Proposition 53K3409

Projet de loi modifiant, en vue de transposer partiellement la directive 2011/85/UE, la loi du 16 mai 2003 fixant les dispositions générales applicables aux budgets, au contrôle des subventions et à la comptabilité des communautés et des régions, ainsi qu'à l'organisation de la Cour des comptes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 27, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive European accounting system stability pact budget policy budgetary control budgetary procedure budgetary equilibrium coordination of EMU policies national accounts national planning national implementing measure public accounting regional planning regional accounting national budget social security

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LDD

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 ¶

March 26, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Christiane Vienne, the rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there is a huge interest in the ⁇ important bill that is presented here and which we will vote about so soon.

Colleagues, all the madness on a stick, I will not do the work of the committee again. Nevertheless, I would like to repeat some of the comments we made in the committee here in the plenary session. I would also like to describe them in more detail.

We have three fundamental comments on the current bill, which I have already mentioned in the committee. The third comment may be slightly different.

First, the timing of the bill is quite late. I will return to that immediately.

Second, as regards the content of the draft law submitted, I must thank the Minister for having accepted a clear amendment from the opposition.

My third observation concerns the way in which the current majority considers such essentially purely technical bills to be dealt with. Especially the PS, in one way or another, always succeeds in connecting an ideological debate with it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to point out something.

The draft law in question is actually the transposition of a directive of 8 November 2011 laying down rules for the budgetary frameworks. In short, the design is a transformation of the renowned and renowned sixpack. It concerns in particular the systems for budgetary accounting rules and statistical reporting, procedures for the preparation of forecasts and budgetary planning, specific numerical budgetary rules and other matters.

Colleagues, there is no need to argue that the reform of economic and financial management within the European Union with the six-pack was in fact essential and still is, even given the dependence of the different economies within the euro area. It is therefore incomprehensible that we stand here today, to approve again a draft law, which is a transposition of a directive dated November 8, 2011, which was three years ago. In fact, the transposition of that directive ceased on 31 December 2013.

That means we were back too late. It is also so. Belgium was defaulted on 24 January 2014 due to that non-transposition.

For those of you who think it’s always on the N-VA, I want to make a small comment. In fact, it is a bill that has an impact not only on the federal budget, but also on those of the states. I have received a letter, dated 21 March 2013, more than a year ago, from Minister Philippe Muyters, the Minister of Budget of the Flemish Government, to the Federal Minister of Budget, concerning the implementation of the European regulations on budgetary supervision and the resumption of the working group established at an interministerial conference on 27 March 2012.

Thus, it is a letter from March 2013 concerning a working group established on 27 March 2012. I quote from it: “In implementation of the decision of the Interministerial Conference of 27 March 2012, a first meeting of the FOD Budget and Management Control was held on the transposition of the Budget Framework Directive.” In implementation of the agreements reached, on 18 June 2012 a position of the Flemish Administration was transmitted to the Federal Administration. Then nothing was heard about it.”

Therefore, we are talking about a working group that was established on 27 March 2012. The Flemish Government, which is doing its job, delivered its views on 18 June 2012, almost two years ago. On 21 March 2013, she had to urge the Government to resume working with the Working Group. I read further in the letter: “Given the short transposition period for the Budget Framework Directive, the importance of timely implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Stability, Coordination and Governance and the need for good agreements to be reached in implementing the two-pack, I would like to urge to resume the work of the above-mentioned Working Group as soon as possible.”

Today we are here after a breakdown. Now it will come, but what is revealed? This brings me to my next comment, namely, the content.

After all, in terms of word usage, it turns out that some things are not what they should be and various obligations are imposed on the federal state and the communities and regions. Thanks to the acceptance of our amendment, that problem has been resolved in the meantime, although the PS really did not get it over his heart and had to abstain. The PS thus prefers to leave mistakes in the legislation than to grant us something. Therefore, the content was again not 100% in order, while, in addition, it was still too late. That is, of course, a pity.

That brings us to the next point. This is a purely technical bill. It is the transposition of a directive which, among other things, sets out when the general accounts should be submitted, who should control them and how the audit should be carried out.

Ideologies also stand in the way of each other. This is noted, for example, by the fact that the transposition of the Directive is used to add a set of amendments to it in relation to the establishment and destruction of a number of public funds. However, this is a very different discussion. This is also attributed to the fact that apparently there are still differences with regard to the certification by the Court of Auditors, one of the requirements under the Directive, while that is slightly touched in the draft law.

In reviewing the draft law, the State Council notes that public social security institutions should also be included in the certification by the Court of Auditors. Where does it actually come down? Accounts must be checked. This must be certified. It concerns not only the budget execution of the federal state and the communities and regions, but also of the institutions of social security.

The government has chosen not to do that. She prefers not to have a certification in the field of social security. I can imagine something about it. I can imagine that the government would rather have no control over social security spending.

However, the answer is somewhat surprising. According to the government, the directive does not require certification. This is according to the letter. It was, of course, the intention that what the government spends would also be globalized in one way or another. However, this does not happen. The Government further states that the legislature already provides for the certification of the accounts by a business auditor for the social security institutions of category D and the public social security institutions.

What does that mean? What does a business auditor do? A business auditor checks whether the accounting has been done correctly, or whether any expenditure made effectively in the accounting is accounted for by a piece. I have yet to meet with the first auditor who is doing what the Court of Auditors is doing, that is, checking whether the expenditures are being carried out in accordance with the budget. We also asked a question and submitted an amendment.

We will not submit it again, because it will still be sided. We had submitted an amendment to the committee asking that, if it was not possible for each institution individually, a certification could be made for the overall outcome of social security.

I repeat the question I asked in the committee, but which I do not feel was answered 100% by the minister: at what level will there be certification?

I do not think that the corporate auditors who control social security can do that. Can you tell me how to obtain clarity on the implementation of the social security budget?

In connection with the certification of the accounts of the federal institutions of social security, the State Council noted that the internal audit, registered in Article 31 of the Act of 22 May 2003, does not cover the federal institutions of social security. However, the legislator already provides for the certification of the accounts by a corporate auditor for the social security institutions of category D, as designated in Article 13 of the Act of 16 March 1954 on the control of certain public utility institutions and public institutions of social security, as designated in Article 25 of the Royal Decree of 3 April 1997 on measures for the responsibility of public social security institutions, in application of Article 47 of the Act of 26 July 1996 on the modernisation of social security and on the safeguarding of the viability of the statutory pension systems. In addition, institutions of category D and public institutions of social security are controlled by government commissioners.

Since the certification of the accounts for the federal institutions of social security is already provided, it does not seem necessary or appropriate to impose a certification by the Court of Auditors as well.

With regard to the certification of the IONs, the interaction between the institutions and the corporate auditor and the introduction of a generic provision in the Act of 22 May 2003, pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the audit of certain public utility institutions, the Minister concerned and the Minister of Finance may, in mutual agreement with the bodies, appoint one or more auditors. These auditors are elected from among the members of the Institute of Corporate Auditors.

The auditors are charged with carrying out control of the writings and explaining them correctly and truthfully. They can read, without displacement, the accounting and accounting, the ordinary, the exchange of letters, the minutes, the periodic report and, in general, all the writings.

With regard to the certification of the accounts, the audits and controls already carried out within the public authorities will be supported by the certification under various provisions.

The certification is a reasonably supported opinion on the regularity, authenticity and reliability of the forwarded accounts. We expect the Court of Auditors to speak clearly, more broadly than the current comments on the regularity, authenticity and reliability of the communicated accounts. The definition of certification has already been defined in Community and Regional Texts. Informal contacts were organized with the Court of Auditors.

The introduction of the new requirement has been welcomed and the accounts will be certified at the latest during the review of the accounts of the financial year 2020. This date ensures that the Court of Auditors has sufficient time to prepare for the new claim. This also enables any government to ensure that its consolidation perimeter for these accounts is covered sufficiently by that date.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for the circumstantial answer.

What is the essence of the whole debate? A clever man such as the general chairman of the Court of Auditors, Mr. Desomer, has cited in a speech that control over the execution of the budget – the accounting must be correct and the auditors can perfectly check it – almost always falls outside the control perimeter of the corporate auditor. In this sense, there is simply no control over the execution of the budget. The Court of Audit itself, at least the chairman, then made a proposal so that this could eventually be done. This could be done, for example, by doing that kind of certification, on the execution of the budget, at a higher consolidation level. However, I assume that this government does not want that.