Projet de loi contenant le quatrième ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2011.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- CD&V Leterme Ⅱ
- Submission date
- Dec. 2, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- budget national budget
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- Groen Ecolo VB
- Abstained from voting
- ∉ N-VA LDD
Party dissidents ¶
- Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
- Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
- Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
- Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶
Dec. 15, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Steven Vandeput ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Committee met yesterday on the third and fourth adjustment of the budget.
The two amendments were discussed together. I would like to present here the report for the two bills. My presentation will also address the two projects together.
The Minister introduced the draft laws. There were a number of measures: an increase in the dead hand due to the final commitment of the grant, an increase in the civil list due to the index adjustment, an increase and adjustment of the grant to the City of Brussels due to the index adjustment, the regularization of the budget advice 3220 and 3221, the compensated increase of the grants to international institutions due to fluctuations in the exchange rate and the liquidation credit for conflict prevention, the increase of the appropriations for the prison in Haren, the grants to social security and an increase in the grants relating to foreign students as a result of inflation.
During the discussion, there were presentations of Mrs. Rutten and of myself. In the article-by-article discussion there were three amendments by the government: one in connection with the FOD Finance and two in relation to the credit of the Regie der Gebäude.
The amended draft was adopted in the committee with ten votes for and four abstentions.
Until then the report and then now my brief explanation, because I have understood that there is another important meeting ahead.
As you know, we exchanged opinions on a number of issues. I will not repeat the arguments we have cited in the committee.
I would only like to mention before the report that, with regard to our questions on the audit of the clearances, you have confirmed, also by the Court of Auditors, that you will ensure that that audit will take place seriously and that the FEDCOM system should in no way be used as an alibi for the improper performance of such checks.
We will soon be able to substantially exchange thoughts in the committee on the limitation of liquidation appropriations, without touching the commitment appropriations, in order to reach a final vision.
Regarding my other questions, I would like to repeat a question to you here because it remained unanswered, while there was nevertheless an answer promised in the committee. This is about the grant to the city of Brussels. According to the explanation, it would be the amount of the index, but according to the tables, it is an increase from 97.75 million euros to 102.76 million euros.
That is more than 5%, and is, in our opinion, more than the index. We have therefore requested to obtain the exact calculation of that increase. Otherwise, we can only conclude that again Brussels gets more than it deserves.
I look forward to your answer.
Our group will not support this draft, but will abstain.
Minister Olivier Chastel ⚙
The control of commitments plays a major role in the expenditure process. After all, it involves checking the regularity at the end of the process, just before the commitment or liquidation of the expenditure.
The law of 22 May 2003 does not provide for the maintenance of this position. In the long run, it should be replaced by effective internal control within the FOD.
In 2008, the internal control was not yet sufficiently expanded, so it seemed more cautious to keep this service in operation. When the law of 22 May 2003 came into force, it was therefore decided to retain the position.
I stand behind this caution. As long as the internal control is not really in place, this service will be ⁇ ined. In the longer term, commitment auditors will continue to play a major role in the certification and maintenance of the FOD’s internal control systems.
With regard to the second question on the method of calculation of the grant to the City of Brussels, my administration has prepared a note on this subject that I can deliver to you.