Proposition 50K1205

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2001.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 30, 2001

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.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 20, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Desimpel may not be present for exceptional reasons. He refers to his written report.

This is an excellent initiative.

I would like to protest against this. We are talking about budget control. In the committee we have devoted extensive discussions to this budget control. We are now halfway into the legislature. Now it turns out that some flashlights are on orange. The Minister of Budget himself has announced that there is an evolution in the macro-economic environmental conditions in which fiscal policy should be conducted. There is also a lot to do in the media about this budget policy. At a time when the House is about to debate something important such as budget control, Mr. Desimpel refers to his written report. I find this very regrettable.

I take records of that.

In each committee the rapporteurs are appointed. In order to identify them, this issue may need to be discussed. I can only communicate that, in my feelings, Mr. Desimpel has a thorough reason for not being present here by chance.

Dear colleagues, it is appropriate that the rapporteur can be present, but let us not forget that we meet today, Wednesday, and that is not always in line with the tradition before the plenary sessions.

Mr. Leterme, I understand your criticism.

I know you have something against professional representatives. However, it is not so exceptional that activities are planned in the House on a Wednesday, in which a representative of the people can be considered - possibly, if appropriate, if it suits him and if it is possible for him in all circumstances - to be present here.

Manage your time in such a way that you can do the most of what you are asked to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a minute of patience because I have given the tables I will use to the messenger to copy them, in order to facilitate the work of the people who have to make the report.

This is very kind, Mr. Leterme. Do you want to start the discussion already without these tables or are these tables very useful?

I never use useless documents. These tables are very useful.

I see that the tables are there.

You have the word, Mr. Leterme.

First, I want to express my dissatisfaction. The discussion of the budget takes place in the presence of the Minister of Finance, a good thing, but I would have liked to have the Minister of Budget among us.

The Minister of Budget is coming.

I ask for practical reasons. In fact, important, undisputed arguments were used in the committee discussions, against which the Minister of Budget made objections in the first phase. It was intended to further complete the discussion of a number of essential points in the budget, appreciation differences between the minister and me, in the plenary session. It is therefore important that the Minister of Budget is present here. This is also one of the reasons why I regret that the report is not delivered. If the report had been delivered orally, it would have clearly demonstrated that a number of essential elements were discussed.

First of all, I must note that this budgetary control is hallucinating, and that for two reasons. First, at the beginning of the discussion of budgetary control, a number of initial hypotheses have been formulated. The budget control documents describe the financial and budgetary situation of that country. At the beginning of the discussion on budgetary control, however, the Minister of Budget said that there is little to take into account the current budgetary control. In the meantime, changes have been made in the macroeconomic starting hypotheses, but also in the expenditure and especially in the revenue, which will require a new budgetary control very quickly. It is hallucinating that in the memory of explanation – the documents on budget control – the language we have heard for two years is still expressed, namely it is fantastic, it is formidable, it is the best of the world.

Mr. Leterme, you asked for the Minister of Budget. The Minister is there.

Mr. Minister, I was explaining that the budget control is hallucinating for us because in connection with this budget control in the explanatory memory one still assumes a blue sky and sunshine. However, you stated that this should not be taken into account because the situation has evolved so much that we will very soon have to have a new budgetary control, which will exceptionally have to take place shortly before the summer. This may be a panic reaction.

I would like to discuss three to four points on which there was a disagreement – a normal matter between majority and opposition – on key aspects of fiscal policy.

A first disagreement between the government and ourselves – the colleagues in my group know that we have been fighting this struggle for several months, not to say since the beginning of this legislature – is the discussion about the evolution of fiscal pressure. Some say about this fiscal pressure that it drops drastically thanks to the blue participation in the government. Paul De Grauwe, also a blue, has already demonstrated that with blue in the government, the fiscal pressure normally does not decrease but rather increases. At some point, in any case, it is even blurred with the claim that people will pay 10% less taxes. Nothing is less true.

Colleague Marc Van Peel has here once convincingly demonstrated with the advertisement of the VLD in hand that the tax pressure has not decreased. In addition, halfway the legislature shows that there was no sign of a decrease in that fiscal pressure in this area, but on the contrary. The fiscal pressure, which is the ratio of total tax revenues versus gross domestic product, is increasing undeniably. The share of our gross domestic product that goes to mandatory tax charges is still rising, and this despite large statements from the majority.

I can hardly understand the speaker because there is a huge amount of noise in the sound.

Now that I have a good understanding with the Dutch people, I do not want the Chamber to be removed from the discourse of Mr. Leterme.

Is it better now, Mr. Goyvaerts?

Now it is better.

I thought you followed the translation.

No, it is just to hear the speaker even better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the following about Mr. Slangen’s latest findings on the government’s communication approach. During the first phase, annoying things were simply scattered through the media and through all sorts of interventions such as slogans and half-covered lies. As things get more difficult, new technologies are also being used. When it becomes somewhat annoying to the majority, they do not use arguments but just the noise. You will notice that this will also be used in other files in the coming weeks.

When we gave our opinion on the fiscal pressure, the Minister in De Morgen of 5 June 2001 stated, I quote: "... It is worth ⁇ 30 billion Belgian francs. The fiscal pressure will go down, especially if, unlike Leterme, you also take into account the parafiscal pressure.” When I speak of tax pressure, of course, I mean the fiscal pressure and not the parafiscal pressure. This argument therefore has no meaning at all because it is a matter of fiscal and not of parafiscal pressure.

Furthermore, the government agreement contains a passage that exclusively deals with fiscal pressure and speaks of a steady decrease in the course of the legislature of that fiscal pressure. Therefore, a commitment was made to the population that the fiscal pressure will drop under purple-green. On May 28, 2001, during the discussions in the Committee on Finance and Budget, the Minister persisted in anger when he said, I quote: "To absolutely prove that the fiscal pressure would rise, a very special calculation is used and the reduction of social contributions is not taken into account." The essence of fiscal pressure is that it is about taxation and not about parafiscality.

I admit that my argument will be somewhat boring and numerical, but this is the result of the discussions in the committee.

I must, however, correct one thing about the accusation that the minister makes us, namely that we would use a wrong calculation. Mr. Minister, we have assumed a real growth of 2.8% and a deflator of 1.5%. These are not our figures, these are figures from the general explanation to the budget. Therefore, one can argue that we have consciously underestimated the GDP figure. We estimate it at 10.355 billion, the government at 10.394 billion Belgian francs. The government expects a real growth of 2.5 percent and a deflator of 2.3 percent. However, we started from the figures in the general explanation to the budget. Imagine, however, that we follow the principles of the Minister and do not rely on the documents of the Minister. Suppose we assume corrected figures on growth, now take 2,0 to 2.3%. This is the average forecast of a number of banks and institutions such as Fortis, BBL, Dexia, KBC and so on. The governor of the National Bank recently even stated that 2.3 to 2.6% growth is the most realistic forecast. I think this is about the literal quote of the Governor of the National Bank. If we use these figures, that GDP will amount to 10.353 billion Belgian francs. This, together with the estimated tax receipts – the figure from your general explanation – leads to a tax pressure of 28.67%. The ratio of tax revenues versus GDP, estimated on the basis of the principles I described to you recently, thus creates a tax pressure of 28.67%. This calculation, with this result of 28.67% tax pressure, pushes on the most extensive counter-rejections on your part.

Mr. Minister, if you want your words for history to be bookmarked, you must speak in front of the microphone. Mr. Leterme, please allow the Minister an opportunity for a response.

Mr. Leterme, you need to know what you are talking about. You expected a real growth of 2.3% and an inflation of 2.2% and you take the tax revenues from our document, right?

From your document, of course.

However, we took into account a real growth of 2.5% to calculate tax revenues.

The debate must be based on data.

However, if you estimate real growth at 2.3% you will also need to re-calculate tax revenues at 2.3%. We calculated everything based on 2.5% growth.

Mr. Minister, we assume from your figures that you present to this Chamber. Everything evolves, day after day your figures evolve. Your indicated figure is 2977,5 billion Belgian francs. Even if we do not take into account the initial hypothesis of economic growth and deflator, but rather the corrected hypothesis, that creates a fiscal pressure of 28.67%. This is a number that will interest Minister of Finance Reynders, of blue signature. A fiscal pressure of 28.67% is still an increase in fiscal pressure compared to the beginning of the legislature. Obviously, in the event of an increase in the fiscal pressure, it does not stop to raise counter-arguments referring to the fact that the parafiscal pressure will fall. At that time, we are conducting this debate wrongly. Thus I conclude my first comment.

A second dispute between the government, the Minister of Budget and ourselves relates to the evolution of primary spending. The opposition does not solely claim that there is a problem with primary expenditure both in general and with regard to entity 1. Meanwhile, there are other officials in this country who are already raising a warning finger and warning of an excessive increase in primary spending. It is expected to have difficulties in achieving the stability programme.

And since primary spending increases too much will cause problems, we want to bring the stability program to a good end and we want to reach the norm of 1.5% or 1.8% growth on primary spending.

In this regard, I quote a statement by Minister Vande Lanotte in De Morgen of 5 June 2001: "Every year we assume that about 20 billion of the budget is not spent. This has been done for ten years because you can never spend 100% of your budget. What does Leterme do now? He takes the actual expenditure of the year 2000, compares it to the budget of 2001, where those were 20 billion" — which is correct — "and thus proves that the primary expenditure is rising too quickly. It is not difficult, of course.”

In the committee, the minister goes a step further and I immediately add that I regret the words he used. (Interrupted by Minister Vande Lanotte)

You are living in a media society, Mr. Minister. However, the degradation you expressed is even worse given your words appear in parliamentary documents. After all, you said literally: “The calculation of expenditure evolution is purely intellectually unfair. A correct comparison of the figures requires, among other things, that a traditional credit underuse of at least 20 billion francs be taken into account.” This last argument, by the way, was also expressed in De Morgen. These words were included in the report – which the rapporteur did not like us at the same time – of the committee meeting of 28 May 2001.

The disagreement between majority and opposition concerns, on the one hand, the fiscal pressure and, on the other hand, the evolution of primary spending. In this regard, I would like to point out that now the Governor of the National Bank has intellectually chosen his camp and is contributing to our statements. In terms of political obedience, however, the governor cannot be blamed for being a Christian Democrat; I use this term because the past weeks of "Christian Democrat" are indeed considered a blame.

Mr. Minister, we believe that your responsibility does not stand aside. You say that for 2000 we spent real realised figures without taking into account a under-use of 20 billion francs and that for 2001 we took figures from the budget which would include the foreseen credits of 20 billion francs. In this way you support our position.

In the correction, we deducted those 20 billion, but you added them.

I will go into that later.

Mr. Minister, as regards the year 2000, we assumed an amount of 1.117.7 billion Belgian francs in primary expenditure, entity I, thus for the liqueur of the federal government. That figure comes from the Budget Control 2000, specifically page 17 of the general explanation to the initial drafting of the 2001 budget. It is, therefore, the total of the current capital expenditure, excluding, of course, those related to the government debt. These are indeed credits, while you are insinuating that we are based on real figures.

At the amount of 1.117,7 billion francs we apply two corrections: on the one hand, reductions of 6.2 billion investment subsidy passed on the NMBS, in connection with the HST relating to the Strip AntwerpRotterdam and, on the other hand, 2.1 billion francs, representing the transfer of only 11/12 of the credits for financing the investments by the NMBS. That trick was repeated later, but subject to adjustments.

Thus, we reach an amount of 1.109,3 billion. In this regard, Mr. Minister, you acknowledge in your answer, I quote: “In 2000, the Government has indeed used the good budgetary situation to pay in advance a number of latent or fixed debts, including the investment subsidy to the NMBS for the Antwerp-Netherlands strip, Antwerp-Rotterdam.” Well, if you charge these expenses to calculate the primary expenses of 2000, it means that you are increasing them artificially, so that the equation between 2000 and 2001 is distorted.

For 2001 we have effectively based on appropriations calculated in a completely analogue manner as for 2000, on the basis of the general explanation of the budgetary control of 2001, which we find on page 11. We have also applied a number of corrections to this issue, the validity of which you did not refute in the debate. I will clarify these.

First of all, I refer to an increase of 1,721,500,000 francs in relation to the school guarantee fund. I will return to this later, because of the Community dimension of this issue.

Second, an increase of 1.750,000,000 francs in relation to the security contracts, financing, RSZ and BPO.

Third, an increase of 1,100,000,000 francs, which is attributed to various treasury accounts of Land Defense. You have rightly stated that this has already happened in the past, including within the framework of the Delcroix Plan and its implementation. These accounts would be cancelled by the Minister next year and converted into variable appropriations so — I quote the Minister — “these de-budgeted resources will be reintegrated into the next general budget of expenditure 2002.” That is, politically, a good measure in itself. We have said this in the committee. In any case, an amount of 1,100,000,000 francs is spent through that treasury account.

The fourth correction we make concerns an increase of 1,034.000.000 francs for the budget fund appropriation because the paid educational leave is transferred to the RVA.

We assume an amount of 1.168.000.000 francs, which, combined with the amounts subsequently, means a nominal increase of 5.29%, which, taking into account a deflator of 2.2 to 2.3% gives a real increase of more than 3%. This percentage should, of course, be deducted in relation to the expenditure standard of 1.5 to 1.8%. This supports our position, which is supported by the Governor of the National Bank, that in terms of primary spending the flashlight is at least orange. This is not politically intended, but it should be warned that you are pursuing an easy fiscal policy with regard to primary expenditure and that you will not meet the standard you have imposed in the framework of the Stability Program, unless in the budget control you would not only address the minor accidents surrounding VAT and the health and disability insurance, but also switch to credit reductions. This would support the assertion that we are conducting a hallucinating debate here about this budget control.

With regard to Entity 1, we remain in our position, endorsed by the High Council for Finance and the National Bank, that the standard relating to primary expenditure applicable to Entity 1, applies to the entire Entity 1, which is the federal government, as well as the social security. We have been able to explain what our estimate is regarding the evolution of primary spending, lique federal government. If we look at the evolution of primary expenditure related to social security—the second part of entity 1—we must conclude that the situation is not encouraging either. There is no compensatory, lower growth of primary spending than 1.5 to 1.8% in the social security loop. The primary expenditure for 2000 was initially budgeted at 1.680.100.000.000 francs — general explanation page 97 — which, corrected for excesses, yields an amount of 1.694.500.000.000 francs. The primary social security expenditure of 2001 was initially budgeted at 1,754.900.000.000 francs — page 66 of the general explanation — which, corrected for excesses, represents 1,763.500.000.000 francs for 2001.

Hence the nominal increases in social security expenditure, in terms of the initial budget figures, of 4.45%, and in terms of the adjusted figures, of 4.1%. The real increase is therefore 2.2% for one equation and 1.8% for the other. For the year 2000 we took the initial budget figures, multiplied by the budget surplus in the RIZIV of 14.4 billion francs, as indicated by the Minister in the committee. For the year 2001, we took into account a surplus in RIZIV of 8.6 billion francs compared to the initial budget figures, also in accordance with the statement of the Minister.

I conclude that, of course, the excess in the federal government leak is not compensated by the second leak, the social security; even there the norm of 1.5% is not achieved. Based on the summary of these detailed data, we record an increase in primary spending in the first leak of 2.55%. Mr. Minister, simple computation teaches us that this is obviously much higher than your ambition and your commitment to limit it to 1.5% or 1.8%. So the Governor of the National Bank and all the observers are right: they confirm our statement that, halfway from the legislature, you have gone too far in terms of primary spending, that you have conducted a too lax policy, that you have been staying too long and that you have taken your responsibilities too little. This, of course, has implications for the structural recovery of public finances. You celebrate the tightening of primary spending; you do not use the improved conjuncture, the higher revenue and the strong economic growth to sanitize the budget not only on the conjunctual but also on the structural level.

Colleagues, I have noted a number of punctual rejection by the Minister in connection with our statement about the return of the ghost of the debugging reports. In fact, the debugging estimates still flat the result of the evolution of primary spending.

First, there is the criticism that the fiscal pressure rises in contradiction with the government agreement. Second, Mr. Minister, you are going too far with primary spending and you are not achieving your goals. We rely on your own figures and on the determination that you are forecasting expenditures for the year 2000. On 28 May 2001, you said in the Committee on Finance and Budget: "The claim that debugging bills are used is absolutely incorrect. Unlike in the past, budgeting is now done in the most orthodox way. I am therefore very formal: all public spending has been correctly charged in the calculation of the government’s claim balance.”

Mr. Minister, it is important for the debate to point out the fact that you are talking about a claim balance. If you had closely followed our discussion in the Committee on Finance and Budget, you would have understood what we understood by debugging quotes. For us, the debugging, which is mentioned in these documents on budget control, is manipulation to push the matter forward and backward. As shown later, you sit in the rats and use these manipulations to flat the outcome of the primary spending at the level of the federal government; this is the level where the norm of 1.5% applies, which is also not contested by you.

Mr. Minister, it is quite logical that those debugging estimates do not always have an effect on the balance of claims, since the balance of claims, as defined in the Maastricht Treaty, also covers all transactions outside the budget and not only within the budget. The use of the definition of the balance of claims under the Maastricht Treaty contradicts your argument, in which you frequently point to the non-impact on the balance of claims, to demonstrate that your manipulations would not be debuggeting.

As for the punctual comments, I have found in the written version of your answers that you are correct with the CVP regarding its views on interest savings, the UMTS licenses for approximately 600 million francs, the school guarantee fund, the Copernicus plan, the BSE crisis, the problem of RVA. In fact, you give us the telkenmale right! You refute our argument regarding debuggeting only with the argument that this has no impact on the claim balance. The debate is not about the balance of claims but about the flattering of the evolution of primary spending! I can give many examples but will limit myself to an example that has a community dimension. I repeat that the Minister, with the argument of a zero effect on the balance of claims, does not refute the statement of the CVP that primary spending not only develops poorly but is also flated by debugging quotes and manipulations such as forward and backward shifting of spending.

I would like to clarify an example, the dossier of the School Guarantee Fund, because it is not only important in the context of the debugging budgets but also has caused dementia at the Community level. The Minister will have to admit that the CVP, during the discussion of budget control in the committee, was the first to point out that through the increase of the dotation of the school guarantee fund, an obscure removal of 275 million francs to the French-speaking education is taking place.

Mr. Eerdekens, it is a pity that your PSF is not present. You will have to admit that the PS today is not as numerous as the previous time when transferring more funds for French-speaking education. Today this happens less noticeably. However, you have another reason to celebrate. Although they are peanuts, shale money as we call it, you have missed the appointment to celebrate this again with a massive presence of your faction.

Mr. Minister, if we were to vote on this budget adjustment, you could pick up your suitcases. You point to the CVP group. At the moment, we are five times more important than the PS group! At the moment, the opposition is more represented than the majority. Mr. Minister of Institutional Reforms, you know that members of the government do not have the right to vote. You want to adjust this again.

You should not warm the minister.

I speak only for my group. (Interrupted by Minister Vande Lanotte)

Mr. Minister, I would not be so sure, because it is increasingly shown that those counted as the majority in votes do not always vote with the majority. Let us not be too optimistic about this.

Mr. Minister, you are warm. I see it.

Mr. Vande Lanotte says interesting things about the debate culture.

This is one of the few things for which the majority has been able to warm up the opposition. I realized that you started this too. Of course, in the meantime, someone has said that we’d better not talk about it unless he has said it in public.

Mr. Leterme, Mr. Vande Lanotte there is a very beautiful proverb.

There is a very beautiful French proverb that says "there is a difference between the places where one grows and the places where one is grown."

And we are no longer holding.

As far as the school guarantee fund is concerned, we infer from the budget documents that there is a surcharge, an additional surcharge, Mr. Eerdekens, of 275 million BEF to French-speaking education, where we have put our finger on the wound. This overhaul is done through very obscure methods. This is done by subscribing a credit of 1,446.5 billion titled "subsidy to the National Guarantee Fund for School Buildings" and withdrawing this credit from the budget of Science Policy. Subsequently, a new credit is signed, for an amount of 1,721.5 million in the Riksgeld budget, so that it becomes even more difficult for an outsider, and therefore also for someone who must ensure the parliamentary control of fiscal policy, to find out what is actually happening with those funds. According to information obtained, the 275 million BEF will be used to cover the deficit on the French-speaking side, a deficit consisting, among other things, of a deficit of 100 million at the Service Général des Garanties des Infrastructures Scolaires Subventionnées (SGGISS). This is a board that is responsible for the administrative management of the loan contracts and also to enable a possible appeal to a state guarantee in the amount of 175 million BEF for an Atheneum that falls within the French language education.

To support the fact that this “stummeling” had to be arranged, I would like to point out a spicy detail. In the general explanation, the accountability with the general expenditure budget submitted by the Minister on behalf of the Government, it shows that the National Guarantee Fund for School Buildings may only serve, which may be of interest to the Court of Auditors and other bodies, for past obligations, in particular interest allowances, the referral fees on them, if any, and a guarantee by the State. Both are the result of principled promises made before 31 December 1989, the date of entry into force of the Special Financing Act. We will be curious at what legal basis one will rely on to eventually legitimize the resort to this credit.

With regard to the debugging quotations, we can give many examples. These are included in the report, so we will limit ourselves in this regard. In addition to our conclusion, based on the documents of the minister himself, that the fiscal pressure does not decrease, but on the contrary, it increases slightly in this country, our second major criticism is that there is a significant excess in terms of primary spending. In the meantime, this was also recognized and emphasized by and justified by the Governor of the National Bank. In addition, the excess growth rate of the primary expenditure is flated if all debugging estimates and other manipulations occurring in the context of this budgetary control are taken into account.

A third criticism, which is also shared by the governor of the National Bank, is the fact that the government appears to be tearing on the budget margin. For two years, epic discussions have been devoted to the questions of what that budget margin now stands for and to what extent the yet limited margin of violence is being addressed. I take Table 22 of the National Bank’s Annual Report as the starting point for calculating the budget margin. By the way, I pay quite a bit of attention to source citation, as the government often uses the lack of any source citation to make noise about our statements.

Well, if we update this table and take into account the costs associated with the Lambertmont agreement that is yet to be approved, it turns out that the budget margin, even in compliance with the 1.5 to 1.8 growth norm of primary spending - quod non, but that won't happen - will be greatly exceeded. I will summarize the factors that I have taken into account so that we can debate on the basis of objective and rational arguments: the expenses due to the personal tax reform, deferred annually, the abolition of the additional crisis contribution, the measures to promote employment, the social corrections, the investments and subsidies for the NMBS, the additional credits for development cooperation, the social agreement for the non-profit sector, the tax reduction in the Flemish Region and the implementation of the Lambermont Agreement – even if we do not consider Lambermont there is a problem. The budgetary margin in percentages of gross domestic product, calculated by the High Council for Finance at a primary expenditure increase in accordance with the set targets, is 0.6% in 2002 – without any future measures we are, as mentioned, already at 0.68% –; in 2003 we are at 1.26% where normally 1.1% is expected, and in 2004 we are at 1.56% instead of 1.5% and in 2005 it rises to 2.12%. These figures do not take into account economic growth below 2.5%, which is no longer as hypothetical. At the time, Minister Vande Lanotte knocked himself hard on the chest and stated that as a socialist he could still conduct a correct fiscal policy and apply the golden hamster principle. He predicted an economic growth of 2.5%. Today we see that that growth forecast of 2.5%, which was then underestimated compared to what could be expected in 2000, must be called overly optimistic for the coming years rather than realistic. Just look at the 1.6 to 1.7 growth in the United States.

Please note that I have not taken into account the unexpected early exceeding of the pile index, which resulted in the increase of social benefits and government wages three months earlier. I didn’t even take into account some smaller expenses. Even if we do not take this into account, we come out of evolution as described above.

This statement should be accompanied by the various measures that we take into account in determining that the budget margins have been exceeded. In fact, that is the third major criticism of the CVP regarding this budgetary control. On top of that comes the problems you recognize in health insurance. That health insurance is apparently reduced to a deficit of more than 8 billion francs, despite the 42 billion francs additional input in the RIZIV.

We also need to add outstanding primary expenses. Around the exceeding of the budget margin, I just said that we must take into account an evolution of primary spending of 1.5%.

In addition, we must consider the falling VAT income. Minister of Finance Reynders and Minister of Budget Vande Lanotte give a contradictory explanation for those falling VAT revenues in all sorts of statements.

We must also take into account the Minister of the Interior’s forgetting to subscribe 1.1 billion francs to finance the protection and security of the euro transport. It is about the security of money transfers in the context of the introduction of the charter use of the euro.

If one takes into account all these events, then it is understandable that the Minister of Budget last month suddenly panicked said that he was presenting a document of budget control, but that it was actually not to be taken into account. The situation was so disturbed that he could no longer control them. Before the summer, an additional budget control had to be launched. Given the situation, this is very understandable.

Here is our criticism of this budget control. I had another passage about how we will see fiscal policy during the upcoming legislatures. We have discussed this in the committee. In respect for my colleagues, I omit this part of my statement. I have expressed my criticism in three lines. First, the finding that tax pressure in Belgium is rising despite the blue participation in the government. It is about the ratio between tax charges and gross domestic product. Second, the determination that you do not get the standard of 1.5% for the primary expenditure. On the contrary, that standard is largely exceeded, despite the use of tricks such as debuggeting and manipulation of spending. Thirdly, it is evident that the budget margin has been largely exceeded, even though the unhealthy periods that await us and a number of unregistered forgetting and credits are not yet taken into account.

Mr. Van Rompuy will further comment on this in the debate. In my view, these three points of criticism are sufficient matter to expect a replica from the government, without the second loophole being now dealt with in detail.

A budget can be both ambitious and prudent; it is not contradictory. (Interruption of

Mr Leterme, Mr. Eerdekens has just begun its intervention and you are already interrupting it!

Mr. Speaker, I had expected as the opening sense: “Le PS se réjouit...”. I hear a different sentence. I wonder if Mr. Eerdekens is sure that he has the right speech.

You are right: you must always be optimistic in life. I do not understand your concerns.

It is better to be happy for two.

The Minister of Finance has done a good job. I have no reason to doubt his immense qualities.

It is with satisfaction that we see that the public accounts are now in balance. After all the years of budget deficit, we finally see the end of the tunnel in this regard.

Unfortunately, we can’t overweight. We must remain cautious because self-satisfaction would be the biggest of the traps if it engaged us in expenses that we could no longer control. Assuming that interest rates rise tomorrow, we would find ourselves in a debt perspective and we would again experience a “snowball” effect of public debt. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful and measured.

I don't know who, within the government, invented the term "golden hamster" that I was able to read in the press. In any case, this policy of the "golden hamster" may please us because the hamster is a species to be protected and it is very sympathetic. Whether it is golden, it is better to have a little too much fat than too little; it is better to have reserves.

Regarding the general lines of this budget, I find that: 1° the government has based on the assumptions issued by the Plan Office; this is positive; 2° the government has also based on a GDP growth hypothesis of 2.5%, which is very reasonable; 3° the recent decline in interest rates has not been taken into account; 4° the tax and parafiscal revenues have been estimated with caution and I welcome this.

Despite the willingness to be cautious, we still find innovative effects in this budget adjustment. Indeed, the Annual Plan 2001-2005 constitutes an important step in the way a series of priorities of the Socialist Party are met, and this within the limits of the available margins. We are pleased that spending is adopted to help cope with the ageing population. I think in particular of the financing of pensions, communities and regions and the modernization of social security, which is dear to us. Funding is also available to combat poverty and improve the functioning of public services.

In terms of employment, we are also very satisfied with the resources available to Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Onkelinx, in five points: 1° strengthening the preventive approach to youth unemployment; 2° the effort provided under the First Employment Convention; 3° reducing employment traps by reducing burdens; 4° incentives to start ⁇ ; 5° resources are devoted to improving equal opportunities and in particular increasing the employment rate of women by guaranteeing women sustainable and quality jobs, as well as better conciliation of family and work life.

We are very satisfied with this budget. Unlike my colleague, Mr. Leterme, my speech will not be too long. I will simply remind — and I told the Minister of Finance before going up to the tribune — that it is important to come up with a solution in order to reduce the contribution of the municipalities to the state tax. I am referring to the municipal additionals to the tax on natural persons. It seems that this will soon be the case. If the solution can be found, it will be a boost for municipal finances. We are pleased that an agreement can be reached on this issue within the government. All municipalists sitting in this assembly will be sensitive to this push, even if the amounts are ridiculous.

Finally, I would like to once again express my fears, shared by many municipalists, regarding the impact of the police reform. I really feel, even if it is not about this budget adjustment, that the policy reform starts like a crazy train thrown into the fog, because to date, we ignore the financial burdens to bear by the federal government and municipalities.

We may have underestimated the impact that this reform could have, ⁇ on local finances. As an example, I will cite the transfer of gendarmerie equipment to local police areas, the transfer of personnel. The state is its own insurer.

Mr. Tante wants to intervene. There are some problems with the sound installation. They are working to resolve them.

Technical problems cannot stop me.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the last part of Mr. Eerdekens’ speech. You will remember that over the past few months we have been constantly warning about the way the police reform is addressed by the sitting Minister of Home Affairs. We did not receive approval or even response from the majority when there was still time to intervene. Mr. Eerdekens, today you come here to Jeremiah about a minister who enters the mist. It is a pity that you did not recognize this earlier. It would be good if we could restore an old tradition in honour. If interpellations are held, at least one could show goodwill to listen to each other for a moment. That could prevent one from coming to say that the opposition was actually right if the calf was completely drowned. I regret that.

Almost every Thursday, Mr. Eerdekens addresses a question to his favourite minister, Mr. Duquesne, on a subject that fascinates him: the reform of the police.

Mr. Speaker, I have to add that I finished my oral question, last Thursday, saying to him “to next Thursday.” This also appears in the analytical report and I can now announce that I will address him a new oral question, about which I can assure you that I am personally concerned. by

Of course, good faith is general in this matter. The intention was to carry out this reform of the police and to be able to obtain the approval of all the actors concerned at the level of the police forces, but it is obvious that when we, mayors and schevins, all confused parties, decrypt the consequences of the ordered "mammouth", we discover perverse effects to which it had not been thought.

This is the case for the coverage of car insurance of vehicles handed over by the gendarmerie to the police areas. As the state is its own insurer, all police zones must now subscribe to insurance policies to cover their vehicles. This also applies to gendarmerie buildings transferred to police areas as well as in the case of work accidents for transferred gendarmes, since coverage is mandatory. Daily costs are increasing.

However, we saw in the "mammouth" order that the recovery system was unpaid and that the municipalities would deal with two kinds of agents: police officers who enter service and who will be better paid than some service chiefs after 30 years of career.

We are in an experimental phase. The Minister of the Interior taught us that ten pilot police zones would allow us to assess the consequences of this reform. Personally, I am convinced that the overall cost will exceed, for the federal state and municipalities, the most pessimistic forecasts. I hope to be wrong, but all the indicators in my possession make it seem that, like a volcano waking up, we are in the period of earthquakes that announce the rise of the lava.

You are absolutely right, but you must not fail to identify the responsible. Where has it failed? We have never negotiated with the people of the trade union world, namely the police union. For the sake of pacification, everything has been admitted in advance. This is the cause of the whole problem. None of us paid enough attention to this. We have occasionally pointed out concrete points to the Minister. I regret that this happens so late. How will the bill be paid and how will the safety of the people be further ensured? In large agglomerations, the limitation of the number of night and weekend hours that one may perform threatens to undermine operational efficiency, despite the much higher cost. Imagine that in. Mr. Eerdekens, you can not only recognize the problem from the majority, it interests me more how you think to solve it.

The President, Mr. Tant is obviously an expert in this area, since he is the chairman of the Committee on Interior and General Affairs. Therefore, it is logical, given his responsibilities in this assembly, that he be more informed than the members who merely participate in the work of the Interior Committee. So your expertise is really remarkable and it is never unpleasant to consider that one was right too early.

Now the government is facing financial charges that will not be credited to the 2001 budget, because the cost of the policy reform, for the state as for the municipalities, will appear in 2002. So, on behalf of my group, I signal the fears we are experiencing, the feeling we share with you, Mr. Tant, with parliamentarians...

Mr. Eerdekens, your belonging to the majority is not enough to issue a negative diagnosis.

We are now in the discussion of the budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot to say about the historical operation of police reform. A number of comments can be made. However, the discussion should be conducted on the basis, not merely in the context of the distribution of costs. That is an argument, but not the only one. Furthermore, I think that Mr. Tant is mistaken when he situates the problem with the big corps. That is incorrect. The large local bodies have fewer problems than the small ones. You say that you never negotiated with the trade unions. However, this is not the case, ⁇ too much has been negotiated with the trade unions. If one has a large city where one can make everyone work clearly, then one has an operational and good police force. However, they must be allowed to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of my group that we share Mr. Speaker’s concerns, comments and requests. The consequences of the police reform. This being said, the good faith of each should not be questioned; neither the minister, nor the municipalists, nor the parliamentarians.

I find that we have negotiated a lot with the trade unions and that they have achieved a lot. But we are the ones who will have to pay for this policy reform, by supporting the budget cost.

Finally, Mr. Eerdekens, the Minister committed to revising the law on police reform. Based on this, within a year or two, we will be able to appreciate at its just value what is asked of us and what we have obtained for the population. Because the goal is the police of proximity for the population. The necessary resources must be allocated.

I totally agree with Ms. Herzet. I have no objection to the adjustment of the 2001 budget. However, budget appointments with the Minister of Budget will ⁇ need to be held in 2002 and in the following years, if one wants to be able to assume a nearby police and a high-quality federal police.

Mr. Speaker, I actually had another question for Mr. Eerdekens. Mr. Eerdekens, I am pleased to note that you continue to insist on the abolition of the 3% collection fee as requested by the senators. In particular, you refer to the costs of the police reform. I would like to ask you for a moment whether you are also aware that the bill to reform the personal tax will charge the municipalities with an additional charge of 8 billion francs. So you can find there an additional argument to advocate the abolition of the 3%.

Mr. Pieters, it is in the context of reducing taxes to reduce incomes and additional charges. I think you meant that.

Mr. Speaker, if the municipalities leave their rates unchanged, they will provide an additional tax reduction to their citizens. We will return to that later. I only wanted to ask Mr. Eerdekens if he knows that, in addition to some of the arguments he has cited in favour of this, including the police reform, there is another additional adultery in the amount of 8 billion francs on the municipalities.

My comment goes in the same direction. It is good that Mr. Eerdekens here hangs out the tough man who stands up for the interests of the municipalities, but I want to ask him a very precise question. I refer to a conversation we held in the Conference of Presidents concerning the procedural statute of the draft law of his good colleague Lizin. This draft law is pending in the Committee on Finance and Budget. At the Conference of Presidents, you stated that this should be treated as a priority by the Committee on Finance and Budget. It appears that we will get the draft tax reform before the rejection from the committee. The question is whether your group insists on putting this on the agenda of the Committee on Finance and Budget immediately after the draft tax reform. This is more concrete than your rhetoric. Does your group, Mr. Eerdekens, ask that this draft be immediately agendaed and discussed and, if necessary, submitted for voting in the Committee on Finance and Budget in such a way that it becomes clear whether you mean what you say or whether it is merely bullying because you are under pressure from the municipalists?

Please allow me to give you a good advice. If you want to vote on this in the committee, wait until Minister Vande Lanotte is abroad. In the committee where he usually comes, he manages to postpone bills to be voted over, several weeks or months. I no longer trust him in this matter.

Mr. Tante, Ministers are already so often abroad. I suggest that we first listen to Mr. Eerdekens’s response.

Mr. Speaker, I think the budgetary fears for municipalities are shared by all my colleagues, all formations confused. Indeed, whether in Flanders, Wallonia or Brussels, there can be serious concerns about the evolution of local finances. by

If St. Polycarp agreements are voted, the refinancing of communities and regions will be valuable. Decentralized regional authorities will then have additional resources. Moreover, while remaining moderately optimistic, I think I can say that the federal state finances are sound in a sustainable way.

On the other hand, if there is an important power weakened in the society in which we live, it is indeed the local power. I think the solution to the problem of local finances lies at different levels of power: - at the local level, of course, where one must assume responsibilities and demonstrate a sense of responsibility; - at the regional level, where incentives must be provided; - and probably the federal state must also assume its share of responsibilities in its areas of competence.

Regarding Ms. Lizin’s proposal, I will share with her all the appreciation you have for her. Of course, she will be extremely happy. That said, she voted for a proposal that is sympathetic to you, and that I am also. But I am realistic and I know that in politics, it is impossible for the Minister of Budget to admit, in a single fiscal year, to go from 3% to zero. I am fully aware of this.

So, if a compromise could be made within the government, allowing, over time, a reduction to 1% from 2003 for example, that would already be a reasonable solution. The question is whether it is wise for municipalities to go from 3% to 0. Indeed, the temptation could be great for the State to decide not to give this service to the communes anymore. And if the municipalities themselves have to collect the municipal additionals to the natural persons tax, it would cost them five or six times more than what it currently costs them with the 3%. The wisdom would order, I think, to reach 1%, as Mr. suggested. Bacquelaine in a bill signed by Mr. Charles Janssens, and this by means of an extension in time. I think that is reasonable.

I appreciate that the House follows the political current.

I had the opportunity, yesterday, during the few seconds of Mr. President’s absence. Letter to the Finance Committee, to provide the Government's response on the tax reform with regard to the general discussion and, in particular, on the problem of the municipalities that had been raised by several members and by Mr. Peter in particular. I clarified that, for the time being, the government — and that is also the subject of the debate on budgetary control — had nothing planned for the financial year 2001 as regards the administrative costs of the municipalities. This is a fact situation.

With regard to relations between the State, regions and municipalities, a debate is underway within the Conciliation Committee and two guidelines may be drawn from it. The first is a method of controlling the transfers made between the different levels of power. One of the pistes would be to expand the powers of the Supreme Finance Council in this area, specifically on the control of financial flows between the state, regions and municipalities.

The second track, and I recalled it yesterday, would consist in a reduction in the administrative costs, levied at the expense of the communes or in any case of the natural persons tax transferred to the communes, which would start next year. It has actually been imagined — but I am not talking about percentages — to reduce these costs to 2% in 2002 and 1% in 2003, but as part of efforts that must be carried out in parallel by the regions. It is obvious that this will not be an isolated initiative in the debate on the whole of municipal finances. In this context, I would like to remind you, as I did yesterday, that these 3% apply only to the part “taxes on natural persons”. The state collects free of charge other taxes for the municipalities and I confirm, as Mr. said. Eerdekens, that I find it useful to maintain a levy, even if only of 1%, to make it clear that the other solution, which would be the direct levy by the communes themselves, would probably cost the communes much more.

As regards committee work, I also said this during the general discussion on tax reform, as soon as the debate on tax reform is completed, probably this Thursday, we could therefore begin the discussion in committee on a number of points deemed urgent by the House and the Commission. There are several, but I believe that this debate on the municipalities should prioritize the Finance and Budget Committee before the holidays.

I am satisfied, it is a political issue. It is clear.

The President, Mr. Leterme is pleased.

Everyone is happy, you said you love happy people. You are happy too!

Mr Goyvaerts, you have the word right away. Then Mrs Herzet and Mr Van Rompuy are in turn, followed by Mr Poncelet, if he is present, Mr Tavernier and Mrs Cahay-André. I will communicate this to Mr. Tant, who will soon take my place, as I am expected at the Conference of Presidents.

Mr Goyvaerts, do you also defend your amendments?

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the amendments, but Mr. Tastentoye will defend them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the budget discussion, as well as the budget adjustment, are traditionally a moment of reflection on government policy and on how this purple-green government achieves its goals and consequently governs the country.

Even in this discussion of the budgetary adjustment we must yet again see that the majority in this hemisphere is again shining because of its negligible presence – we do not even get 10% of the number of members – and thus shows its indifference.

In my opinion, the discussion of the 2001 budget adjustment is going on in a minor, in a negative atmosphere and is overshadowed by the thunder clouds that collide above the economic conjuncture. Under normal circumstances, a budget adjustment is a top-of-the-line time for assessing whether government policies are still on track, and for assessing policy decisions and the budgetary envelopes associated with them. Due to the fact that the initial budget 2001 and this following the budget 2000 was drawn up from the perspective that this government will still be able to surf on the good economic situation for a while, there was not so soon a dirt in the air at first.

However, even during the discussion of this budget adjustment, you had to launch the announcement that there will be a further budget control before the end of this month. You defended this then by arguing that budget control is traditionally carried out around this period and that this is currently beneficial to the government due to the start of the European Presidency on 1 July, where this presidency could put a significant seizure on the time of several ministers. However, Mr. Minister, your words were not yet properly pronounced, or in a radio interview the next day and in an interview of a particular magazine, suddenly the true reasons for this urgent budget control come to light. In your cabinet, as well as in the cabinet of your colleague Reynders, suddenly a number of alarm signals are starting to flash, because at this moment around two things arises a big problem. First, the reduction of VAT revenues and second, the deduction of healthcare spending, more specifically the RIZIV spending.

The problem of the RIZIV is and remains an old very. All the reports of the Jadot Working Group have already pointed to this.

With the regularity of the clock, therefore, data on regional consumption differences in healthcare are published.

Despite the furious efforts of Minister Vandenbroucke to get the situation in the clinical biology and medical imaging sectors under control, the shortages are accumulating. The initial budget provided for the general arrangement 2000 a budget surplus of 7.5 billion francs. Recent figures show that this has so far reached almost 16.5 billion francs. Based on budget surpluses in the first three months of this year, an additional deficit of approximately 8 billion francs is identified.

Consequently, due to the continuously cumulative deficits of the RIZIV, one remains in the downward budgetary spiral. Even if immediate measures are now being taken to accelerate the recovery of the money by faster reimbursement of the surplus expenses in clinical biology and medical imaging, yet this will not be sufficient to address the shortages. It is also questionable whether the measures taken will have a deterrent effect, as the south of this country is systematically overconsuming compared to the north of the country.

Regarding the decline in VAT revenues, VAT revenues, accounting for approximately 30% of tax revenues, received rake blows in the first four months of this year, notably a decline of almost 4.5%. In the current context of sluggish economic growth, it would be best for the business world to have seen the turmoil hanging in the past and consequently reduced its payments already a few months ago. This combined with the reimbursement of excess advance payments and large-scale deductions of export and investment VAT could possibly be the reason for the fact that for the first four months 11 billion francs less VAT revenues were recorded.

Mr. Minister, this changed state of affairs has all to do with the fact that the slowdown in growth for some time has also been reflected in the figures of the Flemish and Wallish companies. Since the beginning of this year, we have been flooded with negative messages about a spotting U.S. economy. Not a day passes without talking about major slowdowns in the U.S. economy, about profit warnings, about massive deductions at large corporations, and about the U.S. central bank trying to avoid the risk of recession by constantly adjusting interest rates downwards.

At first, there was still hope that all this would be short-lived and that the possible calamity would prevail over Europe. Those who have ⁇ ined this idle hope have, in the meantime, been deceived. Flanders and Wallonia are also not escaping the economic growth slowdown.

The fact that the economic situation in Flanders and Wallonia is becoming increasingly difficult is evidenced by the evolution of the various confidence indicators. In this regard, I refer to the National Bank’s Conjuncture Barometer, which reflects the trust of entrepreneurs. This barometer has now dropped for the third consecutive month. The pessimism of the business leaders is now almost as great as it was at the end of 1998, when the conjuncture barometer was at its absolute minimum.

Also, the downward trend of industrial orders indicates that a resumption of production in the near future is unlikely. Industry investments also show a deterioration as a result of a delay in investment projects. In addition, the development of demand in some sectors is an important indicator. The data shows, for example, that the number of new vehicle registrations has decreased by 8% in the last three months. For the construction industry, there are also important indicators that indicate a decline.

Conjuncture indicators of both domestic and foreign orders also show a decline of 16% and 13% respectively over the last three months. In some ways, consumer confidence has deteriorated since the beginning of this year. This indicator gives a less optimistic assessment by families of both the current and future economic situation. This is also an important data because consumers are the driving force and remain behind the economy. It will therefore be important how the labour market will evolve in the coming months because this will be decisive for consumer confidence and thus also for family spending.

When drawing up the budget, you, Mr. Minister, have still assumed an economic growth of 2.5%, because this was a feasible figure on the waves of the high-conjuncture at the time. However, who takes into account the latest adjustments to the expected growth and the outlook that analysts push forward, strongly takes into account that the growth will fall below 2.5%, and if the outlook contrasts, it may fall to around 2%. We should not underestimate the importance of these figures because it affects the government’s financing needs as well as the further restructuring of public debt. Not to say that the accelerated degradation could sometimes stand still.

In order to somewhat temper these downward outlook of the last few weeks, there was suddenly the reporting of the Governor of the National Bank, Mr. Quaden. At first glance, there is no dirt in the air. The peptalk should give the government courage again. Another growth of 2.6% and a budget margin of 30 billion Belgian francs.

President: Paul Tant, Second Vice-President Chairman: Paul Tant, second vice president. Those who have analyzed the reporting in more detail should somewhat nuance these figures. The growth of 2.6%, says Mr Quaden, is too optimistic. The reality can also be at 2.3% because the National Bank’s study service also admits that since the last month there have been various economic indicators that show a further adverse evolution and thus indicate a further deterioration. It is now only to wait for a similar signal from the High Council for Finance. Also, Mr. Quaden has warned of a number of margin conditions such as there are the increase in the federal spending out of the fork of 1.5% and the excessive spending for, among other things, the police reform this element was just cited in the discussion - and health care.

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Minister. You argue that this decline in economic growth can perfectly cope with the so-called built-in buffers. Mr. Minister, you can tell us a lot, but I don’t think you have a buffer. I think this is an air bubble. Unless, of course, you want us to believe that you expected an economic growth of 2.5% during budgeting while the consensus forecast was 2.8% and that this was your buffer.

This, coupled with the decline in VAT revenues and the out-of-hand RIZIV expenditure and the fact that economic growth will land lower, must still make some flashlights burn at you. In this case, the actual expenditure — i.e. without the interest charges for entity 1, these include the expenditure of the federal government and social security — would increase by 1.5%, according to the objective as formulated in the stability plan. In reality, this is not so. Federal government spending is currently 1.6% and social security spending is 2.3%. Consequently, the promise to Europe of a growth rate of 1.5% for primary spending has become an empty promise, Mr. Minister. A so-called buffer can therefore not exceed much or nothing at all.

As a blow to the firepile, there is also the premature exceeding of the pile index, which requires the additional expenses for the social benefits and the bets of the officials to be registered three months earlier. Another extra of 6 to 8 billion francs. Inflation is not as good as well. After the federal planning agency ⁇ ined inflation at 1.5% barely four weeks ago and continued to confirm that inflation this year would be barely more than half of last year, the planning agency raises the inflation expectation to 2.2%.

Of course, the deceleration of inflation has several causes. One of the reasons is undoubtedly that oil prices remain high and that the recovery of the euro does not go as desired. The most disturbing is the continued rise in non-energy prices, such as those of foodstuffs.

On the other hand, the budget promise is that you will ⁇ a surplus of 0.2% of GDP this year. I refer here to the stability programme presented by this Government in December 2000. If I am not mistaken, it states that the commitment to a 0.2% GDP surplus also applies in cases of backward growth.

In the light of the current situation, we can ask whether you still have a budget margin. If you want to fulfill this promise, you will still have to put the points on the i's. I think you have only two things to do. Either the costs should be reduced, or the taxes should be increased. Increasing taxes, however, cannot be sold politically, especially since this government has been using tax cuts as a credo for two years now. However, the population has not seen much of it so far. There is only one option: saving. The budget knife must come in. How much should be saved? 10 billion dollars? 20 billion dollars? 30 billion dollars? This remains an open question. For which department, for which minister? All this needs to be considered. We are therefore very curious about the results of the second budget control.

You will go to the outside world, of course, continuing to try to minimize this condition. You recently said, “We can fight against a stunt.” You are commissioned to limit the damage because this government continues to stick to the built-in buffers. This also explains your communication to the Council of Ministers with regard to your prior agreement for all decisions for which there are no or insufficient credits, or which may affect revenues, or cause new expenses. It should obviously be serious if you have to keep the cut on the wallet. It goes even further. I read that the approval of a file on the Council of Ministers is apparently insufficient. You must expressly give your consent. There must be budgetary deflation. The purple-green project could, of course, get a big blow if you would have to admit that there will be no budget surplus this year. Or, worse, if you would have to admit that the budget this year will not even be balanced, but there would be a deficit according to ancient tradition. At that moment, your gold hamster has died a silent death and only a first-class funeral remains.

Finally, I would like to comment on the first adjustment of the general expenditure budget. This is about the dotation, or should I call it in the future the living wage, of Prince Laurent. With this purple-green government, of course, there will be no budget or budget adjustment without money being encrypted into the royal house. It begins to show strong similarities with the story of the vicious kings at the time of the Merovingers. The decision on this donation had a rather dark course. About four weeks ago, the Cabinet Council secretly decided to grant a tax-free monthly bet of 920,000 francs net. After this Cabinet Council, there was no mention of this in the press release. A few days ago, a French-language newspaper ⁇ about this. For this gift, and I would actually call it a political designation of format, however, there is no reason and, in my opinion, there is no legal basis or thorough motivation. The argument that the prince concerned would no longer be in charge of the royal couple is therefore a laugh. I would like to remind those who are short of memory that Prince Laurent has so far received a gross monthly bet of 9 million francs as chairman of the meaningless Royal Institute, KINT. This is an institution that was created in 1994 specifically to help him earn income.

The funding of this institute was made by the Communities, and precisely because the French-speaking Community did not contribute anything over the past years, the federal government jumped in to quickly organize something in order to bring about a personal dotation, a win for life as it were, a ratio of 920,000 Belgian francs net per month.

Referring to the “maçonnic” aspect of Prince Laurent’s speech in the Senate, the question also arises what the influence of the loge and its log ministers could have been on this decision.

This is clearly unacceptable for the Flemish Bloc. Only the public perception of this decision is revenge. What should the disabled, the disabled, the minimumbestrekker – or rather the living-loan-trekker according to the new political jargon – and the pensioners think of this? After all, for their needs there has been no money for years, but for a useless prince – I call him the Peter Sellers of the Royal House, after the man who gave shape to the pink panter – one penny penny can be released 11 million, just because his ward was in the palace.

For this reason, we have submitted an amendment that will be defended at a later time by Mr. Tastenhoye, hoping that it will rescue the VLD from its conscience problem.

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, I will first allow myself to cite one of the points developed in the document "Budget Control 2001, keep the direction!" My speech will be very short since it is simply a budget modification. We are not going to restart here the whole debate on justice policy.

In this report, the government clearly sets out its political priorities. The Minister also cited it on the occasion of his introductory presentation before the Justice Committee.

I quote: “Maintaining this budgetary standard will allow, in the coming years, to unlock additional resources to conduct an ambitious policy. Thus, the government aims to implement a new, dynamic employment policy, notably through a significant reduction of labor tax, modernized social security, adapted to the new needs of the population, better functioning of public administrations, justice and security, measures for sustainable development and mobility.”

Mr. Minister, contrary to what some like to repeat a bit everywhere, justice is therefore one of the major priorities of our government, which the liberals of course welcome.

I would like to ask two questions, the first concerning the means to be granted for the application of the labour penalty as an autonomous penalty, the second to electronic surveillance.

We adopted with a very broad majority, it should be recalled, the bill introducing the labour penalty as an autonomous penalty in correctional and police matters. This major amendment to our Criminal Code confers a considerable role to the staff of the houses of justice responsible for the management and execution of this sentence, outside the walls of the prison. The hope we have placed in this new law pledges that the budgets necessary for its success are provided, otherwise it would not be operational. Indeed, Mr. Minister, when the law establishing the labour penalty as an autonomous penalty in correctional and police matters will be applied, the recourse to the houses of justice will be even more important. The Liberal group will remain attentive to this, but questions are raised in this regard.

Your colleague, the Minister of Justice, clarified during the general discussion of this bill that the framework could not be provided in the context of budgetary control, but that it would be the subject of a decision for the 2002 budget. The Minister had announced that he was willing to make, on the basis of the choices made by the Commission, an approximate estimate of the funds that will be included in the 2002 budget.

When will you be able to communicate this approximate estimate? Do you already have it? Are you able to approximate the budget implications of the introduction of labor punishment as an autonomous punishment in our Criminal Code?

I come to my second question. The Commission has also long debated electronic surveillance. The Minister announced his intention to invest significantly in order to extend electronic surveillance measures. There is a question of 34 or 35 million francs that would be devoted to the purchase of the necessary equipment and the implementation of the measure.

The Government has filed amendments aimed at introducing electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment in the Criminal Code, in addition to the labour punishment. Electronic surveillance is also a judicial response to react harshly to crime while remaining human, and to avoid criminal influences and damage caused by detention. This was the general opinion of the members of the Justice Committee.

Do you plan to submit a draft law on this subject? If so, when will it be submitted?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, here is a brief speech on the 2001 budget control.

A first consideration of the economic situation is as follows. A few months ago, following one of the few oral questions I asked the Minister of Budget during my political career, I advised the government to anticipate economic growth of 2.0% instead of 2.5%. On the norm of 2.5%, there was almost a consensus; some still speak of 2.1%, but on a few zeros after the comma, it is impossible to determine an exact percentage. One can thus assume that, by the way, everyone agrees with the cautious estimate of 2.0%. After all, one should not forget that the rate was 3.1% a year ago.

The National Bank still holds it - against better knowledge, I am convinced of that - at a growth of 2.6%. Of course, it belongs to her role to be reassuring, but in my opinion this claim affects her credibility. She would have better either said nothing, or said what everyone knows, feels and can perceive.

It should be noted that growth in the Netherlands and in Germany during the first trimester was zero growth. In the Netherlands, one even speaks of stagflation, i.e. the merger of stagnant economy and rising inflation. The Netherlands again has a 5% inflation rate. Germany has practically stopped economic activity. Even in our own country, we saw a growth of gross domestic product of barely 0.5% over the previous period during the first trimester.

The mistake of the Plan Bureau and other institutions is that they purely mechanically reason, while one actually has to take into account a number of psychological factors, even though that is difficult and sometimes even arbitrary. It is evident that the falling stock market prices abroad — remember in this context the drama that took place in our country, the international reports of sluggish economic growth, the global reports of corporate restructuring — had a strong impact on consumer and investor behavior.

This psychological factor is always greatly underestimated by model builders.

This growth slowdown naturally weighs on the budget. The government says it can compensate for the mine receipts by mining expenses in terms of interest payments of public debt. It will be right, but I still belong to the old school. Interest payments on public debt do not belong to the primary transactions. The decrease in economic activity and its impact on revenue leads to a deterioration of the primary surplus, which is fundamental to the reduction of public debt, to which we must work so hard in view of the demographic shock in 2010.

A second consideration is about the present above the future.

The National Bank forecasts a deterioration of the structural primary balance of about 40 billion. It deduces the one-off expenditure and the conjuncture elements from the balance sheet and then results in a deterioration of around and at the 40 billion francs, which is significant. The International Monetary Fund’s note, published in November, speaks of a deterioration of the primary surplus — deprived of conjuncture elements — of 80 billion or 0.8% of the national income over a two-year period. I am talking about the period 1999-2001. If these numbers are correct, it is huge.

The extraordinary conjuncture has not been used to reduce public debt even faster. On the contrary, if I can believe the data of the IMF and the National Bank, it has actually been built into a sustainable deterioration in the last two years. Of course, one speculates on the blindness of the balance. I heard the Prime Minister say it a few days ago. The balance must save everything while underlying—and that will someday overcome—a sharp deterioration can be observed in the order of size that I have just communicated to you.

My third brief consideration is about tax fairy tales.

Reducing fiscal pressure is the core business for some government partners. It is the core business of stokoud liberalism, because there has never been any other liberalism than that of tax cuts. After two years, the tax pressure on labor income has increased by 0.4% of gross domestic product. You can tell it. I can give you the figures of the National Bank if you are interested. I did not invent them myself. This was in the context of a growth of 2.6%. I add that immediately, but one has an increase in the tax pressure on labor income of about 40 billion over two years. Even if one takes into account — as the Minister of Budget sometimes does — the decrease in the social burden or the employee contributions, the increase is still 30 billion. There are only 10 billion. Fortunately, at that time we indexed the fiscal bars, otherwise the result on fiscal pressure would be even poorer.

I think further about family and marital kindness, or rather unfriendliness. The married — who escaped the old days, that pelotonnette of anachronism — go to a relief of their tax pressure of about 1/10 of the total number of discriminations. One-tenth will be removed before the end of the legislature in 2003. In the next legislature, about 90% of these discriminations will be eliminated. Such a low priority suggests that if the economy sneaks a little more in the coming years, the married will be the first victims of any measures that should be taken.

Colleagues, two years ago — it seems like an eternity — I had a budget space of 3.5 billion francs. Since I had spoken in the press about 5 billion, Mr. Di Rupo accused me, very kindly, of demagogy. You see a typical demagogue standing in front of you. I see that you are upsetting, but I do not agree with those accusations.

(Protest by Mr. Willy Cortois) Mr. Cortois, I don’t know if you noticed it, but this was ironically meant. I must make my irony even more explicit, but if you had not understood it, it was intended to be ironic. My true nature may still surprise you, but I will keep it for very late.

When I had a budget space of 3.5 billion francs two years ago, I spent 1.2 billion francs to eliminate the tax discrimination of the married. I speak almost like some government members, but I mean, of course, that the government then decided that. Two years later, there was no Frank. Now there is a plan that aims to alleviate only a tenth of all discrimination by the end of this legislature in June 2003, if everything goes well — and we are not against that. As far as taxation is concerned, Mr Dewael says that if the Lambermont agreement passes, some taxes in Flanders will drop. If the Lambermont Agreement fails to pass — one never knows if there are still parties with principles, which is a risk that one must run — that money remains with the federal government. I assume that the government in its budgetary schemes assumes that it will remain on track even without that transfer of grants to the communities. If the money does not go to the communities, it remains in the federal treasury. Now, why does she not spend that released money at the height of the socialist movement, the abolition of the watch and listen money for all? If the Flammers do, it only applies to the Flammers and to the French speakers in the periphery. It would be interesting, by the way, to propose a referendum on the Lambermont agreement in the periphery. If the Lambermont agreement is approved and the viewing and listening fee is abolished, would that petition still have been signed by 22,000 people? This, however, is a different story and may be discussed at another occasion; it could be too sensitive.

The question, however, is what will be done with the money if the Lambermont agreement is not approved. I have seen that the socialist movement tends to the height of its program, the abolition of the watch and listen money, so it could spend the money on it. In that hypothesis, the Lambermont Agreement would be good for everyone. I give this as a hint, because I have the impression that you are not yet thinking enough about what will happen if the agreement is not approved.

Mr. Van Rompuy, I have caught the gold hamster, who leads a quiet life in the office next to mine, that she prays every night that the Lambermont agreement would not be approved. I told her that she shouldn’t do it anymore, because it’s a foolish thought. If the agreement is not approved, this is a very good thing for the federal government budget; that is obvious, but we do not really take much into account yet.

The Flemish government could have done that savings, but it gives it out. The French-speaking government will ⁇ declare it.

Of course, we are not taking this into account yet. We differ a little about the appreciation of the principledness in politics. You probably have the same idea about it.

In any case, it is a reasoning that holds up. I offer it as a suggestion. I come to a fourth and last series of considerations. It is obvious that the budget margins have been swallowed, and even more than that. It is unnecessary to repeat this, which speaks for itself. The National Bank, by the way, has already said this in so many words in its annual report; especially because it assumes that an increase in spending by 1.8% is already done.

In 2001, real spending on entity 1, federal government and social security increased by more than 3% if one clears out the one-off factors and a number of other movements. 3% is the double of what is allowed taking into account the initiatives already taken.

The priorities are so poorly set that the government could only respond to the social demonstration with heated billions. According to the ACV - I have not neglected their figures but they are serious people - would of the heated billions - the word heated is really applied - there is only 1 billion fresh money. The government responds with heated billions and with the promise of a roundtable conference. In the absence of money, a few big words are launched about reform, something that has already been done in other fields. Those who get into it are useful idiots. No more than that.

More money for the NMBS should not come according to a schedule that spends 1 billion francs more each year than the year before. If one wanted to address the file problem and the file stuck in time, one had to do the opposite. Every year you wait is a lost year. It is evident that the growth of the NMBS funds in the coming years will be slower than in the previous legislature when it was necessary to repair. Speaking of priorities!

The posteriorities for the families, among other things, regarding marriage-friendliness and mobility, and for the social sector, indicate that at the beginning of the legislature – this is my firm conviction – one improvised and at this time can only interfere with conjunctural occasions and with operations of distribution in time.

The government of the clean appearance, "Keeping up appearances", will continue in the coming weeks and years. The [...]

Who is Richard? He is the one who always leaves the floor.

You look more like him than me. and laughing)

I will keep my opinion for myself. Be careful, I will be honest. I will not carry out my threat. and laughing)

The clean-looking government will undertake a cosmetic operation of budget control in the coming days and weeks because it does not want to revise the growth rate of the economy. So simple is that. If one does not adjust the growth rate to 2% an urgent fiscal control makes no sense. The National Bank has given the government a bailout of 2.6%. I have already said what I think about this.

Although there is no budgetary space, the government will try to do something about corporate taxes. When there is no space, one can always invent them. The argument of the return effect is taken from the stal. I will not quote Minister Daems because I do not want to do excessively painful in these difficult days. The decrease in the social burden would produce significant returns. Some, Minister Daems inclusive, use this to hold a plea for a reduction in corporate tax. The budget space is zero. They create one!

An analysis of the figures on employment – the figures of the Planning Bureau are very enlightening in this regard – shows that since the fall of 1994 the employment rate has begun to rise very strongly. From this period, the employment rate will rise virtually straight. In this increase there is no breakdown with the reduction of the social burden. This means that income moderation is a much stronger means of creating new jobs than the reduction of social burdens.

Of the additional reduction of the social burden, by the way, nothing will come into the house in the absence of money. Mr. Minister, I can give you a hint. You can program the additional reduction of social burden in the years 2007-2011. The space for the next parliamentary legislature is fully filled. Governor, c’est prévoir. One can begin to complete the next legislature and sell it as state-man art.

Mr. Van Rompuy, as you said yourself, the next legislature will be the same again. If you’re talking about 2007, that’s actually a hint. That is a little too early.

Mr. Vande Lanotte, regarding the next legislature, I have quoted Mr. De Gucht. As you know, everything Mr. De Gucht says comes out. I will give you a list of all his predictions. I don’t know if Mr. Dehaene would give him 7 to 10 for that. The list is long. I didn’t say what I thought or what others thought, ⁇ not what you thought. I know you still like to see us. and laughing)

That is true.

Old love does not rot.

With the emphasis on “old” in our case.

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.

For the first time in the period of your presence in the Chamber, you are writing history, Mr. Van Rompuy. I have heard only a few love statements launched from the tribune of the Chamber. But continue like this.

For the presidency of the European Union, the government has 16 priorities. I’ve always been taught that if you have sixteen, you don’t have any priorities. If you have too many priorities, then everything goes wrong. The government has only surfaced on the high-conjuncture. This is over. You have to choose again. I hope that people will learn again to choose to invest rather than to consume. One must look at where the real needs of the people are and not just the electoral needs of the voters. On the Flemish level, this is even clearer. Yesterday, the Greens made interesting proposals in connection with the spending of possible Lambermont funds. I feel very close to the proposals they made yesterday and less close to some of the “shnabbels” that Mr. Dewael had enchanted before his eyes.

A new "social imbalance" has grown, according to the famous word of the American economist Galbreath, in which the public sector reflects backwards on the construction of social, human, family and physical capital. We had to underinvest in the past period. On these four domains, namely, social, human, family and physical capital, it must be rebuilt. The CVP will make concrete proposals in the coming weeks.

The purple-green parties cannot create a new program for after 2003. After all, they have occupied the entire budgetary space and more than that. The champions of the new will then become the defenders of the old. They can’t suggest anything new, because then you have to let go of other things. This is so mature thought that one will not be able to do it. It is too early to cheer for the majority. The Tarpei Rock is always very close to the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I will give general and comprehensive answers to the questions asked, although not in detail.

First, some MPs argued that the fiscal pressure has increased. We differ in opinions. Our calculations show that for the first time there is a slight drop in the fiscal pressure, even without taking into account the personal taxes. But well, that’s a sterile discussion, because it’s about a few hundred of one percent difference. Furthermore, the data will not be clear until the end of the year.

Can I comment on the methodology used by Mr. Leterme? He has adjusted his calculations on the basis of an economic growth of 2.3% and a different inflation rate. Then, of course, it should no longer be based on the tax revenues, as we propose them and which are based on a growth of 2.5%. He is talking about a 0.02% difference in growth, then 0.2% less growth is already enough. Again, I do not want to polemize about this; as soon as we have the exact numbers, we can study evolution.

Second, some had comments about primary spending. In this regard, I would like to remind you that the Government has committed to strictly applying the 1.5 % growth standard of primary spending. This is not an easy thing. This year we are already doing so, though without taking into account the expenses resulting from the police reform, as we have assumed from the beginning. To make a correct calculation, we have not taken into account the 20 billion for 2000, which naturally increases spending, making it easy to get the 1.5%. In that perspective, indeed, without the cost of police reform, we will see an increase of 1.5 to 1.6% in primary spending. Of course, the expenditure for police reform is not one-time but annual; however, the pace of its rise is. This means that from next year we can maintain the increase of 1.5% for primary spending. If we succeed, we have made a not insignificant effort. That is our intention.

At globo, we have always assumed that we could limit the growth of spending to 2.2% without problems, but on two conditions, namely that the tax revenue follows and that we can keep the spending under control. With regard to the latter, the discussion of the reform of health insurance is underway and it should lead to the possibility of making a number of corrections so that the budget is not exceeded.

As for the second point, the investigations are underway. We will look at some anomalies. If we manage to control spending and get the income at the level of growth, then we should be able to maintain our target at around 2.2% without problems.

If we go below that 2.2% and, for example, we end up at 2% or at a difference in growth of 0.2%, then we have a difference of 0.1% in the budget result. The surplus is not 0.2% but 0.1%.

No one can deny that. I’m also not going to pretend that we ⁇ ’t notice if we go below that 2.2%. Maybe we won’t get above that 2.2% either. We must not exaggerate in either direction. Because of the so-called platform effect, we cannot get much lower than that 2.2%. If the economy stabilizes throughout the year, so it remains the same throughout the year, then growth is 1.7%. In the first trimester, we saw a small growth of 0.5% compared to the previous trimester. A prediction of 2% to 2.2% would therefore be the most realistic. We try to keep the result at that predetermined 2.2%. If the result should be slightly lower, then it could be adjusted in the regional spending, except for occasions.

It will then consist of ⁇ ining the growth rate of 1.5% for next year. Mr. Peters, I would like to answer your question about taxes. According to you, a reduction in taxes means a reduction in incomes for municipalities. I fundamentally disagree with this.

If one imposes a tax of 6% on 100 francs, that will generate 6 francs of taxes. The tax burden on the population is therefore 6 francs. Suppose that what is paid to the federal government is calculated at 90 francs. 6% tax on 90 francs is only 5.4 francs. In this way, we would actually lose money. However, when we raise the foot to 6.9% at 90 francs, then the taxes are essentially not raised. One has raised the foot, but one does not allow the population to pay more taxes than 6 francs. The problem, however, is that municipal governments must explain to the population that adjusting that foot to a lower amount does not lead to an increase. That is a difficult message. I agree that no one likes to proclaim that message. However, the notion that it is a tax increase is wrong.

It is also not true that one gives and the other takes. The total is decreasing. For every 100 francs of federal tax there is 6 francs of municipal tax, so the total is 106 francs. We now retain that 6 franc municipal tax, while the federal tax drops to 90 francs. From 106 francs to 96 francs is a decrease of 10 francs.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I accept your explanation.

However, I would like to emphasize what you have just stated. A federal tax reduction requires municipalities to raise their rates.

I think you are wise enough to understand that the citizen does not perceive it as a pure technical adjustment. For the citizen, this translates as a higher taxation by the municipal governments. That is the problem: the federal government wants to be seen as sympathetic. However, if they want to avoid the impact on their finances, then the municipal governors will come out as those who increase taxes.

Mr. Peterson, your comment is correct. However, I think that should be explained to the public. If one penetrates that reasoning, one can never implement a tax reduction unless they compensate for the municipalities. This is a double game.

Conversely, four years ago, the federal government de facto had to raise taxes for the sake of indexing. The federal government was then the black-piet. As a result, the municipalities gained more income. We did not ask for compensation from the municipalities.

There is a federal, a regional and a municipal level. The federal government decides to adjust its taxes, in this case downwards. The municipalities must make their own decisions independently. It is not a matter of being good or bad or of giving and taking. There is simply no other way. Let me give the example of 1995-1996. The municipalities then received additional income because the tax scales were not indexed. This was a sharp tax increase for the municipalities. However, the federal government played the black pit. However, there was no protest against it. It is difficult for the municipalities to explain this and it is not sympathetic about but I really see no other possibility.

Mr. Leterme spoke about the school buildings. Last year we found that at that point we had a deficit of 175 million francs for the Dutch-speaking system. In the case of school buildings, it is a rather simplistic mechanism. Those loans have ever been given and we know a number of educational institutions that cannot repay. This must therefore be accounted for. These 175 million francs were allocated to the competent management authority. We now find that on the French-speaking side we have estimated 100 million francs too little. There is no problem with the legal basis for allocating this money. The money for Flanders was approved only six months ago in the vote on the supplementary sheet. I think everyone has approved that. For the French speakers, we now use the same basis. For a Brussels school, the intervention has been blocked because we have decided that it must first be verified whether there is an effective problem there. I would therefore like to emphasize that this is not a Community file, nor is it a legality issue. This is a matter that we will do on both sides depending on the estimates coming in.

I can’t say I’ve ever been euphoric about a budget. In addition, it should not be shown that there is panic. I try to manage things in a calm way by intervening on time. With the health insurance and the efforts now being made, I think we will succeed. When it comes to income, we will do what we have to do. I still hope that our budget control can lead to the effective achievement of our objectives. This can only fail if the economy falls very badly. However, I think that we only get a real delay but not a catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, I know that it is not usual to give the floor to a parliamentary after giving it to a minister.

It is an honor, Madame.

I am very impressed by this, Mr. President, and I thank you for this.

Given the late hour of the morning, I will not abuse the time of speech granted to me.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, I would like to address first the social affairs and pensions.

The healthcare budget shows an evolution with a surpass comparable to previous fiscal years, but nevertheless worrying in particular with regard to the outlook for the cumulative deficit.

We know that this increased spending is due to a number of structural and conjunctual factors such as the ageing population and the rising cost of medical technologies. Furthermore, other less logical factors influence expenditure, such as certain modes of abuse of consumption which should be called misconduct or deviations.

Beyond the existing budget-saving techniques and recovery techniques, it is important, in order to counteract these unjustified expenses, to further pursue the policy of accountability of actors (providers and patients), in particular by finally rational use of the various health care data as well as by optimization of accounting techniques.

Without investing in the medical-social dirigism, it is urgent to equip ourselves with the means of controlling the expenditure in the face of seeing our health insurance escape all control and evolve towards a bankruptcy of which the population, especially the least favoured, would pay.

Now I would like to say a few words about the Public Health component of this adjustment.

Through its squeezings, its delays, the Public Health budget gives the impression of under-use rather than of excess spending. We consider, in particular, the transfer of the budget of the Federal Agency for Food Safety not yet functioning as various measures considered such as the fight against smoking or pollution.

We want these policies to come into practice as soon as possible. We are aware that the multiplication of recent problems has complicated public health policy, but we hope that everything will be done to improve it.

I now come to the Employment and Employment section.

Budget allocations quite well reflect the achievements of this government in employment, whose effectiveness already seems to be reflected in the positive and negative fluctuations of certain positions. We think about global unemployment and youth unemployment. This evolution of the resources assigned to it must be continued, which does not exclude a particular attention to the control of the criteria and means.

With regard to the Social Integration component, we can only welcome the reduction in the budget of the minimex since it reflects a decrease in the number of beneficiaries of this minimex. This should enable an optimization of the drug policy to implement projects for the reintegration of minimexed drug addicts.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, the few remarks I would like to make to this first adjustment of the budget.

Cahay, the concern of the government goes in the same direction as your intervention. Major reforms, for example with regard to the Food Chain Safety Agency, must be implemented as quickly as possible. I reiterate the will of the Government to act in the direction desired. As regards Ms Herzet, I cannot answer her two specific questions regarding the justice sector at the moment, but I will ask my colleague Verwilghen to respond.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.