Proposition 54K0495

Projet de loi contenant le budget des Voies et Moyens de l'année budgétaire 2015.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 13, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (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. 18, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr Piedboeuf.

Dec. 17, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, the debates in the House of Representatives are often lively, and they will ⁇ still be today. Everyone expresses their beliefs there without fault, without concessions, and I will not fail to do so once again in the coming minutes. However, the political debate, however rough it may be, also demands respect for the one faced, attention to the person.

We all know that you have gone through a ⁇ difficult test in the last few days. You know how sensitive I am. This moment is also an opportunity for me to say it to you and to express to you my respect for the suffering you and your loved ones have endured.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the government, dear colleagues, on 15 October last, I told you, on this tribune, my inner conviction that our country was entering a zone of turbulence. In question, of course, the composition of the government, but also the choice of an economic policy rooted in austerity. I did not think I would say so well. The social protest is of unprecedented magnitude and is declining across all territories of the country. I also believe that if you do not change your shoulder rifle, if you do not adjust your political choices, the movements are likely to intensify. Indeed, resignation is not in the temperament of the inhabitants of this country, nor is it forgotten.

Since mid-October, we have worked hundreds of hours in the commission. The ministers passed their big or small oral. Then there was the review of the budgets and the law-program. The President of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Rompuy, can bear witness to the importance of the substantive debates that took place in the various committees.

For the Socialist group, the only merit of this budget is to enable a clarification of the debate. Indeed, the confused speech, including that of the prime minister, the false-fugit of his majority and the half-truths of his communicants no longer resist, precisely, the reality of the numbers.

To illustrate my point, I would like to return to an announcement that was made by the MR during the election campaign and that he still continues to officially defend. More than an announcement, it is a solution aimed at simultaneously achieving objectives that at first glance seem contradictory: an increase in citizens' purchasing power, a significant decrease in costs for companies and a rapid recovery of state finances with a return to balance in 2016. When we asked him about the credibility of these goals, the MR replied, “It’s easy, don’t worry. Obviously, we were looking forward to being able to read the budget, because we hoped to find the magic formula that transcends the budget reality and that would finally allow us to access this wonderful world where no one should make choices and where everyone should be pleased. It is evident in the reading of the budget that choices have been made and that they cause social tensions, given that they cause a multitude of victims.

In order to reduce the cost of ⁇ , it is chosen to reduce the purchasing power of workers and social subscribers, in particular through the index jump. To result in sanitation, one chooses to sacrifice the federal public services by imposing savings on them, which I would call mortars. In order to re-balance its accounts, the government imposes significant efforts on workers and pensioners, but preserves shareholders – in a way, the large capital, perceived as the golden calf.

I immediately say that these choices, as such, are not antidemocratic. It is part of the classical right-wing ideology. As Didier Reynders recently expressed, with a almost touching lust, “We have the right to be right-wing.” The problem is that, on the French-speaking side, no one has ever defended these choices in front of the voters.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I think you are mistaken on a number of important points. You indicate that this government would make savings on the back of pensioners. This is obviously false! You say that it would amputate the purchasing power of low wages. It is false! Compared to the issue of index jump, this is not the case due to the measures we are taking in parallel in terms of exemption from costs for wages of less than 2,000 euros.

I regret and I see, from this morning, from the beginning of the budget debate, that we continue this debate as it began with the government statement: to please everyone, half-truths, false-fugitive. We are again in the image, in the caricature.

I thought you understood, Mrs. Onkelinx, that a number of Belgians blamed you and the Socialist Party for the excesses you have shown since the government statement. It seems that the lesson has not been learned. We are taking note!

Funny this intervention! In fact, I was precisely going to give examples of communications not in accordance with the truth. by Mr. I almost take a few words out of my mouth.

Here are four examples. Indeed, the government tries to make it seem that the measure on flat-rate charges offsets the impact of the index jump on workers, while this measure is financed by consumption taxes that these same workers will have to pay, and that, moreover, not all workers will benefit from this system of flat-rate charges, in particular those that deduct the actual costs.

Second, the government is trying to make it seem that it is delivering an extremely important welfare envelope and that it will arrange everything. What is not said is that this well-being envelope – this has been recognized in commission – is decreased by 200 million, or even 310 million, if you add the sum you have planned to compensate very partially for the index jump.

Thirdly, the government is trying to make it seem that 30% of the structural effort is made in revenue – we will return to it, myself and several members of my group – while this part of the budget takes on tripatouillages and changes in the rate of tax collection, not new revenue.

Finally, the government tries to make believing that the savings imposed on public services will be done without loss of employment, without decrease in quality, while one understands, by reading the budget, that contractual contractors will have to be fired and that services to the community can no longer be rendered with the savings you are going to impose. A real substantive debate was held in the committee, away from the effects of the hole, and I hope that we will continue today, Mr. Ducarme, examples in support. In a moment, I will give you precise examples of the situation in which a worker or pensioner will find himself.

I do not understand your strategy. You said a few things before the election. You continue to give a whole series of totally false realities. I don’t understand why you persist. There may be, who knows, 120,000 reasons to play Pinocchio. I will tell you in any case that the austerity policy carried out by this government has given rise to an unprecedented protest movement in the recent history of our country. That’s why you and your group are telling outcry to try to give the illusion of balance, to try to hide from the workers that you are conducting the policy of bosses, more precisely of some of them. As a force of the opposition, we will fight to restore the truth. We have neither the means nor the will to control the social movement. You have to be stupid to believe that protesters and strikers would be ready to do all this just to influence the composition of the government. What interests them is not the name of the prime minister, it is the amount of their salary and their pension. They are fighting for their rights and they are right. As an opposition force, we are simply, modestly behind them to support them. One way to support them is to explain the truth about government policy. Whatever criticism that will be worth us, we will do it!

To return to the index jump, I have already said that the index jump is a transfer of purchasing power from workers and social benefits to companies. This choice you make, you do not justify it in the name of the merits of the shareholder or the right of the rich to be ever richer. I think you are too subtle for that.

No, for you, this sacrifice of workers will benefit mainly the unemployed since there will be job creation in the long run. You will have noticed that nobody ever asks shareholders to sacrifice themselves for someone else! The redemptive sacrifice is always for the workers. If "Christ stopped at Eboli," it is certain that he was not invited to some boards of administration. It is !

You are announcing job creation. by Mr. Peeters announced job creation through the index jump. How did he announce it? Because he asked the National Bank, Luc Coene, to do a study. Luc Coene conducted this study. He was executed with the loyalty we know to him.

The first problem is that the study shows that there will not be as many job creations as this and other scenarios, based in particular on the reduction of selective charges, have much more interesting results.

The second problem is that these job creations simultaneously create poverty among especially the social allocators and do not compensate for the decline in the purchasing power of the workers.

The third problem is that the study also shows that your index jump has a catastrophic impact on debt as there will be, by the very fact of the index jump, an impact on the ratio of public debt. Now you are everywhere proclaiming your passionate adherence to European fiscal austerity and it is imagined that you will therefore take additional austerity measures to correct this debt drain. How many jobs will these economic measures destroy? You forgot to ask the National Bank to calculate it. Maybe in a moment of fun.

I would like to add one essential element. The news on the competitiveness front is pretty good. It is expected, thanks to the social partners, thanks to the measures decided under the former government, a very significant decrease in what you call wage disability. Clearly, when the salary subsidies are withdrawn, there will be a margin. Under these conditions, do you not think that ⁇ ining the index jump, while in terms of competitiveness the situation is improving significantly in Belgium, is somehow a provocation?

I ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, with these news on the competitiveness level, with the work that is ongoing in the Central Council of Economy, do you not have a way to go backwards, a justification for not applying this policy of index jump that is so contested and that will massively reduce the purchasing power of workers and social allocators?

Another example is public services. In general, the efforts required by federal public services are of unusual brutality. More than 1 billion in 2015, and more than 2.3 billion in 2018, that’s huge!

Finally, this is also the rupture of the right, the factory mark of the right: its contempt for the public thing, its distrust of the "state service public". Rather, the state is seen as a sum of costs, department by department, which can be eased and which matters regardless of the essential tasks that each of these departments assumes. With fewer costs, it is less state and the right is doing better. And linear costs are the easiest way to make figures and give the illusion of budget balance.

I would add that even the government is not fooled. Each of the ministers realizes that his department will have the worst difficulties in recovering from such a brutal economic shock. Moreover, in commission, almost every minister went there from its use of interdepartmental provision.

We obviously do not criticize the existence of such provision; on the contrary! It is necessary to meet additional unexpected needs. But this is not organized to guarantee the forecast management of departments. What interpelled us during the debates in various committees is that this provision is the solution to everything, the answer to every budget puzzle. At every concrete question asked to the government, we have the right to the joker: we will draw in the interdepartmental provision.

This provision looks inexhaustible, like the Mary Poppins bag. Furthermore, I encourage everyone to read the table taken on page 150 of the report, submitted by Mr. Good Care. Nollet: We observe the successive promises of mr. Jamar claiming that in case of insufficient budget, they would draw in the interdepartmental provision. Obviously, we know that this provision of 296 million, according to the forecasts, will not be able to meet all requests, department by department.

In reality, by based its budget on a linear 20% decrease in the first year in all departments of the state, the government chooses to operate drastic cuts without the slightest strategic vision.

It is really saving to save. The Court of Auditors emphasized the unsustainable nature of linear reductions because, in general, the expected savings are far too large to ensure the effective continuity of the public service. And for my group, high-quality public services, accessible at a reasonable price, are obviously essential conditions for a policy in particular to support the recovery.

All departments are affected, including the major Regal departments that, as a rule, the right-wing policy saves. All departments are affected. Take the justice. It is known that it has been facing for several years already with a structural payments backward that the SPF Justice estimates at just over 180 million structural. Nevertheless, your budget provides for an overall effort of ⁇ 125 million euros.

Your Minister of Justice, such a true martyr, commented on his budget in committee by listing all the positions that will suffer in particular from non-replacement. And because it will be impossible for him to accomplish his task, he dreams of convincing another pace of sanitation, thanks to a great plan that he will submit in February/March. He said in the committee: “I’m going to submit a new plan, and I’m sure my colleagues will understand my difficulty, and I’m sure my colleagues will agree to make an exception for Justice in the pace of sanitation.”

But as you know well, Mr. Van Rompuy, what will happen in February/March? An adjustment of the budget. What does the European Commission say? That is because, given the growth that is less good than expected, given the debt that will be greater than what was indicated in the government tables, additional effort will need to be made. I have therefore the worst fears for a department such as Justice that would have deserved an exception.

I confirm that every Minister of Justice, for a long time, has always obtained an exception. This is the first time that the Justice has been asked, without any concern for the difficulties of these departments, to make an effort like the others. Then there will be a lot of problems. Take, for example, the Center for Legal Psychiatry in Ghent or new prison fees. We see, in the commission, that there is a shortage of five million.

The Commission on the Examination of All Sexual Abuse and Pedophilia Acts, chaired by Mrs. Lalieux, has called for an increase in budgets for associations responsible for tracking sexual abuse. Here they are reduced.

In terms of medical expenses in prisons, there is a huge deficit (42.6 million). This year’s budget is 7.9 million.

What about the judges? There is no euro provided for the increase of magistrates, to respect what we had agreed in our great agreement on the basis of the Sixth State Reform (BHV Judicial). But we go even further as the College of Courts and Courts speaks of a shortage of 350 magistrates and more than 1,000 staff members by 2019. This is obviously impossible!

Take legal assistance and lawyers who support the most disadvantaged. If nothing is done, they will still see their fees decreased and it will be unlikely!

And, cherry on the cake, we are announced a whole series of increases that will restrict access to justice for the whole population.

My dear colleagues, this security government says it wants to fight impunity, radicalization, terrorism and cuts half a million of the funds available to the federal police for particular research techniques. Go to understand!

There is a problem with justice. I think for such an essential department to live together, you will have to make an effort. And I will support an exception that would aim to give additional resources to this so important department.

The same goes for security. As you know, for us, security, this is not limited to a demonstration of force or authority in the head of state. It is a tool in the service of a broader goal, that of social cohesion; that is why we have always advocated for a proximity-focused domestic policy, whether at the level of the administration or the police. Of course, this has a cost. That is why we had important resources for security.

From your budget, what should we keep? This has been denounced in the committee, in particular by Mr. Domeyer: It is no less than 177 million that you cut in the police budget. Of the 1,400 police officers we had the ambition to hire each year to fill the gaps in the police framework, there are only 800, that is, far less than the 1,100 needed to simply maintain the current framework, which is under-effective.

Budget for training is reduced. What will be done if there are fewer police officers and less trained? We denounced it. The government replied, in the person of the Minister of the Interior: “We will privatize.” You will entrust the private to police tasks while decreasing the operating credits of the department responsible for controlling this private security sector. Yes, Prime Minister, security is obviously essential for citizens. That is why it is important that this policy be carried out with the services and to the citizens in order to preserve the living together. It must not be a policy directed against the services and against the citizens, resulting in dismantling the social link.

The same goes for tax justice. There is much discussion on this in the committee. One phrase was said: "Taxation could and should be a simple business." When we remember the parliamentary work carried out a few months ago to think about a fiscal reform and remember that the latter was the node of the electoral campaign, when we know that in order to guarantee the sustainability and dynamism of our social and economic model, that in order to regain and reach the budget balance by the horizon of 2018, we will have to dare to provide significant efforts and undertake a series of reforms, we do not understand why you did not immediately choose the path of what can be called a fiscal revolution. Indeed, it would have really allowed to give breath to our country, to guarantee our social model and to support the purchasing power of our fellow citizens by shifting the taxation of income from labour to those of capital and great wealth. You have made a mini-shift between flat-rate charges and consumption taxes. Why not tax capital, for example surplus-values, and sharply reduce the tax on labor? Of course, we are in favor of this.

Thro ⁇ the weekend, Mr. Chastel proudly announced that the government would seek a billion euros on capital through the four budgetary years of the legislature: fighting tax evasion, he says, bank contributions, stock exchange tax, etc. According to him, these measures are very important and will bring a billion in four years.

If that were true, I could tell you. Château is very little. I have to remind you, Mr, that under the previous government, while you were the Minister of the Budget, we went to collect about seven billion euros in two and a half years. Furthermore, the allegation you’ve been developing throughout the weekend is false. Can I remember that in terms of receipts, the bank tax is not part of the documents we need to look at? We realized, in the committee, that the government had an idea, but that the latter was not good and that another solution had to be sought. Can I recall that half the stock exchange tax is just an extension of what has been done before? Can I also remind you that, when it comes to tax evasion, the specialists we heard in the committee told us that it ⁇ ’t result at all, that it ⁇ ’t be effective.

Furthermore, the transaction on liquidation bonuses reduces the pre-count rate. I think you thought about giving a gift to the shareholders. While the previous government had increased the pre-count to 25 percent, you’re making the reboot. Furthermore, the State Council is in no appeal in its view. I quote: “This measure seems to aim not to facilitate financing for SMEs, but to reduce the pre-count on dividends.” While the government presented this measure as support for SMEs, the State Council corrected the words used and reclassified the measure by talking about helping shareholders. In the current slow economic climate, we could have thought of a different way to support SMEs. This support is indispensable. Put a proposal on the table and we will support it. But this will not be the case for the one now under consideration, for it is truly an insult in a time when an effort is required from the whole population except for shareholders and large capital.

Finally, there’s a new tax that I don’t know how to describe. I would like to talk about a tax on the general interest. You have decided to subject some intercommunals to corporate tax. This issue will be addressed again during the review of the draft law. There have been specific questions in the committee. A total revenue of 200 million euros is expected from this tax. We asked in commission: you will still preserve the non-marketer; you will still provide an exception, otherwise, it is madness!

Never, at any time, the non-commercial sector has been excluded from the scope of this taxation! And I ask you this question. Is this really your tax reform: protecting surplus values to tax hospitals organized in the form of cooperatives? Is this your sense of tax justice: preserve the port of Antwerp from this new tax but subject the intercommunal home of rest? Tell me who is in full in a commercial activity? The Port of Antwerp or the municipal rest house? I am not caricaturing.

The committee debates were extremely hectic and the government and government experts never commented on the matter. And even better if just recently the prime minister comes to announce us a good news, namely that he will make 200 million, while preserving hospitals, rest homes, the non-market. But if he said it, I would say, “Finally, in this absolute darkness, a little light, a little good news!” But he didn’t say it in the committee.

I use it to say that decrease as you did the contributions on the secret committees - by the way, we felt that some groups were embarrassed in the surroundings, as they say! It seems completely immoral in a time like this. And there, I look at some CD&V colleagues, who seem perfectly on the same wavelength as me. Reducing penalties for those who hire a black worker or who pay bribery are unbearable gifts.

With regard to retired workers and unemployed, one can say that the savings will hurt immediately. I will quote one that perfectly illustrates in our eyes the choice of austerity that this government has operated and refuses to assume publicly: the abolition of the bonus-pension. However, it was an interesting measure. It was a policy that allowed to hang on the employment of men, women who could have gone into early retirement. This allowed them to have a surplus pension by clinging to employment. But what sense does the abolition of the pension bonus have, especially since in budgetary terms, it does not bring much: 16.7 million savings compared to the 36.5 billion spent on pension payments?

This is really a measure of austerity without the slightest discernment.

Another example: no longer index tax expenditure. The suspension of the indexation of certain tax expenditure will essentially weigh on the shoulders of the most modest people. We are not the only ones to denounce the unfairness of this measure.

I have to correct that. You fulminate so that the pension bonus is abolished. In the previous legislature, we, together with you, ⁇ retained the pension bonus, but it was moved to one year after the possibility of early retirement. He was postponed for one year. It was halved and comes only at the level of the amount of the bonus that one could build up after one continued to work for five years. One will never retain the same amount as one had before the previous legislature for the bonus. What is now abolished is much less thanks to the decisions of the previous legislature in which you have also participated.

The [...]

Mrs Temmerman is absolutely right. This is a somewhat strange justification. You’re talking about the policies we’ve carried out previously, with the retirement bonus, with the end-career-time credit that you’ve also planned to cancel. It was really a thoughtful policy to hang people on jobs. It was a smart policy that gave results because, if you look with more coercitive measures as well, when you make the sum of all these measures, older people today than before are on the market. But you do the opposite. You go further into coercive measures, in an incredible way, and you completely cancel the retirement bonus and career-end time credit. This is incomprehensible in the desire for a smart policy for ⁇ ining employment.

Ms. Onkelinx, in addition to the fact that we together with you have halved the pension bonus – and that’s the reality, as Ms. Becq has said – the real reason why the government is removing the pension bonus is that it hasn’t worked.

The study of the Federal Planning Office shows that the pension bonus, as it has existed, has ensured that employees have worked 0.1 years longer, which is slightly more than a month. That is the reality.

Therefore, the government decides, instead of ⁇ ining that pension bonus, to focus on something much more fundamental, in particular on the extension of the supplementary pension, the second pillar, to all layers of the population, as this can make the pension fundamentally better.

This is the difference. We offer an alternative to something that never worked in the past. That is why the government has decided to do so.

Indeed, the pension bonus may not have had exclusively positive effects; it could therefore have been reformed and improved.

What you do – and that is why I find your intervention quite strange – is that you disinvest the first pillar to advocate the constitution of a pension supported by a sufficient replacement rate towards the second pillar. But you forget, on the one hand, that this second pillar is entirely inaccessible to a series of sectors: so do a real pension reform with a part of distribution, a part of capitalization that allows today to correct the deep inequalities of the second pillar. On the other hand, when it comes to retirement strategy, you only play on age. Nevertheless, all reports are unanimous: a part of the population is in favor of an extension of working time, provided that it is accompanied by an improvement in the quality of the end of career conditions. But you remove everything that can motivate people to commit to working longer.

The working rate of the 55-64 years old in Belgium is lower than in the rest of Europe; at the same time, it is on the rise. While it was necessary to continue our support for motivations to extend working hours, you are content with the stick policy.

When I hear the majority argue that life prognosis is significantly longer than it was a few decades ago, it’s true. The life expectancy is longer and fairly uniform for the European Union provided that only age is taken into account; you forget to point out that the prognosis for a healthy life is significantly lower than in other European countries. As you like to take Sweden as a model, I note that the prognosis for a healthy woman’s life in Sweden is five years higher than in Belgium.

Where you could play positively on the increase in the employment rate of 55-64 years old, you chose a strategy in complete opposition by removing positive qualitative incentive policies and playing only on age, accompanied by the stick policy. I think it is destined to failure.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to invite you to speak with those who are at the meeting. I blame no one for anything. I just want a good debate within a reasonable time.

As Ms. Fonck has perfectly answered, I will refer to her answer and will not add in the context of this debate. by Mr. In particular, Dardan will also have the opportunity in his speech...

Don’t be impatient, he will come and explain!

Another example of economics operated without the slightest discernment is the suspension of the indexation of certain tax expenditure, which will essentially weigh on the shoulders of the most modest people. We are not the only ones to denounce the unfair nature of these measures, as the analysis of the SPF Finance confirms this and shows that the measure will be supported by 70% by pensioners and pre-pensioners, unemployed and invalids.

I listened to Mr. The prime minister who solemnly said yesterday – I let him talk to Mr. Jamar, re-explain to him what he said yesterday – that no pensioner would lose money. This is completely false! Current pensioners will see their taxes rise due to repeated non-indexing of the replacement income tax reduction. A pensioner who earns €1,650 gross per month will gradually lose money each year up to €400 in 2018 and he will also suffer the index jump. My group has submitted to the committee an amendment to the program law to counter this measure. We are resolutely opposed to this decision and will return with our amendment during the review of the program law.

I gave two examples. But I could have multiplied them, speaking of health savings that will affect patients; or people in hard jobs who will have to work longer without the possibility of lightening their hours by time credits. I could also repeat the violence of the measures against part-time workers; if this could change, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, what would I be happy about it!

Since we do not live in a world of Bisounours, I would like to clarify a situation. That of a lady, Josiane, for example, a 45-year-old cashier, housekeeper, who worked full-time at Carrefour before being fired following the 2010 restructuring. She found a job after a few months of unemployment in another large area, but only half-time. In fact, she works 19 hours a week for a salary of 1,095 euros. Currently, it benefits from an income guarantee allowance of 296.27 euros gross per month, paid by ONEM. It will thus lose, with your measures, 148.35 euros gross per month. You will therefore impoverish these workers and create new employment traps, since the difference between the salary of this cashier and what a person in unemployment perceives is no longer significant.

I think you have to have the courage to make your choices and don’t hide behind formulas saying that nobody will lose anything. It is false!

I have another example, that of a 48-year-old nurse who worked for 28 years. She receives a gross salary of 3,300 euros a month. With the index jump, she will lose €423 a year and this will have a structural impact for the rest of her career. If she still works 17 years, to reach 45 years of career, your index jump represents a loss of €8,475 for her. Do you really think she won’t realize it? Furthermore, as the profession of nurse is a heavy profession, she could have taken a career-end credit-time from her 50s, in two years. I think she knows very well now that you are taking that right away from her. With your new measures, she will have to wait 12 years because the end-time credit is only made available from age 60. If you add the pension bonus measures, early retirement measures, the situation of this nurse is far more problematic than what you would like to say, namely, a decrease in income and an extension of her situation of hardship at work. What are you going to answer him?

It is not your consumer protection proposals that will settle the business! Your belief is that the consumer is responsible for his actions, that he must assume the consequences and that the best way to empower him is to file him. They are stigmatizing and discriminating. Thus, the only and only measure you propose in terms of consumer protection and the fight against overindebtedness is to expand the range of debts registered in the Credit Central to individuals, by registering debts in terms of energy, telecom, rent or taxes. As if that wasn’t enough, you seriously think about allowing ⁇ and owners to consult the Central to check the potential customer or tenant. It’s so much easier and more convenient than really tackling the causes of overindebtedness! This is an unbearable stigma of the most vulnerable.

A word about science and culture. It is true that this government has not exempted any of the departments of the State from its radical program of economies. It is also under these conditions, in all logic - its logic - that there are blind budget cuts in the field of culture.

There is no cultural exception. The 30 million euros of savings imposed over five years on the Monnaie, the Beaux-Arts, the National Orchestra will obviously not help to support and encourage culture. Yesterday, the Director-General of the Currency announced measures it is obliged to take from 2015: 16 dismissals and removals of programs such as the dance program.

For the rest, there are other types of problems. For example, for the Belgian Federal Scientific and Cultural World, it is almost 600 million euros of budget that will undergo the same linear reductions as other departments. As stated in the committee, the figures were not contested.

Beyond all budgetary considerations, for my group, the consequence will be to see the increased risk of dismantling a whole pan of the federal competencies, one that supports a form of Belgian excellence. In terms of museums, Ms. Lalieux will return to it, what is happening is not only ineffective but it is a form of federal disloyalty against what had been promised under the former legislature of the federal government to the Brussels government and the City of Brussels.

I also repeat what is done with the Space Agency by creating an inter-federal space agency, while the official discourse is to say “no communityization.” By putting the administration under the control of this inter-federal space agency, it is obvious that you are going toward a worsening of the situation. The Nobel Prize, scientists are petitioning, you want it, here’s it! But you are also on the path of a communitarianization that does not have its name.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to say. The president told me I almost exhausted my speech time.

Madame Onkelinx, Mr. Van de Velde wants to interrupt you.

Mrs. Onkelinx, thank you for your explanation. I listened with great pleasure.

I hope you look at the document of statbel.fgov.be this afternoon.

According to key figures produced a week ago, youth unemployment fell from 18% to 23.7% between 2008 and 2013, ⁇ under your government.

We are the leader or co-leader in Europe.

You talked about the possibility of poverty through the measures of this government. Unfortunately, the numbers you missed are worse than when you started. Between 2008 and 2013, the risk of poverty increased. Since 2006, Ms. Onkelinx, there has been a continuous increase in bankruptcies in this country, from approximately 8 000 per year to 11 740 in the record year 2013. In addition, consumer prices in this country are by far among the highest in Europe.

That is what you leave behind. I would be modest and think about it instead of attacking our recipe here. We have eaten your plate and have filled our stomach with it. Sufficient material and the reality of everyday life show that what you have left behind is not positive and that it cannot go further.

What does this government do? In an economy that depends on exports for two-thirds, intervention in the real cost price. And that requires courage. It takes courage to deal with the real cost. This is done, for example, by index jumping and by effectively reducing public spending. This will create competitiveness, provide jobs and get people out of poverty. That’s exactly what you didn’t do.

We will agree that we will focus on the speaker.

There is no problem.

I suggest that Ms. Onkelinx replicates what Mr. Van de Velde said.

I have no problem answering this.

Dear colleague, I suppose you are speaking on behalf of your group, and more specifically, on behalf of your mother-in-law or father-in-law. The Peeters. You question the measures that were taken by a government where three of the parties that form the current government were present. Three-quarters of the government was there, but he threw them the stone, saying the policy was bad! He said, as Mr. Weaver is the cause of everything. No, this is not the banking crisis, no, this is not capitalism! How can we believe that! The cause of all this are the Socialists. Did you not know that in the big banks that hijacked the money of our fellow citizens, it was the Socialists who were maneuvering!

How can you say such ridiculous things!

I am proud that, along with other parties, over all these years, I have worked hard to get our country out of trouble. I am pleased that the OECD, in its ranking, has been able to say, despite all the difficulties, despite all the measures still to be taken, that Belgium is one of the most equal countries.

This is the result of our intervention, you see, dear colleague!

The previous speaker attacked the previous government. I would therefore think it would be normal for the minister in charge of this power in the previous government to also be given the opportunity to respond to it.

I do not want to take the word from anyone, but I consider that Ms. Onkelinx has answered this question in a ⁇ accurate manner. As Mrs. De Coninck asks...

In particular, I would like to address Mr. Van de Velde. You may not understand that well, but I thought there was a division of powers in our country. Regions and Communities are also responsible for a large part of activation and poverty policies.

If I am not mistaken, there is a N-VA minister active in Flanders around activation policies and organizing solutions for youth unemployment. I will never forget that mostly Flemish organizations and Flanders have refused to install a job cheque for young people and have refused to work together to ⁇ results in that regard.

So I think it’s pretty cheap to just shoot at the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, please apologize, but I believe I have the right to react to the counter-truths I hear in the homicide. In fact, this is a recurring argument – which was stated by Mr. The Minister of Finance and I have also heard about the N-VA banks – what to tell us that 80% of GDP consists of exports or, in other words, that the volume of exports represents 80% of GDP. I would like to refer you to the Economic Review of the National Bank of September, which shows that the added value of net exports, i.e. the volume of exports from which the imported products that participated in the manufacturing process of these export products are withdrawn, reduces the volume to 30% of GDP. This means, as the National Bank demonstrates, that our economy is directed 70% inside in consumption and investment.

Therefore, your basic economic diagnosis, which justifies all your antisocial measures – the index jump, in particular – is bad and unfortunately leads us to increasing difficulties both economically and in the recovery and social.

Dear colleagues, I conclude. I do not need to explain it before. You know my conviction that injustice is at the heart of the current problem and tensions. However, some members of the government have expressed it in their own way. There is not only this feeling of injustice, Mr. Peeters. It is indeed unfair for some income to be effortless—while our fellow citizens must consent, who will plunge them into the worst everyday difficulties.

There is always hope. The situation can be resolved by changing certain provisions. You said, Mr. Peeters, that you would like to address this, in particular with regard to the “end of career” section. So much better! If you come with serious proposals, I think we can give hope. If, according to the Central Council of Economy, the index jump can be revised, it would give hope to all those and all those who demonstrate. If one can decide, as part of a large tax shift, that shareholders and large capital must participate in the budget balance, it will also bring hope. I believe it and I want to believe it! I am fighting, not against a government, but for the people. This is really the message they want to send you.

Rather than telling nonsense pretending that there are no problems and that the situation will not hurt anyone, I consider that it is necessary to hold a speech of truth and change what is unbearable. I believe that the people of this country have a right to truth and hope. It is, in any case, the will of the Socialist Party to support all measures that can make this hope that I call my wishes!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will keep it a little shorter than Mrs. Onkelinx, in good habit, although I am only here for the second time.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain a few things. After all, we can’t help but see that there is actually anxiety and even a little anger. As a majority, we have the task of trying to explain things, as the prime minister did yesterday on RTL.

An economist to whom I have great admiration, Professor Theo Peeters, recently wrote his memoirs. He says it’s not memoirs, but it seems suspicious. There is a very beautiful sentence in it, which I would like to quote for a moment: “Economic science is very unChristian. Economic mistakes are never forgiven. They have to be paid back with interest,” he said. This is actually the situation we are facing now, because the economic mistakes of the past must now be repayed, with interest.

I would like to remind you of a few things. Those who read the recommendations of the European Commission on November 28 realize at least that we are facing a problem. Those who read the warning mechanism report that we received yesterday, December 16, 2014, in our mailbox find it very well summarizing the problems. Belgium is struggling with macroeconomic imbalances. First, our public debt is more than 105%. Second, the market share of global exports is declining. Third, we have a wage disability. Fourth, we have high private debt, up to 163% of GDP.

I would also like to remind you of the recent Eurostat figures of 15 December. They show that there are two life-size problems. Belgium is second in terms of excessive wage costs. Where, according to Eurostat figures, an hour of work costs an average of 38 euros in Belgium, that is 34.6 euros in France, 32.8 euros in the Netherlands and 31.6 euros in Germany. I do not cite these three countries by chance, they are our most important trading partners. In addition, Belgium – still according to Eurostat – is in the top three of the countries where wage costs increase the fastest. This clearly shows that we have a problem.

In terms of average working hours, the situation is at least equally bad.

Mr. Vuye, I didn’t want to interrupt you immediately, but I have a fundamental problem with your first or second sentence, in which you say that you won’t spend a lot of time but that you will explain it well because people are worried. You say that it is our task to explain the measures we take so that they understand them. This is, if possible, an even greater insult than the measures themselves. After all, you say that you are actually taking good measures, but that people simply do not understand it. and error . The people know very well what is going on, they know very well what is going on, Mr. Vuye. They simply disagree with that index jump and with that salary block. They do not agree to work until 67. That is the first element. So it is not a matter of not understanding, one does not agree with this. Your choices are wrong, it’s not just a problem of communication.

Second, you refer to the Eurostat report of this week. Everyone has taken note of this. Everyone has read with great attention that the cost of wages in this country is indeed an incredible challenge, that it is absurd that we continue to tax something so important and beautiful as labour. Hence the plea of many groups, of many social actors and of 86% of the Flamings to shift those burdens. Just because your government, of which you are a little the head in this Parliament, the group leader of the largest group, which does not initiate, realize, and does not expressly want to implement tax shift, it continues to rain reports like that of Eurostat. If you want to address those high wage costs, do something about it.

Mr. Vuye, I will not repeat what has been said here so many times. Each party agrees that the wage costs in our country are too high and that we need to do something about it. You said that too.

But what measures does the government take in the 2015 budget to reduce wage costs? This is one measure, the index jump. This index jump is likely to be carried out not earlier than in June and then again. We do not know about low inflation.

What the previous government had planned in measures to do something about this, you are shifting to 2016. The only thing you do now to lower wage costs, what you think is so important, what we all think is so important, is the index jump. In other words, you have to pay the reduction of wage costs by the ordinary families. You do not actually make a real tax shift, which, however, so many people are in favour of, except this government.

Mr. Calvo, I think I still have the freedom to choose the scope of my presentation here. I don’t really need to listen to you.

On the tax shift – I will make you a little impatient and nervous – I will come back very thoroughly later.

Mrs. Temmerman, you talked about the index jump. The majority and the opposition know that. That was the next sentence I would say. If you had a little patience, I would have given you partly right, even if there is a “but” afterwards.

The index jump is two pages further. I will return to this immediately. (Protest by Mrs Temmerman)

I was talking about the figures of Eurostat. The average working time in the euro area is 1,661 hours. Belgium is the champion with the lowest number of working hours, notably 1,462 hours. In addition, Belgium is the strongest decline with – 79 hours in 2012 compared to 2008.

With the three main trading partners, there is a huge difference. In France, the average is 1,555 hours. That’s a difference with Belgium of 93 hours. In the Netherlands it is an average of 1,757 hours. That’s a difference with Belgium of 295 hours. In Germany, the average is 1,641 hours. That’s a difference with Belgium of 179 hours.

Indeed, we know the problems. The majority and the opposition know the problems. There is a big difference. The way they want to solve these problems is radically different.

Let me now say that the immediate introduction of an additional tax, a wealth tax, a property tax or a wealth gain tax will not reduce the wage costs, nor increase the number of hours worked. These are problems that you must address anyway and that we are trying to address.

By the way, I have seen that Green yesterday proposed an alternative budget. I respect that, but those choices are not ours.

Mr. Vuye, we want a reduction in wage costs. Every party has said during the elections that not the net wages in our country are too high, but the cost of wages. This government is cutting wages through an index jump and it claims it is cutting wage costs. We do not want to fund the reduction of wage costs through the wages, which you do with the index jump, but through something else, namely through taxes on the large assets and anti-fraud.

We do not claim that a tax on large assets or surplus value will reduce wage costs anyway. We want to finance a decrease in wage costs with a wealth tax and not an index jump, which you and your government are doing.

I return to this point on pages 4 to 6 of my discussion. I have the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition will be more present during my speech than I am.

The high wage costs did not come suddenly on October 11, 2014. That high wage cost was already there and the government was facing it. We now have to pay back the past mistakes with interest. In its opinion of 28 November, the European Commission is clearly devastating for the 2014 budget and for the historic debt. Belgium ranks fourth among the concerned children, along with the countries that still have to go the longest.

A few days ago, the warning mechanism report reiterated the risks posed by high government debt to growth, employment and financial stability.

The same report of the European Commission is much less negative about the 2015 budget plan. What is the conclusion? I quote: “In addition, the Commission considers that Belgium has made some progress with regard to the structural part of the budget recommendations made by the Council within the framework of the European Semester 2014 and calls on the authorities to do even more.”

When the Court of Auditors issued a report in the Committee on Finance, I heard a similar language. When the opposition asked councillor Rudi Moens to list the positive points of the budget, he listed the following positive points. It is a very serious effort, which follows the European path. There are few or no one-off measures. What he considered ⁇ important were the structural measures in social security, namely unemployment and pensions. And there are no ESER corrections, unlike the past.

It is regrettable — this is the disaster for our government — that we now have to repay the interest for the mistakes of the past, at a time when it is difficult, the recovery in the euro zone is difficult — the Court of Auditors also indicates that — and the uncertainty on the international level is quite large.

We should not turn our faces. When I look at the estimates of economic growth in recent months, I can only find that they are always lower. In September, the Monitoring Committee estimated economic growth at 1.1 % in 2014 and 1.5 % in 2015. Two months later, the IMF already reached a lower figure: 1 % in 2014 and 1,4 % in 2015. In November 2014, the European Commission was already at 0.9% for both 2014 and 2015. The National Bank will also out at the same figure of 0.9 in December. So it is quite obvious that the government must catch the cow at the horns and will catch the cow at the horns.

I would like to explain certain and certain things. The purpose of this budget is just to restore people’s hope and improve the competitiveness of companies. The index jump corresponds to a non-increase of 2%. This includes the announced measures of wage moderation for 2015 and 2016. Not in my opinion, but according to the National Bank, these measures provide more than sixty thousand jobs.

Other studies to which the Minister of Finance has referred several times, namely of Kings and Abraham in 2010, estimate that higher in and go to eighty thousand. I want to emphasize that this is precisely social. Trying to create more jobs and create more jobs, according to the National Bank, also means that social security remains affordable. Creating more jobs is also the best way to reduce poverty. It is also the best way to eliminate income inequality. The report of two days ago, the Warning Mechanism Report, makes it very clear that income inequality has increased the most in the Member States where unemployment has also increased the most. If we want to reduce this income inequality, jobs must be created.

Please do not make the budget a caricature; the budget is not a social massacre. In this country, 32% of GDP is spent on social security. The OECD reports say precisely that in Belgium, through this social security, the redistribution is ⁇ good.

What is wrong with that budget? We are drawn to the voters with the slogan that we want to reward work. That happens, and that is a political choice, in the sense that the personal tax is reduced through the flat-rate deduction of professional costs. Given the fact that that flat-rate deduction is transferred into the corporate advance tax, anyone working in this country will see the difference between this government and its predecessors at the end of January.

There is also the index jump. They were still laughing about it; it might be in June or July. According to the Planning Bureau, it would be effective in July 2015. When the index jump occurs in the middle of the year, while the flat-rate deduction of occupational costs begins to run from January, this is just the measure that will provide for many families an increase in purchasing power. This weekend was well calculated. For a family with two school children, one of whom works full-time and the other part-time, that means an increase in purchasing power by 252 euros.

Again, you say that all those people who come to the streets because, among other things, they have a problem with the index jump, have not understood it. I know that your party has ⁇ little affinity with trade unions, social organizations and workers who demonstrate. Therefore, I would like to quote about the index jump from an interview yesterday in De Tijd, with the chief economist of ING.

The Time, that is the Pravda, isn’t it, Mr. Dewael? And ING is then suddenly the study service of the ACV. Thus, you try to push away all criticism, and you remain deaf and blind to the social outrage. We continue to try to give that criticism that comes from all corners, Mr. Van Quickenborne, a voice in the parliamentary debate. This is what this assembly is for.

ING’s chief economist criticizes the index jump very strongly and calls it both socially and economically counterproductive. Mr. Colmant, who is also not immediately a left-wing shaker, says that the index jump is an idiotic measure that applies the recipes of the 1980s in a climate of deflation.

You calculate that the index jump costs an average employee 276 euros annually and a family with two earners 780 euros annually. You say that the people who advocate a tax shift and for a fair contribution of the greatest wealth are the taxpayers. You, Mr. Vuye, and this majority, saddle working people with a lifelong tax increase, ⁇ an index jump that is not compensated by other measures in this government agreement and in this budget.

Mr De Roover, you have the word, but I remind you of the principle that we address the speaker.

I read today that both Vanden Houte and De Boeck emphasize in a response “that the index jump is not a stupid measure and that it should not disappear”.

Mr. Calvo, you should correctly quote or not quote.

One thing that economists have in common with state law specialists is that if you put ten of them together, you get ten different opinions.

I would like to emphasize once again that the reality of this budget is more than 62 000 jobs and that work is effectively rewarded. This is the second point that is very important for the N-VA.

I come to how and why of that index jump. I refer again to the latest report of the IMF of 15 December 2014, which states that there are two major problems: too low employment rates and too high public spending.

In addition, the IMF says the two strengthen each other. Excessive public spending on social security makes exit easier and the more people exit, the more difficult it becomes to pay and keep social security affordable. Just for this reason, and that is effectively a different philosophy than that of the opposition, we think that creating jobs and working is solidary, because working means also contributing to social security.

We know that an index jump will lead to a slight drop in consumption. We also know that the index jump will have a slightly negative effect on public finances. However, this also means that the government will bear a large part of the index jump. The index jump will give a positive shock to competitiveness. That is important. Belgium is a small open economy where domestic consumption is small. It is precisely from competitiveness, exports and foreign consumption that added value is obtained.

I can only find that serious scientists such as Konings and Abraham in 2010 stated that an increase in exports by 10 % in the industrial sector increases employment by 0,86 %. This is a very detailed study, which looked at the data of ten thousand companies.

Mr. Vuye, since you cite the IMF report very selectively, I will complement it with some other things that the IMF has said in the same report.

First, the index does not need to be abolished. This is also said by the European Commission. Between the lines it is said that an index jump does not need.

Second, Mr Vuye, power must be heavily taxed. The IMF says that too. I didn’t hear you say that then.

Third, the burden on labor must be reduced. I have heard you say this a lot. But how should this be financed according to the IMF? Not by an index jump, Mr. Vuye, but by a tax shift. That’s what the IMF says, and that’s what the High Council of Finance says. However, you did not say that.

Fourth, the IMF says it is against linear savings. The savings should not be linear. They must be motivated by priorities, something this government does not do.

What does the IMF say, Mr. Vuye? Public investments are shrinking right now that significant growth investments in transport, energy infrastructure, education and social housing are needed. Indeed, this is not for this government, but for the Flemish government, which your party is also part of. In terms of public investments, the Flemish government does nothing. On the contrary, they are being demolished. According to the IMF, Mr Vuye, Belgium should appeal to the EU to have to save less.

I quote: “There are good reasons for Belgium to use the flexibility offered by the budgetary rules in the eurozone.” So, when you quote it, then quote it completely!

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things on this point.

First, we do not eliminate the index mechanism. That does not happen.

Secondly, you say several times that I have not said a number of things. To be honest, I think you haven’t heard a few things. At the beginning of my speech I said that at the end of my speech I will discuss the tax shift very thoroughly. I will also discuss this very extensively, but later, if it suits me.

The data from the National Bank teach us that the reduction of employer contributions to social security from 2016 will ensure better competitiveness compared to our three main trading partners.

Yesterday we heard that the Central Council for Business – presumably because the report is still confidential – estimates that the wage disability would have fallen to 2.9 %. That would be a light in these for the rest difficult times. It can only encourage us to move forward and improve our competitive position.

Why does the index jump happen now? After all, it is now almost a historic moment, with a historically low inflation. As they say, you must catch the birds when they fly lower.

The European Commission also states in its report on the index that it would be best to review the wage formation system as a whole. This is not stated in the government agreement, just as the property gain tax does not. Allow me, however, to clarify in all freedom, to those who wish to consult, that in this regard, in the congress texts of the N-VA of January-February 2014 there are a number of very interesting proposals, among other things, to bring the formation of wages to the sectors and companies and to work with all-inaccords. The congress texts of the N-VA from January-February 2014 are very clear in this regard with what Europe is saying.

As regards debt reduction, Belgium currently has a debt ratio of more than 105 %. The most recent figure I found for 2014 is 106.6%. Therefore, we are clearly above the reference value of 60 %. I can also confidently admit that the European Commission forecasts a nominal deficit of 2.8% of GDP for 2015, while the draft budget forecasts 2.1% for 2015. However, the report should be read in its entirety, because there are reasons for it.

Indeed, the budget was submitted on 15 October and used the latest figures of the Monitoring Committee at that time, in particular those of September 2014. I have just summarized some estimates of economic growth. You have seen that those estimates are getting worse and worse, which explains the difference. Furthermore, the European Commission shall only take into account the measures which were sufficiently known and developed at the time of the submission of the budget. Some measures are therefore not taken into account. However, it is unthinkable that the effect of those measures would be zero.

I refer once again to the Committee on Finance and the presentation of Adviser Rudi Moens, who said that this budget is a very serious effort and follows the European path. Just the countries that followed the European Commission’s prescriptions, the National Bank writes, now show the highest growth figures, namely Spain, Portugal and Ireland. In countries that have followed the so-called newer recipes, such as France, the economy has been stagnant since 2011. Oh irony – colleague Peter Dedecker has also written a nice piece of opinion on this –, it is just Pierre Moscovici, the former Minister of Economy of François Hollande, who could come to announce that our government-Michel has done a quick and good job and that the reforms are going in the right direction.

The latest report of the IMF is also ⁇ positive about the measures taken by the Michel government, namely the extension of the career and the reduction of the bridge pension. The reduction of the wage-cost disadvantage through the index jump also gets ⁇ good points. So I can only conclude that, after the European Commission, the IMF does not ask for less, but for more government-Michel.

Now to the tax shift. The Government will control spending and carry out a parafiscal and fiscal reform – a tax shift – in order to finance a sufficiently large burden reduction, significantly reducing the tax burden on labour consisting of fiscal and parafiscal burdens, taking into account national and international recommendations in this regard.

So far, this government has achieved a tax shift of 2 billion euros. It can be ridiculous about it, but it is nothing. I would like to point out that the representatives of the European Commission in the Committee on Finance have responded to questions from the opposition that in Belgium it is thought quite naive and doctrinal about this tax shift, as if it were just about a shift of the burden on labor into wealth. Recommendations are also proposed by the OECD, the High Council of Finance and the IMF. What Europe is asking, and what the IMF is asking, is also stated in the report that was just quoted. I quote from the documents what Europe demands: “Making the tax system more balanced and equitable.” that is, a global reform aimed at “allowing the tax burden on labor, simplifying the system as a whole, making VAT more efficient, expanding the tax bases, reducing the number of withdrawal options, closing the backdoors and eliminating subsidies with harmful environmental effects.”

The IMF also calls for such a shift and that is something else than a simplistic wealth tax.

In the congress texts of the N-VA of January and February 2014 there is point 3.2.2, which deals with making taxes fairer and simpler. We had much attention to this at the time, in the congress texts, already. Honestly speaking, if after years of bad policy, one proposes a wealth tax as a kind of immanent justice, it only serves to cover up the bad policy.

I refer again to Theo Peeters. He writes about the wealth tax that people primarily think and act in the short term: “A benefit that is achievable in the short term seems to be more certain than a benefit that is inherent in the long term. A short-term advantage makes us happy, even if that benefit involves a risk for later."This is just the story of the wealth tax, a short-term advantage and long-term disadvantages.

Mr. Vuye, you rightly say that the reports of the IMF, the OECD and the European Commission, in which there is always a tax shift, are not unambiguous, that there are other accents placed report by report and that there are also suggestions made with which I disagree, for example the increase of VAT. I am not here to read from the report of the European Commission; we have our own program, you have your program, you read from yours and we bring it ours; we did it yesterday, numbered line by line.

However, there is a fairly large consensus among the European institutions, when it comes to tax shifts and reforms, about the shift to pollution. Very concrete, and this is also socially in the eye, it is about the massive support that exists in our country for commercial cars, the subsidy of slides, the subsidy of pollution, the subsidy of diseases.

We would like to conduct that debate, but unfortunately, at the time when it is put on the agenda by various civil society actors – also in employer restrictions live interesting ideas, such as the mobility budget – your party chairman says that the debate about commercial cars is not being held.

So you are in a bad position to say that the opposition selectively quotes from international reports, because your party, your party chairman and the majority have at least an equally large problem in that area. There are social debates, but when it comes to pollution, the door is closed by your party chairman. This is also a very regrettable matter.

I return to the thought of Theo Peeters. What we need to do now is ⁇ not to introduce a new tax. We are already facing a public seizure of more than 50%. We need to reduce the spending. That is much more important.

The position of the N-VA is very clear. We are against tax fraud. We have zero tolerance for tax fraud. This is also stated in the congress texts of January and February 2014 under points 2, 3 and 4.

In the presentation of the government agreement, you asked me a lot of questions on the issue. That is why I quote them now. You seemed not to know her at that moment.

With regard to tax evasion, it is clear that there is an ethical boundary for us. We understand the anger that exists over a number of things. We are at least opposed to fuzzy foreign constructions.

There is already a property tax in Belgium. There are several such as succession rights, registration rights, property advance tax and mobile advance tax. I wonder, by the way, which tax would not constitute an impairment of assets. The very definition of a tax is, after all, that a tax is an infringement of assets.

We are in the third place in terms of inning. Unfortunately, it is mainly the middle class that pays the tax. After all, the higher class will find a number of outlets. Taxing the middle class is not an option.

Finally, I have already stated here in the Chamber that we can talk about a property gain tax, though in the context of a real tax shift. This means that taxes and charges on labour will decrease. This also means that we do not want to carry them through due to a budget control, just to shut down one or another pit. That is not the intention.

It should be about applying the principle of fair taxation. This includes an exemption for the small savers and a tax that is not burdened or falls on the shoulders of the middle class. There must also be a solution for the minor values. I remain very general on this subject. There should also be an open discussion.

I decide .

The efforts of the current government are enormous. However, we face a tax pressure of approximately 48% of gross domestic product, with public spending of 53% of gross domestic product and with a debt of more than 105%. The most recent figure is 106.1%. Less than a quarter of 60- to 65-year-olds work. Few countries are doing worse on this point. The effective retirement age is 59 years. We are far from the age of 65. According to the IMF, approximately one in four Belgians still work in the private sector. Those figures are even worse.

In any case, I dare to look right in the eyes of the N-VA voter with this budget. We went to the elections with the promise to reform, reward work and strengthen competitiveness. We are not kamikaze pilots, who are pushing the government seizure, which is already above 50%, even higher. I also dare to look right in the eyes of the European Commission and the IMF with the proposed budget. What they ask is not Elio II, but more Michel I.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. These weeks have been quite intense. After the committee discussions on the political guidance notes, we will need to evaluate them, which we agreed on at the Conference of Presidents. They must be evaluated at charge and at discharge. We entered together into the life of the subject, the budget debate and the law-program.

It was lively, indeed. Sometimes maybe a little too much. Should we recall the incredible atmosphere of the government statement? Two weeks ago, the opposition left the council following a procedural decision. We sincerely regret that these weeks have been so embroiled, in a budgetary debate yet extremely important, by a policy of permanent incidents. Like many Belgians, I was marked by the words spoken at this tribune by the prime minister during the government statement. He wondered if mutual respect was still possible. I think that for the future, and it is not a pious wish at the approaching of Christmas holidays but rather a sincere call, our exchanges will have to be more inserted in mutual respect.

There is political confrontation, it is necessary for the functioning of democracy. Per ⁇ we should, as to the spectacle we give to the Belgians, insert ourselves more in this notion of mutual respect?

Dear colleagues of the opposition, I will give you some confidence.

You probably won’t admit it today, but maybe later, in your memories, you write that you seem to have been a little far away – I believe in the retreat you can take – in the caricature, in a form of disinformation. I’m sure you’ll regret being so far away. Madame Onkelinx, dear Madame Onkelinx, you have been extraordinary, extraordinary in caricature.

As I told you at the beginning, I thought this page turned out for various reasons. and no. I recall some of your words spoken this morning: “Pinocchio’s government,” “they hide the truth from the citizens.” Mrs. Onkelinx, we are not liars and we do not appreciate being called liars.

Beyond this insulting and shocking expression, throughout the last few weeks, we have had to suffer a lot of quite creative qualifications on your part: of course, the formidable development of the internet on "injuste.be", very constructive, very profound by its analysis of the situation, the "liberal jungle", the "museum of horrors", the "noise of boots", a "budget of farces and traps", even of "pots-de-vin".

And you were not the only one, you made emulsions. Our friends of the extreme left also expressed themselves in a rather caricatural and even violent way. In the committee of the Interior, the representative present in the homicide did not less than express that it would be a “government of Pinochet”. After Pinocchio and Pinochet. It is probably an ideological proximity that is expressed through the same root.

For the Greens, we would be “slaves who beat the citizen.” I will not go back on other invectives.

We believe, at the level of the MR, that other ways of debate, of dialogue are probably possible for the opposition. I would like to repeat here, on behalf of the Reform Movement and the majority as a whole, that we fully respect your convictions. We simply ask you to respect ours, to respect our goals, our obsession that is to create jobs and sustain the social security of this country.

But there is at least one strong element – let’s try to throw bridges! On which you can only join us: institutional peace. You can only join us on this issue. Indeed, if we talk so much about the economic and social aspects today, if we address the heart of what is in the interest of the Belgians, it is because this government has succeeded in institutional peace.

I have left Mr. Ducarme make his introduction, obviously longer than what he has to say on the background! Wait, Mr. Ducarme, it’s just a matter of chronometer! If you consider that every time we ask for the word, it is contempt, we will not have finished the day!

Your memory may be missing at times and I can understand your stress on the tribune. Therefore, let me remind you that the institutional reform was adopted not by this government, but by an alternative majority during the previous legislature with the contribution of what, today, you criticize.

And if, today, you can benefit from some form of peace, it is because others, who were not part of the government, came at that time to give a handshake for stabilization. The problem is that the stabilization we wanted at the time, you are destroying it slowly and within your government!

Mr. Nollet, we have been fundamental actors, I think, of this sixth state reform. If the Reform Movement had not assumed its responsibilities, at the time, this reform could not have taken place. You give lessons of history.

For my part, I’m talking about the future. In this matter, there is a guaranteed institutional peace for a legislature, a peace for this country on the institutional level. You can only accept this reality. Yes, we have achieved the Sixth State Reform. Yes, it must be implemented. Yes, we are proud of it. Yes, we are also proud to be able to propose, today, to the Belgians – from the North, from the Centre as well as from the South – debates that touch them more concretely. This is why we are addressing, within this government agreement, a number of fundamental social and economic reforms. Consequently, you can, in my opinion, join this institutional peace achieved by the majority in place.

It still allows us to approach a fundamental reality that is socio-economic and to come to a conclusion that no one can deny, namely the reality of the country. This is a difficult time for Belgium. The share of public spending in our GDP is 54.3%. Our debt is 390 billion, or 105 percent of our GDP. We have to repay 12 billion interest interests on debt each year. In recent years, the pension budget has grown, in seven years, from 25 billion to 36.5 billion, an increase of no less than 67%. In addition, in recent years, the employment rate of 20-64 years old has declined, from 67.6% in 2010 to 67.2% in 2013. The wage gap remains even if it decreases. Today it is 2.9 percent. It is not us who advances this figure. This is the result of investigations. The wage gap, I repeat, continues to exist and weigh on our ⁇ and, consequently, on employment.

We also make a note here. The salary level in our country is 21.4% above the EU average. The hourly wage cost in Belgium is 39.6 euros, compared to an average of 34 euros in our neighbors: France, the Netherlands, Germany. This is also a reality! This is also a truth!

Mr. Ducarme, if I’m right with you, first, and this is interesting, you validate that the difference in wage cost has decreased and is at 2.9 %; this is your figure. This is interesting for the follow-up of events in the coming months. Secondly, you advocate to move faster toward a fiscal shift, since obviously you see with us that the cost of labor is still too high today.

I have a question. God is good! Why don’t you move faster on this shift, concretely? Why postpone the debate to March? While you have the constat in your hands. We can share it: indeed, the cost of labor is too high. The proposals, in particular, that the Greens have reformulated these days allow you to accelerate the pace and reduce this gap. Why don’t you seize this opportunity?

You ask me to move faster. If you interrupt me constantly, I will not move faster in my exhibition. Of course, I want to address the question. I ask you to be patient. I see that you are enthusiastic about the debate. I think it is interesting.

I also saw your budget proposal. I think it might come a bit late. It is a shame to present an alternative budget – which we will adopt like this here, in two days? You always ask for details on numbers, transparency, and that’s very good! If you yourself believed a minimum in the proposal you make, you would have filed it earlier, so that we can discuss it in a committee, but not so two days before the debate in the House and the vote on the budget.

But we will arrive, if you let me continue, on the issue of tax shifting. This is obviously important in the approach of this government, of this majority.

There is a constatation. I have set up a few elements. We must act according to these socio-economic realities. Otherwise, if we do not act, which sometimes seems quite distant, these socio-economic crises that a number of countries in southern Europe encounter, will concern us; and one day we will go to explain to the Belgians why we must take measures as painful as those that are taken in Portugal or Spain.

We will have to explain it together. We do not want it. We want to act on time and timely. What contributes to this, of course, are savings. The state finances need to be cleaned up. Mrs. Onkelinx, it’s not because we save money that we don’t like the state. This right-wing government loves public service. He simply thinks that we can save, optimize the public service and do as well as other European countries that sometimes do better than us with less!

We know the truth in this matter. We exceed 54%; Germany is at 44,3%, the Netherlands is at 46,8%, Sweden at 53,2%, and the European average is 48.5%. So we have margin in terms of economy and – the Socialists will remember – there have been a number of significant economies also under the previous government.

Yes, we love the state; yes, we love public services; yes, we want them to be more efficient.

Mr. Ducarme, I hear you talk about economies, but I believe that there is a fundamental difference between making economies for the pleasure of doing them and making economies that make sense in relation to the policies that must be carried out.

Take the example of justice. You are drastically cutting the Justice budget even though only for 2014, we are no longer able to pay the bills. However, Justice is a key department in terms of the effectiveness of the policies to be carried out, especially in the field of security.

Your speech is incomprehensible. You consider that it is necessary to make savings all at once and to do so, you use the technique of linear economies – for everyone the same regime – where it would be necessary to ⁇ targeted savings by preserving key policies and their effectiveness.

Madame Fonck, save money for pleasure! And frankly ! You’ve gotten us accustomed to somewhat more striking images than this! These are not savings for pleasure.

I understand your frustration. You mentioned it in the press a few days ago. You would like to be next to the CD&V of this majority to put your hand on the work. I wish you had come back to this government. For a number of years, I have seen your added value in terms of proposals. It is quite tangible. I regret in fact, based on this desire that you say publicly – and I say bravo for this courage – that your party chairman did not let you go, even with him, in order to bring your specificity, your expertise in choices compared to the savings that we should have achieved – I will come – on the issue of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I will of course leave Mr. Ducarme continues his speech but I can’t let go of what he just said.

This was in the press. You were sad to not be next to CD&V in the majority to shoulder it in that majority.

Mr. Duchamp, you haven’t read until the end. I fully accept my words and will explain them to you.

I hope it!

You have not read the second part of the article. That is the difference between you and us. I said and I repeat it here that the NVA froze me! I found it interesting to be alongside CD&V because Vice Prime Minister Kris Peeters is, in my opinion, the only one so far to have clearly committed to a real social concert and not a policy of incantations for a bad social concert. Indeed, it is said to stretch out the hand but, on the other hand, the doors of the subjects to be put at the heart of the social dialogue are closed as quickly.

We talked about institutional peace. by Mr. Nollet is right to reiterate how much institutional peace is that on which we worked during the previous legislature. What I would especially like to hear from this government is a struggle on the issue that today must be at the heart of what Belgium must be able to ⁇ , that is, social peace. Between the statements of one and the other of your majority, you mean everything and its opposite. This is the open door! It is the so-called open hand but it is at the same time as many statements that set fire and close every time the possibilities of a social dialogue.

We will continue to work, including from the outside, to advance the Schmilblick in terms of social consultation. But we do not want a foolish concertation! We expect themes that we are entitled to discuss and for which we are entitled to expect progress.

Madame Fonck, some of your words frost me! The ministers will answer.

We naturally appreciate the intensity of the work done by Kris Peeters in terms of willingness to coordinate. It is mandated by the government; it is mandated by the Prime Minister; it is mandated by this majority to ⁇ one of the central objectives of this government agreement which is, beyond the words written on paper, concertation. The Prime Minister has repeatedly recalled this, we want to include the approach of this majority and this government in the consultation.

Of course, there is a game! We are told that we don’t really talk about it, that we just talk about it. No to No! I take your word in relation to what you just pointed out, and thank you for supporting Kris Peeters as you do! Just continue to support it with us, but support the entire government in this willingness to bring a number of results beyond consultation. This is our choice.

I come to the founding element of this government agreement: job creation. Our President, Olivier Chastel, recalled this: in order to guarantee our social security, we must create jobs, we must create shared wealth. At the European level, Belgium has committed to a 73.2% employment rate by 2020. We are still far away!

At the Reform Movement, our line has always been clear: more jobs in the private sector allows us to guarantee a better funding base for more jobs in the sector of care, social assistance, public services. If we are also committed to job creation, it is also to guarantee social security.

When I speak of the founding elements of this government’s approach, this is the case. That is why this index jump is important. It is not us who indicates that the index jump as we anticipate will create jobs. This is the National Bank. You all know that the reports of the National Bank are extremely reasonable and reasonable. When we are told that the index jump will create 33,000 jobs, this is a fundamental element.

Mr. Ducarme, the index jump may be interesting for exporting companies. But I would like you to be able to develop your reasoning with regard to companies and primarily SMEs to which we pay particular attention. In Belgium, SMEs contribute the most in terms of job creation and operate in the vast majority only through domestic consumption. How will they be able to resist this index jump?

My second question regarding your advocacy: Have you ever calculated the cost of the money masses mobilized for this index jump? It is about 2.5 billion if I followed the reasoning of your majority. Make the calculation: 2.5 billion mobilized to create 33,000 jobs. That means 75,000 euros of employment. Does this not shock you? Is it not a subsidized and subsidized economy? Isn’t it worse than what’s done elsewhere and which allows...

Thank you Mr Nollet. I have a lot of faith for what is your reflection, your word, your analysis. Forgive me for putting you into the balance sheet of a number of international organizations such as the European Union, the IMF, the OECD that tell us that the index jump is job creator. At the level of the National Bank, we are told that 33,000 jobs will be created.

You are trying to continue to find a number of errors at Ecolo about the index jump but are the officials at the European Union level and the bodies I cited stupid? Are the banks stupid? The fact that this measure is creating 33,000 jobs is not a sufficient element in terms of conviction that could make you join us? This is also where you have been somewhat exaggerated compared to what would be the social impact of this index jump.

In this regard, Mr. Ducarme, to be honest, we must say here that the study of the National Bank, which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Employment presented to us in the committee, only concerns certain measures decided by the government. It is clearly partial and does not take into account measures that, on the contrary, could have a negative impact on employment. This is a first element.

The second is the IMF and the OECD. But I also hear – and it is still interesting and I imagine that it speaks to you, to you too – what the neutral union of the independent, the Union of the Middle Class, the big bosses or even economists like Bruno Colmant, who are not “left ones”, to reprisal an expression that is dear to you. All these people and these institutions have said: let’s stop bowling on the index jump because, in the bottom, there will also be negative effects. And we know that when we decrease purchasing power, we have an effect on consumption and, in particular, on our small and medium-sized enterprises, our small ⁇ . You will also have a negative impact.

So, Mr. Ducarme, not only listen to the IMF and the OECD, but also hear, at our house, bosses say that this index jump will not necessarily be something positive. On the contrary!

I have heard, I have read a number of reports, studies from associations, organizations that bring together companies. And these were abundant in an entirely opposite direction to what you indicate. They indicated that the index jump had to be ⁇ ined. And they are not representatives of multinational companies; it is, among other things, the Federation of Enterprises of Belgium.

So when you’re talking about cartoon, let’s put our feet a little back on the ground, let’s go back to reality. We will make this index jump because all the data we have today confirms that this approach will create jobs. Because in addition to the index jump, there are a number of other results, related to our employment policies. The National Bank estimates that this will create 59,000 jobs.

And – you would come there – on the social level, we will not impact the purchasing power of the lowest wages.

It is true that we are witnessing a war of numbers, but the reality is that the lowest wages, those of less than 2,000 euros, will see no impact on their purchasing power. However, this category still accounts for 70% of Belgians. The effort required by this index jump will rest on the strongest shoulders and not on those of the lowest wages.

No one has yet been able to tell us at what income level the index jump would be corrected: the ministers gave us at least five different versions... But, Mr. Ducarme, from what you just said, you are right. It is good to admit it here: the middle classes will contribute the most and the hardest.

70% of Belgians earn less than 2,000 euros.

No, I say that it is the middle classes that will contribute the most to the effort. This is all the more incomprehensible as you refused to take into account what the OECD says to you, that is to say, to realize a real tax shift and to move the cost of labor to other sources, in particular on compulsive speculation or even the income of capital. By doing it intelligently!

You tell us that, in the end, the smallest income will be protected. Mr. Ducarme, the middle classes will be the most strongly contributed: you press them instead of realizing this real shift from labour taxation to other sources of income.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that in this plenary session a number discussion is being started again, while we in the committee have received clarity and clarity from the government and from the other colleagues.

Mr. Nollet, you say that index jump is a very expensive thing if you look at it by job. Now I read that you are in favor of reducing the social burden. The reduction of the burden is one of the points of your program. Reducing the burden by approximately 900 000 euros in 2016, according to the National Bank’s calculation, would create 19 000 jobs. The index jump is approximately EUR 2 billion and creates 33 000 jobs. You say that index jump is a very expensive thing. It is as expensive as a reduction of the social burden, seen in budgetary terms or in subsidy per job, Ms. Onkelinx. That is public money. A burden reduction is as expensive as an index jump, according to the calculations of the National Bank.

A second element that was very clearly highlighted in the committee is the statement of the National Bank that the real available income in 2019 will decrease by an average of 0.4% due to the operation of the index jump, corrected with the flat-rate tax. So 99.6% of the available income remains standing after the index jump.

I read today that due to the lower oil prices, the Belgian economy will grow by 0.25% in the coming years and by 0.5% in 2016. I read in the newspapers that every citizen will see the energy bill dropped by that cheap oil by 417 euros, Mrs. Onkelinx.

You say that the purchasing power is fundamentally affected by the index jump, but then you have to look at the effects, and I’m not talking about the impact on employment, which will also create purchasing power. If you had witnessed the discussion in the committee, you would know that all these figures have been disproved by the government and that we have been discussing it for hours. Now in the plenary session you act as if there has been no discussion. I find this totally disappointing. This is a misleading of the public opinion.

I agree with the words of Mr Van Rompuy. I find it quite hallucinating when I listen to Mrs. Fonck. We have worked together in the Social Affairs Committee. Minister Peeters has given a very clear answer to the question of how it is with job creation and the consequences of the index jump. The National Bank of Belgium has estimated that 60,000 jobs would be created. There would also be a loss of purchasing power by 2019 of 0.4% of the total income.

Financial specialized newspapers such as De Tijd and its French-language equivalent announced this weekend that in 2015 the spending income, le pouvoir d’achat des familles augmente and 2015. Two wage earners will progress in 2015. This is what we do with this government! Those who support the economy, those who work and contribute to the system will advance in the coming years.

Mr. Ducarme, we have received the report of the Central Council of Economy, which contains good news, since the wage gap has been reduced to 2.9%. What annoys me in the projections produced by the various institutions is that it is assumed that in Germany, France and the Netherlands – our main competitors – no measures will be taken to squeeze wages. The economic models defended today are to argue that in Belgium wages will be compressed, while nothing in this direction would be undertaken by our competitors. Let me, Mr. Ducarme, question this paradigm which I find completely illogical.

Indeed, when I hear Angela Merkel announce, through collective agreements, a wage reduction and that the same will is expressed in the Netherlands, I want to ask you a very simple question. If neighboring countries perpetuate this downward spiral and continue to reduce wages – and you will understand that we do not share that ideological consensus that wages in Belgium would be a problem – what are you going to do? Will you persist in this downward competition to be able to compete better with neighbouring countries?

Mr Van Rompuy, I find it somewhat strange that one enters into one part of the debate held in the committee, but not into the other part. In the committee, no party has denied that an index jump would create jobs. The figures of the National Bank were not denied at all. However, it has been said that an index jump will reduce purchasing power anyway. All the measures now taken by the government prove that, by the way, because consumer confidence is falling. I’m not saying that, the National Bank says it.

I still have not received an answer to the question of what this government will do in 2015 for a real reduction in wages. After the index jump, she does nothing. If one wants a real reduction in wage burden and if one finances it with a value added tax and a tax on large capital, one creates almost twice as many jobs as with an index jump. This is evidenced by calculations of the Planning Agency. Why is it so? Very simply, with an index jump, one reduces the purchasing power which also destroys a lot of jobs. If one is so involved with the creation of jobs and with the reduction of wage burdens, then one must ensure a real reduction of wage burdens by financing them with a value added tax. Then there is a real reduction in wages that creates twice as much job creation as this government does now.

Mr Dudley, please continue on.

We agreed that we would respect reasonable deadlines. There have already been more interruptions than presentations. I propose that Mr. Ducarme continue his speech.

Next time I’ll get a chair.

very briefly . I am surprised that Mr. Van Rompuy suddenly stands up as a fierce defender of the index leap. CD&V is really good. I remember Mr. Beke, who in the debate on the government declaration in the House admitted that it did not happen with much sense. You now defend that with a lot of fire and say that the index jump is actually much more efficient than the load reduction we propose. For that you fall back to the table of the National Bank, the table-Peeters of the Social Affairs Committee. You are wrong, of course, because with regard to the index jump, the calculation does not take into account the negative impact of the index jump on the demand side and thus also on job creation. That is a first element.

Second, you say that the burden reduction we advocate in our alternative plan will only create 19,000 jobs. Why does it create so few jobs? This comes, Mr. Van Rompuy, because you choose to carry out a general burden reduction, rather than do it purposefully. That’s why there are only 19,000, not 30,000 or 40,000. If I can then refer to the alternative plan, then our burden reduction is not only much greater, not only from the first year, but also targeted. Therefore, our result in terms of job creation would be much better than that of you, Mr Van Rompuy.

I will try to continue.

I don’t mind the debate, but next time I’ll take a chair! I will let you argue between you.

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the questions must be addressed to the speaker, otherwise it becomes a bit complicated. We will not agree on issues related to the index jump. We have a number of strong elements. The issue of wage disparity is also an element that should motivate us. To continue to create jobs, our companies need these strong measures that are taken in this area, beyond companies and workers. We are not conducting a class policy, we are conducting a policy of general interest in this government. Yes, we need companies to create jobs and we need workers to meet the supply that is made by companies. That is the reality! We need everyone! As far as we are concerned, we intend to prioritize all parties. For us, these are not camps, they are parties and it must be a win-win. Creating 3,000 jobs through this measure is a win-win!

Beyond the issue of index jump, I would like to get to the other measures we are taking and we are extending in favor of companies.

Taking into account the context, taking into account our desire to create jobs, further measures will be taken by this government in favor of the company, including the gradual reduction of the employer’s burden from 33 to 25 percent in order to support companies and revive growth.

Everything that has been done in the past was obviously not bad and we will therefore continue to reduce contributions for the first three commitments, the deductibility of flat-rate costs, ...

This set of measures should help create more jobs in our country. When I pointed out that this majority is obsessed with creating jobs, all the measures in this area meet that goal.

Since we are in the section on taxation, Mrs. Onkelinx, I allow myself very simply to answer what you have just stated about taxation on capital. The amount of 7 billion is recurring, we are making one billion more. This is the reality in this matter.

We are hitting capital by a billion more and therefore, in relation to this aspect, I ask you to re-examine your figures.

Another issue that has been discussed is the issue of pensions. Regarding pensions, it is essential to say the truth: it is urgent to take appropriate measures to pay pensions in the future.

If we do not take the measures we take today, some of which, it should be recalled, were proposed by the former socialist minister as part of his report on pensions, if we do not take this kind of courageous decisions, we will no longer be able to pay pensions in the future.

You should be able to clearly record this reality. We must dare to tell a number of realities to people. It is impossible to continue in the same way.

I gave you figures recently compared to the additional weight in ten years of pensions charges. We need these decisions!

There too, cartoons scared people: 67 years, 2030! We did not hesitate to cite a number of images, such as that of a fireplace on a roof at 67 years old. No, here again, it is obvious that in the case of pensions, our willingness to negotiate will play a very decisive role!

Therefore, we will naturally ensure that the exceptions to the general regime for heavy jobs, for diploma conditions, entry allowances, all career end conditions, are at the heart of the consultation. It is not about imposing, if necessary, measures in the context of these issues. And we listen to considering the painfulness of heavy jobs.

Today, while the statutory retirement age is set at 65 years, we are among the Europeans who retire early: 59 years and 3 months. In our European neighbors, this figure is 60, 61, 62 years. Compared to the pension reform, we will be closer to the statutory retirement age. What matters, of course, is the length of the career today. Only 10% of the working population work until the age of 65.

Mr. Van Hees, you have a minute to intervene!

I will need less than a minute. Mr. Ducarme, I ask you a simple question: if you want to secure the financing of pensions, why do you reduce the cash of the secu by granting reductions of social contributions?

To create jobs! Cotiser, yes, we want to create jobs!

We believe that we do not only live for our pensions. First, you have to work. Reducing social contributions is not an ideological policy. I have a great deal of respect for your beliefs, as I pointed out recently. Since you are here, the PS feels pushing wings to the left! But what are they afraid of? You are only two! It is surprising.

I really respect your statement but we have another approach, pragmatic, and we consider that reducing these contributions is primarily creating jobs and that is what we want to do.

I would now like to address a central dossier for the action that this government wants to carry out, the security dossier. During the negotiations and the presentation of the government statement, when we were able to read in detail what the government’s security action would be, during the discussions we had in committee on the political orientation notes, it is clear that this is a major issue. It is not by chance.

Mr. Prime Minister, with this government, you want to set up the National Security Council, which you will preside over. That a prime minister bears such an essential responsibility is a marked fact. This will change from what may have happened during the last legislature where the national ancestor of the Security Council, the inter-ministerial intelligence committee, had never met under the Di Rupo government.

A prime minister is respected. You can’t force him to do what he doesn’t want to do. He had never met this committee. I was very surprised that he didn’t bring it together. I was in the majority, but I have to admit that it bothered me. I had bad nights.

To get back to the bottom, it is clear that this National Security Council is of utmost importance given the many threats that our country faces today. We cannot forget, in the context of the problem of the ‘returns’ and the rise of radicalism, that Belgium is the only European country to have been hit by an attack on its soil, the attack on the Brussels Jewish Museum. With this majority, with the responsible ministers and the prime minister, we must look after the safety of the Belgians and do everything we can to protect ourselves, protect our society, protect the Belgians from radicalism that is a violent poison. It is therefore clear that the measures that this government will take in the fight against radicalism is a very essential step.

A number of economies affect the Department of the Interior but it is clearly one of the departments least affected by these economic measures. A lot has been said about the commitments of the police. It was said that there would be less involvement at the level of federal policy, that there would be an increase from 1,400 to 800 officers. In 2014, 1,400 police officers were recruited. Only 800 police officers were hired. Therefore, at least 800 will continue to be employed. A lot has also been said in terms of budget comparisons, allocations at the level of police areas, without taking into account a number of budget adjustments that distort the figures. The figures presented by the MPs are bad figures.

They do not correspond to reality. It must be repeated clearly. It is also because this government makes the security issue one of its priorities that the impact in terms of savings at the level of the Department of the Interior is smaller than in a number of departments.

I do not have much time to speak, Mr. President. But be aware that a number of MPs from the MR group will intervene in the framework of thematic debates with strength and conviction and the necessary depth, if necessary, in the course of the night, to defend our point of view.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Prime Minister, by saying that you expressed yourself, yesterday, in the media, with a lot of pedagogy and conviction. In my opinion, thanks to you, but also to the debates that take place in this hall, a number of Belgians who had been caught in this wave of disinformation and caricature, will be able to analyze with a little more backward the information that is communicated to them.

I would also like to repeat a number of elements that I have already mentioned. So, given the positive signals in terms of growth, prospects for additional commitments for 2015, the signals sent by the IMF, the European Commission, the OECD in part of its report, in terms of job creation, flexibility of the labour market, I can only ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies, Mr. Ministers, to keep going.

I know the will of which you are petrified, which is to establish this concertation. Our policy is not directed against anyone. It is true, the dialogues will probably be firm, but our will is to gather around our policies, because we are convinced that they can bring additional well-being to the Belgians – whether they are on the side of companies or workers. I repeat, we are not conducting a class policy, but of general interest. Otherwise, why should we do politics?

Thank you for keeping the way, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you, gentlemen ministers, for staying obsessed as you are, for our country that needs these reforms, through the creation of jobs and shared wealth, in order to sustain our social security.

For technical reasons, the work must be suspended. We will resume the work at 13.20.