Proposition 52K0556

Projet de loi contentant le 4ème ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2007.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 13, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

LDD FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 20, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The report is on all banks.

The draft was approved with 8 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions. The discussion of the draft has remained relatively limited in the committee. Therefore, it seems to me logical that I refer to the written report that lies on all banks.

Does anyone ask for the word in the general discussion? Mr. Nollet, Mr. Dedecker and Mr. Goyvaerts are given the floor on the general expenditure budget.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Representative of the Government, I will not criticize here long and broadly the entire proposed budget adjustment 2007. I would like to return to a specific point that was discussed in the Committee on Finance and Budget.

It would be interesting that those who were not present in the Finance and Budget Committee could be attentive to what could be put forward.

As I have just said, it is about highlighting one point of this adjustment, in this case the adjustment request to cover the costs of two studies requested as part of government negotiations.

Mr. Giet, it is also to you that I address, as well as to you, Mr. Vanvelthoven, who are part of the departing government. And some of you will be part of the next government. Nevertheless I would like to draw your attention as these are studies commissioned by the blue orange when it was trading in July or August, I think.

Imagine that the blue orange ordered a study to see how it could afford to bypass the nuclear exit law and how it could do so that the financial consequences of this decision are as small as possible for public authorities.

The blue orange that, to my knowledge, has never become a government, has already used the federal state public finances while it has never had the confidence of Parliament!

The cost of these two studies, one entrusted to the Stibbe firm and the other to KPMG, is estimated at €80,000.

Mrs Onkelinx, since you seem to be interested, I can even tell you that the Financial Inspectorate has issued a negative opinion on the matter.

This means that the government will be able to address the issue. Since the Financial Inspection issued a negative opinion, the Minister cannot commit himself and must bring the matter to the Government. Therefore, there is a double paradox to allow, on the one hand, negotiators to use the public finances, in this case the 2007 state budget without having yet received the confidence of Parliament and to cover this operation, on the other hand, by your government, the outgoing violet government. However, this coverage is all the more necessary as the Financial Inspection has issued a negative opinion. I think this is a very interesting case.

Basically, paying for a study and covering the payment for this study in order to find ways to bypass a law passed in Parliament, that’s the bouquet!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues and also Mrs. Onkelinx and Mr. Vanvelthoven because I think you might be sensitive to what is coming. Our Ecolo-Groen group! He will submit an amendment aiming at transferring these budgetary resources to devote them not to a study on how one could bypass the law on nuclear exit but rather to a very necessary study on how to accelerate, develop and multiply the use and use of renewable energies in Belgium. This amendment is open for co-signature. It had already been mentioned in its principle in commission, but not yet in its content.

The answer that was given at that time is this: “Everyway, if the minister has signed his agreement, the expenses will have to be covered. Even if Belgium and the federal government were to be condemned, we would pay for it at that time." I explain myself: from the moment when the Financial Inspectorate refuses the expenditure, when it joins our argument on the subject, where it recognizes that it is not legitimate that a government in formation, that negotiating partners already order at the expense of the State studies contrary to the guidelines decided by Parliament, we must have the courage to refuse to enter into this logic and support this amendment or possibly another amendment that allows to devote the same means to the real goal of law enforcement, namely the development of renewable energies.

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of taking the time to talk about budget adjustment to focus on one point but, beyond the bottom line, I think that this point is not without interest. Indeed, if we had to accept the principle that a government in negotiation can already use the financial, budgetary resources of a state, we would take great risks. It opens the door to a whole series of other subsequent drifts. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow the reasoning that was held, at one time, in the committee. I hope that the President, present here, will take it back. We submitted an amendment.

I will let the President of the Commission explain the mechanism. I was not convinced by his argument. Therefore, we maintain the amendment at this stage. I dare hope that it can be followed not only on the bottom, so that we do not circumvent this law that is applicable in Belgium, but also on the form, to avoid triggering this kind of drift. Otherwise, new negotiations going on tomorrow or in three months will allow to engage a whole series of expenses that are not in the initial budget.

I have finished with this introduction. I wait for the answer and I obviously reserve the right to react according to the response that will be given by both the government and the chairman of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, I will not start a controversy on the question of whether, deontologically, it was normal or not that the traders of the blue orange ask a minister of the outgoing government to order a study to two law firms or study services. It could be discussed, but that is not the most important thing today.

The main thing is to know that from the moment a minister signs a contract or an order form, the state is engaged. The government provider, who trusts the minister who signed, is not supposed to know that the minister has not received a favorable opinion from the Finance Inspectorate, is not supposed to be aware that the minister is not covered by the government, is not supposed to know that in principle, in such cases, the Court of Auditors refused his visa. If this supplier, not being paid by the State following a negative decision of the Council of Ministers, initiates a trial to ask the court to be paid, it will still be paid, and this very quickly.

For me, regardless of the issues of ethics and deontology raised by Mr. Nollet, issues that deserve to be debated since respectable arguments, it is of good management, knowing that the State will pay or will be condemned to pay anyway, to provide in the 2008 budget the amounts necessary to satisfy the judgment that will condemn the State to pay, in last resort, in the event that the government decided not to order the expenditure.

That’s why the government and the majority – or those of us in the Finance Committee who voted this provision that Mr. Contests. Nollet – did well on the technical level, regardless of these ethical or deontological arguments advanced ⁇ rightly.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you what my attitude has been on this subject.

At some point, I was asked to regularize that file. The procedure for this was not followed. A procedure must be followed if one wants to order a study, but the procedure was not followed. That means that the Financial Inspectorate has issued a negative opinion and that I, as Minister of Budget, did not want to regularize it.

From tomorrow, if everything goes well, there will be another Minister of Budget, who will be able to decide as he wants. However, I found it not correct, not even with regard to the other colleagues who have always followed the rules in each file, to, when someone steps the rules with their feet, then after all, but regularize everything as being placed for an accomplished fact. I have never done it, and I will never do it. Tomorrow someone else can judge it differently, without any problem.

Mr. Speaker, the replica of the Minister of Budget is quite interesting and consistent with what Mr. Speaker had heard. Landuyt in his name in commission, consistent with the practice exercised throughout the legislature that will end on Sunday with the extensions we have known.

Therefore, I ask Members of Parliament not to become complicit of the proposal concerning a point of adjustment. Indeed, if this adjustment is ever covered, it reduces to nothing the consistency that the Minister of Budget has demonstrated during these four years.

I understand the arguments of Mr. of Donna . It distinguishes the question of deontology from that of obligation. I would be surprised that the federal government will be condemned before the end of the year. We are currently working on the 2007 budget adjustment. If it should prove that we are actually convicted and that, in any case, it is not the responsibility of Minister Verwilghen to find the necessary funds, in this case, we could make an adjustment in 2008, which would become mandatory by the conviction.

But let us not anticipate. Let us not already give this signal that we can silence the measures taken. Personally, I ask and I propose by way of an amendment that the Parliament is not complicit of this deontological derivative and, more fundamentally for me – but I can understand that you do not share my opinion – on the very object of the analysis that aims to circumvent the law.

I ask you to support the amendment filed on the banks and that my colleague will also defend soon.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think that the fourth adjustment presented here is a useless exercise because this will be the first urgent work of our next minister. I think this exercise only serves to cover up the deforestations of the past year.

We got a wonderful book here. It serves to read, it is not a phone book. Mr. Van Biesen, I really recommend it. Do not put it under your main pillows, read it. I did it in the short time I had. I only have it since yesterday. I have discussed the questions of the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors clearly states that the accounting procedures are under way. There is even a beautiful quote in it: “Even the European Union feels wet.”

I quote from the blunderbook of 657 pages. On page 18 it says: “The European Union has temporarily suspended the payment of its contributions because the Belgian projects do not meet the conditions for internal control.” On page 22 – take the book in hand – it is stated that the Regie der Gebäude has not submitted annual accounts for audit since 2000. This is a beautiful quote. What have we done in recent years? We first sold our furniture and household appliances, we sold a number of buildings to straighten the budget and above all to close the budget gap. What is shown now? The Court of Auditors finds that the person who had to do this – the Regie der Gebäude – has not even submitted an annual report over the past eight years. Herman De Croo has expressed this beautifully. He said about the sale of those buildings: “You can milk a cow, you can slaughter it and you can eat it, but then you must go graze yourself.”Because of a lack of annual accounts, you don’t even know how many cows have been slaughtered and to what extent we will have to graze in the future. I am not complaining that, colleagues, it is the Court of Auditors who literally writes this in this book.

I can give more examples. For example, the report of the Court of Auditors shows that the procurement and control services are insufficient or not separated. This is probably a disease that has been spreading for years, but it also means that more than 2 billion euros of purchase invoices are located in a shimmer zone. Not we say this, but the Court of Auditors says this. Today we have to vote here on a bill, but on what, on what figures is it based?

The morality of the story, what is this bill worth? What is the budget deficit? What is the budget surplus? Dear colleagues of CD&V, there will be another serious exercise in the course of the coming weeks.

Here are a few quotes from the last few months.

“During the negotiations with Leterme as formator, Leterme assumed that there would be a deficit of 0.2% of GDP instead of a surplus of 0.3%.” “Mid October, the Monitoring Committee found that the budget displaced” – especially on Defense, Mr Flahaut – “and the deficit for this year is estimated at 0.5%.” “For next year, the Monitoring Committee predicts a deficit of 1.1%.” “The Council of Ministers approved on 26 October a number of interventions that should reduce the estimated budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP, this year 1.5 billion euros, to 0.1%.”

Mr. Guy Quaden, PS Governor of the National Bank said: “Nothing comes back from the forecasted surpluses for 2007 and 2008. In the best case, a balance will be achieved.” he says the price of the political crisis is about 2.5 billion euros.

I can continue this way for a while, but I will conclude with the wise words of the Chairman of the Chamber, Mr. Van Rompuy, whom I heard speaking in illo tempore on the Seventh Day: “We ask, as soon as we get into the government, a review of Finance and a review of the budget.”

Before I say anything about the fourth budget adjustment, let me say this. Collega Dedecker, it is, of course, nice to stand here on the floor with a book of mistakes and to refer to the fact that, among other things, the Directorate of Buildings has no accounting for years, but I assume that in a previous life you have approved all those accounts and all those budgets. This is too easy.

The [...]

This is a youth sickness. I want to say that your memory is sometimes a little short.

The fourth adjustment of the general expenditure budget for the year 2007 is, I think, one of the last violet weapons under Verhofstadt II, one of the last stumblings of the outgoing coalition of liberals and socialists, which we face. In the last few hours, the government has gone a little further, and the fourth adjustment of the spending budget is a typical example of this.

Whether the announced successor, then called the interim government, will lead to a better governance, we will hear about it only tomorrow. We know nothing about this at the moment. In any case, the fourth adjustment of the general expenditure budget contains at least a number of strange measures that we may question whether they are part of the mandate of a government in ongoing affairs.

Two elements have attracted my attention. The first element was already referred by Mr. Nollet: on the fallreep two additional studies were ordered in the context of the withdrawal from nuclear energy. Its value is 80,000 euros. The strange thing about this is that these two studies had to serve for government negotiations. The first study, which was entrusted to the law firm Stibbe, was intended to make a legal analysis of the nuclear exit and its consequences. A second analysis, entrusted to the research agency KPMG, examined the financial implications of a possible nuclear departure.

In itself, it is not surprising that the Finance Inspectorate has given a negative opinion on this. In these times of irresponsible governance, the liberals are apparently not really awake to this. I appreciate the effort of the Minister of Budget, who opposed it and thus gave rise to the negative opinion of Finance. Nevertheless, we still have questions about the procedure. I don’t know if the file eventually passed one of the last Ministerial Councils, but I suspect not.

A second element that has drawn my attention in the budget adjustment is the defense budget. You know that department is led by the unimproved Minister Flahaut, who is in our midst. I think he is almost the only man on earth who still dares to deny that he has largely abused the current account at the Treasury to creatively offset staff costs for an amount of 121 million euros, apart from a historically open amount of 40 million euros at the Treasury.

Meanwhile, we know that a regulation has been drawn up for the Treasury file in the government, asking the Defense to clean up that balance. This has been done by removing a number of posts within the department and postponing some investments.

As a blow to the firepile, colleagues, we note in the figures of this budget adjustment that suddenly an additional commitment credit of approximately 300 million euros or 12 billion Belgian francs has been registered for the Department of Defence, under the name “purchase, renewal and modernization of specific military resources.” Well, apparently, there still needs to be an investment credit for the purchase of ten helicopters under the floating and empty purple.

It is incomprehensible, colleagues, that a government in downward matters can and dares to decide such a thing. I even dare to say that is part of a deal, which was made at the time of discussions about the improper use of the treasury account, by the government of ongoing affairs. The unimproved Minister of Defence – sometimes referred to as “le Roi Soleil de l’armée belge” – has cleared his account, but because nothing would be short, he still gets his sense for the purchase of ten helicopters.

You will understand that the Flemish Belang group opposes such a course of affairs. It is inappropriate governance. If that is to be the precursor of the way the interim government acts, then I fear the worst. We have not yet seen the end.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Representative of the Government of Disappearing Affairs, you will not be surprised that we will vote against such an adjustment of the expenditure budget.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene again on the case of nuclear studies, but, like Mr. Goyvaerts has just referenced it again, I would like to add one thing. by Mr. Nollet said the government did not risk being condemned to pay before December 31, which is right. But I think we have interest to pay in advance to not have to engage in lawyer fees that will be very expensive after December 31. It is always better to pay than to be condemned!