Proposition 51K2995

Projet de loi relatif à la constitution d'une société commerciale immobilière par l'Etat.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

March 14, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

firm governed by commercial law real estate business real property public building public property

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 19, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Roppe, you wanted to submit a report. I know that a few members have already been registered, Mr Verherstraeten and Mr Goyvaerts. We will soon see who will be registered in the general discussion.

Mrs Roppe, I give you the word for your report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am very pleased to report today on the discussions of the bill on the establishment of a commercial real estate company by the State. Hopefully I have succeeded in bringing enough sense of synthesis to light, and this ⁇ unlike some of my colleagues last week, so that we will not be obliged in a meaningless way to stay together with the colleagues eighteen hours at a time...

Mrs Roppe, those eighteen hours were not the fault of the colleague you now indicate.

... so that the staff of this Chamber, for which I have great admiration and respect, will not be held hostage for twenty-four hours.

That being said, I can communicate to my colleagues that on 28 March this year, State Secretary Jamar clearly explained in the Committee on Finance the three objectives pursued by this bill, the main of which is to enable the State to establish private commercial companies and to put out of use public property.

During the general discussion, especially colleague Devlies had questions and comments. His argument was that this operation would only be set up in response to a non-closing budget. In addition, he regretted the lack of a list of buildings that would have been fired. Of course, this statement was contradicted by the Secretary of State. In addition, he referred to the list that had already been communicated in the Finance Committee and is now being examined by specialists.

Also in the article-by-article discussion, the same or similar remarks came back, though in different terms, in which each time the technique of selling and recycling was questioned. The whole was finally adopted with eight votes in favour and two votes against. I thank you for your attention.

The Lords Verherstraeten, Wathelet and Goyvaerts are included in the general discussion.

Does the attack related to the hostage-taking launched here have to do with the fact that Mrs. Burgeon of the majority ⁇ so long last week?

Mrs. Burgeon was also not an example of excessive shyness.

If that were the case, I would be very sorry for Mrs. Burgeon. If she comes to the hall this afternoon, I will ask her if she is aware of the attack launched on her person.

Of course, there was no direct attack on Mrs. Burgeon here. On the contrary, I remember very well my presentation, at 1 o’clock at night, just before her report. Compared to the reports we had heard so far, her report was extremely short.

(...) had to sleep, was not present here for a whole night and then doing a little cuddle in the newspapers, on behalf of your group.

I see that Mr. De Crem has missed a meeting.

You have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, before commencing my presentation on this draft, I would like to say a little about our colleague, who has used her capacity as a reporter – I use this word although I mean another – to capitalize here on colleagues from the opposition because they have taken the floor on this subject. Colleague, I highly recommend you the reading of the Vrije Tribune of colleague Tant, which has already been answered with very many arguments in essence.

Today it is going too far. The majority organizes and puts dozens of designs on one agenda in a very short period of time, after losing years of time. Then one capitalizes the opposition if it dares to move and dares to take the word.

We know that this Parliament has nothing to say. We know that the majority swallows all that the government puts before them. Then it is not too much demanded to give at least the opposition a chance to express a position on the matter.

Mr. Verherstraeten, I have not made any comments to Mr. Goutry. You must also not say that Parliament has nothing to say, you are an eminent member of that Parliament.

At least we can say it and they can’t. That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this draft is about Fedimmo II. We should not be proud of that. Fedimmo I was an improvisation of jewelry. This purple government - under purple I it has actually already begun and purple II has only continued much more intensely - has begun to sell out its crown jewels.

The accounts are not correct. The purse’s accounts are not correct. The glasses of purple are empty. Then all the possessions and goods that one has yet to sell, just to be able to pay bills, bills that one then even pay late, months later.

The plan of this government in 2006 was to establish a bargain in which one would become a major minority shareholder, between 25% and 49%. One would have blocking minorities in that company where real estate patrimony would be inserted.

The State Council took a stake on this in October. Then one went over the neck to a traditional sale with first a contribution in a real estate company which one then sold 90% soon, in the Christmas period.

In fact, this story is now actually overwhelmed to realize an amount between 500 and 600 million euros in revenue within the framework of the 2007 budget. These are one-off revenues to balance the 2007 budget, if possible. Subsequently, the rent burden will be transferred as it were to the coming years and future generations.

What is the purpose of this design? In fact, this bill is a mandatory law. The liberals here years ago, when they were in the opposition, so blasted against because powers could not. This is another example of a law of authority. The limited control that we already have over the sale of real estate operations, Mr. Secretary of State, through the Domanial Law, we will now, without a doubt, abolish. Once a sale has been made, it must be approved by Parliament. Parliament therefore has control a posteriori. In doing so, we can examine in detail what the income has been from the sale of an immovable property and what the burden this creates for future generations. That control can no longer be.

What will we have to do now? We must now give to the government, to the Secretary of State, but especially to the Minister of Finance, the authority or the authority to sell, without interfering with it later. But what is being sold? Mr. Secretary of State, I ask you, what are you selling? What are you going to bring in?

The silence of the Secretary of State is significant. The government does not yet know what it is selling.

There are three interventions.

He will answer when everyone has spoken, which is normal for the Secretary of State. You will stay, so that is no problem.

What will you sell? How much will it cost, Mr. Secretary of State?

The previous sales have learned how much it makes, colleague Lano, you who fortunately are still one of the people who can evaluate financial affairs very well. You will undoubtedly have the qualities and the knowledge to be able to read financial reports very quickly. You will undoubtedly read the reports of the Court of Auditors. You will undoubtedly have read the criticism of the Finance Inspectorate regarding sales operations. And you will also undoubtedly, respected colleague, have read what one of the buyers says about it. It is about Cofinimmo, one of the major real estate companies in our country, which Fortis is behind. The former deputy director and founder of Cofinimmo, who is now retired and is no longer active in that company, recently gave an interview in which he said that the sales operations are bad for the Belgian government. There was criticism not only in the government, from independent institutions, but even from people sitting on the other side of the coin, who actually sat on the side of the private companies, the buyers and the real estate companies. They have been very critical of the sales operations.

Well, we will give a mandate. What we are going to sell, we do not know. How much it needs to make, we do not know. What are the buildings we build worth? How much have you estimated them and for how much will they be sold? Then we will hire them. We sell and rent in. What will be the rental prices or will we determine them afterwards? Or maybe we will fix the rental prices so that the real estate companies can then calculate a sales price on the basis of them, and then ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ reach 600 million? If I can buy a building from the State and I know that I get three times the rental value for it than it is actually worth in reality, I can, of course, a little more. Now be serious. Do you say that to the Court of Auditors, colleague? Would you say that, for example, with regard to the Palace of Justice of Antwerp? A net yield of 17 percent! That is what you have sold. Seventeen percent of!

He then greeted Mr. Lano. He also wants to say a word.

Only calm can save us.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to be any discussion about this if the Secretary of State comes up with the data.

He will do so at the end of the discussion.

I have the biggest doubts about this. We will see.

The government usually speaks after having had the courtesy of listening to the speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Mr. Tant will be wrong and we will finally find out what will be sold, at what price, whether that price is consistent with the estimates and whether there are objective rental values opposite which one will of course have estimated in advance.

That would be interesting. However, there is nothing in the draft on this. Nevertheless, you give authority, you say that there is no need for control and that one must only draw his plan.

The second question we ask ourselves is the following. If we own a building, we can be confident that we can stay there as long as we want. We will soon become tenants. Then the question is how long we can stay there. Until the lease contract expires, and then? You know that the Financial Inspectorate has asked questions about this and has expressed doubts as to whether the continuity of the public service can be safeguarded.

What is specific about the Fedimmo II operation and the Fedimmo I operation? Initially, they said they wanted to work with between 25 and 49% of shares. For example, we would be a major minority shareholder, have blocking minorities, and at the expiration of lease contracts we could still put pressure on the real estate company – Fedimmo I, tomorrow Fedimmo II – so that they could not just put us on the streets. Fedimmo could not simply put an office where thousands of officials come to work daily from today to tomorrow on the streets with a notice period of a few months. Then one would have something to say.

That was initially the intention. That watch didn’t come. Then it was said that other means should be provided to guarantee the continuity of the public service and to ensure not to be put on the streets. How would it be done? The lease agreements contain provisions of the commercial lease legislation. In this way, the Belgian government that rents through a form of rental renewal will have the chance to stay longer.

Then, one year before the expiry of the contract, the Belgian government may extend the rental period in order to guarantee the continuity of the public service. In it was provided.

A second element in which was provided; is the following. If Fedimmo I or Fedimmo II intends to sell a building and the new acquirer wants the Belgian State out, a pre-purchase right must be granted to the Belgian State in order to re-purchase that building. This pre-emption right also exists in the lease legislation. What happened to it? Will these things be included in the rental contracts? At least not with Fedimmo I. They have been removed. They were included in the Summer Program Act of 2006, but we removed them in December 2006. What guarantees does the Belgian State still have? The Finance Inspectorate has also pointed out this, but the majority does not look at it. Now there is no protection from the Belgian State as a tenant.

For this we today give a total authority, a authority for something that we receive little protection and with short notice periods. We give a mandate but we don’t know what we’re going to sell, we don’t know what it’s going to make and we don’t know what rental charges this will bring with it. But one thing is certain!

Today it is collected once and future generations will be able to pay the bills through rent charges. This is a regrettable matter.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for her report. As a member of Parliament, the report allows us to get acquainted with a number of topics, to better dive into the files and to vote in knowledge. Last week, we also had access to the searched and quite interesting reports from some of our colleagues. In particular, I think of Mr. Goutry on medical responsibility that allowed me to better understand this subject. Madame Roppe, I suppose it is in this spirit that you communicated your report to us and I thank you for this.

I would like to refer to the management of the state’s real estate. It has been a few months, or even a few years, that this short-term real estate management of the state heritage is denounced, which will strain the public finances in the coming years.

The advantage is that, in the last few months, we have been relayed by others than members of the opposition. Indeed, the Finance Inspectorate highlighted the short-term policy of the state’s real estate management. Mr. Minister, I will not offend you to remind you of the report of the Court of Auditors that said, I quote, “The state’s real estate management is unfounded from a financial point of view.” The words are pretty tough!

Despite this and despite the fact that, on December 29, 2006 – as by chance a few days before the end of the year – we sold for about 600 million state buildings, we start again! Even worse, you give yourself the full powers from the beginning to be able to sell! If it is to be sold, as much as it can be done as easily as possible and in the best circumstances, preferably avoiding control and parliamentary matters. Parliament should not be informed of what buildings are concerned and how they are sold. This has absolutely no interest and would only raise questions from parliamentarians and a little question about public finances.

This is the mechanism that colleague Verherstraeten has just explained. We ⁇ do not want to talk about it. There is no longer a priori control or explanatory duty regarding the buildings that have been sold. All this is put aside. The important thing is this return of money for the state, no matter the consequences.

There will be consequences, Mr. President. I want to prove two things.

The first element is the average rental contract fixed at 17 years. Based on what criteria and what rates of profitability has this average been achieved? Has the obligation to maintain public services, the profitability of rental contracts and the budget balance of all these operations been taken into account? I think this is indispensable!

Second element, previously, the state buildings were not subject to alienation. They were not perceived. They were not subject to prescription. And today yes! If all these buildings are housed in this new society, they may be sold, seized; they may be subject to extinctive or acquisitive prescriptions, and nothing is provided for in this regard.

This project is guided solely by budgetary issues. You also proved this last year at the end of the year. In fact, since the previous sale procedure was cancelled, you had to start a new one again. It didn’t matter the consequences for tomorrow as long as we could sell enough in 2006! Today, you are giving yourself the full powers again to act like this. You are ignorant of the budget balance, the rental cost for the coming years, questions regarding possible seizures or alienations and the conditions under which these buildings will have to be relocated!

You once again show very clearly that the only goal you pursue is a short-term budget goal.

Unfortunately, I can only emphasize that the statements made by the Court of Auditors not so long ago are still true today. The Court of Auditors stated that the financial management of our real estate assets is unfounded from a financial standpoint. It’s very serious to have let things go this way, but it’s even more serious, despite the Court’s report, not to have taken the necessary steps to make sure that changes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this is probably not the last time that we will have to point out today – and also in the coming days, I suppose – that such an important draft, which deals with the way the federal government wishes to manage its patrimony in the future, is being chased by the House shortly before the dissolution of the Parliament.

This is in itself an act of improper administration. On the other hand, in the four years of purple we have experienced all sorts of things here. Therefore, the above should not surprise us either.

While the Parliament until now had some control over the sale of patrimonium through the Domanial laws, the control will disappear after the approval of the present draft.

In fact, the reality is even more dramatic. In fact, the purple government simply asks Parliament with the draft for a mandate to further sell out, without adding a list, let alone a list of the buildings that are eligible for sale and thus will be removed from the public domain in the short term.

We must also note that there is no amount anywhere, let alone that numbers are pushed forward.

In any case, the explanatory memory of the bill is clear about the motives that the current government is pushing forward in the framework of the bill. I quote: “This draft establishment, followed by a sale of securities, implements the government’s policy to optimize the management of its real estate heritage, while ensuring the policy to maintain a budgetary balance, which began many years ago.”

Colleagues, the government itself thus declares that the basis of the present bill serves to guide its fiscal policy in the coming years. What a sober housekeeper would not do with his home, the current government does. The purple government will soon establish a legal framework to continue to sell government buildings in the future, and therefore continuously, in order to continue to adorn future budgets.

In the meantime, everyone knows that the whole story about the budget balance has become a truck box. Each budget account is full of one-off measures. Even the National Bank of Belgium writes every year in its annual report – and stands, in a way of speaking, always at the complaint wall – about the fact that the budget accounts exhibit a structural deficit from year to year.

The one-off measure to sell government buildings is embedded with the present draft. Moreover, the aforementioned motivation does not really testify to a long-term vision, if you ask me. The only thing purple does is shift the budgetary burden to the future.

This is also evidenced by the figures, colleague Van Biesen. You just sat nervously on your chair. I have once made a top ten of a number of sales from the last few years. I will give you a small flower reading.

The first sale that came into consideration was the sale of the Financietoren in Brussels. This building was sold in 2000. The sales price was 276.525.227 euros. The annual rental charge is 25.907.229 euros. The total duration of the lease contract is 32 years. This means that after 32 years the total rental burden is 829.031.328 euros. Consequently, the difference from the initial purchase price is 552.506.101 euros.

A second building that has been sold is the building of Financiën, Italielle 4 in Antwerp. That building was sold in 2002 for a total price of 62,242,633 euros. Annual rental charge of 5.948.260 euros is now paid for it. The lease contract is concluded for a period of 18 years. The total rental burden after 18 years will amount to 107.068.680 euros. The difference with the sale price is 44.826.047 euros.

The third sale, the building on the Pachecolaan 19 in Brussels. The sale dates from 2001. The sales price was 27.100,000 euros. Annual rental charge of 10.264.351 euros is now paid for it. The total duration of the rental contract is 6 years. After 6 years – which is very short – the total rental load will have reached 61,586,106 euros, giving a difference to the sale price of 34,486,106 euros.

The fourth sale was for the building on the Paleizenstraat 48 in Brussels. This building was sold in 2000 for 8,676,273 euros. The annual rental charge is 1.247.425 euros. The total term of the lease contract is 25 years, resulting in a total lease burden of 31.185.625 euros. That represents a difference from the original selling price of 22.509.352 euros.

Fifth in my flower reading is the building of Sofima in the rue des Bourgeois to Name. The sales price in 2003 was EUR 36.067.000. The total rental burden is 53.930.934 euros after a period of 18 years, which represents a difference of 17.863.934 euros.

In my flower reading of the top ten, I am now in building number 6. The building is located on the Sint-Lievenslaan 23 in Gent. The sale price in 2002 was 23.872.146 euros. There is an annual rental load of 2,298,887 euros for a period of 18 years, which brings the total rental load to 41,379,966 euros or a difference from the initial selling price of 17,507,820 euros.

The seventh sale is the sale of the building Place Albert 1 in Charleroi. This is a building that was sold in 2002 for a sale price of 11.525.147 euros. The annual rental load is 1.240.167 euros for a term of 25 years, which brings the total rental load to 31.004.175 euros.

The difference with the selling price is just a little 19.479.028 euros. There are also the buildings Egmont I and Egmont II in Brussels. It was sold in 2004 for a total price of 154.400.000 euros. The total rental charge per year amounts to 9.456.795 euros, for a period of 18 years. The total rental burden therefore, after 18 years, amounts to 170.222.310 euros, which is a difference of 15.822.310 euros compared to the initial selling price.

Ninth in the top ten is the building in the Vyncke Dujardinlaan in Bruges, which was sold in 2003 for 12,910,000 euros. The difference between the rental load and the selling price is 10,264,676 euros. Finally, in 2003, the building in the Peter Benoitlaan in Veurne was sold for 10.580,000 euros. There is a 18 year rental contract. The difference with the sale price will then amount to 8,858,146 euros.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going together. With the top ten, buildings were sold for 620 million euros. The total rental burden for the coming years, depending on the duration of the rental contracts, will be EUR 1,367 billion, or a factor of 2.2, compared to the original selling price. Those who dare to claim that the sales are good for the budget and are not a burden on the budget for the coming years, are for the trouble.

There is, of course, another building out of category: the Justice Palace in Antwerp. That cost a little more than 250 million euros, about 175 million euros more than originally budgeted. This is the price of the Antwerp Butterfly Palace on the Bolivarplaats. At the end of 2005, very recently, it was delivered. The financier was Justinvest, a consortium with Interbuild, KBC and Artesia. Originally, the government would rent the building from Justinvest for 27 years. At the end of the ride, the Belgian State would become the owner. That was, of course, counted outside of Europe, which in the autumn of 2005 made a stake for that accounting manoeuvre. The total cost of the butterfly palace had to be included in the budget at one time. That execution was roughly equivalent to a budget that went completely in the red. So, at the end of 2005, just before the end of the year, the government began a search for a buyer for the Justice Palace.

What was the result, colleagues? The real estate company Cofinimmo bought the land for which the State had previously paid 3.8 million euros, for 112,000 euros, a touch I would say. Cofinimmo also purchased the structural ownership rights, now renting the building for 36 years to the government that after that period of 36 years will not even be the owner anymore. All this just to say, colleagues, how this purple federal government has shuffled and shuffled with its patrimony in recent years.

The present draft, colleagues, aims at empowering the State and the Federal Participation and Investment Society to establish a private-law non-accounting company that will now engage in such sales of real estate. Both the State and the Federal Participation and Investment Society are the founders of that new company. Probably the State is importing the various immovable property it owns. As for the Federal Participation and Investment Society, the situation is less clear. Probably it will be capital, but apparently no one knows what the size of this contribution will be.

The question we must ask ourselves, colleagues, is why this government needs the instrument of a private company. I think the explanation for this is very simple. One wants to be able to continue her first mass sale operation of government buildings, known as Fedimmo I.

You still remember the list of 62 buildings that just before the end of 2006 had to be sold neck by neck in order to keep the state account out of the red. There was a lot to do about the procedure at the time, though it was only because the entire sale had to be arranged in one week, while for such orders normally a minimum period of one month is handled. The revenue at that time amounted to such a dismal 576 million euros. Therefore, there is now a follow-up and we know that follow-up story. This is the story of Fedimmo II. It is said to be 52 buildings – there is a list of 52 buildings – whose yield varies according to the figures. According to one, it should raise 200 to 250 million euros, according to other data, it should raise 500 to 600 million euros. As if that is not enough, the plans go even further. Fedimmo III and IV are already in the streets to arrange the sale of court buildings, barracks, prisons and some embassies and consulates abroad in the coming time.

To clarify, my colleagues. Vlaams Belang is not opposed to the fact that a government actively manages its public patrimony. This is not the point of discussion. However, buildings that are no longer used or that are no longer needed should not be held in possession at any cost and can be perfectly marketed.

However, this does not apply to buildings that the State still has in use – and that is the vast majority – and which it sells to fill the current budget deficits and to shift future rent charges as a budgetary tax into the future.

We cannot agree with such a mechanism, despite the fact that after the draft has been approved by the Chamber, there is no longer any control possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. If later the design via your services leaves the Chamber, I would like to make you a proposal. Add a note with the following inscription: “Sir, soon there will be no more state buildings.”

My group will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I heard three interventions whose content was known since long debated in committee both this year and last year. The same words come back. I thought I knew that Mr. Verherstraeten finally acknowledges, for the first time, that the budget is in balance since he said: "To ⁇ budgetary balance, you do an operation...". There is still a positive step that is taken by the CD&V to recognize that the budget is in balance! I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister is present to hear this statement from CD&V.

As for the technical operation as such, there is indeed the creation of a real estate company between the state and the holding and investment company. The state holds 10% of shares – nobody has said it – and therefore of power within this company. This is the first element.

The second stage of reasoning concerns the drafting of lists, the selection of buildings, the fixing of prices, etc. By definition, when one respects the law and puts a property in competition to sell it, when one proceeds to put in competition the potential enthusiasts of said actions, it is impossible to know in advance the selling price – or then one tricks markets or things have been prepared in advance. I have heard numbers ranging from 250 to 500 million for Operation II; I hear them but I am unable to tell you what the figure will be. Amateurs will appear, compete, make an offer, and the government will approve the offer that will legally have to be held.

I have heard things that I cannot agree with from a technical point of view. To negotiate this type of transactions, you need to see the pre-list of buildings, passed to the Council of Ministers on 19 January last, which you know and which was published in the press. This pre-list is submitted to a committee of technical, financial and real estate experts to determine whether we will request a period X or a sufficiently long notice or not, a pre-emption or not, whether we will require total or partial renovation or not, whether we will request maintenance for such duration or not, etc., depending on the type of building, and also by ensuring that the "package" of these buildings with each specification can be acceptable for any acquirer, cost-effective for the State and manageable in the medium and long term.

A "average" rental life was mentioned for Operation I, from 17 to 18 years. I am not able to tell you, today, what this expert committee will propose to the next government. Will it be 20 years, 25 years, 30 years? In this regard, we must trust the experts. No one here, it seems to me, is competent to say how to proceed with this or that building.

Let us at least acknowledge – I have heard numbers going in all directions – that, in what has been said, it is made entirely abstraction of the cost of maintenance of these buildings, of the cost of their renovation, of the maintenance. We take the sales figures, estimate the price of a rental for a certain period of time, and calculate the difference by highlighting the loss of the state. But we are not talking about the cost, for example, of materials and the cost relating to the employment of workers of the Régie des Bâtiments. There is no mention of the cost of renovation. We are talking about some court palaces or other public buildings. Television or other media echoes complaints – rightly – of officials about the state of the buildings in which they work. These are situations that must be recognized. This is a legacy from the past, Mr. Tant, and you know it very well. Therefore, we need to have a global and modern view of things.

We know that the Belgians have a brick in their stomach. But I repeat that the State must have a global, modern and evolving vision of things.

Depending on the cost of the necessary renovations, the committee will report to the government by establishing a pre-list of buildings, and we will retain a number of them. He will propose a specification of charges on this basis. There will be a competition and the sale will be made legally, at a price that no one knows today, and that will be made public.

This is exactly how the operation takes place. Personally, I don't understand the reasons why people scream "to the crazy", to the sale of "sire goods", etc. Once upon a time, gold was sold. You probably remember it, Mr. Tant.

There are laws of general special powers. Therefore, it was not about asking for a specific qualification, as is the case today. I would like to thank Mr. Verherstraeten who recalled a time when the liberals, who were in the opposition, were amazed at a general law of special powers. This is not the case, today, it is only a question of an authorization – specifically and on a specific basis – for the sale of such and such buildings through a constitution of a real estate company.

One criterion that everyone forgets here is legal certainty. Imagine that the government is forced to return to parliament. I tell you frankly, Mr. Wathelet, because I do not know if you have ever had to manage a file by doing it individually, for each type of building, with a precise price, etc. When it comes to managing a global building sale offer, with specific specifications for each property, and considering that the government will no longer be in charge of the renovation and maintenance for several years, and that it can legally compete all this to then award a contract, I believe that legal security orders that the executive controls the data of the problem. In this way, it will be able to carry out those operations that are anything but simple.

I come to the continuity of the public service, of which some institutions and some stakeholders make a lot of case. As I have already said in a committee, let no one come and make me believe that in 15, 18 or 25 years, there would be no more buildings to rent for the state so that this or that public service would no longer find a place to stay. Then, it would be desperate of everything, since it would mean that Belgium as a State would be far away, in the wrong sense of the term, in its own evolution. However, we are well aware that the continuity of the public service is not to be questioned. Our institutions and administrations will always be accommodated. I personally know the case of a small building dependent on the Ministry of Finance and which houses officials. If we follow the procedure that Belgium has always known - Régie des Bâtiments, offers, charges, etc. It is then possible that these people will still work in these conditions in five years. On the other hand, if we opt for a legal, proactive, modern, evolving design of these issues, we can ⁇ a faster outcome. And I invite you to go and question the 35 officials who work there: you will find that they are very happy with the development of the case.

The truth is neither white nor black: some buildings can be ceded, while others are not. I’ve heard some speakers, especially the latter, claim that they want to adopt a modernist and evolutionary view of things – I’ve heard it and didn’t invent it. Believe well that a private law company does not develop a hyper-conservative vision that would present itself as follows: "Since we exist, we own this or that building. Whatever happens, we must remain, without questioning ourselves.”

This is what we are doing today too and, once again, I am pleased to see that the CD&V admits that the budget balance has been achieved.

I thank the Secretary of State for having acknowledged here today that this draft in the present case is a law of full power, a special and not a general law. There were general law enforcement laws that were necessary to put the state household in order and to meet the Maastricht standard and to generate employment in the private sector. Here, we now need a special authority law to do financially very bad business for the Belgian government.

We are talking about balance. I have stated that the sales operations were necessary to make the accounts beat and to have a budget in balance, though this balance is a purely accounting balance of your accounting. It is good that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Budget are present. We will see what Eurostat will say. You will have to do a lot of lobbying work to later convince Eurostat that, among other things, the Fedimmo I operation was essential neutral.

Does the competition play in full? There can be no full competition if you are going to sell as you sold at Fedimmo I. The items will be published in the Bulletin on 6 or 7 December and must have been sold on 22 December. That is a sale within three weeks where you have driven the bus from one building to another with potential buyers and where, of course, international real estate and real estate companies did not have the time to quietly research here to buy. Then the number of candidates might have been higher and there might have been higher prices.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are talking about the prelist or prelist. We have indeed seen them. The question is only whether that list is final and whether those buildings will be sold.

I think I have answered this question, both in the committee and here. For now, this report is finalised by a committee of independent experts who forward its conclusions to the government. The government will take responsibilities based on these conclusions.

I remember – and I have cited this example twice in the committee – that we had in particular targeted the building that housed the Institute of Meteorology and about which I was appropriately questioned by Mr. of the Socialist Group. From this question, I wrote a note to the Government to draw its attention to the elements that Mr. Delizée had communicated to us.

You – or Mr. Devlies – you asked me about a building in Leuven. As a good manager of the file, I communicated this to the government and to the expert committee. This committee of experts will, on a completely independent basis, hand over to the Government the definitive list and the specifications of charges related to the buildings to be sold.

There is no willingness to sell at any price one building rather than another. There is a willingness to work in full objectivity on the basis of this pre-list published in the newspapers, of which we have knowledge and in which I am personally unable to tell you how many buildings have been held today and with what specifications of charges. This list will be drafted by the Government when the Government is fully informed of the proposals.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, from your answer, it is clear that the list is not yet definitive. You have indeed instructed people to make estimates on this. You also know what, among other things, the Court of Auditors has criticized in relation to previous sales operations on many estimates, which were much too fast or some of which were already outdated. We can ask questions about this. However, one thing can be inferred from your answer: at the moment you do not know what you are going to sell. You say that the government will take its responsibility. Unfortunately, we had to establish this in previous sales operations.

What you apparently know is what it has to bring, between the 200 and 250 million. That is what you said here today, on the banks of the Chamber. So we already know what it will bring, but we do not yet know what it will all put in.

You say that you no longer have maintenance costs thanks to that sale. Do you confirm, Mr. Secretary of State, that you no longer have maintenance costs? Do you dare to repeat here that there are no more maintenance costs for the buildings that have been sold?

Mr. Verherstraeten, I will repeat it a third time.

We have commissioned four specialized persons (a real estate expert, a lawyer, a financier and a fourth person whose specific mission I escape) to provide us with all the useful indications so that this operation is not only acceptable but also profitable – I hope – for the State, the equity fund and this real estate company and that, in the best conditions for the Belgian State.

If you find yourself in front of an X building that is impeccable, it will be hard to ask to renovate it. If you are in front of a building in the state of ruin and you want to put it on sale, you can propose that all the renovation be considered for a surrender to the State, then, of that building to its officials or you can ask nothing specific and say that the seller does what he wants.

Clearly, what I can’t make you understand is that for each building, there is an individualised approach.

We will, to the extent possible, try to have a contract as long as possible since, as you said, we must ensure the continuity of the public service. We will also ask for a larger notice, consider the possibility of preemption in one or the other case. All this is feasible. Nevertheless, I speak conditionally because the conclusions have not yet come to us and have not been approved by the government.

What do you want me to tell you more? We are in April. This constitution of real estate company is valid until 31 December 2007. The Government will attribute when it considers it to be obliged to attribute and this, in full knowledge of cause.

I think it was ⁇ complete.

However, I think that the Secretary of State in his response was little complete. The problem is not so much that the government would try to manage its buildings in a decent way, which, by the way, is not the case today. There is mismanagement, vacancy and so on. Management can be privatized. What happens here, however, is that buildings are sold and then rented again, which means the burdens are shifted to the future. That is the big problem we have with the file.

The same problem arises with the sale of pension funds, for which pensions must be paid later. It is also a shift of burdens to the future. There is also the sale of tax debts which will result in less receipts from taxes being booked afterwards. This is again a shift of the burden to the future. It is primarily a budgetary operation that creates burdens for the future.

Yesterday there was a meeting of the Budget Committee. We have taken note of the difficult financial situation and the poor forecasts for the future. We also talked about the report of the High Council of Finance and the requirements set in it. The future is difficult to announce. With all the burdens the government has shifted to the future, additional mortgages are placed on the budget of the future. That is the essence of the problem.

The State Secretary also spoke about the problems of the sale of buildings in Leuven. This includes the Luxembourg College and the Carnoy Institute. I would like to point out that the Carnoy Institute is a donation of the KULeuven to the State. The need of the Belgian State must be ⁇ great when it sells gifted goods.

I would like to briefly comment on the few remarks made by the Minister.

With regard to the Régie des Bâtiments, it tells us that renovation, maintenance, etc. must be considered. This means that a whole series of services will become external to the Régie des Bâtiments, since it seems more interesting to entrust all these services to other partners. This reduces the tasks of the building management. On the other hand, the number of directors of the Régie des Bâtiments is increasing.

In addition, I wanted to prove how much we are in a total blur. The right of preemption is extremely important if, at some point, those buildings that were inalienable become so through that society, in which the state only owns 10% of the shares. Therefore, when I hear the Secretary of State say that one can "consider the possible possibility of inserting a preemption right", I say to myself that we are far in the negotiation and that the degree of certainty is nevertheless not very high!

Finally, I thank the Secretary of State for being so clear when he said and I quote: “Come then with the list in front of parliament, you imagine! At risk of legal certainty.” He is therefore afraid of coming before parliament and having to answer questions from parliamentarians who question sales.

Mr. Speaker, it is you that I am asking. In this case, in the name of legal certainty, we are deprived of a parliamentary control that could prove quite appropriate and interesting. Parliament could indeed ask the right questions, which would enable the State to better manage its real estate.

We are well informed! It was a good debate!

I see that mr. Verherstraeten wants to intervene again. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask the Secretary of State whether he confirms that the maintenance costs after the sale operations are beneficial to the federal state and that the federal state is no longer responsible for the maintenance of the buildings.

Mr. Verherstraeten, as regards the overall maintenance of the buildings – I am not talking to you about the housewife, because it is necessary to carefully measure her words with you, but about the large maintenance of the buildings – indeed, I confirm it to you!

You understand the difference between cleaning the corridor and the great maintenance of the building, of course.

Use of this terminology.

The smallest child understands it.

The [...]

The Court of Audit is also at your disposal. This is regularly consulted. I think it is very right that these matters are treated in this way.

As long as you still have a local, President, because that is of course also the short-term demand.

I have the impression that it will be a little harder.

Who knows...

In any case, this House will not be touched, that I can tell you.

However, it is remarkable that the Secretary of State has begun to talk about this.

He sold the back yard.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to take over this...

We bought the railway building.

If you sell the building, you must sell the president. Then we want to think about it.

This will cause the price to rise significantly!

Should we hire him again? Or are we supportive of maintenance?

The great maintenance!

I close the general discussion.