Proposition 51K1063

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2004.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 28, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

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

Discussion ¶

June 9, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, you know that I am not a stachanovist of the Rules of Procedure, but would it not be interesting if you apply Article 42 and have the quorum established?

To establish the quorum. I can always do it at the right time.

You can do that with your investment table at the time it seems useful to you, but it seems useful to me to do so in the early afternoon. I am relieving you of the obligation to proceed to the namefroeping.

and yes. I am aware of the presence list. There is no second name calling. I can do it at the right time.

( ... ...

I’ve been here for five years now. You have been here for 21 years. I also noticed it. We will not do that.

It is a joke.

Mr Tommelein is the rapporteur. How can I forget that?

I said this morning at the Conference of Presidents that the Minister would come around 14:30. In attendance, Minister Demotte is here.

( ... ...

In fact, the government should not be present at the report. I see you are fighting. That’s what you do, Mr. De Crem.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have been honored to report on the draft law concerning the first adjustment of the General Expenditure Budget for the financial year 2004 or the budgetary control mentioned in the dialect.

Since this is a purely technical matter, I could limit myself to referring to the written report. As a result of next Sunday’s regional and European elections, some parties are trying to hang an extremely pessimistic picture of the public finances. I would like to give a little more comment on the discussions that took place in the committee.

In the committee, the group leader of CD&V, Mr. De Crem, interviewed the Minister of Budget on the state of municipal finances, suggesting that the municipalities should have increased their taxes through the federal policy.

The Minister of Finance considers this to be incorrect. In the past, the municipalities had various one-off income that now no longer exists and in addition, the municipal staff gets higher bets. My group also intervened and our position was that it was not correct for some municipal governments to refer to another government as a justification for tax increases, while the real reason above all is that they want to do more business at the municipal level.

The group of the CD&V, by the patronage of Mr. Bogaert and Devlies, often intervened in the discussion on the first day, but on the second day of the discussions and during the voting, this group was absent.

The Minister found that it was attempted to wipe out the positive results of the budget under the mat by focusing on its share aspects. Among other things, Mr. Bogaert introduced a number of new concepts such as federal debt instead of the consolidated decreased debt.

Following the study of the Plan Bureau, the Minister indicated that the primary balance in 2005 will have to increase by 0.6%. It will not be easy, but he considers it feasible given the economic growth has been exceptionally weak in the last three years.

There was also a discussion in the committee on the Silver Fund. The Minister of Budget was also treated here following fierce criticism from the opposition. The essence of the Silver Fund, however, is not that there is money aside that cannot be used, but that the reduction of the State debt is reserved for future pensions. The minister indicated that if we would get the money from the Silver Fund now, the public debt would automatically increase by the same amount.

The adjustments of budgetary control were unanimously approved in the opposition. It should be noted that the opposition was not present during the second day of the discussions and at the voting. Here is my report from the committee meetings.

Mr. Devlies, you are the first to speak in the general discussion.

Mr. Bacquelaine, do you agree to take the floor after Mr. Bacquelaine? How do you deal with the budget?

I would like to comment on the law-program.

However, you are listed on the list of speakers regarding the budget. Are you not talking about the budget?

No, Mr the President.

Mr. Bogert and Mr. Goyvaerts, do you hold a statement during the discussion of the budget?

of which act. Then Mr Goyvaerts will be speaking after Mr Devlies, after which Mr Bogaert is the turn.

Is there a problem with the roads in Wallonia? I don’t see anyone from the PS.

The ways of the Lord are impenetrable.

It is not about the ways of the Lord, Mr. President. The question is whether these members are on the way.

I was in Wallonia and saw a large sign that read “Infrastructure, la Wallonie du rouge”.

There is also a sign that indicates "Wallonia, land of reception", Mr. De Crem.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have listened to Mr. Tommelein’s explanation. I have found that he has listened well to us — Mr. Bogaert and myself — in the committee, because he talks about new concepts that he would not know yet. I can tell him that it is about the concept of government debt. This term can be found on page 185 of the explanation with a definition accompanied. I will return to this later.

Following the discussion of the 2004 budget, I had the opportunity to speak quite extensively about the structural problems that arose with regard to the budget and about the fact that those structural problems were not addressed, that they were not addressed. The 2004 budget was indeed a sort of camouflage budget where with one-off receipts the structural problems are removed shortly. Meanwhile, the structural downturn continues. This is evidenced by the continuous deterioration of the primary balance.

The first budget adjustment of 2004 continues in this direction. The breaches in the budget work are becoming clearer. The net balance to be financed, which was still 0.3% in 2003 and 1.5% when the budget was drawn up, has now increased to 2.8% of the gross domestic product. For the sake of clarity, I will give the definition of the net balance to be financed: that corresponds to the amount of the increase in public debt. This means in concrete that the public debt of the Belgian government would increase by €7,702 billion according to that budget adjustment. That amount contrasts with the amount of 4 billion that was originally budgeted, and ⁇ contrasts with the amount of 728 million in the 2003 budget.

Furthermore, we note that the Government does not ⁇ its other objectives related to this budget. For example, Flemish unemployment has increased by 34,000 units in three years. We all remember the Prime Minister’s promise: “Jobs, jobs and more jobs.” 200,000 jobs were promised. Meanwhile, there are more than 30,000 fewer. The employment rate continues to decline. The concept of "active welfare state" was in the period Verhofstadt I a hip concept. We will never hear this again here, not even in a committee meeting. The number of bankruptcies is on the rise. This has been the case for four years. In terms of Belgium’s competitive position, according to the World Economic Forum, we were in the nineteenth place in 2001, in the twenty-five in 2002 and in the twenty-seventh place in 2003. The fiscal pressure last year was 45.1%, which is as high as in 1999. Interestingly, government spending increased by more than 20% between 1999 and 2004, although GDP growth in the same period was only 14%. You see the difference and you immediately see that this indicates a structural problem. The improvement in growth announced by the National Bank, which we gladly vote for, has, unfortunately, little impact on employment and on the budget situation.

Over the past few months, a lot of warnings have been made against the Belgian government. I am not talking about the opposition, but about external international bodies such as the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund. Both indicate that the Belgian government deficit will reach 0.7% in 2005. I have discussed these reports in the committee with the Minister and with Minister Reynders. There was the report of the High Council for Finance that contained a number of warnings. A few weeks ago there was a report from the OECD, which expressed concern about the failure to control the increase in spending by the Belgian government. I think this is always about reputable international organizations and that one should not just blow these warnings in the wind as one does now.

The last report was from the Planning Bureau. It indicated a deficit for the year 2004 of 0.3% and for the year 2005 of 1%, despite a real economic growth that is highly estimated, at 2.7%. This report from the Planning Bureau was cracked or considered inferior by the government, but a few days later a report from the National Bank came to largely identical conclusions and that also stated that the 2004 budget would be deficitary, just as the 2005 budget would be deficitary with 1% of gross domestic product.

In addition, I must point out to you, colleagues, that the National Bank has explicitly stated in its 2003 report that there is a structural deficit of 0.9% of GDP. This is stated in the report of the National Bank. There is a structural deficit that has been solved by single income, but of course that deficit remains underlying and is growing.

Finally, there are the results of the Study Committee on Aging. They note that there is a deterioration of the situation compared to 2003. If we take the year 2002 as a starting point, the budgetary impact of aging in 2030 has increased by 3.8% of GDP. That means an increase of 0.7% of GDP over a year period. What is the cause of this? Well, first of all, of course, the weak economic growth but also the inertia of this government that fails to take measures and of course also the operation Belgacom that significantly aggravates the pension burdens for the Belgian government in the future. These elements also need to be considered now.

This means that the Opinion of the High Council for Finance will also need to be reviewed as this Opinion was still based on the more favorable outlook of 2002. The objectives of the stability programme will also need to be upward adjusted. However, we note that this government has so far only revised the stability programme downwards.

Who remembers that in December 2002 the government forecasted a budget surplus of 0.5 % for 2003 and a budget surplus of 0.6 % for 2004 and a budget surplus of 0.7 % for 2005? Even in 2001 the Belgian government was still convinced that these results could be achieved. In 2002, a first downward adjustment was made, with a surplus of 0.3% for 2004 and 0.5% for 2005. In 2003, a further downward adjustment had to be carried out, reaching 0.0% for 2004 and 0.0% for 2005. A surplus of 0.3% would be achieved for 2007. It is clear that this modest and up to three times downward-adjusted stability programme will not even be realized.

I return to the budget documents and find that Mr Tommelein has left the hemisphere. It is a pity, because in my further discussion I will explain some concepts. It could have been interesting for him.

As regards the budget balance or net balance to be financed, the table on page 176 of the general explanation shows that the negative budget balance of the adjusted budget amounts to EUR 5,504 billion and that the net balance to be financed amounts to EUR 7,702 billion. This represents 2.8% of GDP or almost the Maastricht standard of 3%. In the original budget there was a net balance to be financed of 1.5% of GDP. This may be a lighthearted one, but it is about dramatic figures and a dramatic deterioration of the fiscal situation.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the consequences of the tax reform were not included in the corporate advance tax, which shifted the estimated €1 billion tax advantage to 2006 and positively affected the net balance to be financed. If one were to be correct with regard to the citizen and the taxable person, the corporate advance tax would have to be reduced in 2004 and the taxable persons would receive in 2004 the reduction they are entitled to. This is now postponed to 2006. The Belgian State finances itself free of charge on the back of the Belgian taxpayer. The Belgian government has little or no budgetary space.

The table on page 175 of the general explanation reflects the evolution of the net balance to be financed which for 2003 amounted to 0.3% of GDP.

However, it should be noted that the proceeds from the liquidation of the Belgacompensioenfonds and the payment of the Belgacomdividend were accounted for in 2003, while the transfer of those amounts to the Silver Fund was only seized in 2004.

The gross balance to be financed then increases continuously since 2000, to 14,944 billion euros in 2000, 19,23 billion euros in 2001, 23,97 billion euros in 2002 and 26,719 billion euros in 2003. In the original 2004 budget, that balance was estimated at more than 31 billion euros. In the current, adjusted budget, an amount of more than 36 billion euros is mentioned.

Another important development occurs with the primary balance. That balance goes in a downward line. In 1999 it was 6.6%. In 2003 it was still 5.8%. In the original 2004 budget it was estimated at 5.1%. In the adjusted budget for 2004 the balance again drops, now to 5%.

Finally, I come to the national debt. Page 185 of the general explanation provides an overview of the evolution of the government debt, which is clearly rising. In 1999, it amounted to EUR 246.6 billion and reached EUR 257.9 billion in 2003. Between 1999 and 2003 there was an increase of EUR 11.3 billion. A new, sharp rise in government debt is expected in 2004. I can tell you that at the beginning of May 2004 the government debt had already reached 265 billion euros. That means an increase in government debt by more than €18 billion since 1999, when the government of Verhofstadt I took over.

At the same time, you must realize that the debt of the NMBS, which in turn amounts to 9 billion euros, has not been included in the national debt.

I then come to the Silver Fund, on which the Minister of Budget and the Minister of Finance held a very delicate press conference yesterday or yesterday. I can understand that the Silver Fund is quite humorous. However, taking into account the figures relating to the rise in national debt and the statements of the ministers, in which they talk about debt reduction, it is clear that something is wrong. Despite the rise of government debt, they argue that the Silver Fund is being used for its disbursement.

If we look at the figures of the budget documents, we must find that the Silver Fund is an element of the financing of debt - of the new debt! of the Belgian government. In total, more than 18 billion new debts are involved, some of which are likely to be financed through the Silver Fund. To say that the Silver Fund constitutes a reduction of the debts of the Belgian government is manifestly wrong.

We know that in the past a lot of statements have been made on this subject, completely opposite statements from the majority and the opposition. The majority spoke of an investment fund that would secure the pensions of the population, the opposition spoke of an empty box. It is not clear to the public how everything goes in his work. Fortunately, the Court of Auditors has made clear its comments on this budget adjustment. The Court of Auditors makes it very clear that the General Expenditures Budget will be charged at the time of liquidation of pensions. This means that the general expenditure will be covered in the year 2010 or 2012. In concrete means that, if the budget of the Belgian government is in deficit in the year 2012, the payments from the Silver Fund can only be made by entering new debts. This was confirmed by the Minister in the committee. Our chairman, Mr. de Donnea, asked at one point how the Silver Fund is in practice, whether all debts will be repaired. Many people think that the Silver Fund is used to recover old debts. Of course, this is not the case, because new debt certificates are issued. This is clearly about new debt.

We can therefore redefine the Silver Fund. It is an instrument by which the debt buildup is financed and which is neutralized in the consolidation, but that means that it is a zero operation and that one must first create a debt in order to be able to fill the Silver Fund.

Let me take the example of Belgacom, 5 billion euros in 2003. This amount was used in the 2003 budget to overcome the deficit. In addition, 1.1 billion was transferred to spending of the year 2004, a little orthodox way of budgeting, but here it has happened anyway.

That means, however, that the funds of Belgacom were used. One knows that one cannot use it twice. Therefore, in the year 2003 no transfer was made to the Silver Fund. We have been waiting until 2004. In the year 2004 there was a transfer of 5 billion euros to the Silver Fund, but since those 5 billion euros had already been spent in the ordinary service, there must of course be a new debt against these 5 billion. At the time that the transfer of those 5 billion euros from Belgacom to the Silver Fund took place, the government debt has thus increased by 5 billion euros. So you can imagine what kind of operation that is. The money is spent. It is then issued a second time. However, it is countered and ultimately it is a zero operation.

In addition, the pensions related to the Belgian Compensation Fund must be paid in the future. It is a pity that the Minister is not here, but in that regard he has provided us with false information. The Minister has said that the 5 billion euros of the Belgian Compensation Fund would allow us to make a savings in interest charges. Exactly because there was no repayment of debts, of course, there were no interest savings. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that there has been a savings. The Belgian Compensation Fund was fully consumed over the financial years 2003 and 2004. There was no debt reduction. This is clearly shown in the books. In addition, the Belgian government will bear the pensions of all employees of Belgacom for the next 40 years.

This operation is clearly illegal. In fact, taking into account the law of 4 July 2001 on the Silver Fund, it is clear that it is incompatible with Article 23 thereof. Article 23 of this law stipulates that the income of the Silver Fund consists of the following elements. First, the budget surpluses. However, we know that there has been no budget surplus in recent years. Second, they consist of surpluses from social security, but there were no surpluses in social security. Finally, they consist of non-fiscal receipts. However, these are non-fiscal revenues that can no longer be allocated to other expenses. In the preparatory comment, the Minister explicitly confirmed that this bill was a safeguard against the improper use of non-fiscal receipts. We now find that those 5 billion euros of Belgacom, which is a non-fiscal receipt, were spent on the 2003 and 2004 budgets and, consequently, could no longer be used for the Silver Fund.

Article 41 of the aforementioned law also stipulates that the Silver Fund shall, by 31 May, prepare an annual report relating to the previous financial year. This annual report shall be communicated to the Government and to the Federal Legislative Chamber. Colleagues, who has received this report?

No one ? It is expressly stated in the law that this must be communicated to the Chambers. It has apparently been communicated to the press at a humorous meeting, but it is not communicated to the Chambers. This can really not.

( ... ...

Mr. Van Parys, that is why I urged Minister Demotte... That is the reason for my conversation. You are right.

Yes, it has been said to me. It is 15.00 hours. I share your opinion. I asked Mr. Demotte to contact him urgently.

It is hallucinating what is happening here.

The Minister would be here at 14.30. Our long-term duration runs until 15.01 hours. If he is not here within three minutes, you suspend the meeting.

The moment! I suspend the meeting when I want to suspend.

My motion is ready. Your majority will have to be here with 75 people or your party will not continue today.

I know that.

Mr De Crem has already clearly expressed our position. It is, however, hallucinating, Mr. Speaker, that Minister Vande Lanotte may currently be holding a press conference on budget figures. He announced in The Standard that he would do so today. I do not know his agenda in detail, but I assume that at this particular moment he is holding a press conference on new budget figures and new growth figures for the economy. In the meantime, we are here, as speaking for the often, to debate a little in Parliament. I find that fairly humiliating for you, for this institution and for all of us.

Mr. Vande Lanotte will come immediately. Mr. Devlies, do you want to continue? The questions can be forwarded to Mr Vande Lanotte.

Collega Devlies has been doing an exceptionally good analysis of the document that has been submitted to us for three-quarters. He makes an exceptionally good analysis of the state of the finances of our country. It also connects a future vision.

I let myself get caught! You said he would be here. He is not here. If I were colleague Devlies, I would now stop with my presentation. Now he will make his point. I think he should even get time to recapitulate when the minister is here.

I will allow him to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I made a note to our group leader that the minister was not present and that I did not actually intend to enter the speaker. The party leader told me that the minister came immediately.

That has been said to me too. I would not say it otherwise.

I suggest that we stop.

I asked Mr Demotte where the Deputy Prime Minister is staying. That is why Mr. Demotte was with me.

Is he organizing a press conference?

I don’t know, Mr Van Parys.

You never know anything.

If Mr. Devlies has done, I will allow him a short break at a certain moment as soon as the Deputy Prime Minister is here. Mr. Devlies, do you want to finish now?

14:30 was said.

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that Minister Demotte took careful notes and listened very attentively. I suppose he will deliver those notes immediately. We will see what the Minister’s response will be. If necessary, I will repeat my statement in full. I prefer not to do that, but if necessary I will do it.

I conclude by pointing out that the Minister of Budget and the Government are clearly on the wrong path. They may be able to do some other one-off operations, for example with BIAC and the sale of Belgacom shares. It can be divided into several phases, but structurally, the evolution of the financial situation will continue to deteriorate and escalate. Nevertheless, the High Council of Finance clearly states that by 2011 — which is within six years and therefore not much longer — a surplus of 1.5 % of GDP must be achieved and that this must be ⁇ ined until 2030 in order to be able to bear the additional costs of aging.

The government has revised its stability program three times. This budget adjustment is negative and does not open any perspective. They even fear for the future. I read today in the press that Mr. Karel De Gucht proposes to restore the debts of the Belgian State slowly, while the rate of restructuring even in percentages — in absolute numbers it is an upbuilding as I just said — is very slow. We have been around 100% for several years now. If we take into account the debts of the NMBS, then everything becomes very difficult. Mr. De Gucht now wants to slow down and even less orthodoxy.

Mr. Devlies, do you want to decide? Their

If the Deputy Prime Minister is not present after Mr. Devlies’ presentation, I will suspend the meeting.

I would like to address my final conclusion to the Minister as soon as he is present.

( ... ...