Proposition 53K2529

Projet de loi contenant le troisième ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2012.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 27, 2012

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 ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to do so, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly look back on the 2012 budget.

The start of the 2012 budget was difficult. Interest rates climbed; there was speculation against the Belgian government paper and there was also a general skepticism about the sanitation readiness of the new government team.

In the initial 2012 budget, an effort of EUR 11.3 billion was achieved. It was a heavy effort, but with a fair distribution between generations, between high and low incomes and through the fight against fraud.

Colleagues, you ⁇ remember that the Court of Auditors acknowledged that the proposed budget for 2012 substantially reformed the state finances. Almost all measures were structural. They would also generate more income and less spending in the coming years.

In addition, there were also structural reforms in employment and pensions, which kept more people working longer. A recent OECD report of 27 November 2012 describes labour market and pension reform as substantial.

Several steps have also been taken by the government in the healthcare sector.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Devlies, I would like to hear you quote the OECD report at the moment you find it convenient.

The same OECD report, which states that the reforms are profound and good, also speaks of an end in the four-year unemployment period. This point is also mentioned in the same report.

I do not know if the other members of the government of which you are part and for which you speak bravely here are aware of the fact that the OECD assumes a choice in Belgium for a termination in the period of the four-year unemployment allowance, to conclude that it is effectively a matter of extensive structural measures.

Mr. Vandeput, we are now talking about fiscal policy. It is normal for me to take the part of the OECD report that relates to the budget. Of course, we can also discuss the labour market policy, but here I make an overview of the 2012 budget.

This is the latest adjustment of the budget and I think it is useful to look back on how that year went on budgetary level in 2012. I will now limit myself to the budget. Of course, the debate can also be held on labour market policies, but I think that is not really appropriate in the context of a discussion on the third budget adjustment, unless the President of course considers otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but if a report is quoted, the report must be correctly quoted. A report two weeks earlier, including from the OECD, clearly stated that there is a ratio of 70 % income increases and 30 % savings, or what can be considered as such.

Mr. Devlies, the specific report of 27 November that you cite specifically gave a plunge to the labour market policy with the reduction to four years. I think it is important to share that for the report.

by Mr. Vandeput will intervene later, so he will have the opportunity to return to it.

I propose to Mr. Devils to continue.

Mr. Vandeput does not say that I have said errors, but that I am incomplete. It is difficult to quote the entire OECD report in a limited explanation.

Let me go back to the 2012 budget. In the spring, the economic outlook deteriorated. A first drastic budget adjustment was urgent. Despite lower growth expectations, the target for the claim balance of 2.8% remained unchanged. In addition, a conjuncture buffer of 350 million euros was set up.

The second and third budget adjustments also provided for additional sanctions. Against the general skepticism, the government managed to reach an agreement.

This week, the National Bank calculated that the government’s financing needs would be 2.8% in 2012. Without policy changes, this deficit would have reached 5%. Compared to our neighbors, only Germany is doing better on the budget level. Our primary balance will again be positive by 0.6%.

The conclusion from this last budget adjustment for 2012 is that the government’s budget is fully on track.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly replicate the words of Mr. Devlies. I like international comparisons, and we have made international comparisons too. Even people who are much smarter than me have made such a comparison. They determined that the Netherlands with the same task burden would have a budget surplus of 2 %. Germany would have generated a surplus of 4 % with the same measures. This is what Belgium does structurally for its future. I think I’ve just been clear about how our children will evaluate the great budget work of 2012 in the future.

I would like to talk a little about the current draft law involving the third adjustment of the 2012 budget. This third adjustment was actually announced as a technical adjustment, an adjustment to make a number of adjustments for wages that will be paid later but still need to be charged in 2012.

We were also preparing for this technical budget. We have asked the Minister in the committee a dozen questions about errors in that technical budget. We have not received a response to this. As is often the case with this government, the poison was in the tail. The government delivers a piece of paper and then comes the bus with amendments that are pushed through the throat very quickly.

The poison this time was called Dexia, which now needs 2.9 billion euros very quickly. By the way, you also know that if all guarantees ever have to be paid out, the government deficit rises to 160% of GDP. It seems to me normal for Parliament to be involved in the fact that the government is again committed to €2.9 billion for Dexia in this regard to keep it up for a while.

In this regard, however, a number of marginal remarks should be made.

First, Mr. Chastel has little to do with the whole discussion around Dexia, on the fact that after that he must register as an accountant. He does not have much to do with the decisions. He wants us in the committee to believe that he doesn’t know too much about it. However, it is clear that in some way our portfolio will become 2.9 billion lighter by the end of the year. This is then technically sold as a measure that we must include in the budget. We must do that, we cannot spend what is not included in the budget. Furthermore, it is sold as a measure that will not actually affect the balance for this year. Our balance would therefore remain 2.8%.

However, Eurostat found it necessary to sign our government on this. The European rules say that a participation, in any form, can be included outside the budget if that participation will ever be able to book a return on investment, a return of funds, a return on investment. Eurostat has informed our government that it has great doubts as to whether this way could ever yield a return on investment.

Let us be very clear, the French who have also made their share – ⁇ too little, but yet – and thus intervened in this story, book this in their budgets. That is to say, they will be charged this year, as Ireland has done in the past in interventions for the banks and as other countries have also done. They say that this is a food they should swallow. Their budget balance is compromised by it, but they know what they are doing. This government does not know that. Our government does this outside of the budget, despite receiving a letter from Eurostat.

I would like to quote Minister Vanackere in response to colleague Dedecker in the committee. He says that Eurostat indeed sent a letter on 27 November to the Institute of National Accounts on the recapitalization of the Dexia Group. He, like some of his colleagues, received a copy of it. Mr. Minister of Budget, I think you in the committee were not quite sure if you had that letter. At the end of the day, I was told that there was a letter. I do not know if you have received a copy or not. I would like to point out the reasons for whether or not to be included in the budget. It follows that Eurostat clearly expresses the following concern. The letter is in French, so I will read it like this.

"The main reason is that there is certainty about preferential shares that states will receive in exchange for their capital contribution."

It is clear that Eurostat is questioning the expected return of the funds spent today. In fact, Eurostat says this should be included in the budget. In addition to all the efforts required and all the taxes levied, 2.9 billion more on the budget would be a disaster for the Di Rupo government.

It must be clear that we do not approve this way of working and will vote against it.

I have a very specific question for the Minister. As far as we have understood, Minister Vanackere was quoted as saying that this is only a preliminary opinion that would still be discussed, followed by questions and answers. I think I also heard that Eurostat had to get a response before 12 December, yesterday. I suspect that you have taken note of the message sent by the government and would like to hear from you what was answered to Eurostat. Has Minister Vanackere remained with his position? According to the French, it is an expense they have lost, while you still want us to believe that that money will someday come back.

I do not share your optimism. I find it hard to understand your self-satisfaction; the 2012 budget means the abolition of tax aid to the isolation of houses and all the jobs that accompany it, the decision on the degressivity of unemployment benefits, the decisions on pensions that will gradually do very much harm to our fellow citizens, and further disinvestments towards the SNCB.

You are talking about sanitation: sanering! It is a beautiful word, sanitation, but you do not do sanitation, but massacre to the trunk! You are harming both our social model and our state’s ability to invest to capture the jobs of tomorrow and give a perspective to our fellow citizens. It is not enough that a budget is in balance or tends to balance for a public authority, the federal state, to have done a good job.

We will be able to resume this debate in a complete and contradictory way at the time of the presentation of the figures of the 2013 budget, which gradually shows its true face, ⁇ within the framework of the program law.

The important element of this third budget adjustment, as often according to the method of this government, is an element arrived by amendment. This is the amount of 3 billion euros registered in view of Belgium’s participation in a new recapitalization of this crazy ship that is Dexia.

These 3 billion are added to an already impressive bill. The banks will have cost our fellow citizens enormous sums of money without being able to assert with certainty that this will be the last time that we, Belgian citizens, will have to put our hand in the wallet to repair the banking folly.

And in the meantime, we are told that there is no money for effective social policies, such as addressing the challenge of aging or building rest homes, or somewhat ambitious rail transport mobility policies, still federal competence, or economic and industrial redistribution policies that allow us to present prospects.

The persistent impression that is ours and that of many observers is that we continue to fill a hollow pot!

It is also the opinion of Eurostat that considers, Mr. Minister of Budget, that this is a spending for 2012 and not a sustainable investment. This is all but anodin at a time when the budgets of European states, including ours, are subject to maximum pressure in the event of a deficit with very heavy consequences.

When we discussed this in the committee, you told us – for me, this is an important element – that you had not received a copy of the letter sent by Eurostat to Mr. and Vanackere. I hope that you have been aware of it since then and that you will be able to answer the questions that we have asked in committee and remained then unanswered. What exactly did this letter contain? What was the attitude of the French government in this regard?

Indeed, two different versions exist within your government. The Minister of Finance says that we have an agreement with the French state to present this expenditure as an investment expenditure. Your colleague in the government, Deputy Prime Minister, your party colleague, Mr. Reynders, refutes this element and says, on the contrary, that for the French, it is a matter of registering the amount in expenses. This obviously does not have the same impact depending on the economies of each country. Beyond what the Eurostat mail contains, what was the Belgian government’s response?

We will vote on a reinvestment in Dexia, or a spending in Dexia, of 3 billion euros and we do not yet know how it will be accounted for in our budget. This cannot be resolved, my colleagues.

The reforms undertaken at the Belgian and European level – despite the self-satisfaction of the majority in this matter due to the agreement reached tonight at ECOFIN – are far too slow and too superficial to restore the confidence and security of the banking sector, to bring it back to its basic or how important business, namely to extract the savings to lend it to the real economy, to the citizens who want to build a house, to the companies who want to invest.

We estimate, from the beginning, that the Belgian negotiators made an enormous mistake by accepting to assume, in the amount of more than €50 billion, the risks generated by Dexia, mainly due to the madness of the greatness of its leaders and the wrong choices made by its French bank DCL. This situation puts us in an impasse. Whenever a threat weighs on Dexia’s future, whenever we say that Dexia will go bankrupt and that guarantees will need to be activated, we have to put our hand back on the portfolio, this time by paying 3 billion euros. When and where will this stop?

This is mainly because we challenge the initial decision made by a government in current affairs, without the opinion and approval of the Parliament to grant as many guarantees to Dexia, and because there is no clear commitment either from the current Dexia executives, the Governor of the National Bank or the Minister of Finance to say that this recapitalization of Dexia will be the last that we will not vote on this third budget adjustment for the year 2012.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, it should have been expected, a third budget adjustment is filed, probably because the government has poorly prepared its previous budget copies. Nevertheless, you had told us, when discussing the second adjustment, that a third adjustment would not be needed. You already announce, with some delay, your agreement on the 2013 budget but it is based on a false hypothesis of growth. Maingain spoke about it recently. We are here in December 2012 to ask you about a third adjustment of your budget. This is already the fourth mount of this budget, and one can wonder if it really resembles a serious job.

In addition to these successive budget adjustments, it cannot really be said that it ensures that we reach the 3% deficit target in 2012. Mr. Minister, you came last week with amendments, and not the least, to the third amendment proposed. You have injected €2.9 billion in equity, or 53% of Dexia’s total recapitalization, which is not a small deal – I had the opportunity to report this to this tribune recently. Everyone agreed that recapitalization was necessary given the bank’s net loss of 1.2 billion in the third quarter of 2012. What worries me, and my colleague Gilkinet has just referred to it, is the content of the mail sent by Eurostat to Belgium.

If recapitalization is envisaged in the Expenditures component, as suggested by the European Statistical Office, the trajectory to return to balance will be more difficult. We are currently talking about a possible deficit of 3.6% instead of the 2.8% of GDP planned by our government.

I hear that the recapitalization of Dexia is an investment, not a cost. This is contrary to what our French neighbors say or do. But it is true that our government had stolen to rescue some banks in 2008 and that Europe had approved the accounting treatment of all the operations.

Therefore, the intervention of the Belgian State, as proposed in this third budget adjustment, is the logical extension of the decisions made in 2008, but notable differences are to be highlighted. Among other things, Dexia is no longer what it was before, since the creation of Belfius.

The likelihood of a return on investment has therefore greatly decreased. It is therefore normal that this type of recapitalization is not conceived as an investment, but rather as a cost.

As for the transaction as such, France and Belgium will recapitalize Dexia in the amount of 5.5 billion. Belgium will make an injection of 2.9 billion euros. France, on the other hand, will supplement the amount by contributing 2.6 billion. This represents a expenditure by Belgium of 53% of the total recapitalization.

In 2008, federal and regional authorities and Belgian shareholders invested €3 billion and, in total, ⁇ €6.4 billion.

Compared to the historic 50/50 distribution key, the effort made today in the context of the recapitalization of Dexia costs Belgium 165 million euros more. On the other hand, the distribution of state guarantees was modified: 51.41 % for Belgium; 45,59 % for France and 3 % for Luxembourg.

The ceiling of definitive guarantees was reduced from EUR 90 billion to EUR 85 billion. This is indeed a positive element!

As part of the topical questions, I asked you a question, which remained unanswered. In my opinion, it would have been welcome and not superfluous, to conduct an audit of the current situation before re-injecting those 3 billion into Dexia. This would allow clear and rational acts to be made, in order to avoid reflocking Dexia to infinity, since nothing tells us that, within six months, we will not have to practice exactly the same operation. I hope you will answer me today.

Finally, it might be a good tone for Parliament to know the details of the government’s response or the arguments it had to submit to Eurostat before 12 December 2012 to argue that the recapitalization of €2.9 billion for investment rather than expenditure was current.

In addition to Dexia, I must also unfortunately find that the third adjustment does not correct past budgetary errors. After three adjustments, the situation in Belgium is barely recovering. BNB confirms: economic growth will be worse than anticipated. For 2012, we are talking about a 2% GDP contraction. The last quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 are likely to be characterized by negative growth. This is evidence that the government has not been able to take steps to restore confidence.

Restructuring, bankruptcies, job losses – not to mention the 10,000 direct and indirect jobs removed as a result of the shutdown of Ford Genk – can be clearly stated that these events undermine consumer morals. The National Accounts Institute also stated that growth is still at a dead end. Companies are in very great difficulty: they decreased in the third quarter of 2012 their gross formation of fixed capital by 0.3%, and drawn from their stocks whose variation contributed negatively, up to - 0.2% of GDP growth.

What did you do to solve this problem? As far as I know, not much. I do not see any rebound plan in this third budget adjustment. You will tell me that you have thought about it for 2013. Meanwhile, this plan has not yet been adopted.

Can we talk about a real recovery strategy? We have witnessed tax increases and tax aid abolitions; bad news has accumulated throughout the year. But we have not seen any coherent recovery strategy. It is not, it seems to me, by raising new taxes without preventing boosting measures that you are going, as you said in 2012, to dope our economy – what everyone expects in our country. It is true that you propose, despite all, 300 million euros in the budget for 2013, but that represents only one per thousand of GDP. Ultimately, it is not huge.

It is therefore urgent that you commit to developing a clearer long-term vision, because it will be the only vision capable of promoting economic activity and growth, and it is in this way, Mr. Minister, that we will be able to boost our companies and create jobs.

Mr. President, I will answer Mr. Vandeput in writing to his technical comments.

In the case of Dexia, the Belgian government had to respond to Eurostat for yesterday. A government delegation, in this case the representatives of the Minister of Finance and SPF Economie, visited Luxembourg yesterday to defend the argument of Belgium, considering, since the government obviously did not change its mind, that this was indeed an investment. As you know, this was a preliminary opinion from Eurostat. We will probably have its final opinion in a few months. We are optimistic: we really think that, as in previous cases, this should be seen as an investment and not as an expense to be credited to the budget.

Finally, I would like to say to everyone who talks about the BNB report, that this report also evokes 2012; this is true. by Mr. Devlies mentioned it. He mentions above all that the goal set by the government a year ago seems achievable, i.e. a balance to be financed at 2.8%.

Mr. Minister, you were quite incomplete in your answer. I had asked what exactly the arguments would be used to defend the case. The fact that you are an optimist, of course, extends you to honor, but I suspect that even a strut is still optimistic about the outcome, at the moment he puts his head in the sand.

I note that this government, when it was about Europe, was about 14 o’clock 30 o’clock rejoicing over the historic steps in the control of banks. Europe, however, also says that we should be careful with what we are doing and that we should also look at what France is doing. I assume that your prime minister’s great friend is less optimistic, because they book it in a different way. We will see, but I think we are playing with fire. You’d better be honest with yourself and book the amount in a correct way.

Mr. Speaker, I told the tribune what I thought about the budget year and I will not repeat it. I asked a number of questions to the Minister for which I did not get an answer. I am unfortunately accustomed to this. If I have only one answer, I would like it to be for this specific question. Mr. Minister, the meeting with Eurostat took place yesterday, so you have fresh information on the subject. What is the final position of the French State regarding its share of recapitalization in Dexia? Is this a cost or an investment? Two versions are circulating within your government on this fundamental issue! It seems to me difficult to imagine that Eurostat accepts that Belgium considers it an investment and that France considers it a cost. The fact of being on the same line and getting the same decision from Eurostat seems to me to be the logic itself.

What is the position of the French state in this case?

Mr Gilkinet, as far as I know, the position of the French government is the same as that of the Belgian State.

I agree with Mr. Mr. Gilkinet on the position of Eurostat. I did not receive a response regarding a possible audit of Dexia Bank. I hope that we will have an answer to this question very soon.

I simply take note that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is wrong in what he claims. I hope this was just a distraction in his interview with La Libre Belgique last Thursday. I am surprised by the fact that within the government, there are so many different interpretations and positions on the question, ultimately very clear, of whether France considers it an investment or an expense.

This may be a translation problem.

I want the Minister to believe that the attitude of France is the same as that of the Belgian government. It is then only strange that France deals with the inclusion in the budget differently than the Belgian government, but that will also be certain again Belgium.