Proposition 51K2450

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2006.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 30, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

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 22, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Should the Minister not be present?

The Secretary of State is there and replaces the Minister.

The Minister of Finance is on the way.

by Ecce Mulier.

You have been very desired, Madame, lately.

Mr. Speaker, I would

Luk Van Biesen wants to keep the report very limited. I have also discussed this with some colleagues from the political groups. It has become a very comprehensive report with very many technical statements and a lot of technical explanations on many additional questions. Ultimately, the amendment budget as such was adopted with 11 votes for and 4 against.

All political groups will continue to explain their substantive comments on the budget amendment. I would therefore like to limit the report to those sentences.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would now like to speak on behalf of my group.

That is no problem, I think the colleagues will forgive you. I usually give the word to the opposition first. Speak on behalf of your group.

Ladies and gentlemen, as a liberal party, we are pleased that the strengths of a sound budgetary policy have remained consistent during the 2006 budget control. The strengths are to maintain a budgetary balance for the joint government on the one hand and to continue the reduction of debt level unimpeded on the other. Such macroeconomic stability remains an absolute prerequisite for the successful implementation of the necessary structural reforms.

We would like to emphasize once again the importance of a balanced budget to boost our economy. For us, budget balance is not a fetish, but an economic lever. The budget balance is not only a figure, it also has a psycho-economic impact on consumers, ⁇ and financial markets.

We ⁇ do not want to advocate for the use of massive one-off operations based on uncertain financing techniques. However, if it is a matter of a few tenths of one percent of the gross domestic product, one should not exaggerate the criticism. For the sake of fairness, it is also necessary to look at the benefits that this technique has produced so far outside the strict sphere of public finances.

The positive effects of the seventh balance in a row are becoming increasingly evident. Does the economic theory not predict that a government capable of balancing its budget and thus sustainably reducing its debt level supports consumer confidence? Well, private consumption has been in Belgium in recent years the engine of economic growth, which was higher than in neighboring countries. It was not a coincidence that countries such as the Netherlands or Germany, whose government recorded a significant budget deficit and where drastic measures were taken in the social benefits.

Both the National Bank and international organizations explicitly explain the link between the declining Belgian savings ratio and the healing of public finances. Continued efforts to consolidate the budget will therefore support growth. The financial markets also clearly believe in the long-term sustainability of the Belgian fiscal policy. Several international rating agencies praise the efforts of the Belgian government in the area of debt reduction.

According to analysts, the Belgian budget performance remains unusually strong in the European context. The agency Fitch Ratings recently raised the credit rating of Belgium from AA to AA+, the second highest rating. According to the director, the high rating is the balanced outcome of past budgets and the credible promise to further reduce public debt.

Also according to the rating agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's, Belgium remains a highly creditworthy country, because it also gets from them again the second highest score. Both agencies maintain for our country the rating AA+ with stable outlook.

A higher credit rating usually improves the interest rate conditions for countries through a significant decrease in the credit risk premium. The fact that Belgium gets good points from the European Commission, which calls debt reduction exemplary, strengthens the international credibility of the policy. It is a matter of time before Belgium can also de facto claim the AAA status.

The economic benefits of improved interest rates for a country like Belgium are not small: a lower long-term interest rate is of course beneficial to the government itself, because it reduces the interest burden on the still very large debt. But the financial transmission channels transmit the benefits across the entire economy. After all, the long interest rate is used to discount cash flows from financial assets. Investments are now more valuable. Banks often place their interest rate as a risk premium on top of the risk-free OLO interest rate. This is true for many loans, especially for for example mortgage loans. This has given an important boost to the construction and renovation sector in recent years. Even some government tax expenditures are dependent on the OLO interest rate, just think of the notional interest deduction.

A second positive finding we make is that the government continues to base its budget discipline on cautious hypotheses, despite the growing economic optimism in both Belgium and the countries around us.

In April 2006, entrepreneurial confidence rose to the highest level in ⁇ six years. The Conjuncture Barometer is now at the level of 2000. Despite the slight decline in March 2006, consumer confidence has also increased significantly since September last year under the influence of the increase in employment and the full effect of the reduction of the personal tax with an unchanged savings ratio.

The National Bank has revised its growth expectations for our country upwards. In its June semi-annual report, the National Bank expects economic growth of 2.5% this year and 2% next year. This means that Belgium continues to do better than the European average and also better than in 2005, when the economy grew by 1.5%. Despite the more favorable economic outlook compared to the budget formulation, the Government ⁇ ins its growth forecast in this budget control at 2.2% of GDP for caution. That already creates a financial margin for capturing unexpected economic events or for accumulating budget surpluses from 2007. In addition, as has become the usual, the government will carry out additional budgetary control to the latest development of revenue and expenditure and, of course, reassess at that time.

A third positive finding, which we have already repeatedly emphasized, is the enviable performance that Belgium provides at budgetary level, compared to other European countries. The European Commission’s report on public finances in the Economic and Monetary Union in 2006, published last week, shows again that Belgium, on budgetary level, stands with head and shoulder above. While the budget deficits in the euro area and the European Union amounted to 2.4% and 2.3% respectively in 2005 and will stabilise in 2006, the Belgian government recorded a slight surplus on its budget.

Colleagues, the admirable budget performance that Belgium provides on the European level should ⁇ not make us rest. On the contrary, the government must take advantage of the recent economic recovery in the euro area in order to accelerate the necessary reforms.

First, from 2007, as the European Commission correctly recommends, in accordance with the stability program, the government must gradually build up budget surpluses, in better economic conditions. In its review of the adjusted Stability Programme 2005-2006, the European Commission points out that the current budgetary situation in Belgium, along with that in nine other European countries, still presents an average risk to the long-term sustainability of public finances, given the expected budgetary impact of the aging.

Second, in addition to budgetary discipline and on top of the Generation Pact, additional structural interventions are urgently needed to strengthen our competitiveness and purchasing power. The strength lines for this are already drawn out. Improving economic conditions should not be an alibi for the government and the social partners to escape their responsibility.

Third, the government must work to ensure that everyone pays the correct taxes, at the right time, and that everyone receives the social benefits that they really need now. In this context, as liberals, we support the increased efforts to combat tax fraud, although that fight should not lead – I am pleased that the Secretary of State responsible for the Fight against Tax Fraud is present here with us – to damage the favorable business climate in our country. The tendency to impose more and more personal responsibility on the managers of companies undermines the sense of entrepreneurship. What is the value of the roadshows around the world, for the promotion of our country — the introduction of, among other things, the notional interest deduction is, in my opinion, the most important measure of the government, which will be clearly confirmed later — if we at the same time internationally state that a business leader can be personally liable in some cases of fiscal downturn?

There is the obsession of some who do not have the capability to understand how difficult it is to keep a business running, taking into account the ever-changing sales market, the pressure of the new growth markets, the wage gap to be filled with the countries around us and the still too high fiscal and parafiscal pressure. In short, companies and entrepreneurs must and will continue to cherish. Their

Along with the intensification of the fight against tax fraud, the fight against social fraud must also be intensified. In this case, in my opinion, it would be better to assign a Secretary of State specifically with this competence. At the moment, this power is too spread across different ministers of different governments. This State Secretary for Combating Social Fraud should have a red line with the governments of the various regions and communities. Their

For example, by not indicating a first residence abroad, information that today can be easily obtained by the agreements with the various countries, a basic condition is often unknown for obtaining a study allowance or even, in some cases, for obtaining a social rental or purchase home. Everyone knows this problem, everyone knows that a lot of money goes here, but no one dares to address these thousands of social fraud practitioners today. Their

On the other hand, the fight against long-term unemployment must be intensified. The VLD proposal to limit the unemployment benefit over time, as well as several fiscal proposals to increase the difference between the unemployment benefit and the minimum net net wage, are crucial in this regard. Their

Finally, for us liberals, the tax pressure on individuals and families remains far too high despite its steady decline. Despite the efforts in recent years that have included more than three billion euros in reductions in the tax on individuals, we must recognize that we still have a very long way to go. It is thanks to the major reform in the personal tax that the tax burden in our country between 2000 and 2005 decreased much faster than in the EU or in the OECD. Their

Some examples from the OECD study: - a single person with an average salary, in 2000: 57,1% and in 2005: 55,4%, or —1,7% compared to for example —0,8% in the EU area and —0,6% according to the OECD; - a single person with a low salary decreased from 51,3% in 2000 to 49,1% in 2005, or —2,2% compared to —1,3% and —1,7%, respectively in the EU and OECD; - a family with an average income and two children decreased from a tax burden of 42,6% to 40,3%, or a decrease of 2,3% compared to —0,4% and —0,2%, respectively in the EU and OECD. Of all countries, Belgium also returns the highest aid to those families, including in the form of child allowance and deduction for dependents, namely 15.1% against 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively, EU and OECD.

Therefore, the lesson we must learn from the OECD study is that we must not stand still now and continue on the path we have taken. The aim of this government should be to further reduce the general fiscal and parafiscal pressure. This should rightly put an end to the launch of new ideas, including in terms of pensions bonuses, all kinds of selections, in any context. In the walkways they are called "sweets".

Citizens have the right to sustainable measures that benefit the entire economy, not to a key in the margin.

Only this government, backed by seven balanced budgets, has the power to impose sustainable and structural measures.

The following speakers have already registered for the general discussion; Mr. Bogaert and Mr. Devlies.

From the majority you have heard Mr Van Biesen.

Mr Bogert has the word. Then follows Mr. Devlies.

Mr. President, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, after seven years of purple, the money is out. The glass is empty. The blue water is over. In conflicts, in the past, 50 or 100 million euros were poured into it. That time is over. The blue water is over. Coalition partners are moving to the left and to the right. They run in all directions. Fortunately, there is someone like Frank Vandenbroucke who keeps his head cool and makes sure that the Socialist Party can still set out certain lines.

Colleague Van Biesen, I do not completely agree with you. You know, I have been a criminal for several years. I have a bit of experience with caterpillar. Well, too much smoke smells. I think this is a good summary of your speech.

The government behaves like a one-day flight.

Absolutely absolutely . I have heard that he will get his place back on the list.

What do you say?

I said, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard that after his speech from then, his place on the list has been secured.

If it were so easy.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the government behaves like a one-day flight at eleven o’clock in the evening. She knows it’s almost done, but she decides to set up another party. The question is who will pay for it.

There are still a lot of questions with the people. The big question is what the government will do. Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, you will continue to manipulate the budget as has been the case in recent years, or you will take structural measures, something that Mr. Vandenbroucke has repeatedly insisted on.

Will you continue to manipulate the budget?

What will happen to the nuclear passive? You made yourself out of the room by not saying too much about it. However, the questions remain. What will you do? I would like to get an answer to this question in this plenary session today.

Will you use the trick with the nuclear passive during the budget control of July or this year, or will you not? I believe that the Parliament — and therefore the people — has the right to answer.

Will you again take the lusts for you and enter the revenue in this year’s budget and partly in the next year’s budget? Will you shift the burden — the burden of nuclear installations — to the next few years? I want an answer to that. I would like this question to be noted.

Everything that is said here is recorded.

We have the right to an answer. Mr. Speaker, during the questioning hour you said that there should be no further replication. I could only moderately appreciate that and hope that you will now ask with equal enthusiasm for an answer.

You asked this question last week during the questionnaire.

Indeed indeed. However, when Mrs. Minister wanted to answer them, you said that she had to finish.

I have indeed said it. Per ⁇ the answer will be given today.

Per ⁇ the answer will come today.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister made an attempt to answer the question of Mr. Bogaert. You denied her that possibility.

You suspect me of so much.

First, in addition to the very principle of nuclear passive, the question arises what will happen with the risk transfer? Is it true that if the savings pot is empty, the risk then passes on the community?

Mr. Van der Maelen, the risk now lies with a private company that is sometimes taken under fire by you and by your group. I assume that you have done a survey and that in any segment of the population of which less than 5% vote for the Socialist Party, sooner or later the sweat will erupt. I think of brokers, notaries and a number of large companies, and I assume that in the top framework there are not many people voting for the Socialists. Sooner or later they will have to endure an attack on your part.

I wonder if you will react to this with the same vigorousness as this happens, or it will only be speaking for the frequent as you do with regard to a number of target groups in our society and with regard to the electricity companies. What will you do?

Secondly, in addition to whether or not leaking the savings pot of the nuclear passive, what will you do with the interest charges? It has been shown in the committee that the government has dared too far in terms of interest rates. What has happened? One has put out too many loans with a variable interest rate compared to loans with a fixed interest rate.

One must move within certain standards. Therefore, one is starting to use holderdebolder in some sort of panic football swaps. They used all sorts of swaps: duration swaps, asset swaps, the latter now are the payer swaps. Mr. Speaker, you are an expert in all those swaps. Their

Therefore, one is engaged in a kind of panic football to rearrange the guilt. One finds that one has been betting too long on a reduction of the interest charges, so that one has been trying too long to get some further benefit from the reduction of the interest charges. Now that the interest rate curve changes, now that the interest rate curve rotates, one finds that one has gone too far in it. The question is what you will do further with these swaps in the coming months. I have a concrete question. What are the costs and revenues of using swaps in the first five months of 2006? Their

Third, what are you going to do with shifting invoices? You know that there is a big difference between the double accounting system in companies on the one hand and the public accounting on the other, which does not work with double accounting. In my opinion, and according to a number of sources within the Court of Auditors, that would mean one to two months difference on payments. Their

I will give an example. In a company, chairs are ordered for 5,000 euros at the beginning of December. These seats are supplied and they must be attributed to 2005. The government does not do that. The government does not expect this to happen in 2005. Wait until two months have passed. At the moment that must be paid, it will allocate it to that month. Their

In other words, massive payments are postponed. That alone would not be so bad yet, because it is about the cash position of the government. They are constantly sending out assignments for themselves. In this particular case, the EUR 5 000 that would normally be attributed to 2005 will be moved to 2006. Their

That is the difference with the double accounting system, which is classic, which is normal. If the seats are delivered in 2005, then I think they should also be attributed to 2005. This is also used in business. Public accounting is different. Their

I would like to know from you whether a calculation of the difference between the current system versus the system of double accounting is possible. Some sources tell me that this varies one to two months. That is a lot. That is 1/12 or 2/12. I ask for an answer. One wins 1/12 to 2/12 by applying the current system. With so many billions of euros, I would like to know which amount is correct. Their

Fourth, I have a question regarding the powers requested from Parliament in connection with the NMBS debt acquisition of EUR 7.4 billion. Their

This is classic. I know you may have resisted it with hand and tooth. However, there will soon appear in the program law something in which the government states that it wants to solve the problem of the 7.4 billion euros without the Parliament. In other words, it’s about a mandate, a blanco cheque, which will be here for the next week or weeks. It is normally considered to be accountable in Parliament after six months and there is a law that ratifies that royal decree after six months. Here it is in sixteen months. That is very remarkable. If you count sixteen months at the date of the KB, you leave after the municipal council elections and after the federal elections.

You may guess how it is that the term suddenly amounts to sixteen months, while in other areas it often amounts to six months.

In any case, the principle of powers I personally find completely wrong. The Parliament has the right to know how the government will retroactively write 7.4 billion euros into the books. It is a matter of many billions of euros.

Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to know from you on this level how far it is with the talks. Do you think it is appropriate that the Parliament, because the government has cut down with a certain approach, is again out of play? Are you really so afraid of the Parliament that you are bringing the file to the government? Are you really so afraid of the Finance Committee that there will be no debate about 7.4 billion euros?

The fifth question concerns the 616 million euros that, according to your own announcement, will be deposited in the Silver Fund. You say yourself that you do not yet know how the government will do that.

However, could a lot of the 616 million euros come from Flanders? After all, I do not immediately see how you will get 616 million euros from the federal budget. According to your own words, however, 616 million euros should go to the Silver Fund. Could it be possible that for four-fifths, for 90%, it will be Flemish euros? I want to know about the 616 million euros.

Colleagues, the above questions all fall under the chapter "Do you continue to manipulate the budget, as it was in the past, or will you do something else?". Will you work structurally, as Frank Vandenbroucke asks? Mr. Secretary of State, it might sometimes be necessary to work structurally.

There is a 6% difference in tax pressure between Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the tax burden is 40%, while in Belgium it is 46%. 6% of our gross domestic product of 300 billion euros is 18 billion euros.

Suppose that we want the same socio-economic model as the Netherlands and that the spending therefore does not really matter. Then there is still a 6% difference that needs to be explained. You will immediately replicate that in the Netherlands there is a deficit of 1.5% compared to Belgium. Let us remove this deficit. Suppose for a moment that all the manipulations we have just listed would have found no passage. In that case, 1.5% can be declared, because in the Netherlands there is a deficit of 1.5%, and with us there is a so-called balance.

Therefore, the difference in tax pressure of 6% remains 4.5%. You will then argue that the public debt in Belgium is much greater than in the Netherlands and that it is therefore normal that we have to levy higher taxes. We followed that for a moment. That means only a difference of 1.7% of our gross domestic product in interest charges between Belgium and the Netherlands. So we still have 2.8% to go to explain the higher tax burden in Belgium compared to the Netherlands.

Colleagues, I am sorry, but the only explanation for this is the weaker, socio-economic performance in the south of the country, in Wallonia, compared to Flanders. Flanders have roughly the same socio-economic performance as the Netherlands.

How do we get out of the aforementioned spiral? How do we ensure that Wallonia reaches the same level of prosperity or, first of all, approximately the same level of prosperity of the 25 countries of the European Union?

In the 1950s, Wallonia had a 30 percent higher income than the European average; in the meantime, that is almost 20 percent less. That actually means that Wallonia has evolved from a Dutch economy to a Portuguese economy, from 130 percent to about 80 percent compared to the European average, if I take for the European average 100 percent.

The question is how we get out of that negative spiral, which through transfers creates a very high tax burden that nobody will get away immediately. This is the unexplained difference between the Netherlands and Belgium in terms of tax burden. What would a manager or prime minister need to ensure that Wallonia is at least at the European average in terms of socio-economic performance, in terms of income over a decade? I think that prime minister or manager needs leverages and money to get there. These lifts are not there. At the moment, the same drug is given in the north and south of the country. This has absolutely no sense.

A number of leverages must therefore go to the counties, including, of course, the employment policy. There is more or less consensus on this. If we say that unemployment benefits are also policy guidance, we should also think of the overthrow of unemployment benefits and the labour market. That is my personal view on this. Whoever says labour market, says also pensions and Generation Pact. There is no point in working with one policy. This also goes best for the states, besides, of course, tax autonomy, child allowance and health care.

In addition, money is needed to carry out a recovery policy and establish a recovery fund. That does not mean that more money is needed than it is today. I don’t think the transfers should increase. I think these transfers are fair and very large. They affect more than one-third of the Flemish budget, more than six billion euros. There is a budget of 18 to 19 billion euros in Flanders. This means that the transfers amount to more than 30 percent. So I do not think that more money should flow from Flanders to Wallonia, but in a different way, directly from state to state, limited in time. It is time to take responsibility everywhere. I hope everyone realizes that the current situation cannot continue.

In any case, an audit to the actual financial situation of Belgium is necessary. It is clear that the budget has been manipulated again this year. I think it is time to ask the Court of Auditors for a very thorough study of the real financial situation of our country. That is necessary.

It also takes courage, vision and solidarity to give Wallonia and Flanders what they are entitled to, in particular, a level of income and prosperity that stands well above the European average.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, I think it is useful that we, six months after our previous budget discussions, re-examine this issue.

First and foremost, we are still not in possession of the opinions of the High Council of Finance. In the latest report to be issued by the High Council of Finance, concerns were raised about the long-term budget imbalances and the financing of the costs of aging. The Committee on Ageing has, by the way, made a re-calculation of the cost of ageing. In the period 2002-2005, this cost increased by 7 billion euros annually. That is a worrying figure.

Rather than engaging in the criticism of the High Council for Finance, the government has opted to dismantle the High Council for Finance. It has been about a year and a half since the Supreme Council of Finance has not met. The situation is even so serious that the International Monetary Fund has pointed out that the re-composition of the High Council of Finance is a very urgent matter.

I ask the President to make an effort and to recognize his role as President of this Parliament. I ask that he make an effort to ensure that the government in the shortest possible time proceeds to the general composition of the High Council of Finance. I think that the chairman of the House should not act as a protector of the government, but as a representative of the Parliament. I think that Parliament can demand, Mr. Speaker, that the High Council of Finance be immediately reassembled and that we have a report for the month of October of this year.

Mr. Devlies, I have written at least one and maybe two letters to the Minister for this. Maybe two. If you wish, I will give them to you too.

And that is enough?

That is not enough, but I cannot compose the High Council of Finance, Mr. Tant. I can only ask that he is composed.

Mr. Speaker, if there is no answer, we will make this matter directly the subject of questions.

well well . I don’t know when the last letter left. If it turns out to be too long, I will add it here.

Budgetary control is an essential task of Parliament. In these circumstances, without the information of the High Council for Finance, without information about the long-term financing of the Belgian State, it is impossible for us to exercise solid control over the government. Let me go back to the budget talks of December 2005.

Mr. President, if Mr. Devlies permits me to do so, the following. In my opinion, that opinion is one of the essential elements that should be included when discussing a budget.

I will check this in my letter exchange. I ask it immediately.

I do not think that I

You are mistaken to me. If I am right, it is your duty to make sure that what needs to be done is done. If not, CD&V will help you and make a proposal itself and we will vote on it.

I wonder when my last letter is gone. As soon as I have the answer, I will share it with you.

Mr. Devlies, please continue with your presentation.

Mr. Speaker, when I refer back to the discussions in December 2005, I find that our fears and those of many colleagues are confirmed.

The latest note of the National Bank shows that for the financial year 2006 a deficit of 0.3% or 1 billion euros is anticipated. For the year 2007, we are talking about a deficit of 1.2% of GDP. The Government had planned to submit the 2007 budget with a surplus of 0.3%. The sum of 1.2% and 0.3% gives 1.5% of GDP or 4.5 billion euros. That is the challenge of the government. 4.5 billion of euros.

Clearly, the government’s great ambitions are completely gone. The active welfare state, the model state Belgium, the golden hamster principle, all disappeared. Unemployment has increased by 94,000 units since the arrival of the purple governments. Never before in May there were as many unemployed as this year: 772,775. The number of bridge retirees on an annual basis has increased by 1.869 and now stands at 110.571. The unemployment rate has risen above the European average for the first time in a long time. Germany, the Netherlands and even France see unemployment declining sharply, while Belgium continues to escalate on the ground.

The government falls into a promise culture. The colleagues who were present during the questionnaire will remember various statements from Mr. Verhofstadt, Mrs. Van den Bossche, Mr. Tobback. All sorts of promises are formulated without the financial capacity to carry them out.

Mrs Van den Bossche spoke about the school prize. She was questioned by Mr. De Crem. She replied that there will be a school premium if the money is found and that it is a difficult task. The government will work on it, she promised. If the money is found, the school premium will be awarded. That was the budget minister’s response.

We are talking about the 2006 budget. It is not about the future, but about the 2006 budget. If one lives in such uncertainty about the budget of one’s own year, one can imagine what uncertainty exists with regard to future budgets.

Mrs. Minister, your colleague, Mr. Reynders, unfortunately absent, is launching one proposal after another regarding tax reductions. It is magnificent. CD&V is also in favour. Curious about the proposals of Minister Reynders is that they all relate to the future, to be financed in the years 2007-2008-2009 and 2010.

This is related to the future. This hypothesizes future governments. Then, of course, it is easy to launch proposals.

Then we also heard Mr. Tobback speaking. He was accurate. He needs 62 million euros for the year 2007, but apparently he has not yet obtained a majority in the government. I have found that even colleagues of the majority here have asked questions about Mr. Tobback’s proposals. These are, of course, good proposals, but they must be fundable. Are these resources available? Where will that money come from if we face a deficit of €4.5 billion for the financial year 2007?

Minister Reynders is a bit smarter. He accuses the government of facts. The increase in the deduction for pension savings costs 63 million euros. That is roughly the amount that Mr. Tobback is asking for. That 63 million euros will have to be on the table because the measure has been taken.

All the proposals formulated here relate to communication. Mrs. D’Hondt said it right this afternoon. It is a perception policy, an announcement policy, also with respect to pensioners. That is not fair. If one makes promises, one must be sure that one can make them hard, one must be sure that one has a majority, one must be sure that one has the resources. This is absolutely not the case here. This is not fair to retirees.

The first mandate of the government, by the way, is to ensure that there is a long-term balance and that future pensions are secured. From the observations made by the High Council of Finance and the Committee on Ageing, it is clear that there are problems with the financing of pensions. Then it is easy to come here to tell stories about additional pensions that are granted. It is sympathetic to make those proposals, but it is important to be able to make those proposals hard. This can only be achieved by implementing a sound fiscal policy.

However, Minister Vande Lanotte, your predecessor, was very optimistic about this period last year—most colleagues will remember it—. He spoke of a cumulative budget for the years 2006 and 2007. Minister Vande Lanotte would submit a double budget in the autumn. For 2006 and 2007, this was not a problem. He would prove that the 2007 budget would be closed with a surplus. We have seen what came from it. Today we note that even the 2006 budget is built on floating sand and that the 2007 budget is becoming a ⁇ heavy and disturbing challenge.

This government is, of course, not responsible for settling the 2007 budget. She only has to prepare the budget and she will not be responsible for closing the 2007 account. Therefore, she will again deal with the well-known light sense, as she has done in the past years and as she does this year for the 2006 budget.

Mr Van Biesen has been brief and concise with his report, but in fact we have had long discussions in the committees for Budget and Finance. We have had several long meetings and some have taken a long time, because many questions have not been answered. Even today we must note that many questions have not been answered.

Regarding the 2006 budget, I would like to point out, however, that the Court of Auditors has identified a whole set of non-structural measures which are one-off and which place a mortgage on the structural balance of future budgets. These include tax regularization, effecting, or, more simply, the sale of tax debts and the sale of buildings, accompanied by the renewal. The calculations of the effects on future budgets are still lacking with regard to the effectisation or sale of tax liabilities. Their

I think it is obvious to everyone that if one sells a tax debt, this has an effect on future budgets, as the proceeds from those taxes in the next budgets no longer go to the Belgian State, but to the financial institution that today put the money on the table. This is obvious to everyone! Then it is logical that we, as Members of Parliament, ask you to give the long-term effects of these decisions. We have not yet received a response to this. Their

The same problem occurs with the sale of buildings. Mr. Jamar is also well aware of these files, although he had not yet held any responsibility in the previous purple government. During the period 2001-2005 a lot of buildings were sold and we note that the rental price corresponds to ten percent of the value of these buildings. That is an excellent investment for the private sector that can participate in such operations. Questions were also asked about this. How does this mechanism work? How is the cost price determined? How do you weigh a classic debt financing operation versus the sale of buildings? No response was given. Their

Earlier, Minister Reynders admitted that the 580 million that the buildings will generate in 2006 is one of the ways to finance the deficit in the 2006 budget. He really acknowledged this in the committee. When he came under some pressure, he said in defense that in the past gold from the National Bank was sold by previous governments. So he compares the sale of gold with the sale of buildings. He forgets that the sale of buildings is followed by rental. In the future, we will have to pay for the same buildings. This is a burden that is shifted to the future. Their

It is very simple: we have a deficit of 580 million. I will talk only about these 580 million, because the government deficit is of course much greater. That $580 million is spent through the sale of buildings. One had the choice to eventually take out a loan for those 580 million, since one had a deficit. They do not do this, they sell buildings. What happens then? Private firms, in turn, take out loans to finance those buildings. The costs of this loan will then be transferred into the rental. Their

The shift of the loads to the future is, very simply speaking, the mechanism used. I am not talking about moving the corporate premium from the income year to the year following the income year. It is about a sum of 2 billion euros, which is permanently transferred and permanently financed by the taxpayers, by our citizens. This is a manifest violation of the legislation. It is a completely unlawful way of acting, which is prosecuted by the Court of Auditors, by the Council of State and by the Arbitration Court. Nevertheless, this government continues to fund on the head of the taxpayer. This is one of the many examples of shifting burdens into the future.

As a result of these transversal operations, budgets are becoming less and less transparent. Due to the system of one-off receipts, one ultimately no longer has a correct view of the right budget. That is why the High Council of Finance is so important.

This year goes even further. There is also a transition to an incorrect representation of things, to deliberate forgetting, and to statements contradictory to statements defended at other moments. The following example will interest Mr. De Crem, as he follows politics in the Netherlands quite strongly. On page 64 of the general explanation it is stated that the reforms in the Netherlands are beginning to bear fruit, while the Minister of Budget here, in this hemisphere, has clearly claimed the opposite.

Regarding Mr. Jamar, I may also refer to page 86, where it is abundantly shown that the tax burden is increasing. Collega Bogaert made the comparison with the taxes in the Netherlands: a difference of 6%. In spite of the high tax pressure, the increase in taxes continues. One of the examples is on page 86. This shows that the wage mass increases by 4.1% and the corporate advance tax by 4.9%. The corporate advance tax is therefore increasing more strongly than the wage mass.

When I look at the budget document, I see on the base sheet, on page 4 of the general explanation — that is, the official document, signed by the Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, by the Minister of Finance, Reynders, and by the Minister of Budget, Van den Bossche, on 28 April 2006 — that this document, signed by three important ministers of the government, reflects incorrect information. The total net balance to be financed has not been calculated. An amount of EUR 793,8 million is not included in this basic table.

That is a huge amount. This is about 0.2% of the gross domestic product. That means that the net balance to be financed, the federal government deficit, is not 0.6% but 0.8%.

In addition, I am of the opinion that a second amount of EUR 560 million should also be included in the table, namely the amount of interest in the Silver Fund. We have had an extensive discussion on this in the committee. Nevertheless, you and colleague Reynders held a press conference yesterday, where you once again misrepresented the Silver Fund.

The Silver Fund is an empty box. When you read the budget documents, you can clearly see that the debts of the Belgian State include the debts to the Silver Fund. This is black on white in the budget documents. There can be no discussion about this.

Let me give an example of the most well-known Belgacom operation. The 5 billion that comes in will be consumed in the ordinary budget. That 5 billion will be generated. That 5 billion means a burden for the future, as we pay 228 million euros in Belgacom pensions based on the data of the Minister for the year 2006. This is a new burden on the budget. That 5 billion has been spent, new charges are flowing out, and nevertheless there are transfers to the Silver Fund. That means there are 5 billion new debts. In the consolidation, that is neutral, but it makes clear what a fantasy operation the Silver Fund is.

In the budget documents, any information relating to the interest rate in the Silver Fund for the year 2006 is absent. After questioning the Minister, it appears to be a sum of 560 million euros. The Silver Fund will therefore raise 560 million euros in interest in 2006. Where do we get those 560 million euros? It is not in the budget. There are no 560 million euros in the budget.

How is this done? For this, one uses a technique in which one makes a settlement at the end of the year and that interest is added to the deficit of the current year. This can happen in silence, almost unnoticed. This is not a correct behavior. The Parliament is entitled to full information and the Government must indicate the interest rate of the Silver Fund in the budget documents.

What technique is used? For the 560 million interest that will be added to the Silver Fund, 560 million new debt securities will be created. It is really air. One has no means to reach 560 million interest rates and one creates 560 million new debts. This is the technique of the Silver Fund.

The Minister of Budget has promised in the committee to take this into account in the future when drawing up the budget. I asked her to discuss this with her colleague of Finance, as they are drawing up these documents together.

I would like to hear from Mr. Jamar today whether it will really be done.

Mr Jamar, do you commit yourself, also on behalf of Minister Reynders, to include the interest rate of the Silver Fund in the budget in the future? Mr. Jamar, I want a clear and clear answer from you on this. Their

Finally, I can say that this government clearly works with one objective, specifically the 2007 objective. That objective is survival, perception, and the use of artificial grips in which the lusts are immediately consumed and the burdens are shifted to the future, to the next generations and to the next government. This is the situation that we must establish today.

Before giving the word to M. Wathelet, you wishes to answer. My memory is relatively faithful. Mr. Tante, I attributed to Mr. Reynders on 1 February 2006. I read: "During the discussion of the 2006 budget, several Chamber Members complained about the lack of the annual opinion of the Department of Public Finance Needs of the High Council of Finance, which is traditionally published as an annex to the General Explanation. That turned out to be the result of the fact that the mandate of the members of the High Council had expired in the meantime. I therefore urge you that the appointment of the new members of the High Council of Finance take place as soon as possible."

This brief van mijnentwege dates from 1 February 2006. Here is the Minister's reply dated February 9, 2006. Let me give you a few introductory considerations. I can confirm that a draft royal decree relating to the reform of the Supreme Council of Finance was approved by the Council of Ministers on 25 November 2005 and that, following the procedures thereof, the opinion of the regional governments was requested on 13 December 2005. On 1 February 2006, the Conciliation Committee was referred and only the opinion of the Council of State remains to be requested."

Ik heb dan op 28 March 2006 een nieuwe brief geschreven: "I refer to my letter and your reply of February 9 regarding the appointment of the new members of the Supreme Council of Finance. As the House of Representatives will soon have to consider the draft adjustment of the 2006 budget, which must be submitted by the Government by 30 April 2006 at the latest, I allow myself to insist that this appointment takes place as soon as possible." Dan kwam er op 2 mei 2006 een laatste antwoord van Financiën: "I inform you that at the Council of Ministers of 31 March 2006, the draft Royal Decree concerning the Supreme Council of Finance was approved and submitted to the Conciliation Committee on 19 April last. Immediately after its publication in the Belgian Moniteur on 13 April, I made the necessary arrangements with the respective governments of the Communities and Regions and with my colleague in the Budget, so that they communicate the names of the members they intend to propose. Therefore, as soon as these are known to me, I will not fail to tell you as soon as possible.”

I have examined it and I must conclude that two other governments, la Région flamande et la Région bruxelloise, have not informed their members.

That is the explanation I can give here. I also asked the Secretary of State.

Mr. Tante, I do the work you ask me to do. That is why I also read the letter in advance, so that you hear that the members are also proposed on the other sides.

Thank you for the fairly complete information. However, there is and remains a problem. Although it is true that this obligation is not imposed in the law on the national accounting, but whoever uses the special financing law will find that in Article 49 § 6, which is thus also a law that should be respected by the Parliament, indeed this is formulated as a formal condition. Their

I want to insist on this. I assume that at this time you cannot break iron with your hand. However, by the time the budget for next year is to be discussed, this must be on the table. You should not refer to others. It is this government that should form the High Council.

I subsequently delivered a note to Mr. Jamar as I examined the affairs. You can ask a few more questions, but I don’t want polemics. If one has an organ whose composition depends on other autonomous decision-making authorities, what does one do then if one has the obligation in law, you are right, and one does not have the opportunity to set up that organ in time? One must think about it once. Finally, one would depend on indirect veto rights and one would be stuck. I do not think that.

There is a consultation committee in our state legal system. The conflict itself can be addressed there. It is up to the federal government to take the initiative.

“On 1 February 2006, the Conciliation Committee was referred and only the opinion of the Council of State was still required.”

Then the members have been requested and they appear to have not yet been received. You are cutting out a problem that is even more fundamental than we might think. I will let the administration answer.

Mr. Bogert, at that point?

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the assertion that the fault lies with the states, which submit their names too late. This is only about a period of several weeks. We have a very different timing here.

At the end of 2005, the Chairman of the High Council of Finance announced in a letter that he was no longer a candidate for the presidency. The clock has been running since December 2005. We are now in June 2006. So you can imagine what proportions the problem begins to take.

This is not about the states. It only takes a few weeks for them to enter the names too late. We are talking about a total timing of 18 months.

I think I have done the work I had to do. Per ⁇ the Secretary of State, Mr. Jamar, would like to respond.

Mr. Speaker, without resuming all the correspondence exchanged between the Chairman of the Chamber and the Minister of Finance, although it has already been said, according to the information provided to me at the moment, two consultation meetings were held at the end of which it was asked and repeated the importance of the designations of the Flemish Region and the Brussels Region; this obligation had to be fulfilled. by

I agree with what has been said, namely that we see the situation as presented today. A federated entity should not be able to make sure, ⁇ through a certain deficiency — I do not have all the deadlines and I ask myself the question right now — that a budget, an adjustment or a budgetary control cannot be voted.

We have therefore recalled the legal obligations of form, but the State Accounting Act does not take them back. I observe that other votes have already taken place without yet provoking emotion. More recently, the federal state as such has fully fulfilled its obligations. We are waiting for appointments.

Per ⁇ you should call Mr. Leterme to know what it is; the idea seems interesting to me. Then we will resume the discussion on this subject if you wish. I also do not want to polemize: the question of the day is simply whether or not to receive these delegates from the Brussels Region and the Flemish Region.

What annoys me a bit is that this opinion is important. It is usually accompanied by discussions. One will think, very quickly if necessary, to obtain this opinion and not find themselves, with all the respect I have for the other authorities, without effective influence on an element.

Mr. Speaker, it would be unacceptable that a second fiscal year would be started without the opinions of the High Council of Finance. We have practically a full fiscal year behind us, with no opinions. This is unacceptable. If this continues for another year, Parliament will have to react. I think the majority should react in the same way as we do now. No one can accept that.

You are right. I will check it. If it does not work, we may need to adjust something or get the advice of another part of the board. I am not sufficiently trained in that at the moment, but one cannot enter a second fiscal year without an interesting advice.

(...) If you have finally appointed these people, they must also begin the work and therefore give an opinion on the budget that will then be available. I think there can no longer be talked about this.

Mr. Tante, do you understand why I read these letters loudly at this meeting?

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by clarifying the context and analysis of this first budget adjustment before referring to the Supreme Council. Indeed, I agree with the Secretary of State when he says we have obligations to close the budget and present it at a time of the year. Certainly, it cannot afford not to do so because the Supreme Council has not given its opinion. In this regard, I can only agree with him. Nevertheless, it does not preclude that we must act quickly and that this opinion must be able to feed and feed the parliamentary work in the most objective and correct way possible. by

I would also like to remind you that our accounting is not double at the federal state level. The absence of this double accounting allows a number of financial transactions, which could be rejected or which would be more easily identifiable if, finally, we rely on a double accounting that would seem healthier for everyone.

Let us replace the analysis of this budget adjustment in its context, which is intended to be invariable. It constantly shows increases in primary spending, a still drastically low primary balance, as well as this obligation to feed the Aging Fund. by Mr. Van Biesen has just reminded, it is essential to correctly align this Aging Fund, which will be a challenge for tomorrow, taking into account the question of interest, as Mr. emphasized. Devote right now! Again, what annoys me in this budget are the “one shot” operations. Some may conceive that we need it from time to time. In any budget, you may, at some point, need an air bubble or one-shot operation to fill a budget, make a major spending or investment for tomorrow.

But we do the opposite! We don’t just do one-shot operations like gold sales, we do one-shot operations by engaging in future expenses. This is what is harmful! by

We talked about the resumption of the budget relating to the nuclear passive, where no trail or solution appears. But there are others. There are all those retirement funds, which allow one shot operation, but that commit us for tomorrow, while the issues of aging will be more important tomorrow than today. The issues of budgetary “overflow” and budget deficit issues for tomorrow will still be much more crucial and important than today.

So, we commit, we allow to have a budget allegedly balanced this year, while the spending and challenges of tomorrow are bigger and that it is tomorrow that we will have to pay for the consequences of the one shot operations of this year. by

This is completely harmful and I return to Sicafi and pensions.

What is the intention of the government by setting up the Sicafi? This is to bring together a real estate capital of 560 million euros. Far from the idea of saying that the federal state must remain the owner of all its buildings. In fact, it can sometimes be interesting for the state to sell buildings and then relocate them. But today, this is not that perspective. The goal is – I repeat it – to raise a real estate capital of 560 million euros. It does not matter what the state will pay tomorrow in rent. No matter the selling price that will have to be granted to sell the properties in question quickly. It does not matter how we will be able to relocate these buildings which, often, can only be occupied by federal state services.

This budgetary approach allows for one-shot operations but also supports our challenges of tomorrow, which will be even more important.

With regard to the SNCB, we are witnessing the same mechanism again. This is 7.4 billion, or 2.5 percent of our GDP. What will we do about it? We do not know very well. The only thing we are sure of is that we will not know it before 16 months, or, in any case, that we will not be able to discuss it in Parliament until 16 months. This is where the problem lies.

Today’s budget achievements are really crucial for tomorrow. Why Why ? While the budget situation is difficult, while engaging in new spending for tomorrow, rather than acting as a good manager, the government prefers to make promises. Just recently, in an up-to-date question to the Prime Minister, I cited 13 promises that have been made over the past two months, promises that require large budgets.

Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister told me that it was necessary to stop, take your time and see what is "budgetable". However, from the next day, new proposals were made in terms of pensions by the PS and M. and Tobback. This again begins to fuel the political scene, the medialization of the files by advertising effects and promises.

It should be noted that at the budget level, the choices are not made. The 560 million destined to feed the Sicafi have not yet been found. No solution has yet been found regarding how to recover the SNCB’s debt. However, these two positions represent no less than 3 billion euros. I’m not talking about primary balance issues, ageing, even more important issues for tomorrow.

I would like to repeat what the utility of a budget is: the budget is the way to grant yourself the means to ⁇ the goals you set yourself. Today, we set goals and then try to make sure the budget follows. This approach poses the risk of setting policy objectives that are far too important compared to the means available, and the risk that citizens no longer believe in our promises.

I have read the 13 promises made recently by the Prime Minister. Not all of them are sustainable, but the citizens will have believed it. They will have confidence in the government that announced good measures. It must be acknowledged that the promises made involve many interesting measures: the flat-rate deductibility, the school return allowance, the deductibility of custody costs, a real link between benefits and well-being. All these measures are positive and are expected by the citizens. Nevertheless, these objectives will not be achieved due to a poor budget and, in addition, we will engage in new spending as the challenges of aging population and budget will be even greater tomorrow. This is why the budget is not properly managed.

Regarding the nuclear passive, there is nothing new to report. The issue of nuclear liability falls within the broader framework of a reflection on the establishment and implementation of a strategy to safeguard the national interests of Belgium. It is still too early to take this position. We do not yet know what will change in the energy market. There are a number of possibilities, a number of announced potential mergers. However, as a government, we must wait for that before we can take a position.

It is normal — I have also told you earlier in the plenary session — that it is those who produce who must put the money aside. They are responsible for knowing through Synatom what should be in it. They also have to break it down. In other words, if too little is deposited, it is a problem for them and not for society.

The question is whether the government is willing, for the sake of its own needs, to collect these resources. That is the question.

The answer is that the government is still no sense because the government does not yet know to what extent and in what way the energy landscape will change.

This has nothing to do with it. The question is only whether or not the government is willing to collect the resources from the business world, with contributions from the client part. After all, it is the people who have paid through the price of energy for the formation of this fund. It would be unbearable if one suddenly decided to collect it himself and call the sanitation of the sites and so on as concerns for tomorrow. This is to be taken after 2007. This is how it looks. Your evasive response, Mrs. Minister, makes us more and more suspicious. If it is not so, say it. If it is not intended to do so, then it would be a reassurance for us. Have the courage to say this in all clarity.

Now about the primary balance. The primary balance has fallen from...

... ...

I will give an answer. You are simply not satisfied with my answer. That is something else. I tell you that the government is in no sense at this moment. Within the framework of the major merger operations that may take place, this will be one of the topics on which the government will exchange opinions internally. Consequently, it will eventually exchange opinions with potential merging companies.

Mr. Bogert, I will allow you to interrupt. I will let the Minister give her answer in full.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, can I understand from your answer that you intend to take over the nuclear passive if the merger between Suez and Gaz de France continues? Can I decide this from your answer?

No, you should not understand that from my answer because I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, the refusal to answer is in itself ⁇ significant.

Mrs. Minister, if you do what you are apparently thinking and collect this money, you will have to pay the Belgian taxpayer twice. You should know this very well. You pay him twice. He has already paid for the creation of the fund himself and he will have to provide the resources at the moment when the Belgian government must initiate and carry out the sanitation. This is a great gift to your consumer! The consumer will pay twice!

First of all, I would like to ask you again on this issue.

I remind you, in your capacity as Minister of Consumer Protection, that these same consumers have been contributing, for years, to feed this fund currently amounting to 4.5 billion euros. It was the Belgian consumers who fed this fund that was supposed to serve tomorrow.

Today, in your capacity as Minister of Consumer Protection above all, but also in your capacity as Minister of Budget, you must be able to affirm loudly to these same consumers that this fund will not be used by the State to engage the expenses of tomorrow but that it will be returned to their service to ⁇ the original goal. It is essential that these consumers know that the reason why they fed this fund will be well respected and that the fund will not be used for other purposes.

For all clarity, the fund is naturally set up to dismantle the nuclear power plants when the production of nuclear energy is stopped. That’s pretty wretched, that’s what the money is for!

The current financial emergency. That is what we feel. Therefore, it will not be used directly for repairing the sites.

It is used to repair the sites. Why should the money be used differently?

What we fear is precisely that you will use it for your budget rather than for cutting up the nuclear power plants. If you find that what we say is ridiculous, say it now! Take a clear position now. Say that very clearly.

Let the lady answer. Mrs. Minister, you say that you do not respond now, I have opinions to understand.

You can throw anything at my feet, which I must deny. It is not about that. There has not even been a discussion within the government at this time.

According to various media sources, there have been discussions between the Prime Minister and Suez/Gaz de France on the subject. It is one or the other.

The minister says that there is no discussion of it and that this is not yet discussed by the government. I also cannot imagine that the Prime Minister begins to talk about it privately if it has not already been on the core or on the Council of Ministers. Either there have been discussions and discussions about it, or it has absolutely not been the case.

The press — I can give you the articles — reports talks on this between the Prime Minister and Suez/Gaz de France. I want to know what is going on here.

I would like to give you another brief consideration. If this is the added value we get from the socialist angle, Mrs. Vice-Premier, namely that funds that were specifically intended for environmental restoration are actually used to fill a hole that has been broken by policies in other fields, then I find that a special socialist merit. Your preconceived concern for consumers will in fact consist of paying twice. They have already done it and if you use it to close the budget gap, if it ever comes so far, alternative financing will have to be sought from the same consumers.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that there are some good members of parliament here, but there are bad promoters, I think that, in addition, this does not even have a connection with budgetary control. I am already kind to go into all sorts of suggestions, which are not even strictly related to the point that is scheduled.

Regarding the primary balance, I can say the following. Since Belgium still has a high level of debt, it must reduce that level sufficiently quickly and therefore the primary balance should be sufficient for that purpose. A primary balance of approximately 4.5% guarantees an annual decrease in the debt rate of just over 3%. Maintaining a high primary balance is not a goal, but one must always link it with a falling debt rate. You should therefore not compare the situation of the past, with a debt rate of more than 130%, with the situation of today, where one evolves to a debt rate of about 90%.

The amount of the primary balance is also a story of intergenerational solidarity. One cannot lay all the burden of reducing the historically increased level of debt on a generation.

I am talking about pensions and acquisitions in this area. Still there is the very clear vision of the government that it is not the companies that have the task of guaranteeing pensions. This is a public task of the utmost. Take, for example, the building management. It is very defensible that the government interferes less with this. This is not the main task of the government. The government is no better than the private sector.

I come to the Silver Fund. It is 616 million euros for this year. The government has yet to decide which funds it will spend. In any case, these are federal funds, federal government funds and/or social security funds.

Mrs. Minister, I note well that the money that goes to the Silver Fund will come 100% from the federal budget and that therefore it will not come, as you have said to me several times in the committee, from the global government, namely the sum of the budget of the federal level, Flemish level, municipalities and provinces and so on.

That is, of course, a substantial difference. If the Silver Fund is financed only by federal funds, then that is a major change in rate compared to what I have heard so far, namely that it can also be financed, not in cash flow terms, but from the global government.

I would like to have this confirmation from you here in the plenary session.

Mr. Bogert, I will tell you clearly again. We still have to look at which resources are specifically involved. My preference, however, absolutely depends on the resources of the federal government and/or social security. My preference goes to that.

Is this your preference or will it be?

My preference goes to that.

Will the new amounts entering the Silver Fund for the year 2006 also be countered by new debt claims against the Belgian State?

For the guilt, you must be with Mr. Jamar.

Mr. Jamar, you are the debt!

Mr. Speaker, therefore, these are the capitalized interests of the ageing fund, which, I remind you, already appear in the summary table that appears each year in the document relating to the general situation of the public treasury on 31 December.

I refer you to pages 372 and 373 of the General Exhibition. There is an explicit and clear line that takes on those capitalized interests that are added to debt. The title is explicit, I repeat. The federal state debt therefore already includes these amounts, in a transparent and unambiguous manner. These are capitalized interests, therefore there is no payment because it is "zero bounds". Therefore, the information you request repeatedly, I repeat, is already contained in budget documents. Should we therefore complicate a matter that is already sufficient when we see the questions we receive quite regularly in the committee?

That was not the answer to the question I had asked. This is an incomplete answer to a question that I had subsequently asked from the speaker. Now I have just asked whether the new deposits in the Silver Fund will be countered by new debt securities charged by the Belgian State.

You are asking a question for the future that needs to be discussed within the government. by

Today, we are submitting documents relating to budget adjustment and control, with supporting figures, commented, after questions and answers in three committees. by

We are now asked what we will do in the future with this or that in addition and whether we will compensate. I think the debate should take place at that time.

It was about the 2006 budget, not about the future.

So I will answer myself. The increase in the Silver Fund will therefore be refinanced by additional debt securities. The debt of the federal state will increase to the amount deposited in the Silver Fund. In the compensation, the final consolidation, the result will be zero, but the debt of the federal state will rise again in the year 2006 in the amount of deposits that take place in the Silver Fund.

As regards the other question on interest, I have not seen any mention in the budget of the amount of interest due for the year 2006. The Minister of Budget told me that, in order to avoid confusion between the concepts of financial balance and consolidated financial balance, it was preferable to refer to the financial balance of the federal government’s public administration services and to the federal government’s financial balance.

I would like to ask you this question on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Since she believes you are responsible for these documents, I hope that you and your colleague Reynders will take this into account for the next budget.

I would like to conclude the general discussion. I am still trying to get the bills of Minister Verwilghen dealt with. After that, I will suspend the meeting and make the voting take place at the next meeting.

Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly that you want to close the discussion?

I would like to close the general discussion.

There are still a lot of questions unanswered. I asked a question about the swaps that I did not get an answer at all. I asked five questions. My question about the nuclear passive was answered. My question about interest rates was not answered. My question about the double accounting system was not answered.

I would like to continue the discussion until I have received answers to all my questions.

The government responds and you think the answer is not sufficient.

I cannot judge whether the answer is sufficient or not, since I have not yet received an answer to those questions.

I am addressing the government. I can ask the government here, but I cannot answer in its place.

Indeed indeed. I will repeat my question, if I can. I have said that one is now working too much with variable interest rate debt instead of fixed interest rate, and that one has gone too far in it, and that one is now working in panic with swaps. I had asked what the revenues and costs of using swaps were over the first five months of 2006.

I see that one is on the first floor on the pen.

I wanted to say something, but I have to be careful. So you asked a precise question.

by Mr. Jamar, specific questions are asked to you. You respond or you do not respond, but I prefer that you respond.

I would like to give you an answer regarding swap rates. This issue has already been discussed twice in the committee. Bogert knows this very well. This applies to the first period of 2006.

Mr. Bogert, I can communicate to you what we know for this period. Since the swap transactions carried out in late March or early April — which is relatively recent — we point out that interest rates have continued to rise. Since your questions are precise, my answers will also be.It is in total a nominal of 5 billion euros that has been "swaped" over 5 years against Euribor for a weighted average rate of 3.8% and a nominal of 5 billion euros that has been "swaped" over 10 years against Euribor for a weighted average rate of 4.05%. Swap rates are currently at 3.88% and 4.21% respectively. Short-term Euribor rates have also increased to date. Therefore, the operation is favorable.

With regard to the policy of variable rates, about which one fantasizes a little, it is relatively stable. In fact, this policy is used by the Debt Agency to compensate for a negative statistical effect. I could enter more into the technical, but we would risk heightening the debates, while all this has been said long and broadly in the committee.

Supporting figures, with the corrective mechanisms that can be used in those cases, and after referring and appealing to international institutions, including Eurostat, we can say today that the policy in terms of variable interest rate loans is relatively stable.

I am surprised by the answer.

In the document we discuss here on the occasion of the budget control, it is stated that the cost of the swaps is EUR 50 million. The government had to buy a swap for 50 million euros. Now the Secretary of State says it is a beneficial effect. I understand that the situation has been reversed in the meantime.

However, that was just my question. In the budget document it is stated that the swap operation cost EUR 50 million. We are now on June 22, 2006. The document was drawn up some time ago. My question was what the total cost was.

Now he says the operation has been positive. To be honest, I cannot correctly put that answer.

I find it cheap what the opposition says. After all, it is easy to analyze after the facts. There can always, when it is too late, be raised that an operation has cost too much. However, one can never know how much the operation would have cost more if the situation had turned out differently.

If it is not “swaped”, it can cost more than if it is “swaped”.

To swap or not to swap, that is the question.

I do not interfere in the debate.

The case remains open. For me, the answer does not have to come today.

However, in the document on which we will vote today, 50 million euros are stated as cost. The Secretary of State says the effect is positive. I am surprised about this. He may be able to visit it for a moment and come back to it later.

I had another unanswered question, namely a question about the double accounting system. How much does that differ from the accounting system we use today? Is it true what the Court of Auditors says, namely that the system costs one to two months of invoices, which is one or two twelve of the total primary expenditure? That would be the difference, if a double accounting — the accounting system that is also used in the business world — were to be worked.

Is there a possible answer to this?

Mr. Speaker, if there is a two-month shift in a year, then for each of the subsequent years, where in principle twelve months are paid, budgetary no longer a profit operation. If then it would be expected to pay 14 months in a year, namely 12 + 2, the system will of course come out more expensive.

How much exactly it would be, I cannot tell you. We have not calculated it ourselves. But the logic is that in a fiscal year one pays the whole year, twelve months, and that is what happens now.

I understand therefore that one acknowledges that there is more or less — one will still come up with an exact number for the day — one to two months difference. That is nothing. That is one twelfth of all primary expenditure, one twelfth of approximately 34 billion euros, excluding social security. That is nothing. It is about that. We are talking about that dimension.

I think that is an enormous amount. It means that we are with a accounting system that, if it goes to almost a sixth, still means 5 billion euros of payment delay.

Mr. Devlies still, and then we will close the general discussion.

The dual accounting system is used not only in business, but also in municipalities, even in the smallest municipalities. I regret that the federal government still does not have a general economic accounting that would allow us to analyze the data of the federal government on the basis of objective criteria.

The problem is clearly the lack of assets of the federal government. Because it continually sells more assets — we have just talked about it — the assets of course continue to decrease further and the presentation of the balance sheet of the Belgian State would, if it were drawn up otherwise, of course be little beautiful. I have the impression that it is therefore attempted to postpone this obligation for as long as possible.

Mr. Drèze, I will not close the general debate until you have been satisfied, to the extent possible of course.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in matters of social security, our party also regularly pleads with Minister Demotte that there is a double accounting in part, as for companies. This effectively allows for a more realistic view of social security accounts on the one hand, and those of the state on the other. by

The answer we are given, which has the merit of being transparent and honest, is to say that this would aggravate the deficit. This is true for the first time but I prefer to have a clear vision, even to realize that there is a deficit while the government says there is no one, than to “chip” and navigate in sight. If you want to manage the ship, you need reliable accounts, whether social security or federal budget.

I think the debate that is ongoing in this assembly is very important.

There is indeed a serious problem, from one to two months, with the deposit payments. That recognition pleases me. It may be about 5 billion euros. I think this is an important political fact. Of the five questions I asked, one was not answered. It is about the debt acquisition of the NMBS of 7.4 billion euros. Why has the government chosen to take this file entirely to itself? Why don’t you just continue working with Parliament? Is there a certain fear that Parliament will not be obedient enough? Are you afraid to lose your majority in Parliament in this sensitive case? What is the reasoning behind asking for powers to Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have seen it, but this is a law of authority. The government says, in this case, that it will do everything, but therefore everything, itself. Furthermore, it will have it ratified by Parliament by law, not after six months, but after sixteen months. In other words, the Parliament is out of play for sixteen months. There is no debate in Parliament for sixteen months. It is about a sum of 7.4 billion euros. I have the impression that all large amounts of money from you and your Parliament are being evacuated. I don’t know whether it’s up to you or the members of parliament, but I have the impression that all important files are being evacuated here.

In terms of powers, I had some experiences at the time.

It is a matter of speed. We are undergoing an ex ante procedure with Eurostat. For example, it would be possible that Eurostat in the course of the coming months asks for a number of passports. Then you must be able to react quickly. It is a matter of speed.

I thank you for your reply, but that is not a responsibility for the fact that it is only after sixteen months that the KB is approved by the Parliament. If it is a matter of speed, then it must be ratified immediately afterwards by Parliament so that we can have a serious debate on it. I have the impression that the Parliament is being deliberately dismissed.

I have an additional question on this. Is it true that one does not fully agree within the NMBS to cooperate on this 100%, is it true that one has taken the opinion that there has been work with art and flying work in this file and is it true that one no longer agrees to take a mere lax attitude in this?

True to your deception that Parliament is never on leave, there is no problem, I think. If it is necessary to act on the basis of any advice, comment or criticism, we are at your disposal.

Mrs. Vautmans on the head.

You are always advertising for this. We are ready to make your devisions tough.

I am always here, Mr. Tante. Sometimes it bores people.

This means that the government does not have any alibi.

I do not want to open a debate. If one would look at the power-making technology, there have been powers and special powers that have been approved or had to be submitted after a certain or longer period or before the end of the legislature. There is in that special power and power technology à boire et à manger, that I can assure you.

It’s been a while ago, but I’ve been told that it always stopped by the end of the legislature. I also find that normal. If a mandate is requested from Parliament, one must, before the dissolution of the Chamber, be held accountable to Parliament for what has been done. What is predicted here is a period of sixteen months. This is clearly longer than the end of this legislature. This issue is raised on the municipal council elections and on the federal parliamentary elections. I do not find it clean. You must react against it.

The big difference with the past is that the Parliament was dissolved before. Now the government is dissolved, Mr. President. That is an important difference.

I was going to use a biblical proverb, but I will keep them for myself.

The [...]

The [...]

The NMBS worked loyally.

What do you say?

That the NMBS does its job correctly.

The question was whether it is true that one is not so happy within the NMBS...

Who are the “men” at the NMBS? Who do you mean?

It is true that people are not happy at the top.

At the top? Who is that?

I will tell you later. Is it true that one at the summit is not happy to support this operation?

Mr. Bogerts, then I will also give you the answer later, at the moment you ask me your exact question!

I would like to put a name on it, if that is the question. In particular, I do not want to embarrass you, Madam the Socialist Deputy Prime Minister. Is it true that there is no consensus at the top of the NMBS to further support that art and flight work? That was my question. If you do not want to answer again or respond with a thickening stroke, that is good for me all. I note that.