Proposition 50K1755

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2002.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 25, 2002

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 FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

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

Discussion ¶

June 27, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, on Tuesday I asked the Minister of Internal Affairs about the evolution of the crime rates in our country since 1999. I also asked for the figures of the level of clarification of crimes. I was ⁇ surprised by his response.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs had a double answer. On the one hand, he said that today — it is almost July — there are still no crime figures for 2001 available. There are currently no official figures on crime.

On the other hand, he said that no figures on the level of clarification of crimes are published. I immediately felt some resentment to the time of the General Police Support Service. In April, we already had the crime rates for the first half of the year before. It is almost July and we still do not know the criminality figures for the year 2001. We also do not know the figures of the level of clarification.

The police reform envisaged the establishment of a general, national database. That database would publish these figures quickly and efficiently. However, that database simply does not work.

We conduct a security policy in this country without knowing the crime rates and the degree of clarification of crimes. That means that today we make zonal security plans for the cities and municipalities without knowing the crime rates in those cities and municipalities. Based on these figures, we should determine the priorities. This finding is frightening. I would like to confront you with this in my introduction.

In the Justice Committee we have already discussed the budget figures in detail. In my presentation, I will limit myself to a few concrete points that show very clearly the problems at Justice. These points also aggravate the problems.

The first major issue is the current liquidity problems of the Ministry of Justice. You remember that I already said during the discussion of the budget last year that serious problems prevent the Ministry of Justice from fulfilling its obligations. I pointed out that the Court of Auditors had issued a warning to the Minister of Justice because the Department of Justice had a deficit of EUR 3.5 million in the financial year 2001 to cover the expenditure of 2001 and because it had also not provided compensation in the 2002 budget.

This was already an important signal that it did not have the necessary resources to pay for the daily expenses of the Judiciary. During the discussion of the budget in the Committee on Justice, it became clear that the situation is actually even worse. In fact, it has been established that at the end of April 43% of the judicial resources had already been spent. This was once again an important signal to indicate that the Judiciary was apparently not provided with the necessary resources.

Following this discussion in the plenary session, we can now have the report of the budget discussions in the committee, conducted in the presence of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget Vande Lanotte. We must have concluded that the Minister of Budget has requested a report from the Financial Inspectorate for excessive excesses in the expenditure of the Department of Justice. In particular, an agreement has been made concerning the working resources in which no more can be spent than in a comparable period of the previous year. Well, the Minister of Budget has determined that in one department the excesses are substantial. On this basis, he requested a report from the Financial Inspectorate. That is the signal that clearly shows that we are in financial difficulties to cover the costs of Justice. I read that on page 98 of the report that you all were provided. In that report it is clearly stated that the Minister of Budget has requested an investigation from the Financial Inspectorate as a result of the excesses.

This research has significant and harmful consequences. As a result, some payments can no longer be made. Over the course of this week I have heard in circles of courts and courts that already at this moment some supplier bills can no longer be paid. This is about 1.2 billion. You remember that in the discussion of the Justice budget last year I pointed out the threatening payment strike that would occur because Justice had not received the resources it should receive. Unfortunately, today this becomes a reality. It was the Minister of Budget himself who requested an investigation from the Financial Inspectorate. That investigation should investigate what is the cause of the excesses at the Department of Justice. This means spending much more than was included in the budget. As a result, some payments can no longer be made. There is a strike of payments and there are liquidity problems at the Department of Justice. This strike of payment and the liquidity problems have significant consequences. I can understand that this does not immediately appeal to you in a theoretical framework. However, when there is no or insufficient money, it has significant consequences on the ground. The first important consequence that I would like to relate to you is the fact that the Cypriot Agreement, which was concluded on 23 May this year with the unions of prison personnel, cannot be implemented. The agreement cannot be implemented on the most essential point, namely the agreement to complete the framework by July of this year, in a few days. That agreement specifically meant that 400 penitentiary officers or cypriots would be recruited. It is my good colleague Luc Goutry who provided me with the data, because he naturally follows the matter ⁇ closely, ⁇ in Bruges. This shows the problem very clearly.

First, the 400 officials cannot be recruited because the resources for this are not provided. Mr. Minister of Justice, in the Committee on Budget, the competent minister has responded very cynically to a comment from our group chairman. He has said that the Minister of Justice should find these resources in his own budget and that he might be able to pay for the cyber deal and the hiring of cybermen by saving on the hiring of magistrates. As if it was so simple! I return to my point. The Cypriot Agreement cannot be implemented; the 400 Cypriots will not be recruited by July.

The first element to stave that, is the following. On 25 June 2002, two days ago, a meeting was scheduled with the unions of police personnel, at which the agreement of 23 May 2002 would be concrete. It was intended that at that meeting, colleague Giet, 10 draft royal decree for the implementation of the cipher agreement would be submitted to the trade union organizations. As of July, the necessary personnel will be recruited. But what has happened? The meeting was cancelled on 25 June 2002 because the representatives of the Budget Department did not appear. However, the meeting was crucial to make the necessary arrangements to be able to make the necessary recruitments from July. She was blown down by the Department of Budget and postponed sine die. The trade unions regarded this as a declaration of war. The outcome is of course even more important. Since the draft royal decree could not be submitted to the representatives of the representative organisations, it is also not possible to decide whether or not to hire additional personnel.

I will give you two concrete examples of the problem. In the past, the Minister of Justice in the government has already forced a framework extension to 150 penitentiary officers. That was acquired; the Minister of Justice had acquired it in and through the Council of Ministers. To make that hard now, a royal decree was needed to publish that 150 penitentiary officers would be recruited. That is the logic, that is the procedure as it should be carried out. What has now happened? Officials and the Minister of Budget have blocked the royal decree. While the Minister of Justice had prepared the royal decree on the basis of the commitments under which 150 penitentiary officers could be hired, today the Ministers of Budget and Public Service refused to publish the royal decree on the matter. A very concrete consequence of the absence of the publication is that the framework extension cannot continue and one cannot recruit those 150 beams.

It is therefore a new illustration of the fact that due to a fundamental disagreement between you, Budget and Public Affairs, one fails to do what one should do, in this case to comply with the agreement reached with the unions. Of the 400 employees expected to be recruited in July, 150 cannot be recruited because this royal decree is not published.

Another element: another 150 could be recruited to complete the framework as it currently exists. This is also not possible, because Selor, the service responsible for organising the recruitment, has so far still failed to transmit the process-verbal containing the results of the recruitment examination, which should enable the Minister to make the necessary recruitments.

The 150 employees from the framework expansion, and the 150 from the framework itself, which are 300, will not be recruited in July. This, however, was the essential data from the Cyprus Agreement that had been reached. It will be a hot summer in prisons. I believe that today, on the occasion of this discussion and this question, you will have to explain very clearly to the penitentiary staff and to the trade unions what is now going to be done concretely with this cyberspace agreement. They have made it impossible for you to make these recruitments. The question is what your response will be today. How will you prevent new disturbances among prison staff? How will you prevent actions from being reorganized in the coming weeks? And most importantly, how will you succeed in providing the prison staff with enough people to fulfill their mission?

Important elements in these budget talks are, therefore, in the first place, insufficient resources, resulting in contradictions and inability to comply with the agreements. The Cyprus Agreement will not be enforced.

Secondly, in addition to the lack of resources, one of the crucial questions — and the actuality requires me to go into it a little more deeply — is the state security situation. We must have determined in the figures of the budget that as a result of the budget control, the Minister of Justice has had to pay 1.1 million euros on the personnel appropriations of the State Security. In the meantime, we know what the situation is with the State Security: the debacle, at least, the dismissal of the general administrator, the demotivation and the total discouragement of the staff, and this at a moment that I will not have to convince you of the important assignment of the service, after September 11, the more. The fight against terrorism in general and Islamic terrorism in particular requires an absolute priority investment in this service. The resources obtained by this service do not allow him to fulfill any of his basic goals. I was therefore ⁇ disturbed by a statement today in the media, which ⁇ says that the police and the intelligence services are losing their grip on the Islamic terrorists. It says in this article: "Attacks can occur at any moment. All flashlights are on red.”

At the moment that this information is made public, we are with a State Security that is not fully functioning.

Mr. Minister, what is the extent of the problem? Is it true that we no longer have control over the terrorist organizations operating in Europe and in this country? How will you prevent this finding from becoming a reality? Attacks can occur at any time. All flashlights are on red. This is written in the press today. Can we, with the Security of the State, as this service is organized now, obtain the necessary insights to provide at least a preventive response to this communication? It is not possible that this is published and that, on the other hand, we must establish that the State Security does not function and has no direction.

By the way, I would like to ask the following question. At one of the previous Council of Ministers, it was decided that there would be a note on the future of the State Security. Do you remain in your view that the State Security should remain an independent intelligence agency, independent of the federal police? We had serious concerns with the CD&V group when very recently Louis Tobback, in his own opinion — I suppose in the name of his group — considered it appropriate to undermine the Security of the State in Home Affairs and the federal police. Their

Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is not possible that the Department of Internal Affairs would get the police and intelligence services under its competence. Such a concentration of information and power entails a democratic risk. I think, Mr. Minister of Justice, that you should not let this happen. You must ensure that the State Security remains an independent intelligence agency under the Department of Justice, because it is precisely in this way that the historically grown balance between Home Affairs and Justice – which has its democratic reasons – can be ⁇ ined. Furthermore, this gives Justice the tool to collect the necessary information that informs us of threats that may arise. Threats are not minor at the moment. A prominent newspaper reports today that attacks can occur at any moment. Their

What is the subject of the threat? What about the tool that should prevent and analyze this threat? We are ⁇ concerned about this.

Speaking of the consequences of the deficient resources of the Judiciary, I come to a completely different aspect of the judicial policy, in particular the legal aid. Their

Collega Giet has often spoken in the Committee on Justice about the needs and needs related to legal aid because it is a fundamental social data. People who are unable to provide legal aid themselves can appeal to the government to enforce their rights through the pro Deo lawyers or the second-line legal aid. Their

Mr. Minister of Justice, I find it incomprehensible that after the budget control the legal aid must pay 1.5% or 385,000 euros.

This is ⁇ unfortunate because we came into a context in which the fees for second-line legal aid were increased year after year, and were rightly increased because we had then introduced the new legislation, which resulted in the quality of that legal assistance significantly improved.

About fourteen days ago we were invited — some colleagues present here were also invited — by the Order of Flemish Balies, formerly called the Association of Flemish Balies. She expressed a plea to significantly increase the resources for legal aid. She had very good arguments for that, which I would like to present to you.

The Order of Flemish Balies says that the number of cases has increased very strongly: from 60,806 in 2001 to 69,630 in 2002, which means an increase in the number of files by 14,5% while the budget has shrunk by 1,5%. This has resulted — according to the figures of the Order of Flemish Balies — that the value of one point has decreased by 7.18%, which very concretely means that the individual fees for often young lawyers who dedicate themselves to people who cannot provide for the legal assistance they need will be much lower than in the past.

Mr. Minister of Justice, I would like to ask you to review this issue. We have submitted an amendment to the Justice Committee. It is incomprehensible for me that, among other things, the Socialists rejected that amendment. However, it is obvious that we are all willing to make the necessary efforts for second-line legal aid. However, in this case, the budget does not even remain the same, it is also not indexed, it decreases relative to the figures in the budget. This seems to me unacceptable.

A next point related to the resources of Justice clarifies what the consequences of one and the other are. Last week we approved the extension of the limitation here, including following the file of the Bende van Nijvel because there the first facts threatened to date, facts committed in September 1982, almost 20 years ago. It is a good thing that the Parliament has almost Chamberbreed on our proposal. The Senate will have to repeat this exercise. Meanwhile, however, we learn that the instruments that the cell-Jumet has at its disposal — colleague Giet will not contradict me since he has followed that dossier closely — are no longer adapted at all. I was informed that the scanner that the cell-Jumet has had has not been working for a year. That scanner, however, makes the memory out of the cell-Jumet. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to all kinds of investigative acts. Well, that scanner has been out of operation for a year so at this moment the cell-Jumet actually operates blindly in the absence of customized computer material.

We forcefully conclude that the debilitating resources for Justice result in the investigation not being conducted as it should, even in important files. I think this is unacceptable, especially at a time when people’s trust in justice and police is so far from being sought. Try to explain to the relatives of the victims of the gang of Nijvel that the so important basic instruments to be able to compare and put side by side the various dossiers, for a year no longer function. Those basic instruments were, by the way, a result of the investigation committee to which we collaborated together, Mr. Giet. I would add that the available vehicle fleet of the members of the cell is almost as old as the file itself.

How can we explain this? In addition, the annual meeting with the relatives of the victims was simply cancelled because there was nothing more to tell the victims. Nothing could be communicated to them, as the investigation was completely blocked due to lack of sufficient resources. How can one respond to such disadvantages resulting from the de-investment of Justice and maintain confidence in Justice?

Finally, I will address the problem of the staff of the courts and courts. There still appears to be no agreement to pay the increased holiday allowance to staff in 2002. It should be obvious, however, because all other government staff members will ⁇ receive the increased vacation premium. However, this is not the case for the judicial staff. Following the negotiations between the Judiciary and the trade unions of staff, however, this was promised. It is signaled to us that the increased holiday fee due to a blockage due to the Minister of Budget will not be paid in full. The question of the moment is how we can arm Justice, not only so that the department can cope with future challenges, but also so that it can pay the daily expenses. I will sum up those expenses again: the expenses arising from the statutory rights of the staff of the courts and courts, the expenses arising from the commitments to the trade unions in the framework of the negotiations with the prison staff, the resources necessary for the solution of crucial cases that have put the whole country in turmoil — I think of the dossier of the gang of Nijvel —, the legal debt and the resources for state security and all the necessary services so that Justice can function properly.

My final conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that the security issue should be the prime priority of the government. This has been repeatedly proclaimed at the establishment of the government agreement and at every discussion of the budget. Unfortunately, the reality is completely different. The government fails to remove the threat of terrorism and I refer here to today’s media announcements. The government also fails to get the street crime and youth crime under control. Can I refer to the figures for Antwerp? Since January 1, 2002, 59 young criminals have been released in Antwerp.

The financial problems with the Justice Department are such that the Minister of Budget has placed this department under curate and ordered an investigation by the Financial Inspectorate. Speaking of a primeur! The payment strike is today a fact: suppliers can no longer be paid.

Finally, right now, we are faced with the threatening problems in the prison world due to the cyberspace agreement that cannot be implemented.

Mr. Minister of Justice, I would like to warn you of these findings. I would like to point out that the situation of the budget of the Judiciary and the relations within the government — on the one hand between you and the Minister of Budget and Public Affairs, on the other hand politically between the VLD and the Greens — are so unfavorable that any reasonable security policy has been blocked. That is why we will not approve this adjustment of the 2002 budget. However, we continue to warn you about the consequences of the fact that Justice does not receive the means to which it is entitled. This has been demonstrated by so many issues that concern the people and that have to do with the security issue, priority number one in politics.

Do we have to laugh, we have to cry, we have to express our anger or indifference?

It is not far from the time when the citizen will no longer know – if he still knows it today – to which authority, to which institution to address in order to respect his rights and his integrity. by

From decrease to decrease, from restriction to restriction, the budget of the Department of Justice is reduced to a skin of sorrow — and you know it, Mr. Minister — totally insufficient to ensure this task which must be above any suspicion that the administration of justice is. by

There are no suspicions at this time. We have gained the certainty that this government, contrary to its official statements, does not cure the Department of Justice. In November 2001, during the discussions on the 2002 budget, we denounced the fact that the arbitration on budgetary matters did not take place between departments for your benefit, Mr. Minister, that is, for the benefit of the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, today we can only see the same thing.

While justice was one of the three priorities of this government, it continues to be not spared by economic measures while four other departments should not; I think of the Chancellor of the Prime Minister and the departments of Pensions, Interior and Social Affairs. But yes, it is true that it is in the air of time to impose the law of the strongest, one that will probably create a two-level justice in which the nantis will have the means to access private insurance and in which the less nantis will not even have access to legal assistance as much as you reduce the means.

In November last year, we had already seen that, contrary to the intentions announced in the government program, the budget for legal aid had not been increased. Today, we note that it is still reduced by 1.5%.

If this is how your government intends to facilitate access to justice, you will need to find striking arguments to convince me. And this is only one aspect of the efforts that should be made to improve the access of the justiciable to justice for all.

Have you not noticed yourself that there were still problems with the opening of court houses in certain districts? You mentioned the district of Eupen and my own district, Arlon. In other districts, court houses will only be open at the end of this year. In Arlon, the situation is intolerable. The staff of the house of justice is obliged to receive the justiciable in the premises where the services of the administration of contributions are located. These locations are in no way suitable for such a destination. In particular, no premises are available to ensure an appropriate reception for children who often accompany the justifiable in search of legal information and information. Furthermore, the building is closed outside the opening hours of the contributions administration services, which prevents the staff of the courthouse from receiving the justiciable outside these working hours. This is of course a nonsense. What can we say, Mr. Minister, of the amalgamation that can be made by the justiciable between the House of Justice and the administration of contributions?

I dare hope that, despite the fact that this government attaches little importance to the proper functioning of justice — it is indeed a real problem within this government —, you will take heart to quickly find a solution to this crucial problem for the justiciables of the Arlon district, as well as other districts in which the houses of justice are not yet operational. by

As for the proper functioning of justice, there are inconsistencies in the management of your department that I find difficult to understand. As early as last November, we questioned ourselves about the absence of a conductive thread in the conduct of this department, about the impossibility of identifying a political vision, about your real intentions in matters of justice. Today the inconsistency is at its peak. by

You have just passed a bill increasing the number of supplementary magistrates. At the same time, it is important to note that personnel expenditure is decreasing. There is also an increase in treatment. How do you reconcile the incompatible? Would you have wanted to throw dust in the eyes of the actors of the judiciary world by making them mirror an increase in staff that you are unable to finance? Or is your intention not to reduce the number of judges but to better pay them?

You explain the reduction in personnel expenditure by the fact that during budgetary control, we were based on the actual staff that is lower than the legal framework.

Just read the press, especially the newspaper "L'Avenir du Luxembourg", to talk about the arrondissement of Arlon. This is the case of the Attorney General, Mr. Albert Militis, and PV classified without suite due to lack of staff. Is this not the confirmation of a real lack of willingness, in your head, to fulfill the legal framework? In this hypothesis, how will you ensure that justice is rendered and that the judicial litigation, which continues to increase at the rate we vote on new legislative arrangements, can be absorbed by an even smaller staff?

The same applies to the staff of prison establishments. Personnel expenses will be reduced by 6.5 million euros. At the same time, you announced the engagement of 400 additional prison officers and negotiated an agreement regarding prison guards. You indicated, as you already said last November, that a budget control would be necessary to finalize this agreement.

Mr. Minister, I have only one fear: to see a further decrease in this allocation for justice during these future budgetary controls. However, we ask you, given the current economic situation, to make every effort to obtain from your colleagues in the government, and especially from the Prime Minister, who has the art of taking the files back into his hands and managing them in his own way, that the Department of Justice finally become manageable.

Will all the promises made in the last few months be fulfilled? In my sense — apologize for being so sharp — you are not able to hold them. I could continue this list of totally inconsistent promises for which, unfortunately, no budget exists.

I also think — this is not the first time I am addressing the subject — of the transfer of detainees, to the special body of security, for which, for months, a budget has been promised in certain arrondissements. I do not see anything for this special body, and yet it is the municipalities that must take care of everything. I warn you, the time has ended when the local police accompany the detainees. It is over in our neighborhoods. It is a pity that the head of this police corps is not present among us today. But I repeat, it is over! That the federal assumes its responsibilities, that is all I ask of you, because we will not assume them anymore! Be serious, because you are no longer. Your government is no longer, and at the level of the municipalities, I assure you, we will release ourselves from any responsibility.

After all, your government is only embodying the rainbow. By promising rain and good weather, you manage to deceive the citizen who sees only the rainbow of colors that rain and good weather associated will generate. The trick is almost perfect. This confirms what we announced in December during the discussions on the 2002 budget. At the time, I had already told you that I was thinking about the consequences of very close budget control and that I had difficulty believing that your department could get a few pieces of what it would possibly have to share, if there was material to share, which I already doubted.

The reality, unfortunately, exceeds predictions and reinforces my concerns about your government’s failure to meet the expectations of citizens and to face the real and priority challenges of our modern society. However, I continue, Mr. Minister, to remind you that the local police — we demand it — will not continue to accompany the detainees as it does now. I have the impression, colleague Coveliers, that you take this lightly, because you may not be the mayor of a municipality but, personally, I do not take it lightly anymore. I assure you! by

Sometimes it happens — it is a shame that colleague Larcier is not present among us — that 20 men out of 90 devote whole days to the transfer of prisoners. And the government allows itself to answer us: “Assume your responsibilities.” We will assume our security responsibilities at the municipal level, but with regard to the transfer of prisoners, continue to organize counseling rooms in prisons. At least they will not need to be transferred anymore. But thankfully, take things seriously! by

For all these reasons, I can only tell you one thing: we will not vote on the draft adjustment subject to our approval.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is not usual to conduct large debates on budgetary control during the plenary session. After all, the real discussion usually takes place when the budget is submitted. Nevertheless, the debate today is in place because it is the last chance for purple-green to clean up the heavily held blister yet a little and somewhat camouflage the mistakes of the past. This is the last budget that concerns this legislature only. The 2003 budget will automatically have a transitional character.

However, it should not have been. The last naïve who hoped for a substantial increase in the justice budget are for their trouble. The increase did not occur. Even worse, Justice shares in the clashes and we go back on it. Despite previous announcements that Justice would not be affected by linear savings, this is the case, both in terms of personnel expenditure and working resources. This can also be difficult otherwise if we see who in this country holds the cut on the stock exchange. The SP.A'er Vande Lanotte has magistrally chained his colleague of Justice and at the same time gave his colleague Vandenbroucke free play so that the latter was not forced at all to really address the Wallish waste in healthcare. Their

In the purple-green constellations, the socialists are allowed to play unhindered sinterklaas. Look at Minister Stevaert. A real security policy, on the other hand, is made impossible. Of course, this is primarily the fault of the liberals themselves, who fail to fight for their department. Rosanne Germonprez resigned as a spokeswoman for the Minister of Justice. She could no longer see it. First of all, it is the blame of the liberals themselves because they have completely lost the north and no longer know that security is one of the core tasks of the government that ⁇ does not qualify for privatization. It is, however, blasphemous that VLD faction leader Coveliers, who is currently happy to battle with the minister, must openly tell the liberal voters that the government has a financing problem for the police and that who exhibits his wealth and lives in a villa, will soon have to take care of his own security and will have to pay extra for that, because it becomes the government all too much. The rich man is punished for showing his wealth.

Mr Laeremans, you addressed Mr Coveliers. It is obvious that he wants to react.

Mr. "Lariemans", you have undoubtedly read the text, which is drawn up following what you are now quarrelling? I suppose you also know the basic principles. Maybe you can name it for a moment, Mr. "Lariemans", then I will show you where you use that text incorrectly and where you are therefore mistaken.

Mr. Coveliers, I admit that this text was not distributed in the Justice Committee. I am based, firstly, on the texts that appeared in the press and, secondly, on your statements for the radio program Actuel. You literally said that certain neighborhoods, because there is a better exhibition of the wealth...

[...] and you interpret it in your own interest. This tactic was already applied by Goebbels.

Mr. Coveliers, I can only quote Mr. Coveliers.

However, I do not wish to cite only Mr. Coveliers. I also mention the poster of Herman De Croo, with the slogan "Safety, today and tomorrow". "Today" is very small and "morning" is written very large, giving "morning" the emphasis. This poster is an illustration of the liberal failure.

The future is always important, you know.

Of course, Mr President. The liberals have actually acknowledged it themselves and I am especially grateful to Chairman De Croo for this. The poster of Mr. De Croo says that the VLD does not succeed today. Tomorrow, however, if the voter is again caught by the liberal election promises, then the voter will see something. That is a formate confession that very well reflects the defaitism within the current government and the rapidly growing distrust among the liberal backbone in the current purple-green government.

Last week, the distrust, including among the VLD parliamentarians, in the current Minister of Justice was expressed in a very painful way, when the four majority factions in the Flemish Parliament, including the VLD group, openly stated that they no longer believe in the youth sanction law during this government and put all their hopes on the next government and the next minister of justice. In the field of youth crime, this government has failed across the line and this minister has lost all credibility. It is therefore understandable that the liberals put their hopes on tomorrow and no longer on today, as the presidential poster shows.

Colleagues, it would, of course, be unfair to say that this government does not make justice a priority at all. We have had a lot of work on the shelf and today there is still a lot of work to be done. For example, we discussed the Fast-Belg Act, the most lax nationality law in the world, with all the security risks resulting from it. We also discussed the enormous expansion of alternative punishments, including for heavy criminals and multirecidivists. We also discussed, for example, the violation of the language legislation in Brussels. Soon, the Senate will deal with the same-sex marriage, which was recently pushed forward as a priority by this Minister of Justice and which allegedly awaits the whole of Flanders.

They want to tighten the weapons legislation, which in practice, however, will affect the civilians and not the criminal gangs. After all, there is the anti-discrimination law that we are currently working with skillful urgency. The law is a priority of the government. A crazy thing that wants to re-create the country in a totalitarian society. This means that any act in which a citizen dares to make a distinction that is not objective, according to the criteria of the government, will be monitored by big brother pater Leman and sanctioned if necessary. Even this Minister of Justice does not like this insane law, but neither he nor his party has the courage to actually oppose this insane.

Of course, there is also the quota law, the prison system and the bill regarding the legal status of the detainees where the following questions are central. How can the judges’ decisions not be enforced? How can the rule of law be further undermined? How can we increase the comfort of the prisoners?

You understand that the population and the people of the field are wildly enthusiastic about all this beauty and look forward to its realization. Therefore, a few days ago we received a manifesto from the consultation platform of the actors of Justice that is full of the secrets of victory. I quote: “For years and days, the prosecutors and the actors of Justice complain that the judicial institutions do not function properly. Procedures take too long, the budgets are insufficient. These complaints maintain an atmosphere of malaise over the functioning of these institutions. As things are now going, no constructive improvement is possible and no one, neither within nor outside the Justice Department, can make peace with the existing state of affairs.”

“Together, these participating associations and representative trade unions” — they include all associations of magistrates — “an appeal to the political leaders of the legislative and executive power to release all budgetary space as soon as possible in the current budget talks to optimise the functioning of the judicial institutions over a three-year period and in a global approach.” It gives concrete examples: the reduction of the threshold for access for legal seekers, the reduction of the appointment procedures, the generalized improvement of informatization, computer equipment, the hiring of professional system operators, better professional reorientation, very important and ⁇ on the parquet and logistic, technical and administrative support. Improvements are also required in terms of working conditions: upgrading of the duties of officers, prosecutors and other employees, upgrading of the monetary status, permanent vocational formation, real improvement of the working conditions, and so on. In the end, they are now asking for "a regular structural consultation with the Cabinet of the Minister of Justice", which means as much as there is no structural consultation today. This makes it clear that the people of the field themselves have long no longer had confidence in the current justice policy, but also that with this justice budget, this budget does not meet the expectations of these people at all. Their

The figures and debates in the committee clearly showed that there is no need to count on a reversal in the coming months during this legislature. The enormous shortage of people and resources at the parquets continues to exist so that there can be no normalizing action, however still cited by you when evaluating the safety plan. The catastrophe of youth crime has no end. We will talk about it later. The problems of national security are not resolved. It has already been detailed by colleague Van Parys. You have made this in your note, Mr. Minister, dependent on the inspection, but the least you could do for the benefit of the people of the State Security is to sketch a perspective. Tell them when there will be additional resources and what resources will then be, but this also does not happen. Their

The so necessary increase in cell capacity also does not occur. The only light point in the recent past is a small, additional prison in Antwerp. However, it is not yet clear when it will come out. For the rest, the budget for the prison system and the implementation of the Cyprus Agreement is manifestly insufficient.

During the budget talks in December 2001, CD&V began the strategic mistake of launching an operation in support of this Minister of Justice under the motto: Red Marc Verwilghen. It only makes sense to support someone in his policy if the person concerned is truly capable, really has the will to bring about change. Meanwhile, it has become clear to everyone that this minister and this VLD are not going, that that party and its minister have denied their costly promises and have completely, especially on their own department, been dominated by the PS and Ecolo. The population can only be saved in one way, and that is through a rapid withdrawal of this government.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I thought this was a debate about budgetary control and not about the budget. I have heard a number of points that are not in place in the debate we are conducting today. When we talk about fiscal control, we are actually talking about real figures. Then we do not base ourselves on the estimate of the expenses to be made in a year. You don’t have to be a budget specialist to know that the worst thing that can happen to a minister is to underestimate his budget. Then he is in trouble.

I can quite easily answer the first argument, more specifically that the budgetary control reduces the figures of the budget, more specifically with an amount of almost 5 million euros. I have had the trouble of making the comparison with previous years, when we did not participate in the policy. If the comparison between the budget and the budget control in 1998 is made, I assume a reduction of the budget of more than 10 million euros, which is twice the amount that is now in question. In 1999 this amounted to more than 9 million euros. In 2000 that was 15 million euros, which is three times the amount that is now in question. If I look at the appropriations of Justice for the years 1997 to 2000, I find an increase from 3.4% to 3.6%. For the period 2000-2002 there is an increase from 3.6% to 3.9%.

I would like to point out that key principles have been incorporated into budgetary control, including the anchor principle that does not apply to the staff expenditure of the Court of Justice. This does not mean that the anchor principle would not apply outside there. That brings me to a matter that was announced here as a prime by my predecessor. He says: Imagine that in Justice, through the Minister of Budget, the inspector of Finance was asked to control the expenditure. This is exactly the application of the anchor principle. In fact, one wants to see whether the expenditure of each department — this measure was taken for each department, Justice inclusive — takes place at the same rhythm.

I remember last year’s predictions. They talked about the bankruptcy of the judiciary. If a trader is unable to pay his invoices within three days, he must apply for bankruptcy. This very far-reaching announcement has not become truth at any moment. I therefore believe that Mr. Van Parys’s presentation of more than one solid grain of salt should be understood.

I don’t even have a problem with the problems he mentions. It is about the consequences on the ground. One consequence mentioned by him is that one will not be able to implement the achieved cipher agreement. Mr Van Parys must then have a glass ball. The final agreement will be discussed in the sector committee on 3 July. How can one in heavenly name already today draw very negative consequences from something that still needs to be discussed?

The same applies to national security policy. They read a newspaper. The newspaper is appreciated. The newspaper said that attacks could occur at any time. Mr. Speaker, if a country were able to anticipate every possible attack, we might live in an ideal world. The reality is that our state security has come to a solution thanks to the intelligence it had collected in the Trabelsi case, ⁇ the largest counter-terrorism case ever in our country. The Americans, who were ⁇ interested in the file and who, by the way, were given full access to the file, were the first to recognize the approach of our state security.

This does not mean that there are no problems with national security. There is indeed a tense working environment. This atmosphere was reflected in the audit. This audit encourages us to take a number of steps. This audit is also based on the fact that any form of trust between the management and the external staff has been hit. We must dare to emphasize this. This led to the resignation of the general administrator.

Mr Van Parys also claims that legal aid is going down. He naturally takes the linear submission. This has occurred everywhere and was therefore also applicable to legal aid. However, when comparing the figures of 2000 with the figures of 2002, I note that the amount of more than 18, almost 19 million euros in 2000 increases to 25,272 million euros in 2002. If I can count correctly, it is a 6 percent increase.

The argument that the staff of courts and courts is also entitled to an increased holiday allowance is, of course, also mentioned. Of course, one knows that for this matter one should turn to the responsible minister, colleague Van den Bossche. He also conducted the letter exchange in the case.

Security is a priority of the government. I am surprised to hear, based on three examples, that the security of our country is in danger. First, we are talking about terrorism. I don’t think the terrorism records are so extensive. Nevertheless, I note that much of the past year, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, our judicial services, which worked closely with the national security, provided solutions in this area.

Street crime is still a problem. I am the last to challenge that. It’s a often underestimated problem, as I’ve found that the parquets in major cities each deal with street crime in their own, sometimes customized way. I therefore consulted with the College of Prosecutors-General and the Council of Prosecutors of the King in order to find some line in the fight against street crime.

Of course, one is silently silent about the matters in which real progress is made. The figures that the police services have given us regarding, among other things, the fight against forms of organized crime and home and carjacking are not false, but they have, of course, not been discussed in the discussion held here today.

The President, Mr. Arens, whose absence I note, came to say on behalf of his party, the CDH — M. Wathelet acting in the shadow—which should have been done. I have repeatedly stated that the problems mentioned by Mr. Wathelet during the period from 1987 to 1995 are still relevant. Indeed, these problems have not been solved. I find it quite disturbing on his part to tell me how to deal with it. Furthermore, I find that his knowledge of justice is limited to the judicial district that is his. However, this is not the way a judicial policy is conducted. I will not have many words left to make an uiteenzetting from Mr. Laeremans. Mijnheer Laeremans, het gaat hier om en budget control, niet om de budgeting self. U bent geheel uzelf gebleven. Zoals in "Kaas" van Elsschot hat u nothing gezegd.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to come back specifically on two points. First, it is the initiative of the Minister of Budget to request the Financial Inspectorate to initiate an investigation into the excesses in the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice proposed the matters differently than they were communicated to Parliament by the Minister of Budget. I would like to quote the report of the discussions in the Budget Committee witnessed by my excellent group chairman.

Mr. Minister of Justice, I would like to confront you with this given because it is important. On the pages 97 and 98 of the report, I read that one is talking about the anchor principle, which implies that one may not spend more this year than in a similar period of last year. The Minister of Budget says: "The idea behind the anchor principle is that the departmental utilization rate should be attached to the utilization rate during the same period of 2001". Therefore, one cannot spend more than in the corresponding period of 2001. Regarding the Department of Justice, the Minister of Budget says: “The department is currently above the target. The Financial Inspectorate was asked to report on this excess."

Mr. Minister of Justice, it is therefore not — as you recently said — that it is obvious that the Financial Inspection is checking whether or not there are excesses. It was established that there were excesses and, as a result, the Financial Inspectorate must initiate an investigation to see what measures should be taken. While waiting, some expenses can no longer be made so one was obliged not to make some payments to suppliers. Therefore, I would like to expressly reiterate today the statement that, as a result of the lack of resources and the improper management of the resources of the Judiciary, a payment strike has actually occurred at this time. This is not what the opposition is saying. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget themselves requested an investigation from the Financial Inspectorate. I know of no precedent in this country in which the Minister of Budget requests an investigation into the oversteps of a colleague’s budget due to insufficient resources. By the way, it is in itself cynical of the Minister of Budget because it is he who sends you again and again with a knock in the roof.

This applies, among other things, to the Cyprus Agreement. You come here to say that there will be a meeting of the Sector Committee on 3 July 2002. Mr. Minister, you have signed the Cyprus Agreement with us and so you know very well what its content is. The first and most important point is that by July 2002 the framework would be fully completed.

In order to complete the framework fully, two things are needed. First, the royal decree allowing 150 additional cypriots to be hired must be published. This extension has been allowed in the past. What is the situation today? The Ministers of Budget and Public Service blocked the royal decree and refused to publish it. You can come here on the tribune only to say that the problem has been solved, if you can tell me today — I invite you to do so — that before 1 July the royal decree will be published and that then one can start the procedure of recruitment, which obviously means that they will not be recruited by 1 July 2002.

Secondly, Selor must take care of the recruitments, but has still not published the results of the recruitment examinations. So you are not able to recruit those who can be hired. Concretely, this means that by July 2002 only 100 of the 400 recruitments promised will be able to take place. This is the real situation at the moment. I ask you to give a very concrete answer to the question of what you will do to implement the CIP agreement. How will you harden with regard to the prison staff what you negotiated with them? How will you insist that by July of this year—that is, next week—there will be 400 recruitments? Such a question should be able to be discussed in this Parliament. It is up to us to monitor how the government is carrying out what it has promised to staff members, in this case the prison system. There is no answer to that. There is no answer to the concrete elements.

What is your reaction, Mr. Minister of Justice, to the fact that in the cell-Jumet the scanner is no longer functioning for a year and that thus the investigation of the Bende van Nijvel stops? What is your reaction? Is your only response that these are issues that should not be discussed following a budget debate? Is that the reaction? We should be able to get answers to specific files and you are presumed to know those files.

The last element. You say that the problem of the staff of courts and courts is not for you, but for the Minister of Public Affairs. However, it is your budget that should ensure the payment of the necessary funds. How can we conduct a proper judicial debate in these circumstances, if you limit yourself to referring to a colleague? Effectively, this colleague together with the Minister of Budget makes it permanently impossible for you to manage. With this argument, however, you cannot free yourself from your assignment and your responsibility. You are the one who must ensure that Justice runs and functions and that, for example, the Security of the State also works. The audit was scary: the demotivation is total. Mrs Timmermans has drawn its conclusions, but that is not enough. This will not be enough. It is not only the leadership, the general administrator, but the entire instrument that fails at this moment and that now in the media there are concrete signals about very concrete threats.

I note that it is obvious to you that an attack could occur every day and at any time, and that this can never be prevented anyway. This is not an attitude, Mr. Minister of Justice, and you disappoint me especially in that regard. We have told you in the past that we were willing to support you in a number of projects. You have rejected this support. We have submitted a motion to put more resources at the disposal of Justice. You rejected them. This proposal is not accepted here by the majority and by you yourself. Once you take this attitude towards an undoubtedly constructive opposition, you must take responsibility for it. We note today that you do not answer the crucial questions, but I will not let you go with regard to the Crypto Agreement. I would like you to know if you will be able to make 400 recruitments by July 2002, as expressly stipulated in the Cypriot Agreement. Mr. Speaker, I wish for a very explicit and clear answer in order to remove the unrest that is re-growing in the prison system.

Today is June 27th. I will respond to Mr. Van Parys on 1 July.

Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the Minister that although he may take such a stance in this Parliament and that I cannot naturally obligate him to provide answers, I would like to point out to the Minister that he plays with fire in relation to a sector of which he knows the situation is explosive. It was explosive, you experienced the incidents.

I have never returned to the agreement that has been concluded. Pacta sunt servanda. This will therefore have to be implemented.

Will the royal decree extending the framework to 150 persons be published? When when ?

You will notice this on July 1. I will answer you on July 1.

It is Monday.

I will immediately submit an interpellation request. However, I must tell you that this way of working with respect to an important department is ⁇ inappropriate. In the past, we had come to the situation of trying together to establish a chamber-wide majority for a number of projects in a very sensitive matter — the security issue, the justice and the police issue. Now that we find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of Justice takes such an attitude towards Parliament, we are, of course, on the wrong path. This shows very clearly that the problem is not only current, but also problematic. It would have been especially easy for the minister — if he were indeed able to comply with the Cypriot Agreement — to come here without a doubt to say when the royal decree will appear. However, he can’t do that at the moment, and this worries us. It will, by the way, trigger the necessary reactions on the ground. This will be a pity, because the prison staff performs a ⁇ important function and deserves a little more respect than the way in which the right question of these people is now responded in very sibiline terms. They ask the legitimate question of fulfilling the agreements made not only with words, but also with deeds, knowing that the file is currently blocked by a fundamental disagreement in the government.

Mrs. Peters, would you like to speak on the next point? You asked me that later.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement concerning the medium-sized sector.

I asked if the Minister of Medium-State could be present here around 16:30. I will let him see where he is before I finish the general discussion. I will begin the article-by-article discussion and ask where Mr. Daems is.

I have to have the minister.

June 26, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the general discussion, I would like to draw attention to my amendment 20 that, in our opinion, the majority was wrongly rejected. That amendment was aimed at increasing the subsidies to the Nuclear Energy Study Centre, which the government wanted to further reduce in budgetary control. The subsidies and the reduction of subsidies continue permanently during the purple-green legislature. During previous budgets, including this year’s budget, the resources were not reduced, but additional contracts were entrusted to the center without providing additional appropriations. Interestingly, while the departments for large operating costs receive indexations, this remains limited to the investment costs for the Nuclear Energy Study Centre. However, it is faced with increasing staff loads. There is not only discrimination against the other departments, but also against the Institute for Radio Elements whose subsidies are indexed.

The purpose of my amendment is to eliminate discrimination and index subsidies. These are investments in safety, the environment and employment, especially as high-radioactive waste is also being shipped to the region. The policy of the purple-green government, including the current budget control, makes it very unattractive for young researchers to invest in science. The government is playing with fire on the future energy supply and our security. That is why I submitted this amendment.

Mr. Verherstraeten, I can begin the article-based discussion only tomorrow, as the Justice section continues tomorrow afternoon in agreement with Minister Verwilghen and Mr. Van Parys. So you immediately defended your amendment during the general discussion.

Mr. Minister, I have a comment on Article 2.33.1. The Government has submitted Amendment No. 2 concerning the one-off allowance for eligible unemployed pilots. That allowance shall be granted as a one-off payment for the costs of renting a flight simulator for a session of no more than two hours prior to passing a proficiency test or the proficiency test for the purpose of obtaining, renewing or re-validating a multi-pilot aircraft type certificate.

Mr. Minister, I have submitted a sub-amendment to extend the one-off allowance granted to eligible unemployed pilots to include, firstly, the ex-pilots of exSabena and CityBird who have accepted a different job to survive, but who still wish to retain their flight license and possibly later still wish to become a pilot, and, secondly, the pupil pilots of the ninth promotion of the Sabena Flight Academy.

First, let me address the unemployed ex-pilots. Mr. Minister, the Royal Decree of 13 March 2002 sets out the conditions that unemployed pilots of the ex-Sabena and CityBird must meet in order to benefit from the one-time premium for the use of the flight simulators. The Royal Decree prescribes that, in order to be eligible for the premium, one must prove to be unemployed at the time of application. The result is that those who want to maintain their flight license are better unemployed, which is unfair to the ex-pilots who have accepted a different job for the bread and still have dreams of becoming a pilot again.

Mr. Minister, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Arens interrogated Mr. Durant on this subject in the Infrastructure Committee of 22 May 2002. Minister Durant replied that the condition of being unemployed has consequences that are contrary to the intended goal, namely the reintegration of the former pilots into their former occupation. Then the Minister — I will read from the report of the committee, more specifically the green document — ....

Mrs Creyf, the green documents are very useful. This is the comprehensive report. Mr. Tant subsequently gave a verbal statement from Mr. Van Hoorebeke, thanking for the good functioning of our services in this regard. I thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, their work is ⁇ not without importance, they are very good documents and I would like to use them now. Their

by Ms. Dur answered this: "From then on, I gave the instruction to adapt as soon as possible the Royal Decree of 13 March 2002. The aim is to avoid penalizing pilots who have accepted a temporary employment for various reasons, including financial. Thus, I will make the desired modifications because this condition is discriminatory and has perverse consequences.”

Ms Durant thus says that she would immediately work on the amendment of the Royal Decree of 13 March 2002, as she acknowledges that the fact that the one-off allowance is given only to eligible unemployed has a “effect discriminatory” and “des conséquences perverses”. I would like to refer to this text. Mrs Durant made this statement explicitly. Their

We now note that there is nothing to be found in the amendment and that the amendment of the government concerns only the unemployed who are entitled to benefits. The promise of Ms Durant is therefore not in line with what the government now proposes in the budget adjustment, as the one-off allowance remains limited to eligible unemployed persons. Their

That is why we submitted this amendment. Based on the statement of Minister Durant, we request that the one-time allowance for the use of flight simulators be extended to the expilots — not the beneficiaries — of ex-Sabena and exCity Bird.

The second extension we ask for is this for the pupil-pilots of the 9th promotion. Ms Durant has said in this regard that she has no budget for this, but that, if the government is willing to provide her with a budget, she would like to do something for those pupil-pilots of the 9 promotion. On the situation of the 80 pupil-pilots of the 9 the promotion of the Sabena Flight Academy I interviewed all involved government members. These young people have followed Phase 1 and Phase 2 of their training. Phase 3 would take place at Sabena but was made impossible due to bankruptcy. These people also face the problem of renewing the flight license. Because they also still have a Belgian flight license, they must renew every 6 months, which is difficult if you do not fly, which is difficult if you do not have a job and, in addition, it is a costly matter after the heavy investments that you have already made, of course.

Mr. Minister, therefore we also ask for them the one-time premium to be able to renew their license and maintain their skills, their flight skills. Of all the package promised by the government to these pupil pilots, this would be only a very minimal satisfaction, but it would be at least a satisfaction for some 80 young people who have ⁇ much of their training and are now facing the problem of ⁇ ining their flight license.

Mr. Speaker, I can still say that the Minister did not accept our amendment, but I am glad to inform you that our amendment and our defence have been heard by the VLD group, which explicitly and verbally supported us in the committee and abstained at the vote.

Mr. Van Rompuy, your kindness will be praised even more in your group if Mr. Hendrickx can also say a few words.

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the kindness of Mr. Van Rompuy is infinite. Their

Since then, there has been a very long discussion about an important group in the framework of security, namely the police. I would like to talk about the other group that is always forgotten, namely the firefighters. Both in the committee and in the plenary session, I spoke about firefighters. I fell off my socks when important credits for the operation of the fire department were reduced. It has been three years since this government team is in power. In the initial government statement, nothing was said about the firefighters. Minister Duquesne has played panic football several times, for example after the Enschede disaster. Then he suddenly came up with a proposal that only lived 14 days and that after a threat of a demonstration was immediately removed. He promised to set up working groups. Those working groups have not yet achieved any results. On the contrary, the unrest in the fire department and in the civil protection is growing with the day.

Last week you should read in The Financial Economic Time that there is still no solution for the holiday fee of the firefighters. In the Lambermont Agreement, firefighters were forgotten as always, and now it is not clear whether this is federal or regional.

I will then come to the amendments we had submitted and which were rejected in the committee. We want to maintain them. On the one hand, everyone, including a large number of members of the majority, complains that firefighters have to work with completely outdated equipment and that one is not equipped to work expertly. Right now, the proposals implement a linear savings for the purchase of equipment by the firefighters. The investment credit decreases by as much as 30%. How can firefighters perform their functions if they cannot purchase equipment?

On the other hand, it is also true that the expenditure allocated to the municipalities and to the operation of the service 100 is reimbursed in the same way. The service 100 must, of course, be able to function normally and that means that costs are transferred from the federal government to the municipalities. There is also a linear decrease.

Our third proposal relates to a credit reduction of EUR 2,121, which was intended to expand the national information network and to connect the fire and safety services to it. It is said that the bills of Belgacom have been too high in the previous years. The compensation is that you do not receive this credit now. I am afraid that today or tomorrow we will experience a catastrophe in Belgium. There is no material and no solid formation while there is dissatisfaction even in the fire department. Just at that moment, you consider it necessary to reverse these credits while in fact you should have provided for an increase in the credits in order to equip the fire department in a normal way. We deeply regret this and urge once again to accept these amendments. We hope that you will give the firefighters the opportunity to perform their yet so important function in a modern and contemporary way. If we face a catastrophe tomorrow, we will be asked who is responsible for it. We can give that answer immediately today.

Mr. Van Rompuy said he would focus primarily on the economic aspect. I do not want to discuss the individual amendments here, I have already responded to them in the committee. However, I would like to give two answers to Mr. Pieters. First, when one begins to cleanse out, then all that is good and well. However, one must continue to purify and finally one comes to theoretical accounts. I give an example. If we look at the situation in 2001, we find that VAT refunds in 2001 increased very strongly due to the very strong increase in exports in 2000. If we look at the evolution of the primary balance, this means that the ratio of VAT in 2000 and 2001 was actually not correctly displayed. This should be completely re-calculated. A number of elements can be taken out of it, and it should also be done theoretically.

The Institute of National Accounts has today published the final budget figures for 2001. This means that the primary balance in 2000 was 6.9% and in 2001 6.9%. If I take into account – in Belgian francs – with 30 billion, namely 20 billion of UMTS and 10 billion of the one-off sales, we are still at a primary balance of 6.6% in 2001. Let us be honest and not account for a one-off case: we have already accounted for something in the past. A primary balance of 6.9% in 2001 seems to me a fairly good result with a growth of 1%. The final surplus of claims is not 0.2 as we had very cautiously announced, but 0.4. This means that we are fully fulfilling the goal we set at the beginning of the year. The target was 0.2 plus UMTS. 0.2 plus UMTS is 0.4. According to the Institute of National Accounts, with the growth of 1% we have effectively achieved that original target of 0.4. I would like to emphasize that.

If we are very objective, one can have the criticism before 2000, including due to the attractive growth of the economy, that some spending has evolved faster. I will not deny that they have spent more. In 1999, we were able to keep it under good control. In 2000, I think there was a little more spent, unless one looked at it very closely. I think that for 2001 and 2002 we must say that with a 1% growth we have remained ⁇ well on schedule. That is better than expected. Two times a year with 1% and go to a balance — to 0.1 — and the following year with a growth of 1% still have a result that one surpasses 0.4, there must be the courage to say that we have performed stronger than one can normally expect. I accept the criticism that in 2000 one may have gone a little too far, but if one looks at the figures, one must say that in 2001 this was heavily corrected. This is also an achievement that is not insignificant.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I did not have much to say about the budget because Mr. Pieters has already done it and we have already done it so many times in the past that the added value of it is not at risk of being large. I would rather talk about the economic situation and side by side about some aspects of public finances.

The first concerns are about the situation as we experience it today nationally and internationally. The National Bank’s Conjuncture Barometer is excellent in predicting the evolution and also enjoys a great international reputation, because if it goes well in Belgium, it goes well in the rest of Europe. This has been confirmed in an observation of recent years. That conjuncture barometer, which has an excellent reputation, should be approached almost as cautiously as opinion polls. You should never make two mistakes. It is always necessary to distinguish between a underlying factor that one is exploring and phenomena on the edge that can distort it. A second precautionary measure to be taken, even when looking at conjuncture barometers such as opinion polls, is that one should extrapolate for hats. One must be careful if it goes well to draw through the lines as if nothing can happen to us in the next years, or, if it goes bad, that one ends up in some sort of depression in the next years.

Mainly in 1999 and 2000, not only on the side of the government, but also among the social partners, it was thought that the economy would grow in the following eight years, as happened in America. During the Clinton period, there has been an uninterrupted rise in economic activity for 8 years. It was thought that this would be the case here too, and therefore there was a bruised end, a time before September 11, 2001. Even now we need to be careful. If I hear some rulers, as it used to be called, one sits very quickly back in the "everything comes back" scenario, with an economic growth of around 3% in the coming years and so on.

I said this to the Minister during the break. I was personally quite surprised that the bank’s conjuncture barometer rose so suddenly in the first months of the year. That did not correspond with the perception I had in the field and the echoes that reached me from the world of entrepreneurs. It is not surprising that this barometer has been working on a small dip in the last two months. There remains a fundamental uncertainty in economic life, not only in us, but also in the countries around us. This results in a weakening investment behavior. This, of course, results in great caution when recruiting employees. Normally, employment follows the resumption of the conjuncture with a time gap of 6 to 9 months, but that is ⁇ not the case at the moment. Companies remain very careful when recruiting new people.

There is also a great hesitation among consumers. It is driven by two factors. The first factor is the reports in recent weeks, day after day, on the international level, as well as from multinational companies in our country, about deposits, sometimes of hundreds at a time, even in companies that are not even losing. There is a strong correlation between consumer confidence and employment. Additionally, the stock market, which we all have done so much for people to reinvest in it, has such a decline behind it that the confidence in it has almost completely disappeared. One returns to fixed, certain values in the broad sense of the word.

Consumer confidence and investment are characterized by a very high level of uncertainty. This is also the case in the United States. If the President of the United States says every three months that there will be a new attack, then one should not expect that the consumer will be ⁇ eager to make new purchases. In the United States, where equity ownership is so much more widespread, the decline of the stock market is experienced even more than here. Remember that the decline of the stock market — we didn’t even have to read today’s newspapers for that — is such that one is back at the level of just after September 11th. In any case, one is now experiencing the impact of the huge overinvestments that have occurred in a number of sectors. These over-investments have made the financial situation of the companies ⁇ vulnerable, especially when the economy goes somewhat less well.

In Europe, many have thought that there is a disconnection between the American and European economies — we are saving it here and in the United States it is now going badly — as the opposite was thought until a while ago. We are not only living in a globalization of real markets, we are also living in a globalization of psychological markets. Through the global network and mainly through radio and television, a shift in the mood of consumers and producers in the United States has also affected this. This cannot be denied. There are no shots; there is no disconnection. There is an enormous cord between Europe and the United States.

In addition, there is a major additional problem in Europe, in particular the structural problem of the German economy. The German economy — not only after the Wiedervereinigung — has in recent years, since the end of the Kohl period, not sufficiently adapted to the new data of the world economy. On many levels, the country shows a lack of adaptability and that weighs — 20 percent of the European economy is German — on the entire European Union. I learn from this that the government must be ⁇ cautious when formulating economic growth expectations for the 2003 budget. For 2001, I was right in my caution. This has been removed at the time, but I advise you to practice the virtue of caution in the preparation of the 2003 budget. In recent days we have heard more about these uncertainties. A month or fourteen days ago, one was still a pessimist. Today everyone is in the same vote.

I have a second set of considerations in the same economic section. A number of elements of policy play a role in assessing the overall economic situation. I give you, briefly, five or six elements.

First of all, I would like to point out the problem of the competitiveness of our business, which has been affected in the last two years, as all agencies show. Compared to the three neighboring countries, we have a departure of about 1% per year in recent years. This means that before the autumn negotiations on the next interprofessional agreement, one is facing an impossible task. This agreement must restore the departure. If one knows that one has an annual wage space of no more than 1 percent — for the next two years therefore 2 percent — and the departure of the previous period is 2 percent, one can imagine what the space is. There is no such space, but it is never negotiated. There is undoubtedly a problem for the IPA in autumn. This will be on the board of the government. Everyone knows that the law on competitiveness is difficult to handle. We used them once in 1993, but that wasn’t 9 months before the elections. This was at the beginning of the legislature.

Secondly, there is not only a problem of competitiveness, but also of profitability of companies. This depends on the investment pattern. Investments are very closely correlated with the profitability of the companies. The gross operating deficit of the companies will be zero this year. There is no growth after growth over the past years of around 7 to 8 percent.

The corporate tax reform is actually not an element that will give a new schwung to the investment amount. This was known almost in advance. In a zero operation, there is someone who pays and someone who receives. The payers are chasing you and the recipients are not grateful to you. At first, the government planned to pay the small ⁇ , but the gun was changed from shoulder to shoulder. The big companies are now paying. There is the end of the story and the lobby — once the law is dealt with in the Finance Committee — is not yet in sight. I have never paid much attention to the reduction of the nominal rate of corporate tax. If one knows which tax specialists have medium-sized and large enterprises, one also knows that they do not get sand in their eyes when they are depicted reduced nominal rates, but they still see a negative balance in the actual calculation — after the abolition of all sorts of deductions.

I do not think they suffer from the fiscal illusion. For this, they are too well armed, not only the top but also the subtop.

The third determination of the disappointments, in addition to profitability and competitiveness, is the social burden relief. It was said that there would be a first enlightenment and that it would be accelerated. There would also be a second one. No second came. According to the National Bank and the High Council for Employment, the first burden relief has taken place in income increases. I know that the VBO disputes this. However, the official bodies are on the same wavelength. This is one reason to hesitate.

The next issue is the increasing regulation. The VBO has issued a brochure stating that it must end the “bullying of employers”. I am not the one who thinks that every brochure is worth quoting. However, it indicates an atmosphere that is also felt on the ground. The reduction of the administrative burden should be 10% after 2 years, 25% after 4 years. The Planning Bureau says that the administrative burden has not decreased but increased! This weighs on our small and medium-sized enterprises. 18% say the government is keeping its promises. The rest say that the government does not keep its promises! That is a significant sign that has to do with deceived expectations regarding social, fiscal and administrative burdens. If one makes an index of the European Union’s Lisbon Process, one should not be surprised that our country gets only 38% — a thick tube. Even new initiatives such as profit participation do not succeed. A statistic on the subject from the Limburg language, which I assume is correct, shows that only 6% of companies use it. It was so before too. This reform has not brought the expected results.

A third set of considerations deals with the dangers for the future. I will cut a third. First, the energy policy. Theoretically, nothing is as easy as abolishing and phasing out the importation of nuclear energy between 2010 and 2025. The only problem is that they do not know how to complete this. It is not a few windmills along the Flemish coast that will provide compensation of more than 50%, almost 60% of the electricity production in our country. Nuclear power is being eliminated, but it is not stated how to replace it. This is one of the most irresponsible economic decisions made in recent years. I wick my words.

The combination of abolishing nuclear energy and enforcing the Kyoto standards is another aberration. They make it very difficult for themselves. We already find it very difficult to meet the Kyoto standards because our country has a very energy-intensive activity. Then I’m not talking about the basic discussion regarding nuclear energy. One makes a decision without having an alternative. A decision on nuclear energy is made that makes one fully committed to sustainable development, especially in terms of CO2 emissions.

I go further. That weighs on the prices. The green electricity policy, which imposes fines for insufficient alternative energy development, could lead to price increases in Flanders and Wallonia from 2.6% at the moment to 8% in 2010.

In the case of Wallonia, it is ⁇ 16%. More expensive energy, only because of this aspect, because I am not talking about the moment when one would completely eliminate nuclear energy and replace it with more expensive energy sources. I am therefore not surprised by what the Central Council for Business teaches me: since 1999, electricity prices in Belgium have risen more sensitively than in the countries around us. So far, the issue of energy.

The same issue applies to the business and the mobility economy. If we look at the consequences of the intended goals there, we see that now less is invested in the Rail than in the last years of the Dehaene government when it needed to be repaired. The effort for public transport has been reduced rather than increased. I am from Brussels. What is the 8 billion spent on the famous regional express network, the famous RER? There has not yet been established a frank. I am not even talking about the reform of the NMBS. We know what a giant price one is paying for one party-political manoeuvre being the removal of the delegated executive. In the end, it is all about that. The stability of this company has been removed.

In terms of the file problem there is, in addition to a social problem, also an economic problem. There is no coherent plan to combat the files. This, of course, also relates to the extremely weak Minister of Transport that "we" have and you have and who has not been able to bring forward a mobility plan. I am talking not only about the individual traveler, but also about the economic life in general.

The last issue I would like to address is the problem of the ageing population. Mr. Pieter also pointed out this. There are at least two methods — there are others — to give an answer. I think that in both areas we have not performed ambitiously enough or even underweightly. The first level covers the active welfare state, a word that I have not heard in months. If I look at the figures, I can see that this year’s employment rate has fallen for the first time since 1994. There have been years of 1% growth in the 1990s, but then followed by a straight increase in the employment rate. Today, with that 1% growth, there is a decline. If I look at the employment achieved by point economic growth, then we perform there in the last 4 years less than the countries around us. If I look at the part-time labour that we had brought from about 14% in 1992 to about 20% in 2000, I see for the very first time in 10 years trimester per trimester a decrease in the number of part-time workers. This, however, is the means of achieving the combination of care, family and work. Therefore, the positive movement of the employment rate has been interrupted. If I look at the level of activity — the number of workers plus the number of unemployed over the number of people in working age — I see that it has increased less in the last two years than in the last two years. There is no trend breaking to be established. In both the level of employment and the level of activity, I do not notice anything of the thematized concept of the active welfare state.

I will continue to talk about the active welfare state and the favour of longer and at least more work. This is a problem, not only for now but also for the future. At the Barcelona summit, a decision was made that, if one takes it seriously, it requires almost a small revolution — if not I suspect that one has simply taken it —: the effective retirement, i.e. the effective retirement age, must be increased by five years between now and 2010. This has been supported by our government and all other European governments. You need to know exactly what that means. The actual retirement age is now just below 60 years. That is, between now and 2010—one deep breath and one is there—that age should be increased by five years.

I assume that one should not start the first year, and ⁇ not the first year before the elections, for that I have all understanding — so wise we are still. If one wants to continue during the next period, one will have to have a slightly more thorough program than it is now. If I look at the balance of the active welfare state in global figures, that is not so glorious.

The High Council for Employment has said, by the way, that it is necessary to be more ambitious in terms of the employment participation of older people. He advocates for additional measures, and you know that it is an institution that wraps and weighs her words when she writes a text. It is, by the way, the Minister of Labour who is the chairman of the High Council for Employment, but nevertheless the Council shows a certain sense of independence. The concept of Barcelona will persecute us for a long time, at least if one takes it seriously.

In the same track of population aging, there is also the preparation of the great costs of aging — which my colleague also talked about — in the form of health care and pensions, in addition to all other elements that can play a big role. We are not only for an ageing population, but above all for a reduction in the working age.

I come to the structural primary surplus according to the definition of the National Bank, and that is all I wanted to say regarding the budget. You rightly say that one cannot deduct everything, because in the long run that wants to say nothing more. However, I have not invented that addition and deduction myself: it comes from the annual report of the Bank; it does not even come from a misplaced opposition drive. If I look at those structural changes in 2001 and 2003, I see a deterioration of the structural primary surplus, after the outcome of the conjuncture and after the one-off measures, of approximately 0.6%. Even if I would assume that improvement...

I know, I have seen those numbers too. But the Institute for National Accounts says that the primary balance remained the same: in 2000 6.9% and in 2001 6.9% in a situation where in 2000 there was a growth of 4% and in 2001 of 1%, although 0.3% are added to one-off measures.

But you have one-time measures every year.

I assume that there is a deterioration of 0.3% due to the one-off measures. The 6.9%-6.9% is therefore actually 6.9%-6.6%, if I completely disregard the one-off measures in 2001 and I am superorthodox and taking into account the fact that the conjuncture that was still 4% in 2000 is now only 1% and the primary balance drops from 6.9% to 6.6%.

A structural reduction of 0.6% is, in my opinion, almost impossible, if I look at the figures of the Institute for the National Accounts.

Mr. Minister, the figures of the Institute of National Accounts show an improvement compared to the initial figures of 0.2%. There is a primary surplus, initially estimated at 6.7%. According to your judgment of sonet, that surplus rises to 6.9%.

I didn’t look at it, but let’s assume that 0.2% increase is a structural increase. I do not know where that increase comes from, but I think it is not structural but one-off.

Even if that increase would be structural, I will give them a gift to you. In that case, you do not have a deterioration of 0.6% but a deterioration of 0.4%. I did not make those calculations. For 2001 for example, you have 0.5% of one-off factors. The estimate refers to a change in one-off factors of 0.5% of GDP. However, that improvement in the balance is taken into account in the calculation of the structural balance. There are not only conjunctural factors. For that one year, you already have 0.5% of the count.

Even if the current improvement of 0.2% would be a structural improvement, it is all considered to have reduced the level of the primary surplus compared to 1999. You can check it. This leads me to conclude that reducing public debt is less sustainable than thought. I agree with the judgment of colleague Pieters, saying that the Silver Fund, which should finance the structural expenditure, is, in my opinion, too much fed by random or one-off income. I said this in an interview. For one time, I will quote myself. I know that some members of the government cited themselves earlier and then made the coherence of their decisions dependent on their last interview, but the names of those members I will mention after the meeting.

I did not say that the public finances are going to disappear. It is not about that. The question, however, lies: is it ambitious enough to be able to sustain the great goal of being prepared for the ageing population? This test will be repeated in 2003. The Planning Office and other agencies — the sources to which we often rely, give the same figures — announce that, if nothing happens, there will again be a deficit of 0.3% of the national income. However, you need to make up for a surplus of 0.5%. So you have to bridge a gap of about 0.8% of gross domestic product. I know that there are always opportunities to do it in a sympathetic way without hurting too many people. Nevertheless, it becomes difficult if you should face a surplus of 0.8% of the gross domestic product.

That is what I wanted to say about the dangers of the future in terms of energy policy and mobility. Of these two domains I see no coherent plan or any developed vision with opposing resources. There was the concept of the active welfare state and the Silver Fund. With the numbers in hand, however, I prove my thesis that there is no trend break in the active welfare state. Public debt does not discharge, but there is insufficient structural preparation to bear those huge costs on us.

My decision is the following. The policy, which, of course, must work in an international environment that I have just characterized, lacks long-term objectives in the domains I have listed. If long-term goals are set, they must also be realistic, so that they are also credible.

The core of the problem – and that is becoming increasingly clear in recent weeks and months – is that the gap between, on the one hand, expectations, promises of all kinds of the government as a whole and of individual ministers at the federal and Flemish level, and, on the other hand, achievements – people do not make a distinction therein – brings confusion and a lack of certainty and coherence. It is enough to have contact with the economic life to make sure of it within five minutes. Those who deny this have insufficient contacts. There is no need for a culture of debate. The time has passed for people to be taxed on their words. Results are needed in policy. However, results are not seen in some areas. That was masked by the conjuncture in the first one and a half years, but it has gradually become clear that there are gaps in policy. Reconciliation with politics does not come by using words, but by achieving results. We have to wait another year for the change, but the change will come.

Indeed, we should look at the actions and not the words. If we look at the results announced today — not to mention that a significant single income in 2001 was deliberately ignored — we can say that we have corrected the downward economic situation in 2001, which we, together with many others, had initially estimated more positively. The result is that we have reached the target we had initially set out from a good economic situation in a bad economic situation: with a growth of 1% contrary to the predicted growth of 2% to 2,5%, we have nevertheless reached the predicted surplus of 0.4%. This must be emphasized.

A lot has been said about the outcome. In September 2001, we stood at a deficit of 20 to 30 billion. I remember the prediction that there would be a shortage. Everyone said there would be an enormous deficit in 2001. The truth is that we reached the 0.4%. Despite the words of September and October, the actions of today show that we have succeeded. I hope that there will be no change. I hope that people will continue to look at the actions that show that we are doing hard what we had planned. We have completely corrected our own erroneous assessment of the economic conjuncture — we could not do so with 9/11; many, by the way, have been mistaken —.

With a surplus of 0.4% this year, we can stop a sum in the Silver Fund. This is not yet structured, because the law is only entering into force. In any case, almost all of our surpluses have been reserved for the Silver Fund. We can also write that on our account this year.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about a dossier that I have discussed in the committee with the Minister and that I would like to draw attention to.

Which Minister have you talked to?

I spoke with the Deputy Prime Minister. I would also like to ask some questions to Minister Daems, but I would like to postpone them until the article-based discussion of tomorrow. Their

The Minister of Budget will remember that a few weeks ago I had requested his arbitration in a conflict between the gentlemen Daems and Flahaut, in connection with the odyssey of the staff of the radio maritime services, the so-called "Radio Oostende".

I have known these services well.

Mr. Speaker, the fate of the staff also concerns the minister, as so many things in my region concern the minister, and sometimes I see it with sad eyes. In this case, I must note that, although the problems of these people go to the minister’s heart, this does not prevent us from having, after two or three years — even during the previous legislature, the situation was not evident — for a very long time, therefore, faced with problems that, on the individual level, occur in those families and begin to take large proportions. I would like to clarify to the large crowd of listeners-colleagues that it is about the benefits that these people could get from the social service and which they were entitled to with their previous employer. Mr. Coveliers would like to interrupt, Mr. Speaker.

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, these benefits were granted by the social service, in accordance with the statute at the time and especially in accordance with the previous legal relationship between the radio maritime services on the one hand and the VZW Pro Sano — what’s in a name? on the other side. This VZW fulfils the role of the social service for staff members. It is about additional school fees and a number of other matters, such as a hospital insurance and so on. Their

Between the ministers Daems and Flahaut there has been controversy about who ultimately had to "pay" as a minister and on whose credits the expenses should be charged. Note, it is a sum of backstakes, spread over a period of up to one and a half years, which for the families represents an amount of several thousand francs, or hundreds of euros. I just received a letter from the Minister of Defence saying that, as far as he is concerned, the shirt is over. These people do not receive the benefits because they are integrated as staff members in the Ministry of Land Defense.

The Minister had announced in a committee — for various reasons a number of agreements could not continue — that he took the case to heart and that he would consult with his services to find a solution. On behalf of the people, whose fate concerns both the minister and myself, I would like to ask again in this plenary session what the state of affairs is and I would like to call on the minister to act as a budgetary arbitrator between the ministers Damens and Flahaut, in order to reach a solution as soon as possible, which will give our regional counterparts, Mr. Minister, which they ultimately have a right.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question and the meeting was postponed, for reasons you know, and will continue on 1 July 2002, the following Monday.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, in addition to the article-by-article discussion that I will conclude tomorrow and where a number of colleagues have already defended their amendments, I think of the gentlemen Goyvaerts and Hendrickx, Verherstraeten and Mrs. Creyf, the Department of Justice will be discussed tomorrow. We had a good discussion, with several interruptions. Do you want to intervene now?

Mr. Speaker, I intervened when the questions urged me to do so.

That is right. I interrupt the general discussion. The general discussion will continue tomorrow. After the questionnaire, we will start with the Justice Department. This is agreed with colleague Verwilghen who is detained in the Senate. Then follows the article-by-article discussion, where you may still be able to speak.

I refer to the written report.

June 26, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the committee has held several meetings dedicated to discussing the adjustment of the budget. The introductory presentation by Mr Didier Reynders, Minister of Finance, can be divided into three parts.

In the first part, which was devoted to the economic development, the international aspects were discussed. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the world economy has started a recovery during the first half of this year. This resumption of the conjuncture is already visible in several regions, such as the United States of America and Japan. In the eurozone, a sharp economic recovery has also begun. The recovery of the world economy would gradually gain strength and for 2003 the IMF forecasts a growth of 4%. Both the OECD and the European Commission forecast a real growth of Belgian GDP of 1.1% and the IMF forecasts an increase of 0.9%.

In the second part, the Minister dealt with the revision of the estimate of revenue. Total revenues are estimated at EUR 79.153,2 million, which means an increase of EUR 561,1 million, resulting from a downward revision of EUR 571,6 million in total tax revenues and a upward revision of EUR 1.132,7 million in total non-fiscal revenues.

In the third and final part of his presentation, the Minister talked, among other things, about the evolution of the net balance to be financed, the government debt and the Maastricht debt. At the end of 2001, the national debt amounted to 257.16 billion euros. The direct and indirect debt borne by the federal government is by far the largest component of the consolidated gross public debt: 107,5% of GDP at the end of 2001 on the so-called Maastricht debt. In 2003, for the first time since 1982, the debt will be lower than GDP and the debt rate will fall to 88.6% by 2005.

In the presentation of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget, Mr Johan Vande Lanotte, it was also stated that the initial budget for 2002 was drawn up in very difficult circumstances. However, it remains the ambition of the government to ⁇ a budget balance this year, and for the third time. At the same time, the Government will implement the measures to reduce the fiscal and para-fiscal pressure and to increase the social benefits. Public debt will continue to decline to 104.5% of GDP, without taking into account special one-off revenues.

However, the maintenance of the budgetary balance is not so evident, first, due to the downward revised growth expectations of 0.9% of GDP growth, second, because the realised revenue for 2001 is below the initial estimated budget of 2002 of 480 million euros, and third, due to the premature exceeding of the pivot index. The main event is the financing of the European Communities: the Belgian contribution has been reduced by 300 million euros.

As agreed in the Stability Programme 2002-2005, the Government aims to gradually build a substantial budget surplus and accelerate the reduction of public debt. The expected economic recovery will have a positive impact on employment only by the end of this year.

Compared to last year, federal government tax revenues rose by only 1.9%. The tax burden will be reduced from 28.2% to 27.8% of GDP. The reasons for this are, first, the compensation for the progressive abolition of the additional crisis contribution, and, secondly, the impact of the reform of the personal tax.

As regards non-fiscal revenues, there is a very strong increase in cash revenues compared to the initial budget. In social security, social contributions increased from 32.75 billion euros in 2001 to 33.77 billion euros, or by 3.1%.

The Court of Auditors combined its comments and comments on the draft adjustment of the State Budget of 2002. All members of the committee received a copy. The Minister of Budget has answered these comments point-by-point, but these are technical matters that I will not address. I refer to the report in question.

During the general discussion, colleague Dirk Pieters discussed a number of observations from the Court of Auditors on the reform of the police, its financial implications for the municipalities and the government’s budgetary policy. The Minister argued, inter alia, that the primary expenditure had not increased and that the Court of Auditors’ conclusions in this regard were therefore incorrect.

At a few specific questions from colleague Goyvaerts, the minister replied that it is intended to use fixed scanners in Antwerp to engage the struggle against the large fraud carrouses.

The minister also referred to the so-called Silver Note, which will be released in September 2002.

After two general comments, colleague Leterme asked the Minister a series of precise questions. Among other things, the minister illustrated the evolution of the debt rate and briefly explained the idea of the anchor principle at Justice.

The committees for Justice, Social Affairs and Home Affairs issued their respective positive opinions.

The Committee adopted several amendments of the Government on the adjustment of the general expenditure budget. The adjustment of the general expenditure budget for 2002 was adopted with eight votes in favour and three votes against. The adjustment of the Rijksmiddelen budget for 2002 was adopted with eight votes in favour, one vote against and two abstentions.

The following speakers are registered for the general discussion. Mr. Tante would like to speak in particular about the police. Mr. Pieters will give a general presentation, as does Mr. Viseur. Mr. Van Rompuy will hold a macro-economic explanation, while Mr. De Crem will deal with defence. Ms D'Hondt will speak on pensions and police, Mr Leterme on buildings and Mr Hendrickx on the amendments. Finally, Mr. Chabot will speak. Mr Goyvaerts is still presenting himself for the general discussion.

Since Mr. Tant still likes to go to his committee meeting and yet wanted to talk only about the police, I will give him the first word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will limit myself to just a few points related to the problem of financing the reorganization of the police.

First of all, I would like to talk about a point that may erroneously give the impression of being a significant savings in the budget of the Minister of Home Affairs. I aim at a so-called saving of a sum of 128 million euros for the federal police budget. At the committee meeting, I had an exchange of views with the Minister on this issue. As I could read in the report, it is well known to you that it is about transferring the pensions of the police officers to the fund established in the meantime. For those who try to understand this all as well as possible, I must make a few critical observations. Indeed, the overall budget of the federal police decreases in the budget by at least 118 million euros or 8.3%. This decrease is caused by a decrease in personnel expenditure by 128 million, of which 48,5 million is a decrease in the grant to the municipalities for the social benefit of police personnel. In other words, through the system of funds, the federal government is actually pushing out at least part of the problem in the future. However, the same treatment does not apply to municipalities.

The Court of Auditors rightly points out that we are dealing with what it calls “an irresponsible transition to the future and to the social security”.

I do not see in the budget so far any feed for the pension fund of the integrated police. I will come back to that later. While the municipalities scream for a correct compensation for the surplus costs of the police reform, the federal government today again saves 128 million euros or more than 5 billion Belgian francs by shifting the pension spending into the future. The gap created in the RSZ-PPO must be compensated by the employee’s social security so that, as the Court of Auditors notes, the cost of the operation must ultimately be at least borne by the employee’s social security system. It is good that the colleagues who will approve the budget amendment later, in whatever banks they are located, are aware of it. In any case, the government must provide clarity about the operation and how it will tax the future.

Mr. Minister, I quote from the report on Section 17 Federal Police and Integrated Operation, Organization Section 17.90 — Federal Subsidy and Federal Support, which concerns the pension fund of the integrated police: "In this purpose, the alternative financing of social security will be increased by EUR 10,460,000 from 2002 onwards. However, it should be added that this increase will also be compensated repeatedly from 2002 by a corresponding reduction in the amount of the overall contribution paid by the State to the social security of the workers. This situation means that the financing operation of the above-mentioned additional expenditure in fine will not be borne by the State, but will de facto be borne by the system of social security of the workers. By adding to this reduction the additional withholding on the proceeds of the salary measurement contributions, as stipulated in the same article 34 of the bill, the costs of the reform of the police will be borne by the social security of the workers. This will amount to 28.6 million euros. The appeal to an increase in alternative financing, coupled with a reduction in the overall contribution instead of the registration of an additional credit in the organization section 90 — Federal contribution and federal aid, will, besides, have the effect that in the general expenditure budget the additional expenditure permitted by the aforementioned article 15 of the bill will not be reflected."

Therefore, it cannot be called otherwise than debuggettering.

I quote from Section 21 Pensions on page 39: "This implies that the additional expenses for the pensions of the police staff in 2002 are de-budgeted for an estimated amount of 28.4 million euros".

Mr. Minister, I have read your answers, including those that you gave in the committee. I will take your answers here, because this issue has also been addressed in the Committee on Internal Affairs. The colleagues who were present at the time will confirm that I have not received any answers to the comments I made. You are trying to give an answer, Mr. Minister. I quote again from the report, in which you say: "The cost of the entire operation will be up to 28.6 million euros annually for the social security of the workers". This must be strongly nuanced. Nothing was denied. I understand that here and there corrections can be made to the position taken, but you do not wipe the assumption itself out of the table. You also say, Mr. Minister, that it is not at all the intention of debugging spending. Mr. Minister, I return for a moment to a number of provisions of the law which is currently in force and which was published, namely the bill adopted by the Chamber on 7 February 2002 on the establishment of the Integrated Police Pension Fund. This Fund was established as a special service of the Administration of Pensions and is founded with the income of the employer contributions owed by the State and other public services in order to take charge, from 1 April 2001, of the new pensions of the police staff. During the discussion of this draft law, the legislation department of the Council of State raised — this is also interesting — that the said Fund was established in the form of a special service, but without having a legal personality, distinct from that of the Belgian State. Therefore, you cannot say, Mr. Minister, that this is directly about the Belgian State. It is effectively, in the old sense of the word, about a fund. The revenue and expenditure of this fund must be in the state budget and not on a treasury account. The Fund does not have a distinct legal personality.

Following that observation, the Government has amended the draft law by incorporating a provision stipulating that the budget of the Fund — and now it comes, Mr. Minister — is submitted to the House for approval each year as an annex to the general budget of expenditure. The Court of Auditors correctly considers — unless I have missed some matters and in the meantime something has been put on the table — that this condition is not met in the present draft amended budget, despite the importance of the financial flows that will pass through this fund in 2002. On the occasion of the criticism formulated in the committee, the Minister responded that the budget of the Integrated Police Pension Fund for the financial year 2002 will be submitted for approval by amendment. In principle, I note, Mr. Minister, that the attempt to settle such a financially proving matter through a simple amendment is not the best way of working.

As far as I know, this amendment does not exist. It was not submitted and therefore not discussed. Is the amendment still coming? You have made a not insignificant commitment. How far are you going with its concrete implementation? To the extent that this was indeed a formal commitment, it is read here, and as long as this is not on the table, one should think about the opportunity to vote here on the budget amendment as such.

Mr. Minister, the following disturbs very many municipalities who know how the budget and the budget amendment look like. People who don’t know can hear it from me. The government recently decided to extract 25 million euros for the additional costs of police reform. I was looking for a place where I could find this in the budget. I did not find it. I think I know why. If I take note of the figures you have communicated to the different zones, I very quickly come to the conclusion that the so-called 25 additional million euros are not additional, on the contrary. In the figures of my own police zone, the initial amount of the federal subsidy, rounded, was 80 million euros. If I look at the new government note, it is under the same name 70 million euros. It is said that 15 million euros will be added. I will save you the complicated reasoning. In fact, the new coverage in the police’s additional costs — for those who keep the eyes open — is not more than 10% of the actual additional costs. I will illustrate this too. Not on the basis of many theoretical approaches, such as that of the Prime Minister, who yesterday appeared in a questionable, but regulatory, way to the Committee for Home Affairs. Although we agreed to hold a series of interpellations, the word was immediately given to the Prime Minister who gave an introductory presentation for one and a half hours and thus cut off the grass at the feet of the colleagues who had prepared for an interpellation. This is not an Orthodox way of working.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we were both hindered yesterday by other obligations. It is not possible to abuse the absence of the Chairman of the Commission. This is how it goes over. Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you know it better than I do. Colleagues who wished to interpelled were allowed during the afternoon hours and within the strict speaking time of the 10 minutes reserved for a co-interpellant even to try to get into the debate. This is not serious.

Return to the additional 25 million euros. From Mr. Karel Van Hoorebeke, I cannot stay too long with figures. Their

I will return to that later. Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I assume that we will still have a chance to exchange opinions on this. Colleagues, can I pay your attention for a simple account? Most municipalities have taken the cost of their police in the year 2000 as the basis for drawing up their budgets, taking into account the lack of police reform, on the proposal of Minister Van Grembergen — at least for the Flemish province — to increase the cost of their police in the year 2000 by a percentage of twice 5%. Some did not go further. These municipalities all assumed that what came above was the surplus price. That is not illogical. The figures of 2000 plus twice 5% are the normal expenses for the police that would have occurred without the police reform. If one wants to know the surplus price, one must calculate the difference between this figure and the actual cost price. We are now halfway through the year. In our police zone I got it to the point that they made the estimation of the effective cost price. The difference is net approximately 50 million for the entire zone. In fact, the difference is even 57 million, but this explanation would lead us too far. Of these additional costs, the federal government will bear the correction of 5 million. In other words, the federal government has repeated here and in response to oral questions at a lower level every time up to the mourning of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister that the surplus costs are borne by the federal government. Then a trick has been found and the acceptable additional costs have been discussed. I can come into this case if the criterion is that the acceptable surplus costs are the surplus costs arising from decisions taken by the higher government over the heads of municipal mandators. I can still assume that one wants to apply a certain correction. However, reducing the acceptable surplus costs to 10% of the actual surplus costs is farm fraud. I have no other word for that. They make the municipalities wise. They make a commitment that cannot be fulfilled. I will return to that later. Mr. Minister, at least some credibility would have been gained by inserting the €25 million in the amendment budget after the agreement. I repeat, however, that I am afraid that you will not do this because they are not net costs.

Yesterday, Mr. Hendrickx also pointed out the community imbalances that are becoming increasingly pronounced throughout the police reform. I wanted to use this other body to come back to that. I will summarize his figures. The total federal basic subsidy for the police is 19.7 billion francs.

Of this, 9.6 billion francs will go to Flanders, 7.1 billion francs to Wallonia and 3 billion francs to Brussels. It is interesting to convert this into figures per inhabitant. We then establish that Flanders are paid 1.620 francs per inhabitant by the federal government to the local authorities for the payment of everything concerning the police. I repeat: 1,620 francs. For Wallonia, this is 2,133 francs in precise figures. In Brussels, this is much higher, but I am willing to make some corrections there. It is 3,146 francs.

Mr. Minister, you were also present during the previous government when the police reform was discussed. You need to explain me something.

We just followed the KUL standard.

Mr. Minister, the KUL standard was the initial standard on the basis of which each municipality could calculate how much it had to contribute. It has been made clear to us for months, even a few years, that everything would be redirected through, among other things, solidarity mechanisms. Well, Mr. Minister, I now note that, when I look at the account today — I only have the exact figures for our zone — the difference between the new account corrected by 2.5% against the KUL standard, and the account 2000 has not become smaller, but has increased significantly. I can prove this with the numbers. To say to the municipalities that they are addressed step by step by incorporating a greater share of the additional costs is not correct. That is a lie. I assume that the practical application of the KUL standard has as a consequence – I knew this, by the way, for a long time – that some municipalities must pay more and others less more. However, one gives the impression of taking progressively a greater share of the surplus costs, while in fact the opposite happens. That can’t be for me. That is why I say that you mostly hold the municipalities for the lap.

In addition, there is the important community difference that you cannot justify. It has been said that thanks to the police reform a number of imbalances between Flanders and Wallonia would be addressed, insofar as they resulted from the appeal to the National Guard.

The [...]

I will not deny that.

In the past, the difference was much greater. This was corrected, but not to the infinite. After all, one of the important double factors is the size of the municipality on the one hand and tax capacity on the other. The two play together. You are talking about 1,700 and 2,100, but we are largely dealing with different sizes of municipalities that vary substantially. I say more. If we would take East Flanders as a cross section and compare it with the West Corner, the difference would be even greater. The size of a municipality plays a very substantial role, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the financial support plays. That is the difference. If one takes the previous distribution of the national guard over the regions, the difference was greater. This was partially corrected, but mainly for the benefit of the large and medium-sized cities. That is the right approach.

It would be useful to add something to that, Mr. Minister.

The South receives one-third more per capita than the North. You can say that before it was even worse. This is the reasoning that says that one illness can justify the other. We have left the idea, apparently in the midst of the illusion, that that police reform would lead to a greater balance.

It is very simple. Every community should be given the same, and then one must be consistent. Each municipality must contribute equal amounts to its police. How much does each resident in your area pay for the police and how much does each resident in Gent pay for the police? That is three times as much.

If you say that there should be a balance, I agree. Then the federal government will give the same amount for each inhabitant, but on a condition, namely that each inhabitant of the municipality also contributes the same amount. This means that for you and all municipalities with less than 50,000 inhabitants, that amount must be tripled. I think that one cannot. I do not ask that. The average contribution for the area where you live is 2,000 Belgian francs per inhabitant. The average contribution for cities with 60,000, 70,000 inhabitants is 6,000 Belgian francs. If you know that, you will know that you will never reach a balance, whether it is north, south, east or west Flanders, because there the size of the municipality crosses this account. Whether you like it or not, it is indeed true that in the south there are much more substantially small municipalities of 6,000, 7,000 inhabitants where the contribution per inhabitant is smaller, and where therefore the contribution of the federal government is a greater share.

That’s something that can only be solved — and I think you don’t want or can — by substantially asking small communities for a higher contribution from their population. Then we know equality. But you can’t, because those small municipalities can’t bear that. I give you the figures: 2,000 Belgian francs per inhabitant are contributed by the small municipalities; in a city of 70,000 inhabitants, that is between 5,000 and 6,000 Belgian francs per inhabitant. Since 2,000 Belgian francs is not enough to guarantee equal police care across the country, this means that through a number of mechanisms the federal government per definition intervenes more in the small municipalities. In the past it was more, now it is less. Those regions with many small municipalities will indeed receive a greater intervention. This is a mechanism that we cannot change. It has nothing to do with the north-south, but with small and large.

There is an explanation for everything. The question is whether this is the explanation. I would like to confirm that the cause lies only in the difference in scale size. I personally have my doubts about this.

I hope you know that the Whales pay more for their police than the Flammers. That is so.

However, it is useful that this Parliament is clearly aware of this. Moreover because the Prime Minister, among others yesterday in the committee explicitly stated that by the beginning of next year there will be a legal regulation that will fix this once and for all. In so far as he counts on his Minister of Home Affairs to submit that draft time to use, I think you would rather contribute to that for another year, given the concrete experience we have. But this on the side.

It is good that this Parliament knows that soon, by legislative means, a new transfer will be organized from north to south. Whether it is justified or not, I would like to peacefully exchange thoughts with you on this. It is a too cheap explanation, Mr. Minister, to say that is only due to the difference in scale size.

I agree with such a discussion, but then you will have to approve here that you pay more for your police, because the transfer, and I want to tell you very clearly, is from the big cities to the small cities. Your residents pay for that police care themselves 2,000 Belgian francs. The inhabitants of my city pay 5,500 Belgian francs. Do you want to straight it? well well . You will pay more and we will pay less. Those are the scavengers.

If you want to engage in this discussion, I would like to do so.

It is true that the police in the big cities cost much more than in a small rural municipality. However, it is equally true that the security issue poses itself in a completely different way. Why is the police...

The [...]

Ladies and gentlemen, let me speak now. However, it is true that the more urbanized areas are just those areas that also offer more functions with an employment effect. I think, for example, of education and health care, that is to say, areas that have an economic function to fulfill against the whole environment with the merits resulting from it.

Do you have an educational institution in your city? Explain it to me, and above all, the people who work there live in another church.

Wouldn’t it be useful to look at who teaches in a particular city and who lives there?

Mr. Tante, Mr. Van Hoorebeke wishes to interrupt you.

I think you are indeed posing a very important and interesting problem. I agree with you, Mr. Minister of Finance. Today we have very little information about how those transfers "north-south" and "big-small" happen. I hope that later, Mr. Tant, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday, when a draft law will be submitted to definitively legalize that condition – and I hope that we will then be able to insist sufficiently on that – that information will also be provided. Their

Mr. Tant, if it is indeed, as the minister says here, that there is a transfer from the big cities to the small cities, then I think that we should also dare to follow this argument.

It does not matter to me that the citizens who live in the big cities, and who have not chosen insecurity themselves, have to pay more for the police than the citizens who live in smaller municipalities. In fact, citizens from smaller municipalities come shopping, doing culture, and even working in those major cities — these are things that I have no problem with at all — but that should not be at the expense of the tax burden for citizens living in major cities. I think we should have an eye for this. Today we have too little information to assess all of this. I would like to insist on getting correct figures on this matter as soon as possible.

We want to make these figures available for sure: the average amount for a small municipality is almost two thousand francs, the average amount for a municipality with sixty thousand inhabitants and more is between five thousand and six thousand francs. Mr. Tant has said that he has a problem making a transfer from north to south. Once I spoke about a transfer from a city to a smaller municipality, this was no longer a problem for him. The only thing I have said—and I will continue to say it during this discussion—is that I want to participate in this discussion only on one condition. The condition is that you agree to the fact that per resident, including residents of smaller municipalities, a minimum amount is set for the police contribution. This condition means that your contribution will need to be increased. This is the reality and I don’t know if this is good or necessary, but if a discussion is initiated one must also carry it on. I give you the figures: the contributions of 1,700 and 5,600 francs were calculated on the basis of the municipal figures. These figures show what these cities and municipalities, in their respective size, spend on the police. Their

Depending on the municipality where the citizen lives, he has an advantage or disadvantage. Mr. Tante, it is very simple. You live in a more rural environment. Well, there, the residents have to pay less for the police than the city residents. That is the reality today. As a result of the transfers, very small municipalities, for example in the Westhoek, will benefit even more. If you want to change that, that is not a problem for me. However, I think this is not realistic. In my opinion, for example, it is not realistic that in municipalities with 4,000 inhabitants, 4,000 Belgian francs must be paid for the police. Well, you have cited that proposal here. If one does not want it, you cannot say that there is no transfer possible between large and smaller municipalities.

This is about numbers. These are available and are sometimes very clear, especially when it comes to larger and smaller municipalities. If you compare the numbers between the north and the south, you might come to strange conclusions. For example, you will have to conclude that the north spends on average less on its police per capita than the south. There are indeed figures on this.

Mr. Tant, although this is an interesting discussion, I would like to point out that you have been speaking for more than half an hour and that the speaking time was limited to thirty minutes per speaker. Can I ask you to land slowly?

Mr. Speaker, it should be your intention to encourage the debate rather than hinder it.

Do that calm.

Allow me to continue my reasoning.

Not to finish?

Mr. Van Hoorebeke has just repeated what I have already said. I can imagine that he is trying to capture the point, since it is a community theme.In any case, I thank him for re-formulating my position, even if he is trying to put another name under it.

Mr. Minister, I have not said that the difference between the small municipalities and the larger cities is one of the reasons for the greater contributions in the future of the first group and ⁇ the more moderate contributions of the second group. I agree with it. Their

I have said that you indicate this as an explanation for the transfers from the north to the south of the country. This is nattevingerwerk. Mr. Minister, if you have numbers, show them to me, I would like to see them. Their

The Chairman says that we are conducting an interesting debate in which some new elements are addressed. Do you know that a new problem will appear to us in the short term? In some police councils, in addition to the smaller municipalities, there are also provincial cities. For those provincial cities this is not even a detrimental operation, but it is so much for the small, rural municipalities. What will you see happening if you do not do anything about it? The relationships in the police council — which are now relatively good — could have taken a different character. I see this falling on us. I’m not saying you’re responsible for this, but this is one of the new problems due to the new scale size we’re organizing.

I said this to you in the committee three years ago as a criticism of what you then proposed. I predicted that then. That is right.

That is not to mention that this is one of the causes of the tension ratio that exists now and will increase even more brightly in the future. Their

By the way, Mr. Minister, I use these microphones to serve someone who is not here. I am talking about the Prime Minister, who, as has happened many times, constantly has the reflex to nail the small congregations at the pillar of shame and say that in the past they have not done what they should do. This is a lie of the purest karaat. Until recently, it belonged to municipal autonomy to determine how much they would like to spend proportionally on police care, culture or education. Their

This was in itself one of the good criteria on the basis of which the municipalities concrete the administration. They determined the priorities, taking into account geographical characteristics, average ages, and so on. I think of a rural municipality with a pronounced aging population because the students have left to the city. I am linking this discussion to the current debate. They have settled in the city and let the investments of their parents in education and the like return there. Such a small rural municipality has a disproportionately large number of people of any age. It is not illogical that it wants to make an extra effort for this category of population and therefore possibly invests less in police facilities. Their

As you conduct the debate, you must conduct it entirely and stop blaming the municipalities, which until recently determined their own policy priorities, to put it in a nice word.

Mr. Tante, I ask you to end your speech. You know that I handle the permitted speech time smoothly. However, you must decide.

I have never participated in a debate without ending my speech.

That is correct. However, the problem is the time interval between your beginning and the end of the argument. I know you are “popping” to call the committee together.

I need to improve you. You say “puppy”. That is not correct. It is popelen.

I have always spoken with double p.

There are many eggs, but there are also many eggs.

Where where ?

With you .

Mr. Vande Lanotte, you are mistaken.

But also in the cross.

That is right. There are more specialists in this area, Mr. Speaker. Brake is an example of this.

We have a Bracelet race.

In this sense, I am not surprised that you are the President and I are only the Vice-President. You are more self-sufficient than I am because you have your own race. I do not deny all this.

You do more than the president.

Mr. Speaker, I will return to the subject.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, if you are looking for justification for the financial transfers from north to south, you must examine the distribution of the 1 billion francs of additional resources, the 25 million euros which, for all clarity, are not fresh money. If my calculations are correct, Flanders will receive 84 francs per capita, Wallonia 141 francs — almost the double — and Brussels 62 francs. As for the difference in the corrections, you can, in my opinion, no longer fall back on the physical characteristics of the various municipalities.

Finally, I will limit myself to a few very general remarks.

You have asked questions about amendment no. 10 of the Government. I can inform you that this amendment has been approved. You may have forgotten that. The amendment on the Fund was approved.

to understand. This may have escaped me. Consequently, my comments on this subject are without object. Their

Another amendment on the table concerns the €25 million.

I would like to respond to this immediately.

The final amount will be determined after the municipalities have submitted their comments. The royal decree stipulates that the final allocation for the great holiday must be fixed. This means that the Council of Ministers on 20 July will have to deliberate on the allocation and determine the appropriate amount. That amount will fluctuate around 25 million euros. The amount may be adjusted based on the reactions of the municipalities. We will release the money and transfer it to the municipalities on the prescribed date. It is correct that additional resources should be released. That is why I did not include the exact amount in the amendment. The final amount has not yet been determined. Why not ? The municipalities can still react. The amounts must be calculated. This can increase the total amount by some percentage.

Is this a change in the budget procedure?

Good question, Mr President.

This means that at the deliberation of 20 July, the government must simultaneously approve the draft law amending the budget and submit it to the House. If the amendment is approved with a fixed amount, 25 million euros but the amount is higher, I need a new deliberation. At the end of July, I am legally obliged to fix the amount. Their

A partial solution makes no sense. The full solution will come on 20 July, at the deliberation by the Council of Ministers, when we will be able to take into account all the data entered by the municipalities and can carry out the deposit. That is why I am not registering that amount now.

Mr. Minister, I look forward to this, but I would like to point out that in the meantime this adjustment will not be approved here. An adjustment of the budget, even if it has been delegated in the Council of Ministers, must be approved by Parliament.

I will explain what that deliberation means. When there is urgency — and in this case it is so, because the royal decree says that the amount must be paid: it is not predictable, in the sense that we cannot predict exactly what the correct amount will be because the municipalities still have to react — that amount is released at a budget deliberation in the Council of Ministers and can be paid out immediately.

Mr. Minister, what hinders you from entering that amount in the budget at least merely indicatively? This would improve the credibility of the entire operation. Everyone knows that when that credit is too large or too small, the en cours de route can be adjusted at any time.

No, I have to adjust that amount on July 20, because then we have to pay it. It does not help to enter the purely indicative in the budget. I have to have the total amount, and that I will have on July 20. That is the only reason why it is not registered.

There is another thing that makes me suspicious. It is an ever-recurring reflection of this government that, when the opportunity arises to do what it has promised, what it has promised to the people, it often does not seize that opportunity. I assume you will try to do that this time, but I assume that. Allow me, you are referring to a deliberation in the Council of Ministers during July and you are trying to keep the municipalities a little sweet by fixing the final assessment before the beginning of September 2003. Don’t apologize, but is that too transparent? That is, sure and firm after the next election, at a time when you can no longer be addressed on the political field. In my opinion, it’s that people just give the impression that you think it’s right and that you’ll keep your promises. In the meantime, you reserve the option of doing it or not doing it. In my view, that is the most questionable provision in all that agreement that you have concluded with the associations of cities and municipalities.

The [...]

From whom you learned it does not play a role. Not even when it came from Jean-Luc Dehaene.

I have it from him.

That does not mean that we always agreed.

Another good example is the police reform.

Mr. Tante, you should close your speech quietly.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke spoke yesterday about the mourning of the mayors that had to stop.

Well, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I tell you: when the police reform now works on the ground — and I have said several times that it does indeed work, although it can be improved here and there — this government has no merit of that. The police reform works primarily thanks to the involvement of the mayors on the ground. It is actually pleasant to see that mayors succeed, beyond the party-political differences, in reaching agreement on most points and in reaching a policy that is indeed in line. Then you come to say, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, that those mayors should stop with janking. In this way, you make them ⁇ disgraceful. At the same time, you ask them to be more concerned with the content of the matters. Well, Mr. Van Hoorebeke — I speak from my own experience and from the experience of what I see around me and hear from my colleagues — if the police reform still works, it is primarily thanks to the mayors.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, however, it should not blind us to the fact that the invoice in some municipalities threatens to become huge and that one can question the liquidity of those municipalities and police zones in the course of the coming months. In that sense, the consequence of any delay of the satisfaction promised by the government is all the more important. I repeat, in some zones one will almost inevitably face a liquidity problem in the second half or last trimester of this year. Then you would still blame that one puts the finger on the wound! This is not serious, right? A forward-looking mayor, along with his board and colleagues, should recognize that in time. I prefer that you weigh your words a little more and weigh before you make a value judgment about them.

Mr. Tante, you challenged Mr. Van Hoorebeke a little. He can replicate briefly and then you have to come to a decision.

But he has started.

I know he’s started, but you’re both doing well! Mr. Van Hoorebeke has the word and then you must come to a decision, Mr. Tant

I started yesterday, but you weren’t there. I understand this and maybe you did not receive a full report from colleague Hendrickx or maybe you did not read it fully.

I read the full report.

Mr. Tant, I said yesterday that it is indeed a good thing that the whole problem of the responsible additional costs for the local police has been solved. However, I would also like to hear the substantive debate. In that regard, I have indeed talked about the junk of the mayors who in recent weeks have only talked about the so-called surplus costs. At no time have I heard the substantive debate.

Mr. Tante, I have to formally contradict you. The police reform fails thanks to the mayors. The police reform is now successful thanks to the police officers on the ground. I ask you to relativize the contribution of the mayors and the other members of the municipal councils. How much time has the police council of your police zone already spent on a substantial discussion about the police? That is what it is about. I have never heard of that debate. When I hear that certain police councils often meet only a quarter of an hour, I think we should seriously ask ourselves whether the octopus agreement and the police reform as we have wanted it have succeeded in that regard.

We are far from the budget debate.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I will tell you my personal experience: for us, it is a fixed point on the agenda that at each meeting two substantial aspects are addressed each time, such as the competence and the preparation of security plans. Stop your generalizations!

I agree with you that if the reform works, it is thanks to the staff on the ground, that is clear. But I am talking about responsibilities. The responsibilities relate not only to the care of the content, but also to the care that the reform must remain affordable. And that is in any case a problem that you cannot deny.

Mr. Speaker, I am making a decision. I hope I am mistaken, but because of the reactions I receive not only from small municipalities, I fear that the problem will become acute during the second half of this year, and not only in the small municipalities. Now I am addressing my colleague from Gent. Mr. Mortier — if I have understood it correctly, it is the police commissioner — has literally said: “If this is carried out as it predicts, it means the bankruptcy of the city.” So do not think that the reform only costs significantly more for small municipalities and that it is quite tolerable for large cities. This is also a major generalization that does not correspond to reality.

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with what colleague Paul Tant says. I give you the concrete illustration of the problem. In the police budget of the city of Gent we have registered 75 million, which are the acceptable statutory additional costs. This could, in consultation with Internal Affairs, be registered. However, the outcome of the discussions held is as follows. The city of Gent will receive, instead of 75 million, well counted 3 million. Of the 75 million acceptable statutory surcharges, registered in the police budget of the city of Ghent, we get 3 million, says Frank Beke, mayor, and our zone head, last week in the committee for the police of the city of Ghent.

I would like to comment on the remarks of Mr Van Hoorebeke. Specifically, this means that the city will have to contribute 72 million annually to be able to make those investments in neighborhood inspectors and the neighborhood police who will precisely have to take care of solving the societal problems in the known neighborhoods and neighborhoods of the city of Gent. This investment is absolutely necessary. This is the result of discussions with the government. Frank Beke is in great need.

By the way, in Antwerp, the city administration says it is facing an identical, similar situation. Therefore, no one can explain to me that this arrangement would be a favourable arrangement for the big cities. No one should come to explain it to me.

Mr. Speaker, I have two responses to Mr. Van Hoorebeke’s decision.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, first of all, I think you are quite contemptuous about what the mayors are doing. You speak of the police council, but there is also a police college that gathers every fourteen days throughout the afternoon, sometimes including the evening, to discuss the problems. There is also a zone safety council for which we must prepare the zone safety plan and set priorities. We are doing this very substantially. I think your statements are quite rough.

Second, you now say that the problem of surplus costs has been solved. I will give an example of the Zone-Turnhout, of which I am the chairman. It is an area of seven municipalities, one of which is larger. In total, almost 90 million were credited to the municipal budget of these seven municipalities compared with last year. How much do we get from the revision? of 13 million.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I understand that you want to respond because your name is quoted, but so we can continue to work.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke was excited.

Quoted or excited, it does not matter, but Mr. Van Hoorebeke was quoted.

Mr. Hendrickx says the problem of the surplus costs has not yet been resolved. This will then have to be considered further.

Mr. Hendrickx, however, I intended to apply the following, and I do not discard it. The mayor has raised the problem only on the numerical and budgetary level. I think the statements of Mr. Van Parys give rise to a meaningful discussion. He says which specific neighborhood work is more elaborated and where it needs to be intensified. For this he calls the necessary amounts. I would also like to hear this explanation from the mayors who have come to register in the Law Street. I will be the first to discuss this subject matter.

The signal that you, like the other mayors, have given to the citizens, by speaking exclusively about surplus prices and costs, is a totally wrong signal.

After all, the citizen now gets the feeling that the mayors are only concerned with their budget and their own position and not with the safety of the citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have had the opportunity to express your position. Let the Minister speak. There are many speakers.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have had the honor of discussing some of these accounts with experts. Among other things, I have found that in many of these calculations significant amounts do not appear to be correct. I advise every mayor to make a re-calculation. This will not be easy, given the problem of information flow. I will give a concrete example. In Hasselt, the calculation differed 150 million francs from the actual amount. After this has already been pointed out five times, everything has been checked line by line, and it turned out to be a difference of 150 million francs. I also experienced it in my own town. I can’t get rid of the impression that one does this a little deliberately in order to have a slightly more comfortable budget for the coming years. This appears to be true with the accounts I have checked.

It is true that 73 million were registered for Gent. This was agreed with internal affairs and not with internal affairs. However, you cannot deny that the global contribution to Ghent has been increased. Both Gent and Antwerp are now able to invest more in their police than before. If you say that this is not true, I do not agree with it. Both Gent and Antwerp will be able to invest more in the police in the coming years, including through a higher federal dotation. The fact that one gets less in Antwerp was expected is another matter. In Antwerp, however, a number of additional police officers will be recruited. This is due, among other things, to federal funding. In Gent you can do a number of extra things, but also there you get less than you expected. These two cities, together with Brussels and Liège, will get a little more. I’m in favor of this because it’s cities that require large efforts from their population for the police. This conclusion must be made here, whether one finds it acceptable or not.

This is really not polemically intended, but the line-by-line check of the accounts is a advice I give to the mayors. I know that in Ghent one started with 500 million acceptable additional costs in the initial calculation. This has been reduced to 70 million.

I now give the word to Mr. Van Parys and then we end the chapter police!

Mr. Minister, you are causing confusion. We are talking about the statutory surplus costs in the budget of the city of Gent, not about the material surplus costs. The 500 million of which you were talking about hit the non-statutory surplus costs of the famous account set up by police commissioner De Buck — you are well-known. I’m not talking about the famous 544 million. It was agreed to register 75 million for the statutory surplus costs in the budget. They received 3 million. This means that the investment in hiring neighborhood inspectors must be spread over time, with all the consequences for the basic police care in these neighborhoods.

There is a second issue that I would like to draw your attention to. You have a strong position in the government. There is a terrible problem with recruitment as a result of the mobility scheme. We can currently hire only 21 neighborhood inspectors in Gent, although the decision was made to hire 125 of them, because no one is yet interested in this job. The police reform had to provide greater basic police care. Now we will face a staff shortage because the mobility scheme no longer allows us in a large city like Ghent to place those people where they are needed. This is a crucial problem.

I know that very well, Mr. Van Parys.

I have to admit to Mr. Tant that I also said that in tempore non suspecto.

The problem also exists in Brussels, which is true.

What is the solution to the problem?

I have no solution.

Your solution, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister — I think I know it very well — is that the financial arrangement that has been established will make it impossible for cities and municipalities to function properly and one day the call for the unity police will be very large. It is exactly what you want!

That was not in my intention at all, but that is unfortunately the outcome and I predicted it.

You wanted it so.

No, Mr. Van Parys, I didn’t want that. I was part of the government and supported the idea of a unity police. The model that would allow to avoid the situation we are now facing was then heavily criticized, not by you, but by your group in the Committee on Home Affairs, that is the truth. I said then that if work continued in that direction, the model would sooner or later become unmanageable. Unfortunately, I can’t do anything about getting me right.

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, who plays a crucial role in the matter, now says that the police reform has been written to death, including in terms of improving the service to the population. This is an important determination.

Mr. Tante will now decide. There was an hour and twenty minutes of discussion about the police reform.

Mr. Minister, I will give you an explanatory element, which you will not want to accept. There is a causal relationship that has led to some things that don’t work now cost far more than originally estimated. The structural cause is situated on two levels.

First, your Interior Minister has not negotiated with the trade unions. I experienced it from close. He has taken records...

The [...]

I could also give you figures on this. The additional costs of the new statute are one of the structural causes of the financial situation we are now facing. The Minister of Internal Affairs has promised all this because there was pressure from Euro 2000 and because he did not have the courage to engage with the trade unions. Some trade union leaders stood to their consternation and were surprised that they got everything they asked for. Now you get the invoice. This is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Internal Affairs and is the responsibility of the entire government.

Second, an important lesson — Mr. President, you will have learned them behind my back too — can be drawn from the figures cited on some speaker banks, which deal with the share of the federal government in the surcharges. The figure revolves around 10%, neither more nor less, while one has committed to paying the effective additional costs.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, let us agree that there is a lot of effort being made by the police officers in the fields, but also — let us be honest — that there are a lot of mayors — and not always in easy circumstances — who have pulled the matter to themselves and free time for it.

Colleagues, how much time did the mayor, before the reform, spend on the operation of the police? How much time was spent in the municipal council on police matters? Almost no one. At least now it is being discussed! There is discussion in the police colleges and the police councils and that is positive, Mr. Minister. So you have to stop with people, who think it right and invest their time, slinging all sorts of blame. Do not say that it is a failure. Their

At this point, we are taking a step in the right direction. Mr. Minister, my very last comment, you are looking for structural reasons for the fact that the cost price eventually turns out to be higher than originally thought. If you look at the budgets of the various cities and municipalities, you will find that on average about 15% of the expenditure for the police went to operating costs. Mr. Minister, of the part of the grant we receive from the federal government, 5% is intended as a means of action. This is unsustainable.

Mr. Minister, you are right to interrupt but then you are again addressed and contradicted by others. You will get the word very briefly. The last word is for Mr. Tante.

First, I would like to emphasize that at the municipal level many people spend much more time and energy in the police work. In addition, in many municipalities the police care is now much better than before. For example, in my city the police care has been drastically improved because there has been a coordinated action, a much better action, and there is a line, for example, in the policy of persecution. I can talk about my city where I know the state. Here we see a drastic improvement. If something has already improved in Antwerp, it is also partly due to this reform.

Second, your operating costs are a very good example. But, for example, in Middelkerke we built a joint commissariat where municipal police and national guards were sitting together. The norm used on the federal level concerned only the purchase of furniture and the norm held by the municipality was as in a proportion of one-third more. So what the municipality bought was three times more expensive. One has invested more in the municipality, in computer science for example, but sometimes one has also had the tendency that when the police commissioner asked something, the mayor gave it. However, at the federal level, due to the successive savings, much more restrictive actions were taken. Let me take the example of overtime. This level cannot be ⁇ ined at the federal level. At the municipal level, however, managing those budgets, spending less, regulating, regulating them, limiting them, is a function that one will have to do much more in the future. This is not polemically intended.

Mr. Speaker, in his almost papal closure, Mr. Tant has once again addressed me.

We are not here in the Vatican, we are here in the Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid getting all the mayors over me soon, I would like to admit that of course there are mayors who do very good and decent work. Their status has also been improved. You give the impression that they work as volunteers. I have no problem with the fact that there is a discussion about the cost, but we must also conduct the discussion in terms of content. Mr. Van Parys brought in the debate today that the problem of basic police care in the future should be our special attention. If I have listened to Mr. Van Parys’s argument and the Minister’s response correctly, then we are indeed facing a very big challenge for the future in terms of police reform.

The [...]

I do not say that, but it has been made by a wise man of your group; so let us accept it. Mr. Tant, when we negotiated the Octopus Agreement, in any case, we did not intend to evolve into a unity police.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you must register. You are constantly interrupting and asking questions. We need to keep the debate a little in hand.

Mr. President, you should not blame Mr. Van Hoorebeke. I understand why he does not ask for the word in the debate. Every time he waits until someone else has said something, he puts his own name under it. In the “fund” we are largely in agreement. He’s just trying to give his own coloring, that’s all. I begin to understand it.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me...

Mr. Tante, you have to decide. We have been working for an hour and ten minutes now, though with interruptions. It is a good debate, but if I apply the agreed speech time, you only have thirty minutes.

The police are at least better now in my city. I will not deny that. The size makes it easier to organize. However, there is a problem, namely the problem of the visibility of police outside urban agglomerations. I understand that and there is an explanation for it, but people don’t always understand that. For them, security is also a matter of seeing something, seeing police cars driving and seeing people patrolling. This is a special challenge for those who have some responsibility in this. If one is looking for an explanation for the operating costs, it is also part of the globalized purchase that was previously made by the department. In this way, the National Guard could get cheaper equipment. However, it is mainly also due to the fact that the buildings fell under the Regie der Gebäude. Much of the maintenance was carried out by the Director. This is an explanatory element.

Mr. Minister, personally I have always been aware of the fact that this kind of police organization would cost more, in the first place for the small municipalities. If they must jointly set up a global organization for an area that also has urban parts, it will cost more. However, I remain especially sorry that this government has repeatedly repeated that it would bear the additional costs. That promise is not fulfilled. In reality, it is limited to 10% of the surplus price. I find this fundamentally unfair. The government broke its word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I really think that we will later say that the 2002 budget will be one of the most surreal budgets we have known.

What is a budget? A budget translates the action of the state in an economic context. It is also a willingness to correct the macro-economic data that our society is facing to improve things through procyclical or anticyclical measures.

The problem lies in the fact that when the budget was presented in October, the thesis followed was that there was a huge hole in the air due to the 9/11 events but that the fundamentals would return to be good in the course of the first quarter of 2002. The discussion therefore has long been whether growth will be 1.3%, 1.5% or 1.7%.

Today, the situation is not at all in line with the logic that was adopted: not only have the hopes of recovery in the second quarter of 2002 proved futile, but the global recovery remains fragile. The current world stock market situation shows how much we are facing a ⁇ difficult situation as there is no announced short-term recovery. The overall context is worrying because the growth rate remains low. In this regard, we can even talk about stagnation.

For the rest, I have before my eyes the main economic indicators Eurostat, published this morning. Compared to the eurozone and the main neighboring countries, our economic situation has deteriorated and is even worse than the other countries.

Thus, when comparing industrial production over a year, if the euro zone declines by 2.9%, the situation of Belgium is the worst in this area since we decline by 5.7%. If we take the situation month by month, at the end of the first quarter, i.e. in April 2002 compared to March, we continue to lose 0.7% in terms of industrial production while the entire euro area loses only 0.5%.

If I observe the decline of GDP in volume, with regard to the first quarter of 2002, this decline is 0.7% for Belgium while the euro area is experiencing an annual growth of 0.1%. As for the trade balance outside the EU, our score is again much lower than that of the entire euro area.

Finally, as regards the percentage of investments, again, a 0.6% decline. We are therefore in a situation of economic stagnation that is much stronger than that of the euro area as a whole and that does not increase recovery, neither for the third quarter, nor probably for the whole of the second half of 2002.

We must therefore find that we are dangerously moving away from objectives that were declared priority. We are in a situation where the budget should be an element of economic restart but where it unfortunately follows the situation without changing it at all.

Another finding is that our country structurally loses market shares on exports. The growth rate of our exports has been, for the past three years, each time lower than the growth of potential markets.

We have our specifics. The whole is darker than in Europe in general. Two concerns remain dominant and we do not see any correction. First, the evolution of wage costs. Already, during the discussions of October last year, we had emphasized the situation and the risks of wage cost deviation from our main neighbors.

With regard to the period 2001-2002 following the high-conjuncture period of 2000, we see a breakdown. The planned margin is largely exceeded at the level of wages, ⁇ at the level of wages in sectors that are not heavily framed by negotiations between employers and workers, and the law to safeguard competitiveness has not been activated. Furthermore, I think that the report of the Central Council of Economics, which will intervene next September, will compel to take corrective measures that are difficult to take in relation to the derivation of wage cost in the period we know. by

Meanwhile, the employment rate (i.e. the ratio between the occupied working population and the working age population) remains blocked around 59-60%; this is very far from the prospects assigned by the European Union. At the same time, statistics have shown that we retain – far from – the last place in terms of employment participation of those over 50 and ⁇ those over 55 years old. This indicator is ⁇ heavy with consequences for the entire budget.

All these economic data are obscured by this foolish hope of a recovery that is announced month after month and that will still occur in the next quarter but is widely denied by the economic conjuncture curves. The recovery will not intervene with fundamental elements that have largely deteriorated. by

Furthermore, I think that a new category of problems is hindering our development. We were among the good students in recent years; we have now fallen back into the average of the European class. We can obviously have great concerns about the consequences for the budgets of future years of catastrophic management such as those of public enterprises. The Sabena disaster caused an economic and social damage that persisted during this year 2002 and which constitutes a particular disadvantage for the development of Belgium.

With regard to the fiscal reality, the principle of anchor is very symbolic but not in the sense that the Minister of Budget wanted to give it. In reality, it seems that public authorities have thrown the anchor and that they no longer have room for manoeuvre with regard to the budgetary instrument. This kills the initiatives. With this principle of permanent provisional credits, with these linear savings — minus 1.5% for all credits that are considered compressible — how can a policy be further developed at the level of public authorities, and in particular of the administration? by

But more fundamentally, the trend towards sanitation of public finances is slowing down. The primary balance, which improved by 1.5 points of GDP during the previous legislature, decreased by 0.4% between 1999 and 2002. Now, as we know, we can control the primary balance, but we depend on a number of external factors when it comes to interest rates. So it is on the primary balance that we must work, not on the hope that interest rates will remain at a low level.

As for public debt, I recall that it is reducing more slowly than during the previous legislature, despite the significant and lasting disappearance of the “snowball” effect. In 2002, public debt still stood at 104.5% of GDP, while from 1995 to 1999, it rose from 133.9% to 115%. Therefore we see a slowdown in the reduction of our debt. by

The establishment of budget surpluses intended to finance the tax benefits that will increase in the coming years is postponed for later. For the year 2003, we feel that there is a distortion between this rise in power of the effects of the fiscal reform and the fact that these effects had been calculated on the basis of an average growth of 2.5% of GDP, while we are at 1% in 2001 and around 0.9% in 2002. It becomes illusory to make predictions for the year 2003. The stock market is actually a barometer that predicts what will happen. It shows how uncertain the entire economic data is. by

Among the budgetary measures planned — I will not go back to the discussion that took us an hour and a half on the impact of the police reform — one of the aspects draws our attention. With regard to this policy reform, this system is regularly applied, according to which the government, in support of the municipalities, agrees to release the last contribution. Subsequently, municipalities make their accounts — examples were given this afternoon — and discover that despite the government’s announced effort as the last to make the budget reform neutral, this is not the case. The unrest thus rises for three or four weeks within the various municipalities. Each municipality compares its budget and accomplishments in the field of police. It is then announced that, in the coming weeks, we will no longer be able to pay the police officers and a new round of carousel is intervening, translating into a new contribution of the federal state to support the police reform.

It can already be said that the 25 million euros from the last discussion will be insufficient. Indeed, many are the police areas that announce that, despite this new effort, they will be unable to pay the policemen in October. So we can predict a new round of carousel. And every time, we must see a deterioration of the state’s spending in relation to this police. In other areas too, whether at the level of public enterprises or the SNCB, we will witness a similar degradation. We will then have the choice between letting things run and resulting in a postponement of enormous difficulties on the 2003 budget and operating interventions that will do nothing to improve the situation. by

We can therefore openly declare that the budgetary corrections contained in the draft under discussion do not improve anything and that there is no clearly defined budgetary policy to counter the crisis we know. But there is indeed a stagnation of the budgetary and political approach that leads to increasing difficulties, with negative consequences on what is, for a few years already, the weak point of Belgium, namely the little margin it has in its debt. A recovery of debt in disregard of the Stability Pact is very different when it comes to Belgium or when it comes to France. by

It is true that big countries may, at some times, partially challenge the Stability Pact. Now, for me, this would constitute a destabilization of our orientation because we do not have the power to go in that direction. In any case, it is not healthy to opt for a degradation of the budget, while the share of our public debt is still extremely important in relation to our GDP. by

So I conclude by saying that the current situation only illuminates and reinforces our concerns. The government ship may have thrown the anchor, but it lacks a steering wheel and the ability to use the compasses properly. Anchor is not everything in a ship. On the contrary, when it is too heavy, it is the whole boat that slides. Mr. Minister of Budget, you are Ostendais; therefore you should know the matter well. This is what I fear when I see the evolution of this budget.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the initial budget for the year 2002 was drawn up in the tragic context of the events of September 11, 2001. The effects of terrorist attacks were subsequently felt globally, with the globalization of the economy involving a general contagion of the slowdown of the economy. Today, some economic indicators give rise to predictions of a recovery in economic activity for the first quarter of 2002. In addition, the indicator of consumer confidence in our country continues to increase, thus reflecting the confidence of Belgian households in the current social and economic environment. by

On behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to welcome the fact that consumer confidence has increased in recent months. This positive evolution of consumption is the result of the socio-economic policy implemented by the government and in particular of the reduction of wage taxes. by

Thus, the indexation of tax rates, the gradual reduction of the complementary crisis contribution and the corporate tax reform have had a significant impact on the net income available for taxpayers.

The creation of additional purchasing power through tax was and remains a socialist priority. In this regard, I would like to remind you that we will always be attentive to the situation of workers and social benefiters.

I would also like to express to you, on behalf of my group, our satisfaction that the government’s strategy is focused on respecting the commitments and achievements of our policies carried out during the legislature. The socialist achievements, in the current context of the slowdown of the economy, appear all the more essential. As part of the trust agreement undertaken by us, we emphasize, in particular, as achieved, the safeguarding of our healthcare system, the fulfillment of the commitments made to the social benefiters, the measures taken in the context of the employment reform and allowing to reconcile work and private life as well as the strengthening of the social dialogue.

In order to ensure the continuity of these acquisitions, it is necessary that the federal state has sufficient resources. We therefore welcome this budget adjustment for the year 2002 which ⁇ ins the balance despite the economic context which has still been less favourable than expected. Nevertheless, and thanks to the increase in non-tax revenue, total revenue increases by 4% from what was originally planned.

The creation of a working group on the tax backstop responds to one of our demands. In fact, tax justice is a priority goal for the Socialist group in order to ensure all our fellow citizens equal treatment before tax and greater tax equity.

In this regard, I would like to point out that the Socialist parliamentarians would like, through the Committee on Finance and Budget, to be kept informed of the work and proposals of this working group on the fiscal backward. Let me insist and draw the attention of the government on the need to expand the taxable base. May I be permitted, in this regard, to astonish myself at the sharp decrease in the income of the tax on stock exchanges and to remind you that the actual rate of taxation on capital is, in our country, significantly lower than the actual rate of taxation on labour. This disparity is completely contrary to the principle of equity, which states that different sources of income must be taxed in the same way.

It is in the perspective of greater tax equity that I insist on the importance of the fight against tax fraud and money laundering that the Socialist Party fights ⁇ .

I also insist that the government considers the improvement of the labour market and the reduction of unemployment as priorities. There is, indeed, concern that the improvement of the available income will be thwarted and will not revive economic growth. It would ⁇ be relevant to focus future priorities on people with modest incomes who do not have the ability to save. It is a matter of social justice and equity.

In the light of the considerations I have just mentioned, I would like to express to you, on behalf of my group, our satisfaction to find that the adjustment of the Budget of the Roads and Means for the year 2002 is based on the principles of trust and stability.

In conclusion, we are confident and optimistic about the continuation of the government’s fiscal policy while remaining vigilant about the continuation of the socialist priorities, respecting our duty and our commitment to our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the budget control has been behind for a while. I think it was around Easter. We all remember the hard work and the pull between the various ministers around the search for the 500 million euro savings. I also notice that every budget round or budget adjustment introduces new fashion words. This time it was about the compressable or non-compressable expenditure and the anchor principle. There were also nightly weekend meetings. Their

In any case, Mr. Minister, I note that the triumphalism of this government has made place for a tempered realism, in the hope of course that you do not end up in dull misery. Where is the time that you could still surf on an economic growth of 4%! I then link this to the finding that economic growth for 2002 was initially estimated at 2.5%, then adjusted to 1.3%, and then ended at 1%. The fun would be for less. Anyone who looks at the conjuncture figures of the last two months a little more closely, should nevertheless conclude that the outlook is not very good and that the economic engine continues to splash. Their

As far as the labour market is concerned, two things can be determined. First, the number of unemployed in 2002 will increase slightly or ⁇ stagnate. That will depend on the possible acceleration of the economic recovery in autumn. This is a look at coffee. Second, the number of jobs will no longer increase significantly, and as a result, the employment rate — I mean the number of workers between 15 and 65 years of age — will reach 59,3% in 2002. That is worse than in 2000 and also far from the target of 67% in 2005 or 70% in 2010. The Prime Minister said that this goal must be achieved at any cost. I can understand it, because the cost of increasing aging has to be financed by someone. You have a different opinion. In an interview, you must have paraphrased that in Lisbon the strong growth slowdown has not yet been taken into account. In 2002, in this active wealthy state, we ⁇ a status quo after a period of uninterrupted job growth between 1996 and 2001, creating just 254,000 jobs.

In any case, the unemployment rate in Flanders with its small but yet open economy remains super sensitive to the conjuncture fluctuations. There is undoubtedly something in between, but the shaking German revival also plays a role. If we can at least talk about a revival in Germany, because the optimism of the German entrepreneurs — Germany is our biggest trading partner and it was translated into the FET today via the IFO indicator — is not very rosy to be called. As the labour market continues to react slowly to the conjuncture, there is no immediate improvement in sight. As a result, the growth outlook remains blurred, resulting in downward figures on industrial production, a sluggish construction sector, a decline in the registration of cars, and consumer confidence that continues to hesitate. Despite the constant rise of the conjuncture barometer over the past five months, it had a decline to be processed in June and the confidence of entrepreneurs still gained a considerable tick. Their

After all, the manufacturing industry saw its orders dropping sharply. This does not take into account the rather unexpected rise of the euro in recent weeks, which is a burdening factor for our exports. As far as the preliminary indicators are concerned, the economic indicators are hopeful, but the downward indicators on the financial markets then reaffirm that the economic recovery is less than expected.

Returning to the budget, it is, of course, that despite all the nice words about the relationship between the corporate tax and more specifically its reduction – and that may still be on the political agenda of this government – and the competitive position of our companies, we still find that Belgium is falling off on the ranking of competition. The study was conducted by the Swiss management agency IMD. An international ranking in which Belgium drops from 17th to 18th place, the first decline in the last 5 years, where between 1998 and 2001 we were pushed forward from 23rd to 17th place. The [...]

Return to decline in this government that wanted to improve the competitiveness among entrepreneurs. I would strongly doubt that.

Meanwhile, the fiscal pressure, when compared to the countries around us, remains very high, not only relative but also in absolute numbers or terms, and this country is ranked 2nd in the OECD rankings for 2001 after Denmark. In 2000 we were still in 3rd place after Denmark and Germany. The assertion that the tax pressure in this country would decrease is therefore not true. Also, if we look at the total tax weight, the total wage costs, including employer contributions to social security, this country remains the absolute leader in Europe with 56%. Even if the corporate tax is reduced to 33%, the international competitive position will not improve — on the contrary — because our neighbors have not waited to provide incentives to improve the competitive position of their companies. Consequently, our position remains relatively the same.

What about the budget targets for 2002? In any case, you strive for a budget balance, which, of course, is understandable, because less you can not do in public. Can I remind you that in the stability plan 2000-2005 there was still a surplus of 0.5% of GDP? In any case, the Federal Planning Bureau is not of the same opinion, stating that the 2002 budget is reduced to a deficit of 0.3% of GDP, mainly due to falling incomes and the fact that spending is still rising too quickly, with a fingerprint to the federal government, the lower governments and the social security that will undoubtedly have to shake a tooth, even more a cash deficit is building up. I think I have read that the federal government deficit has increased by 1.6 billion euros in the first five months to 5.7 billion euros. As regards the budget result, the Planning Bureau adds gently that from 2003 everything will go better, but that outlook may, in my opinion, also go the other way.

In any case, the Budget Round 2003, an election year by the way, will be another nice dobber. I am deeply curious whether the budgetary objectives will remain and the ham question will therefore be whether there will be more money to do fun things, such as increasing social spending or reducing the burden on companies, apart from the introduction of a so-called budget-neutral corporate tax, where I find that red-green increases the dissatisfaction, especially with regard to the problem of financing.

I also wonder how you will keep your silver fund rigid in a structural way if the budget surpluses are minimal or virtually nonexistent.

Then we have the point of the giant and associal mountain of state debt. The evolution in absolute figures is also apparently not going in the right direction, in the sense that in 2001 the federal government debt has again increased to about 253.8 billion euros or 10.153 billion Belgian francs. Compared to gross domestic product, the debt burden has decreased somewhat, but the question is whether it will remain. With the forecast for this year’s budget deficit, it would sometimes be possible that the public debt could not be sufficiently restored and a slight increase in the percentage of GDP would be possible. Consequently, a decrease in government debt below 100%, as announced by your colleague Reynders for 2003, will not go so fast.

If we overlook the entire budgetary adjustment and look at the concrete financial and economic outcomes — I disregard the outlook for 2003 — we must nevertheless conclude that there will still be a heavy need to delegate. This, by the way, is not unusual in the last week of June, ⁇ not in education after the exam period. After all, there are still a few heavy pipes in your budget. Consequently, the result is that you either have a second seat, or that you have failed and have to overcome your year.

I fear that our group here should judge rigorously and fairly and conclude that you failed in your budget examination.

So far, my general discussion, Mr. Speaker. Before leaving the floor, I would like to defend my amendments.

If you do, you will be calm and we too.

With your permission, I will now defend my amendments. Their

We have submitted a number of amendments in the committee that we would like to bring back in the plenary session. I remember three of them, which I will briefly explain.

The first amendment concerns the purchase of container scanners. As colleagues know, the mobile scanner has recently been put into use in the port of Antwerp. Everyone is convinced that several mobile and fixed scanners should be purchased. These scanners are necessary not only for the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Oostende, but also for motorways, border crossing and other possible customs hubs. I advocate this in the context of the detection of illegal smuggling goods such as cigarettes, alcohol and illicit drugs, but also with regard to human trafficking. The events of 9/11 add, in the context of the fight against terrorism, the aspect of the additional security of Western European ports, in particular with regard to trade with the United States. The deployment of a fixed scanner in the port of Rotterdam also shows the importance of the return effect in the short term. Practice has shown that millions of euros are recovered. As a result, the use of scanners benefits security, the economy and the treasury. Therefore, we believe that in 2002 the government should implement an accelerated program for the purchase and commissioning of additional scanners, so that it could have two fixed installations and two mobile installations in the short term. The purchase of one fixed and two mobile scanners will require an additional investment of €18 million. Therefore, we propose to raise the commitment credit from 10,000 to 28,000 euros.

My second amendment relates to the Ministry of Justice. Following the evaluation of the Rapid-Belg-Law, the worrying situation in the services of the State Security has expressly emerged due to the shortage of personnel for handling the naturalization dossiers. Because of this staff shortage, a problem arises with regard to the closure of the opinions. It was also found that the number of cases for which an opinion was requested increased from 21 500 for 1991 to 48 080 cases for 2000 without adding a single employee. In the Commission on Naturalizations, the Minister of Justice himself has confirmed that he needs 30 additional staff members to be able to properly advise all naturalization applications from the Security Service. Our amendment aims to increase the commitment credit for staff and operating expenses by 50% in order to meet the Minister of Justice’s desire. For this purpose, the initial amount of EUR 18,454,000 is raised to EUR 27,681,000.

Finally, the last amendment I would like to explain concerns the subsidies for the Belgian Institute for Standardization. Following correspondence between the Chamber of People’s Representatives and the Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr Picqué, concerning the Dutch translation of European standards, a problem has arisen with the provision of the Dutch translation of those standards. The Belgian Institute for Standardization has only one translator. Since several thousand standards are published annually, there is a significant lag. Consequently, not all standards are translated into Dutch. We believe that this imposes a restriction on the Dutch-speaking business managers and institutions that are considered to apply and implement the standards. In order to ensure that these standards are made available without distinction in the three national languages, we propose to increase the subsidy to the Belgian Institute for Standardization by 50% so that more translators can be urgently recruited to overcome the lag and publish the new standards in Dutch in time. For this purpose, the initial amount of EUR 1,242,000 is increased to EUR 1,863,000.

Mr. Speaker, I have defended my amendments, which will be submitted for voting later.

Colleagues, I suggest that Mr. Dirk Pieters keeps his speech. He was the last speaker of the afternoon meeting. At 18.40 a.m. the evening meeting will start with Mr Van Rompuy.

Although I am not the first speaker after reading the report, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the services of the Chamber on the excellent report. I also refer to the report on the many punctual comments and questions made by my group, which I think has little added value if repeated in this hemisphere. No added value for those who followed the discussions in the committee, no added value for those who read the report, and no added value for the others at all.

Mr. Minister, I would like to address the essence of the fiscal policy in general and its translation into the current budget adjustment in particular. Their

The starting point is the ageing problem. Our country is still undergoing a heavy debt burden. It is necessary to ensure that the structural consolidation of the public finances is not delayed in the long run. In fact, between today and 2010 the foundation must be laid to cover the burdens of aging that will be heavy from 2010. Their

In its annual report, the Study Committee on Aging concludes that the total budgetary cost of aging will be between 2.6 and 3.1% of GDP in the period 2000-2030. These figures should be approached with the necessary caution. The impact on education and training is difficult to estimate. Furthermore, there are currently no reliable estimates of the net impact of demographic shifts on Entity II’s expenditure. From the latter, work must be done quickly. In addition, the Study Committee on Aging notes that between 2000-2010 there is a negative budgetary cost of aging of approximately 1% of GDP. This means that the period 2000-2030 is divided into two subperiods: the subperiod 2000-2010 and the period 2010-2030. Their

In the first period there is a negative budget cost. This space must definitely be used to accelerate the reduction of public debt. The negative budgetary cost in the period 2000-2010 implies that the budgetary cost of aging develops ⁇ strongly in the period 2010-2030. This is evidenced by the analysis of the Study Committee on Aging. It expects a budgetary cost of 3.4 to 3.9% for that period. The Committee emphasizes the importance of sufficient appropriations to the Silver Fund for a uniform distribution of the burden of aging over the considered period. However, it is still not clear how this will be achieved. Let’s look at 2002. Where will the “at least equivalent amount” — as stated in the General Explanation on page 174 — of 619 million euros — amount of 2001 — be found for the Silver Fund? According to the 2002 General Explanation on Budgetary Control, the "normally" — also on page 174 — would be non-fiscal receipts. It is not automatically a question of budget surpluses. Was the Silver Fund not intended to accelerate the debt restructuring through the build-up of budget surpluses by investing the reserves in securities of the Belgian government debt?

The resources allocated to the Silver Fund can also be used to finance public spending or create room for tax cuts or to settle public debt. A far better barometer than the Silver Fund for the affordability of the costs of aging is therefore the public debt. The big question here is: is the public debt falling sufficiently quickly? If it falls quickly enough, the government will help to make room for pensions to be paid over the next decades. However, if the debt does not decrease sufficiently, then the government has done too little to keep aging affordable. That is about it. It does not matter how much the paper capital of the Silver Fund is right now. What about the reduction of debt? In the preparation of the 2002 budget, we already pointed out that the 2001-2005 stability program was replaced without too much blabla by a new stability program 2002-2005 which lowered the gap considerably. For 2002 a government debt ratio of 103,3 is then provided where in the previous initial program a ratio of 101,4 was provided. The documents relating to the budget formulation showed that a government debt ratio of 103.7 was aimed at, and thus would yield as much as 2.3% less than in the original stability program 2001-2005. We then argued that 103.7 would not be achievable without additional effort and we are now getting right. We note that we are now even moving to a debt ratio of 104.5, which is more than 3% worse than the initial stability program and even 1.2% worse than its adjusted version. It is now even admitted that the modified version is also released. There is a pledge to resume in 2003 with the predetermined trajectory of the 2001-2005 stability program. However, the prerequisite is a strong recovery in the course of 2002, which is very uncertain given the uncertainties in terms of energy prices, the imbalances of the U.S. economy — I mean the current account deficit and the low private savings ratio — the financial vulnerability of some developing countries, and the threatening interest rate increases due to the budget deficits of France and Germany, which intermittently raise the demand for the meaning of the Growth and Stability Pact of the European Member States and the limited immunity of the European economy to external shocks in a globalizing economy. Mr. Van Rompuy, by the way, will further address this economic context.

Other developments also indicate that this government is pursuing a budgetary policy that does not adequately anticipate the future. For example, the structural primary surplus — this is the total balance, excluding the interest charges from which, in addition to the budgetary impact of the changing conjuncture, also the influence of one-off elements has been denied — fell from 6.4% to 6% between 2000 and 2001. We understand and accept a conjunctual decline in the budget balance resulting from the operation of automatic stabilizers because it can function as an anti-cyclic buffer and normally itself disappears as the economy recovers. A policy aimed at ensuring sustainable public finances is independent of recovery or one-off measures. We note that the current government does not pursue such policy. A more sustainable manager of public finances would have made much more effort. The improvement of the balance of claims of the joint government of 0.1% in 2000 and 0.2% in 2001 is due exclusively to the evolution of the interest charges.

Cyclically corrected, in 2000 and 2001 even claims salaries of -0,5% and -0,4% respectively were recorded. In particular, entity 1 performed quite poorly in 2001, both in terms of primary balance — the target including revenue from the sale of the UMTS licenses was 5,9%, the realisation 5,5% — and in terms of the balance of claims — the target including revenue from the sale of the UMTS licenses was -0,1%, the realisation -0,4%. Also in the 2002 fiscal year, fiscal policy can be called challengingly sustainable. In its economic outlook for 2002-2007, the Planning Bureau has already stated that after a surplus of 0.2% in 2001, the balance of the joint government’s claims will become negative, more specifically a deficit of 0.3% in 2002 and 2003. The budget balance would not be regained until 2004. Subsequently, a slight surplus would arise in 2005 and 2006, and that would continue to rise to 0.6% in 2007.

Therefore, the projections of the Planning Office indicate that the medium-term objectives of the 2002-2005 stability program are not achieved, let alone that there is some reference to the original 2001-2005 stability program.

The deficit of 0.3% in 2002 will be mainly caused by entity 2, and more specifically the lower government. In 2003, therefore, one will go again to a deficit of 0.3%, so much as 0.7% of GDP worse than the trajectory that one will try to take again.

For the period 2003-2005, the Planning Agency considers entity 1 responsible for the deviations of more than 0.5 % of GDP from the planned trajectory. According to the Planning Bureau, given the current macroeconomic outlook and taking into account the measures decided, the difference can only be bridged through additional savings or new revenues, and that from 2003. In other words, future governments know what they have to do.

It is problematic that the primary surplus until 2003 drops faster than the interest burdens, caused by budgetary impulses of the sub-sectors and a rise in spending that in 2001 and 2002 is greater than the weak economic growth of those years. Thus, the impact of the significant decrease in interest charges on the surplus of claims, a decrease of as much as 1.1% — from 6.8% in 2000 to 5.7% in 2003 — is overturned by a deterioration of the primary balance, which decreases from 6.8% to 5.4%. The reason for this is primarily to be sought on the side of the receipts. Taxes, social security contributions and other revenues decreased between 2000 and 2003 by 1.1% of GDP, mainly due to the fiscal measures of the Flemish Community, the reduction of social security contributions and in part also due to the reform of the personal tax, while the final primary expenditure increased by 0.4%.

In 2001, the image was still adorned by one-off revenues, in particular the revenues from the sale of the UMTS licenses, the refund of the allowed Maribel tax reduction, the sale of buildings and higher revenues of the National Bank, which compensated for the decline in tax and parafiscal revenues. However, starting in 2002, these compensations will be eliminated and the primary balance will deteriorate by as much as 1% of GDP.

In 2003, high growth will limit the decline of the primary surplus to 0.4%. As mentioned, the deterioration mainly occurs in entity 1, although the federal government is the only one to benefit from the reduction of the interest burden. This is caused, among other things, by the greater impact of the tax measures which, together with the nefaste evolution in the final spending, including through the purchases and investments in Landsverding and the capital donation to the NMBS, cause the primary balance to decline by 0.6%. All these are speculations of the Planning Bureau.

Slowly, the current government will need to have the courage to admit that in November 2001, when establishing the stability programme 2002-2005, the downward revision of growth from 2.5% to 2% for the period 2001-2005 was not sufficiently taken into account. As a result, public spending — in terms of GDP — becomes more volatile, making it less prominent in improving the primary balance. In addition, the negative correlation of some spending, such as unemployment spending, also plays a marked role. This downward revision will require greater budgetary effort. The necessary improvement of the structural budget balance resulted from this imprudent estimate of growth for the period 2001-2003 at 0.9% compared to 0.6% in the previous programme. Therefore, one should have been much more cautious with the forecasts that support the latest version of the stability program. Probably, therefore, it should have been admitted that after 2003 the original stability program should also be released. But like conscience, it takes courage to bring bad news and it is easier to bluff and bring good news. Their

The National Bank also agrees with the reasoning that achieving the latest update of the stability programme will be difficult. She points out that in the context of the reform of the personal tax, the abolition of the additional crisis contribution, the abolition of the viewing and listening fee, the reduction of registration fees, the objectives of the Stability Program can only be achieved provided that the spending is controlled very strictly.

In short, this government has not taken the necessary structural measures to sustainably strengthen our economy. The lack of courage in the good economic years 1999-2000 is now paid a fortiori cash, as the government is facing a number of major counterfeits, notably the lower growth, lower revenue in 2001 and premature excess of the pile index. The rigorous anchoring principle and the 1.5 percent savings on the departments’ compressible credits, which are a further penetration of the procyclical policy that this government seems to have a patent, even though it is indeed a huge effort – as we have also acknowledged – bring insufficient seed in the bowl.

As a result, we feel too much the impact of fiscal policy since the arrival of this government, with the known consequences. I will name a few. There is no room to cover the budgetary surplus costs of the police reform through a federal contribution in this budget adjustment. The government promises to settle this now in the next budget control. Nor is there room to register the necessary resources in the Department of Justice to honor the agreement, concluded with the trade unions. The corporate tax reform is accompanied by a lot of cold water fears. The retroactive introduction of the liquidation bonuses has somewhat diminished the original enthusiasm in the entrepreneurial world, while the budget-neutral nature of the reform in the government is apparently still undermined. Minister Daems has yet to look for approximately 271 million euros to reach the anticipated amount of non-fiscal receipts due to the removal of part of the State patrimony, totaling 471 million euros. The budgetary processing of the participation of the government in accordance with the new management agreement with De Post is moved to the 2003 budget. The indexation of the tax scales is delayed, resulting in the government transferring approximately 100 million euros to 2004, the year in which the tax settlement for the income year 2002 takes place.

Per ⁇ the most striking example is the way in which, following this budget control through amendment, the government provides for a one-off allowance for the eligible unemployed pilots as a one-off coverage in the costs of renting a simulator. Pilots who, in the meantime, often forced, accepted another job are excluded, however, in spite of the promises of the Minister of Mobility and Transport. This shows how the policy pursued by the active welfare state creates an additional unemployment drop.

My decision is the following. The Government may either show that budget balances will be achieved in 2000 and 2001 and possibly, provided the necessary additional interventions, also in 2002. This gives rise to prostitutes and proccerous bulletins. However, how strongly does that contrast with the actual and substantial improvement of budget results in the previous legislature? The truth is that in the first two years of its existence, in full high-conjuncture, this government has insufficiently put the counter to the nering to ensure the necessary strong, structural reduction of debt. When that became clear, the lat was lowered. A more flexible stability program was replaced. Nevertheless, the 2002 budget had to be substantially adjusted in order to meet those more flexible targets, and the adjusted budget will also need to be further adjusted in order to mitigate the damage. Furthermore, the drafting of the budget for 2003 will be a difficult dough.

Globally, with the emphasis on the entire period, however, the debt under this purple-green government will not have dropped enough to allow easy coverage of the costs of aging from 2010. That will make us all very sour later. Then we will look back on this period, as we all looked at the budgetary years 1975-1980 in the 1980s, or as we considered the years 1989-1991 as a budgetary mistake in the 1990s.

Therefore, we cannot approve this adjusted budget for 2002. On the contrary, we will reject them with conviction.