Proposition 51K2124

Projet de loi contenant le troisième ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2005.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 28, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Jef Van den Bergh (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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. 22, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This is about the budget. You might not have noticed it yet. The Minister of Finance is not here. It is the former minister who is here.

I was searching. The former minister is there.

Mr. Devlies, you give your report.

Mr. Speaker, he had a few questions for the Minister of Budget.

Mr. Devlies, first give your report and then ask your questions.

Mr. Speaker, will you let the Minister come in between?

Do you ask the Minister?

of course .

You may be able to judge whether the questions have been answered correctly.

Is a budget minister a budget minister, or is it unnecessary?

Mr. Vande Lanotte, I will make the report first and then the general discussion.

Can she not or does she not want to? What is it now?

There is always one Minister present at the plenary session. It has always been so.

The report has nothing to do with the presence of the Minister of Budget. Mr. Devlies, you submit your report and then we take up the general discussion. One after the other. There is no need of a minister for a report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I find it ⁇ difficult to start reporting on this bill under these circumstances.

Mr. Devlies, for a moment, I have to interrupt you. Mr. Tant knows very well that a report can be brought outside the ministerial presence. The general discussion is something else.

Unless there are questions about the report itself, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but the reporter must answer it himself.

You will hear that.

Mr. Devlies, bring out your report. Then you will be involved in the general discussion.

I am present. It is possible without the Minister but I am present and I have signed the adjustment.

The Minister of Finance is present but this is a draft that relates to Budget and that has been discussed in the presence of the Minister of Budget. This should also be discussed in the presence of the Minister of Budget. However, I agree, Mr. Speaker, with your compromise, namely that we divide the discussion into two parts, namely, on the one hand, the report and, on the other hand, the discussion of the draft.

As a reporter, I must first comment on the report. The responses given by the Minister during the committee meeting only account for 10 to 20% of the responses presented in my report. This means in particular that 80 to 90 percent of the Minister’s responses were not spoken in the committee but were subsequently added to the report on the basis of written texts.

Mijnheer Vande Lanotte, u bent orfèvre in this matter.

It is not about this. The Chamber informed Ms. Van den Bossche a few hours ago that she should be here at 16:00. She will be here. The point. So don’t make an intention process of someone who isn’t here that way.

I called her five minutes ago.

Listen to what Mr. Devlies says!

Mr. Tante, Mrs. Van den Bossche comes, that is a first determination. Two, Mr. Devlies now says what he thinks he should say. I listen to Mr. Devlies.

I would like to comment on what Mr. Devlies just said.

He was not yet ready.

Apparently, he must issue a report that is not only a reflection of what has been said in the committee, but that also consists for a good part of the statements of the Minister subsequently attached to the report. You have heard Mr. Devlies, right?

Indeed, I am publishing my report, but I point out to you, colleagues, that my report is partly based on the oral statements and answers in the committee. There is another section, concerning the answers to the questions asked by the members of the committee. 80% to 90% of the respondents were answered in writing, and this is included in my report. (Conversations of Twist)

I have two concerns about this. The first concern is that this greatly complicates the work of the committee. Members of the committee are therefore not given the opportunity to replicate on the views or answers of the Minister, since they are not informed orally during the committee meeting itself. That is a first consideration.

A second concern is that in this way the report is no longer a correct reflection of the discussion that took place in the committee. However, I would like to ask, colleagues, that the committee for the Rules of Procedure be considered at times, because it does not seem to me to be the appropriate method to have our committees meet on draft laws.

Mr. President ...

I want to understand the incident. for a minute. First, Mr. Rapporteur, you say: are there things in my report that have not been said in the committee? Second, have you signed the report, yes or no?

and yes.

You have signed it.

I take it very seriously. I will now request the document that you have signed. Either those other things are in the document I have here, or you have signed it. If you have signed it, you are responsible for your report. I will see it in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, can I replicate?

Yes, you can do that, the reporter.

It is not about the responsibility for the report. I take responsibility for the report. I only indicate to the Chamber that with regard to the answers to the questions asked by the members of the committee, I have had to rely on written documents provided to me by the Minister. I only regret that such matters are not brought orally at the committee meeting.

First Mr Tommelein speaks, and then Mrs D'hondt or Mrs Pieters.

I have also been a reporter several times. As a reporter of discussions in the committee, I insist on giving my report first in a neutral manner.

That’s what he does, friend.

That is not what he does. I would like to report in a neutral way. Once my report has been read, only then will I make comments on the way the report has been drawn up and on the points that I find not correct or not good. I think this is a normal way of working. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you. You may ask, “Have you signed it?”

The central matter for Parliament, however, is that — that is what they have taught me here in my early term, but they may have taught me wrongly — something can only be changed to the report if it does not correctly reflect what was said. One gospel should not be added to three other gospels. No new texts should be written.

In addition to the question you ask Mr Devlies, namely whether he has signed the report, you should ask the Minister whether he has indeed made amendments to the report on points not discussed in the committee.

I will ask the question later.

What is the habit? It happens more than once that a minister asks to add documents to a report. That is no problem. It is then usually asked to the committee: "I have statistics here. Can I add them to the report?" Mr Van Parys is also an expert on the subject.

What I can hardly accept — I say it very quietly — is that expressed answers would not be the answers that can be found in the report. I do not know if it is so.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. Mrs. D'Hondt puts her finger on the wound very precisely. You also position the problem very clearly.

There are general principles found in the Criminal Code. If an official report of a meeting — which, of course, is especially true of a report on the work of the Parliament, which is an official document — contains documents, documents and statements that are inconsistent with the words spoken specifically in the committee or in the plenary session, then there is only one conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Then there is a crime. In fact, at that time, an official document contained matters that did not correspond to the reality of the events in the committee or in the plenary session.

At least it is not a report.

No, Mr. Speaker, you should know that, pursuant to Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code, you have only one option in your capacity as President.

Mr. Speaker, you should not laugh at it.

He does not laugh with it. He knows it. Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will require you to refer the crime to the competent authorities.

So this is a very important, principled starting point. This is not about politics or political games. This is about the following: just as a notarial act must reflect what the parties have said at that time, the report must reflect what was said in the committee.

It is therefore not possible that the report would be a reflection of what the minister had intended to say or of what the reality should have been.

Unless it is an appendix.

This is a very important element. I would like to talk about the criminal aspect of this.

Mr Van Biesen, let Mr Van Parys speak. Here you listen to the speakers and you ask for the word if you want to interrupt.

Mr. Speaker, an official document, such as a report from a parliamentary discussion, similar to a notarial act, must be the reflection of what happened in reality. If the Minister adds matters that do not correspond to reality, then there is, firstly, a problem due to the difference between what has been said and what has not been said, and, secondly, a legal and a civil law problem.

Then I should also ask that the rapporteur would be prosecuted as he signed it. Ms. Roppe has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of being a regular reporter for that committee, hence my question to Mr. Devlies.

Mr Devlies probably received a draft report, as is customary in that committee. I would like to know what comments he made on the report at that time and what comments were sent to the other members of the committee. I have not seen a single comment.

Mr. Devlies will first answer Mrs. Roppe’s question and then I will give the word to Mr. Tant.

My comments relate to the method. Nothing was changed in the report. There is no falsehood, but it is about the method. Approximately 80% of the Minister’s responses to the questions asked by the members of the committee were subsequently received in writing. I would signal this to my colleagues. I have a comment on the method used. I have a suggestion to discuss that in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, because there are a number of disadvantages associated with that method. I just gave them.

Mr. Tant has the word and then Mr. Reynders.

I think we agree that a report is, in principle, a reflection of what was discussed in the committee.

The rule applies to everyone. If you have the word, you must carry out the word.

I will try, Mr President. The principle is that the report is a reflection of the discussion. Elements may be added in writing, provided the committee agrees. So, first of all, I would like to know in all clarity whether that agreement was requested in the committee. Second, I am an outsider. I was not present in the committee. I am assigned to the report and I want to know what is correct as a display of the discussion and what goes beyond the display.

I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister.

It would interest me very much.

That is why she came.

Can I give the word to the reporter first?

Let me speak first. We requested the Minister’s presence here because Mr. Devlies had informed me in advance of this problem. There was, therefore, reason to ask that the minister concerned would be here and no other. It must, as may be the other members of the committee, express its opinion on the authenticity of the report, apart from the responsibility of either the reporter or the minister.

Mr. Tante, the reporter is here on the speech table. I will then give the word to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Allow me to add the following for the sake of clarity so that there would be no misunderstandings. The Minister said that he would answer a number of questions in writing. My comment only relates to the method.

It is a storm in a glass of water. If the Minister has proposed to respond in writing, and the committee has agreed, then what we are doing!

I only requested to be able to answer a number of questions in writing. The questioners and colleagues agreed. To be honest, I don’t understand what the big problem is now.

I was the observing chairman of that committee meeting. Mr Devlies was the rapporteur.

I am surprised. There was no problem at that meeting. Discussions have taken place. I protest again, because there is nothing wrong with the report.

Mr. Devlies should first report on what happened at the committee meeting, and he can also report on a number of matters that have been added to it in writing.

After that reporting, Mr. Devlies could say that he, personally or on behalf of his group, has problems with that method. But, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the report itself, which I think is fine.

Mr. Speaker, we should not push this incident to the forefront. I would like to continue with my reasoning, asking for willingness to look at the matter from his perspective.

The lesson from this discussion should be as follows. At the time a report is given or a document is produced, holding the downside of the discussions in the committee meeting, then it must be a report of what has been discussed in the committee.

I accept what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. If at any time in the committee meeting it is agreed that a written explanation will be given following the report, then there is no problem that that explanation will be included in the report, as an annex.

But there is a problem when a minister, a member of the committee, or anyone else, asks that things be written down in the report that do not correspond with what happened in the committee. First of all, there is a political problem. Secondly – I repeat this explicitly to the attention of colleague Vande Lanotte – at that point there could even be a criminal problem.

When we talk about reports in the plenary session, we must therefore be vigilant. I know the services do that. But journalists should also pay attention to this, globally.

I think this should be the lesson of this discussion. This can only benefit the discussions in the committee, as well as the reporting.

Mr. Van Parys, there was a period in this House when the reporters made their own reports. Some may still know that. In the beginning I was a reporter with my own pen. I was responsible for my report. Texts were communicated to the members who could make corrections, not with their name but with "a member says". Subsequently, a more subtle system was introduced which gave a broad degree of trust to the secretariat of the committees. That went excellent. It often happens that the Minister asks for something to add. If there is consensus on this, it is not a problem for me.

What is right, and I must give Mr. Van Parys the right, is that the statement of the Minister in the committee must be true in the report. If something is added to the agreement of the committee, then no one can be blamed for that. I would like this to be considered seriously in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure in order to avoid difficulties.

Mr. Devlies, you bring your report, followed by your presentation as a member of your group, and this incident is closed.

I will continue with the report. I just wanted to point out how the report was drawn up, namely for one part based on oral statements and for another part based on written reports. I wanted to signal that.

Mr. Devlies now says that he only meant to say that his report was drawn up partly on the basis of oral statements and partly on the basis of written statements. That was the only thing he wanted to say. Their

You just said that, didn’t you?

I have formulated two concerns.

If that’s your point and then say that there’s an incident, that it was ⁇ , and such, that’s polling! I repeat, that is voting! (Applause) Mr. Devlies, how many reports are brought here that are not partly based on documents submitted by the minister? How much ?

The incident is closed. Mr. Devlies, complete your report.

I do not want to reopen the discussion.

If you have nothing to say...

Mr. Speaker, I will be ⁇ concise and practical in the case of adding statements to a report that were not made at the committee meeting.

It has indeed become the custom that the texts are delivered to the cabinets of ministers and that they are corrected there. No problem, when it comes to the correct representation of what was said. There is a problem with additions, Mr. President. In fact, we should have an agreement for the future, given the common practice that the text shows the distinction between the part that is a representation of the discussion and the part that is an addition. Then all problems disappear and everyone who reads the report knows what the meaning of the sentence is and whether or not there was a replica.

Mr. Tante, that is not a bad idea.

I just try to draw a very practical conclusion. Remember, in accordance with our Rules of Procedure, colleagues also have the opportunity to read the report, make comments and propose corrections.

When they make additions, it is my view that this should then be reflected in the text of the report.

It can then be said that the reporter received documents, and so on.

and right.

We can find a solution. Let this incident be closed. Mr. Devlies, end your report and then come in on behalf of your group.

I just found in the drafting of the report that this is apparently a common practice in this house. I thought I had to signal to my colleagues about what percentage of the report this was. In this case, that was a large percentage, approximately 80 percent of the response section. In addition, there may be a number of concerns that could be addressed by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure.

The third adjustment of the 2005 general expenditure budget was discussed in the Committee on Finance and Budget on 19 December 2005. In its general explanation, the Minister stated that this adjustment aims to bring about a number of redistribution and specific budgetary adjustments. The Minister points out that six months have passed since the first budget adjustment. Some adjustments are the result of urgent or unexpected circumstances. Thirty subjects were discussed by the Minister. In the general discussion, I ask myself the question of the impact of this budget adjustment on the balance of claims and the net balance to be financed. There is another question concerning the additional credit lines for Berlaymont 2000 in the amount of 552 million and finally a question concerning the acquisition of the pension funds of the NMBS and the Antwerp Port Company. Mr. Hendrik Bogaert is asked for further clarification regarding the operation Pension Funds. The member makes the comparison with the acquisition of the Belgacom pension fund and states that such operations cannot be dealt with with the main objective of balancing the Riksbudget.

Mr Bogaert also regrets that the budget adjustment is not being used to update the fiscal policy. Finally, he argues that the employment measures are missing their purpose, as the unemployment rate in Belgium is now above the OECD average for the first time in 20 years.

The Minister responds to questions regarding the acquisition of the pension funds of the NMBS and the Antwerp Port Company, which she will of course inform the Parliament in due time, but that at that moment that moment has not yet arrived.

Regarding budgetary policy, the Minister replies that this can only be reversed as a result of a budgetary control, and not as a result of a budget adjustment. The net additional ordinances of the adjustment are estimated by the Minister at EUR 73.815.000. However, the additional expenditure will no longer have any budgetary effect in 2005, as there will no longer be any ordinances in this regard in this fiscal year.

As regards the budgetary effects for the financial year 2006, the payment appropriations should be adapted to the general objectives relating to primary expenditure. In that sense, also in 2006 no impact will be generated on the debt balance, nor on the net balance to be financed.

So far, the general discussion. For the article-by-article discussion, I refer to my written report.

Mr. Devlies, now you speak as speaker for your group.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we note that the government has been ⁇ active in the past few weeks to balance the 2005 budget with all kinds of artificial tricks. I refer to the operation with the pension funds for 500 million euros, the effectization for 400 million euros and the court building in Antwerp for 250 million euros.

At the same time, all efforts are made to move the expenditure relating to the year 2005, as far as possible to the future: to the year 2006, or to subsequent years.

Very important in this story is the tax file, where a net amount of 2.7 billion euros is pushed out by the government. That is an amount related to the income of citizens in 2004, the financial year 2005, and that was normally reimbursable in 2005. This is completely transferred to the year 2006. It is about a net amount of 2.7 billion euros. That is a huge amount! If I compare this with the situation we experienced last year, when the same tricks were applied, I find that this amount has increased by 1 billion euros. Thus, an additional €1 billion will be transferred to the financial year 2006.

We note that the same applies to the expenditure relating to the budget document that is submitted to you today for approval. Here we are talking about a more modest amount: 73.815.000 euros. That is still an important amount, I would say. This is the net amount of expenditure, which is added to the 2005 budget. The peculiar thing is that the payment of those additional budgetary appropriations is postponed to the year 2006 due to the fact that — I also mentioned this in my report at the time — there will be no more ordinances in the year 2005. These ordinances will take place in the following year. This means that this amount of EUR 73,815,000 will also be transferred to the next fiscal year. Another accounting operation, in addition to the many we already know.

Also strange, and what I do not understand, is that the minister says that those additional expenditure will not have any budgetary effect in the year 2006. This is not so clear to me. I would like to hear how you explain this, Mr. Minister. I understand that they did not have an effect in 2005 because you are moving them to 2006 and you are not making ordinances. But should these ordinances be done in the financial year 2006? Should there be an impact in 2006? I really do not understand this, and I would like to get further explanation on this.

Secondly, as regards Berlaymont 2000, in the written answers you have not or have not responded in full to some elements. I will not repeat it entirely, but limit myself to two central points. You claim that the credit line for the Berlaymont building amounts to a maximum of EUR 670 million and is repaid in 27 discs across Europe as of 1 June 2005. I would like to receive a clear answer whether the first disc of Europe, which according to your documents would be refunded on 1 June 2005, has also been effectively refunded. If yes, for what amount? What is the total amount of the fines and damages due as a result of the late delivery? In which fiscal year will this be accounted for?

The third question relates to the NMBS and the Railway Infrastructure Fund. In the budget adjustment, an amount of 300 million euros will be registered. It is a budget-neutral operation because there are shifts in the budget. Mr. Minister, you have said to assume that the same amount in 2006 will have to be transferred to the NMBS. My question is whether you entered that amount in the 2006 budget. We did not find it immediately. You may be planning to provide that amount at the time of the first budget adjustment.

Finally, as regards the pension funds of the NMBS and the port, at the time of the committee meeting you could give little explanation, as the discussions with the institutions were still ongoing. In the meantime, I understood that the discussions were finished. I assume that you are able to provide Parliament with explanations regarding these pension funds. You promised it in the committee.

With regard to the NMBS, I have a very specific question. We have learned that the pension fund of the NMBS currently does not exist or is insufficiently funded. This would require the NMBS to obtain additional funding. That would mean that we would take another step further.

We already know the techniques used in the context of the Belgacom operation, where in 2003 the amount of EUR 5 billion was transferred to the 2004 budget in order to rectify that budget. However, this implies significant financial obligations to the Belgian state. For the year 2005, for example, this is 250 million euros. You have therefore applied the trick — or your predecessor — to deposit the same amount again in the Silver Fund. I suspect that all these things will happen again.

Here, however, one step further is taken. For the Pension Fund, a loan should be taken. The NMBS should take out a loan. If this is true, it is indeed a step too far. I would like to hear from you, Mr. Minister, if this is correct. Is this information correct? Do you think this is an appropriate method to balance the 2005 budget? I am talking about 2005 but that is also a point that is unclear. Could you tell us, both with regard to the NMBS and the port company, which fiscal year you are actually aiming for? Is it correct that you are still trying to get those revenue at the end of the year 2005 in order to balance the budget for 2005 in this way? Finally, I would also like to receive some further information regarding the operation you are doing with the Port Company of Antwerp. As we know, this operation is not a bad operation for the port company. However, the question can be raised whether this operation is also of interest to the Belgian State. However, it is regrettable that, because it is difficult for you to ⁇ budgetary balance, all kinds of techniques are used that also involve costs and that impose new burdens on the budgets for the coming years. In relation to these points, therefore, as you promised, some explanation. (Applause of Applause)

You are asking whether those decisions have no effect on 2006. Of course, this will be paid in 2006, but that must be part of the envelope agreed for 2006. In other words, there is no envelope agreed upon and on top of that the amount that is being decided today. An envelope is agreed and that amount must be in that envelope.

The first disc for the Berlaymont building has been paid. That is a discount of 31.89 million euros. The total amount of fines amounts to EUR 1.55 million. That amount will be recovered from the main contractor. This is for the financial year 2005.

If the NMBS itself considers that borrowing is the best way to reimburse the government now, for the fact that it will pay the pensions later and thus take the risk, then it is okay for us. For us, it is important that we, as a government, pay out pensions and take over and insure that obligation. A public company does not have that as a core task.

Will the revenue of the NMBS and the Port Company be booked in 2005? and yes. At least that is the intention, although for the time being it remains uncertain. It remains to be seen which amounts will be recognised or not in the budget. This is the 2005 budget.

Per ⁇ you can repeat your very concrete question about the NMBS and the Railway Infrastructure Fund. I can say that all the amounts are provided. You may have a very specific question that I did not immediately understand correctly.

As regards the NMBS, I thought I understood that an additional subsidy of EUR 300 million was needed for the financial year 2005 and that you probably believed that an additional subsidy would also be needed in 2006. My question was whether that amount is processed in the budget you submitted or should it be supplemented?

I should check this for all certainty. As far as I know, everything is provided as agreed with the NMBS, so it should be included. If you think it’s right, I’ll check it for a moment to make sure you don’t make a mistake in that area.

I have a very simple question to the Minister.

Mrs. Minister, I have understood it correctly: you assume that the NMBS, in order to make the cents available to the federal government, will have to borrow. Is that right? That is decided in your answer.

This possibility is indeed real.

Is the chance real? Just say that you must take that out, because there are no reservations in this regard. If our intelligence is correct, then those resources do not exist at the moment. Therefore, they will have to borrow.

Mrs. Minister, my question is the following: why does the government not simply take that loan itself? Why is that Pension Fund slurred, in order to take over the obligation that you place in the face of a challenge that — let’s say it is safe — is tower-high?

Because we take over that obligation, but with that obligation also the fund. If a public company chooses not to put any funds into its fund at that time, it should also transfer to the State the funds which should theoretically have been in it in order to be able to pay the pensions. We take the obligation and risk, they reward us for it.

What is the real motivation of the government to act like this? There is only one thing: you are in financial distress. Why should it otherwise be so fast?

Absolutely not. You also know that last year the pension obligations of both BIAC and Belgocontrol were taken over and that not all of those incomes were recognisable in the budget. It is the policy of this government to take over the pension obligations. If you read The Time of December 22, you will, by the way, find that also prominent persons in the public companies themselves say that it is not the task of a public company to deal with it, but that it is the task of the State itself. That is the motivation.

There are indeed connected revenues that are welcome to the budget. Of course, they are welcome if one wants to close a budget in balance, or even with a surplus. But is that the main motivation? and no.

Why should this be done in a hurry now, just before the end of this year? That’s just for accounting reasons and for no other, let’s be clear about it. Unless – and that is a last question – it would be the intention of the government to interfere in the pension rights of the people themselves.

If we are already doing something with pensions, that is of course for the benefit of the people, but not for the harm as you suggest.

You also know that we even planned to raise pensions.

I have a question from Mr. Bogert.

The day you retire, you will see. Thanks to us, you will receive more pensions.

Mr. Tante, let Mr. Bogert ask a question. Mr. Bogert, you have been so good. Ask your question.

thank you . My question is related to what my colleagues Devlies and Tante have just said. The government is betraying itself. She writes in that KB that the pension obligations are taken over from 1 January 2007, Mr. Speaker. Not from next year, but from 1 January 2007, the pension obligations of the NMBS will be taken over by the government. At the same time, it is stated in that KB that the money is deposited before midnight of 31/12 or with a expiry period in 2006, in the amount of six months. It is, in any case, the government’s intention to write the money in the books in 2005 or in part in 2006, but the moment when these pension obligations are taken over is only 2007. You are betraying yourself. In that sense it is even worse than in the Belgacom operation, because in the Belgacom cooperation the money was deposited just before those pension obligations were taken over. There was no gap or decalage between a year, which is indeed the case in this case.

The government betrays itself — I summarize — by explicitly stating in that KB that the pension obligations are not taken over until 2007, while the money is already registered in the 2005 budget. It is obvious. It would decorate the Minister of Budget if she had the honesty to admit it.