Proposition 52K1504

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2008.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 21, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 ¶

Nov. 27, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The reporter is Mr. Jenne De Potter, who is not present at the moment.

An amendment was submitted by the Government. Should the draft not be returned to the committee?

We will discuss this as soon as possible.

Mr De Potter, the rapporteur, who has just entered, refers to his written report.

An amendment has been submitted. I think it was distributed. Why this amendment after the vote on the adjustment in the committee? Because in the meantime, we received the payment from the European Union relating to these different ESF amounts. This is a classic European financing: it is expected that the amounts will be paid by the European Commission to establish the payment at the Belgian level which is the duration of the intervention at the European level. This amount could not have been predicted because we were still waiting for the European Union payments. Between the discussion of the adjustment and this plenary session, this amount was paid by the European Union. It is in order to be able to honor all the expenses related to this payment that we must release the amounts at the Belgian level. It would not be appropriate to deprive itself of these amounts paid by the European Union by not accepting this additional expense.

That is why this amendment was submitted and especially why it was submitted at that time as part of the discussion of the budget adjustment.

Do you ask for the amendment to be returned to the committee?

I ask for a vote on the amendment. If there is no problem with this amendment, the House is not legally obliged to send it back to committee. I am not opposed to it, but it is better to be efficient and quick. In the absence of a problem, I would prefer not to have to meet again in a committee to examine this element. If necessary, we will do it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly if the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber stipulates that it is an obligation to send the bill back to the committee or not. Nevertheless, it becomes a sock in this way.

The government is too late with its budget control. I will submit a few elements on this subject later in my presentation. The discussion in the committee is closed. Now we have an additional amendment from the government here on the banks.

It is not my intention to suspend the work of the plenary session by sending the draft back to the committee. At some point, however, the current government will have to adjust to a number of plugs that have been applied in the House for years. I have always known that when there are amendments from the government, the work in the committee is resumed.

I can agree that this is not a very important amendment. At some point, however, the government must adjust itself to the work, as we are used to do here. Therefore, we do not have to plunge to the wishes, expectations and aspirations of the current government.

Therefore, you request to send the amendment back to the committee. If I am well informed, the committee will meet tomorrow.

The committee will meet tomorrow. However, no final vote can be held if the amendment is not voted today.

If we vote on the amendment today, we should vote on the whole next week anyway.

Either we send the amendment back to the committee and the whole comes back on the agenda of the plenary session next week, or we vote on the amendment now and we must vote on the whole next week. The final vote will be held next week.

Mr. Goyvaerts, if we send the amendment back to the committee, we can stop the general discussion and resume it next week.

This is what I wanted to refer to. If we accept the amendment here today, we will not be able to hold the final vote anyway. Therefore, I saw no problem in sending the amendment back to the committee. Whether it’s Friday or Tuesday, it doesn’t matter. In that case, we can hold the general discussion including the amendment in one meeting next week.

If you agree, I will send the amendment back to the committee. The general discussion and voting will follow next week, 4 December 2008. (with the approval)

Dec. 11, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report. Mr Flahaux will probably take care of the supplement.

In view of its small importance, I would like to refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, if one wants to take the budgets of this country seriously, one must continue to the last snake because otherwise it makes no sense to put the government on fire.

Wait a little while with that last snake. I do not wish you.

I don’t want Yves Leterme. He says he has time until 2011. Therefore, we are not yet on the new potatoes.

As for the first budget adjustment of 2008, Mr. Secretary of State, we are today on 11 December. It is not too late yet. That really goes well with it.

Regarding the procedure, Mr. Speaker, I must have something of my heart. Based on the above elements, I still have the impression that the government has squeezed you a little as House Chairman. Why do I say that? You will remember that in September we had an interpellation round on the budget adjustment in the European Hall. State Secretary for Budget, Mr. Wathelet, has come there to provide a kind of PowerPoint presentation in which some data from that 2008 budget control were displayed, based on figures from July. In fact, the figures shown in September were already completely outdated. The Secretary of State added: “No need, you will see a bill appearing in the House in time and standing, which will include all the numbers and all the tables.”

What does this government do? On 3 October, the Council of Ministers shall take a decision to authorise the commitment, order-oncertion and payment of all expenditure opened by the general expenditure budget. The Government invokes Article 44 of the Coordinated Laws of the National Accounting, without giving any clarification or additional explanation. The members of the opposition only get a few accusations thrown into their heads because if the government had not done this for all spending, then it would not have been able to take a number of social measures.

Those who have no knowledge of budgets know that Article 44 applies only to special expenditure, which must also be considered as urgent due to exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. In its 2008 budget adjustment, the Government did not in any way give a motivation for the extreme urgency, nor for the exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. A late budget control, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister of Finance, can not be an argument for me to invoke Article 44.

Furthermore, government spending was incurred that was not approved by Parliament and, therefore, the procedure for providing the required budgetary resources was not respected by the government. I do not know whether this is already part of the new trend breaking of CD&V or the government, but I still have the conviction that Parliament has been put out of play by this and that, in addition, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent has been created, in the sense that from now on every budget control could be based on that argument.

We must also not forget that the budget adjustment was only submitted to Parliament on 21 October. In my opinion, this is richly late. We started the discussion in the committee on 4 November. During the last 14 days, the draft had to be returned to the committee, because the government still had an amendment.

As for the draft law on the 2008 budget adjustment itself, I am pleased that today both the State Secretary for Budget and the Minister of Finance are present here. You will wonder why, colleagues. Well, the reason for this is very simple. During the discussion of the budget adjustment in the committee, we must have experienced that the Secretary of State claimed to be competent only for the expenditure, so that he could not say anything about the revenues.

We had to address the Minister of Finance, who, however, was not present during the discussions in the committee. In itself I found that was a strange date, especially because we as a member of Parliament, Mr. Minister of Finance and Mr. Secretary of State for Budget, try to maintain a global view of the 2008 budget. Of course, it doesn’t make much sense to hear from you, through the tables, what adjustments have occurred in the spending, while we no longer have a global view of the revenue. This is the precarious element of the entire budget. Everyone feels that with their elbows.

A discussion of a budget adjustment, in my opinion, makes no sense, if one cannot talk about revenues, unless it was the intention, colleagues of Open Vld, to avoid the discussion about the budget balance of the 2008 budget at that time. In the meantime, everyone knows that the 2008 budget will not end at all in balance, but on the contrary.

Given the altered course of Open Vld, it is likely that they will no longer hold to a budget balance in 2008, as they will no longer hold to a budget balance in 2009. On the contrary, we are facing a significant deficit. It is a matter of not plotting, colleague Van Biesen. Everyone is aware that there is a problem with the 2008 income, it only came up to get figures on the 2008 income.

What turned out now? When the Minister of Finance distributed a note in the context of his policy note for the 2009 budget, an annex was added. It contained a table of the current state – which was on 19 November – of the country’s income.

Between the soup and the potatoes – you were explaining the 2009 policy note, Mr. Minister – there was suddenly a 2008 table. What do I read in that table? That the current tax expenditure with 552 million euros lags behind the 2008 estimates. So there is indeed a serious problem, which we have always said and expected. So that was confirmed with numbers in a table, Mr. Secretary of State. I don’t know what the situation is today, 11 December.

In any case, during the discussion of the 2009 policy note, the Minister distributed a table stating that there is a deficit of EUR 552 million compared to the estimate for tax revenues. This, of course, creates a problem and gives a distorted overall picture, because it indicates that the 2008 budget is going in the wrong direction.

I would like to explain this briefly in order to have a reference to those data somewhere in the report. The table is passed between the soup and the potatoes. Therefore, I think it makes sense to let Parliament know something about this.

I thought it was one of the promises of the prime minister, the man elected with 800,000 preferential votes, to do better than Verhofstadt. That was his starting point. He does better in the sense of worse. It is going in the wrong direction with the budget deficit.

Leterme also made the promise to put the budgets of this country in order. It was intended to ensure that the budgets were structurally balanced and structurally closed. I assume that it will not be true before 2008 at least, on the contrary. Sometimes we might be scared of the deficit. In such circumstances, where figures come up in other incomes discussions and where the Secretary of State says that he is solely responsible for the spending, you will understand that we will not approve the 2008 budget adjustment.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be very brief. In itself, there is also little meaning to say about a fiscal policy that has actually lost all its credibility.

Mr. Reynders, let’s go back a moment. In March, you will submit a budget together with your colleagues. The objective of this budget is to ⁇ balance. You would get there.

In May, we launched the first clear signals on VAT revenue.

Mr. Van Biesen, you’d better listen, because I think you might possibly be able to keep an update on it.

In May, everyone who took the effort to look at the figures has seen very clearly that VAT revenues remained so behind that it was impossible to obtain the full income.

However, what is happening? During the budget control comes Minister Reynders, le Saint Didier, although it was not December 6 at the time, with figures showing that, instead of fewer incomes, there would be 257 million additional incomes. There could even be another 100 million invested in purchasing power measures. At that point, we said that these numbers would not be reached. We suggested that you would face a deficit that would, in the long run, create a problem for the payment of the aging. Therefore, it seemed to us better to adjust the expenses. But no, it was apparently not necessary. There were sufficient revenues, and the budget could be closed in balance.

This game lasted until September. At the time when the financial crisis broke out on our country, the government has had the vanity to say that we are now indeed at a deficit.

I thought it was a scandalous way of doing it. It undermines all budget credibility you could have had.

At present, the same problem exists: a budget whose underlying revenues are unreliable. Again, you are with a spending pattern that has not been adjusted. Nine chances out of ten triggers that story again, just as it was triggered this year.

In the end, the only ones facing the problems will be our children and grandchildren.

I would also like to invite Open Vld to make a very clear calculation. The twist you have taken to seek a balance across the entire legislature now means that at least two years in a row, in 2010 and 2011, you will have to end up with a budget surplus of 1.5%, which at the moment, given the economic outlook, is totally unrealisable. You are plunging our country into the financial abyss. You started it in March and you do it every day more and more.

Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with 2009, but 2008 is, if possible, an equally big disaster. I would like to hear from the Secretary of State once how big he thinks the gap for 2008 is. In fact, budget controls are exactly for this purpose, to determine how big the hole is and then to determine how one will try to close the hole.

When did the budget control take place? The budget control took place in June with an outcome in July of this year, since then nothing more, unless the secretary of state or the minister improves me. I have not at any moment understood that after July, the government has still taken measures to fill the gap in the 2008 budget. There was a budget control in July and it stopped.

What happens if we can trust the officials of Finance? In their report of 30 September 2008, they say that there is a gap of as much as 1.4 billion euros based on the July budgetary control. What is the explanation of this responsible government? This responsible government says it can do nothing about it because we are in a financial and economic crisis. Colleagues, for the sake of clarity, at the time of budget control there was no financial or economic crisis.

The only thing I can determine is that this government has simply accepted the gap of 1.4 billion euros on September 30 – according to its own administration, not according to the opposition.

Instead of trying to seal the hole, the government has been feverish looking for an explanation for why the hole is there and why it should not close it. I find it irresponsible, Mr. Secretary of State and Mr. Minister, that you did nothing, but therefore nothing, to fill the gap in the budget.

You can blow, because it is worth blowing!

I saw the National Bank’s half-year report, which states that the deficit for 2008 is 0.9%.

The words of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance still follow. A balanced budget. Those words still sound. For Open Vld, this budget in balance could not be torn. He had to come. Now there is a deficit of 0.9% and the government is not doing anything about it. and nothing.

The economic conditions sometimes make it difficult, but the economic conditions, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, must not prevent you from determining at least for yourself – like a good housekeeper who does for his own finances – how big the gap is and how you will try to close that gap. You just missed that.

However, this has two serious consequences, of which we should all be awake.

First, the irresponsibility of this government with regard to the 2008 budget, while we had an economic growth for the whole year. Let us be clear about this. 2008 was a year of economic growth, while this government now allows almost 1% deficit. The laxity of this government is very good for the 2008 budget, but we see that same laxity back in relation to the 2009 budget.

You all say – and that is the hypocrisy of the matter – that we must avoid going back to the 1970s. I have heard the words of Open Vld’er Hendrik Daems. Well, the 1970s were characterized by a lax fiscal policy under then Prime Minister Martens.

The 2000s have been marked for one and a half years now by an incredibly lax fiscal policy of the government-Leterme. The invoice that we all pay is from the 1970s under Prime Minister Martens of the CVP. Thanks to violin and the socialists, this is largely paid off.

Mr. Secretary of State, you can laugh at it – I see you smile – but that bill pushes you through to the new generation.

In 2020 I will no longer be here. Then there will be a new generation who will refer to the years-Leterme, for which you are responsible, and who will swear to the population that one should never repeat the mistakes of the government-Leterme.

You know that you are turning the population a wheel before the eyes. You know you are making holes, but you deny that. You do nothing about it.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, that is not only irresponsible, but it is also criminal behavior towards the next generation.

On the agenda is the adjustment of the general expenditure budget for the financial year 2008. Anyone who has watched the calendar knows that today is December 11, 2008.

Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues of the majority, I sincerely ask you what is the meaning of this agenda item today? If you look at all the reports of the past six months, you will notice that the opposition has been calling for a budget adjustment since the spring of 2008. It is absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing that this budget adjustment is only on the agenda today.

Furthermore, this budget adjustment was made through a budget consultation through which Parliament passed. The lack of transparency was once again painfully clearly illustrated, and that by parties who shouted murder and fire in the last legislature as soon as any detail evolved towards little transparency. From the moment they suspected that something was being denied them, Mr. Verherstraeten, they shouted murder and fire. They can scream well.

This budgetary adjustment provides for an adjustment of EUR 286 million in ordonnance appropriations. This amount represents a negligible part of the general expenditure budget. It is purely marginal, and that while Minister Didier Reynders in March 2008 on Radio Première stated that the growth rate and tax receipts were already absolutely overestimated at that time.

Everything repeats itself, and the bad first. I have said it before. This draft budget adjustment was submitted too late and contains measures that are inadequate. It is a real hole.

The deterioration of the economic conjuncture is indeed the result of global events, of the casino capitalism that has developed worldwide without yet ⁇ ining any connection with the economic reality. But what do we see? Neither the program law nor the government’s recovery plan provides any answer to this.

Therefore, neither the 2008 budget nor the 2009 draft budget – we will talk about it yet – have any connection to the actual economic situation. It is more than ever time for you, as a majority, to stop making illusions to yourself.

The adjustment of a General expenditure budget, dear colleagues – which is reasonable basic knowledge – is inextricably linked to the evolution of revenue. Unless the revenue remains the same or differs only slightly from the forecasts, measures should also be taken in the spending area, but those should remain out. There is only a marginal amount.

We have discussed a lot about this in the committee, Mr. Secretary of State. The note of the macro-budgetary service of the FOD Budget and Management Control has been provided to you for the budget conclusion. These were data you could take into account. While they estimated revenues to reach 42.6 billion, the government continued to anticipate the amount of 43.4 billion. That was in that note.

Regarding the contribution of the energy sector – of Electrabel – Electrabel has threatened with a lawsuit. In the Public Health Committee we have questioned the Minister of Energy about this, but we have never received a solid answer. The 250 million remains a big question. The same applies to the 200 million from the circular over the notional interest deduction.

On the basis of all these elements, colleagues, we are estimated to have a budget deficit of approximately €1.7 billion for 2008. What does this government do? This government is investing another 2.86 million and does nothing to its revenues. She puts her head in the sand.

The chronic lack of information, the incredibly large lack of transparency for the 2008 budget and the fact that it is on the same path for 2009, show that the government’s action is absolutely unrealistic. In the words of the Chairman, it is urgent time to return to the planet Earth.

Mr. Van Biesen, I would like to quote you. You know that. I will quote what you said in the committee: “Mr. Luk Van Biesen regrets that the government does not provide the House of Representatives with complete and accurate data. Why has it not submitted an amended general explanation? Why has it not submitted a draft amending the Riksmidelen budget for the current fiscal year? Due to the lack of information on the main budgetary and economic indicators, the people’s representatives cannot correctly estimate the budget change.”

Mr. Van Biesen, will you vote against today? We have not yet received that information. I suggest that you keep your word.

The same applies to budgetary orthodoxy. The whole faction of the Open Vld – you are not with many at the moment – is not willing to accept a budget deficit, nor is Mr. Hendrik Bogaert planning to do so. I am curious how they will vote later.

The adage “listen to my words, but do not look at my deeds” may be applied again.

The Government has a duty to be as clear as possible about its budget management, especially in times of financial crisis. I have already told the Prime Minister. It is devastating how bad and insufficient information was provided by both banks and government during this financial crisis. This also applies to the budget.

If a deficit is expected for 2008 and 2009, you must indicate what the size of that deficit will be and what measures you will take to remedy it. In that regard, we have noticed that the prime minister makes very good statements and that the majority holds to a structural balance for the entire legislature. How they will solve those seven billion that they will have too little in 2009 in the next four years, I have heard Mr. Verherstraeten say nothing about.

You are not a good housefather. You are not a housekeeper tout court. You run out of the house at the time the bill arrives and leave your children sitting with it. You are not covered by the government regarding this budget, Mr. Secretary of State. I said it and I say it again: whenever difficult discussions arrive, you are always alone in the committee. Whenever great, beautiful stories are proclaimed, they are the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I am very pleased to see you and therefore I also regret that you are always alone, Mr. Secretary of State.

In any case, Mr Van Biesen’s conclusion is correct: this budget shows a deficit. Well, dear members of Open Vld, dear members of CD&V, dear balance fetishists, there is only one message: vote against it today, otherwise you will suffer another face loss.

No other speakers were registered.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some elements of answer. I will be brief, of course.

Don’t you want me to answer? Would you not like me to give you answers and information? You say we don’t provide enough information. I am willing to give the same answers again. Mr. Vanvelthoven, you said exactly the same thing as in the committee.

Last week there were several discussions in the committee on the 2009 budget, which were quite interesting thanks to the interventions of several members of the opposition, including Ms. Almaci and Mr. Nollet. Several interesting questions were asked, but unfortunately there were few questions from the sp.a. For me, all debates on the budget are interesting. Unfortunately, only several members of certain opposition parties were present to conduct that discussion.

Mr. Goyvaerts, you asked a question on Article 44. We have chosen this procedure in order to immediately implement the exceptional indexation for the year 2008. In 2008, inflation was exceptionally high. Therefore, we have chosen the procedure in Article 44. Thanks to this procedure, we were able to immediately increase the social contributions and wages. This is a measure of purchasing power that was necessary for the Belgians and for the social benefits. It was the government’s choice to raise wages as soon as possible and index the social benefits. This was necessary for the Belgians and it should be done as soon as possible.

You say that we have not sufficiently motivated the procedure. I have explained this in the committee. I have even given a written reply to the Court’s comments. I couldn’t do anything else to motivate this.

I would also like to say that this adjustment is only about spending. This is even written in the various tables in the Room. These are adjustments to expenditure. This was necessary due to high inflation.

I repeat that the expenditure is completely under control. Mr. Vanvelthoven, you talked about paying bills. For you, this may be a little strange. I can understand that. However, this government pays its bills. We pay our bills more and more quickly.

I know you have difficulty listening to this. In 2008, the amount of invoices "en cours" decreased by EUR 300 million. I know you are no longer the usual, but this government is paying its bills.

Finally, colleagues, when it comes to income, I sometimes get the impression that you have not noticed that a crisis occurred at the end of 2008. The Prime Minister even presented his rescue plan to the House today. Of course, this is a special period. Of course, there is a decrease in consumption and of course there is a decrease in income. That is obvious. This is, of course, the direct consequence of the current crisis.

I would like to conclude my speech with the remarks of Mrs. Almaci. I admit that it is strange to have to vote today on the 2008 budget adjustment, immediately after the Prime Minister has laid out his relief plan. This clearly demonstrates the need to apply the procedure laid down in Article 44 in order to carry out the adjustment as soon as possible. Nevertheless, it is somewhat strange to vote today at the same time and on an adjustment of the 2008 budget and to launch a recovery plan.

I had wrongly closed the general discussion. I had forgotten the minister. My apology for that.

Mr. Van de Velde and Mr. Vanvelthoven and Mrs. Almaci want to respond to what the Secretary of State has said.

Mr. Secretary of State, I think one important thing is missing you. You are doing this quite narrowly, as if we do not recognize that an economic crisis has fallen over our country. This is a really ridiculous statement. In the month of May, when VAT revenue fell badly, we told you to adjust the budget and ensure that the expenditure was in line with the revenue. Income was extremely uncertain from that moment on. It had nothing to do with what happened afterwards. At that time, we knew well that we would end up in a scenario of a deficit. In no way have you responded to it. That is why you are sitting with the baked pears today. If you had listened then, you could have adjusted your spending. At that time, you still had more than half a year to send updates. You have defeated it and that is why we are now facing the consequences.

I think it will be the same for the next budget. It will cost us full of money. You will plunge the country into a financial abyss, I assure you.

The response of the Secretary of State really worries me the worst. The foolishness with which this government goes over the financial household of the State is indeed inappropriate in these difficult times.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are laughing over it again. You refer again to the economic crisis. We all know that there is an economic crisis.

The [...]

Why do you say that now? Why should we deny that there is an economic crisis? We are the ones who in August, at the beginning, when the first signs of the economic crisis came to the head, asked you to re-examine the budget. Your budget control dates from July. But you said: nothing of it.

Blast you now. I know these are annoying questions, but you do not answer them.

Since the beginning of the economic crisis, you have adjusted the 2008 budget to nothing, nowhere, zero. This is an absurdity that I blame you.

I just asked you a question, the same question that I asked for the 2008 budget. The question was how big the hole is now, according to the government, for 2008. However, you did not respond. You don’t know it, because you haven’t done your homework. As a State Secretary of Budget, you do not even know the size of the gap in the 2008 budget. Tell us if you know. I am waiting for your answer, please tell me. How much is it?

Mr Vanvelthoven does not want to listen to the arguments. He just doesn’t want to understand that. I understand that, Mr Vanvelthoven.

Today you no longer deny that a crisis is coming. That is already something. Thank you, Mr Vanvelthoven. Now you should also no longer deny that incomes are lower and consumers spend less. You are beginning to understand it. By the end of the year, you may...

(...) when the economic crisis struck its head. Then you should have done something. With his two, you did nothing. There is no answer to the question of how big the hole is. At the time when we are discussing in Parliament the 2008 budget adjustment, we can still expect from this government what, in its own estimate, the budget gap is. I asked the Minister of Budget. Again, I do not get an answer today.

I asked a question. I get the accusation from the Secretary of State that I did not take the word during the discussion in the committee. I have asked a question: how big is the gap in the 2009 budget according to this government? I also did not get an answer there. If this government manages and wastes the cents of all of us in this way, then the next generation may indeed begin to worry seriously.

The Secretary of State is talking about paying invoices. Indeed, however, he forgets to say that he is now shifting an invoice to the next generation.

Secretary of State, you laugh again! There is a deficit of 4 billion and you laugh at it all away!

This is not a bill for the next generation. An anchor is not a bill for the next generation!

Mr Vanvelthoven, if the invoices are not paid for one year, they are paid the following year. The “encourse” is increasing. You always refer to a note from the Treasury and that says itself that it “encours” decreases, even in the year 2008. This is due to the payment of these invoices.

You come here to say that not paying the invoice does not mean a new invoice for the next year. Your reasoning is unacceptable, especially not today, now that companies are in trouble. Not paying the bills, now that companies are in trouble, would be absolutely unacceptable. That is why we changed that. We are paying your invoice, Mr. Vanvelthoven, the invoice of the former Minister of Budget. We do that now.

Let me be clear, Mr. Secretary of State, you have not heard me say at any moment that paying bills and paying bills faster is a problem for us, on the contrary. You, knowing that there was some backwardness in paying bills, came to the conclusion that the 2008 budget was balanced. The 2009 budget was balanced. If you are consistent, you cannot say today that the budget has a deficit for that reason. No, the budget today has a heavy deficit due to your inappropriate, sluggish, ignorant management of the state finances. That is your fault, the fault of this government, the fault of Leterme.

You can try to shift that 100 times on others, but it is clear that you are shifting today’s cents, today’s debts, onto the next generation. We will confront you with this again and again.

We have already conducted a large part of the debate in the committee. We have had a good and late very hard debate there, for which I thank you.

However, we still do not get an answer to the question, which your colleagues of the majority also asked, namely, what will be the deficit, with the information you now have? Therefore, we do not ask you to look in a glass ball. We also do not ask you to say things that you do not have parameters. We are simply asking the same thing that Mr. Van Biesen and Mr. Bogaert asked in the committee. If one assumes that the opposition asks those questions only to lead opposition, there is something fundamentally wrong with some people of the majority. They are doing very strange things. We do not get an answer to that question.

I make a second assumption, I make only assumptions, I do not even attach a moral value judgment to it. In March 2008, in April 2008, in May 2008, in June 2008, we warned of various aspects of this budget. We said that there was a large proportion of uncertain incomes in the budget. Think of the bet on Electrabel, for which now structures are set up that are shameful. We are 11 December. The Prime Minister, who is no longer here, has lost his bet for a long time.

This is not the only, uncertain measure. A second fact is that we already said in March – and this has been confirmed by members of the government – that the growth rate and tax revenues were absolutely overestimated. This also appears to be the case now. Then we already suggested alternatives, but at that moment it was the prime minister who said: on July 14, the incredible deadline, you will see that everything will be okay, until he resigned. Then there was a budget control, which we have never seen. Today there is something on our agenda, which you rightly say is only about spending.

But, dear Secretary of State, the adjustment of the general expenditure budget is inseparably linked to the evolution of revenue. How can you spend more money without saying how to fill that wallet again? I’m not just talking about 2008. We need to look at this entire legislature, including the years 2009 and 2010. The recovery plan will cost billions. If the majority means what they say – I look again at CD&V, Open Vld and those, including the prime minister, who claim that we will have a structural balance in this legislature – then they should look very closely at how they will pay it, with a deficit in 2008 and a deficit of 7 billion in 2009! You only have a few years to take that right. The recovery plan isn’t just about 2009, at least if you take yourself seriously.

I find it absolutely – I really mean it, from my heart – a shameful work. I would not dare to speak to the people! It’s my duty to make their voice heard here, because it’s about their coins.

As for the anchor principle, during the 2009 budget discussion, our group has already faced you with the fact that it has already more than returned to this government. Everything comes back, the worst first. I think that Open Vld and CD&V should look well in their own heart.