Proposition 50K2145

Projet de loi contenant le troisième 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

Nov. 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 LE FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Jan. 9, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This report was, as usual, excellently prepared by the departments concerned.

As regards various elements, I will thus be able to refer to the written report. The present document, which is the third adjustment of the General Expenditure Budget for the financial year 2002, was the subject of discussions in five committee meetings, which — and that is ⁇ a little cynical of mine — one committee meeting is more than for the 2003 budget. This, however, had to do with the fact that the majority was not always able to have a meeting.

At the first meeting, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the content of what we now need to discuss and discuss. It is about a number of additional appropriations for, among other things, the upcoming elections, in particular with regard to the voting failure in Belgium, but also for the Belgians abroad. A number of credits for previous years are registered. If, by the way, this would not happen now, we would have to wait for the first adjustment sheet for 2003, which will have to wait a few weeks in itself. Their

At the Ministry of Justice, a number of increases in operating appropriations have been carried out as a result of the increase in honorary lawyers, the increase in prison population and the court costs. At the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, an increased credit should be provided for compensation for damages resulting from planned damage around the Oelegem canal. For the federal police, an increase in the allocation to the local police zones was registered in the amount of 49 million euros, covering, on the one hand, the additional costs of the 2001 police reform. On the other hand, this concerns the regularization of a budget consultation in a Council of Ministers from the summer of 2002. Following the contradictory debate with the police zones — which has since been discussed in the questionnaire — an amendment has been submitted by the government to fix the acceptable additional costs of almost 40 million euros in addition to this adjustment sheet. In Section 55 — Governance of Social Integration — and Section 26 — Social Affairs — there is a shift of appropriations between two budget programs. There is also a rearrangement of the resources for the Rosettabanen plan. A government amendment will regulate the payment of a number of assessments, carried out by Selor, for the local and federal police.

A number of compensations are provided for these adjustments. Additional costs have been compensated in the Belgian-Congolese Fund and in the commissions for social programming and selective recruitment.

The third element of the presenting document stipulates that legislative amendments are proposed to allow the payment for the repair of the airport grounds and the consultancy costs of the sale of Shangai Bell to be counted on the receipts.

During the discussion in the Committee on Finance and Budget, two Chamber members intervened, namely your reporter and Ms. Coenen. The Deputy Prime Minister dismissed a number of arguments and answered a number of questions from your reporter and my colleague Coenen. I suggest that I refer to the excellent report, as shown by the services in the document.

I cannot conclude the report without referring to the opinion of the Committee on Justice. This is a very well-founded opinion regarding the rearrangements on the Department of Justice. The opinion of the Committee on Justice is attached to this report. It will be noted that colleague Van Parys — although the only member of the Committee on Justice who spoke on the subject — pointed out, in a very well-founded manner, a number of shortcomings — in his view — in terms of the financing of the justice policy. Responses were received from the Minister and eventually the discussion in the Committee on Justice turned to a favorable opinion to the Committee on Finance and Budget. This last committee adopted the amended bill this week with nine votes against one. The report was finally unanimously adopted.

Mr. Leterme, you now have the word in the general discussion as speaker of your group.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly present the position of my group on the third adjustment sheet. It is not an insignificant adjustment sheet. In this sense, I regret that no other group expresses its position.

First, dear colleagues, the third adjustment sheet actually belongs home in the row of many examples of what is called under purple green quickly and efficiently.

Indeed, the budget adjustment is the result of the second budget control held by Minister Vande Lanotte in the summer and which ultimately resulted in the bill submitted to the House on 25 November last year. Additionally, on 10 December, when the discussion was to begin in the Chamber Committee on Finance and Budget, the government, through the Minister of Budget, submitted government amendments, which I referred to later in my report. Given this method of the government, as well as the method of the majority, it is obviously not surprising that this budget adjustment could not be completed in time in the House.

My first question, Mr. Minister of Budget, colleagues, is the following. How will the additional appropriations that are the subject of the third adjustment sheet, with the exception of those for police, which have been the subject of a budget consultation in the Council of Ministers, still be fixed in a timely manner? We have already arrived in 2003. I can tell you, in so far as you are not yet aware, Mr. Minister, that I have used my right in this regard as a member of Parliament to question the Court of Auditors on this subject, and to ask what the situation is now. After all, I think that the law applies to all Belgians and ⁇ – I still live in this illusion – must be respected by the government. I think the government team is not above the law. So I asked the Court of Auditors what the situation is now, but I would like to know from the Minister of Budget, on behalf of the Government, how it is with the payment of these additional appropriations in this third adjustment sheet. Today is January 9, 2003; therefore, the adoption of this adjustment plan will be delayed.

With this budget adjustment, additional appropriations are allowed. The question arises what the impact will be on the final budget result. In his triumphant report a few days ago on the 2002 budget result, the minister forgot to point out that the federal government, for which he is the first responsible, has a deficit. Mr. Erdman, I see you the eyebrows frons, but the federal government has a deficit and it is only thanks to the positive contribution of the social security and of the regions, in addition to some tricks of course, that for the government globally a balance could be displayed. The deficit of the federal government itself, colleagues, is further deepened by this budget adjustment, which will give rise to additional spending. The question is, therefore, what the final result of the 2002 budget will be, taking into account the payment of the invoices for which appropriations have been issued in this third adjustment sheet and when — more generally — all the invoices relating to this financial year will be paid.

Collega Van Parys has highlighted in the Committee on Justice the problems in the department, with regard to the lack of working resources for the judicial order and for the post court costs. This budget adjustment will provide an additional €3.7 million for these posts, at the expense of staff appropriations. It is surprising that today, as colleague Van Parys demonstrated in his presentation in the Committee on Justice, the personnel loans for judicial houses and for the betting of the magistrates may seem to decline, although a few months ago there were no longer so-called loans to honor the, even then already, justified requirements in terms of staffing and wages. This means, therefore, that the Minister of Justice, as colleague Van Parys has shown, has saved on his staff, in order to fill the shortage in the working resources. Their

The question that continues to be raised, Mr. Minister, is whether there are now sufficient credits provided to eliminate the stock of invoices, which is accumulating in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Minister, can you give the Chamber, to which you request to approve the adjustment sheet, an idea of the amount of open invoices on 31 December 2002 on the two posts, the means of judicial government on the one hand and the court costs on the other, which could not be paid due to the anchor principle and the lack of sufficient credit on both budget items, point to which Mr. Van Parys has explicitly referred in the Committee on Justice?

As regards the police, Mr Van Parys already explained in the questionnaire the file of the allocation of the additional resources for the justified additional costs of the police reform. Regarding the police, I would have liked to hear from you what amount was deposited in 2002 to the pension fund of the former national guard. If no funds were collapsed, was that forgotten and should that be added to the list of the transferred burdens, of the bodies to be stacked? After all, it is easy to remove the social allowance and shift the burden for the financing of pensions to the future in order to create room for some additional betoeling of the police zones.

As a result of a question from Mr. Leterme, I contacted my services. Therefore, I did not listen properly to his speech on the Fund. Can he repeat it?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. 12.04 Minister, the shift in budget articles to release additional funds for the justified additional costs of the police zones raises questions about the amount deposited in 2002 in the pension fund for the former Reich Guards. How much money was deposited in the pension fund of the former Reichswachters in 2002? My slightly cynical question was whether you — I see that I need to be quick because you grasp the phone again — have forgotten or is it a budget corpse in the mortar — according to my colleague De Crem the crematorium — of this coalition, which later will fall out of the closet.

Mr. Minister, it is remarkable that the present bill also includes the regularization of the lower than anticipated early repayment of outstanding loans in the amount of 100 billion. This reduction of the early repayment of outstanding government debt originally included in the budget leads to an increased interest burden, which is estimated at EUR 500 million. These are additional expenses in terms of interest rates. As Mr. Van Rompuy argued at the beginning of the week following the triumphal reports on the 2002 budget, this is proof for the CD&V that the repayment of the still too high outstanding public debt is being delayed. I apologize to other colleagues for asking questions on this point since the election date has already been announced. Mr. Minister, I expect an answer to these questions, which are not of any importance revealed.

Mr. Minister, having understood the question, do you give the Chamber an answer?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the reporter very briefly for his correct report.

As for his questions, which are specific—and I think we’ll be better at answering them—I can say the following.

On the one hand, normally, we can still make commitments in the coming months. This in itself is not a legal problem. This does not happen so often. This has already happened in the past and it can still happen. Thus, even if that budgetary control has not been approved before the end of December, we can still make commitments.

However, the ordinances made under those commitments relate to the year 2003. In the budgetary control, however, relatively few ordinances are registered for 2002. In this way, I also answer your question: what is the impact for 2002. There will no longer be any impact. The commitment, as you know, no longer counts for the result of 2002, only the ordinances. However, it is about very limited amounts.

That commitments are made after January is a somewhat exceptional process. But again, that can happen over the course of the year and that has also happened often in the past; so that’s not exceptional. But this is not the normal procedure.

The Court of Auditors must undoubtedly have the documentation available for this purpose, since, as you know, the Court of Auditors must issue its visa for those records.

by Vooralsnog.

For now, the Court of Auditors has yet to issue its visa. That is correct.

There is no problem with the recordings, although we do not want to make it a routine. It can be perfect.

This has no impact on the 2002 budget result. The 2002 budget result is what one might call definitive, with the difference that we always, when we announce the budget result at the beginning of January, in the coming months still face a number of recalculations. The first to make a critical assessment of government figures is the National Bank, approximately within a week after the announcement. From the end of February to the end of March there is an official calculation by the National Bank. The commitment then occurs another three months later. Sometimes it is adjusted. You know that the budget results from three to four years ago are still regularly updated on the last comms.

You used the word triumphalism. I don’t think I’ve already committed triumphalism in this legislature. I think we have a good result. You think of no. It is the absolute right of majority and opposition to diverge on this. But I don’t think we had a triumphal gift. In the current economic situation, triumphalism is not advisable, but within our difficult economic situation, I think the result is good.

You said that the global federal government remains in deficit. At the same time you must say that from a federal point of view — I mean the entity of federal government and social security for which I, contrary to what you say, am responsible; also the social security is my direct responsibility — we establish a deficit of minus 0.1. It is the first time in ten years that the importance of the federal government for the good in the outcome is so great. The 0.4 federal deficit now occurs for the first time and the impact of the Communities and the Regions is estimated at 0.1 at the moment. This is probably a subestimation of the given. Probably they will effectively end at 0.2. However, we made a cautious estimate. The latest numbers do not indicate that 0.1, but actually a better result. Well, we will have to wait for that. But it is the first time that in a positive outcome in a positive evolution the impact of the Communities and the Regions is only 0.1 of the GDP. This is the lowest impact in ten years. That means that the merit of the federal government in the result is the greatest we have had so far.

This also applies to social security. The 0.4% federal government deficit is the lowest federal government deficit we have ever had. I would like to emphasize that. You know that it has been said seven times that we would not get the 6% primary balance. This year we also reached the 6% primary balance. I say it for what it is worth. I come to your question about sliding through and more like that. However, I can say with some reassurance that we must assume that a normal regime of transportation is between 40 and 50 billion Belgian francs. This will be transported to the next year. These are things that are fixed and that one can no longer pay that year itself. It is structural. That is also no problem. We reduced this at some point in the year 2000 by paying more in 2000. So we limited the transportation at the time it was good. In 2000, this was reduced to a small 40 billion. These transports increased in 2001. At that time, we were close to 65 billion. Transportation for this year to next year has again been reduced. They are now just over 50 billion. We are slightly above the — let us say — average. That is also logical. If it goes well, something is underneath. If it goes less well, you are something above it. That means that the transportation we had in Belgian francs at least decreased by 10 billion so that we ⁇ did not overload the next year’s budget there. Their

I cannot say anything concrete about justice. I do not know this. It has been said three or four times that Justice could no longer pay because of the anchor principle. It would have already exceeded its amount in September and more like that. I have made it clear in the committee that this is not correct. It has always happened that bills are paid too late. That is regrettable. In any case, if the shipments were 65 billion Belgian francs last year and 55 billion this year, then one cannot say that despite the anchor principle, we have not made a pick-up movement. I would like to see how the situation in the judiciary is. The problem of the anchor, which has been signaled for several months, I would strictly contradict. I do not have the information yet. I will give you this in writing, the information about how much we deposited in 2002 for the pension fund of the National Guard. I just called and they went to find out. I asked, but you had just finished your speech. I do not have it here. I personally thought we shouldn’t drop that this year. However, I will verify it. I am going to do this for the simple reason that we have not done this for the municipal governments before 2002. The regime begins — but I’m now saying something I don’t know — in my opinion effective only in 2003. However, this is a very preliminary answer. I will confirm it to you. I cannot tell you. I called, but you had just done when I started calling. I cannot fix this in one minute.

Mr. Speaker, if you had listened, you would have heard from the Minister that he cannot answer a crucial question. The Minister says that I had done my presentation too quickly and that he still had to call. I would like to say a few things about that adjustment sheet. Their

However, it is about the deposits to the pension fund of the former Reichswachters. We also discussed this in the committee. After the entire financial household, the collection of the astronomical surplus costs of the police reform, the answer to the question of whether or not a deposit was made for compensation while it was to be made to the pension fund of former Reich Guards is, of course, not without importance in the evaluation of this third adjustment sheet. This is the case in particular with regard to the approach of financial compensation for the surplus costs in the police in general. Their

I regret that the Minister will provide the answer in writing. It is a pity that this cannot happen in the context of this debate. Given the fact that no one else is speaking in the debate, I have no choice but to submit to this method that I am not satisfied with.

I think I can follow you for a certain part.