different, especially for you who have a small army of cabinet employees. At the budget discussion in December 1999, I had in my decision referred — you may remember — to the exam that you as Minister of Budget had yet to pass. The students are currently in the exam period. If we consider this budgetary control as a partial examination, which counts for the final assessment, I must disappoint you. For the Flemish Bloc, the budget control was really not convincing enough and you get an insufficient on this. Therefore, we will not approve the budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister of Budget, you are fortunate, we are all fortunate, the Belgians are fortunate that the crisis is resolutely behind us and that it has given way to a growth that continues to rise since we even today talk about 3.9% for 2000 while your base budget was based on a growth of 2.5%. Those who say the end of the crisis mean the end of the financial crisis. It is a lapalisade, and yet this is an obvious one that has had a certain harm to impose. I had thought that a golden hamster worthy of that name would have rushed to remove the measures due to the past crisis before considering any use of the fruits of growth. This is why, three weeks ago, in the Finance Committee, I had asked the Minister of Finance about the confirmation by a law of the removal of the CCC and the need to speed up the process planned last October. I will thank you for the puzzles that everyone knows. The main thing is that the complete removal of the CCC is confirmed by law - we were promised before the end of this session - and that the beneficial effects are, through the pre-accounts, more quickly felt by the taxpayers. I will not be sad today, on the contrary. The results of the fiscal control that is being submitted to us are almost unexpected. He is pleased that the government persists in the prudent policy of good family father that is the golden hamster policy, ⁇ by a more than reasonable estimate of foreseeable growth. The goal of bringing the debt ratio back to 112.4% at the end of this year is reassuring, as is encouraging the reduction of the net balance to be financed down to 1% at the end of 2000, with a possibility of a balance from 2001. That the government is thus committed to doing better than what is envisaged in the stability programme is undoubtedly praised, and even more praised as it confirms the implementation of the announced measures in terms of reducing the social burden on low wages, improving the status of self-employed people, etc. In fact, the results of this excellent budget control were immediately eclipsed by the speeches on the use of margins. The subject is therefore inevitable. And I would like to remind you first that the margins are merely the result of the frenetic over-imposition to which all our fellow citizens without exception have been subjected in order to ⁇ the Maastricht standards in a period of less favorable economic conditions. So today’s bonds are exclusively due to yesterday’s overtaxation. If the Belgians weren’t over-taxed, today there ⁇ ’t be any margin. The recent OECD tax statistics are there to convince the most skeptics, with the exception of those who don’t want to be convinced. But I am not addressing them. Thus, when we know that the Belgians are over-taxed by ⁇ 400 billion compared to the European average and that we talk, for example, of an income surplus of 50 billion, it does not mean that we have a margin of 50 billion, but that we are still indebted to the population an additional tax surplus that is no more than 350 billion. This is, in fact, the context in which we can start talking about the use of margins. Things had to be put in their place. That said, the government has planned, from its entry into office, not only the appearance of surplus revenues, but also their use. and President:

For the first time, the Socialist Party recognizes the existence of a problem related to the ability to pay pensions. This is a radical change compared to previous years. and . This only engages this editorial-list but I therefore welcome the initiative of the Minister of Budget as an extremely positive fact. It is essential that there is a political consensus on the need to act in this area. How, will you tell me? The Minister of the Budget has had the merit of launching a track. Capitalization is undoubtedly the most serious system. The problem, and it is large, is that in order to cope with the increase in pensions from 2010 – because this is where the problem arises – a capitalization system started today is completely inoperative. In order for a capital fund to reach maturity, all insurers will tell you, it takes a minimum period of 25 to 35 years. Unless, of course, we consume all of our recipes and do nothing else. You will tell me that this is not a reason to never start. The question for me is whether the time to start is, today, the most appropriate, knowing that the fund will be almost of no use for the shock of 2010, and knowing also that our debt remains the highest in Europe and our employment rate one of the most mediocre. So what is the solution? In order to address the problem of 2010, would the priority not rather be to increase the employment rate? To decrease debt with the consequence of additional resources to directly finance pensions? To provide additional measures in favour of the second and third pillars? Then, because it is a good idea, to predict what should have been here more than twenty years ago, namely a structural system of capitalization? I think of course about future generations because we know very well that this will not be effective for the shock of the world.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is clear that in this debate on budgetary adjustment, we talked more about the future, the wish lists and the insights for the future, than about the budgetary adjustment itself. I think this is quite normal because a good budget adjustment must indeed be a rather technical adjustment of the budget as submitted a few months ago. This discussion is an opportunity to communicate from this Parliament a number of ideas or discussion points to the government at the time when it is fully engaged in the preparation of the 2001 budget. It is very clear to you, and it is said on all sides, that we are actually in a rather favourable economic situation, a period of high-conjuncture. Also for the public finances it is clearly better than expected, better than before. This poses us a number of challenges. I think that in a society that respects itself and is facing a high-conjuncture, it should be a major concern to use that high-conjuncture to correct a number of things that go wrong in our society. At other times, there are often no resources for this. I think of the inclusion of the lowest-skilled and long-term unemployed in the labour market. If we fail to integrate those people into society in a period of high-conjuncture, then we will never succeed. I find it a huge challenge to try this through all kinds of mechanisms. One of the mechanisms is to ensure a good training. We must, of course, also look beyond our own country and have an eye for the development in the world. The budget for development cooperation is important, but equally important is the problem of the debt of developing countries. In this regard, I have a very concrete question to the Minister of Budget. There has been quite a bit of commotion in recent weeks around the famous eight hundred million frank debt relief — according to some rearrangement, according to others something different — which would or would not have been entered in the Budget. I would like to have some clarity on this. It is extremely important that we actually use budgetary margins or government decisions to effectively translate them into actions and reach a debt restructuring. In fact, if we want to be honest, we must admit that those debts will never be repaid. Let us use these opportunities to take steps on debt relief for developing countries. To what extent has this been met in the 2000 budget revision? A high-conjuncture always makes us think about the essential tasks of government. If we listen to the statements of leading politicians, both of the majority and of the opposition, we find that in a period of high-concussion one has the natural tendency to distribute gifts by, for example, drastically reducing taxes. In itself, there is little opposition to this, provided that, firstly, the long-term perspective is ⁇ ined and, secondly, the classical economic rules are taken into account. For a liberal like Mr. Van Weddingen, that should be an important point. One should look at the macroeconomic aspect and not the microeconomic aspect. In a period of high-conjuncture, the government must pursue a budgetary policy that does not stimulate the high-conjuncture but rather provides a cooling so that in the long or medium-term – two to three years – there are sufficient margins to pursue an anti-cyclical policy in a period of recession. At times when the economy is going well, one should not make the economically wrong decisions that will break us up later because we have spent too much money or have pushed the high economy too strongly. In that context, it is important to take into account our very high public debt, which, in any case, remains a priority. Whether one uses a formula such as the Silver Fund – the name is well chosen – is used at all times. For me, this is only one way to ensure that one has a guarantee for debt relief. I listened carefully to Mr. Van Weddingen. He summarized the various objectives of the budgetary policy. However, I do not fully agree with the fact that he automatically derives a hierarchy from that listing, which is contained in the government agreement. I agree with the four points quoted but believe that they can be realized simultaneously and with the same weight. If, given the conjunctural circumstances, we can accomplish them at the same time, at least partially, then let us take advantage of that opportunity. In the meantime, it must be clear to those who still doubted that we are by no means against healthy economic growth, which I would rather translate as healthy economic development. After all, gross domestic product is a figure, and figures indicate only the underlying facts or the sum sum that is made. It is important that the economic development, even if it translates into growing numbers and a growing GDP, is sufficiently labor-intensive, so that not only high-skilled, but also low-skilled and people who have been out of the labour market for years are engaged. Furthermore, economic development should also take into account the environmental impacts, not only because the environment has a direct impact on public health, but also because it plays a very important role on the long-term social and economic level. In this regard, I refer to the study of the Planning Bureau which Mr. Viseur also mentioned in his report. The only environmental indicator given in the report of the Planning Agency, in particular the CO 2 - emissions, has evolved in a bad way over the past decade. The outlook is also bad. However, we have made some international commitments in this area. Well, in my opinion, we cannot afford economic development as long as an important environmental indicator evolves in a negative way. In addition, I believe that some study agencies must take into account environmental indicators other than the CO 2 indicator in order to give a real picture of the quality of our environment, our society and our economy. Economic growth is impossible when it goes at the expense of other countries. I fully agree with Mr. Borginon when he says that we should not blindly look at wealth and figures because well-being, feeling well and running well of society are more important and that can very rarely be translated into numbers, ⁇ not in terms of gross domestic product. Finally, I believe that we can calmly approve the proposed budget adjustments. However, we must not go astray and use the announced budgetary margins very carefully.

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. First, it has shown great caution, both with regard to the adjustment of public revenue and with regard to the revision of expenditure. Second, it has taken a significant step forward in achieving the budgetary objectives of the Stability Programme. Total revenues are estimated to increase by 53 billion, divided by an increase of 45 billion in total tax revenues and 8 billion in non-fiscal revenues. These higher revenues for 2000 are largely due to a significant positive overlapping effect from 1999. During the second semester of that year, the conjuncture growth was significantly greater than expected, mainly due to a highly attractive foreign demand following the rapid, kordate handling of the dioxin crisis by this government. The spending indicators for the first quarter of 2000 indicate further expansion. An upward revision of the 2000 hypothesis on inflation and economic growth would have led to an even greater increase in revenue if the government had not opted for the so-called gold hamster principle as a guide in its budgetary control. Specifically, this means that the initial forecast of 2.5% growth in the revenue estimate remains ⁇ ined, despite the more optimistic, widespread forecasts of several authoritative conjuncture institutions speaking of 3.2% to 3.8% growth. Budgetary collisions resulting from the transition from ESER79 to the ESER95 methodology have also been fully calculated. Such a budgetary approach may rightly be called cautious. After all, the fiscal control 2000 was only a time to incorporate more pessimistic assumptions on revenue and interest rates and in no way a time to allocate more credits. If the additional resources resulting from higher than expected economic growth will be finally acquired at the time of closing the budget, they will be used in accordance with the Stability Pact, prioritising further reduction of the budget deficit and debt level. The primary expenditure was estimated to rise by approximately 11 billion in this budget control. In addition to the budgetary impact of the Saint-Elois Agreement, the main appropriations go to asylum policy, assistance to persons with disabilities, the functioning of the departments, development aid and international financial relations, provisions for the start-up jobs, the further resolution of the dioxin crisis, the informatization of the public services – no day too early – the fight against black work and Euro 2000. Unlike in the past, only the administrations are now involved in bilateral budget negotiations, which directly encourages them to operate more efficiently. I can add with some false modesty that we have been doing this in the city of Gent for five years. Recent figures from the National Bank of Belgium show that primary spending in the course of 2000 in proportion to gross domestic product (GDP) will decrease from 40.1% to 39.7%. This indicates that the share of the public sector in GDP is significantly decreasing in favor of an increase in the contributions of the private sector. The overall growth of primary spending would remain limited to 1.3% of GDP in 2000, a growth of spending not only significantly lower than economic growth but also below the 1.5%, which the government may use under the Stability Pact to balance the public budget and reduce public debt. These figures refute criticism of the purple-green spending policy. The growth rate of primary spending would be similar to the 1990s average and would be close to the trend-based GDP growth recorded in the past. However, taking into account the ambitious and reform initiatives already taken, including in employment and healthcare, this government is clearly performing better than its predecessors. Interest expenditure was also increased by 8.6 billion francs in fiscal control 2000, mostly due to higher interest rates and the long-term refinancing of short-term loans. In proportion to the GDP, interest charges decrease by 0.30%, and public debt by 3.4%. The re-estimation of interest charges was based on market expectations regarding the evolution of interest rates. The acceleration of the inflation rate remains the only shadow side of the well-performing Belgian economy. In the most plausible scenario, however, oil prices should stabilise and the moderate development of wage costs, including due to the recent reduction of contributions, would make the inflation boost temporary. Despite the prudence used, the Government succeeded in further reducing the budget deficit from 1.0 to 0.7% of GDP, a significant step forward in the implementation of the Stability Programme, making the realisation of the historical budgetary balance within reach. Finally, I would like to comment on Mr. Tavernier’s speech. Of course, there are those universal truths that survive the tooth of time. After the seven fat years follow the biblical seven fat years. Therefore, it is always good to take a certain amount of caution and put some money aside if things go well. It is correct that our public debt is still historically high. If the government debt has been reduced to 100% of the GDP, it will have returned to the level of the period I studied at the university and that is - unfortunately - already a while ago. Despite our high public debt, I would like to contribute to Mr. van Weddingen’s position on tax reduction. Too much taxes – I know it sounds like a slogan – kills taxes. This is ⁇ true if one knows that only 1% of the declarations are subject to effective control. The current high marginal levy rates make that everything is lost for the State. The government, in my opinion, has all interest in a more human assessment that, together with a good control, can ensure that we do not have to face poor years at all.

Dear colleagues, Mr. The Minister of Finance asks me whether it is worth holding the committee that was planned after this session. There seems to be a consensus to postpone the meeting. Therefore, the Finance Committee is postponed to Tuesday, June 27

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the meeting being delayed. I just don’t know if the speakers or questioners will go to the hall. Today, it is not only the Commissioners who ask questions.

I cannot decide on this, but I feel that there is a consensus to postpone this. I will make arrangements and ask that the debate in the committee be postponed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will briefly express first a satisfaction, then a request and finally a regret, even if this regret is temporary. The budget adjustment we are discussing today is marked by caution, enough has been said. And this nature of prudence contrasts strongly with the affirmation that we have heard and repeated again here: we have come out of the crisis. After the crisis, Mr. Van Weddingen pledged in this sense – there is no longer reason that there is additional contribution of crisis. In contrast to this, I say that we have not come out of the crisis. We are getting out of it, okay, but we have not already got out of it. Indeed, our debt still stands at 10,000 billion and it has been at that level for many years. It is only the ratio to gross domestic product that is decreasing, but it is still above 100% today, while it is expected to reach 60%. So there is improvement, we are on the right path to get out of the crisis. I agree with what Mr. said. Borginon: Debts do not melt on their own, they only gradually melt. We are in that case. So we need to start doing something. This means, since the prospects are good, starting to dismantle this complementary crisis tax, starting with those with the lowest purchasing power. This is what the government has decided. I am personally pleased with the agreement that has been reached, which is the same as the initial agreement that had been announced long ago by Mr. The Minister . These are the people who will re-inject the most in the economic circuit the portion of purchasing power they will recover. For the highest income, the recovered part will not be re-injected in the same way: less in consumption and more in savings. I am satisfied with the decision that has been made. Secondly, budget estimates are generally made based on the economic situation. We try to evaluate it and according to this, we make budget assessments. I would like there to be another approach, complementary to that one, which should be a better collection of tax. It is actually about taking into account the effects of better tax collection. This is obviously difficult to evaluate. But even if we cannot comprehensively understand the contributions of this better tax collection, we can in any case refer to indicators. For me, the increase in succession rights is due, at least in part, to cases that have been highly mediated, such as the KBL. It would therefore, I think, be a tool to be created that, on the basis of a series of indices, would result in a better assessment of the collection of the tax, which would also allow for an additional criterion for making budgetary assessments. For a better perception of the tax – and this is the third point I want to address – it obviously requires the means to perceive and control it. This is the whole question of the staff of the Finance Administration. We have long recognised in committee the representatives of the organizations of the staff of Finance. The Minister of Finance has made several visits to regional centers. Everywhere the discourse abounds in the same direction: there is a lack of resources and personnel. Frames are not filled and even if they were, they would often be insufficient. The initial 2000 budget envisaged supplementing the frameworks, where they were insufficient. The budget is mentioned in the personal post. Now, today, I have found that the budget adjustment provided for the staff expenditure, any confused personal, i.e. the statutory staff and the contractual staff, a reduction of 370 million for all tax administrations. I was worried about this and wrote to the Minister of Finance about it. The correct comparison of figures to the budget shows that the Department of Finance’s personnel expenditure has increased over the past three years, because budget adjustments cannot be compared with initial figures. Eventual divergences, at the time of budgetary control, are therefore attributable to under- or over-estimations made during the establishment of the initial budget. So it seems to me that it can be understood that the 370 million that are now deducted from the adjustment comes from poor estimates at the time of the budget. The Minister adds: When presenting the 2001 budget, I will propose a substantial increase in recruitment, that is, 1500 new employees per year, instead of the 1130 currently promised. However, this extension of the framework still needs to receive the approval of the Council of Ministers. I ⁇ support this increase in the framework, which I hope will receive the approval of the ministers. Nevertheless, I feel the regret of seeing it only included in the 2001 budget and, to my knowledge, despite the promises that have been made, I do not see any trace in this adjustment of the new people who will be engaged this year again.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that no detailed answers are expected. To Mr. Tavernier, I would like to confirm that that 800 million Belgian franc debt relief is indeed possible. However, debt relief is not possible because this is a very large intervention in debt. It follows that there is no need to pay. The debt relief is planned and the Minister of Finance should examine how to address this correctly. I would like to limit myself to the main lines. I agree with you that this is not a debate about a budget. This is a debate about budgetary control. We talked more about the next year’s budget than about this budget control. This is an aberration in itself. I would like to emphasize that this budgetary control is not a global shock. I can be happy with the fact that a budget is not a global shock. I am, by the way, happy that the Flemish Block gives me an insufficient, because that will make my night’s sleep a little better. It would be worse if the opposite happened. The most important of this budgetary control are the principles that the government has set for itself for this and for other budgets, namely the gold hamster principle. This principle involves more than being careful. This means that we take into account what we know for sure. Today we know what the revenues of 1999 are. We therefore take that into account. However, we are not sure about budget control. We have two possibilities. According to some hypotheses it will go better and according to others it will go worse. If there is a hypothesis for a particular component that it evolves better, then that is good, but we do not take it into account. If there is a hypothesis that something is evolving worse, for example the interest rate, then we will take that into account. For example, we added 10 billion Belgian francs to the interest rate because we assume that the interest rate will rise. The gold hamster principle therefore contains three parts. I repeat, we take into account what we are sure of. We also take into account things that have a forecast that is more negative than expected. However, we do not take into account anything that is more favourable. Let me give the example of the 2001 budget. If we compile the initial 2001 budget, we will take into account 6 to 7 months of income for the income, with a growth of x% for those months. For the remaining 4 to 5 months from which we have no income yet, we will stick to the rhythm of income of 1999, namely + 2.5%. During the course of the month of March 2001 we will take into account in the budget control the actual income of the whole year. This is the mechanism that needs to be worked on. In this way, we want to avoid having to determine afterwards that it is worse. This also has to do with credibility towards the population. It is said that in this way you do not get the correct numbers and I do not dispute that. With a progressive, positive prognosis, you will also not get it. We do this for trust. Trust is an important element in economic development. It is extremely important for trust that one can say afterwards that it is better than expected. Here the ratio is somewhat extreme, as there is a big difference between an estimate of 2.5 percent and one of 3.4 percent, 3.5 percent, 3.6 percent or 3.7 percent, but yet I must note that everyone assumes that we will have an average growth of 2.5 percent in the next ten to fifteen. That is immediately the best answer we can give to those who say we play Sinterklaas. This average growth has also been seen in the last 20 years. Therefore, it is a fairly constant data and we therefore take it into account. Therefore, when drawing up the budget, it is not taken into account that it will go very well or very badly. We walk the middle road. Therefore, it is important not to deviate from this. Let me now go a little deeper into the Sinterklaas policy. Based on a cautious hypothesis, forecasting an average growth of 2.5% and a deficit of 0.7%, the overall spending package does not increase, on the contrary. Our spending, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, has decreased, taking into account a cautious hypothesis of a growth of 2.5%. If we assume a hopeful and probably more realistic hypothesis of 3.5%, then spending, expressed as a percentage of GDP, will fall even more. Anyone who says this government only spends, I would like to ask to look at the facts. These tell us that in the year 2000 we will spend less of our GDP than in 1999. That is the real measure of how much one spends.

Mr. Minister, I want to interrupt you for a moment. Mr. Borginon asks the word, not with impatience, but with insistence.

Mr. Minister, the main criticism is that there is a large discrepancy between, on the one hand, what the various ministers promise and the budgetary cost of it and, on the other hand, what you will only be able to enter in your 2001 budget according to your own gold hamster principle. The criticism that lies closely in the word Sinterklaaspolitiek points to the difference between what is promised to the population and what can be realized later.

That is not correct. You acknowledge that nothing can be said about the year 2000. The criticism of proclaiming to realize things that one will never be able to pay, I have already heard in July 1999 on the occasion of the government statement. It was a beautiful but so-called unpaid government statement: a reduction of the social burden of 42 000 francs, an increase in pensions, an increase in the repayment of chronic diseases, an increase in the minimum wages. It was not possible, they said. Mr Van Rompuy called it impossible. We proposed the budget and what was promised was included in it. Then it was said that Europe would accept this impossible and would reject it. Europe, however, felt that we had worked well. The criticism that we could not fulfill our promises, we have thus heard already in 1999. The same will happen for the financial year 2001. They blast everything. The decision to abolish the crisis tax has been made. The abolition will now be carried out gradually, at a pace that we can determine. We have also envisaged a global tax reduction, which will be spread over a period of three or four years, and for which we will be given budgetary space. I think that is possible. More investment in a number of domains has been included in our long-term planning from the very beginning. I think of mobility, for example. As for the Silver Fund, I confirm once again that it will not change the margins. The government will have to choose between two scenarios. The first is to warn the people for ten years that they should not touch the budget surplus re-established every year up to 100 billion francs. Let me tell you who will last ten years. No one . This is the most orthodox debt reduction, but it is unsustainable. What happens in such a case? Imagine a government proposing a budget with a surplus of 100 billion francs and there are elections three months later. One minister will soon notice that he can best use another 10 billion francs for his policy, because the difference between a surplus of 100 billion francs and one of 90 billion francs is nevertheless minimal. Another minister is right with him and believes that he can also use 5 billion francs extra and it is just going on. Ultimately, the government still has a budget surplus of 70 billion francs and has given away 30 billion francs of margin. That is the reality. As people, we must be able to admit that. The second, alternative scenario, consists in the government placing the surplus in a fund, which does not harm debt reduction and, by the way, is demanded by Europe. Let us not forget that there is already a Silver Fund in the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. Europe, by the way, advises to continue with this project. After all, then we can explain to the population, young people as well as the elderly, in short our voters, that although we can not announce a surplus – the budget will be balanced – but that we have already allocated the surplus for a project with a future perspective. Without the Fund, the additional margins will be exhausted and the budget will be reduced in the long run. I have nothing in principle against that such a fund is also stiffened with private funds. Europe, however, claims that debt must first be sufficiently reduced. I would like to follow this advice and have no ideological objections to it. Such a Silver Fund is a fundamental point for me. I explain myself more closely. You know that Minister of Budget was not my first vocation; I have never been very concerned with this aspect. By the way, this work is not difficult: if one has counted from 1 to 1400 billion - that is the amount to be managed - one has done with work. If they ask me after four years what I have done in this department, I should still be able to answer more. Otherwise, I would rather leave the budget policy to a Director-General of the Ministry of Finance. I must be able to propose structural reforms. The previous government has worked structurally on joining the Monetary Union with the euro through a forward-looking policy. Without this, we could not move forward. One can rightly be proud of the accomplishments in this regard. This government should, in my perception, work in the same way of achieving a future-oriented norm. I am convinced that this can be done. In my view, this does not mean contradiction. The current opposition is making the same mistake as the previous opposition. Remember that Mr. Daems, while he was still part of the opposition, has come to say three times that the previous government would never ⁇ the preconceived reduction of the budget deficit. He added that if one year succeeded, the following year would be called the hour of truth and it would be demonstrated that the budget was not in order. In the last year of the legislature, he emphasized that he would not fall again, because the budget had already been in order three times, and he even congratulated Mr Van Rompuy on the result. Today, the opposition is making the same mistake, and ⁇ it will overcome it in the next three years. In 1999, she accused the budget of being inexhaustible. It will do so again in 2000 with the budget for 2001 and in 2001 for 2002. After you have said this three times, people will no longer believe it. Then it is time to see if you can get back into the majority. So will be. Daems had to say that first for three years and then for three years that it was good. That is six years. That is a bit long. You make the same mistake by saying it can’t. There are people who hope that this government will not be able to ⁇ its ambitions, and if it does, it will challenge the budget. Well, this government will pursue a correct and coherent fiscal policy and will be able to carry out the promises it has made.

You are mistaken on one point. The opposition really hopes that you will succeed in submitting a budget as closely as possible and realizing everything you anticipate on the financial level. Only, if the opposition did not point you year after year to the risk that you would not get it, then the pressure to actually get it would only finally disappear.

You explained this well. I would rather be here to say that than in your place.