Proposition 53K3283

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 mai 2003 portant organisation du budget et de la comptabilité de l'Etat fédéral.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 10, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public accounting national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 2, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Carl Devlies, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, colleagues, from time to time, it is good to ask yourself what is actually the purpose of a particular bill. The current bill that is being discussed and will undoubtedly be approved by this majority in full numbers has a dual purpose.

The first objective is to postpone the entry into force of the federal budget legislation, that is, the law of 22 May 2003 on the organization of the federal state budget and accounting for public utility institutions. The second objective is to enable services of a smaller scale, provided that certain criteria are met, to use a accounting system which separates general and budgetary accounts.

With regard to the first objective, I would like to point out that, in my view, it is irresponsible that, eleven years after the publication of a law and five years after the launch of the actual Fedcom system, most of the implementing decisions have still not been taken. Honour who deserves honour, Mr. Minister, you are trying to get in a little bit, but that is happening shell-feeding. Today, in any case, a little more is added to the implementing decisions relating to the Act of 22 May 2003.

We are not alone with this opinion. I can quote the Court of Auditors as follows: “...that the absence of implementing decisions poses serious risks for both the stakeholders concerned and for the internal and external auditor. It is irresponsible that almost five years after the official launch of the new Federal Accounting and Fedcom the accounting framework is not fully covered legally and that the actors concerned still have no certainty about the content of their assignment, nor about their statute and the associated division of functions.”

The Court of Auditors, in its 170th book, calls for greater involvement in the preparation and drafting of amendments to the Act of 22 May 2003, as well as in the drafting of draft laws or decisions that directly or indirectly affect the compatibility and powers of the Court of Auditors. We therefore requested the opinion of the Court of Auditors.

Mr Minister, I hope that in the implementation you will do something with the opinion of the Court of Auditors. He said there was an informal discussion. Per ⁇ everything could get a little more formal, because apparently the Court of Auditors already gave a negative opinion last summer on the second part of the law, in particular the exception for the services of a smaller scale.

In that regard, I quote from the Court of Auditors’ report: “The Court of Auditors considers that the balance sheet does not provide sufficient guarantee for the observance of one of the fundamental principles of the Act of 22 May 2003, namely the obligation for all services of the federal government to record their transactions simultaneously in the general and in the fiscal accounts on the basis of established rights. The consolidation of the provision of services provided for in Article 6 of the draft law in the federal state accounts, which are drawn up on the basis of established rights, may therefore be jeopardized.”

This, of course, raises a number of questions. We hope that our assumption will prove to be incorrect. However, I can hardly imagine that, if one has already invested so much in a system like Fedcom, one tells a number of smaller parastatals and the like, which also belong to the perimeter, that they are allowed to conduct a different type of accounting and that everything is regulated via a conversion table. It could be said that it is more difficult for smaller bodies because of the higher administrative burden, but the opposite is true, Mr. Minister. You also know. It does not solve the administrative burden. They will be required to draw up a table of matching between their accounting plan and the accounting plan of the KB of 10 November 2009 in implementation of the Act of 22 May 2003.

In that sense, as regards point 1, delay is irresponsible. As regards point 2, the exceptions for certain services are not sufficient and they do not provide solutions for those services themselves. This article does not satisfy.

We will therefore vote against.