Proposition 51K0353

Projet de loi instaurant une déclaration libératoire unique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 28, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax evasion direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA 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.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 11, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Pinxten, the Minister is gone.

Colleagues, subject to some effort, this bill can be dealt with in a few hours. Their

I can see that the Minister is now back.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to begin with a word of thanks to the two rapporteurs who have done their job very well. I would also like to express a word of gratitude to our Commission President, Mr. de Donnea, who has led the work in a very good way. In my thanks, I ⁇ do not want to forget the opposition, and in particular the CD&V group. I would also like to thank colleague Bogert very generously. He may not know why, but there has already been a reference to the famous Saturday meeting. You know that important meetings should take place on a Saturday or a Sunday and it is best even at night somewhere in a castle. On that famous Saturday, November 29, we gathered and the majority factions would like to thank you very heartily for asking for a two to three-hour suspension at the beginning of that meeting, around 10 o’clock. Colleague Bogaert, that came to us very well, because at that time there was still no agreement in the majority factions on the ultimate amendment. We are therefore very grateful to you, because you supported us in requesting that suspension and thus also gave us the time to reach an agreement by 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

Colleagues, I think we should actually ask two questions about this draft. The first question is an obvious question: is this a good bill? My answer to this is unambiguous: yes. The second question is: had members of the majority, like many colleagues from the opposition, concerns about that passage from the government agreement where the one-time liberating declaration was announced in the middle of the year? I want to be very open about it. Of course, colleagues from all factions of the majority also had quite a few concerns about that suggestion in the government agreement to reach a liberating declaration. I think this is also normal, because something like moral outrage is not an opposition monopoly.

Something like moral outrage, of course, is not the monopoly of the opposition, but it is also not the monopoly of a single party. This happens in all parties. I think that moral outrage alone is not enough to carry out a good and thoughtful policy.

Let me return to the first question. I will later return to the second point, that of the principles, the principles, the so-called ethics and everything that needs to go on for them. I will discuss this in detail. First, I want to answer the questions whether this is a good design, why it is a good design and what it must meet in order to be a good arrangement.

Four or five conditions must be fulfilled in order for this type of intervention to be a good operation. First of all, it should be a one-off arrangement. It must be situated in the atmosphere of now or never: if we do not perform the operation today, then it does not happen, but if we perform them, then it will be a one-off operation. This is important because such an operation, of course, must be accompanied by a structural breakdown and a change in mentality that must therefore be achieved. We need to increase the awareness that everything that is not situated in the official or white circuit is actually competition distortion and is therefore bad for both companies, SMEs, self-employed entrepreneurs, and for the employees in those companies. When there is competition distortion, it means that one must fight with unequal weapons and sooner or later everyone will be the victim of it.

In addition, it may be worth noting here that this is not the first time that there is a proposal for a liberating declaration. More than that: there was a proposal in 1983; I brought it to the colleagues who do not know it. Also on 25 February 1997 there was a proposal, not for a declaration of liberation, but for a real tax amnesty. That was a proposal from the then CVP, today CD&V, to really introduce a tax amnesty without any penalty. February 1997.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today we talked about a new culture of meeting in Parliament. Maybe we could start by listening to colleague Pinxten who has meaningful things to tell.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is too early!

Chairman, colleague Van der Maelen refers to meaningful proposals. I just want to say that colleague Pinxten once made the proposal to ban political overlapping.

I must tell you, colleagues, that whoever stays here for a long time can have a lot on his Christmas tree.

Collega The Cream, which is well tried, but actually — that is your intention — want you to deviate from the subject. I just wanted to point out that there was a proposal from your party in February 1997 for tax amnesty. You do not hear me say that this was not honest. I do not say that. I’m going to come up with that, colleague Tante. I am not saying that this was dishonest, but that when the CVP made a proposal for real tax amnesty, i.e. at a zero rate. Not a rate of six or nine percent, colleague Ansoms, but a zero rate. Nothing in itself is disrespectful. It is only a finding that, of course, in relation to this statement at a rate of six or nine percent actually undermines your opposition for a whole lot and does not really make it credible. little little

Mr Pinxten is doing disinformation. It was not 0%. It was 21.5 percent. I will give him a copy of it.

Colleagues, you are doing it for the second time. Honestly, I have been waiting for this and I will explain why. Their

I am aware of the amendment submitted by the then CVPS Parliamentary Group in March. This is not about 0% or 21.5%. The point is that at that time — I know this is annoying to you — we were in principle agreed on a similar operation like this which is being discussed today. I can hardly understand that one, by entering the opposition, says the opposite of what one himself proposed five years ago. That is all I want to say about the principle.

I believe that Mr. Pinxten is suffering from one of those illnesses following a shock that, I begin to guess, was his change of party.

This is a parliamentary term.

Colleague Viseur, I defend this draft and I think there is a certain logic in it as I was also in favor of the proposal made by the then Senate faction. I think there is a lot more logic here than with you. However, I understand this because of course it makes a difference whether you are in the majority or in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the second condition that a good draft of a single declaration must meet, namely legal certainty. We have discussed this in detail, among other things, with the experts invited in the committee. I think that legal certainty means three things. First of all, it means avoiding any risk of cancellation or delay. Everyone knows that the procedure for requesting recognition from the Committee on Banking and Finance has been abolished. This will save at least 30 days. I think this is a good amendment. During the discussion in the committee, extensive attention was also paid to the risk of a possible review by the Court of Arbitration of the principle of equality. I think that risk has also been eliminated. As to the possible interpretation by the courts and courts in the aftermath, I think the draft is very clear. It is a short, concise design with ten items, two rates, six and nine percent, and a fine rate of six percent. I think there will be little reason to fear interpretation risks. In this regard, at least for the sums in the country, the anonymity is also guaranteed. Only the amounts that remain abroad or the titles must be declared through Finance. The CFI has also very clearly stated, by the mandate of its chairman, that the Financial Information Processing Cell will only act as a notary, which is also specified in the draft. There will be no additional fiscal investigation. I think the second condition is fulfilled.

The third condition is that the EBA must be successful. I know that at the beginning there was some doubt about the estimate of 850 million. We have said in the committee from the majority groups — and the VLD group has also advocated this from the outset — that the scope of application should be expanded. This was also effectively done through the amendment on the last day of the discussions, so that it is sufficient today that not 14% of the funds eligible, but only 7% must be declared in order to obtain that amount of 850 million. In that sense, therefore, I think that the extension to effects is a very important data. It is also my personal belief that the revenue will actually be a bit above the 850 million.

The Dexia campaign, which Mr. Bart Tommelein will talk about later, has already made it very clear that the EBA scheme, much more than some claimed, is a good thing for the small, ordinary saver rather than for the large savers and capitalists.

There is a second reason why I believe the yield will be much higher. When we look at international comparisons, we see, for example, that in a similar operation in Italy in 2002 the yield was 4% of the gross domestic product, that in Ireland in the operation of 1988 the yield was 1.7% of the domestic product, and that Portugal at the end of last year achieved a yield of 1.1 billion euros. 850 million euros corresponds to 0.3% of gross domestic product. Taking into account the international comparisons, we can reasonably assume that we will obtain that yield easily and even considerably exceed.

The last condition for a good arrangement is that the arrangement must be an incentive, an incentive, that it must have a mandatory character. This is the story of the root and the stick. On the one hand, the root has doubled, but on the other hand, the VLD faction clearly assumes that when taxpayers effectively get the chance to put themselves in order, they must really take that opportunity.

We also very clearly defend that balance in the text. That part of the scheme, by the way, is nothing more than fair to all those who have paid their taxes correctly.

I just said that there is a balance in the amendment that happened in the Finance Committee, the doubling of the scope and also the introduction of a punishment, of an incitement. I am very pleased that the Chairman of CD&V is also of the opinion that it was necessary to come to that extension.

Per ⁇ the colleagues of CD&V can even read the report on page 134. With regard to the extension of the securities scheme, the majority groups even took into account what colleague Leterme said on this subject at the committee meeting. I quote the report on page.

Colleagues, can I ask you to be careful? Mr. Leterme, do you ask the word for a personal fact?

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity: I know the passage that Mr. Pinxten will read. Our group has clearly stated that the report is not correct on this point. It refused to amend the report.

Mr Goris, you are one of the rapporteurs. You get the word.

We unanimously approved the report, as it is on the table today. The CD&V Commissioners also approved it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that there are problems with what I cite in the report.

I would like to quote what colleague Leterme said in the Committee on Finance on Saturday 29 November. It is written literally: "Mr. Leterme does not understand why the one-off release declaration does not apply to funds in a safe in Belgium or abroad." The majority would like to take this comment from Mr. Leterme into account. Hence the extension of the domain; the scope was doubled, with an extension to effects. So I think there was participation, not only from the Parliament, but actually from all the groups that were represented.

I would like to come to the question that was raised in the committee and which has also been addressed thereafter.

Is this system fair and fair to all those who have paid their taxes properly and correctly year after year? That is the question of the principles and the principles, of the ethical review. I would like to raise some concerns if you allow me to do so. Their

First and foremost, I believe that politicians do well to not only behave us exemplary, but also to show some reservation when it comes to principles, principles, values and norms, when it comes to ethics. It is good that politicians show some restraint, some reserve. We must not constantly preach with the lifted finger to others. It is good for politicians to realize that ethics has more to do with a way of acting, with a code of conduct, than with precarious behavior. The moral knight who rotates high on his horse can also fall from high, and this happens more often.

Colleagues, I can quote someone else from the CD&V group. I agree with what Mr. Devlies said in the committee and what can be found on page 85 of the report. You may also find this annoying, but Mr. Devlies explicitly said that tax amnesty must be possible and that individuals should be able to withdraw from the illegality under certain conditions. I agree with it. It is in line with the mind of the design on the one-off release declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I will soon have the opportunity to speak. I will broadly outline that quote, which is drawn from its connection.

Mr. Speaker, I may also be able to refer in this context to a fine statement made by one of the prominent Flemish fiscalists, one of the coryfee among the fiscalists in our country. It is about Rik De Blauwe, who you undoubtedly all know and who regularly writes free tribunes. He also wrote about the present draft law. These are not my words, but theirs. I just want to read them, if I at least like it from you. Rik De Blauwe writes in a Flemish quality journal: “Giving forgiveness is not in itself unethical. Did not John the Baptist call to repentance and conversion? Repentance implies forgiveness, although after punishment: 6% or 9% penalty. But whoever finds forgiveness unethical is himself—now you must listen carefully—maybe rancunny and unethical.” These are the words of an eminent Flemish fiscalist.

I have heard from some in the committee that they are against the one-off, liberating declaration, because they still have principles. These were their words. Against all other factions, this testifies to a slightly misplaced, moral pretence, if you ask me. (Tumult) I also understand ... If you want to listen for a moment; I also listened very carefully to all the other speakers. You don’t have to wind up like that. I will also address the fundamental questions in this draft.

What is the intention of those who are against the design? Their intention is, of course, what I understand, to win some electoral souls. People, who have paid their taxes correctly over the past few years, are trying to pin something. Colleagues, however, the reality is that if this operation did not continue, everyone who is against the operation will know perfectly — and that would best say to the correct taxpayers — that the 850 million euros will not be recovered from those who frauded in the past. That amount is obtained from the same people whom one wants to seduce today and whose electoral souls one wants to win today.

You are obliged to contact the same correct taxpayer.

Ladies and gentlemen, let Mr. Pinxten continue his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that I could cause so much outrage among the Christian Democrats.

This is obviously not a one-time liberating speech. Go ahead, Mr Pinxten.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, what is the crucial question with regard to this bill involving the introduction of a one-off release declaration? The crucial question is whether the taxpayer who has paid taxes correctly with this scheme in recent years is also better off, or, on the contrary, does not get better off this EBA scheme. The answer is clear. Those who have paid taxes correctly in the past will benefit fully from this EBA scheme. Why Why ? If this scheme is not approved, this group of taxpayers will be called in the first place to collect the €850 million. However, there is more, this measure will not only bring about 1 billion euros to the State Treasury, but will also contribute to economic growth by injecting money into the economic cycle and thus to job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with a brief consideration of the revenues. According to my estimate, especially after the doubling of the scope of application and the introduction of an incentive through sanctions mechanisms, the revenue will be much higher than 850 million euros.

Mr. Minister, it would be good to agree on the use of this surplus. It would be interesting to indicate already what we want to use the additional funds for if we surpass the 850 million. It is clear to me that all taxpayers, those who have done this correctly and those who wish to take advantage of the EBA scheme, should enjoy the extra revenue. How can this? This can be done by clarifying that the additional income will be used for a reduction in the personal tax. Why Personal Tax? Companies are excluded from the EBA scheme, which applies only to natural persons. Therefore, it seems to me logical that the extra income is spent on the reduction of the personal tax. This would not only further reduce the highest rates to 45%, below the current average of 46%, and later to 40%, thereby dynamising the labour market, but also to “the bottom” thereby increasing the purchasing power and thereby benefiting the economy and job creation.

Chairman, colleagues, and with this I am around, we think this is a very good arrangement. This arrangement is of course beneficial to those who want to stand in the rule and who also get the opportunity to do so. This scheme will undoubtedly also benefit all those who in the past have paid their taxes correctly. Whoever claims the opposite tries to fool and deceive those people by making them know that if this operation does not continue, one will sit again in their pockets to get those 850 million that one is now going to get from the fraudsters.

Our group will approve this bill. Their

( ... ...

A maidensprache means that one is a virgin, Mrs. D'Hondt.

What is the opposite of a maiden speech? This is a penetration.

You have enough imagination.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask you something that you may not suspect at this time, but I request application of Article 98, 3° of the Rules of the Chamber because I want to seek the opinion of the Council of State.

I would like to ask for the opinion of the State Council on the amendments no. 33 to 48 submitted by the majority parties at eleven o’clock in the Committee on Finance. These amendments have substantially amended the present draft. They have led to amendments to Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. In addition, these amendments added Articles 9 and 10 to this draft. There are only a few articles that have not been modified.

These government amendments seem so fundamental to us because the scope of the law has been doubled. There are also many inequalities as certain investments are excluded from the scope of the draft. The new Article 9 adds a sanction linked to non-participation in the single declaration.

In addition, I would like to ask for the opinion of the State Council on our amendments I have submitted to you and your services. I suppose they are now being divided. I would like to submit this question to the Chamber.

Mr. De Crem, for the sake of clarity, you have just provided me with a series of amendments, but they are not numbered. I would like to discuss together what amendments are in question.

The first amendment covers in the proposed Article 2, §1 the words "from 1 January 2004"...". Is this one of your amendments?

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the amendment in which I gave an exceptionally long accountability that is actually quite wicked.

If I understand correctly, you would like to seek the opinion of the State Council on this issue.

The following amendment concerns the replacement of the words "the sums" by the words "the sums" in Article 2 § 1, primo. Do you want the opinion of the State Council in this regard? Their

Subsequently, there is an amendment aimed at inserting in Article 2 § 1, secundo: after the words "of unlisted companies" the words "and of insurance products of the type TAC 21 or TAC 23"". Is this part of your series of amendments? Please always answer with yes or no.

and yes.

Subsequently, there is an amendment aimed at replacing in the pre-established article 4 § 2 the words "other than securities on toonder" by "other than securities on toonder which are not on a securities account on toonder"". Does that also include?

and yes.

There is also an amendment aimed at removing in the proposed article 4 §2, in fine the words "the King determines" as well as "the control". Does that also include?

and yes.

The following amendment aims to supplement the first sentence of Article 4 § 2 with the words "In a high-risk investment". Does that also include?

Finally, an amendment aimed at this in the pre-established article 4 § 2 the last sentence was replaced by the following: "The King, after consultation in the Council of Ministers, shall determine the rules of execution concerning investments and their recognition as well as their control". Does that also include?

and yes.

Those are the amendments 50 to 56 submitted by you, Mr. De Crem.

Mr. Speaker, in the main order, I ask for the opinion on our amendments, but also on the amendments submitted, inter alia, by Mr. Van der Maelen and Mr. Tommelein on behalf of the government majority.

It cannot. They are part of the design. I can only consult the State Council for new amendments. You ask for the advice on your amendments nrs. 50 to 56?

I ask that in the main order, but also on the articles of the draft and on the amendments submitted on behalf of the government majority by mount and by letter of Mr. Van der Maelen and Tommelein.

You must clearly tell me on which other points you are still asking for the advice of the State Council.

Mr. Speaker, we request the opinion on Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and on the new Articles 9 and 10 added to the draft.

So you ask me for the opinion of the State Council on the amendments 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 and on Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10?

Indeed indeed. Finally, I have another request for the State Council’s opinion on the issue of the division of powers. After all, a very important part of this design is not highlighted, in particular the impact it has on regional taxes. This includes the succession rights.

Which article is it about? I can’t just ask for advice.

This relates to various articles.

I need to ask for advice on texts.

Ask for advice in any case about the texts, as I have suggested to you.

I have already made it clear that there are no problems with regard to the subject of your question. We agree on this. Now I must determine in the traditional way whether you meet the conditions of Article 98, paragraph 3, second paragraph. I will do that with an electronic count. That is easier.

Mr. Speaker, can you, in order to create clarity, say what the exact question is? I have seen a number of amendments from the opposition. There is also a request for advice to the State Council on amendments submitted to the committee. However, there was also an additional question.

It is requested the opinion of the State Council for 7 amendments, nrs. 50 to 56. The advice for Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 is requested. That is all. The rest I cannot ask. I will now count if there are 50 colleagues asking for this advice. I’m not going to vote on this, but I’m going to count with your vote button.

I will count to see if the request is supported by 50 members. Those who request the opinion of the State Council press the green button.

It is electronically counted. Electronic counting is carried out. 52 members support the request for advice from the Council of State. 52 members support the request for opinion to the State Council.

The required number has been reached. I will therefore seek urgent advice from the Council of State within the period known to you.

The general discussion continues.

Mr. Speaker, I observe that, although the banks of the opposition were widely disguised this morning, notably the banks of the French-speaking opposition, as by chance, at the beginning of the plenary session this afternoon, we see come together all the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking MPs of the opposition to ask for an opinion of the State Council.

Therefore, we conclude that this request for opinion of the State Council has been negotiated! We were already accustomed to negotiations between CD&V and the Vlaams Blok but this is the first time, it seems to me, that the French-speaking opposition associates and negotiates in advance with the Vlaams Blok to file a request for an opinion of the State Council.

On this incident, I will successively give the floor to President Langendries and Mr. Annemans and Van der Maelen.

First of all, Mr. President,

Raymond Langendries I think the members of the Socialist group can afford to applaud since they are, in an uninterrupted way now, in the majority for a long time. They therefore have a weak memory of what the liberals did at that time, between 1995 and 1999, a period during which I remember, as the chairman of the assembly, having to make, on a number of occasions, requests for opinions from the State Council emanating from the opposition.

I would like to report to mr. Bacquelaine that our group meeting usually takes place on Thursday morning, part of the day that is normally scheduled for group meetings. Our group met like every Thursday morning and our representative was there. There was nothing but our group meeting!

You are not going to make us an intellectual terrorism that would prevent us from asking for opinions from the State Council on bills that are badly torched! We will see!

Finally, we have no lesson to receive from the MR when we know how the VLD, the liberal family, behaved with the Vlaams Blok in Senate commission on other important projects! We have no lessons to learn from you! (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, colleague Bacquelaine was initially for me a colleague who, as a doctor, had interesting projects and proposals related to health care and the like, but who then by the coincidence of history became group chairman of the French-speaking liberals. I’ve been working with him for several years now and I see him slowly but surely growing into a man with a vision of democracy similar to that of Mr. Putin.

He makes here today an assumption that I can completely disprove. I have, and no Flemish Blocker has, talked about what is happening here now with any French speaker, by the way, with no one. We are here because we must be here, because people’s representatives must be in the House at 14.15 a.m. on Thursday. If I had ever spoken to French speakers, now and in the past, it was never with Christian Democrats, but almost always with liberals.

Mr Van der Maelen asks for the word. Everyone is so nervous today.

Mr. Speaker, when I entered the hall at four o’clock and suddenly saw the full banks of the Flemish Block and, two o’clock, the full banks of CD&V, we knew what was going to happen. In fact, there is only one more question I would like to ask Pieter De Crem or Yves Leterme: who took the initiative for this? Did you go to the Block, or did the Block come to you? This is all I want to know: who took the initiative? That is all I want to know!

I think the majority is a bad loser. My group supported the request for referral to the State Council made by colleague De Crem, on the basis of objective elements. Important points of the project have been modified: the holding securities, material or intangible, the taxation of capital or interest. These amendments were submitted in a committee, without passing the opinion of the State Council. Therefore, it seemed perfectly justified to take the opinion of the State Council. If the majority had been predictive, she would have done it herself. This seems to me important.

Then the MR group leader pointed out to us that if, by chance, we support the opposition’s request to refer to the State Council, it would be a kind of anti-nature alliance. These are not acceptable methods. If the majority wants the democratic opposition to express itself clearly, it only has to change the regulation and allow the democratic French- and Dutch-speaking groups to be able to request a referral to the State Council. This is not the responsibility of the majority.

Finally, I remind the virtuous of the MR that, during the previous legislature, the right to vote of foreigners was returned to the Greek calendas, because there was a vote MR/Vlaams Blok. We have no lessons to learn from anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I think every objective observer will still have to laugh at the supposed state of excitement of the MR and sp.a. A number of colleagues have already demonstrated that, depending on the case – in the Flemish Parliament, in the Senate or in the Chamber – parties have used an alliance with the Flemish Bloc to obtain the necessary signatures. It is very important in this regard that we do not hear the voice of the VLD. That is right, I would say, when I see their attitude in the past period, both in the Flemish Parliament and in the House.

I then listened to Mr. Pinxten. He rightly says that it is very important that legal certainty is provided. He believes that there are important questions about the principle of equality. What democracy would have anything to do with the State Council being able to comment on the final texts from these two important legal-state points of view. Moreover, Mr Pinxten, I have subsequently credited two amendments to the banks, amendments 55 and 56. These are amendments aimed at restoring the powers of Parliament in it. Mr. Speaker, you talked about the role of the Parliament in this, about the revaluation of the Parliament. What a righteous Democrat can counter that the united opposition believes that Parliament should also be able to play its role in tax matters.

I would like to make two comments. First note: Ms Nagy is more frank and more honest than Mr. Nagy. Langendries since she implicitly acknowledges having negotiated with CD&V and the Vlaams Blok. (Vive protests from Ms. Nagy) Second note: on the bottom — Mrs. Nagy, stop screaming like this, you are not heard anyway! —, it is true that this is a matter so important that ECOLO has virtually not sat — if not a few minutes — in a committee on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to briefly say three things in this somewhat emotionalized Chamber.

Mr. President, Mr. Van der Maelen, there are things that deserve better than this.

I come to the three points that I would like to calmly address. First, I note that the majority and the minister in particular are apparently afraid of the opinion of the State Council. This proves that we are right to ask. Secondly, Mr. Van der Maelen, I would like to say to you and your group once and for all that we will never go below that threshold with regard to the kind of hypocritical intellectual terrorism you are trying to find in Parliament. I do not take that especially from you and your party, which, five months before the elections, seeks the cooperation of the Flemish Bloc to begin to adjust the electoral system on essential points. Don’t give me a lesson in democracy.

Third, Mr. Speaker, I address my liberal colleagues, including Mr. Bacquelaine. I will say it only once, but I would advise you not to tempt me — which, by the way, also applies to Mr. Reynders — to be able to do the Chamber and the public of the speed with which you, at the moment when the Genocide Act was in danger because of the division in the majority or because there could be a decision on the fixed price of books, from the liberal family — on both sides — were driven to pulse directly or through intermediaries what the Flemish Bloc was going to do.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot try to intimidate the opposition by depriving it of the opportunity to support a request from one of the opposition’s democratic parties, by threatening them with encounters or alliances with the far right. The majority has lost a vote and is allowed to make bad trials. I cannot accept such a trial of intent or such intimidation! It is good to recall that, because if, in a Parliament, one does not guarantee at a given moment – you are the guarantor of it and you do it well, Mr. Speaker – the rights of the opposition, parliamentary democracy does not exist!

Yesterday, there were statements about revaluing the role of Parliament. Today, we vote for the return of a text proposed by the government to the Council of State and this leads to an indescribable excitement on the subject. It is abnormal! We will not let ourselves be intimidated. We will not let ourselves get into a corner. This is the right of the democratic opposition to use – when it believes it is right in the substance – the procedures provided for in the regulation. This does not require an alliance against nature! The majority would do better to respect the will of Parliament. (The applause)

I thought that tolerance was a sign of civilization, colleague Tant, but well.

I just want to return to what colleague Geert Bourgeois just said in connection with my speech. Indeed, I have intentionally spoken about the possible problem of legal certainty as well as the question of whether the possible violations of the principle of equality should be settled by the Arbitration Court. I have also made it very clear that each of these possible violations of the principle of equality have been discussed, dealt with, in the Committee on Finance and that they have always been responded circumstantially. Therefore, there cannot be a possible violation of the principle of equality. This has been answered extensively in the committee by the Minister of Finance and by several members of the Committee on Finance. This problem is clearly resolved, Mr. President.

Please allow me to intervene.

1 of 1. The Rules allow, without the slightest doubt, to return a text to the Council of State, if 50 parliamentarians so request. This we know. 2 of 2. It is clear that this procedural vote and the way 50 parliamentarians requested this removal somewhat masks the reality of the support made in the circumstance to bring together 50 parliamentarians.

3 of 3. The French-speaking parties have twice signed a pact according to which, under no circumstances, the French-speaking democratic parties could align their voices with those of the extreme right.

4 of 4. We know perfectly well that the Dutch speakers and especially the CD&V have practically concluded a non-aggression pact with the Vlaams Blok. There is some banalization of the extreme right by some Flemish right-wing parties. However, this is the first time that the sanitary cord is broken at the French-speaking level, which is not acceptable. I therefore propose, having observed the embarrassment of Ms. Nagy whose correction I have been able to appreciate repeatedly; also having observed the embarrassment that can legitimately arouse a one-day alliance between Ecolo and the Vlaams Blok, I propose that the Ecolo group may withdraw its support for the request to refer to the Council of State. Paul-Henry Spaak once said, “There are only fools who do not change their minds.”

The return request is accepted. I will not return to this point. by

I will give the word to Mr. Leningrad and then to the Minister.

The Regulation does not provide for a debate on such issues. You know it very well.

Mr. Speaker, if there is someone whom I did not expect at all to intervene in this way in this Assembly, that is the leader of the socialist group. I once said that you obviously had nothing else to do than applaud what Mr. said. Bacquelaine, because you have been in the majority for a few years with us and with them. Therefore, you have not had to be the subject of requests from the opposition for a long time.

The right of the opposition is the right of the opposition. From the moment when the Rules indicate that it takes fifty members to send a request for an opinion to the Council of State, regardless of the parties that request it, fifty is fifty. During the 1995-1999 legislature, during which you were in the majority, Mr. Eerdekens, there have been, during these four years, repeatedly, at least ten times, calls for opinions of the State Council, calls which have also always been supported by the Vlaams Blok. I would like to find you all this in the parliamentary annals that are here to testify to this. This was the initiative of the Liberals.

I find it completely unworthy that you adopt such an attitude towards French-speaking democratic parties, which they are known to hold as the spark of their eyes to this famous agreement between French-speaking parties. You would do well to say the same to the parties of your majority. I have not heard you open your mouth about what happened in the Senate during the consideration of the bill on the vote of non-Europeans. I would like you to have the same attitude towards your majority partners, the same behavior as yours at the moment and which is unworthy on your part.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention three points.

First, as a representative of the government, I can obviously only bow to the choices of the parliament. I will also return to it. It is obvious that, when 50 members of the assembly request the opinion of the State Council, however – we have verified it just now – that this is done in the rules provided by the House itself, there is no criticism to be made to this request. Of course, I can’t stop regretting the way, it’s another thing. This morning we started work in a serene manner with, in some groups sometimes, only one representative. This is the choice of the groups. I just found that in the early afternoon, a large number of fractions had decided to be fully present. I only see it. I regret that, obviously - and I think that Mr. Eerdekens said it very well - this is the first time that a negotiation of this kind has occurred ...

(Protests on various banks) I know that as soon as this topic is addressed, Mr. President, it is very difficult to express yourself freely! It is the responsibility of each member of Parliament to express themselves freely in this Assembly. It is also up to parliamentarians of the majority, or even to the government, to try to express themselves. by

I repeat that I see that this is the first time - as Mr. said. Eerdekens — that, apparently, a negotiation has occurred between French-speaking opposition parties and the Vlaams Blok.

Secondly, regarding parliamentary work — this has been recalled recently — I know that many of those who are screaming now have not participated in the committee debate. by

I would like to remind, since references have been made to earlier periods, whether in a period of presence in the opposition or in the majority, that I rarely have seen a debate develop in this way in a committee about a text deposited by the government. There were, of course, the mandatory opinions and the opinion of the State Council. At the request and at the choice of the committee, experts were heard. by

Mr. Speaker, I remind you, in your capacity as Chairman, that an agreement has been reached by all the groups, because the dates are continuously cited, to conclude, on the proposal of the Chairman of the Commission, on November 29th. We kept this agreement; I would even say that, for the final vote in the committee, we exceeded it by going to the next week. by

I also specify that, whatever the request, on which I do not return - it is a choice of parliament - there is no provision in the text submitted to the assembly that has not been discussed in a committee with the experts and that does not result from the amendments requested by them. Since then, the work has been of good quality. by

My third and last observation, but I thought to understand that you have already answered, is to wish, since a large number of parliamentarians today seem very interested in the debate, that one can obviously continue the general discussion and have, therefore, also comments on the substance. On this point, I acknowledge that a number of parliamentarians present today have already spoken in committees, but there are groups that have very little speech. I would like to be able to hear them in the plenary session and therefore I ask you effectively to continue the general discussion.

Mr President, Mr Le

I will try to express myself in spite of the noise!

The single release declaration is part of the European Directive on the tax treatment of non-resident savings, a directive that will, in principle, enter into force on 1 January 2005. In this European context, other countries such as Germany, Italy and Ireland have already taken similar measures.

This bill is also part of the fight against tax fraud. Improving tax perception is one of the government’s priorities. The Minister has already taken concrete steps and has repeatedly recalled this fact in the committee.

Furthermore, the DLU does not modify the mechanisms for combating money laundering. If the repatriated capital is likely to be the subject of a money laundering operation, it is up to the financial information processing unit to follow the use procedure.

I find that the substantive debate is of interest to all parliamentarians, since an entire group has already left us. Here is Mrs. Doyen.

Is this an unfair tax amnesty for citizens who have paid their taxes correctly? For us, no, of course. The single release declaration will encourage some taxpayers to pay, despite all, evaded taxes.

The evaded tax will have to be paid in the form of a single contribution of 6 or 9%. We prefer this system to a prescription of the due tax. It will also benefit citizens who pay their taxes properly. Because the amounts that will be paid to the Treasury, in favour of the DLU, will automatically result in a reduction in the contribution requested to other citizens, in order to sound the public finances. Very clearly, if the DLU is also a means of increasing state revenues, we prefer this orientation, rather than asking for additional efforts from our fellow citizens.

The tax reform will have its full effect on the 2004 income. We will need to go further in this path to align with other European countries. The repatriation of the expected capital must allow to compensate, or even continue, the reduction of labor taxation and also continue the sanitation of public debt. by

The MR is also pleased that capital re-injected into the economy will, in the long run, have a positive impact on growth, investment development and employment. Since it is currently capital abroad, the application of this new legislation can only be beneficial for Belgium since every euro repatriated will be reintegrated into the economy.

Will the target of 850 million euros of revenue be reached? One can hope for it and be optimistic when one sees the reactions and success of the information and even marketing campaigns of certain banking institutions.

However, it is important to establish a wide confidence among taxpayers and, therefore, to communicate and inform as much as possible in the coming weeks and months, on the project that will be voted in this House. Mr is satisfied. Thanks to numerous hearings and committee work, the text – as the Minister said – has been improved, including by extending the scope to securities, recognizing insurance companies as intermediaries at which the DLU can be introduced, removing the specific registration with the Banking and Finance Commission, better specifying the chances of investment and reinvestment, as well as the date of issuance of the certificate, and providing a penalty in case of non-compliance with the conditions and the deposit and investment obligation, as well as a penalty for those who do not wish to make use of this project. The possibility of regularization is, in any case, limited in time, until 31 December 2004.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Inspired by a radio announcement that has gone on the waves in recent days, I advise people likely to be affected by the DLU: “Release your conscience, bring your capital back, pay a contribution to the Treasury, you may find sleep again.” As Mr. Mr. would say. Visitor, who loves biblical allusions, "You will be forgiven of your sins!"

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, speaking in this emotional Chamber may not be a sinecure at the moment, but yet I dare.

The ethical debate on the reward of fraudsters, on the one hand, and the punishment of honest people, on the other, has, of course, also not missed us. The arguments for this operation are as numerous, as reasonable and as emotional as the arguments against. What has persuaded spirit to approve this one-time declaration of liberation? Our constructive approach? Our positive approach? Very ⁇ yes. I think I have completed my tax return correctly every year and paid my taxes correctly. I hope this applies to many of you as well. However, we know that this is not the case for everyone.

Looking for backdoors, evading taxes is in this country a national sport that has grown historically and, given the numerous dominations and oppressions, is even historically explainable. However, the frequent practice of this sport has resulted in a lot of Belgians having fallen into a disadvantaged situation. For spirit it is more specifically those people who have often, against will and thanks, ended up in a grey zone. They often relied on well-intentioned advice and sometimes even on incorrectly given or misinterpreted advice. They were in family circumstances that simply occurred, without themselves having any involvement.

The examples are legion. Everyone knows families where the annual excursions to Luxembourg have become a tradition. Everyone in his or her neighborhood knows a dentist, a slaughterhouse, a baker, a lawyer or an employee who combined the annual coupons cut in Luxembourg with a day or weekend trip and returned with drinks, cigars and cigarettes with lower tax bands than here with us. Everyone also knows that these excursions were briefly and completely forgotten at the time when a tax return was to be submitted. This type of sport is well known. However, spirit is also about the effects of this sport and it is also about fair play. Escaping from social responsibility and the lack of genuine citizenship by avoiding the payment of the so necessary community funds can at some point result in a feeling of resentment and even guilt.

For those people, for that large middle group — if we can believe the initial reactions of banks, that middle group is much larger than one thinks — we can also approach the EBA positively. A well-structured, clear, discrete and legal certainty EBA – every word here is important – gives that middle group a chance to do something right. They are given the opportunity to turn their regrets for small, fiscal mistakes from the past, committed by themselves, their parents or family members, into something positive and constructive.

In the debate during the draft debate, it was repeatedly misrepresented that mainly or only large fraudsters will benefit from the outlet offered to them by the EBA. Of course, large, capital-powered fraudsters will also use the EBA. We will never really know to what extent. However, we know enough that these people will be well accompanied by long-paid fiscalists and lawyers. The greatest concern of spirit is therefore not directed at this group.

However, we believe that the EBA can be of particular interest to a large number of people who have, to a lesser extent, been too smart in taxation. Our care goes to them. Just in this large middle group there is interest. This is already witnessed by the numerous requests for information from accountants, lawyers, financial institutions, experts and even politicians. This is also witnessed by the high incidence of information sessions already organized by financial institutions — I will not mention any of them, because I do not like sluggish advertising. However, their escape was not large-scale. Their escape is not equal to serious crime. They do not want to be placed on the same line with the big, heavy fraud. As a result of the negative backlash that the EBA brings with it, by some hypocritically knocked out, these people even less desire to be identified with the EBA and its so-called target group of criminal fraudsters.

The government agreement provided for the possibility of regularization by natural persons. This regularization is currently being developed here to your submitted.

What emphasis did we want to put with spirit in the EBA debate?

First, the EBA should have a broad basis. In this regard, we have therefore advocated for a realistic and transparent approach, in which not only the funds and shares — more precisely the sums, capital and movable values — would be eligible on a foreign account, but also the effects of tinder, the so-called luggage pieces, wherever they may now be located.

Such a major and extensive operation, which is one-off and of which significant effects can be expected, should be seen sufficiently widely. The efforts to do so remain the same, but their effects are multiplied by expansion. This is evidenced both by the data made available to us by the National Bank and by informal approaches and calculations of initiates.

Second, the EBA should benefit the Belgian economy. Although the expenditure of the funds to be declared in a European framework could not be reserved only to Belgium, we are nevertheless convinced that this operation will benefit especially the Belgian economy. This belief is based, among other things, on the statements of experts from the so-called financial sector, but also on the confidence in the citizens, on the civic sense of those who wish to regularize their financial assets and seek revenues that are visible and also tangible in their immediate surroundings.

Third, the EBA should be clearly legal and discreet. For spirit, it is therefore important that the small tax evaders who, after all those years, hope to correct their tax situation, also fully get that opportunity. Therefore, we approach the importance of a clear message. The EBA was not to think away from the press lately and was also clearly present in discussion on the streets. People are dealing with this. Nevertheless, many negative messages, on the one hand, and confusing interpretations, on the other, have already been sent into the world. Of course, correct information can only be given from the moment the present bill has been fully approved. Once that is done, all people should receive clear and clear information. This information should be both about who and about what. Both the coupon cutters and other disobedient citizens should receive the unambiguous message that the EBA is there for them too. Everyone should know what to do and what the procedure is to take advantage of that opportunity. Everyone should know which products are fished and which are not. It should be clear to everyone how the declared funds can be used and what the consequences are. This is ⁇ not the case now.

Unclear reporting is partly due to the fact that the project is indeed the result of numerous discussions that also resulted in amendments and grows partly from the fact that implementing decisions are still needed. They are even partly the result of either or not desired misinterpretations. As an example, I will mention whether or not insurance products are eligible, branch 21 and branch 23. However, the insurance products for regularisation through the EBA are clearly not listed and the Minister has repeatedly stated that the re-qualification of those products will be determined by legal decisions.

Nevertheless, we read in Trends this week that Tak 21 and 23 would be eligible and we read in ZO, magazine of Unizo, that these products will not be eligible. An open and accessible information campaign is therefore absolutely necessary. We have called for this in the committee. The Minister of Finance has given his full commitment in this regard.

Fourth, the EBA should be placed within the framework of the fight against tax fraud. Starting — or I must say, starting again — with a clean lei is now made possible. The re-generation of a black or grey circuit must be made impossible. At the same time, it is of course important for spirit that the EBA is monitored, followed by measures to counter tax fraud, better tax controls and sufficient resources to enable the tax administration to make its work successful. In this regard, we can largely agree with the intentions proposed in this regard by colleague Van der Maelen and are closely pursued together with us.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with this consideration. During the sometimes intriguing, sometimes violent, sometimes outburst, but especially long debate that was held on the EBA in the committee, we had the pleasure of listening to the exceptionally clear and slowly read fifty-page study, drawn up by lawyer Sylvie De Raedt, on tax resistance in Belgium. It cites three reasons for tax evasion: the possibility of evading, the follow-up in it and the lack of trust in the government. The last reason is cited as the most important.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is not up to me to question the conclusions of Mr. De Raedt here. I would only hope that this operation – EBA – would lead us to a different conclusion, in particular a renewed confidence in the government, a renewed confidence in our society, a renewed confidence in the citizens, in the people who make up this society, coupled with the obvious nature of solidarity, of proportional contributions. That trust must be earned, every day again. Only then will there be more joy for that one sinner who repents, than for those ninety-nine others who have rightly remained righteous. I thank you for your numerous appearance and for your unwavering attention.

It’s not always easy, after such an intense debate.

We have known others! We even sang the International!

Nevertheless, when you have important things to say, you sometimes tell yourself that some futility can wait. Indeed, while I have some answers or some elements to give to the intention of Mr. Visitor, the latter is absent. by

I will therefore return, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, to the subject of our discussion: the bill establishing the single liberatory declaration. It was adopted in the Committee on Finance. We will therefore take note of it and examine it in the context of a particular budgetary context which I think is important to recall.

Belgium has been experiencing a slowdown in economic growth for three years and it is necessary to go back to the beginning of the 1980s to find a situation where the growth rate has been below 1% for three consecutive years. Currently, we are at 0.8% for the year 2001, 0.4% for the year 2002 and the forecasts for the year 2003 were until November of 0.7 to 0.9%, the latest estimates fixing the rate at 1.2%. by

We all know the limits of the Stability and Growth Pact, which imposes a strict deficit policy on us. Reducing public debt remains a fundamental goal for future generations. I would like to remind that in 1993, we were at 137.9%, in 1995 at 135%, in 2002 at 101.6% finally and the forecast for 2004 is to reach below 100%, especially notable evolution that will allow us to preserve future generations. by

If it is important to continue our efforts and to devote a significant part of our resources, it is not unnecessary to recall that an increase in the tax on capital remains a subject sometimes taboo for some political formations of this country. However, the budget needs are very important, the budget needs to ensure the sustainability of our public services, for an increase in the resources allocated to social security. I would remind you that we are considering an increase of 4.5% in the 2004 budget, for the support of services of general interest, such as transport, we are considering the recovery of the debt of the SNCB, acted for an amount of 7.4 billion euros, the budget needs to create jobs or even improve the quality of life in the big cities. by

The situation is clear for public finances. Income is therefore far from the levels attained at the beginning of the previous legislature and expenditure must be oriented and strictly controlled. This is the budgetary context in which our country is. That is why we, socialists, allow us to think that this operation of repatriation of capital is desirable. We were not, in general, supporters of this tax regularization, because it is obviously done at the expense of those who have always loyally paid their tax and social charges.

We would like to remind that individuals who, at any given moment, refuse, in any way whatsoever, to pay their just financial contribution, lack, in our view, solidarity with other citizens. by

Solidarity is an essential element for the sustainable management of the State. It is a pity that Mr. Viseur may not be there for the moment because he told us right now that, by the Single Liberatory Declaration (DLU), we are not going toward solidarity. We recall that this solidarity is an important element of our lives and of the Belgian State. We want this solidarity to continue. If the DLU intervenes at any given time — I will return to it later — the sanctions for those who do not take advantage of it will have to be ⁇ strict.

I repeat, for the budgetary reasons I mentioned above, we support this project which is a balanced project. When it came into discussion in the Finance Committee, we had already obtained from the government, as part of the initial project submitted to the State Council, a series of warnings that allowed to limit possible abuses.

First, the Financial Information Processing Cell (CTIF) has been given an important role to play. In accordance with the law of 11 January 1993 — which will be adapted, in the draft that will be submitted to you, to the European directives and the recommendations of the Financial Action Group (GAFI) — institutions responsible for dealing with DLUs will have to immediately inform the CTIF when they know or suspect that the transaction is related to money laundering. The role of the CTIF has been the subject of discussion in the committee. by Mr. The Minister clarified to us that if, subsequently, his role is intended to allow the subsequent verification of the authenticity of the attestations — in other words, to play a role of notary — it is not less that if the CTIF has serious and concordant information in the field of money laundering, it will be able to verify whether the person concerned is on the list of persons who have returned to a DLU. The fact that the established system cannot be used for money laundering purposes is a guarantee for us.

I have mentioned another point concerning money laundering. Non-cooperative countries and territories listed by the OECD Financial Action Group will be excluded from the procedure. There is also, within the framework of this law, a ⁇ important guarantee which it is worth emphasizing. The draft excludes all reporting persons who are the subject of an investigation by the tax administration, a social security institution or a social inspection service. Therefore, the treatment of cases of revealed or suspected fraud is not challenged.

Finally, the loss of anonymity and differentiated rates for people who do not wish to reinvest their capital in Belgium should – I wish it Mr. Minister, we all wish it – strengthen the success of the operation for our economy.

In short, the project as submitted by the government was, given the comments I just made, a balanced project that we could join. We had the hearing of various personalities, the informed opinion of the State Council. However, the discussions in our committee have allowed us to go further and reach a satisfactory agreement, of which I will highlight the positive aspects.

The first point concerns the agreement on the removal of securities to the holder. As the government has indicated during the discussion, article by article, through its Minister of Finance, during the preparation of the budget for the year 2005 — that is, in October of the year 2004 — the government will decide on the final date from which the issuance of securities to the holder will be prohibited.

This system of titles to bearer will disappear during the years 2007-2008, as is shown in the text covering all the debates. It is important to note that, with this measure, Belgium will finally comply with the OECD recommendations that demanded the disappearance of this institution. From that date on, it will therefore no longer be possible to issue new securities to the holder and existing securities will have to be taken into account.

This measure constitutes, for the Socialist Party, a major advance, as it guarantees in the future, a better perception of mobile pre-accounts and will prevent the use of these securities to evade certain types of taxes and taxes.

I regret the absence of Mr. Jean-Jacques Viseur, since he suggested that the Socialist Party, therefore the socialist group, had bought a cat in a bag. He questioned the statement of the Ministry of Finance. As far as I remember, the Minister of Finance may deny me, he specified that for eco-taxes, he did not agree and preferred eco-bonuses. He had kept his word. He had always said that the removal of the titles to the bearer was inscribed in the stars and that, if he had committed, he would respect his word.

For my part, I trust you. We have the texts, your word is written in them. I think we can go ahead and consider this removal for 2007-2008, as you have pledged.

I would also like to emphasize, as regards the extension of the DLU base to holding securities, that this is a satisfaction for us because it allows small savers to take advantage of the DLU. Furthermore, for the Socialist Party, the obligation to deposit in account these titles to the holder for an incomprehensible period of three years will enable the latter to get out of the shadow.

We also welcome the introduction of an increase of at least 100% from 1 January 2005 for taxpayers who would not have taken advantage of the DLU to regularise their situation. This constitutes an additional incentive for the success of the operation, especially since the Minister of Finance has undertaken not to renounce this increase or not to decrease it, except in very exceptional circumstances, other legal arrangements also existing and may come to complement this increase.

It also follows from the general discussion of the project that from 1 January 2004, Article 444/8 of the commentary of the Income Tax Code 1992, will cease to be applicable. From that date, it will no longer be possible to carry out spontaneous regularization operations on the basis of this provision.

Finally, it should be emphasized the introduction, on an annual basis, of a supervision by the banks, conditions to be met in terms of investment and reinvestment. Sanctions will also be associated with this control. The taxpayer who does not meet the conditions for investment or reinvestment will be imposed an additional contribution of 6% on the amount declared in his DLU, which may raise the rate to 12 or 15%, depending on the case.

Finally, the Socialist Group satisfied the Ministry of Finance’s commitment that the smallest amount of money laundering, and in particular for products that inherently carry a risk of money laundering, will lead to investigations and procedures under the 1993 Anti-Money Laundering Act.

I would like to conclude my speech with four brief observations.

First of all, it should be clarified that the conditions relating to the nature and modalities of the investment and re-investment must still be determined in the framework of a royal decree and that a confirmation law will then have to be taken. If I believe the press, the services of the Ministry of Finance prepare these royal decrees so that nothing delays the conditions of enforcement of the law that is subject to you.

Next, I would like to return to the recent statements of the Minister of Finance regarding succession rights. First, I will clarify that a reduction in succession rights is not the subject of any agreement for us in the context of tax regularization. This has never even been mentioned. Secondly, and more fundamentally, inheritance rights, I recall, fall within regional competence. For the Socialist group, the federal does not have to suggest to the Regions how to manage this competence. by

In a third time, I will recall that the Single Liberation Declaration is an opportunity for all fraudulent citizens to regularize their situation. The entry into force of the Savings Directive, which we call our wishes, will further limit the space for the development of fraud. I am convinced that we must take advantage of these two significant events in Belgian fiscal policy to further increase the equality of all Belgians before tax. This is why we reiterate the need for an ambitious plan to combat tax fraud. This will continue to be the subject of our full attention in the future, primarily because new mechanisms for tax evasion will emerge but also because the Belgian State cannot afford to send the signal that, periodically, it will organize a tax amnesty. We therefore urge the presentation to the House of Representatives of the plan adopted by the Government for the actual intensification of the fight against tax fraud and its prompt implementation. As part of this plan, the Socialist Group will pay particular attention to the conclusion of protocols with all administrative and judicial services in charge of fraud, to the development of risk analysis and management and to better tax collection. by

The Socialist Group believes that tax fraud and money laundering as well as tax backwardness are sources of inequality among taxpayers. We therefore urge the government to pay even more attention to these phenomena than it has done so far. by

For the same reasons mentioned above, the simplification of tax administrative procedures must also become a reality for taxpayers.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that citizens who honestly declare their income may not encounter more difficulties than those who repatriate their undue capital placed abroad.

The Socialist Group will therefore vote with confidence on the text submitted to you.

Therefore, I will not sing the International. I thank you.

We need a voice for that, Mr. Massin.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, no draft law has in recent months made as much ink flow in financial newspapers and weekly newspapers as that of fiscal amnesty. Their

In all modesty, I also say nothing new here today by stating that the current legislation on the fiscal amnesty concerning tax evasion for foreign funds has become a barrier rate, but also a delicate political balance exercise. To such an extent even that until the last day of the discussions in the committee, the conscious Saturday 29 November, there had to be pressurized telephone consultation or not in order to reach a final agreement with Elio and Johan about the final government amendments around noon. Only then could we read the final texts for your fiscal amnesty, Mr. Minister, and thus assess the scope of the measures in its entirety.

It was clear from the very beginning that the initial design had to be followed, even if it was only to expand the support of your measure, ⁇ after several elements of the original proposal "en cours de route" have been cut off. I think of the story of the three tariffs with the tariffs of 3, 6 and 9%, where the lowest rate has been cut off.

Also, the criterion of investing exclusively in the domestic economy, provided that its capital is transferred, was reduced by the Luxembourg banks as the first rather quickly by referring to the European regulation on the free movement of capital. The argument to invest in the domestic economy was, however, both for the Flemish, but still somewhat more expressive for the Wallish socialists the decisive arguments to let go of their ethical objections in favor of creating jobs. Consequently, only the condition of investing for three years remains, however without location. Whether this will automatically mean that the money in the country will be invested to support the economy is still only the question, colleagues. Today, we still do not know what we should understand under the concept of investment.

With the latest amendments, not only funds on a foreign account are eligible, but also capital held in the form of paper securities that are not held on a domestic or foreign account. One might ask why we had to debate so many weeks in the committee and ask questions about a text that was not the final text. Although, that may have been the big trick. As the debate progresses, we will also confirm this. The opposition has been rejected and in the meantime it has gained time to knit the spirits of the socialist coalition partner and to be able to carry out lobbying behind the scenes.

The legislation on fiscal amnesty. The main reason for the existence of this whole arrangement surrounding the regularization of all possible shades of gray and black money from abroad, has to do with the 2004 budget. The balance for that budget must, as it has become custom in recent years, come from a few one-off measures. This is also the case for the 2004 budget, which was in fact supported by two pillars. First, the pillar that transfers the part of the Belgian Compensation Fund. This is an over-the-counter operation where, however, a number of questions can also be asked. I refer to the fact that Eurostat did not reach an agreement on 2 December last year and a consultation round with other EU countries should be initiated. This should not be applauded, I would say.

A second pillar, the main pillar that is discussed today, is formed by the revenues of EUR 850 million from the Single Liberation Declaration.

In fact, this is a concealed description that should serve as a shame for an operation against which there is a lot of objection. On October 29, the European Commission made it clear that it considers the anticipated revenue of 850 million euros too uncertain to balance the budget with it. Consequently, the Commission considers that the amount of EUR 850 million is better left out of the books, with which it immediately states that the budget in 2004 will have a deficit of 0.4% of the GDP, solely on the basis of the EBA scheme.

Mr. Minister, this is not an uptick. This should not surprise us, however, because those who have read the National Bank’s report on the possible revenues of the fiscal amnesty have been able to find that there are quite a few comments by the Governor of the National Bank on the revenues and the economic effects of the entire scheme on the fiscal amnesty.

In addition, the report refers to a number of uncertainties in this whole story. I think of the agreement on the European Savings Directive, which is also one of the reasons for this draft, and of the confidence of the citizens in this whole operation, which I will return to later. The government is writing at least 850 million euros into its 2004 budget. We should not be surprised, colleagues, that this amount is also close to the 900 million euros needed to pay for the surplus spending in healthcare and therefore not to further reduce the personal tax, as Mr Pinxten subsequently suggested. Why should those 900 million euros be associated with the revenue of 850 million euros? This is probably the political conclusion underlying the budget figures.

Mr. Minister, no matter how you turn it or turn it, no matter how good your intentions are with this measure, this draft does not meet a fundamental condition, in particular the approach to capital flight from this country. Why is the capital flight from this country so strong? Why is the labor burden in this country so high? Why does the tax burden continue to rise in this country, while it decreases in many European countries? This tax amnesty gives no answer to this, not even an incentive to initiate to counter the causes of the flight in the black, but also the flight of capital. However, I understand that this is not your intention, Mr. Minister. First of all, you would like to make an attempt to recover the large mass of black or gray money, provided that conscientious payments are paid and there should be no questions about the size and origin of the hidden capital. How much money has been invested and how many taxes have been evaded in recent years, apparently does nothing about the matter, only what returns is important. This makes the tax evasion whitewashed and only the whitewashed amounts are of interest to you.

Speaking of capital flight, Mr. Minister, I assume that you occasionally also read the Dutch newspapers. Then you have undoubtedly read an article in the Dutch-speaking press a few weeks ago. The minister suddenly disappeared.

I see the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, there was a moment of special interest, since I have been placed in possession of a number of bills and proposals of resolutions submitted at that time by Mr. Eerdekens, Annemans and Reynders. That moment of joint action of Mr. Eerdekens with representatives of the Flemish Bloc, we do not want to remember to the media, including the French-speaking media. Therefore, the attention was distracted. Mr Eerdekens, together with Mr Annemans, submitted and signed draft laws and draft resolutions together. We are copying this in order to put the ridiculous debate from now on into a different framework.

You’re going to divide them around, right?

Mr. Speaker, you see...

Mr. Speaker, things need to be very clear: as I said recently, I just regret certain things; for the rest, as a representative of the government, I have no comment. I only regret what happened recently. by

As a member of the government, I regret it all the more since I have heard vibrant advocates, including from a former chairman of the House, to have an interesting background debate. I can see that this debate on the procedure has been stopped for an hour. One of the groups requesting this debate, the CDH, is completely absent, except one of its representatives who comes in at the moment. What is important is that we have had several interventions, including that of mr. Massin, without the presence of a single member of CDH.

You will not start again. Do not be provocative.

Does anyone talk about the Flemish Block? Now there is someone from CDH. Only for the Flemish Block! For the PS never, but now it is to Mr. Goyvaerts and so there is someone from cdH? It is terrible, isn’t it?

We always listen with interest to such discussions. We only note that the Flemish Block has apparently become very "incontournable", which we meet with a certain smile.

I had come to the capital flight in my speech, Mr. Minister.

Who is talking about it now?

Who is talking about capital flight? With regard to this subject, Mr. Tant, it may be of a subordinate order, but we note that the flight of capital is enormous. I asked the Minister if he also occasionally reads the Dutch-language newspapers. If that is the case, he must have undoubtedly noticed that on November 27th there was an article dedicated to the problem of annual cash flows abroad, more specifically outside Europe, due to the fact that foreigners transfer money to their families in the country of origin, amounts up to 500 euros per month.

In the conscious newspaper article, a Turkish woman even talked about the taxation of Islam, colleagues. It is almost impossible to believe. Apparently, it is mainly the money flows to countries such as Morocco and Turkey that are immensely large. You must tell me, Mr. Minister, what you are going to do to persuade those people to keep their coins here and to persuade them to invest in the economy of the country to which they owe their prosperity. Of course, this is not about 850 million euros, but about 6.9 billion euros. That is approximately 8 times the revenue of your entire EBA scheme. That’s outside of any relationship, colleagues? Unless, of course, it is intended to apply tax amnesty to those amounts, but I assume that such a perverse side effect does not fall within the scope of the draft. Never say “never” in politics.

I can understand that there are reasons for carrying out an operation of fiscal amnesty, but if one wishes to carry out such a measure, there must also be a goal and, in our opinion, there must also be a number of frame conditions fulfilled, striving for a fair and at the same time efficient system. This link is not made in the present tax draft. That link should convince the taxpayer that the reason why he avoided taxes — and for most citizens it has to do with the high tax rates — will disappear in the future. Thus, in the future, the fruit of their hardest labour — if I can say so — which is too heavily taxed in this country can be less heavily addressed by the same Belgian tax authority on a domestic and declared investment. A second prerequisite is that that measure must be carried by the population, thus by those who have always stated everything, but also by those who have never had anything, which they could have forgotten. Regardless of how it turns or turns, Mr. Minister, with this fiscal amnesty, in fact, there is a dog policy. That is, one sees a tax breach through the fingers, which in fact disguises a wrong behavior. Let’s be honest: those who are punished by this measure are not the fraudsters. Those who are punished here are those who have declared their income correctly and who have always paid their taxes fairly, the brave house fathers and housemothers who have always paid to the emperor what belongs to the emperor. They are shut down by this design.

After all, to argue that this tax amnesty is punishable, since one has to pay a certain rate for it, is little credible. In many cases, the difference between previously deducted taxes and now due fines will not result in a loss, but in a profit. A rate of 6% or 9% is still a scam for the fraudsters.

A second element in the perception is the penalty rate of 6% or 9% to release your declaration in the face of the total tax burden, which is currently up to 46.2% of gross domestic product. These are shocking figures, just because all governments — both federal and regional — have been saying for four years that taxes and fiscal and parafiscal pressure would drop. Meanwhile, about half of what someone earns goes to Vadertje Staat and we are, especially in Europe, the only rich country where the tax pressure rises. Currently, we are even promoted to the champions in tax pressure. In the top five, we even take a place. In 2001 we were in fourth place; on the basis of the figures of 2002 we slide up to third place, after Denmark and Sweden. We leave Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Germany far behind.

The high tax burden means in concrete that every citizen works for the State until the end of July and can actually dispose of his money from August. For Switzerland, for example, the deadline is in the month of May.

The man and woman in the street feel with their elbows that we are still far away from a fair tax system. Also in the citizen’s wallet there is no sense of the tax reduction.

In addition, the entire tax amnesty is in fact not a punishment, but a reward. Many ordinary people — I think of the unemployed, the care-needed, and the living-loaners, many of whom are currently facing the ends of the month — also see the image of the waste of the tax evaders in front of them. If the socialists think that is good for the ordinary man, I don’t understand it anymore. Per ⁇ then I must assume that sp.a has indeed become different or that there are no more socialists in sp.a. This is also possible. With this, colleague Staf Neel will fully agree. I see him confirming kicks.

Colleagues, we would be very surprised if we were to discuss here today a Belgian law without a community adder under the grass. Then, of course, we are talking about succession rights, which are a competence of the regions. Through the Consultation Committee it was agreed that the Regions would regulate the single, liberating declaration by decree or decree and consequently apply to the registration and succession rights. These same succession rights constitute a significant part of the taxes deducted and therefore also of the support of the present draft law.

It is clear that the decision in the Consultation Committee is not the same as a cooperation agreement, which should be concluded in advance with the Regions. Despite the criticism of the State Council, in which it refers to the special law of 8 August 1980, you, Mr. Minister, have clearly chosen a different approach. They did not want to depend on the states.

Wallonia has already approved the amnesty measure. I assume that this happened with the support of ECOLO. There is also an agreement in the Brussels government. I suppose it came with the consent of bridge builder Jos Chabert. Only at the Flemish level, there will therefore be no decree before the 2004 elections by Agalev’s rejection. What needs to happen after June 2004 at the Flemish level, of course, is to look at coffee-dick. We cannot predict the composition of the Flemish Parliament. That will be shown by the elections.

Mr. Minister, you will get a tax regularization at different rates. In Brussels and Wallonia, regularization is possible for all taxes, including regional taxes, while in Flanders an exception is made for regional taxes. This undermines the credibility of the entire operation and possibly also your target of 850 million euros.

A last element. The key word in this whole exercise of tax amnesty is, in my opinion, the guarantee of anonymity. The term "anonymity" creates the field of tension between, on the one hand, the success of this entire operation, which collects as much money as possible, and, on the other hand, the vulnerability of this entire tax amnesty for money laundering whose origin is unclear or comes from operations that do not tolerate the daylight. The more anonymous the operation, the greater the likelihood that the taxpayer feels attracted and the lower the threshold for regulating black or gray money. However, the more anonymous this procedure will be, the greater the likelihood that potential criminal money will be hit by the mazes of the network. We all know that banks do not have the task of acting as police officers. In practice, they will limit themselves to the so-called money laundering law to signal potentially suspicious operations or suspicious operations to the financial information processing cell. Apparently, it is not the task of banks to explore the origin of the funds of their clients. Therefore, the banking sector seeks certainty at every step of the procedure and is cautious of possible complicity through possible involvement in a possible scandal story that has remained heavy on the stomach in many banks due to the KB-Lux case.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. The current measure on tax amnesty has not only a short-term effect. It remains to be seen whether this measure can meet the expectation of 850 million euros. However, tax amnesty also has long-term effects. Taxpayers who cannot benefit from such a measure and who so far have always paid their taxes correctly could in the future sometimes think and become less conscious of obligations. The Flemish Bloc continues to regret that the entire operation of fiscal amnesty is not directly and bindingly linked to measures to reduce the tax burden. The state must take care of the public interest. For the Flemish Bloc, that is the Flemish interest. This file should address the causes of capital flight and not the consequences. This file should address fraud rather than encourage money laundering. This undermines the general sense of law of citizens. Their

Mr. Minister, for these reasons and the arguments and objections just cited, you should not be surprised that the Flemish Bloc does not give you this early Christmas gift. The excessive nervousness of the majority parties shows that this design remains very sensitive to some members of the majority. The nervousness may also be due to the uncertainty whether the present text will pass the test at the Council of State. The Flemish Bloc will not approve the draft tax amnesty.

Colleagues, I leave the words to Mr. Gobert and Mr. Bourgeois. Then this discussion is suspended to discuss and vote on a number of less controversial topics. After the voting, this general discussion will be resumed. This will give all Parliamentary groups the opportunity to discuss them in a first round.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, Magritte probably would not have denied the first paragraph of the explanation of the reasons of the bill. It reads in fact that the DLU does not constitute a measure of tax amnesty but it is explained, in the following sentence, that "the arrangement has the effect that the amounts declared are deemed to have been the subject of the definitive tax regime and that the taxpayer concerned is placed in the shelter from any criminal prosecution", which is precisely the definition of tax amnesty qualified as "an act of the legislative power prescribing forgetting a category of offences and canceling their criminal consequences".

Curious, therefore, this willingness to give a different name to things, to hide behind the acronym "DLU" what ultimately constitutes a tax gift to a favored public. Indeed, it is obvious that this measure does not concern neither the employees, nor the unemployed, nor the teachers, nor the vast majority of families. Even the small saver who has a deposit book in Luxembourg whose income is not declared, will not be attracted to the proposed arrangement since it is enough for him to make a spontaneous declaration and pay the advance for the last three years to be in order with the tax authority.

The person who will benefit from the amnesty is, for example, the head of a company who has received, for years, in whole or in part his remuneration in black on an account in Luxembourg. He evaded the tax of natural persons, he paid no social contribution on these remunerations and, necessarily, he committed accounting writing errors. By payment of a contribution of 6 or 9%, you will be exempt from payment of any tax, social contribution and fine, as well as any criminal sanction.

In the name of what social utility does the government consider these behaviors excusable? Under what exceptional circumstances are these acts exempt from any sanction? The first advanced element is the impact on the economy. It is very precarious and random because no real capital movement is required, no investment in our economy is imposed. What effect on the economy will have securities that remain on a foreign account? For example, it could have been foreseen that the 6% rate would be granted through long-term investment in the social economy, in a mobility fund, in a public holding company for SMEs or in scientific research.

The second advanced element to support the project is the need not to turn against honest taxpayers. The argument evades the problem of fighting tax fraud, as if large-scale tax fraud was inevitable and could not be reduced. Mr. Minister, by presenting as you did in commission the tax evasion as one of two national sports with tennis, you banalize the problem. You acknowledge the idea that this is not so serious, that the taxpayer ultimately only defends himself against a state that would want his money. This is a very bad signal to the taxpayer.

This project ends today in plenary session and, it must be acknowledged, it will not have been without bad. Since the announcement of amnesty in the government statement in July, the text has experienced a more than chaotic course. First, it was the war of interest rates. Everyone in the majority had their own little idea about this and the muscular exchanges were not lacking. Then there was the valse hesitation about the types of capital concerned. It was only at the last committee meeting that the definitive extension of the base was adopted.

Another uncertainty, it was necessary first to repatriate its savings to benefit from the measure, then it was no longer necessary, in the name of the free movement of capital that had been forgotten.

The same forgotten, recalled by the State Council, on the issue of the free provision of services within the European Union. The taxpayer had to address a Belgian bank, then it was no longer necessary.

Experts, who are consulted only at the end of the process, criticize the readability of the project and the uncertainties that emulate it. The European Commission, on the other hand, disputes the revenue of 850 million euros. As for the National Bank, it makes an opinion at least cautious about the achievement of the objectives of the transaction: it is from the behavior of the consumer, by essence unpredictable in the matter, that the success of the transaction depends.

In short, we are very, very far from a simple, clear, readable, and with legal certainty at all times, as the government wanted. by

Fortunately, if one can say, the banks are taking the relay and advertising spots are already inviting fraudulent taxpayers to come "confess their faults" and to be advised to get the best benefit from tax and plenary indulgence.

In tax matters, the priority of environmentalists is not amnesty; it is rather to ⁇ real tax justice. This means a real willingness to fight tax fraud effectively, rather than sending a signal that fraud is normal, that it is a sport, or that it is a game. Let us not lose sight of the fact that when tax fraud is reduced, it is all taxpayers who pay less taxes and that it is all the collective functions that are refinanced. by

The government always evokes tax as a burden, a threat, a pressure on the citizen. We want to see the tax as a contribution in the first sense of the term, that is, a system of solidarity and redistribution in which each participates according to his income and which essentially serves to finance collective functions.

A real tax justice also means a re-balancing of taxation between labor income and capital income. by

Mr. Minister, the draft tax amnesty you submit seems to me ultimately very consistent with the company project that your political formation defends. What surprises me most is the support that this project receives from the socialist partners of the majority. by

Especially since, among our French neighbors, the Socialist MPs have announced their frank hostility to a similar tax amnesty project, announced by the Raffarin government. “It is inconceivable that this government preaches zero impunity for France from below and measures of mansuete for France of cheaters, holders of capital,” said Eric Besson, a socialist MP from Drôme. “It’s shocking: it’s a tribute to the vice to the virtue,” Michel Charzat, a socialist parliamentary member from Paris, echoed.

In our country, in the name of political realism, the Socialists of the North and the South support a project that I would call ethically unacceptable, legally uncertain, and ⁇ budgetally sterile. Environmentalists will obviously not support this DLU, this “unilateral liberal declaration”.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this draft provides not only fiscal amnesty, but also criminal amnesty. There is, in my opinion, too little emphasis on this. It provides tax and criminal amnesty for fraudsters. In fact, it is more than that. In essence, it is a tax gift, a tax incentive premium. I explain myself more closely.

First, you grant exemption from criminal prosecution for perpetrators, co-perpetrators and accomplices of tax crimes, including income and succession tax, as well as from violations of the legislation on social security, whether it concerns the employee system or the self-employed system. Finally, there is also criminal amnesty for violation of Article 505 of the Criminal Code, while the amounts subject to the crime sanctioned by this article are declared confiscated otherwise.

Secondly, on the fiscal and social security level, you exempt from tax increases and contributions to social security and exempt from fines and negligence interests in both systems. This could actually fall under the concept of tax amnesty. The fraudster is not required to pay fines, interest, contributions and tax increases. However, you do not find this enough and you go on. You are also exempt from the tax itself.

Let’s bear in mind, it is in the personal tax about rates of around and at the fifty percent and more. In the succession tax there are rates of forty, fifty and sixty percent. All of you are exempt from this. In place of those taxes and social security contributions — which are very high and paid by decent citizens — you give an incentive premium. You tell the fraudsters that it is enough for them to pay six or nine percent. If all the money is put on an account for three years, they pay nine percent and they just have to pretend it is an investment to pay only six percent.

Mr. Minister, I expect you to explain later on the questions that remain. Mr. Leterme asked very explicitly and correctly whether, for example, a home falls under the investment. We have seen in the parliamentary preparation that because of the Association of Banks, the savings book was praised as an investment. This also applied to life insurance and also an investment in real estate in the form of a home was promoted. Colleagues, I hope you will find it very unfair to me that, for example, a fraudster with three children who has three million euros abroad, now can get those three million euros back, pay six percent on them and build three villas of one million euros with them. He then comes out with a one-off contribution of six percent or 180,000 euros. That means that that person retains of his three million euros net 2,820,000 euros that he invests in luxury villas, while the correct taxpayer has paid social security, paid taxes, and ⁇ of his three million euros leaves one and a half million or one million euros. That is what remains net for the correct taxpayer.

The [...]

I will intervene later.I will doze my forces. At certain moments I pull up my energy and then I direct my arrows. However, I am not constantly concerned with this.

The Socialists were always against amnesty, but now that spirit is there they are in favour. This is, of course, the reason why they have changed course. I thought: what do we get now? Socialists are for amnesty. This may be due to the spiritists. It is, of course, a different amnesty than that for which the spiritists have always pledged. Their

Mr. Van der Maelen, I told you later that you give a criminal amnesty, as well as an amnesty in relation to the increase of contributions, of interest, of fines and of tax increases. However, you do more. You really give a gift. You say you don’t even have to pay taxes, because you get 6% or 9% of it. Their

Colleagues, the N-VA is against this design for five fundamental reasons. First, for ethical reasons. Second, because of the violation of the principle of equality. Third, because of the violation of the constitutional rights of this Parliament. Fourth, due to the legal uncertainty arising from this draft. Fifth, due to the ineffectiveness, the lack of effectiveness of your design.

First, there is ethics in politics. I hope this is a driving force for many of you. At least it should be. I am therefore disturbed to hear the Minister in the Chamber Committee and a number of colleagues in this assembly declare that this draft should actually be seen in the context of the fight against tax fraud. This is a very cynical statement. Their

There is the threat of the SP.A against ordinary people. They say they must swallow this and accept it, otherwise they will all have to pay even more taxes. This threat exceeds the cynicism of the minister. It is really populism and cynicism driven at the top. Colleagues socialists, ordinary people want to pay reasonable taxes. This has already been pointed out. The taxes in this country are indeed far too high, but it matters that the taxes are collected and paid correctly and that the government is responsible for it. Their

Colleagues of the sp.a, your ruling that otherwise the ordinary people would have to pay even more, is actually a confession of format. You admit that there is a hole in the greenhouse. You need 850 million euros to close your budget. You do not have enough with the savings pot of Belgacom, which you opened and poured out in the State Treasury. You will also need an additional €850 million from the entire operation.

In fact, the majority only agrees on this. One point binds the majority over all ideological differences, in particular the struggle to close the budget, the budgetary necessity. This is what ultimately binds the majority parties. Their

Colleagues, initially it came pro forma that it was supposed to be invested in the Belgian economy. The measure would be of nature to stimulate our economy. However, it was enough for a few Luxembourg banks to raise their fingers for a moment to see this majority actually turning 180 degrees, in accordance with the European rules of free movement of goods, persons and services. Now the money can stay abroad and according to the latest version, even black real estate abroad can be washed, that is, the shares of a patrimony company on a trust abroad by the way.

So we will soon not only pass through whitewashed villas, but also see whitewashed shares of villas abroad, colleagues.

What remains is the motive that the greenhouse had to be filled. The glass is empty. Money is needed. For this, you give a tax gift, a tax incentive premium. This, my colleagues, is ethically rejectable.

The State covers a budget deficit with favourable measures — an incentive premium — for fraudsters. The State, colleagues, who should be the guardian of the common interest and who must fight any fraud, gives the other signal here. Indeed, Master Sylvie De Raedt has rightly said that this will have the effect that the citizen’s mistrust in the government will increase even more. I quote a few words of Master De Raedt in the Juristenkrant of 19 November 2003: "There is a direct link between the degree to which a citizen suspects the government and his tendency to fraud. At the European level, the Belgian is among the most suspicious and fraudulent citizens.” I quote further: "There is a chance that a lot of citizens who are not already high with the government will be strengthened in their suspicion that their government is untrustworthy. After all, when the urgency is high, the government is willing to collectively forgive tax fraudsters. The citizens who did not cheat because they did not want to, but ⁇ especially because they did not dare or could not, are unlucky. They have paid the taxes due all that time, while those who have not paid taxes for years now receive forgiveness, and those taxes due do not have to pay a limited flat amount after."

That is what will indeed happen. Instead of filling the gap, the distrust will increase.

The second major reason why the N-VA is against is the violation of the principle of equality. Collega Pinxten is no longer here, but he subsequently said that all objections during the parliamentary discussions in the committee have been removed. Unfortunately, I have not heard the sufficient arguments for the violation of the principle of equality. First and foremost, colleagues, there is an unreasonable, irresponsible rate difference between the fraudsters, in which no distinction is made between what was untold. Moving advance tax of 15 to 25%, income tax of 50% and more or succession rights and inheritance rights of 60% and more are all shaved over the same ham. All this money comes back at the same low rate of 6%.

Where is the reasonable accountability of the difference in treatment between the taxable person who earned a certain income, who declared that income, who paid social security contributions on that income, who paid taxes on that income and who earned exactly the same income, but never paid taxes on it, never paid social security contributions and now comes off with an incentive premium of 6%? That same citizen, in the same situation, with the same income, with the same earnings — that correct citizen — has paid 50% and more on that income. I do not see any reasonable responsibility for this in the parliamentary preparation.

Professor Haelterman told parliamentarians that they should not look at it from a constitutional point of view. The distinction between who paid taxes and who frauded, according to him, is logically defensive.

It would also be reasonable, because without that distinction such a regularization operation is simply impossible. That’s exactly: such a regularization operation is impossible if one keeps in mind the constitutional equal treatment of citizens. This is what we should drive when we do legislative work. Indeed, we must see whether laws pass the test of the principle of equality, of the principle of non-discrimination. We need to do this analysis. Professor Haelterman says that we should not do that analysis, because it will no longer work if we do it. Well, we have to make them exactly. We are parliamentarians who must respect the Constitution. Sorry to me, colleagues of the majority, this is the question: is this law reasonable? Does it create or not a discrimination between citizens: those who paid and those who did not pay? I am confident, colleagues, that one or another justified citizen will go to the Arbitration Court for this. So much is clear, so much is to be expected.

The third major reason we oppose is the violation of the constitutional right of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker. I submitted two amendments, amendments 55 and 56. It is true, colleagues, that this EBA leaves the basic rate of 9%. Whoever returns his money, who is repentant, receives an incentive premium of only 9% to pay. The deviation to this is 6%. Well, the law does not specify, Mr. Minister, the criteria according to which you will apply 6%. To do this, you ask for a delegation, you ask for powers. This is contrary to Article 172 of the Constitution. This is a power that does not belong to the King, this is a power that belongs to the Parliament. The King, therefore, must not decide on the nature of the criteria, for this is literally stated in the law. In this regard, the opinion of the State Council should be requested. Colleague Tant, you are absolutely right: if we are a Parliament standing on its lines, we cannot let this pass. If this indeed continues, colleague Tant, I will go to the Arbitration Court if I find a sponsor, and I hope you are with me. This is a violation of our constitutional rights as a member of parliament. We will seek the cancellation because we cannot give that power to the government, especially because the minister has not yet explained the nature of the exemptions he will give. This is a competence of the legislator.

The basic rate is 9%, the minister explicitly stated in the parliamentary preparation. When, under what circumstances, to whom, under what investments will he get to 6%? He does not give any explanation. It is not his right to explain this. The nature and modalities of the investment should be determined by the Parliament. I hope you agree with this, colleague Van der Maelen. That the control of the executive power takes place, I have no problem with that. They have to control, but in tax matters we are the ones who determine the rule.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make a comment with a safeguarding title regarding Mr. Bourgeois. He should be careful if he says to look for sponsors, because he will know that such a person is not quite cooler as a politician.

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, in accordance with our question, you will ask for the advice of the State Council. I believe that there are indeed very good reasons to simultaneously seek the advice on that point. This is one of the core tasks.

A second question for advice, colleague.

The oldest task of Parliament is to act in such matters. I don’t know what should stop you. The question of Mr. Bourgeois seems to me quite right. So I would like to urge you to do that, indeed.

Sir, I can reassure you. The opinion requested on this point also applies to amendments 55 and 56, which I wrote...

Mr Bourgeois submitted amendments 55 and 56. Since those amendments are part of that series of amendments, this question of Mr Bourgeois has thus been addressed.

That is already in there. As for amendment 55, it is written in the law itself that for those who want to count on 6%, it must be a risky investment, so not a savings book, a home and the like.

Secondly, I am amending the authority of the King in my amendment. I say that the King can only determine the rules for the implementation of what we have established, namely the high-risk investment and the control rules. The rest is the competence of the legislature.

Colleagues, a fourth reason why we are against comes from the point of view of legal certainty.

We have detailed how this design has come into being, entirely in line with the open culture of dispute of this majority. Until the time it was submitted to Parliament, there was a public discussion on the tariffs. One almost stood on the market: one offered 10%, the other 15%. Minister Reynders said he would decide that it would be 6% and 9% respectively. We even read that the latest version was approved by email traffic. The ministers were not out there until the time when the draft had to go to the King. Eventually, they agreed by e-mail and would wait to see what Parliament would do with it.

During the parliamentary discussion, the subject was then further expanded at the request of the VLD. There has been a compensation at the request of the sp.a, to save her face with the 100% fine clause for those who do not participate.

Nevertheless, I find the law still misleading and unclear. Article 2 of that draft expressly states that the law applies only to natural persons. This is the subject of Article 2. However, Article 4 states that after payment of the one-off declaration, both the natural person and the legal person from whom those amounts of capital or movable values were obtained, directly or indirectly, is exempt from payment. So also the company. In the case of misuse of company goods or in the case of withdrawal of funds by the manager or the trustee, Article 4 provides that there shall no longer be paid corporate tax by that company, nor shall social security contributions or similar surcharges be paid.

The second uncertainty lies in the criminal amnesty of Article 7. As I know, it does not refer to the misuse of company goods, which leads to very large legal uncertainty.

A third element of uncertainty is the bank’s attestation that the entire procedure may be used by the taxable person for a long time. Thus I understood it and I also introduced it in the general discussion, but except for a mistake of mine, the Minister did not respond to it. The taxpayer is taxed or he receives a notification of change, he receives an assault from office, he does not agree and signs an administrative appeal. He loses the plea and appeals, after he has been in the Disputes department, to the court of first instance. He loses again, which he appeals to the Court of Appeal. There he suddenly spells a white rabbit out of his hat and says, “I have a certificate that I appeal to.” Thus, the entire procedure fails, because he indeed has a tax certificate that makes that income or that asset plausible and explainable.

Colleagues, we live in a time when tax courts are overloaded and there is a huge lag in such procedures. They assume anonymity. Therefore, one should not present that attestation; one can try to equalize in all possible other ways, and at the end of the trap one can extract the attestation from the inner pocket. That tax officer is of course for piet snot.

There was still a serious administrative overload, in particular the recognition procedure for Belgian banks. Fortunately, this was done on the advice of Professor Wymeersch of the CBF. He said: this is meaningless, we have sufficient control over the Belgian banks.

A final reason why the N-VA is against is its ineffectiveness or lack of effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the revaluation and quality work of the Parliament, we also talk about laws that are effective. Here we have a law whose government says it will only ⁇ an effectiveness of 13.8%. It is only about a limited portion of the funds located abroad, not the whole of those funds, but a limited portion of movable assets, accounts and the like.

The National Bank estimates that of that particular part 13.8% would be returned on the basis of this legislation. I think this is an abdication, a defeat and a very moderate ambition for a government majority. One makes a law in which one says in advance that one will not even succeed in reaching half of that foreign capital. When we apply the effectiveness test, it is very bad.

I want to ask another question about effectiveness. It is said here, especially by the VLD, that there is enormous interest in this design and that it will undoubtedly be a shot in the rose. I am not so sure yet. I am not so sure that people who have frauded in the income tax will come with a peace of mind with their money, because a number of years fall out of this scheme: from 2002 they do not enjoy the scheme.

Mr. Bourgeois, can Mr. Leterme interrupt you for a moment?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Mr. Bourgeois for interrupting his excellent speech for a moment.

He speaks of the great interest in the information nights organized by banks. It has come to my ear that part of the interest has to do with the unrest that is present with many small savers. These are people who have fully legal cascades in our country, but they have heard that the pieces of tounder will be abolished in the future. I hear that a lot of small savers who have cash are coming to those information nights, because they have heard Mr. Van Der Maelen saying that this is a victory for progressive Flanders, for the left. Casbons will be abolished. A lot of interest in the evenings of Dexia and other banking institutions has to do with this. The people live in total unrest and uncertainty about the real intentions of the majority with regard to, for example, fully legal pieces of thunder, such as cascades. After all, the government threatens to do something that does not benefit their interests.

Collega Leterme correctly points out that the interest does not necessarily mean that one will make mass use of that scheme, moreover, colleagues, since I hear that at such information meetings the tax authority is present. The officials of Minister Reynders are going there. They watch and listen with a lot of attention. They see who asks questions and take notes. I think this will not be of nature to give a lot of people fiducie in this scheme.

As regards the personal tax, I believe that – except for someone who is at the end of his career and wants to get his cents back to Belgium – everyone who is still active will not enter into this scheme. One can, of course, target people with gray money, on succession rights and even people who have already paid taxes on them, but have brought this abroad for some reason. They may now try to get that money back. However, the main issue of the defeated succession rights will not come, since it is known that at the Flemish level this point is blocked. The whole grey zone in Flanders falls outside the scope of this law.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat the reasons why the N-VA is against this measure. We are opposed on ethical grounds. We are opposed for manifest violations of the principle of equality. We are opposed because this law violates the constitutional right of Parliament. We are opposed because of legal uncertainty. We are opposed because of the ineffectiveness of this law. The general discussion was suspended. The general discussion is suspended.

All the sensitivities of the Parliament have been discussed. I would like to interrupt the general discussion now to discuss the draft law on money laundering, documents 383/1 to 4, as well as the draft law returned from the Senate on terrorist crimes. We will then vote around 5 p.m. as planned. Then I will resume the general discussion of the one-off declaration of liberation.

With your consent, I put on the agenda: - the resumption of the general discussion of project 353/1 to 6, establishing a single release statement; - the resumption of the general discussion of project law 383/1 to 4, amending the law of 11 January 1993 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, the law of 22 March 1993 on the status and control of credit institutions and the law of 6 April 1995 on the status and control of investment firms, financial intermediaries and investment advisors.

Mr. Speaker, is it right that we now begin the general discussion of the money laundering law? Have we already received a report on this? Why don’t we just continue?

Because we had planned to vote around 17 o'clock on a number of matters, as we had agreed at the Conference of Presidents. After that, the general discussion of the one-off release declaration shall be continued immediately. We discussed this yesterday.

You are constantly changing the agenda. We are talking about tax amnesty.

Believe me freely, we agreed so yesterday. Just ask Mr. Tante. We will vote in 10 minutes.

Will the money laundering law follow after the vote?

We are going to discuss them now.

Mr. Speaker, if you put it on board this way, we will ensure that the discussion of the money laundering law today has not been done. Around twenty speakers are interested in this important amendment to the money laundering law. If we want to vote today, it will not be after the discussion of the money laundering law.

I do not understand that. We agreed at the Conference of Presidents to hold a vote around 17:00 on bill 383/1 to 4, on the bill on terrorist crimes and also on the amendment of the Constitution, more specifically on the resumption of work on the second Tuesday of September, which was discussed yesterday. Then we would continue the debate. We agreed on that yesterday. If you say that you are going to have a long discussion about this transposition of European directives into Belgian legislation... I’m not saying it’s not important, but I thought it ⁇ ’t require big debates. I think we will have to vote on the rest of the program law tomorrow. I will present it later. We will probably not be able to finish that today.

I think it is better to vote at 5 p.m. I heard that the agreement was that we would vote at 17 o’clock. I do not understand why it should be shifted. Make this vote first.

In principle, we had two votes scheduled for today: a vote around 17 o’clock on the, say, simple bills. Then we continue the discussion of the other projects. If everything is done, there may be a later vote. If we do not vote, we will vote tomorrow.

Why should this law be discussed now?

Is that a lot of work? There are not many people registered at this time. That can come, I know. However, I was given the impression that it would not require much debate.

After the challenging and exciting demonstrations of the colleagues, I think it is important that we have a very thorough debate on this subject. From our group, in any case, we will present our arguments with great interest, in the hope that there can be a real debate in the coming hours about the adjustment of that money laundering law.

If so, we can vote later. I suspect that there is no large range of speakers in the draft law on terrorist crimes?

That is good so.

Then we will deal with the laundry law later. La Maison ne recule devant aucun sacrifice.

Dec. 11, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We continue the general discussion and listen successively to Mr. Arens, Bogaert, Van der Maelen and Tommelein, Mrs. Govaerts and Mr. Devlies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, at the time when we are called to vote on the bill establishing a single declaration of liberation, many questions remain unresolved.

Some have already been concerned about the legal uncertainty generated by the provisions in project. I fully agree with this concern that your explanations and justifications, Mr. Minister, are far from being raised. This project was born in the precipitation and was designed in the urgency, the urgency that there was for the government to fill a proven fiscal imbalance that could not be revealed in the light. But the emergency is a bad adviser, it has led you to want to make citizens believe that you could bring to the credit of your budget 850 million euros while nothing indicates that the favorable wind is already blowing that will fill your scarf with these few currencies.

Nevertheless, the negotiations conducted at European level had seen a first favorable outcome realised by the adoption of Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003. So why hurry and create such legal uncertainty, if it is for purely budgetary reasons? Why take the risk of seeing the appeals multiply and wiping out the provisions that have been adopted? Why not continue the path of negotiations at European level and involve relevant sectors, including foreign banking sectors?

What you expect with an embroidered optimism that surpasses any understanding today, haven’t you thought for a moment that you risk losing it later? Have you thought for a moment about the effects on our own citizens that actions taken without any consultation with the foreign sectors concerned could have? Have you ever thought that a significant part of our population living in border regions draws its resources and subsistence from the work offered by the banking and insurance sector in Luxembourg, to name only this region? Nearly six thousand people are involved in this sector. Have you imagined what could be the financial impacts on this southern region of the country, both for its inhabitants and for the state budget if jobs were suppressed in Luxembourg?

But it is true that the peripheral regions do not have the quota and that your government marks very little interest in defending the interests of these citizens. It only prevents by force to take action in the emergency and expecting short-term effects, your government continues to promise us disenchanting tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Finance, the Shadow Minister of Finance — Mr. Jamar — is not present. Fortunately, we have the shadow of the Shadow Minister of Finance, Mr. Van der Maelen, in our midst.

Dear friends and enemies of CD&V, it is you yesterday not missed in the Flemish press. Dirk Van der Maelen, the flexible sp.a. faction leader and shadow of the shadow minister of Finance, binds the struggle against the pools. We have heard all of that.

Mr. Van der Maelen, why do you fight against the swimming pools? Was you as a child bullied outside in the public swimming pools? I do not think. Do you want to break the monopoly of VLD in Kortrijk by setting up an action against noise around public swimming pools? I do not think. Per ⁇ you want to count VLD member Smagghe by saying that, if the migrants are not allowed to enter the public pools, no one is allowed to enter? I do not know if it is. I actually do not think.

He actually talked about the taxation regarding the swimming pools. In fact, single-person companies are massively abused by building incredibly luxurious swimming pools at the expense of the taxpayer. Imagine yourself . I do not mean a swimming pool or a jaccuzzi, but whirlpools and really large swimming pools, and this at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Van der Maelen, that is an incredible shame. You needed the full five-year purple reign to discover that this incredible evil and abuse existed. You have never talked about it. We never heard anything about it. This week, however, you were there with that big problem. Dear friends, it should be clear that this is, of course, a great distraction manoeuvre. Van Der Maelen must approve the largest laundry operation in Belgian history but he is already shouting shame over the BVBA swimming pools. Friends butchers, bakers, electricians and plumbers, the socialists are looking for your swimming pool. You better close it before they discover it. These are all distraction manoeuvres.

What do the Socialists have to hide? That is important this week. Some say that it is nice to know from sausages and laws exactly how they are made. I think it is very important to know from this law exactly how it was made. Mr. Pinxten, you’re already laughing, but I don’t think there’s a reason to laugh at it. This is really the essence of the case.

In a first phase, the socialists said: it is an ambetant law but we need it to bring foreign money to Belgium and invest in our economy. It would be, dixit Stevaert, unethical not to do this. In a second phase, it was suddenly no longer necessary to invest that money in our Belgian economy. In a third phase, Mr. Van Der Maelen, from October 14, it was suddenly no longer necessary to bring it to Belgium. In a fourth phase, from 29 November, on the last day of the committee discussions, it was suddenly no longer necessary that it was foreign money. It could also be the case of cascades that are in Belgian coffers.

In other words, thanks to the socialists in this country, this law makes it perfectly possible to wash domestic money white and then invest in the foreign economy. We were so lucky that we didn’t get to Stage 8. I assume, Mr. Van Der Maelen, that it was the intention of Phase 8 to have the Chinese in Hong Kong wash their black money on condition that there is a Belgian three-color hanging around the banknotes and at a rate of 2%. It is a pity that we have not experienced this.

Minister Reynders is from Hong Kong. He will testify that this was one of the possible plans.

Mr. Van Der Maelen, and other friends, specialists of swimming pools, let us calculate together how big the pool can be built by bringing domestic black money abroad after this money laundering operation.

Those who escaped 1 million euros through the personal tax at the rate of 46%, have escaped 460,000 euros. According to your socialist law, 90,000 euros of taxes must be deducted from it. The profit is then 370,000 euros per million euros.

You are the self-crowned specialist of the swimming pools. I don’t want to put you to the crown, but according to what I’ve checked, a very nice pool costs about 250 euros per square meter. At the expense of the taxpayer, you can use that money to build a swimming pool of 20 meters wide and 74 meters long. That allows your law! This is a swimming pool of more than Olympic dimensions.

Mr. Van der Maelen, the entire sp.a-fraction can be in that pool. The SPA, the Socialists for Amnesty, can all participate. Not only you, but also the PS faction, who do not want to experience what is being discussed here tonight. I assume that the PS will hold a big party to celebrate the victory of the socialist proletariat over capitalism tonight. They are not where they should be tonight, namely in Parliament. You can also have spirit in that very large swimming pool by Dirk Van der Maelen. They can all join.

The [...]

You want more. The 6% fine may have been too high in your eyes. I’ve noticed in the committee that you occasionally almost staged with enthusiasm about that law. I now understand that 6% was too much.

If you want to declare the holy war against the swimming pools, you should not wait until tomorrow. You have the opportunity, as soon as this law is voted, to press the red button. Then you take your battle home.

All madness on a stick, everyone knows that the good purpose of that law has fallen away. In the meantime, the moral responsibility has disappeared. The question is why this law needs to be passed. Why should we still approve that bad remedy when the good purpose has completely disappeared?

It is very surprising that the Socialist Party continues to support this law and continue to defend that means. That is incredible. You may get angry if we call you conservative, but you have seen that law evolve and as the panic over the public finances increased, the law became lax, however you have not responded at all, on the contrary: you continued to support that law.

Steve Stevaert is no longer heard. Steve Stevaert is a bit like the weatherman. He only comes in the news if he can announce that the weather is nice the other day.

You can see Stevaert. If the weather is bad tomorrow, there will be other weathermen and other weather women. The rats leave the ship. Mr. Van der Maelen also steps it down here. There are few socialists who can listen to it. You are calling in the meantime. I understand that it is very painful for socialists to have to experience this, right? You simply cannot look at it. In Germany it is 25% and in Belgium it is 6%. However, on all normal consumer goods, on chairs, tables and cabinets it is 21%. On black money it is 6%. Even on the blackest of all black, Mr. Van der Maelen, on coal, it is 12% VAT. That is still higher than what you charge for black money.

The only stroke you have is to say that this is a budgetary operation, a good thing to bring down government debt. However, even that is not true. You are now planning to raise 850 million euros very quickly. You will then do a good service because otherwise you will have to raise taxes or make heavy savings. What is the alternative to those 850 million euros? That is the last stroke you have to change that. Colleague Pinxten also used that strohalm. But do not mistake. You may be able to collect those 850 million euros. Who will say exactly how much it will be? However, you have not included one thing in the budget, namely the changing behavior of people. You encourage fraudulent behavior. You discourage people who fill out the tax return correctly. This will have an impact on future government revenues. Who will tell if that impact will be greater or smaller than the €850 million you submit today? That is the Achillespees of that whole law. The last straw that you had was actually washing away with it. In addition, can you simply enter 850 million euros in the budget? In any case, it is about tax revenues that have been lost by the government over a period of three years ago. If you’re honest, you would have to divide those 850 million euros into three and correct the figures from the past years. I think this would at least be much more fair than what you are currently planning. We will vote against. We think that the key element of this law is missing, namely justice. The good purpose is gone. The budgetary objective is also gone if you think about it well. That argument doesn’t hold up at all. I therefore also call on the socialists, who want to see in excessive numbers what they are doing here today, to vote against.

There is also a technical aspect. In the whole bill, there is no trace of the tax amnesty for regional taxes. This, of course, belongs to the competence of the states. The State Council ruled that you cannot even start this tax amnesty without the agreement of the counties. Mr. Minister, however, you continue and will just lay down that advice next to you. The fact that the State Council also decided that it is necessary to record the distribution of income with the provinces in a cooperation agreement also simply wipes you under the mat. For those who are interested in tax amnesty, however, the impact on regional taxes is important. It is now December 11, 2003 and there are still no regional decrees.

The law would therefore enter into force on 1 January 2004. On a number of essential issues, such as the applicability in succession rights, there is still absolutely no clarity. We are also facing chaos on an organisational level.

I decide . The socialist tax amnesty will make a very small minority — ⁇ 5,000 people — pay 6% of their taxes, while the ordinary people will continue to pay 46%. The Socialist’s fiscal amnesty makes it easier for criminal money to be laundered. Giorgio from Moscow, Mr. Van der Maelen, sends you his greetings for this. The tax amnesty of the Socialists makes it possible to launder domestic money to build swimming pools abroad. It would be a good thing for the country, especially in many cases, but in the case of fiscal amnesty it is that, frankly, not. Therefore, I conclude by saying: Sir, there is no plus the Socialists.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have never hidden that we would rather never approve the type of draft that will be voted on later if it is not really necessary. We will approve the bill because we are convinced that it is good for ordinary people as well. Their

The core of the debate and the accusations we receive is that those who have always paid their taxes correctly and fairly will be deceived by this law. To rule means to choose. For us, socialists, our main task for years has been to reduce public debt. First we tried to work on this with the Christian Democrats; now we do so with the Liberals. In 1993, ten years ago, the public debt was 137%. If we meet the 2004 budget targets, we will be below 100%.

I have not interrupted anyone either. Do not worry, I will not run away. When I finish my story, you can ask me as many questions as you want.

We are in an economically difficult situation and yet we are able to get out of it below 100%. The goal of all serious so-called state parties should be to reduce debt as quickly as possible. A prerequisite for achieving this is that even at times when the economic situation is very bad, one does not accept deficits.

In the preparation of the planning during the government negotiations and later in the preparation of the budget, we were actually facing the choice. We could choose – as they did in Germany and France – to accept the deficit. In front of you stands a socialist who thinks that if we want to be social in the future and to be able to bear the costs of ageing in a socially acceptable way, we cannot afford to allow a deficit, as in Germany and France. We are going below 100%, we need to quickly move to the 60% figure desired by Europe. That was the first choice. Those countries may be able to afford to have a deficit, but that is another debate.

The second option was either the absence of a number of social measures now provided in the budget, such as the increase by 4,5% of the budget for health care facilities or, worse yet, as in the Netherlands, the use of the bone bite – with or without the agreement of the trade unions – in the social spending. We did not want that and therefore there was no second option either.

A third option. The figures have fallen afterwards: the government estimates a revenue of 850 million euros. We are confident that this will be achieved. The third option would be to provide for additional tax increases in the amount of EUR 850 million. That was the third possibility.

Thus, I see only three options: do nothing, hike in the social sector, or raise taxes. Leterme, I am almost finished with my story. Who would we meet if we did? We would hit the people who pay their taxes socially, fairly and fairly.

Leterme, you are not listening. I will not deny that there is a burden increase in that budget. I have said that if we do not, there would be another €850 million in tax increases and we would hit the people who pay their taxes correctly and fairly. So we did not do that. We have said that we will once get an important amount – 850 million euros, 34 billion Belgian francs is no less – from those who so far have never contributed to the reduction of that debt. They have never contributed to the reduction of the deficit, at least in terms of the funds and revenues of those funds they extract from the tax authority and on which they have never paid taxes in the past.

My conclusion is that, either mortgage the social future, or social hairs in social budgets, or increasing taxes for people who pay their taxes socially, correctly and fairly, are three choices that I find much worse than the choice we are making now. I have now told the first part of my story, I have said what I had to say and now listen as promised to the questions of the colleagues of CD&V.

Colleague Van der Maelen, I have more than one question.

I must honestly say — it is sometimes blamed on me — that my little socialist blood is reversing. Indeed, I also have a strong sense of justice towards the little man and the right citizen.

Mr. Van der Maelen, in your argumentation you turn things around. You are claiming that you are entering the EBA to avoid health care not getting the necessary resources, which one would otherwise have to get from the little man. Mr. Van der Maelen, had those for whom the tax amnesty now applies, paid correctly as hopefully you and I and many hundreds of thousands of people, then we would have had money now and then our budget might be faster than now in balance.

The [...]

You need to adjust your speech. You have been in power for almost six years. It is time for you to tell a different story. Your record is grey.

As I said before, it might have been easier to balance our public finances. Nor would the story have had to be repeated endlessly that for some yet necessary social improvements the money is not there. Mr. Van der Maelen, had the government still had the courage to say that they needed the money for the reasons you cite, and had one asked at least a much more correct fine or sanction — call it as you want — then I might have taken a little bit of your reasoning. Now, however, she spit the right citizen in his face.

At the same time, the bridge retirees are told to surrender. A corporate fee is requested to finance the state treasury two years in advance, also to individuals who will eventually not have to pay taxes on their social benefits. Mr. Van der Maelen, whether you are in the opposition or in the majority, my ordinary little-human heart breaks.

Mr. Van der Maelen, Mr. Speaker, has not commented on the statement also put forward by a number of prominent fiscalists. They argue that this law encourages fraudulent behavior and discourages correct behavior. This law will have an impact on future government revenues. Your model does not take this into account at any time. You say you cannot do otherwise to avoid savings or tax increases. However, you do not take into account the future and the expected lower incomes of the government. You explicitly choose results "now" and don't look at future government revenues at all and the impact of such a law.

We have already heard massive statements from prominent politicians who claim that everything is not so bad and that there are categories of fraud. In all objectivity, such statements have a huge impact on the people who need to complete their statement. This element is not found in the bill and is not touched by you in your discourse.

I suggest that all questions be asked first and Mr. Van der Maelen then answers.

The [...]

Some are trying to set up cartels as a young president, others are trying to do political renewal. It does not succeed. In politics, not everything is done. It is just so!

Mr. President, I would like to receive clarification on a third point from Mr. Van der Maelen. Mr. Van der Maelen, you make it seem that the 850 million euros that the government is too short and thinks to do well with this law means that no new burdens need to be imposed on the little man. That is your reasoning. What is the cause of the 850 million deficit?

Almost five years ago, purple-green started with a riant greenhouse, thanks to the courageous policy carried out by us, supported in it by your party. A four-year bad policy has caused financial difficulties. That $850 million has not fallen out of the air! That is your responsibility. You should not use this deficit as an argument to endorse this law!

Mr. Van der Maelen, you have made a comparison with other European countries and the measures taken there. You talked about choices, but is the problem not that you are in fact unable to make real choices, that this has been the case for several years, that we end up in a situation where no structural surpluses are more possible as anticipated, thus putting the budgetary balance at risk in the long run and making you now obliged to resort to such tools? I think the reason is the lack of action power of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with the last two presentations of colleagues Ansoms and Devlies. I’m looking at some blindness you have. I would like to remind you that in the period 1995-1999 there was a much greater economic growth than in the period 1999-2003. Nevertheless, with these two governments, Verhofstadt I and II, we have managed to have a Minister of Budget who has presented a balanced budget here every time again.

In addition, we have taken measures in that government such as tax cuts. We all know the figures of the high tax pressure in Belgium and we have asked our residents to bring that large debt of 137 towards the 100. I have always said that I find it normal for us, after the many efforts we have asked for, to give back something to those people. This month, a report from the University of Antwerp appeared that made it clear that the latest tax reduction is socially very equal. Those who most deserve to be helped by the government are also most aided by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend Mr. Van der Maelen, before he proclaims such matters here, to read the report of the Centre for Social Policy of Bea Cantillon.

I will give you this report, Mr. Leterme. I have read that.

I read that too. You will have to agree with me. In Mrs Cantillon’s study, it is stated black on white that the redistributive effect of this tax reform is less and therefore no progress has been made on the redistribution, on the contrary. You can say no, but it is black-on-white printed in the CSB’s report that no progress has been made with regard to the redistribution. You say that this tax reform is a step forward in regards to redistribution.

It is defensive for a socialist, because it does not reverse the redistribution, contrary to what I have heard say here by various representatives of CD&V when we discussed that tax reform. I can override the texts. Mrs Cantillon now confirms what we have always said, namely that the tax reform is socially redistributive and therefore acceptable. We will review this study.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are trying to showcase some results from the first years of purple-green. If there were any results in some areas, you have that merely and solely due to the surpluses that were regenerated by the measures taken before.

We know that song.

I hope you know it, because it is also the truth. Let me mention one measure, Mr. Van der Maelen, to which you have contributed to remedy these shortcomings.

In 1999, Marc Van Peel came here on this tribune to say that the budget proposed by the government was wrong from no side and that we were making deficits. Years later, it is Yves Leterme who comes here to say. Five years in a row, however, we are putting a balanced budget on the table. Each time this government proves, numbers in hand, that it is right and that your predictions do not come true. Again and again.

Can I ask that one member of the group speaks?

... ... To keep them in balance in 2003!

Belgium is among the best performing of the 15 countries of the European Union in terms of budgetary discipline.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you can start the second part after the question of Mr. Leterme.

Mr. De Crem, it is one of the two. At the back banks, a third of the members also ask for the word. You must know what you want. Later, Mr. Devlies of your group may also give his presentation.

First, Mr. Leterme may ask a brief question. I need to keep some order in this house.

Mr. President, Mr. Van der Maelen will of course not acknowledge it, because this point is the bankruptcy of the government’s fiscal policy. The budget, which will be submitted for approval this year for 2004 and which we will discuss next week, concludes with a deficit of approximately 100 billion Belgian francs.

You have said that in the previous four years. Wait for the results. For the previous four years, you have predicted that, and you have sat next to it every time. You may be right, but honestly I doubt that. I think the budget will be closing. I have put forward the arguments.

This is the second part.

Mr. Van der Maelen, from the figures of the budget it appears that 100 billion Belgian francs have been provided for revenues that, first, should come from the fight against tax fraud. However, no step has yet been taken in this regard. Second, these revenues should come from the tax amnesty and from the pension fund of Belgacom. I challenge you to state here that these measures can be registered as revenues for 2004 in accordance with European regulations. Do you have this guarantee or not? It is now up to you. Do you have them or not?

As far as I know, the government had the certainty at the time it registered that amount that the figures would be correct. You know as well as I know that in the first weeks of January 2004 we will get exclusion on the issue.

Colleagues, I would like the debate to take place, but I have five questions from the CD&V group. I respect them all. However, Mr. Van der Maelen cannot hold a speech about hailed straw.

Mr. Goutry, you have not said anything yet. I will give you the word briefly.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Van der Maelen, do you know what happened, among other things, to decorate the budget, which we will discuss here next week? A sum of 50 billion Belgian francs, which must be paid from the budget through the Public Health section for the hospitals, has been transferred by the government to entity 2, which is the social security. This amount disappears from the state budget. That same 50 billion Belgian francs must be paid, though now with the alternative financing, in particular VAT. However, taking that amount out of the budget, let 50 billion Belgian francs disappear with a trick, in order to present a balanced budget.

The budget will be discussed next week. But of course, “le tout est dans le tout”. I know that too.

Mr. Speaker, I will disappoint Mr. Van der Maelen: admiration is rather perplexity, as far as I am concerned. Their

Mr. Van der Maelen, I will say something about the balance in the budget soon. However, you forget to add in your speech that our public debt remains enormously large and that for this we are drawn to the oatmeal by all kinds of international bodies. Let this be said by someone who may be expert elsewhere rather than in Finance. Anyway, this is a fact. Their

Furthermore, Mr. Van der Maelen, I hear you cheering with much applause about a balanced budget, knowing well that in the meantime the municipalities are starving. The budget balance is achieved by increasing personal contributions to the health care facilities, by getting municipalities to pay the compensation for career break, by getting the bridge retirees to pay, or by not indexing the work accidents. To be honest, I would be proud of other things.

Mr. De Crem, you have probably interrupted a dozen times. I hope that this debate will proceed in an orderly manner. I give the floor to Mr. Bogert for an interruption and then Mr. Van der Maelen can continue his speech.

I would like to say to the Shadow Minister of Finance and to the self-proclaimed “Minister of Swimming Pools” the following. With regard to Belgacom, you claim that the government had absolute certainty at the time when it was first registered. Well, I contacted Eurostat by telephone that afternoon and I was told there that no file had even been submitted. If you say that the government at the time had certainty about the registration of Belgacom, that is clear nonsense. There was not even a file and so far there is absolute uncertainty about it. I advise you to consult the press on this.

Let Mr. Van der Maelen speak now.

Collega Van Der Maelen has now given us a flower reading of half truths, distortions and lies. I would like to suggest that his second part would be about a topic in which he is very good when it comes to playing the lesson to others, especially the truth with a big W.

Mr. Van Der Maelen, I would like to ask you if you believe what you are going to say in your second part, because it can be impossible so that you believe of everything you have told even a snare. You bring a completely unbelievable story.

Mr. Van der Maelen, now you are going on. We had a good debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something briefly to Mr. D'Hondt. Colleague D'Hondt, I said at the beginning of my presentation that this was a measure that, if it wasn't necessary, I would rather not have taken. Governance is choosing. Those who are in the comfort of the opposition can only speak loosely, but those who rule must take responsibility. Our responsibility is a balanced budget and debt reduction. Furthermore, Ms. D’Hondt correctly pointed out that we should not have taken a series of those unpopular measures, which we also took with CD&V colleagues when we were in government with them, if we could deliver a more performing performance in terms of collecting revenues that remain hidden from the government. This is one of the challenges we all face.

Colleague Bogert has said that we do not consider the future. I have tried to really consider the future. We have sought to use this debate on the Single Releasing Declaration in order, in addition to the main source of income that the government has, namely labor charges — the group of which we have requested the most efforts to remove debt — in the future to get some more money from other sources. What was the first thing we did? We have requested an increase of the penalty by a minimum of 100% if in the future someone is caught with the possession of products eligible for EBA. We — our party — have added that we want to pay much more attention to anti-fraud. We will work on that.

It is at our request that the texts state that securities, which are to be included in the EBA procedure, must be held on an account for three years.

Thus, if one enters the EBA procedure with black securities, of which we have never seen anything in the past, it will guarantee an additional return at least for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.

We have not yet been satisfied with this. It was said that the committee was not finished on Saturday morning. Thanks to the many questions and complaints of the CD&V group, we had a little more time. At that time we obtained, thanks to a concerted and joint effort of the two socialist parties, that there was an announcement, a commitment for the end of titles on toonder.

You can read the statement of the Minister in the report. The most important thing in it is the following. At the time we make the 2005 budget, i.e. in October 2004, the decision will be made that there will be an end to titles on tower. Again, that means a surplus income thanks to income from sources other than charges imposed on labor.

The [...]

Do not confuse the SP and the PS with Agalev! Note that!

The [...]

Can I end my story? I want to say two more sentences.

Mr. Leterme, it was the appointment that everyone could speak out. I go around. The second part of my story is a message we give to the people who so far have always paid their taxes correctly and fairly. If we succeed in our operation to generate more income from other sources than from charges imposed on labour, then we, Flemish socialists, find that that surplus yield, if the social needs are met, can also be used for further reduction of the burden on labour.

Thus, colleagues from CD&V and from ACW stretching, from the debate on the EBA, we have used to realize a requirement that the ACV and ACW have made for decades. We also set them in the period that we went to rule with you. However, the right wing of the CVP never wanted to know about it. Now we have achieved this in a government with liberals. I am proud of that!

Colleagues of CD&V, I understand that it hurts that we realize that without you. But we have realized it. We lay the foundation for a more correct ratio between income from labor charges and capital charges. We have achieved this.

I could have made my story. Now I would like to listen to your questions and comments.

Mr. Leterme would like to ask you a few questions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van der Maelen, as far as ACW is concerned, you do not have to worry. This morning I gave you a lecture on the position of the ACW, also with regard to your personal action in this matter. I think this book speaks.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are writing about new taxes and new charges that you will impose and pass. In your party program it is stated that the sp.a is for a property tax. Do you plan to introduce a property tax during this legislature or do you swear that point out of your party program?

Collega Bogaert, I would have thought that you, as an active observer of Belgian politics and recently as an active player, know that the SPA is a party that adheres to agreements and agreements. In the government agreement we have not reached an agreement on this with our partners, so I can not say to you here, from this tribune, that we will realize this. If you ask me whether that remains a medium-term goal for me and my party, that is the case, as the abolition of toonder titles has always been a goal of my party. This has been achieved through this bill.

I have already answered.

Mr. Van der Maelen is trying to tell a beautiful story here. It is in the genre of the fairy tale "There was once Dirk Van der Maelen and the sp.a". However, his story is just a horror story. It is a horror story. I think that many people after hearing his intervention can find it difficult to fall asleep tonight.

It will not be the case for me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the word from my bank. I will do it immediately. On the day the property tax is to be introduced, Mr. Van der Maelen may appeal to the new socialists sitting on this side of the hall. It will not happen to us at all.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, for us this operation is very important. I do not need to explain this to you. I will not return to the technical details that colleague Pinxten has put forward. However, it is important to point out here that this struggle against tax fraud has begun. It is one of the components. The opposition often says that they are in the wrong way. For me, it is one of the parts of tax fraud. It is not insignificant to establish that tax fraud in practice regularly arises from social fraud. Mr. the Cream, don’t play on the man. I do not laugh at the fact that you come from Aalter.

Tax fraud often results from social fraud. A whole bunch of small examples can be given. It is about those persons who, due to excessive tax pressure, perform black work in addition to their normal job. They receive amounts in black. At some point, they place it. They may allow generations to pass. At some point, they can no longer come out with those sums. This is not just a fight against tax fraud. As a party, it is equally important for us that it is also a fight against social fraud.

It is a very important step. In fact, it is part of very important reforms, namely the simplification of the tax system. This is about further tax cuts, which are very important for us. We also want to give citizens legal certainty. We may ask why so many people did this in the past. My experience teaches me that this is not really about the big fraudsters. I hear great stories from the opposition about ethical accountability. This is not about the big fraudsters. This is about small investors. With the extension that we have made to the moving values, it is ⁇ about small investors and small savers who have an amount together at some point. They did this because of the high fiscal pressure that existed in the past in our country and because of the moving advance tax that a few years ago was not 15% but 25%. We forget the latter too often. Thus, a quarter of the savings earned by acid had to be given to the State. The causes of this small fraud must be considered. We should not start to label these people all as big and superbig fraudsters.

The interest that is present at the moment in the field proves that it is about small investors. You heard it from the main bank, the market leader in bonds. Dexia is the market leader in bonds. There are currently 14,000 interested. Are they all big fraudsters? Are they all big entrepreneurs, billionaires, millionaires who go to these information sessions? No, it is the ordinary people who want to be informed in what way they can regularize those cash or bonds, which are currently either in the safe or in Luxembourg.

Mr. Goyvaerts, did you change your place?

There are so many empty banks that we can almost sit where we want.

I would like to interrupt colleague Tommelein and say that there is indeed a lot of interest in those information evenings. However, there are also information nights from that same bank, where a number of independent tax advisors advise people not to join the EBA for certain reasons. This advice can also be nuanced. There are apparently a number of advisors who advise the opposite of what this design aims at.

Mr. Goyvaerts, I want to be clear. If those counselors advise that, they will go against the law. This is unlawful, regardless of whether these are bank advisors. I am very clear in this.

I doubt that those 14,000 people are all advised not to join the EBA. You all know the example of a father or mother who received money from the previous generation and wants to help his or her children with the construction or purchase of a home, or who at some point wants to do something with the money they have saved and cannot or dare to come out. Mr. Goyvaerts, I want to make it clear that the people who own that money are not necessarily the cause of the fact that they cannot come out with that money at that time.

I think it is more than permissible that we set up this one-off operation. In order for this operation to succeed, we must be able to speak of the one-off. It is not possible to open that door. The operation will take a year. We support the conditions outlined by colleague Van der Maelen. The opportunity is given to regularize a situation Who chooses not to do and then runs against the lamp, must realize that it has been his own choice. Those who at some point have the opportunity to regularize themselves, but despite this, do not adhere to the rules of the game by ignoring the three-year term or by violating the law, must of course bear the consequences themselves.

Second, there must be a substantial incentive to take this proposal. I think this is the case at the moment. We are only waiting for the royal decision of the minister, which will have to show very clearly where to invest. We hope that this is as broad as possible. We must provide legal certainty. I believe that legal certainty is guaranteed by this draft. This is evident from the questions we get in the field. Dexia is ⁇ not the only one. I myself also get a lot of phone calls from interested parties, from agents or office directors who ask for information as soon as possible in order to inform their customers in a correct way.

It should be said clearly that this one-time operation will indeed be a good thing for the budget. What is wrong with the fact that we do not have to increase the burden and do not have to cut in social security? I think we made a very good decision.

Let me return to the question concerning the property tax. On behalf of my party, I take a clear position on this issue. We have not agreed on this in the government agreement and therefore it will not be a surprise that we do not give our approval to this. Indeed, it is obvious that, because of the great mobility of capital, a property tax would be borne primarily by the middle class of society — primarily composed of two-income workers — and then exclusively by those who have invested in real estate. I would like to remind you that real estate in Belgium is already heavily taxed.

The fact that the danger of massive capital flight and fraud between the moment of announcement and the moment of application of the asset cadastre is real does not require comment. It would therefore flagrantly contradict the present draft law.

Despite the fact that the previous government has carried out a major reform of corporate and personal tax, the introduction of a property tax would disrupt business by undermining competitiveness and would significantly impair consumer confidence and associated private consumption, which are a major driver of our economic growth. In addition, many forms of property tax are already being levied in our country, making us still a leader in the European Union in the level of property tax, despite the important fiscal reforms that were implemented during this legislature and which will continue to take effect in the coming years.

Mr. Minister, the previous speakers have already profoundly understood all the advantages and disadvantages of the one-off release declaration. I will do something different and keep it a little shorter.

After so many weeks of discussions in the Finance Committee and after a hearing, I remembered one certain sentence of the Minister of Finance. With this word I would like to begin my presentation. Minister Reynders asked everyone and especially the opposition, which has already clearly shown that it is not very enthusiastic about the measure, an alternative to the measure. In fact, I think that the minister asked this oratory question to everyone in the committee, because of course he knows well that this measure is fairly simple and the State does not cost money. The Minister has a point when he states that this measure can raise a lot of money without costing the State money. All other measures intended to stimulate the economy—that is the purpose of the fiscal amnesty—have a return effect, but first cost some money from the budget. Any euro that gets into the treasury in any way is welcome to help our economy move forward.

However, there are a number of complaints about this measure, which does not allow us to agree with the bill. First, there is legal uncertainty. It has already been cited here, but yet I repeat it for a moment. Both the taxpayers and the banks cannot really be 100% sure. It is unimaginable that there will be complaints to the Arbitration Court, because there may be discrimination, since only natural persons can use this measure unlike, for example, companies and people with cash money. There is also uncertainty about anonymity. As long as taxpayers and banks cannot be 100% sure, it is not a good measure. They are still afraid that they will be persecuted.

A second very important reason why we do not like the one-off declaration is that this measure does not address the cause of the huge capital flight, namely the excessive taxes, as my colleague Hagen Goyvaerts has already said, which according to OECD figures are the highest taxes in Europe.

As long as that measure is not linked to drastic tax cuts and a reduction in labor tax and even the abolition of succession rights, as has happened in other European countries, the fiscal amnesty will not be successful.

A third reason for rejecting the bill is the vagueness that remains about it. Despite the many questions in the debate, there remains uncertainty as to whether, in the case of gray money, only the discounted interest should be indicated or also the capital. It is understood from the text of the draft and also from the memorandum of explanation that only the revenues of capital should be ⁇ if the capital itself is not of black origin and only if the movable tax on interests has been relieved. Although the employees of the ministers have confirmed this, the minister himself, despite repeated insistences — including by myself — does not want to do so in the Chamber Committee. The Minister has only repeated that it is up to the taxpayer himself to determine what amount he needs to declare. That makes people so insecure.

The minister also added: “Please as soon as possible, of course.” Probably the minister hopes that some taxpayers will take the assurance for the uncertain and yet only declare the entire capital and pay the contribution on it so that the income for the State Treasury is maximized.

There lies, in our opinion, the great danger that the small savers will only use that law and that the big capital will still remain abroad. So our conclusion is that this is not a really straight-line and fair law, and that the ordinary, average, hard-working taxpayers — mostly the elderly, the pensioners who have saved their lives to have an apple for thirst — will come over the bridge as the only ones. The big tax evaders will slip through the mazes of the net. Through all kinds of other tax structures, they escape taxes. Our elderly fellow citizens, on the other hand, are already frightened and trembling at the 100% fine announced for failing to declare their money parked in Luxembourg or Switzerland in 2004. I also consider it to be an unfair measure. The small man has only limited resources, while the large capital owners can rely on tax experts and specialists. We continue to repeat that the cause of capital flight must first be addressed by the government.

To conclude, I repeat my first sentence, which has made a great impression on me, the question of Minister Reynders to the committee on an alternative to that measure. Well, we, as Flemish Nationalists, have for decades had an alternative solution for the square of this country, both economically, fiscal and social. We demand the full independence of the states: Flemish money in Flemish hands. It is becoming increasingly clear that Flamings and Whales have different priorities and approach their economies differently. We live in a country with two speeds. So let us separate and each go our way. This has never been a good marriage, not even an intellectual marriage. We will all get better. Thank you for your attention. I regret that there are so few people.

This was the speech of Mrs. Govaerts. I wish you good luck, Mrs. This was the maiden speech of Mrs. Govaerts.

(Applaus) (Applaudissements) Mr. Devlies, you are the last speaker in a row, the fifteenth or the sixteenth. After that, the minister will replicate and I will close the general discussion to begin with the treatment of the money laundering law.

As a member of the Committee on Finance, I have had the opportunity to make many comments on this bill. I will not repeat it.

Regarding the procedure, I have two comments. First, I regret that the majority did not agree to our proposal to hear the top of the administration of the Ministry of Finance on the occasion of the hearing. Secondly, the revised EBA draft was made available to us only in extremis 35 minutes before the last meeting. This will not contribute to the quality of the final texts. I think we are taking a step with legal certainty. The principle of equality is also not respected. Today I have determined how fearful the majority is for the advisory procedure at the State Council. If one is already afraid of this, one must also take into account the risks of procedures for the Court of Arbitration and possibly for European institutions.

Before the plenary session, I would like to limit myself to a few general comments. I see that Mr. Pinxten is no longer here. He quoted me later, but out of connection. Indeed, I am not a principled opponent of a fiscal regularization, but this must be done within a comprehensive framework of economic, financial, social and fiscal policies and subject to strict conditions. This is not the case in the current draft, which was created solely from budgetary considerations. There is no general framework, there are no accompanying measures, there are no measures to avoid a new flight of capital after this operation. There are also no measures for the faithful, correct saver. For the colleagues of the VLD who are unfortunately absent, I had here a quote from the former Minister of Finance. Apparently I am not alone with my criticism, but probably one will not like to hear this quote. I now quote Mr. Willy Declercq. He says, “Fiscal amnesty is a good medicine to restore both state finances and the economy, but that medicine must be accompanied by a well-lineed therapy, otherwise the effect is short-lived.” That therapy is not there, as the dossier is on the table today.

What is the basis of this law? Not the global policy, but the problems with the 2003 budget and with the preparation of the 2004 budget. Since the Belgacom operation is not sufficient to close the gaps, a fiscal amnesty is called: 850 million to balance the 2004 budget.

Regarding the 2004 budget, which we will discuss further next week, you should know that the Belgian Cooperation represents 0.5% of the GDP. Even with this 0.5%, the 2004 budget will have a deficit of 0.4%, if the EBA operation is not taken into account.

PS and sp.a have also talked about debt relief, but they are now largely absent. On that point, I would like to point out that they use it as an ethical argument, which is completely wrong. The €850 million will only be used to finance the new deficits that arise in the 2004 budget. Thus, they are used only to avoid additional debts.

However, the note of the Minister of Finance shows that the total, nominal public debt for the years 2003 and 2004 continues to rise.

He wants to formulate the following objections.

First, the first intention of the bill was to give a boost to the Belgian economy. Now, however, it shows that the capital can remain abroad and that it can even be used to make investments abroad. I do not see the impact on the Belgian economy. By the way, the National Bank has made a calculation, which shows that the economic impact of the EBA is limited to 0.05% of the gross domestic product.

Secondly, the rates of 6% and 9% apply to all categories of fraudsters, both for those who have invested their fairly earned savings without payment of the mobile fee as well as for those who have committed serious tax fraud. For me, these are two completely different categories. For the latter category, the rates are unacceptably low. I am surprised that the socialists, of whom there is yet another representative, can accept this. This morning I listened attentively to the explanation of Mr Viseur, who spoke about the measures being taken in France. However, the left parties in France take a completely different position. In the appendix to the report of the National Bank we have also been able to read which rates are applied by the socialist-green government in Germany. Well, these rates range from 25% to even 35%. We feel that the Belgian government is more likely to follow the piste-Berlusconi. It is hard to say that Mr. Berlusconi and his government are socialist-inspired. Therefore, I am surprised that our Belgian, socialist parties support this operation.

The third point is the control of the banks. This is absolutely unrealistic. The hearing also revealed that the banks refused to do so. In the lecture of the report this morning, I clearly pointed out the position of the Association of Belgian Banks. What will the banks do in concrete terms? I quote the fiscalist of the Association of Belgian Banks: "First, take a picture of the customer's situation on 31 May 2003. Second, stamp the document. Third, check the identity. Fourth, make a material control of the calculations.” Is this the intention of the government? Is this the intention of the socialist parties?

There are no accompanying measures on tax control. Mr. Minister, we have had several occasions in the Committee on Finance to exchange views on the control of the companies. I think it is now widely known that in our major cities — Brussels, Charleroi, Antwerp, Liege — there is still barely a control of the companies; up to 1 to 2%.

A good month ago, even in Antwerp, it was established that a certain company with 10 to 15 trucks had been operating for years without it being known and without any contributions to the Ministry of Finance or the social security. For years, this company has been able to operate without a doubt. That is the situation today. At that company, one has a random inspection along the track that can make determinations. However, the systematic checks of the Ministry of Finance, which should immediately detect such issues, are missing.

We are not alone in this protest. Even the Court of Auditors has made observations in the last annual report of the Administration of Finance stating that such a report cannot evaluate the functioning or effectiveness of that ministry with regard to the control mechanisms. The highlight is that at the last figures dispersed by the federal tax administration, it turned out that no more figures are available for the control of corporate income tax. For the years 2001 and 2002, no figures are known.

It surprises me somewhat that we hear very little of the sp.a here in this Chamber on this subject, but that we find some explanations in the press. I would like to quote a statement from the sp.a that I found today in the press. “Steve Stevaert’s party fears a repeat of the way Reynders dealt with the fraud during the previous reign.

In the eyes of the sp.a, Reynders did not take them. Moreover, he prevented his government commissioner Alain Zenner (MR) from doing so. The Flemish socialists doubt that Hervé Jamar of the same party, "the state secretary of Fraudebestrijding", will have the same fate. The anger grows.” end quotation.

I do not know if the representative of the SPA wants to respond to this, but for the opposition in this Parliament it becomes very unclear what is now the position of the governing parties.

The informatization of the department, Mr. Minister, is still a bit of a joke, although you are talking about an increase in the budget by 40 million euros. Everyone knows that this budget is primarily used for the electronic declaration. This is a matter of image of the department. Imago is of course important, but one should first think of a good organization and a good back office for computer science, which is currently absolutely not the case. It is going so badly that one has even more backwardness with the incohiation this year than in other years.

Finally, I would like to point out that the tax treatment of non-resident savings will come into effect no earlier than 1 January 2005. Only in June 2004 will we know whether or not the necessary conditions have been met. The urgent handling of this draft, requested by the Government, can therefore only be explained by purely budgetary considerations.

Mrs Roppe subsequently referred in her presentation to the ⁇ interesting study by Master Sylvie De Raedt on tax resistance in Belgium. I have proposed this study to the Committee on Finance. I thought that at some point some reflection was welcome. Mrs. Roppe has well understood the conclusions. She also cited in the debate that the main reason for fiscal resistance is the low confidence of citizens in the government. This is the problem with low tax ethics. I regret to note that both the federal and Flemish government are doing everything they can to further undermine the public’s confidence in the government. This fiscal amnesty is a missed opportunity for policy and may in the long run have the opposite effect and lead to a decrease in tax revenues.

Nevertheless, I must admit that Minister Reynders has succeeded in achieving his objectives. Mr. Minister, in a newspaper article you say the following. I quote: "Day after day I massaged the spirits of the opponents until an agreement came out of the bus."

In a later response, Mr. Van der Maelen states that this law is a historic victory for the left.

Mr. Minister, I cannot get rid of the impression that you have not only given a powerful massage, but that you have also succeeded in performing a certain form of hypnosis. What is your recipe?

Mr. Speaker, so that there are no doubts about this bill, I would like to tell you, as a first note, that I am executing the government agreement in parliament. I have heard a few questions about the position of the different political formations that support the government. In this regard, I specify that the government agreement concluded between the different political formations provides for a single liberatory declaration; it is therefore on the table of parliament. This is how I work.

As a second note, I would like to thank the rapporteurs because the work was not easy. Quality discussions took place in the Finance Committee; the rapporteurs summarized them very well, including at this tribune, which is not easy.

My third observation concerns the budgetary framework in which we are working and which, Mr. Speaker, will be discussed in further discussions. Since 2000 - and this is a fact that has not been met for about fifty years - the budget is in balance and the debt decreases; it will go below 100% of the gross domestic product, which is obviously an equally important moment in the evolution of our public finances. In fact, it must be remembered that we have just experienced three years of low growth - less than 1% of economic growth - and that all neighboring countries are falling away on budgetary level; while we have already talked a lot about France and Germany, the Netherlands now announces a deficit of more than 3%. by

I say this because it happens in a context where revenues evolve rather favorably. I have recalled it several times before, but at the time when we are still conducting major tax reduction operations - it is the tax reform to the tax on natural persons - we find that tax revenues return well because we have put in place measures to recover the backback and measures to fight fraud. I see that, including in the figures communicated by the National Bank, this type of provisions appears. If funding is possible in the field of social security or if reinvestments are possible, for example, in the field of police or justice, it is because in Belgium, tax revenues are getting better and better through the fight against backwardness and tax fraud. I prefer to be interested in recovering money from fraud rather than doing what was done in the 1990s, namely increasing the weight of taxes on labor income.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hold on to the elements concerning the project. Some speakers would like to apologize, but I will not intervene in debates that are increasingly moving away from the topic submitted to the assembly. I will stick to the project.

First of all, with regard to the ethical or moral aspects of this project, I would like to remind you that "ethics" and "hypocrisy" should not be confused. I would rather have a text of law clearly subjected to democratic debate in the parliamentary assembly than to continue what has been done for years in the Department of Finance, including under my predecessors, that is, to apply an administrative commentary on an article of the Income Tax Code. In my opinion, it is much healthier to work through a law and a debate that takes place at the knowledge and view of all.

I remind you that in terms of ethics, I do not play on words, I do not mix "amnesty" and "amnesty"; I simply say that there is a criminal amnesty in this text but that, in fiscal terms, we are talking about a single release declaration because there is a penalty: 6 or 9% to pay. Therefore, this is not a regularization without cost for the taxpayer.

I repeat it, and maybe that’s the main element, we finally do it through a law. Parliament must take a decision on these matters. Moreover, we do this thanks to good parliamentary work. This may have been a little sloppy in the current this afternoon, but so far, the work was quality. We had agreed on a deadline in the committee, we respected it, but above all we wanted to see the text evolve according to an opinion of the State Council and expert hearings in the committee. All this has happened. We even requested a note from the National Bank on the economic assessment. The note was submitted and debated.

We have actually modified the text based on all of these elements. As I said before, everything in the text coming from the commission was discussed there. The amendments examined on the famous Saturday 29 November only translate the final conclusion after a number of discussions with experts. I said it, but anyone can criticize them: these texts were proposed to members of the majority, after being drafted in collaboration with experts heard by the committee. We will continue on this path, with increasing coordination with the banking, insurance, stock exchange companies, but also with the Banking and Finance Commission or CETIF.

We are trying to do a great job in this area. I have always said that I will continue in terms of communication and I will talk about it later, when the text is final. My concern is to have a legal text as presented as possible for all persons and institutions concerned.

Venons-en au champ d'application. It is true that all the taxes are today concerned, as this has been clearly explained in commission. It is intended to apply the measure to all taxes La DLU s'applique à l'ensemble at the federal level, thus not only to personal taxes, but also to other taxes. This will also be the case for the taxes in the Regions after the approval of the decree in the various Regions. I think it is very important to say that. In short, it is a general regularization for all taxes.

Second, there is some evolution. In connection with the repatriation, we could not impose anything as a result of European law. You know that there is a free movement of capital. Therefore, it is normal for taxpayers to make a choice. They choose repatriation or another procedure in which the money remains abroad.

A change has also been made in relation to the operators. Not only the bank, not only the listed companies, but also the insurance institutions can perform this function. I think it is very important to say that. In addition, we have received comments from the various experts, as well as from the insurance institutions themselves. I think it was very helpful to arrange that.

There was also a voorstel van de voorzitter van de commissie voor het Bank- in Financiewezen. It is normal to hear changes in the draft to bring you. We will not have any a priori toezicht more hold from CBF, but we will speak from a general toezicht, as we have to provide for its own forestelde. Similarly, we have extended the scope to securities. We eventually said that it was irrelevant that they were out of account and that we could hold this approach. I think it is a good conclusion to advance that the scope has become so wide that the discriminations mentioned by the State Council have almost disappeared and that the performance of the measure may be greater. The National Bank has proved it. We now cover the €160 billion that were defined as a possible plate in the National Bank note. It can therefore be estimated that there will be both an impact on the economy and on the revenue of the state. by

You have always not understood another proposition having the same effect, namely, at the same time of revenues for the State without requesting the taxpayers who declare their revenues and a positive effect on the economy. As for the scope, Mr. Speaker. An EBA can be submitted by all persons who are tax residents in Belgium and also by foreigners who come into contact with Belgian taxes. Any amounts or investments, with few exceptions, held by those persons and for which all tax and social obligations have not been met, shall be eligible for EBA.

The tax and social obligations that the person concerned would not have fulfilled may be of a very diverse nature. They may include the failure to declare professional income – such as the person who has not declared foreign bonuses, for example; the failure to declare interest and dividends obtained abroad or started to collect abroad without payment of the Belgian mobile advance fee – insofar as the regional parliaments will fill their leak from the EBA; the failure to declare movable values or foreign accounts obtained as an heir in a succession or assigned by testament; the failure to declare at the bottom of the tax declaration the fact that one has a foreign account and the like. We are going to a very wide application area.

An EBA may be submitted for funds and securities placed on a foreign bank account before 1 June 2003. This can be a vision account, a futures account, a securities account, and the like. There are other examples. Money deposited solely on a Belgian account is not eligible because it is subject to a tax regime — the bank receives the mobile charge — and a control option that is so different from that of a foreign account that an EBA is logically not eligible for it. Money that was not placed on any account before 1 June 2003 — the so-called money lying, for example in a suitcase — is also not eligible because there was no control rule applied here regarding the so-called money laundering legislation which is of great importance in the fight against criminal money and also because for money lying, it can never be proven that one possessed it before 1 June 2003.

For funds or securities held on a foreign account, the EBA may be made by the so-called temporary entitled of the account. This means that if the account is formally on behalf of a person or intermediary, but it is demonstrated that that person acts entirely and exclusively on behalf of an actual entitled, it is the latter that can submit the EBA even though the account is formally not on his name.

All types of securities or movable securities held before 1 June 2003 may be eligible.

These can be stocks, but also bonds, cascades, certificates of investment funds and even convertible bonds, options and warrants. It does not matter what form these effects take or how they are held. They can be either named or dematerialized. They can simply be kept in a suitcase for titles to bear or through an entry in a register for securities to bear. For securities or movable values that are not on an account, it is necessary to be able to prove that they were acquired before 1 July 2003, for example by presenting the purchase margins.

What amounts should be indicated? It is the individual taxable person who decides, I have already said this in the committee, for what amounts and to what extent he can use the EBA. However, an EBA frees itself from a tax, a social and, to a large extent, a criminal risk. The taxable person who has a capital that does not cause difficulties in tax and social law but who has not declared the movable income or that capital has the possibility to carry out an EBA only for the unreported movable income.

The Minister says that criminal law is largely out of prosecution. What do you mean on a large scale? In fact, that word is contrary to the intention of providing full legal certainty.

There are many possibilities to go

a criminal decision. It will be very broadly possible not to get a criminal sanction. I refer to the report of the committee, which I have already explained. It is very important for the taxpayer to know that there are also criminal risks. With a one-time release declaration, it is possible not to get a criminal sanction.

Does it mean that there will be no criminal prosecution at 100%? You are talking about it in a wide range. I then assume that there are cases that are not covered for criminal prosecution after the tax amnesty. Can you confirm that? This seems to me very important.

I have spoken broadly, including for criminal risks.

I would like to comment on what Mr. President has just said. the Minister regarding the burden of proof in the taxpayer's head: he must therefore demonstrate that his title to the material carrier date before June 2003, to prove that he actually owned it before that date.

What happens if the taxpayer fails to prove the priority of the possession of his title compared to June 2003? Can the DLU declaration then be refused by the bank or the tax administration? It is somehow a unilateral donation made by the taxpayer to say: in my DLU, I consider that I now declare as much. What is the relationship between the burden of proof requested and the personal initiative that must come from the Belgian taxpayer to say that he has not declared this or that amount?

Mr Wathelet, this debate took place in a very thorough manner in the committee. I would therefore refer you to the report for the details of the comments. I will simply tell you that we have opened up very broad possibilities for the modes of proof.

For example, Mr. Viseur asked if a beginning of written proof could serve. of course . By the way, he himself explained that this covers situations so broad that it is unlikely that a taxpayer will not be able to prove that possession.

We have chosen very open means of evidence. As I said at the beginning, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to know what, in his opinion, are the amounts for which he introduces a statement. In fact, we do not ask the origin of the income in this matter. So the burden of proof belongs to the taxpayer with, as provided by the text, very broad, very open means of proof.

What if he cannot provide evidence?

He will not enter the account, Mr. Wathelet! This is the very basis of the system. To be able to benefit from the DLU, you must enter the scope of application, but, as I said, the scope of application is ⁇ extensive.

It is important to constate that we opt for this capacity of the taxable to make the choice himself and to decide what he wishes to present as an amount to regularize. I think this is a good formula. As regards the amounts to be declared, the taxable person who declares a capital which, in itself, does not cause difficulties in tax and social law but which in the past has not declared the movable income on that capital, has the possibility to make a one-time exemption declaration only for the unreported movable income. The taxpayer decides on this in all freedom. However, if the same taxable person wishes full security, he shall consider also making a one-time exemption declaration of the entire capital. In this way, he safeguards himself from the consequences associated with not having a foreign account mentioned. The taxable person is also free to choose whether to submit the entire amount transferred to a Belgian account to a one-off release declaration or only a part thereof. However, for the part where no EBA statement is made of the foreign accounts, it carries various risks. The scope of application is very broad. However, taxpayers have options. Dès lors, j'estime, monsieur le président, que nous nous trouvons dans un contexte où les contribuables ont intérêt à tenter de couvrir le champ le plus large à travers leur déclaration.

There were many questions about the different rates. I will try to answer it. We will try to ensure that these statements result in the levy, in most cases, at a rate of 6%. Why Why ? Because we want the royal decree that I will propose as a draft to the Council of Ministers of 19 December next year — we want to go quickly on this text, it has already been discussed with the sectors concerned and is the subject of discussion for now — to be as broad as possible and to cover as many investments as possible. I said in a committee that I will communicate the text to Parliament before it is published, I often do so in tax matters without any problems.

To take just one example, let’s look at real estate. It is obvious that renovation, building buildings or buying land are remarkable operations. This is a real investment in our country. This investment can be made elsewhere in the European Union but, most of the time, it will happen in our country. We will also try to apply a traceability criterion. Many have insisted on the need to combat laundering. A number of investments leave traces and all must be considered. We will try to define rules that determine not only the taxpayer’s responsibility for its statement, but ⁇ also the control of it, i.e. compliance with imposed investment rules. There have been many remarks regarding the evolution of the titles to the carrier. It is important to remember two things. The first is that the text that is submitted to you effectively allows regularization in this matter, as for a whole series of other securities. For example, questions were asked about insurance products. I repeat what I said in the committee. For insurance products, the doctrine and jurisprudence evolve very clearly: when it comes to savings products, it is normal that they can be assimilated to the products described in the text itself. But there are rules that must be followed by the insurers. I know that this has advantages and disadvantages, but one cannot claim exclusively the advantages of an assimilation.

As regards the holding securities, since there has been a lot of reference to them in the debate, the report includes in one paragraph a statement of the Minister of Finance. As far as I tell you — I am still in the best position to do so — what is the exact content of this statement. It seems to me easier than interpreting it. I have debated for a long time, at the European level as well as at the Belgian level, the evolution of the taxation of savings. We will — and Belgium will participate in the decision — move towards the entry into force of the new Savings Directive on 1 January 2005. There is no discussion with third countries. I have said this many times in this assembly. Now, I obviously cannot guarantee what other European states will do, but we will not let ourselves be blocked by discussions with Switzerland or other third countries. Belgium’s position is very clear: we will vote on the entry into force of this new directive by 1 January 2005. Mijnheer Leterme, I will not give a response for Luxembourg of for Oostenrijk. It is always so. I am very clear about the position of Belgium.

It is not possible to continue.

This issue is very important and concerns a lot of people. However, you agree with me that for the implementation of the Savings Directive you are also dependent on the cooperation of other Member States of the European Union, including Luxembourg, in view of the chosen formula of information exchange and retention at the source. Luxembourg attaches great importance to whether or not cooperating in the implementation of the Savings Directive by third countries.

Do you have vision for it? You say that the directive will be implemented from 1 January 2005 for our country. That could, of course, be a blow to the water if you do not have the cooperation of the other Member States of the European Union.

Mr. Leterme, there is a very clear position from the fifteen countries. That Directive shall be implemented from 1 January 2005. With regard to Belgium, it is very clear that we want its entry into force from 1 January 2005.

I think there is a very significant pressure on the different countries to cooperate on this. We will see. However, it is always a political decision with unanimity. Over the past fifteen years, we have been unable to make that decision. Now, however, we have agreed with the fifteen countries on a text for a directive. We will be able to make a final decision in June 2004. I think our position is very clear. Monsieur le président, pour ce qui concerne les évolutions relatives à l'épargne, il y a ce premier point, à savoir la directive.

Mr. Minister, I thought that the transposition of the European Directive should in principle take place before the end of this year. This is practically no longer possible. When will you provide for the transposition into Belgian law?

With regard to the directive, we must first, in particular, go to a European agreement. We must come to a final decision in June 2004 and then come to the Parliament with a draft law. That is normal gang van zaken in that stelt no problems. Beyond this evolution regarding the Savings Directive, for several years, questions have arisen about a number of savings instruments. This is especially true for instruments that grant anonymousness to their owners. Whether within the European Commission or the OECD, comments are regularly made on this subject.

I would like to clarify again what I said in the committee. During the preparation of the budget 2005, in September, October or maybe earlier, if Parliament comes back earlier...

It would be wonderful if it was submitted on time, all this.

We will see well. First, the Senate will need to follow the will of the House to work more and earlier. But I do not think this is a subject of controversy. What will we discuss in September? On the occasion of the 2005 budget, we will discuss the time from which we will end new issuance of holding securities. This was in 2007-2008. by

Why this period? For two reasons: first, because we are working on a text that imposes a certain number of deadlines and therefore it will have to be taken into account in the decision. And then, because there is also a budget choice. I announced it, the program law - in addition - provides for it, there are increases in levies on this type of securities; the day you stop issuing them, there is a tax receipt that disappears. I think we should pay attention to these two elements.

In September 2004, the government will submit proposals aiming at stopping new emissions in 2007-2008. We need to know, for example, if this covers all titles. What will happen to state bonds and a number of cash bonds? Like the mr. Viseur said it just recently, will we take into account the fact that some effects are found on title accounts? Will there be differences in this regard? I think we often confuse “dematerialization” and “anonymity”. by

Then, after 2007-2008, the question of the titles existing today will be raised. I have read several statements that we might have to wait five years before ending this situation. We will see. Decisions will need to be made in the coming years. by

This means that we have — with the Savings Directive and this debate — a decade before us in which we will have to examine these different stages and this situation. I hear that we often talk about the concern of people who now have titles. If these securities cover for a part of the fraud — which is not always the case, far from that — they will be able to regularize their situation. And then, I repeat, we will see, in the coming years, how to stop new broadcasts and how to move to another step for existing securities. So there is no particular concern to develop over the coming months and all the coming years.

I would like to say two things about this. Sometimes I’m worried about proposals made somewhat at the forefront. I read – because I still want to read the texts – the statements made on the radio by the Chairman of the CDH.

When I hear the president of the CDH say: "We are for the removal of titles - but quickly", even specifying that it is practically immediately as sometimes Mr. Trump says. Viser, I think this is far too dangerous, not only for the holders of this title but for the economy. What happens in this case in some SMEs? I had noticed that a number of movements were no longer represented in our assembly; this is the case in many assemblies in Belgium. I think of the communist movement. I hope, however, that by changing its acronym, the CDH has not passed to the idea of "humanist democratic communism". Imagining that we could immediately put an end to the existence of this type of titles is a suicidal measure. I would like to clarify this with respect to the savers and a number of company managers. On the other hand, I repeat, we will have to ask ourselves to what extent these instruments are not used to avoid, in particular, a particular type of tax, in particular, succession rights.

There is no doubt in this regard. Dossiers that have defrauded the chronicle in recent years are related, not to the furniture pre-account — in addition Mr. Viseur himself perfectly recalled that the situation in Belgium is not dramatic in this matter — but in the succession rights. I recall that it is a capital tax that exists and that is ⁇ high in Belgium and that kills the tax, I often say. We will also have to discuss developments in this matter, even with the Regions, as is often done. It is possible to expand the base of succession rights, but ⁇ by reviewing rates. I also see that the development is moving in this direction in each of the regions. When new regional governments are set up – since there will be a democratic debate in the Regions before June – it may be useful to discuss with them how to evolve inheritance rights.

I would like to return to the last three points, Mr. Speaker. A question has repeatedly returned: "What happens to those who report their income and pay their taxes in Belgium?"I have the impression that we have short memory. We have begun to take care of them. I am regularly accused of talking about it too often, but I must still remind you that in 2001, the Parliament voted, on my proposal, a reform of the tax on natural persons. We started by reducing the tax on those who work, declare their income and pay their taxes in Belgium.

Mr. Van der Maelen said this rightly. It is normal that a lot of effort leads to a balanced budget and a reduction in the debt ratio. It was normal to have such a tax reduction. This has been the case since 2001.

We start with the fourth phase in 2004, with the abolition of many discriminations between married, cohabiting and single people. It is very important to mention that. Our first goal was to ⁇ a tax reduction for those who work and pay their taxes in Belgium.

Mr. Minister, you make it seem like the tax burden has decreased in the last four to five years. This is not the case at all. The tax pressure has increased over the last four years. Despite the fact that the liberals have taken the leadership of this country at the federal and regional levels, there is, unlike our neighbors, no reduction in the tax burden at all. In the UK the tax burden has decreased by 4%, in the Netherlands by 3%, in Germany by 2% and in France by 1%. In Belgium, the tax burden — expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, in other words, what we all earn annually — has increased.

The story that you’ve raised as if the tax pressure has fallen is not true at all. You isolate one part, in particular the personal tax. There are many other types of taxes. The sum of all this is that the tax pressure has increased rather than decreased. At one point, a number of radio spots were broadcast to announce tax cuts. The reality is that the tax pressure has increased for families. It would be good if the Minister of Consumer Affairs intervened and said that this needs to be corrected.

Mr. Minister, we are a little distracted from the subject.

I have often answered such questions in the last few months. There are OECD figures for 2002. With the fiscal reform of July 2001, however, it is normal for us to face such a situation.

First and foremost, we are moving towards a tax reduction. For the population, it is clear that with a maximum rate of 50% instead of 55%, with the abolition of an additional credit contribution and with a reindexing of the fiscal bars, there is a reduction in the fiscal pressure. This may not be clear to you, Mr. Bogert, but to the public. This has been discussed for several months and I have always said that a very clear tax reduction will be implemented. That is the most important.

Ten second, what of receipten van de Staat betreft. One better bestrijding of tax fraud will generate more receipts. To take an example, I already tell you that in the next year’s budget, I will, of course, ask that the figures concerning the Single Liberation Declaration be isolated. Imagine that it is a success. In this case, I will be told that the tax pressure is increasing because we will have got that people who have not paid their taxes for years finally pay them.

This debate has been held at least 25 times in the committee. It’s always the same argument, it doesn’t hold the road just because, for citizens, the situation is very clear. The meeting with people testifies to this: the tax pressure on labor income is decreasing. Did you know that next year, from January 1st, we will finally apply the decumulation to pensioners? You will not tell me that this measure will increase the tax pressure on pensioners’ incomes! For people is dated of important matters. Macro-economic figures have no meaning for people. We go further with publishing van de belastingen. I think that it is very important is if you say for people who die in Belgium work in belastingen payalen in die maybe one zekere vrees can have for such a one-time bevrijdende declaration. Eleven first goal was om tot een verlaging van de belastingen te komen. In conclusion, it will be useful to explain in length and wide what this single liberatory declaration is. I will again have the opportunity to come back to it during the discussion of the articles. But how can we make sure that everyone realizes the interest that there is in using this operation, especially since it is an opportunity given to taxpayers for a year? The taxpayer who does not enter it will obviously not have to complain of being subjected to higher penalties later on. Mevrouw Roppe has gewezen op het belang van informatie aan de belastingplichtige. This is very important. We will evolve naar steeds meer informatieverstrekking niet alleen vanuit Financiën but also in samenwerking met de operatoren, de beursvennootschappen, de banken in de verzekeringsinstellingen. Mr. Speaker, whenever a reform or a major measure is adopted by Parliament, I always try to explain it, to defend it since the will of Parliament is to implement it, but also to explain it to all the people concerned.

For several years already, both in the House committee and in the Senate committee, the same question has been asked to me, it has already been asked again in the plenary session. It is always the same story: "Kunt u meer inlichtingen naar de belastingplichtigen sturen?" I am convinced that it is very important to do it. We must go to continue to communicate more over a one-time confirmation. But with a condition that will result in having to wait a little longer. As I have said since the beginning of the work, I hope that the text continues to improve. But when we have a definitive text, my will is to communicate it, I can assure you.

The general discussion, which we started this morning at 11 o’clock and which we interrupted for voting, has been closed. The general discussion is closed.

I do not start the discussion of the articles because there is a request for opinion from the State Council. Therefore, the state of the project is very simple. I will begin the article-by-article discussion using article 85, 4 of the Rules on the appropriate day, when I will be able to do so.

I will be very brief. It is the draft law, amending the law of 11 January 1993, called the "lait blanchiment", transposing into Belgian law the European Directive of 4 December 2001 amending Directive 91/308/EEC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering. The discussions were ⁇ brief in the Committee on Finance and Budget. Most of the articles did not cause any comments and were adopted unanimously.

Several technical amendments were proposed by the government. A single amendment posed a problem with the transmission of information. In response to the wish expressed by the College of Prosecutors General, such information may not be communicated to CETIF by an investigation judge, without the express authorization of the Prosecutor General or the Federal Prosecutor. The Minister of Finance gave the desired answers.

An amendment was submitted and rejected by 6 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions. I would like to point out that the entire draft law, as amended, including the "legislative" corrections, was adopted unanimously.

I was present at the discussion in the committee. I am not addressing the government, but the socialist family. I have noticed that at some point in a given text there have been abstentions from the sp.a — in my opinion very correctly — while the representatives of the PS were in favour. The abstinence of the sp.a was not at that time justified, but I think the sp.a was right to abstain at least. I would like to have asked colleague Van der Maelen — he of course does not have to get into this — to explain again the motives for the abstinence of the sp.a-spirit faction. It was related to the problem of the transmission of data through the Attorney General.

You are asking a question?

Yes, to Mr. Van der Maelen or others.

Mr. Speaker, it was an amendment by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, Ms. Onkelinx, and myself, after negotiations with the representatives of the CFI and the prosecutors-general. What should happen? We must come to the exchange of intelligence between the different administrations, but also from the judicial authorities to the CFI. It is always very difficult to do so with the judges. First and foremost, this must be done by the investigative judge. There was a question from the Attorney General that an agreement should be reached with a Attorney General before an exchange of information takes place between the investigative judge and the members of the Cell responsible for anti-money laundering measures. I said that there was an agreement between the cell and the prosecutors-general to come to such an amendment. But I also said that there should be no delay. It must go very quickly, ⁇ with a very formal decision of the prosecutors-general, but it must go quickly for the proper functioning of the Cell.

I think this was a very correct agreement between the Attorney General and the CFI. Mr. Spreutels was present in the committee when it dealt with the other drafts, but I also had a lot of contact with him in connection with the amendment. It may be regrettable that that procedure must be used, but if it is possible to follow that procedure very quickly, it must be possible for the Cell to work very correctly. This comment made it possible for the committee, and for all the majority groups, to approve the amendment.

Does anyone want to speak in the general discussion?

I understand, of course, the explanation of the Minister of Finance, who gave the same explanation in the committee. Mr. Minister, I have the impression that the text, as apparently proposed by Mrs. Onkelinx — or the Socialist Party — has been approved by you quite smoothly...

Mr. Leterme, would you like to use the microphone that turns on, because I have trouble listening to you, which I am sorry.

I understand that the Minister of Finance has responded fairly quickly and fairly smoothly to the proposal of the Minister of Justice. But do I read correctly, Mr. Minister of Finance, — and I refer to the excellent report, pages 9 and 10, of Mr. Massin, which I congratulate with this — that by the formulation of Mrs. Onkelinx’s amendment the control of the circulation of intelligence is narrowed?

I have already given an answer. It is true, there is an additional procedure. Something like that always works inhibitingly, but I have said it should go as quickly as possible. I think it is always better to reach an agreement between the various institutions on the fight against money laundering than there would be a conflict between the judicial authorities and the CFI. That would also be very bad. So I would rather come to an agreement between those different partners. But I repeat that this procedure must go very quickly.