Proposition 52K1925

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2009.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

April 1, 2009

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 ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.
• Bart De Wever (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Freya Van den Bossche (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

May 14, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I am responsible for reporting to you the bill containing the adjustment of the budget of the Roads and Means and the one containing the first adjustment of the general budget of expenditure for the year 2009.

Our Committee on Finance and Budget met twice in April and was able to benefit from two extremely interesting presentations: on the one hand, that of Secretary of State, Melchior Wathelet, who gave us the scope of budgetary control and, on the other hand, that of the Minister of Finance on the economic evolution not only in Belgium but also in the whole world and in the European Union and on the revision of the estimate of revenues 2009.

With regard to these two exposures, as the situation changes so much over time, I propose that you refer essentially to the documents. Let me now go directly to the main elements of the general discussion.

During the discussion, MEP Goyvaerts (Vlaams Belang) considered that fiscal control was delayed from reality because it only resulted in an adjustment in revenue and not in expenditure. He also believes that the contraction of the Belgian economy will be higher than the IMF estimates, depending on the evolution of the German economy. Therefore, the Belgian deficit will be worse than expected.

It regrets that no measures to overcome the budget deficit are adopted, not even in terms of the cost of aging. Finally, he poses a series of questions about various measures that he believes should have been proposed.

Deputy Jambon (N-VA) considers that budget control is a sign of the total lack of dynamism and foresight of the federal government. It already denounces the virtual balance of the initial budget and notes that, despite the decline in inflation, primary spending is still increasing by 321 million euros. He hopes therefore that a new budgetary control will be implemented immediately after the regional elections.

The member Daems of the Open Vld refers to the March 2009 report of the Higher Finance Council, which focuses on the four elements that severely limit in the Kingdom the capacity of the budgetary and fiscal instrument for relief purposes. It therefore calls on the government to proceed, after the regional elections, to a rearrangement of the financial structure of the Belgian State and the sanitation of public finances with the support of all levels of power.

MEP Vanvelthoven, sp.a, criticizes the fact that Secretary of State Wathelet is now doing himself what his party has so criticized under the violet coalition, namely postponing charges to the future.

MEP Van de Velde calculates that the 2009 deficit will amount to 3.4% of GDP of which 20 to 25% result from the relief plan and the inter-industry agreement. It also regrets that no estimate of the impact of public interventions on banks has been made. Finally, he denounces the management costs of the Régie des Bâtiments and also states that it is necessary to put an end to the abuses of social security.

MEP De Potter believes that it is not about addressing a structural deficit in a period of economic crisis, but noted that budget and adjustment projects systematically overestimate the amount of revenue.

Finally, Deputy Almaci calls the budget adjustment “disperate,” I quote it, and that it is proof of the defeatism of the government that has decided not to make any effort to correct the situation.

I also have to share the fact that a whole series of technical and punctual questions have been asked to which the Minister and the Secretary of State have answered.

The vote on Articles 1 to 11 of the adjustment of the budget of the Roads and Means, as well as the whole bill, was voted by 9 votes against 3. Regarding Articles 1-01-1 to 7-01-1 of the bill containing the first adjustment of the General Expenditures Budget, no comments were made and they were adopted by 9 votes for and 3 votes against.

I tried to be as short as possible.

Mrs. Speaker, I was waiting for the Secretary of State for a while because he should have some information for me about the notional interest rate deduction. However, we will talk about this later.

Ladies and gentlemen, the government has made a little bit of it again. This is actually the short summary of this budget adjustment. This budget adjustment is not a favour of the government, it came because the first drafting of the budget was hopelessly outdated and too well understood. Dear colleague Verherstraeten, the slogan is rather “ hopeless in difficult times”.

The easiest budget adjustment ever was said. It is the most hopeless ever. These are the words of experts. Whoever reads the report of the Court of Auditors can only see it as a litany of shortcomings – I say it properly. A litany of shortcomings. The lightness of this document is vengeant. As usual, they were not bad. Revenue is still overestimated, the Court of Auditors states, and one is waiting for dividends that may never come. The adjustments are not sufficiently reasonable. The rules for the redistribution of basic allocations were violated. Certain organic funds still have a negative balance – I think of the DAVO fund – while this is prohibited by law. There is also still no structural solution for the DAVO problem, which has been ongoing for a very long time. You might argue that these are peel shells, ⁇ not too important in order of size. We know how relative amounts are in these times of financial crisis. But yet, there is no transparency, no accuracy, lack of detailed calculations and so on. In fact, all that we blame the banks.

In terms of revenue, we see that after a months-long phase of denial, our government must finally face the reality. The fact that our country has fallen into a deep recession translates into that budget and the falling revenues. Yet, although it is said that there is no longer excessive optimism, that revenue remains overestimated in part.

Even the notional interest deduction remains a pain point. The government now claims that the interest cost of it will decrease by 62 million from last year because it is linked to the OLO interest rate.

There was some uncertainty about this during the committee meeting. The Secretary of State has promised me an answer on this subject. I do not know if this answer regarding the cost price of that notional interest deduction in the 2009 budget is there in the meantime?

This is about the difference of intrestlast in relation to the notional interest. The basis remains the same in the different tables. The difference in interest has a repercussion on the budgetary impact of the notional interest and that is the difference of those 62 million euros. Normally, a written response was sent to the committee. I think this is also mentioned in the report. If you give me a few more minutes, I will be able to prove that the answer was really sent.

I thank you.

In any case, this implies that of the EUR 259.2 million, which was originally registered, EUR 62 million would be deducted from interest charges. We would then come up with a registered burden of notional interest of approximately 200 million euros. If I am not wrong and if this is not contradicted later, I think we should interpret it in that way.

Meanwhile, during the week of discussion of the budget adjustment, an euphoria has come to light that we have also grievously accused the initial drafting of that budget. That notional interest deduction does not create any additional jobs and does not generate any additional investment in the country. Rather, in the press, articles have appeared based on reports indicating that those investments are more likely to go abroad.

Capital injections in Belgian companies reached an absolute record of EUR 125 billion in 2008. This could cost the Treasury in 2009 up to 2 billion euros more than what the notional interest deduction already cost us without creating an additional job and without domestic investments. All this comes in addition to the 2.4 billion euro gross cost that this already generated when drawing up the budget. While the cost of the notional interest deduction is currently approximately EUR 4 billion, after the budget adjustment we see that the cost is also being reduced. It is unimaginable! This harms every imagination because one knows, as since the drafting of the budget, that the mechanism of notional interest withdrawal does not or barely benefits the own economy and that it costs very much money. However, this reality is not reflected in the budget.

Nevertheless, large companies continue to dismiss their employees and close branches in our country. and green! Ecolo and Ecolo have already submitted a bill before the 2009 budget formulation to not abolish the notional interest deduction system but to link it to job creation and investment in the own economy.

We are pro, but under conditions. You have a year to approve this bill. You have had the time for a year to press those costs, which run out of the spray holes and do not benefit our own economy, ⁇ not in these economically difficult times which should be given priority. You have that opportunity, but you do not. Rather, with your budget adjustment, you just move on to the cheerful, old song, and close your eyes to reality. Furthermore, we still have not received the report that was ever promised to us about the evaluation of the cost price of the notional interest deduction of the Minister of Finance.

You close your eyes to something that is ugly, to your own wallet, as government. This does not create jobs. On the contrary, we see that banks, which have been able to generate large profits through the notional interest deduction in recent years, now also discharge their staff. What are we dealing with? The government must stop playing sinter clay for the big companies and the black pit by shifting to the workers and taxpayers.

The Court also says that the situation with the Regie der Gebäude, with the alternative financing of 129.1 million euros, is not really clear. And, as has already been raised in the committee, is this not a shift of the burden to the future? Who will pay it and when? There is simply no answer to that question.

But, apart from that, take the 2008 budget back into your hands. Then we were promised that there would be a list of the buildings that would be sold, whose revenues, by the way, were already in that budget. The sale would generate 100 million euros. The government did not yet know which buildings would be sold, but what that sale would bring. The Court of Auditors now notes, in the case of budgetary control, that that list is not yet there – we have never received them – and that even those 100 million euros of income are not there – of course, because if one cannot determine which buildings one sells, one will also find it difficult to generate income from them. This is simply the creation of a virtual budget. That is simply accepting your own wishes for love, bringing again wishful thinking to unprecedented heights.

I will not go into all the details. It is so sad. Moreover, we have already had so many low points that the attention for that kind of thing is becoming more and more weak, that those who call the hardest for balance, now the hardest silence, when it comes to it.

On the spending side, the government is making the wrong choices. and again . Despite the fact that it has been stated several times that there would be effective work on green taxation and so on, what do we see? Despite the fact that in the countries around us there is a growing awareness that the greening of the economy is a necessity and that even the VBO has proposed a “green deal”?

We see that this government continues to shrink to the economic conceptions of the last century, in the classical sense, which have long proven their bankruptcy. Everyone understands this, except our center-right government. I give two speaking examples.

The item “refundable advance for Airbus research programmes” will be added to €10.1 million. That is an increase of 70 percent. To cover Airbus’ research and development costs, an additional €11.6 million will be added. That is an increase of 152 percent. The aircraft, colleagues, is the most polluting means of transport, but the government continues to spend cents on it even in difficult times. For the same trip, a plane emits 40 times more CO2 per passenger than a train.

Let us compare that to the contribution to the NMBS in the budget. The contribution to the NMBS for domestic passenger transport decreases by €56.2 million or 6.1 percent. Expressed in Belgian francs is that 2.2 billion francs less for domestic passenger transport, at a time when many hundreds of thousands of passengers are already suffering from the many train delays. I myself take the train every day, on the line Antwerp-Brussels. I invite the entire government to take the same path with me once a month.

Also, the contribution to Infrabel for the maintenance and management of the railway infrastructure will be reduced by 17.9 million euros or 8.2 percent with the budget adjustment. The State’s participation in the capital of the NMBS for the financing of investments is reduced by 11.4 million or 2.1 percent. Everyone says that rail traffic and modal split are crucial for our economy, but the figures prove the opposite. The figures prove that one proves only lip service on green themes. When it comes to it, in the hard numbers, one always chooses the old solutions again.

The train is a means of transport that emits much less CO2 than road transport or aviation. Improving rail transportation can reduce the slides. Every day hundreds of thousands of people like me take the train to go to and from their work. The railway deserves additional investments. These investments are sustainable. They are good for travelers, create jobs and are therefore also good for the economy.

In addition to the leakage of the reserves, we now see this. By reducing just those budget items, the government shows that it prefers to help the major aircraft manufacturers and pleases rather than courageously paving the way for a more sustainable Belgian economy. There are such examples.

Colleagues of orange-blue and of the PS, if you then press the green voice button, then realize very well what you are doing and for what kind of solutions you are choosing: more money for Airbus, less money for trains, money continues to be wasted on a measure that could be much better framed to be efficient, mist continues to spray about what you do effectively with your coins, the word transparency continues to give a negative dimension, remain inaccurate and continue to dream of numbers that will never be realized.

It should be clear: Ecolo and Green! They will vote against the budget adjustment. Mr. Minister, I have told you every time that you may come and glue the pieces after the others in the press have made great statements.

I hope the government finds its turn soon. We have already lost too much time. I hope that work is done on the framework of the notional interest and that, instead of proving lip service to the green economy, you really choose it. We have no time to lose. We are captured by all the countries around us. It is simply shameful and shameful.

It is a great pleasure for me to talk about the budget. It becomes, as the tradition requires, a "lower song" on purple. Verhofstadt is indeed a forward-looking man. How else can we explain that he had already begun a recovery plan nine years before the outbreak of the financial crisis?

We are not so good at it, and that is the understatement of the year. According to the current budget control, the budget deficit amounts to EUR 12 billion. We look forward to the forecast of the Planning Agency. Maybe it will be more. In any case, the budget control already speaks of a deficit of 12 billion euros.

We see that the primary balance has melted like snow before the sun. The primary balance, the balance outside the interest burden, is about the savings pig of the budget, which under Dehaene and Van Rompuy was about 7 percent. At the time the purple left the ship, that was almost halved, from 7 to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product.

Since that conscious moment, the outbreak of the financial crisis, the aforementioned 3.5 percent has been reduced completely to zero.

Colleagues, we can therefore, on the basis of the indicator of the primary balance, conclude that the damage caused to the budget by the Governments-Verhofstadt is equal to the damage caused to the current budget by the financial crisis.

Everyone is now awake. Mr. De Croo, I will repeat it for a moment, because I see you look very confused.

When purple came to power, there was a primary balance of 7 percent. When purple left the ship, the primary balance was 3.5 percent. Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the primary balance has been reduced to zero. The damage caused by the financial crisis to the budget and the primary balance is therefore equal to the damage caused by the various governments of Verhofstadt.

I would like to read the full statistics here. I see that you are still in the denial phase. So I will expand for a moment.

In 1999, there was a primary balance of 7 percent. Are you still following? So there was a primary balance of 7 percent at the moment when Verhofstadt came to power. When the financial crisis broke out, the primary balance was still 3.5 percent. So: 7 min 3.5 is 3.5 percent loss on primary balance. The primary balance went from 3.5 to 0 percent due to the financial crisis.

The reasoning is, therefore, that the damage caused to the budget by the financial crisis is equal to the damage caused to the budget by the governments-Verhofstadt.

Fortunately, there have been some positive things to be ⁇ since the above moment.

First, the bills are paid more accurately. The unpaid bills, which were still €1.7 billion when Mr. Verhofstadt left the ship, have since been reduced to €600 million. So there was a collection operation of 1.1 billion euros of unpaid invoices.

I take one department, in particular the department of the FOD Economy, SME, Middle and Energy, as an example. At the end of 2006, there were unpaid invoices worth 27 million euros. At the end of 2007, this amount fell to 11 million euros of unpaid invoices. That was already an improvement. The decline continued, as on 31 December 2008 there were unpaid bills worth 6 million euros. So we can see an improvement. Nevertheless, there are still 6 million euros of unpaid invoices at the end of 2008. We are on the right path, but we are not yet fully there.

The previous one is an example. The global figure is that of the original €1.7 billion of unpaid invoices of which €600 million are now open.

Whatever is corrected, are the treasury accounts of former minister Flahaut. You know that at the time that this socialist Minister of Land Defense had a deficit, he didn’t say that the anchor principle didn’t work or that the savings were too stringent for him. He took money from the treasury accounts, a kind of cash account intended to pay for operations in the service of NATO – personnel operations and others. It was a separate pot that was set aside and from which the government was allowed to withdraw money at the moment in which invoices came in, i.e. if there was inning against NATO.

The anchor principle applied to all departments, but apparently not for defense and that account was completely misused by Minister Flahaut, for a sum of 161 million euros. In 2008, this government completely corrected it.

Another topical topic is the sale and rental of buildings. In this regard, our population contains two groups of people. There are those in this country who find 10 percent return on such transactions normal and there are many others who find 10 percent return on such transactions not normal; they find that 6 percent is well paid, that 8 percent is very well paid, and that 10 percent is actually a looting of the state treasury.

It would be good – it is a demand of our group – if those contracts were renegotiated, where possible. There are, of course, contracts with a very long term, but there are also contracts that already expire in 2012. That is the earliest expiration date found and it concerns the receipt office of Ciney, the customs of Luik, the finance center of Luik and another building in Luik. In 2015 contracts in Binche, Namen, Izegem, Harelbeke, Menen, Torhout, Ninove and Kortrijk expire. Some buildings will be released relatively early. I think that this should be negotiated on the expiration date.

The question arises, of course, whether we cannot break such contracts for the sake of good governance? There are contracts with a term of 30 years. Wouldn’t it be wise to get in touch with those people? This is also happening in the private sector. If one feels badly treated as a contracting party in some way, one is indeed weak because the contract is there, but one can contact the other contracting party to see if the contract can not be broken, with possibly a new term and with new negotiations on the amount. I am in favor of this. It will take some courage, but I think that the interests of the taxpayer have been so damaged that it is reasonable to take that step and to consider whether those contracts cannot be broken and better negotiated, in favor of the taxpayer already heavily barred.

Furthermore, it is claimed that I was looking at the past, but it is just about expenses that I find in the budget and budget control 2009. First of all, it is about the acquisition of the Belgian Compensation Fund: which weighs 283 million euros on our budget, due to tricks from the past. By artificially holding the budget back then, 283 million euros now weigh concrete on the present budget. That is sad money. At a time when it is especially difficult, at a time when we are struggling in terms of budget, another gift from the past appears to be coming: 283 million euros for the Belgian Compensation Fund.

The next chapter concerns the effectification of tax debts. The committee that examined the banking crisis has come to the conclusion that this is one of the most destructive things and at the same time one of the causes of the crisis. The governments of the past have also participated in the effectization: an operation of 500 million euros and an operation of 600 million euros. The same principle has led to the banking crisis: one takes a package of debt, one makes a nice packing paper and a strap around it, one sells it over to someone else. That goes four to five steps further, until no one knows what’s in the package.

The purple governments also participated: 500 million outstanding personal tax debts and 600 million of VAT, packed and transferred. I do not know where they are sitting. I see the impact on our budget here: 164 million euros weighs on this budget 2009, again, at the moment when we need it very much, 89 million euros in the direct taxes and VAT, 29 million euros corporate premium and so on.

Nevertheless, the government has made a number of corrections, which means a break with the past. This government deserves credit for it.

The debt rate rises to 92 percent according to budget control. The European Commission expects a 100% debt rate for Belgium by 2010. You are not doing well if you see it like that! It’s a staggering figure, if you’re working on that budget. We are going back to 100%.

Five percent is due to the rescue of the banks. Even today there was again praise for the alert reaction of the government, but that reaction potentially increases the level of debt again.

It was a wise decision by this government to breathe a little with the economy and let the budget go with the economy and let the automatic stabilizers work. That was a wise decision, Mr. Secretary of State. In this way, we willingly do nothing to deficit spending. However, this cannot last forever.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, we also take distance from what the S.pa has said in that regard. We are absolutely opposed to adding another 5 billion euros twice to the deficit. That deficit will already be EUR 12 billion according to the current budget control.

I assume there will be a lot of criticism from your group, but your group is in favor of adding another 5 billion to those 12 billion. It is estimated to be 17 billion euros. For some people, of course, the deficit is never big enough.

I want to reply because you are telling incredible nonsense. It rarely happens that I hear such a thing, and that for the budget specialist of CD&V. The shame red should come on your cheeks.

John Crombez has said that this government has increased the deficit to such an extent that we are unfortunately unable to do more today to address this crisis. We were indeed in favour of increasing the deficit, assuming that this government would at least have kept the current deficit – which has nothing to do with the economic and financial crisis – within its limits. As long as the government has not done that, there is indeed no further room. If this government had done what it should have done, then we could have taken very different measures before the crisis. Then we would have had more money to help companies and people. It is the fault of this government that it has been raising the deficit for two years and that nothing happens in any budgetary control, even before the outbreak of the economic crisis. That is the problem we have today. John Crombez and the Sp.A. have not said anything about this.

I will go into that for a moment. I will come back to the so-called dismantling of this budget. I would like to hear a critical voice on a number of measures, but then we are talking about a few tens of millions of euros. You and I may agree that there is a departure of several tens of millions of euros.

Your representative and list tracker of West Flanders, John Crombez, has spoken about five billion. To be very clear, I quote him: “Both this year and next year, measures worth five to six billion euros each are needed.” So you have no point, because if one asks for those five to six billion extra, that comes in addition to the deficit of 12 billion euros that is purely due to a shortage of revenue.

How are those 12 billion essentially composed? 8.4 billion is reduced income at the federal level, in corporate tax, corporate advance tax and in other revenues. There is a shortage of €2.2 billion in social security because the expenditure is greater while the income is less. In the local governments there is 1.2 billion too short, because everything also has an impact on the states and municipalities. This is the composition of the 12 billion.

If you mean what you say, you will then need to use a table to indicate which part of the 12 billion you would cut out exactly. We are also working on it and I see a few tens of millions of euros that we could cut away in the context you describe now, but you add 5 billion euros.

However, you need to see the order of size well in a budget. After all, you add 5 billion euros, above the 12 billion. That is 17 billion euros. If you ask me why I’m talking about the past, I’m doing it because you don’t learn. You have the tradition of large budget deficits from the past and you want to add another 5 billion euros. That is the reality.

The shamelessness continues at CD&V. It is unlikely. I would like to remind CD&V of one of the many broken election promises. One promise was a balanced budget. We had two years of Leterme and Van Rompuy. In none of those years, even before the economic and financial crisis, a balanced budget has been delivered. That was very in itself. In addition, your Minister of Finance has the tax receipts – we have discussed this in this Parliament – ...

I am talking about your government. I understand that the government is uncomfortable about this.

The Minister of Land Defence, the one who leaves his budget to be scrapped the most, feels called to intervene now. That is incredible!

Er is dus geen budgeting in balance, despite promises aan de kiezer. No budget was in balance. Erger Nog, ...

Mr. Vanvelthoven, please conclude because I think this debate has already taken place in the committee. We are not going to start it again here.

Mr. Bogert, please please conclude soon.

There is no balanced budget. The worst thing that has happened is that the Minister of Finance has estimated the tax receipts unrealistically high. He estimated them more than a billion higher than his own administration told the government and parliament. You know that, Mr. Secretary of State. Why did you do that, colleague Bogert? These tax revenues have been estimated so unrealisticly that one could spend that billion again. That is what I blame this government for. Not only did they not ensure that the budget was balanced, they even made expenses that they knew were not covered. This happened at a time when there was no crisis. As a result, we could not have taken sufficient recession measures today in our eyes, while we could have taken them if your party and your government had made the household book sound.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, I do not want to reopen the debate, just add something.

Revaluation of tax receipts? I will not remember you Leuven. Leuven, election year, advance payments: 15 percent.

You say that before the budget we must take the figures of the administration of Finance. What have we done in the budget adjustment? What figures have we taken as tax revenue in this budget adjustment? Exactly the figures given by the administration. Not more, not less. That’s exactly what you say. Applaud but because the budget adjustment translates precisely into figures what you say we should do, and what we have done in terms of tax receipts. That’s exactly what you just said.

I go to the departments. The government’s reasoning is that the departments do not go beyond the initial budget. However, they are out of the budget for 326 million euros. Mr. Secretary of State, that is a remarkable figure.

Much of the 326 million euros that the government goes outside the budget is related to the relance plan, namely 135 million euros for the reduction on the energy bill, including 4 million euros of operating costs, which I think is fairly high; 26 million euros is for green loans and for loans to companies within the framework of the payment of the corporate premium.

Then there are still 166 million euros of non-related measures that still make us out of the budget. It is interesting to focus on that.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, the discussion that comes now is interesting. You strongly advocate that we should take care, apart from the relance, of keeping the initial budget under control. You said you could find a billion in it. I suggest that you put your laptop aside and listen for a moment.

These non-related measures include security of the European summit for €17.5 million. That is a bill of purple, Mr. Vanvelthoven, which is paid here.

You criticize the government because it goes beyond the budget, but it does this for a single reason, namely to pay your government’s bills.

There is another point where this government goes outside of the budget. This government is going for a good 10 million euros outside the budget on foreign affairs. What is the reason? The reason is the embassy of Tokyo, Mr Vanvelthoven. You sold the Tokyo embassy for a gross sum of 420 million euros, knowing well that there would be another bill of 30 million euros for the reconstruction of the Tokyo embassy on that small piece of land of 2,000 square meters. Under your ministers, Mr. Vanvelthoven, it was decided to write the full amount of 420 million euros into the budget. You also transferred that burden of 30 million euros, which you knew she was still owed, to this government. You are now criticizing this State Secretary of Budget by saying that he goes outside the budget. It is the same person who says that. This is a great shame, Mr. Vanvelthoven!

I would like to make a brief statement because I have not been there for the last four years. Apparently, CD&V finds the example of the previous government so bad that it takes over it itself. I find it a brilliant way of working: condemning others for their lack of ethical content and mistakes from the past, but joyfully taking the worst of the past into the current budget and, in addition, scorning their own coalition partner. I find that magnificent “chief trucks” but above all also incredibly hypocritical, Mr Bogaert, given the criticism you expressed at the time.

You are challenging me. So you say that this government is doing the same as in the past. You should listen carefully to my reaction. I have said that this government is collecting its bills and has paid 1.1 billion euros of bills from the past. It is not the reverse. No bills are transferred to the future. Pay the bills from the past.

I do not know of a treasury account that is abused by Defence. I have no knowledge of bad negotiations in terms of sale of buildings and lease back. I have no idea of a pension fund. I do not know of an effecting of a debt operation. I do not know of any embassy building that is sold in those circumstances. Should I continue or is it enough?

The [...]

Mr. Van der Maelen, I did not give you the word.

I would like this interesting discussion to rest a little calm. However, it has already taken place in commission and, for now, each makes an inventory of what he has done better than the other.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, we may be in a suspicious period. I give you the word for the last time and I ask colleague Bogert to wish to conclude later.

I understand that the liberal chamber chairman does not like to let the opposition speak and that I now get the word for the last time. I regret that, but well, if it is the way of debating in Parliament, that one gets the word only twice, I have understood that one is afraid of it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you two things. First, you can blame the purple government whatever you want, but the purple government has at least made efforts to balance income and expenditure. The question is – and this is the subject of the debate today, and you are silent in all languages – what attempts this government has made to submit a balanced budget.

Minister De Crem, you laugh at the social security.

What we are talking about here is that this government increases the budget deficit and only refers to mistakes that would have been made in the past. The deficit is growing and I have not seen any measures by this government in the past two years to balance the budget or even control the figures.

The worst thing is that we had a budget control in which the government and your party said they had acted on what the figures were. You have made some additional expenses, but for the rest you have acted the figures. These figures are no longer true, according to the international institutions. The government’s deficit is now obsolete.

Secondly, colleague Bogert, you need to think carefully about what I will say now. Our country is waiting for a trust-building signal from the government. What confidence-building signals do I hear from this government? I hear the prime minister say two months ago that he will do nothing to all the important files, Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, state reform, budget, nuclear energy and asylum, in the first half of the year. This is the exact opposite of a trust-building signal.

Another confidence-building signal that you do not give today is the fact that you are hanging on a coalition partner you need here on the floor. (The protest)

No, you talked about the purple government, and in other words, the liberal colleagues, who are now all ashamed to look at a booklet and do not dare to react.

The fact that you are trying to step up to your current coalition partner shows the lack of trust that you have with each other. This is what people are not waiting for today.

However, continue if you think you are doing well. The voter will present the account.

You want me to be silent, but I cannot be silent because this is in this budget control, Mr. Vanvelthoven. You blame this government for inertia. I was very pleased this morning to hear that this government has saved KBC, an important Flemish bank.

I want to add something, Mr. Vanvelthoven. Had you been less stressed with the budget in the past, then our debt level would have been less high and we might have been able to save Fortis. You have to think about this, Mr. Vanvelthoven.

Some would say that one does not need opposition with such a partner.

I would like to look at the future. I would also like to give a small answer to Mr. Bogert. Thick friends, together in the government. Of course, we are trying to conduct a good policy, but I just want to share a few things.

Personally, I do not find it very appropriate, Hendrik, that you write a story here as if the fiscal policy of the previous government, when you were in the opposition, had absolutely nothing to do. This is completely untrue. If you only look at the level of debt and compare it with that in the rest of the European countries, you should know better.

The level of debt is the only independent measure. It has dropped from more than 113 percent to 80 percent in the eight years that the previous government was in power. We have then, with a policy that was expansive and that has caused the primary balance to decline, succeeded in reducing the debt rate by a good 30 percent. That is the real guarantee of affordability in the future.

If you look at the level of debt – you also know that because you know the budget covers well – you know that the level of debt has risen in other countries. Where the gap between our debt ratio was 60 to 70 percent compared to any average, the previous year before the banking crisis had shrunk to less than 30 percent. That is the reality.

Furthermore, you say that more structural spending has come. That’s right, but you need to know one thing. In the report of the High Council for Finance that I have here with me, our tax reduction is noted as a structural expense, Mr. Vanvelthoven.

I am proud of this structural expenditure. As a liberal, I am proud that we have made more than a few billion euros of structural spending, as noted in the report of the High Council for Finance. These are literally tax cuts for citizens and ⁇ .

At that time, when you were still in the opposition, I took your tax letter above. I will not do that again, but in the end it was clear that the citizen paid up to 10 percent less personal taxes at that time. This is the reality of the previous government. Of course, a number of comments can be made on this. Of course, this can also be applied to this government. The point is only, very simply summarized, that the debt has gone from 113 to 80. The difference with other European countries has been reduced to less than half. There were structural spending that we, as liberals, are proud of, in particular more than 2 billion tax cuts. For me, that is the conclusion of the previous period.

However, I would like to talk about the future. It is true – the opposition has a point there, but that point we make ourselves too – that the 2009 budget is not directly a beautiful child, but what do you want? How can a budget be balanced in the current context, with the banking crisis and the economic situation? That is simply not possible. “A l’impossible nul n’est tenu” – “A l’impossible nul n’est tenu” – “No matter how much we want a budget balance, from the liberal groups in general, and the Open Vld in particular, this is simply not possible today.

I now come to the report of the High Council for Finance on the Stability Program. We must do this together. How will we ⁇ budgetary stability in the future? What lines will we stretch out to remedy, given the situation we know now, a deficit of 3 to 4 percent – one can hardly predict it –?

In the end, I would like to point out, for all those who are thoughtful, that a budget deficit of 3 to 4 percent is enormous, but it still stands in sharp contrast with the budget deficits that were recorded several years earlier. If one says that it is an impossible task to draw this right, then it is not correct, for we have once moved from a deficit of 14 percent to a balance, though over a period of more than ten years. I do not want to be positive. I just want to be realistic, knowing that this will require a very significant effort. The policies carried out for this purpose have been different: a policy of steady tax increases to cover the gap, versus a policy that makes the cake larger, resulting in more tax revenues.

The steady tax increase with the non-indexation of the tax scales, was the policy of Dehaene. The policy of trying to increase the cake and lower taxes, which has succeeded, was the policy of purple. This is what I want to continue in this government.

What are the points I would like to highlight from the report of the High Council for Finance on which the government has understood in the meantime to say that a line will be drawn to 2015 for balance? We must look at the opportunities and the threats. I will repeat a number of issues from the committee, Mr. Minister, but I find it important that they be put forward in the plenary session, because the analysis of the High Council for Finance was too limited in my view.

What does the High Council for Finance say?

The Supreme Council of Finance states that four factors threaten our budget.

First, there is our economic openness. Simply put, this means that if we do something for our own companies, the measures taken often benefit more companies outside our country. There is, secondly, the level of debt and, thirdly, the rate of interest, which is related to the level of debt. Fourth is the ageing.

In my opinion, two elements have been forgotten here, which, if possible, are even more important.

The first element is the budget scalp of the federal level. The second element is the lack of official activity.

There is also a third element, which I would like to emphasize. We will have an opportunity in the committee to discuss this further. That is the fact that in our budgetary practice we have often linked a number of fixed expenditure to variable income.

I will give an example. A portion of the VAT is used to pay the social security. If it then goes less economically well, then the result is that variable income has been linked to a fixed expenditure. Social expenditure cannot simply be reduced. However, we will highlight this element at another time.

Now I want to cut the theme of the federal baldness. I have a table for the report. It is good if it is printed. Colleagues, in the table, the evolution of the federal Belgium is well noticeable. It is a very simple table, which represents the two major state reforms in numbers and which tells the proportion of the regions in spending since 1989 and the greater proportion they represent since the Lambermont Agreement.

If we look at the table, we find that at the moment the regions are responsible for state spending three times more than the federal level. Simply put, about 10 percent of primary spending is still federal – we’re not talking about interest rates – and about 30 percent of primary spending comes from the regions.

In other words, if we were to reason very simply and say that on the basis of the spending package accountability is taken in the debt, then between 3.5 and 4 billion euros of interest would be paid by the regions.

Only in the successive state reforms – the wrong reasoning was made by everyone, except by the liberals with the Lambermont Agreement – we should have reasoned as follows: we transfer responsibilities, competencies and resources, but we also transfer the debts associated with them. In that case, we would have a completely different picture.

Is the previous one possible today? No, because budgetarily speaking, all regions will not be able to bear the aforementioned transfer.

Without wanting to enter into polemics, colleague Daems, first of all, your argument is that the states are not held accountable for part of the debt. You say that there is a lot of debt on the federal level, while the states have no debt and that it needs to be corrected. The 1989 Finance Act clearly states that there is a distribution of debt. Instead of giving 100 percent of the funds, it was written in the Funding Act of 1989 that the states received only 85 percent of what was available at the time, and 15 percent was implicitly their solidarity in debt. I just say that.

Secondly, the story that we are going to transfer 4 billion euros of interest charges to the states, is in any case not included in the electoral programs of anyone, not even Open Vld. No one is selling it to the outside world at the moment. If that 4 billion is to be distributed across the states – and let us say that Flanders takes over half of it, 2 billion euros – I do not immediately see in which spending items one will cut at the Flemish level to get to those 2 billion and replace them with 2 billion of interest charges, as you now say. I think that is not realistic.

Third, the budgetary challenge of this government is so big – the budget control speaks of a deficit of 12 billion euros – that even if you would transfer 2 billion to Flanders or a total of 4 billion to the states – the dimensions are still very large.

I predict that – I will give a random example – the state of Wallonia will not be very happy to contribute even 100 million or 200 million euros. You are talking about 4 billion euros to be borne by the states. I think that with those 200 million euros you are already stuck with your vehicle in the sand. The story you want to bring is not realistic. I think that Wallonia will never take 100 million euros, or 200 million or a billion euros extra on its shoulders. The crisis even allows the question: can Wallonia do that?

I am pleased with your intervention. I see that Mr. Goyvaerts also wants to intervene.

I think your reasoning is a little misguided, colleague Daems. Of course, it is always nice to shift the debt burden at the federal level to the states. However, with the Finance Act and the Lambermont region itself, you know very well, you have achieved a state reform through a procurement procedure with respect to the French speakers. That has cost money, without in fact opposing powers. For two years, you have been insisting that there is nothing coming in from the state reform, but of course there is no point in sending more and more money to the regions, if one does not say at some point that they are now also responsible for it.

You know very well that at the federal level there are numerous powers that, according to Kris Peeters, can be immediately taken over by the Flemish level. Do that anyway! This is no longer available at the federal level. Then, of course, you do not have the table that you are proposing now and where you say that it is sad, because at the federal level the greenhouse is becoming smaller and smaller, while the powers remain the same. I therefore propose to remedy that and transfer those powers to the provinces. That might help.

It is interesting to hear the two interventions. The Finance Act. I was there when this was discussed. Gerolf Annemans as well. The amendments came a little later. Then some fell asleep in the room.

As regards the financing law, one of the three loopholes indeed had an advance decrease in the transfer of funds, in particular the financing of district powers. After 10 years, this has changed. While for the first period of ten years it was predicted that one would normally evolve with an increase rate equal to inflation, that is subsequently converted to an increase rate equal to the nominal growth of GDP. In other words, the 15 percent has long been included in the original draft funding law. In the first period it was slightly lower, but then it was switched to the nominal increase of the national income. After three to four years, the so-called aid to the debt was already gone.

For all clarity, I did not advocate that all states should spend a package of spending pro rata on debt repayment, or on debt payment in the form of interest. My point is that the federal level alone will no longer solve the budgetary problem. That is what I want to insist.

If one looks at the distribution of expenditure, one finds that another 10 percent of the expenditure is situated at the federal state, while here we all expect the budgetary problem to be solved for 100 percent by the federal state alone. That is the point I want to make. In other words, if we want to resolve the budgetary situation, both the Finance Act, the Lambermont Agreement and the social security must be properly revised.

These are not my words, but those of the High Council for Finance, which says it in a special way.

That point I want to make here. The Supreme Council of Finance has caused us all to panic when it stated that it had become insoluble, on page 10 of its report. Mr. Bogert and other colleagues in the committee know this. Of course, one has forgotten to read a piece, which I will quote for the good order now.

On page 10 is the following. If that necessary sanitation effort to get to balance in 2015, the path the government has chosen, must be done from the primary federal balance, then 4 billion must be cut from a budget of a little bit a good 10 billion, I will now only say to keep it simple.

The point I want to make is about the passage that follows. I quote: “If the same recovery effort is extended globally and/or to all government agencies to the primary expenditure, including the aging-related expenditure, and excluding the government revenues” – so we stay away from the income, we do not let the taxes rise – “then the average real growth of those expenditure should be reduced to 0 percent.”

What does that mean? Well, the Supreme Council of Finance says: if we simply involve all entities of the State – federal, regional, local, social security – in the sanitation story, then a zero growth is enough – it is a real zero growth: just keep spending as much as before – in a period of four years to reach the balance.

There is, of course, the political problem, and that is the point I wanted to make. After 7 June – before 7 June we all know that this policy is not feasible – there will have to be an exercise that carries all the government lines. After all, raising the illusion that we can balance the budget at the federal level is as aberrant as bringing forward the idea that now at once the regions would take over €3.5 billion of the interest charges.

That is my warning and my point. Politics must convince everyone in this hemisphere – it has nothing to do with opposition and majority – that we will never get there unless all the ranks are involved. From a shell, federal, we then go straight into a problem, federal, where it will then be the social security – we as liberals do not want that – that will pay the bill sooner or later.

Mr. Daems, I follow your reasoning, conceptually, but in the end it’s about who pays the federal deficit. For some part, the federal level will have to save. But the states and the federal level are communicating vessels. If the federal level is discharged for a certain number of billions of euros, someone else will pay for it. It is not a “magic box”, which, through another mechanism of the funding law, suddenly raises a billion euros. If the federal level is discharged for one billion, that billion will simply come to the states. It does not fall from the air. Someone is paying it.

Well, on the French-speaking side, one will not be happy about it. Not on the Flemish side, but ⁇ not on the French-speaking side. So I think your whole story is conceptually correct, but when it comes point by point, there are millions of euros, and what will it bring to the federal level? I think it costs a little, but it is not proportionate to the challenge of the €12 billion deficit.

You will also have to confess color, colleague Daems. You too will have to say at some point, if you want to help federal, what amount you want someone else to pay.

You will have to go to the Flemish Parliament or your representatives will have to say that the federal government has nothing baked of it – I will not reopen the debate of then – that the opportunities were there, but that the federal government has not done the budget technically so well – whatever the reason – and that they must pay. You will have to confess the color. Is it a billion that you want to push through? Is it half a billion? Is it two billion? Is it 3 billion? That is the crucial question.

First of all, this is a very static reasoning. I will return to this, because Mr. Goyvaerts also wants to put his money in his pocket.

I can only endorse it. It is your own Flemish Minister of Budget, Dirk Van Mechelen, who has said that they have already done more than the federal state expected from them. I think they passed 2 billion euros more to the federal level last year than they had to do, from 4 billion to 6 billion.

The reasoning that one is going to put something in charge of the states in order to reach globally does not apply to Flanders, because they have already done more than was expected of them.

I do not know what you can expect from the future Flemish Minister of Budget. Let us hope that it will again be Dirk Van Mechelen, not as prime minister but as Minister of Budget, then you can confront him with those figures.

The two interruptions really testify very accurately to a dangerous budgetary nimby content – not in my backyard, you know. This is actually what I hear. It is said that this is not possible, because it is not possible to do anything else but federally.

Communicating vessels, which works when one naturally departs from the same mass. We need to increase this mass. In other words, it is necessary to increase that level of activity. I will come to that immediately.

What, of course, troubles me with, is that we all doomly accept that in Flanders the personnel expenditure is allowed to increase by 7 to 8 percent, while they must shrink, or that we continue to pay the pension expenditure of Flemish officials. I take that example, because Mr. Goyvaerts cites it. Then it is said that there is no margin or space to conduct a decent conversation about how we can tackle that together, with all the lines.

Let me be explained in Wallonia why the Community has not yet merged with the Region?

Let them explain it to me. Why has the Community and the Region of Wallonia not yet merged? That is a mystery for me. If you do that, you immediately have a synergy of at least 10 percent on that budget. Then one goes from a deficit to, ⁇ , a balance. I want to continue that given. If one does not look at the budget in a creative way and involve all the lines, one does not get out of this problem.

I come to a second element, separate from all entities: the degree of activity. I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because it is not so early, but I would like to add it to the report. It is campaign. We all have to persuade voters, but that should not affect our job here, because we are federal elected, independent of those who want to be regional elected tomorrow.

Increasing the level of activity is another element. I will give a simple example. Over the age of 55, we are more than 10% behind in activity in the countries around us. Imagine that we would have that 10 percent activity rate. Most of them are not officially notified. This is aimed at Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels. Also in Wallonia. I will repeat it in French later, Mr. Annemans. Then everyone will understand.

This level of activity should be increased. There are two major elements of importance. The first element is working on the existing activity. Secondly, one must try to create new activity, because one cannot create it himself.

For the existing activity, one must do something about the wage costs. I am slowly getting tired of the fact that the effort put on the table by the taxpayer in making interprofessional agreements erodes into wage cost increases. We all know that. That is the big problem of the interprofessional agreements we know today. It has improved a little in the last IPA, but what was the reality before it, including with colleagues on the left side in the government? We put a burden reduction on the table, while in the IPA the social peace was purchased with some salary increases.

In other words, there is also room to think about whether we can not find a path where people’s wages increase but where costs should not increase. I have already submitted a track and I will further develop it in one of the following committees.

The employee’s contribution could be used as a kiss. Instead of keeping the wrong remuneration cost reasoning of employee and employer contributions, employee contributions could be reduced over a course of several years. As a result, costs can be frozen. It can then be said that the business no longer pays, but the net wage of the people will rise. This is, of course, the result of the employee contribution. There is a 17% margin that can be used. It can then be said that this leads to less income for social security. That is right. However, those who still agree today with growth rates of 4 percent, 5 percent and 6 percent are irresponsible. We agree on that. In this way, it would be possible to freeze the wage costs, improve the competitive position and yet increase the net wage.

A second example. Mr. Bonte is not present but the proposals have already been put on the table several times. One should measure the opportunity of reducing the social burden from a certain age. Look at each company. From the moment a worker in this country turns 50 years old, he must leave, often because we organize it ourselves. This is one reason why there is such a low level of activity.

The main reason, however, is that the cost of the person versus what he is worth for the company always keep rising. It is not logical that as an employee becomes less productive, he continues to cost more and more. Then one comes to a point where he has to get out, purely for financial reasons.

So just think for a moment. One could say that the social burden should be reduced to zero over a ten-year period, so that, for example, a 60-year-old worker will no longer pay the social burden. If you ask what it costs, there are no costs anymore. If one keeps them, it does anyway, because then they have a higher salary rather than a replacement income and one has more tax income. That is now purely reasoning in terms of investing rather than in terms of the ease of ⁇ ining the systems we have today.

Simply put, cost reduction, burden reduction brings up. This can be explained mathematically. These are two examples that I just give to indicate how after June 7, Mr. Prime Minister, a number of other pistes in that sense should be cited.

I am closing up with three new markets. We all agree on a market. Let us call them the ecological market. If we play them well from the rules and if there are federal tax instruments, then that is a huge growth market. There can be a huge number of jobs created there. Germany has done it and will continue to do it.

That is a good track. The previous government took the initiative, and the current government continues to do so.

There are two other markets. Let me give a simple example: the services at home. Today the system of service cheques exists. Imagine, however, that all services delivered at home – ranging from child care to the plumber to the gardener – are made fully or partially tax deductible for the affected persons. This would have the effect that the entire sector will be washed today and tomorrow.

What is happening now? Do we want to tell each other? How many women in Belgium chew in white? Imagine that tomorrow the cost of the cushion woman could be deducted from the taxes. The service cheque plays a part in this, but does not cover the whole field. There is, of course, a need for proof that this has been paid. The one who receives the coins has the proof and the one who enters the tax also has the proof. If one would make the sum of it, one would make a positive sum for the State. They are also equally creative.

So far, Mr. Speaker, there are a few pistes that I would like to share. I don’t want to wait to give another last clue to our French-speaking and Wallish colleagues, and especially to my colleagues of MR. I always wonder why they are opposed to a regionalization of some taxes. I do not understand that. Today, Zichem-Zussen-Bolder, a small municipality in Flanders, accounts for almost 70 percent of its income. The smallest mayor, the smallest vessels and the smallest municipal council member have a responsibility in the amount of 70 percent of their own income. They have a responsibility to their voters.

The regions have a liability to their voters of less than 30 percent, namely 25 percent. That is not normal. How can one now be democratically logical, how can one now have democratic responsibility if one is responsible for only a quarter of the income? In my opinion, this is a correct argument to think about a system in which the responsibility for parts of the taxes lies entirely with the regions. These taxes can be increased or reduced if you want to. That shameless competition between the two parts of the country does not end because then it is as if the borders with France and the Netherlands do not exist. What is this now for something? That competition distortion is not correct.

Let me give an example a contrario. As a somewhat experienced expert in Wallonia, I would like to give an example. As Waal, I would dare to advocate for the regionalization of corporate tax. Of course, I try to attract the French speakers.

I want the Minister to answer only one question. These are all concerns for after 7 June. Why is Wallonia against the regionalization of corporate tax? The corporate tax in Wallonia raises just 1 billion – and now even less – with only 60,000 companies. I say this somewhat polemically. In Flanders, it generates 6 billion euros with 220,000 companies.

If I were a Wall, I would ask to regionalize that corporate tax. I could then suddenly reduce it from 33 to 1 percent and it would cost me almost nothing budgetarily. That would be a huge competitive advantage over, for example, France; it does not have to be against Flanders.

I am still addressing the Minister, until further order still a Waal. This is a win-win situation. Explain to me why this non-descending attitude persists so as not to consider it. This is an example by which Wallonia would have the opportunity to be the least taxed region of Europe in terms of corporate tax and almost immediately attract hundreds of companies, as Ireland has done after having poorly changed its policies.

This is an example of where the regionalization of taxes could be profitable for all districts, not least the district that is today the most frightening opposite.

Until then, Mrs. Speaker, a number of issues that were discussed in the committee, but which I would like to repeat in order to be included in the report of this plenary session.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the question of when he will persuade his colleagues to regionalize the corporate tax.

I have received a specific question from Mr. Daems. Of course, I have not prepared that answer, because we are in the process of debating the budget adjustment. The question is why there is no regionalization of corporate tax. I will not answer that.

Taking Ireland as an example may not be the best, ⁇ at the moment. I don’t want to take Ireland as an example. I have never been in favour – that is a personal comment – of tax competition between countries or between regions or between systems. I think this is not the best solution. It may be useful in the short term, but in the longer term it is not a good solution.

Therefore, I believe that a European approach to the different tax powers provides more security. This is, in my opinion, a better approach to avoid fiscal competition. But it is an interesting debate that we could conduct together.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, it would be interesting to answer your comment.

In your view, we need to address the issue at the European level, because no competition would be better.

First, this is a strange judgment. Competition is the basis of progress.

Second, the Irish example has been somewhat distorted in recent years. In the economic policy of Ireland, the government has done a number of stupid things. But look at what Ireland did ten years ago. It then drafted a plan to reduce the corporate tax by 3 percent per year. The result was that Ireland has literally attracted thousands of companies. As a result, the country, left out of consideration in recent years, was completely removed from the slope.

I will only give it as an example, but it would not be so stupid from a fiscal point of view to simply consider the previous one. The calculation can be made easily. Let’s say that the corporate tax in Wallonia is halved. This has a budgetary cost of 500 million euros. I guarantee you that not many thousands of companies need to join in order to reach the aforementioned amount of €500 million in new revenue.

I give the above as an idea.

Secondly, you say that the case on the fiscal level needs to be addressed at European level. Before we know it, we are therefore working on the social level, which creates one problem. In this case, our debt level will always bring us a competitive disadvantage. In fact, the other Member States do not have the aforementioned social element. We must therefore come out of the problems in a different way and with a different dynamic.

In other words, it is a track that is worth seeing. That you now, ⁇ politically, cannot answer to my suggestion, I understand very well. However, it is at least a reflection that we will have to make in the period after 7 June 2009.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Daems, I am prepared to conduct the debate without any objection. I do not see your suggestion positively. After all, although I do not have a problem with competition, the competition on the European market must be addressed with the same means for every company. Competition between the regions or between countries on the basis of tax aspects is, in my opinion, not the best way to obtain a serene competition between companies on the single market that has become the European market.

Secondly, I have heard Mr Vanvelthoven point out that there is nothing in the budget adjustment. However, there is the implementation of a new IPA and the fall of the anchor principle. There are also the measures to support the automotive sector and the measures at VAT level, in particular the reduction of advance payments. To say that the measures listed above are nothing, I do not understand.

I agree with Mr. Daems’s reasoning that the level of activity should play an important role in the Stability Pact if we want to regain budgetary balance in 2015. Therefore, the budget adjustment should be read together with the Stability Pact. The level of activity is a very important element of it and should therefore play a very important role.

Mr. Daems, you also talked about transfers, both from the federal state to the states and to the social security. Social security is the budget item that has experienced the biggest increase in recent years. It is a system that has been introduced and costs more and more every year. However, this must be considered in a consolidated manner.

Mr. Bogaert’s reasoning on this subject is that if one billion euros from the federal state is transferred to social security, but is still spent in a consolidated manner, such a balance does not advance.

This should be considered in a consolidated manner. What you say is true. The income of the federal state is not large enough to cover all those transfers. At some point there is a problem. That is clear.

Second, the biggest impact of the very poor growth rate will initially be felt at the federal level. Why Why ? Therefore, everything needs to be looked at in a consolidated way. The federal state is the biggest victim of the very difficult economic situation.

Regarding the growth rate, the committee has repeatedly stated that, according to the Court of Auditors, the growth rate of –1.9 percent is a too optimistic figure. That is true. There were several other estimates, including from the IMF. There is also an estimate from the planning agency. In such uncertain times, it is very difficult to determine an exact growth rate for this year. Therefore, we must remain honest and keep in mind that this can always change. The budget adjustment was made on the basis of a growth rate of –1.9 percent. That is the figure given by the National Bank and the Plan Office and by the other international institutions.

Will it still change? Certainly . Will there be other growth figures from other institutions? and yes. Why Why ? Because it is the biggest crisis since World War II. Strange this year was also the great uncertainty about the situation.

There were three precise questions from Ms. Almaci. I will not discuss the notional interest. He has asked this question several times. She also asked about the 62 million euro reduction of the gross cost of the notional interest. This is due to the reference rate. The reference rate of the notional interest is the OLO for ten years. This increased from 4.35 percent in 2008 to 4.44 percent in 2009. The result in the gross cost of the notional interest is that 62 million euros. That is why this was written in the budget adjustment.

She also asked about the sale of buildings. It was a sum of 100 million euros. In 2008, buildings were sold for 100 million euros. This was the government’s commitment: we didn’t spend more than what was sold. The principle of one stone for one stone was precisely implemented in the 2008 budget and that approach is ⁇ ined.

The last point concerns the amount of 47 million euros to the NMBS.

This reduction in SNCB funding constitutes, in a way, the compensation for the too large reduction in pre-account that the SNCB has benefited from.

As part of the budget adjustment, we have therefore translated the measure of the relief plan relating to the reduction of pre-account and we have budgeted a pre-account reduction amount for the whole staff of the SNCB, but only a part of this staff is engaged in competitive activities. However, the reduction in pre-account is justified only for the competitive activities of the SNCB. The decrease in allocation therefore comes to compensate for the recipe that the SNCB will make, which is linked to the decrease in pre-count. The difference will be used to cover a reality of a reduction in the pre-count for the company’s employees engaged in commercial activities, which is why a reduction in the allocation of 47 million euros was planned. That said, in reality, this decrease is less significant than the recipe that the SNCB will do through the reduction of pre-count. This is rather an increase than a decrease in allocation, which will allow the SNCB to remain competitive. Indeed, having a presence on a market, it would not have been logical that, for competitive activities, the SNCB could not benefit from measures similar to those which may benefit competing undertakings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall that all the estimates contained in this budget adjustment were carried out with the utmost caution. Thus, as regards the dividends of the entire banking operation, a zero amount has been registered for all positions. All these posts were examined with the greatest accuracy, the greatest correction and the greatest caution.

Furthermore, I explained in a committee the difficulty of estimating the revenue that would generate for the State the guarantee related to the risk of the interbank. So we simply resumed the budget adjustment, translation and extrapolation in 12 months of the first two months of the year.

This is to ensure that the figures are kept as cautious as possible as part of this budget adjustment. Of course, the deficit is significant; of course, it will be important at the end of 2009, but I repeat that it would not have been consistent or responsible to establish this recovery plan, recently still positively assessed by the OECD, to reinvest money in our economy while recovering it from another side, that is, to add fiscal austerity to the macroeconomic austerity already present today. The signal would have been neither correct nor consistent towards the population and our ⁇ .

However, I remind you that, from the outcome of this crisis, this fiscal adjustment will need to be read in parallel with the stability program filed with the European Union, not that I am an Ayatollah of budgetary balance by the horizon of 2015, but simply because, without this effort for a return to budgetary balance at this deadline, the crisis would cost us all even more in charge of interests.

That is why we cannot afford to fail to comply with the stability programme we have introduced to the Commission. Without this, once again, the bill would become even more important for the Belgian population and future generations.