Proposition 54K2109

Projet de loi contenant le budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2017.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 23, 2016

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 DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB VB

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. 20, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are several rapporteurs. The rapporteur on budgets, Mr. Klaps, has informed me that he refers to the written report. The rapporteurs for the second adjustment are Mr Gilkinet and Van de Velde, who also refer to the written report. For the program law, there are several rapporteurs, all of whom refer to the written report. Thank you for the reporting.

In order to best manage our work and activities, I intend to arrange a break of approximately three quarters of an hour around 12h 30-13h 00 and then, another pause necessary for the technical services early in the evening around 18h 00-19h 00, it will depend on the speakers.

There are two pauses: one at noon and one in the evening.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Prime Minister, Dear Government, Dear colleagues, the budget work has not become easier over the past year. The attacks with their impact on, first of all, the people directly affected, but more broadly also on our economy, have left their traces. The asylum crisis and the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union are not doing virtue to our economy. The figures for 2016 are what they are.

However, there is a big difference with the policy in the previous legislature. Then the already high government seizure, the share of public spending in relation to the GDP, increased by 1.8%, up above 55%, and that despite a falling interest rate, even then. In the same period, from 2010 to 2014, the Netherlands was able to reduce its public seizure by 2 % to 45 %, and Germany to 44,4 %. In Belgium, on the other hand, there was a lawine of new taxes, which was spread over the citizen. Public revenues increased by as much as 12 billion euros, or 4,500 euros per fashion family per year, colleagues. In terms of savings, there was hardly anything.

Since the entry of the current government, we have seen that public spending has dropped sharply, by almost 2%. This is accompanied by falling taxes. This also explains that there is still a budget deficit. Budgetary discipline is extremely important, you do not need to convince our party, but we have seen enough in the past that we cannot continue to tax out deficits. There is such a thing as a maximum tax burden that someone wants or can undergo. If self-improvement in society by working or undertaking is only punished, then the goat goes away, colleagues. This has been seen in the previous legislature, as the number of jobs in the private sector has declined. With fewer and fewer private jobs, there is a downward spiral. After all, the remaining jobs must be taxed even heavier in order to continue to satisfy the money hunger of the State, which leaves more and more people and companies.

Mr. Klaps, there is an interruption from Mrs. Temmerman.

Mrs Temmerman, before I give you the floor, I would like to recall the agreement that we made at the Conference of Presidents, in the first place, to limit the number of interruptions so that the debate remains clear and, in the second place, to observe some limitation of time within the interruptions and therefore not to make them too long.

I will ⁇ follow these instructions.

Mr. Klaps, you have summed up a whole series of numbers for comparison, I would like to complete those numbers a moment.

At the beginning of the previous government, the nominal deficit was 4.1%. At the end of the previous government that was 3.1%, which is an improvement of 0.9%. At the beginning of the current government, that deficit was 3.3%. Currently, that is 2.3%, which represents an improvement of 0.02%. The improvement in the previous government from 1.09 % to an improvement now from almost zero, namely 0.2 %.

You will point out that the structural deficit should actually be considered. I will not repeat the figures, but the improvement under the previous government was 1.25%. The improvement under the current government is 0.14%. This increases from 1.28% to 0.14%.

I would also like to mention the figures of inflation, which under the previous government were better than the European average. We are now well above the European average. In terms of employment, you also report that it is going well and that there are new jobs. However, when you make the comparison with the previous government, you need to give the correct numbers. Mr Klaps, under the previous government, the employment rate was 1% higher than in the euro area, now it is 0.5% lower than in the euro area. If you make comparisons, make the right comparisons. In terms of growth, we were above the European average under the previous government and we are now below the European average. The decline in the government deficit was better and greater than under the current regime, Mr. Klaps.

I can continue to give numbers, but I keep it here. I would like to communicate that for information, so that we can talk about the correct numbers.

You say that interest rates were already low. At the time, however, it was not as low as it is now. The economic crisis was much worse then than it is now.

Mr. Speaker, I am in line with what our colleague Karin Temmerman has just said.

I remember that in 2014, in the program of the N-VA, it was stated that in the name of the goed bestuur, it was necessary to respect the budgetary balance in order not to leave debt to future generations and not to pay unnecessary interest.

Over the past two years, billions of savings have been made in a climate of austerity to result, in terms of improvement, in a minimum balance between 0.02 and 0.03%. This is the figure announced by Minister Jambon. Billions of savings, so many efforts have been imposed on the population so that, in the end, the deficit is not reduced. Under these circumstances, what about good management?

I feel like there are going to be interesting discussions. Especially the historical memory of some colleagues remains somewhat lacking.

Mrs. Temmerman, if you are talking about job creation and the employment rate relative to Europe, then I must tell you that the previous governments have taken one good matrix rule, which we also defended and even supported from the opposition. This was, in fact, the temporary unemployment during the period during which the crisis was extremely severe. This has given us a short-term advantage.

What have the previous governments left behind? If you want to make the comparison with other European countries, then you must also be honest. The other European countries have prepared and ensured that the economic climate, employment and competitiveness are supported in the long term. You wrote a story to save people in a very short term. We have succeeded and we have supported that. In the long term, however, you have not strengthened that competitiveness, which effectively leaves us behind Europe today.

This is a recruitment race that this government is doing and which I am very pleased with.

Two elements.

I hear Mr Klaps begin with the traditional apologies for the attacks and the asylum crisis that has been underestimated. Mr. Klaps, you could have listened to my intervention in the discussion of the 2016 budget, where I had said that it was ridiculous to say that this would be a one-off spending and that the amounts subscribed for it were far too low, which has now proved too low. So you should not be surprised by the deficit.

Secondly, a few figures. One refers to the past, rightly, of course, but that does not exaggerate the current situation if one looks at economic growth in the neighboring countries and compares it with the much lower growth here. So I have a concrete question, in addition to the figures of Ms. Temmerman. The output gap in this country is a very good indicator of the state of the economy, a very good indicator of the health of the economy. In terms of the underperformance of that economy, we see that this year we were at –0,3 % of GDP and that the forecasts for next year even deteriorate to –0,5 % of GDP. The economy thus falls even further in the forecasts for next year, firmly below its potential.

I would have liked to know from colleague Klaps what the explanation for this is, because you cannot come back to trigger with attacks or an underestimated asylum crisis. This is purely economic and financial, and I would like to have an explanation for that.

Mr. Speaker, maybe a few comments.

Mrs Temmerman, I didn’t say that during the previous legislature there were no jobs added, only that were jobs at the government, subsidized jobs for the most part.

The [...]

The deficit has indeed decreased because a whole barrage of new taxes has just shaken over the people. With 12 billion new taxes, it would still have to be ignored that the record would then have risen.

Mrs. Pas, allow me to immediately return to your question about the situation of the present and future. I’ve just started my presentation and I think I still have some time before cutting on that topic.

Colleagues, I talked about fewer private jobs during the previous legislature, which, of course, ends up in a downward spiral. The remaining jobs must then be taxed even more heavily in order to continue to calm the money hunger of the State. More and more people and companies are getting rid of it. The Wallonian government’s plans to introduce 4/5 jobs, with salary preservation, make it clear that some of those still did not understand the lesson.

Therefore, I would like to give you the following here. As long as Brussels and Wallonia insist on continuing to pursue a socialist policy, chased by Marxist-inspired extreme leftists, they will continue to impoverish and the gap with Flanders will continue to increase. One could then ask whether it is not good for the N-VA if the difference continues to increase. But instead of making strategic reflections, it hurts me especially to see how Wallonian politicians continue to waste their future.

That is why it is so important, colleagues, that this federal government chooses a different path, the path of a sustained recovery policy.

Last year we talked about the tax shift. Colleagues, I can only state that all economic parameters are approximately green. There are more investments, fewer bankruptcies, more startups than ever before, and despite all the fables on the left, purchasing power rises. This year there was a real increase of 1.4%. The National Bank’s forecasts also indicate a real increase for 2017 and 2018 of 1.6 % and 2.2 % respectively. We see this most clearly in the number of jobs, namely 200 000 new jobs in this legislature. That is a net figure, colleagues, despite a few major dismissal rounds as we have seen at ING and Caterpillar.

I will be happy to answer the criticism, Mrs. Temmerman. It is true that there are sometimes more jobs in other European countries, but we are coming from a very long way. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have been ahead of us for years with savings and reforms. There was shame on the left in our country. However, these reforms have been initiated in Germany by the socialist Schröder and have also been carried out in the Netherlands in coalitions with socialists. These countries have made it clear to us that it is better to reform in a timely manner, and they are now clearly reaping the fruits. Therefore, we must continue on that path too.

Yes, we would like it to go a little faster, but with a government debt above 100% we box a match with a hand on the back and that’s not that easy. As we focus as much as possible on structural savings, the effects are seen very slowly. For example, the urgently needed pension reform hardly generates a short-term difference, but it reduces the costs of aging in the long-term. In recent years, these pension expenditure have grown by an average of 4.5 % per year, resulting in the government having to find 1.3 billion euros in each budget formulation, only to cost the growth. This is why the pension reform is so important. What a difference, by the way, with the famous Silver Fund, which we abolished last week after 15 years of suffering. An empty box that only cost us money, even this year.

In the 2017 budget, we will continue on the path that has been taken. The focus is on the very necessary savings. This is also logical with a government seizure that is still above 50%. In this sense, it is strange that the criticism of the opposition is constantly about a lack of income. One can, of course, focus on each separate line in the budget and find that not everywhere the predetermined amount is obtained. Let me say it very clearly again, Mrs. Temmerman. In the Stability Pact earlier this year, it was proposed to generate income of 50.8 % of GDP. This year, according to the European Commission, we receive 50.8% of GDP in revenue. On the income side, the report is relatively positive. Globally speaking, the problem is ⁇ not there.

Colleagues of the opposition, just say it if you want us to go for more income or to raise the government seizure again, as under Di Rupo, but don’t end up talking about shifting taxes in the context of fair taxation. This will help to close the budget deficit no millimeter. It was striking to see how last Sunday in the studios of the VRT, Mr. Calvo and Mrs. Kitir were unable to answer that question. They kept swimming around. I am looking forward to what they will say on this subject later.

Mr. Klaps, Mrs. Pas wants to interrupt you.

Mr. Klaps, you say that the opposition has no savings alternatives.

I remind you that last year we already submitted a whole set of amendments to the 2016 budget on matters that could indeed be saved, because the biggest problem is indeed on the spending side, which does not exclude that you also have a problem on the income side.

Income is systematically overestimated. You mentioned the tax shift. Per ⁇ you can already light a tip of the veil on this? How will it be financed? You know as well as I know that the sugar tax should be 200 million for that, but that was in all silence removed. You also know that the excise duties would finance the tax shift, for 460 million, but that income is seriously impacted. The excise taxes on alcohol will bring much less late than expected, as I also predicted last year. People are going to make purchases abroad and so only 400 million are brought in. So I would like to know from you how the tax shift is financed, because the relance measures you referred to appear to have been bought on the spot. I would like to get an explanation for that.

I have a second concrete question. You mentioned the job creation. Can you give me an explanation for the unimproved unemployment rates? Why are those for 2017 estimated at 7.9 to 8.2 %? That is again no improvement from this year’s figures, namely 7.9 to 8.3%.

I cannot blame Mrs. Pas. Her group is not with many members. She may not have been there when the European Commission came to tell us that the unemployment rates that this government uses have been ⁇ quietly estimated and that on the negative side, which will improve both growth and employment next year.

Mrs. Pas, come next time and we will make it fun, then you will immediately know how the numbers come together.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Klaps, I am pleased that Mr. Van de Velde took the floor just before me, because if one refers so much to the report of the European Commission, one must correctly cite it.

Both the European Commission and the Court of Auditors have said that the problems we face today are largely due to the misestimation of income. Mr Van de Velde, I repeat again what the European Commission says about the tax receipts and specifically about the tax shift: “have not been fully compensated”. In other words, the tax shift is not fully financed.

Mr. Klaps, I do nothing but give numbers, but it may be good to place them in the right context, something you do less. The same is said by the Court of Auditors, the National Bank and the Planning Bureau and was also said in the past by the Monitoring Committee. Your minister, this government and you yourself on this tribune, however, continue to say that there is nothing wrong with those incomes.

Mr. Klaps, not even half of what is planned is achieved. You can say that they are always estimates. That is correct. Indeed, these are always estimates, but from these estimates it was predicted that they would not be met, again by the Planning Bureau, the Court of Auditors and the Monitoring Committee. You, your government and ⁇ your minister are constantly blowing this in the wind. As a result, we still have a deficit that we will not meet in 2017.

If you would like to refer to the European Commission, the European Commission says that the deficit has not been recovered in 2016 and that it will be almost impossible to recover it in 2017. She, by the way, says in her report that she does not believe this and that a balance in 2018 is completely unattainable. The European Commission and the Court of Auditors.

Please, if you cite numbers and quotes, please choose the right one!

Mr. Speaker, I find that the left would rather not have seen that tax shift and that we would not have given the low-income net income.

Mrs. Temmerman, the answer is very simple, there was 50.8 % of GDP in income, we get 50.8 % in income. Any rule can be discussed. Indeed, when one goes to a new policy, to a change, it is a little harder to predict. I will come back soon, no problem. However, you should not say that we have a problem in terms of income.

Mrs. Temmerman, either you say that we should reverse that tax shift and not give the lower incomes a higher net wage, or you say that we should raise the taxes because we do not collect enough now, and therefore we must tax a little more.

Mr. Klaps, you just said on the floor that there is no problem on the income side.

Were you not there during the discussions? Have you read the European Commission report? Have you read the report of the Court of Auditors? Do you continue to claim that there is no shortage, that there is no problem on the income side? Do you dare to say that black on white?

Second, I have never said, my party has never said, and to my knowledge the full left has never said that we are not for a tax shift. On the contrary, we are in favor of reducing the burden on labour. We are absolutely in favor of this. However, we want the global framework to be ⁇ ined. We also want to see who will pay for this. Now you reduce the burden on labor and let this be paid by the ordinary man. This is what you are doing, and we are criticizing it.

We do not criticize the fact that there are additional jobs. On the contrary, there could be much more. The question is who will pay for these additional jobs. There needs to be a fairer distribution.

Mr. Klaps, first of all, I do not like that you take a walk with our program, so I will calmly emphasize that again: the disagreement lies in the financing of the tax shift and the application of the tax shift, not in the principle whether the burden on labor should or should not be reduced. I think there is almost unanimity in this Parliament.

Second, you say that when one does new things, the risk of a difference between estimation and reality is greater. You said that and I agree with it. This is ⁇ the case with your fiscal strategy, where a lot of new coffers are built and where we are faced with new fiscal measures every six months, after a period of uncertainty. This indeed increases the uncertainty and then it can sometimes counteract in practice. That is correct. I am glad that you also realize this.

The problem is that you continue to deny the problem-Van Overtveldt. You then tell Ms. Temmerman that she wants to raise taxes, that the opposition wants to raise taxes, that there are no problems in terms of income, that there are only in terms of spending. Then, of course, you also forget that the problem of income was not only signaled by us. The Court of Auditors says this in its documentation. It is annoying for them, as well as for us, to be systematically confronted with a N-VA that ignores income problems. These problems are also signaled by Eric Van Rompuy and the CD&V group. The problems of financing the tax shift were also regularly pointed out by Ms. Wilmès. It was almost uncomfortable to have to listen in the Committee for Finance, on the one hand, to the version of Wilmès and, on the other hand, to the version of Van Overtveldt. Mr. Van Overtveldt continues to say that the tax shift is financed, but Ms. Wilmès is much more honest and open in this regard. The problems are also signaled by the Court of Auditors and the European Commission.

Therefore my invitation to you today, Mr. Klaps, it would help if you did not deny the problem. This would help to move forward in the coming time in a problem that has been signaled repeatedly by various actors.

I felt it, I said earlier today that there would be interesting discussions.

First, I would like to communicate the following to the deniers of the light. I don’t know how it is at your home, but if we make a plan at home, which is true at the end of the month, then we don’t scream to each other that there is a problem with the income. I think this is a rather absurd discussion. If you start with an amount in front of you and you get that amount, then there is no problem. What happened, of course, was that the internal relationships were encrypted. It has to do with the market situation.

The costs of terrorism and migration are estimated by external institutions at approximately 2.4 billion euros. That is 0.6% of GDP. In normal circumstances, we can realize conversions and there is going concern. I would like to remind you that during the period of the attacks here in Brussels there were no hospitality activities, no apartment was sold and no office was rented for four to six weeks. It was calculated that all this is about 0.6% of our GDP. If we can do that, we must close the books.

Let me go back to the household situation. I find it very funny that politicians, once they sit here, forget how it happens in real life. If one sets up your budget at home and one takes care of it, then it has nothing to do with the income. Then the partners will not scream to each other that more income needs to come. No, fucking, you’re going to save, that’s what you do. If one sees that the tering is not put to the nering, then one should start with the tering.

It is very easy for politicians to say that there should be more income. Well, I’m glad that you have admitted that you want to tax more. If one wants to solve the problem in a different way, then one must tax more, there is no other option. On the contrary, we need to save more.

Mr. Van de Velde, I think you express it quite plain. I have never said that there should be more tax. You are taking the populist turn, and I will do so. You might start giving fewer gifts to Electrabel, which would help us a long way on the way. So I can give a few more examples.

After that interference, I go back to the serious. (Protest by Mr Van de Velde)

Do I have the word or not? If I have the word, you may also be able to explain this to Mr. Van de Velde.

Mr Van de Velde, I would like to come back to the problems associated with the attacks and asylum and migration.

It is true that these problems have given our country a very heavy blow in all respects. However, I must note that both the European Commission and our own National Accounts Institute conclude that we have overcome these problems fairly quickly. This shows our resilience. In other words, you can’t use those problems as an excuse. This is also said by the European Commission. In addition, this excuse, especially in asylum and migration, applies to many countries in Europe, and the problem of the attacks, unfortunately, also applies to some countries.

If you don’t believe me, I can quote the Institute for National Accounts: “A number of measures have given a favorable purchasing power effect, although that is partially overturned by, among other things, the increase in VAT on electricity,” which has nothing to do with the attacks, “the increase in indirect taxes and the index jump.” The Institute of National Accounts concludes from this that the impact of the problems of the attacks and asylum and migration on our economy after a few months and ⁇ at the present moment has actually been quite minimal. Furthermore, the European Commission says in connection with the “risk of significant deviation” that “refugees and security does not change this conclusion”.

In other words, you cannot invoke that as an excuse for the messy budget work you deliver here.

I would like to give each of you the word. I am absolutely in favor of the debate. However, I would like to recall the agreement to keep the number of interruptions as short as possible and as limited as possible.

Mr. Klaps has been here for a long time. He should have completed the theory around this time, but I keep the interruptions carefully. So he still has a while to go. Whoever asks for the word can naturally get it; that is the evidence itself.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my mind.

All I really wanted to ask Ms. Temmerman is about the temporary reduction of electricity VAT, actually a battle point in the election campaign of a number of people in the previous government. This was a temporary measure. I would like to ask this to Mrs. Temmerman, but I cannot. What would you have done now? Would you extend this measure? How would you finance them? Mrs Temmerman, if you are conducting a debate, you must dare to conduct it honestly. You continue to hammer on those measures, which you yourself have overestimated and in which you have corrupted part of the account. You even organized the index differently. Well, the index jump was actually a much cleaner way of implementing policies than the way you arranged things internally. Now that everything comes to light in the meantime, I would be a little quieter in your place.

I want to pick out another point. The ongoing story that the tax shift is paid by the ordinary man is, of course, not correct on any side. Despite all the measures taken, the net purchasing power is moving forward, Ms. Temmerman. These are also figures, which you can find at the National Bank.

Instead of always talking about more taxes, I think that a government, before determining who should pay which tax, should first look in the mirror. Being honest to the citizen and to the business means that one only asks for the taxes that one needs to make the State function properly. As long as our government seizure is at the top of the world, I think it is not fair to always ask for more taxes. Apparently, however, we differ in opinion on this.

Instead of taxing more, the government focuses on real economic growth by improving the structural balance of the federal government. We improve employment through the reform and modernization of the labour market. With the reform of the law on the wage standard, the so-called 1996 law, we are further building our historical wage cost disability and with the law on agile and workable work, we are adapting the labour market to the 21st century, to the benefit of employers and workers. With the reform of the financing of social security we put an end to the tradition of social agreements whose cost plate is simply transferred to the State, and thus to the taxpayer, and thus to the little man. These types of structural reforms are important for the long-term sounding of public finances, as the aforementioned pension formation has shown.

I would like to pass on the comments of the Court of Auditors on a number of topics. I will focus on some fiscal measures. This is something that has always been discussed in the Finance Committee. I will talk about the abolition of the speculation tax and the adjustment of the stock tax, colleagues.

The speculation tax was an example of a misconceived tax. It will come in the economic manuals in the line of so-called fair taxes that charge nothing but, on the contrary, cost money. The revenues from the speculative tax are lower than the fall in the revenues from the stock market tax. That is bad for the public finances, and bad for the economy, because especially in the small and mid-caps, the traded volumes dropped sharply. In exchange, we will raise the ceilings for the stock tax. Anyone who will soon buy a package of €600,000 of shares will pay €1,600 in stock taxes instead of €800 now. For those who make a purchase of 5 000 euros or 10 000 euros, nothing changes. The adjustment applies only to large investors, which creates an asset tax that saves the middle class. We also close a back door here. The stock exchange tax also applies to transactions through foreign intermediaries. Thus, we ensure an equal playing field with our domestic brokers.

The problem of the speculative tax, by the way, shows how difficult it has become in this overloaded country to impose new taxes, ⁇ new taxes on such a liquid thing as capital. It also shows that the plans of some to make the rich pay more will only lead to more riches leaving the country, less tax revenues, and a deficit that will eventually have to be corrected again by the hard-working Flaming.

The rediscovery of the hard-working Flaming by Mr. Klaps is painful. You really have no lessons to teach in this Parliament.

If you have grabbed the part-time working mother or husband this legislature hard, then you have little reason to speak when it comes to protecting and strengthening the hard-working Flaming. All those savings in social security also affect the hard-working Flaming. On the other side there is also the Turteltaks, the more expensive childcare and the child allowance that is not indexed, so you have little right to speak to say that the hardworking Flaming in the plans of the opposition would pay much more.

Mr. Klaps, I think it is very difficult to get the hard-working Flaming to pay more than with your government program. I am reasonably sure of that.

That’s again the same joke that we’ve heard three times today, Mr. Calvo, and I’m not working for half an hour yet. The low-income gets a higher net income and more purchasing power, Mr. Calvo.

I have lived in the real world for 20 years before I sat here, Mr. Calvo, and I have worked with people of all ranges and standings. I have seen that it is indeed difficult. It is not easy, but just for that category we are working to improve the situation.

Mr. Klaps, you do not name the bills for a moment and there is the degradation of our social security, health care, the savings in pensions and the way you push the people with low pensions, not to mention women who have worked largely part-time, into poverty.

It may be that purchasing power may have increased a little, but did you know that the median income – which is not the average but a more serious look at society – fell in 2015 for the first time in a very long time? Do you know what it means if the median income drops, Mr. Klaps? This means that the difference between those who sit at the top, the rich, and those who sit at the bottom, is increasing. This is done “thanks” to the measure of your government, Mr. Klaps.

Mrs. Temmerman, I would like to respond to this.

We live in the most redistributed country in the world in terms of taxes. I would like to talk about social security and pensions. In the past, I’ve heard a socialist once say, “I know what to do to save pensions, but if I do, I’ll never be re-elected.”

We will do that, Mrs. Temmerman.

The technique of that median income is based on the tax returns. This is clearly related to the 2013 income. I am very pleased that Ms. Temmerman puts her finger on the wound in this regard.

I think it is good that there is a debate. However, the system in which one speaks of one party to be corrected every time by one of the same party, to monopolize the speech time, is not the normal way of working. It looks like a duo.

We agreed that everyone will have their speech time. In this way, however, you simply take away time from others.

Mr. Vande Lanotte, I would like to note that I am closely keeping track of the speech time. No one will interfere with time. The debate is what it is, with the agreements we have made about it.

Mr. Klaps, I hear you talk with great enthusiasm about the hard-working Flaming. However, would you not rather talk about the much-paid Flaming?

If I look at the income side, I see a load increase on tank cards. As you know, it will be paid almost entirely by Flanders. You know that in the province of Antwerp, your electoral district, by the way, there are more commercial cars than in the whole of Wallonia. The increase of the mobile tax, which has doubled in six years from 15 to 30%, is called by Alain Mouton of Trends the “most community-wide of all taxes”. This is a tax that will be paid primarily in Flanders. The stock exchange tax, which you just mentioned, is also a tax that will be paid mainly in Flanders. So instead of talking about the hard-working Flamings, you might better put your hand in your own belly and talk about the high-paying Flamings. I think this would be much more correct.

This is precisely why we continue with the reform agenda, because that is the only way to ever get it down, Mr. Vuye.

When we talk about the mobility budget...

Another small response from Mr. Vuye.

Mr. Klaps, we are talking about 2017, not about 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

You do not answer my comment at all. These are all taxes that will be paid mostly in Flanders. And that with a Flemish nationalist party in the government, congratulations.

I understand very well that you are trying to hide it, but fortunately there are people here who are able to unmask everything you are trying to hide.

Mr. Vuye, the 2017 budget is 20 % based on new income and the rest on savings. There is indeed a number of increases in charges. That is correct. We are not happy with that and we hope that we can shrink it back, that we can leave it at a later stage, but in a situation like today we must go on with it.

I wanted to say something about the mobility budget, because you also talked about it, and about the problem of corporate cars.

Mr. Klaps, this is not the matter. It is not about that we will have to do this and that there will be additional incomes.

It is about, and I have still not received a response from you, that those additional revenues will be paid mainly by the Flamings, and the moving tax and the stock exchange tax and the tank card.

Mr. Vuye, the increase of the stock exchange tax is only on the ceiling amount, that is, for orders from 600 000 euros of shares. This happens not only in Antwerp, but also in Waals-Brabant. I’m pretty sure of that, so I think the story might just be a little more nuanced than you bring it, but I understand that you want to play this out in your new role.

I was at my explanation in connection with the company cars.

Mr. Klaps, I can’t do anything about it, but Mrs. Pas asks for the word.

Mr. Klaps, you say the story is nuanced, but now take the tank cards and the commercial cars. I remember that Di Rupo, as a trainer, wanted to tax the commercial cars extra and that the N-VA was then on his back legs, because only 15% of the commercial cars are in Wallonia, the rest is in Flanders and Brussels. If one speaks about changing roles, you are very well dealing with that changing roles, because you will now deal with the commercial car via the tank cards, mainly in Flanders.

Colleagues, I want to go further, but if I am interrupted, it becomes difficult.

I just came to my explanation in connection with the company cars. I would like to remind you once again why we are the champion in our country in the number of commercial cars. That comes, colleagues, because of the high wage costs, the high wage loans and the tax cuts. First one has crazyly high tax scales and then, instead of taking them seriously, one begins to distribute sweets, sweets holders as it were. For example, there are the meal cheques, the eco cheques, the service cheques and also the company cars. All that was introduced one by one to solve a piece of the problem called tax pressure. For the company cars, it is said that they are favorably taxed, that one must only deal with that, that one must only increase the burdens on them. They forget what their original purpose was. It should therefore be clear that the abolition of the system of corporate cars is for us indisputable, as long as we do not succeed in substantially reducing the wage burden.

We are very sensitive to the environmental and mobility arguments. It is unlogical that someone gets a company car, while he can also make the residence-work shift quality with public transportation or bicycle. Therefore, we will now work on a mobility budget, in which the workers in question will be able to choose how to get that benefit.

Let me talk about the redesign.

We need to have a tooth in this regard, Mr. Vuye, I will be for you. We all agree that there are efficiency gains in government. Therefore, measures are taken whose revenue is reinvested in the improvement of the operation. But it does indeed take more time than expected to get a stuck bureaucracy in the story. For all clarity, that is a responsibility for the entire government, for all parties, for all ministers. We hope that everyone will contribute their stone to remove the rust.

In this story, we need to bring the officials together to make it a success. So I prefer that we go a little slower and build a performance government together with all the players, rather than conducting a policy of big announcements, which later do nothing.

Colleagues, we also make the difference with regard to tax fraud, because there is effectively much more incurred attacks than in the past. I also invite the united opposition to sign the N-VA bill on the establishment of a public register of professional prohibitions, which is ready. With that public register, we can tackle the hard core of fraudsters, who suffer disadvantages not only to the government, but also to the private sector. The paper classification at the Crosspoint Bank of Enterprises was abolished in the previous legislature by the Minister of Economy. Griffiers no longer need to deliver their sentences to the Crosspoint Bank of Companies. However, they are just the real fraudsters and scammers, who make victims again and again. With this bill, we can address this. I hope for your support if you are looking for a solution to this problem.

Mr Klaps, I am listening to you. Nevertheless, I still do not hear an answer to the question I asked you and awaited in your presentation. In fact, the majority has as a sort of magic rod to make money disappear in contrast to the goed bestuur.

Over the past two years, austerity measures and budgetary efforts of €9 billion have been implemented, excluding the 1.8 billion funding of the tax shift, in 2016. You have reduced the balance by 0.02 or 0.03%, that is, by one hundred million. So you demanded an effort of nine billion from the population and you reduced that amount by one hundred million. So where did that money go and with what magic rod did you make those nine billion disappear?

It is very simple, Mr. Van Hees: there has been a reduction in burden. If we did not have tax cuts, the budget would have been roughly balanced. But we are not there yet. Coming from a party with an economic program that will cost us 50 billion, that criticism is, of course, little credible. You will, of course, tax everyone until there is nothing left, and then we can all comfortably storm the grocery store like in Venezuela.

Mr. Klaps, that’s what you’re doing. You then asked how we would do it. You say every time that we would raise taxes. I have not yet spoken that word.

I did not speak to you, Mrs. Temmerman.

I have said for a while that you could also ask Electrabel something. Another issue – I am glad that you cite them – is, of course, tax fraud, which is the worst or most pernicious form of non-integration in society. You fully agree with me, for which I thank you.

It is strange then that, firstly, your minister and your government – this is the minimum – do not even have a separate policy note about tax fraud, but that the subject is in the whole. That already proves that the fight against tax fraud is what is considered an appendix. Second, the college that should address both social and tax fraud has only met twice. This also indicates that the money will not actually be sought there. In April, a task force was set up to act against tax constructions. We all know it, because colleague Vanvelthoven has asked a question about it: after eight months it is actually still not there.

If we look at the measures on tax fraud, we must note that they are almost nonexistent. I am not saying that, the Court of Auditors says that. The Court of Auditors claims that another €50 million is registered regarding tax fraud, but can not actually verify whether that is true, because it does not get an explanation about the measure. I know that some things are very difficult to estimate, but one does not even get the measures on their own. In terms of politics, this is very strange. Moreover, even though your Minister is in favour of the interdisciplinary approach, as we all, by the way, because it could better tackle social and fiscal fraud, we see that the government now wants to eliminate the multidisciplinary teams.

Per ⁇ before the next budget, in order to put things in order, you should look at measures and revenues in that area, instead of all the measures you are issuing now.

Mrs Temmerman, I agree with you: tax fraud is the most destructive form of tax evasion or tax evasion. I think we all agree on this. However, I must note that under the current government, in four months there is more collection of late and deducted taxes than in a full year before, so I think we are on the right path.

Mr. Speaker, I try to pick up the thread of my speech again in order to stay within the appropriate speech time.

Colleagues, I would like to say something about health care, because there have been comments on this too.

For years, the growth rate in healthcare was 4.5%, up from inflation. In those years of almost unlimited money, inefficiencies are inevitably accumulated. Therefore, we now also have an opportunity to save on that level without affecting the patient and in a way that benefits health. Antibiotics, for example, have been prescribed too much for years, which has led to an unhealthy population and resistant bacteria. I think everyone agrees that we should limit the use of antibiotics.

Mr. Klaps, you start your argument about healthcare by immediately saying that the patient is not touched. There you are so wrong. Your government is taking a third way out of the healthcare budget, namely 900 million euros, ⁇ a billion. You continue to tell, together with the Minister of Health, that this can be done without affecting the patient. That is pure nonsense.

Slowly, in slides, you are making the health gap ever bigger. At the beginning of this legislature, it has begun to reduce the third-payer scheme for chronically ill people. Now comes the indexation of the maximum invoice. By previous governments, the maximum invoice was never intentionally indexed, with the intention of gradually increasing the protection of the weakest patient. This is now being abolished. You say the patient does not feel it, but the antibiotic measure is felt by the patients. There are patients who need antibiotics. The patient is sensitized by making antibiotics more expensive, but in fact the doctors need to be sensitized, because behind every antibiotic course is a prescribing doctor. However, the sensitization of the doctor does not happen at this time. Furthermore, antibiotics are twice as expensive for you and me, but for the weakest patient three times as expensive. There comes the moratorium on the district health centers at the top, again on the neck of the most vulnerable. The latest developments are derived from the newsletter of the professional federation of Chineseists that we received yesterday, because the professional federation of Chineseists has decided not to adhere to the conventions anymore. Today, it is announced that a large proportion of doctors think they should no longer adhere to conventions. Mr Moens of the Syndicate of Physicians, by the way, has made it very clear that, if this is approved – that will probably happen on Thursday, I do not have any illusions about it – they want to cancel the entire convention. Who will pay that you think? Who will pay the increased medical salaries? Do you think the state will do that? No, the patient will do that and the weakest patient in the very first place.

What this government is doing is to make the health gap, in discs, increasingly bigger. This is what this government is doing, Mr. Klaps. That the patient does not feel anything about it is pure, pure nonsense. You know that too.

Mr. Speaker, I intended to make a general presentation, but I see that we have already reached the detailed discussion on healthcare.

and right. That was for later.

In fact, we seem to be in the end.

Mrs. Jiroflée, I would like to note for a moment that you make a total of the pot rushed equation. The exercise is about 900 million euros, with the antibiotics in question representing 14 million. We discussed this in the committee extensively. Awareness has been being raised for years. You have no alternative. Per ⁇ you reserved it for the plenary session? We are very excited to hear from you how you will protect your patients from the growing number of resistant germs that infected children today simply die from. I am very curious about your alternative, but I think you cannot deny that in that exercise of 900 million euros a third goes to making medicines cheaper, 300 million euros versus 14 million euros.

There are also other measures we take to fully save the patient. I would like to return to that in the public health debate that we hope we can lead then, and not now.

Colleagues, I want to, but then we will let the discussion completely loose and it ends in pieces in the night. It is just what we decide. For me, it is about a moment.

We are apparently not just in a detailed discussion. We have also entered the populist debate.

900 million euros had to be saved. That savings are broken into pieces. Therefore, antibiotics are also charged. This is not done for sensitizing reasons.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues of the NV-A and more generally, dear colleagues of the majority, one of the great difficulties with the way you have designed your budget is that you can get for a third – this is never seen before – in the healthcare budget.

This is not the first time, because in the last two years you have already made more than two billion savings in this sector alone. These figures are not from the opposition, but from the minister.

In reality, you have decided to use the healthcare budget to flush out the state budget and your own very large budget gap.

If economic measures in health care are necessary, they must be implemented, if we find waste, we must hunt for it, but the challenge is to be able, thanks to these savings and this hunt for waste, to reinvest these resources in Health.

Clearly, you are not anticipating the future: you are not taking into account the ageing population, the turn to the outpatient level, the need to rebuild hospitals and support at home.

You will destroy all these devices with ineffective reforms, which will cost you jobs, harm hospitals, and of which you will pay, tomorrow, the direct effects of your political choice.

You are hurting patients, you are losing jobs. We are witnessing a complete breaking of trust and Minister De Block and the majority now explain to us that you are negotiating major multiannual cadres with the sector.

However, your multiannual framework that you have not complied with is that of the government agreement, which envisaged to block a 1.5 percent health care standard. You are far from it, since this year it is 0.5% for the 2017 budget, while the Plan Bureau predicted that with constant policy, you need a growth rate of 2.2%.

Also, making us believe today that you are now going to negotiate the multiannual frameworks and respect them, while you have not even respected your own framework, is a complete illusion. You will allow me the expression: it is taking and patients and health professionals for less than nothing. I regret it. You will pay for this policy in the coming years.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, because either we are dealing here with a more general intervention that directly affects the budget, or we are now entering into the details of the different Parties.

I would like to remind you that we have already had this discussion in the committee. We have it here during the general discussion and we will have it – I know how things work – a third time, while anyway we know we will not agree. I could, indeed, have fun giving numbers that are quite contrary to those I just heard from Ms. Fonck. In this case, I do not know where we are going.

Mr. Speaker, could you, at some point, ask that we stay in a general framework? It is expected that there will be a partimed debate.

I suggest that we allow Mr. Klaps to finish.

Thank you very much, President.

We are fully in the general framework when speaking of the growth standard of the healthcare budget. On the other hand, [...]

Yes, but I suggest that Mr. Klaps continue.

I, Ms. Fonck, have only said in general that in a sector that has been invested in an increase of 4.5 % over the years, above inflation, there is room for savings. That is what this government is doing. For the details of all measures, I would like to refer you and all colleagues to the detailed discussion later.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my speech.

Mrs Temmerman then began to say that I do not want to see that there is a problem with the income. Well, there is at least one problem with the estimates of it, colleague Temmerman, which is correct. The estimates given to the government appear to be too high every year. This is not new, as was the case in the previous legislature. Therefore, I am pleased that we are now applying the precautionary principle for the first time and installing a security buffer of EUR 739 million. Even more important is to investigate the causes of these wrong estimates and to get clear about them quickly, so that we can quickly check whether the buffer is large enough.

In short, colleagues, most signals are positive: the latest report of the National Bank was very positive, the GDP continues to grow in the coming years, consumption rises, the available income rises, a bunch of new jobs are being created and, most importantly, colleagues, the government seizure is on the path to finally fall below 50% in 2019. This brings us to a very important milestone. The IMF also confirmed the positive growth figures. It is even more optimistic than the National Bank.

The IMF also expressly supports our government’s reform agenda, which focuses on competitiveness and jobs, and encourages us to further reform. The IMF follows our position that we must eliminate the budget deficit through the spending side and asks us to reform the corporate tax. We can only encourage the latter. The company tax reform planned by Minister Van Overtveldt is supported by almost everyone in this House and beyond. Yesterday, there was the collective manifesto because of the employers. I urge the other partners in the government to work on this as soon as possible. This reform, which must be budget-neutral, will result in a lower effective tax burden for our SMEs, which cannot benefit from multinational multinational tax fraud. For multinationals, it will provide the advantage of clarity. As CEO Ronnie Leten of Atlas Copco stated: I do not get the Belgian tax system explained at our headquarters; rather a clear, legal framework in which we know what we must pay than a high rate with a mass of deductions where we risk years later to get the cover on the nose.

This budget contains many meaningful measures that will further positively support the economic indicators. We must have the courage, colleagues, to dare to further reform.

Our group will enthusiastically approve this budget.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to express to you our emotions in the face of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Berlin. Barbaric violence has hit again, as it hit Zurich, Ankara, Istanbul and as it hits Aleppo. Our thoughts go to the victims and their relatives.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on Saturday 17 December, the President of the MR, Mr. Chastel, spoke in the daily Le Soir and stated about the budget balance in 2018: "I have no fetishism." Or maybe .

Then you will understand that you are being asked a very simple question. Where are the commitments from the beginning of the legislature where you claimed, at a rate of 0.6% effort, to reach the balance in 2018? Where are the matamoresque statements of some, the N-VA in particular, who did good management, het goed bestuur, their battle horse?

The truth is very different. All the fundamental indicators that would prove good management have a negative evolution. There is an increase in public debt: 107 % in 2016, + 1 % compared to 2015 and + 1,6 % compared to 2013. Economic growth, as has already been said, is lower than that of the euro area. I can give you the numbers. I’m not going to flood you but, finally, still: 2% growth in 2015 in the euro area against 1.4% in Belgium and, in 2016, 1.7% in the euro area against 1.4% in Belgium and, in 2017, according to IMF estimates, 1.5% in the euro area against 1.2% to 1.4% for Belgium. This is below the euro area average. This is already part of your balance sheet.

Mr Laaouej, Mr Van de Velde would like to intervene.

Mr. Laaouej, I do not know if you have been careful during the whole discussion that has unfolded over the last hour. I don’t know if you realize it, but Mrs. Temmerman has really taken socialism seriously.

Mr. Laaouej, with her great discourse on the median income of 2015, she has proved, without she probably realizing it herself, that your huge tax urge of 2013 had become unsustainable. The median income is calculated on the declarations. It is great that you cite such arguments here. It has proved that your policies and the way you increased the tax burden have become unsustainable. Everything you will declare today and everything the socialist family will declare today must be seen in the light of that median income. It was a great speech. I will be happy to remind you. I hope you have an explanation for that at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I should answer everything Mr. Van de Velde said, because objectively, it is an addition of inconsistencies.

But that being so, since he invites me to answer him: did you look at the increase of indirect taxation, Mr. Van de Velde? Are you able to tell me, over the entire legislature, the total of your consumption tax increases? Can you give me a number? Tell me a little. No to?

Mr. Van de Velde asked me. It’s too easy to say, “Ah! “Three billion, Mr. Van de Velde, on the legislature. Following the index jump, Mr. Van de Velde, do you know how much you will reach at the end of the legislature? By conceiving that there is a punch of 2.5 billion per year: to more than 10 billion euros. So, please, Mr. Van de Velde, no lesson regarding compulsory levies. But if you want it right, I will continue, because you will see, you will have the opportunity to react again.

If I understood correctly, every time you talk about tax justice, every time you talk about good management, every time you talk about economic growth and recovery, so every time you are taken in default in relation to your policy, you must invent arguments that do not hold the way. I’m sorry, but I’m going to go back to the thread of my presentation. Well done, this distraction!

Third point: after the rise of public debt, after a lower economic growth than the euro area, the non-compliance with the trajectory of absorption of the structural deficit. On these three elements, your failure is patentious.

Let things be clear! We do not have the fetishism of budgetary trajectories, especially when real economic revitalization policies stimulate the economy, investment and domestic demand. The problem, your problem, but which becomes the problem of the whole population, is that you have imposed a policy of austerity that produces no positive economic and budgetary outcome.

You continue to pretend that the balance in 2018 is still a realistic goal. But the reality is quite different. The European Commission estimates the structural deficit at 2.2% of GDP in 2018, or in the order of 9.8 billion euros. The figures cited by Le Soir are quite correct, based on the projections of Eurostat.

Do you realize the situation in which you put the country? Where have all your billions of efforts, all those billions of euros of sacrifices imposed on the population gone? We know the reasons for your unpredictability. To summarize: a tax shift not financed. It has been said, I repeat: according to BNB, 6.6 billion unfinanced by the horizon of 2019.

A decrease in interest charges that could have been used to clean up public finances but that you have used to finance other policies. Imagine for a moment what the situation would be if interest rates were higher!

However, you hit very strongly, from the beginning of the legislature, leaving no rest to our fellow citizens by targeting all categories of the population (workers, pensioners, allocators) and also hitting all sectors. You get 3 billion on the SNCB. You weaken social security financing with your linear cuts in contributions. You cut in health care. I will come back. All this, for economic results that are not at the appointment!

The question of where those billions are going is, of course, a ⁇ interesting question, and you will find the answer, Mr. Laaouej, in the economic projections for Belgium, autumn 2016, which the National Bank has recently published.

I am in the table “Deposits mainly applicable to labour income”, specifically labour income, because the taxes on assets remain stable for this legislature.

If I look at those taxes on labour, they are going down in 2016, compared with 2015, by 0.9 % of GDP; in 2017 by 1 %; in 2018 by 1.5 % and in 2019 by 1,8 %. I will translate it in cents. That is for 2016 3.7 billion euros reduction of labour taxes, in 2017 4.1 billion euros, in 2018 6.15 billion euros and in 2019 7.38 billion euros. For this legislature, a reduction of 21.33 billion euros in taxes on labour, which ends with the hard-working citizen.

Thank you for this small question.

Mr. De Roover, I thank you.

Could you, however, re-add the reduction in work taxes that you mention, if it does not bother you, but in percentage of GDP? How much is this addition, Mr. De Roover, when you add these percentages of GDP linked to the fall in labour taxes? How much do you get? You mentioned them, just add them.

Mr. President, Mr. Laaouej, I have made a comparison with 2015 for each year. This means a comparison provided that the policy is unchanged.

Since we, as you have already determined, change the policy compared to previous and therefore with your policy, the comparison with the unchanged policy is the decrease each year. That means that if we do not take the measures taxally – I repeat that it is measures for labour and not for wealth, because those taxes remain stable – we, the government, would have to collect from the people 21 billion euros more.

Of course, this is an effort that we must make towards the citizens. Because we return those funds and ensure that they do not have to give those funds to the government and the State Treasury, that is an effort that we must carry out budget-technically.

I must honestly confess that I am ⁇ proud that we are giving back to the population that 21 billion euros. I agree with the figures of the National Bank of Belgium. However, you can place other numbers opposite them.

Mr. De Roover, you do not answer my question, but it is not important.

You speak of 21 billion efforts; of which act. On the other hand, we know where you are going to get them: through cuts in social security, in public services.

Let’s talk about the index jump. This is a compression on the wage mass of 12.5 billion over the five years of your legislature, or 2.3% of GDP. You add 0.8% increase in indirect taxes, or in total, almost 3.5% of GDP plus taken on wages and taken on consumption tax. Here, Mr. De Roover, where the money of the taxpayers, who are also workers, has been spent! These are not abstractions. A taxpayer is a household, someone who works, someone from whom you are going to take money with your measures, directly or indirectly. Because when you ask people to pay for more expensive medications, when you deprive them of social rights, you also take them into their wallets. I ask you, therefore, to have a comprehensive view of what you are doing in terms of effort, especially when you are going to look in the pocket of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Laaouej, we have made the choice to shift the expenditure of the resources again and again to the citizen himself. You might have made a different choice. We could also have made a different choice and raised a lot more taxes and decided on behalf of the government where that money goes. We say, however, that the citizen can best make a decision on it himself. Of course, he can take certain options in his choice of spending.

You are right when you say that we have made a shift to indirect taxes in part. This is also a choice. Some economists are in favour of this, even from a wealth point of view. In terms of taxation of indirect taxes, we are internationally, as you know, at a much lower level than many competing countries.

Mr. De Roover, I have courteously listened to your catechism on the economy of supply, but you will understand that we are not obliged to adhere to it, especially when the results are not at the appointment. I will return to this point.

So I said that you hit our fellow citizens directly, but also indirectly when you are going to get 3 billion on the SNCB, when you reduce the financing of social security or when you take care of their social rights.

I was interrupted, but in the end, this is the opportunity for me to insist, once again, on the fact that you also inflicted an index jump, that you have raised VAT on electricity, excise duties in proportions never seen, all this to arrive at ⁇ disastrous economic and budgetary outcomes.

Is it necessary to recall here how inflicting an index jump on workers and allocators while subjecting them to a vertiginous increase in consumption taxes is a source of social injustice? Should you also remember, Mr. De Roover, that indirect taxes are anti-redistributive, that they weigh heavier on low-income? Should we re-insist on the fact that the so-called tax reduction induced by the tax shift – you never talk about it – comes into effect only gradually while the index jump and consumer tax increases were imposed immediately?

I remind you, once again, that the pensioners and allocators who suffer both the index jump and the increases in consumption taxes do not benefit at all from your tax shift. This is a reality that you are hiding. To social injustice, therefore, you add a sharp economic failure and leave a budget deficit situation.

Economically speaking, Belgium is now lagging behind the euro area. It shows lower than average economic growth, while, during the previous legislature, the opposite phenomenon was seen. This is something you often forget to mention in your speeches.

On the budgetary level, I spoke of the structural deficit, by the horizon of 2018, at a rate of 2.2%. For 2016, the nominal deficit reached 3%

You hang onto two loops, namely, job creation and the macroeconomic increase in the available income.

When it comes to job creation, you stick to the forecasts, I say “forecasts”, of the National Bank, which reports the creation of 120,000 jobs. Still, an economist – isn’t it, Mr. Gilkinet? Recently it was shown that so many jobs were created in the current business period.

But you also hide the fact that, of all these jobs that you misleadingly attribute to your economic policy, almost all are precarious, partial or fixed-term jobs. It is the National Bank itself that highlights the low quality of these jobs. I quote the National Bank: “This phenomenon is part of an increasingly flexible labour market, where part-time work and short-term contracts are more prevalent.”

You also forget to say that the National Bank strongly attributes job creation to the return of a better economic situation that is prior to the Michel government! I quote the National Bank again: "Since the economic recovery began in the course of 2013, the growth of activity in Belgium has proportionally presented an ever-increasing job intensity." 2013 Mr De Roover!

What you are also not saying, the third weakness in your demonstration, is that if the National Bank of Belgium is expecting 120,000 additional jobs over the next three years, the projections before the arrival of the current government were already expecting 96,000 jobs – and it is the Federal Bureau of the Plan that says it – or 80% of the current forecasts. Your policy of reducing wages is, from this point of view, very unproductive in addition to being unfair. If one considers only salaried jobs, alongside self-employed jobs and jobs in the public sector, the Michel government does even less well than the projections before its arrival. I can provide you with the figures of the Plan Office compared to those of the National Bank. And yet, the moderation / reduction of wages is colossal: from the order of 11 billion euros by 2019. In this regard, I refer you to the figures of the Plan Bureau which show well the evolution to the decline of the wage mass. I repeat it, less 11 billion over the previously mentioned period.

Furthermore, knowing your intention, with the possible reform of the law of 1996, to revisit the wage mass further down by a moderation that could go, we are told, up to 10%, there is reason to worry. It might be time to learn from the facts that are important to you.

So maybe a little more jobs, subject to the confirmation of the forecasts, but not as much as you say, far from there, and above all more precarious jobs, with dangerous wage moderation!

I can therefore only invite you to show moderation and humility with regard to the argument of employment. Why humility? Because, given the current projections and those as they were in 2014, the forecast net increase is 25,000 units. Remember the words I just said! You score on the wage masses with the index jump, that is, in the same period 2016 – 2019 (four-year period), ten billion punctions, to which you must add, always in the same period, eight billion euros of reduction of social contributions, which gives a package of 18 billion to link with the 25,000 additional net units that you claim to create according to the projections of the National Bank. You will agree with me that the ratio is not ⁇ advantageous.

You also stick to the macroeconomic and global evolution of the available income. I will not delay this, as we have long discussed this in the Finance Committee. Simply and in order to correctly fix the ideas, I will recall the few elements that I had brought to your attention. First element: a macroeconomic increase in the available income says nothing about its composition. Is it the income of labour that increases, or the income of capital? From the moment when, over the period 2016 – 2019, you score eleven billion euros (i.e. ten billion attributable to the index jump and one billion to other elements of moderation), this is a measure that makes you think that it is ⁇ not the wages that are doped!

Second element: it also tells us nothing about the distribution of the available income, namely, who benefits from the increases in the available income. Is it the top or bottom of the basket?

Third, citizens may see a face-to-face increase in their available income, but if, in a second time, they are faced with your consumption tax increases, it will not advance them much, but on the contrary!

Fourth element: if tomorrow you ask them to pay for their more expensive medications, their alleged face-to-face income increase available will also not be of great interest to them. For these four reasons, the argument of the macroeconomic increase in the available income must be taken with a lot of caution. But even better, if we compare the projections of income increases available under your government with those under the previous government, we find that, by 2019, the National Bank forecasts a 7.4% increase in the available income, while under the Di Rupo government, we ⁇ an 8.5% increase in the available income.

This means that we do better than what you do with your austerity policy and compression of domestic demand.

It is also interesting to show...

Mr. Laaouej, I hear you say that you doubt that the increase in real available income for the coming years, according to projections of the National Bank, is in the share of betting and wages in that real available income. I can remove your doubts, because according to the recent report “Economic Projections for Belgium” of the National Bank, the share of betting and wages is indeed an increase, not only for 2016 and 2017, but also for 2018 and 2019.

I know you would like to question matters that are said by the majority, but I think you can’t question the latest December 2016 report on, among other things, job creation, the types of jobs that were created, and the increase in available income.

I also refer to the Graph No. 4 on page 15 on the effective increase in the share of betting and wages in the real available income.

Madame Smaers, did I tell you at some point that there was no increase in wages in the composition of the increase in the available income? I never claimed that. I invite you to look at what is the share of capital income in the increase of available income. This is what I ask you to do and you never do.

The second element. Obviously, I did not dispute the fact that, factually, the available income is increasing. I bring you a new element by telling you that the National Bank’s forecasts under the previous government resulted in an increase of 8.5% by 2019 compared to 7.4% for the current government. This means that you are doing less well than what we were doing when we were in business. I say nothing else.

Another point . I don’t hear you when I tell you that people may have an increase in available income but that, in a second time, they are faced with indirect taxes or they will be faced with fewer social rights, fewer medication refunds, fewer health care refunds. This macroeconomic argument is an argument that can at some point make illusions but which, when you dig a little, does not resist analysis.

I would like to ask Mr. Laaouej, because he talks a lot about the previous government, which was the Minister of Finance and Budget at the time.

I suggest you address this question to your colleagues from CD&V. Ms. Smaers will help us to see this clearer. There is always a surreal moment with Mr. Piedboeuf! I invite the members of the CD&V group to answer in my place. I think they are better placed. Your intervention, Mr. Piedboeuf, is interesting because there is a lot of schizophrenia. Often, Mr. Van de Velde says “under the previous government” and I never hear you react. Objectively, I urge you to react more.

So I said that what goes for available income goes for private consumption as well. Here too, it is very interesting. National Bank forecasts for 2019: + 6.6%. It is a cumulative. We accumulate every year. That was 8% in the current legislature. Again, here too, you can see that your policy tends to tame private demand. This is why, Mr. De Roover, the question remains: where have all those billions taken from our fellow citizens’ pockets gone? In any case, they do not allow you to correct public accounts or revive the economy!

The facts give you a new lesson. I am addressing the whole government, but especially the Minister of Finance. Social suffocation has never contributed to bringing oxygen back to our economy.

A failure on two tables, therefore, to which adds the deterioration of the social climate, which you have provoked. In fact, economics is also psychology, Mr. Piedboeuf. When you start a legislature with a catalog of horrors, such as index jumping, increasing electricity VAT, etc., that you pick up 100,000 people on the streets, you insecure people. You do not want them to participate actively in the economy. What happens then? You are trying to reduce the internal demand.

The climate of confidence for consumers and households is as important as the climate of confidence for ⁇ . The economy runs on two legs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to Mr. Laaouej that, when there are demonstrations on the street, it is he and his people who are at the forefront.

Mr. Pietro Pietroff, I ask for such interventions again!

Back to the 2016 budget and the 2017 budget. For 2016, let’s say things as they are: your unpredictability and your poor management place Belgium at 3% nominal deficit. You are in the pre-chamber of the excessive deficit procedure. You have decided to limit efforts to 0.1% of GDP in 2016, and to postpone almost all efforts in 2017 and 2018. It will already be hard in 2017, but we fear the worst for 2018.

For 2016, you talk about the attacks, Brexit and the asylum crisis. The Commission does not follow the reasoning you invoke to explain your 2016 budget crash. Even if these facts are taken into account, they do not explain how you are now at almost 3% nominal deficit.

You will also allow me to point out that other countries than ours, unfortunately, are facing the same difficulties but show better results. Thus, they may be influential parameters, but ⁇ not decisive.

and no! The real reasons are elsewhere, and reside first in your economic policies; I just talked about them. They do not create the conditions for the boost, and the dynamics of tax and parafiscal plates are therefore in decline. The interest of looking at the evolution of economic growth was obviously there: to economic growth corresponds a dynamic of tax and parafiscal plates, which means more revenue, without necessarily increasing the mandatory levies.

You also created a climate of distrust from 2014-2015. It does not support private domestic demand. We still pay the price today. The question is not simply whether domestic demand has increased, but how much it would have increased without the brutality of the measures you have imposed on the population.

You have multiplied estimate errors in tax revenue, whether it is current revenue or the yield of new measures. Keep in mind: for 2016, the gap is almost 2 billion euros on the tax revenue side. First there were 794 million, then 760, and then 540 million were added. Due to adjustments and budget leaflets, more than 2 billion euros of gap on tax revenues! It is simply incredible and unthinkable.

You have announced us a task force to solve the problem of estimation. After two and a half years of office. Per ⁇ it is time to think about it. But what lost time! It should also be regretted.

Another element – do not neglect it and interest yourself in the field: when you have reduced to little the tax regime of the secret commissions, the amounts that occultly leave the wealth of the companies, you have sent a bad signal. Today, you can get out of money, in an occult way, from a business; the only thing you risk is to pay the tax that you should have paid anyway. If it's not a call or an encouragement to cheat, I don't know what it is! You will also lose a lot of money. This will not be in millions or tens of millions, but most ⁇ in hundreds of millions.

You are talking about bad savings. This becomes the bottle of ink. I apologize, but the redesign of the administration, for example! My group leader, Laurette Onkelinx, said that in the end, every Anglicism concealed an entourage. Jobs, jobs and jobs. Tax, tax and tax. and Redesign! Starting jobs! I am confident of your English. Maybe you should start to worry about it too. Redesign of the administration. You first put into the budget the faramine amounts. Today, you realize that you yourself came back because the Court of Auditors and the opposition told you. And then above all because we witnessed a vaudeville that does not honor the image of your government where everyone returned the ball to know who should make savings, who should take the file arm-to-body. In short, it all collapses!

That’s why your budgets look like day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, a card castle that continues to collapse as scheduled.

Also note what you presented to us in 2016. The fiscal regularization of which you expected 250 million euros for a project adopted in July 2016 and which will still undergo changes in December 2016, with institutional and legal problems pointed out by the State Council. It would be a miracle if you reach 100 million euros!

As for the increase of excise duties on tobacco and alcohol, we asked you, from the beginning, to check the level of these levies in the neighbouring countries, in the north of France and in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Nothing was done. Today, you are facing a cross-border shopping that makes you lose hundreds of millions of euros. This cross-border shopping represents a 35% increase in purchases in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. We sounded the alarm bell, you didn’t want to listen to us and you’re going to lose, Mr. Minister, hundreds of millions! It is already too late!

The Caiman tax represents another bottle of ink. No one, especially the Court of Auditors, believes in the amount of 460 million euros. I will go back to 2017 because the European Commission is also starting to be interested in it.

I would also like to insist, for 2016, on a collapse of the expected revenue of the increase of the furniture prepaid from 25 to 27%. On page 45 of its report, the Court of Auditors notes that where you expected an additional revenue of 178 million over nine months, you already suffer a loss of 287.5 million.

Should I also mention the question of the Sicafi for which you expect 250 million while the European Commission advises you to keep only 125?

In fact, in addition to the bad figures you present to us, the bush will inevitably weigh up by at least one billion euros, due to the blatant estimate of your revenues.

What does this mean? This means that you are already in the excessive deficit. This means that by 2016, you will already exceed 3%. There is, I think, for you, the opportunity, ⁇ in 2017, as soon as possible, to try to correct the shot, to prevent the 2016 mistakes from descending on 2017. For 2016, I fear it very much, maybe it is already too late.

We could have expected that, precisely, for 2017, you would correct the shot, but nothing was done. I don’t go back to the vaudeville of the end of the year when, in September 2016, we finally learn that it is not 2.4 billion efforts that will need to be made but 4.2 billion. You will agree that a few weeks after sending your budget sheet to the European Commission, this is not really good.

Nevertheless, why not take into account the Court of Auditors’ remarks when it says to you: “Attention! There were mistakes in the 2016 budget. Don’t repeat them in 2017!” You are not listening to him. You continue and report the same mistakes on estimating revenue. And again, we always find the same posts: the Caiman tax. For the Caiman tax, Europe says to you: “Settle 100 million! Don’t put 460 million!”You keep the 460 million. We will therefore face a difficulty, since the Court of Auditors tells us that it will have difficulty estimating the yield because the money is paid to the common pot of the furniture pre-count.

I made the case a little bigger. The fact is that the Caiman tax is dependent on IPP statements as well. Therefore, we may have the possibility, through the IPP statement, to track the performance of this measure. But I hope in any case that you will make the tax on transparency transparent. I hope that you can help us to see more clearly about the evolution of yield, otherwise, once again, we will be forced, with you, to navigate in sight during our budget discussions. This is neither reasonable nor acceptable.

The furniture pre-count, you now put it at 30% and you point a revenue of 345 million euros! The Court of Auditors tells you that this is not reasonable because what was observed in 2016, i.e. interest drops, the change in the behavior of the savers, will still be observed in 2017. You are not listening! You retain this receipt of 345 million euros.

I can quote the Court of Auditors, which says it explicitly, since it "attirates attention to a possible overestimation of the revenue of the furniture pre-account". You take no account of these remarks and you persist in the same blindness in terms of excise policy. In 2016, you were told that you were mistaken. Therefore, it is said that the program law will involve a re-evaluation of this policy. What a baby! This is not an Anglicism, Mr. Miller... You keep your excise rates and continue to encourage people to go shopping in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or in France. It’s the time of celebrations, it’s true! Every day that passes you lose tens of millions of euros. I don’t know what you need to wake up.

Then you take a huge risk of at least 500 million euros, in my opinion. I want to talk about the famous buffer on tax revenues. What is the reasoning? When the SPF Finance turns back – and things repeat in 2016 – it finds a systematic gap of two billion euros in tax revenues. Good prince, he recommends that you do not take such a margin, because the situation might suddenly improve, but rather take one of 1.1 billion. You don’t listen to it and make your own calculations before putting a buffer – that is, a security margin – of 739 million. By reworking its own calculations, the Court of Auditors points out that even that buffer is not correct. In fact, you only retain a real margin of 482 million. In short, between the 1.1 billion that the SPF Finance suggests to you and the 482 million that the Court of Auditors holds, you will miss 500 million. It is not too late to correct the shot.

On this particular point, when the Court of Auditors was questioned by me on the subject in commission, it avoided the answer, because it realized that it was wrong in that calculation. In fact, she had deducted from the sum of 780 million... But yes! You were there, you are a witness. Do not be in bad faith, Mr. Laouej. You are not used to it. The Court of Auditors admitted that it was wrong.

Oh well ! The Court of Auditors is wrong. In my opinion, it is rather Mr. Piedboeuf who believes to have understood that the Court of Auditors said that it was wrong. I did not hear that. Especially since I asked them the question. I asked them to explain the difference in numbers. She continued her explanation, which you will find in her report. Of course, I can send you back. This is explained in a very precise way, Mr. Piedboeuf.

Your comments will be forwarded to the Court of Auditors. There is the book of observations of the Court of Auditors and now there is the book of observations of Mr. Piedboeuf on the Court of Auditors.

The flexibility clause was well integrated into the budget. The Minister has told you too. The Court of Auditors deduced it from this buffer, wrongly. I am sorry to tell you. She acknowledged her mistakes.

Mr. Pietro, we take note of what you say. We take note that you consider that the Court of Auditors is mistaken. Mr. Piedboeuf apparently controls the budget better than the Court of Auditors. This is not an argument of authority.

This can happen! You have been mistaken for years.

Better and better! A bit of courtesy, Mr. Pegboeuf! Be hard, but stay courteous. I soon finished.

Another issue is the fight against tax fraud. Mrs. Temmerman talked about it. In a few lines, on page 43, the Court of Auditors explains – but it is wrong, isn’t it, Mr. Piedboeuf? – that this new performance of the fight against tax fraud relies on not much. We wait to see. She is right!

You still have three minutes, Mr. Laououej!

Three minutes ? But I was interrupted, Mr. President!

It is counted!

When we add the interventions of the "Institut" Van de Velde with those of Mr. Klaps, we get at least three hours of interruptions.

I calculate the speech time.

Mr. Laauouej, you have three minutes left. Can you suggest your alternative during those three minutes?

I know your criticism. Mrs. Onkelinx, you know that I can endorse some of the criticism. Nevertheless, of the alternative and the view of the socialists on the whole problem, which they would explain in three minutes, I have not yet heard a jota. However, I have also come here to listen to how we could do better.

Mr Laououej, you have three minutes to say how you are going to do it.

Not only do they want to reduce my speech time, but they also tell me what to say in the tribune. However, it should not be exaggerated!

For alternative policies, I refer to Mr. Van Rompuy’s blog. There are many interesting solutions. But I must say here that you have also been deprived of your speech time, Mr. Van Rompuy, and I regret it. I loved reading your blogs and listening to your comments. We are missing that!

Anyway, I have three minutes to tell you that there is a collection of recipes that, obviously, do not hold the way.

As for savings, with the redesign, we come back to something somewhat reasonable. But I remind you that, in this context, you are planning on 750 million euros to finance your tax shift. For this reason, Mrs. Temmerman’s criticism was ⁇ justified. Indeed, 750 million euros for your tax shift financing disappear as disappear also, in particular, expected income from excise taxes, income related to the pre-count furniture, etc. Therefore, you have a big problem with the financing of the tax shift.

You also overestimate savings in interest charges. This is not negligible. You forget to provide social integration with sufficient resources to be able to carry out the reforms you vote for. The Court of Auditors says it, but it is probably wrong!

The House of Representatives will not have the resources of its policy. I will not talk about healthcare here. I leave my colleagues the care to return to it by asking them to apologize for it, but there is a lot to say.

So I come to the program law and the diamond tax. You create a new privilege with an unheard of impudent. While you were creating a privilege for this sector, you didn’t wonder whether it was normal for this sector to pay only €20 million while it has a turnover of €50 billion. You find it normal that 20 million tax revenues represent 60 million taxable profits. You do not say that this is a fraud-sensitive sector. Should I quote Omega Diamonds who scammed €2.2 billion? Should I mention the Monfreid case and the 800 million fraud? You are not asking questions. You create a privilege as you prepare to vote on tax discrimination against asylum seekers who have children. You have really lost your sense of humility.

The tax on speculation has disappeared and we must not imagine that we will see it return.

Do you want alternatives, Mr. Van Rompuy, such as the CD&V proposal to tax surplus-values for a fairer taxation? You will obviously find it hard to get it through. I understand why you are asking for alternatives. You need us, Mr. Van Rompuy! This is the reason for your intervention.

In conclusion, your anti-social policy, your bad economic choices, your chaotic fiscal policy, your impudence to create privileges for the most foolish while tapping very hard on the most fragile, result in an impressive collection of chess. By your fault, the public accounts are in a situation that puts us at the mercy of Europe and its credo, austerity! By your fault, the households are asphyxiated today and will be more asphyxiated tomorrow. By your fault, you are compromising the future of future generations. You define social security, you dismantle people’s social rights, you increase public debt and you dismember public services.

In the bottom, the liberal agenda of the "less state" meets the agenda of the N-VA of the "less of Belgium". Weakening the federal state to weaken Belgium is the result of your budgetary complicity. I tell you: you will always find us in front of you to defend the interests of the workers and the future of the country!

I will probably not say the same thing as Mr. Laauouej!

Budget discussions are the most important of the year, as you know. This is the financial expression of the action programme that has been carried out since the beginning of the legislature. Today we begin the final discussions on the 2017 budget after several days of constructive discussions in each committee. I would like to welcome, on behalf of my group, the quality of the work of all political formations, carried out in the continuous dialogue and the deepening of the topics addressed.

Minister Sophie Wilmès contributed decisively to this budget. I would also like to welcome his rigorous and precise work in his office.

The 2017 budget is part of our government’s commitment to support job creation, increased purchasing power and competitiveness of our country, in order to ensure long-term financing of our social security. As in every fiscal year, the government has studied the situation very carefully. But beyond our country, the budget is in a broader international economic and political context, sometimes difficult, sometimes tragic - we saw it yesterday - and relatively uncertain. At this end of 2016, of course, our eyes are turned to the year 2017, but it is worth returning a few moments to the trials that our country has faced.

The government has fully assumed, on the security level, the rise in power of Islamic terrorism. The attacks have caused significant damage to our economy, but our country has demonstrated its exemplary resilience capacity. At the budget level, the government had to assume, both in less revenue and in more expenditure, the budgetary consequences of this collective drama.

Britain’s exit from the European Union, made possible by the British referendum, has created an atmosphere of uncertainty on international trade in general, and European in particular, which is not favorable to economic growth, whether you want it or not. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has raised a high degree of uncertainty in global economic relations, notably at the level of international agreements, climate management and keeping Delaware in the radius of tax havens favouring tax evasion. Finally, and these are just a few elements, the current rising oil prices are an additional source of uncertainty.

This reminds us of the climate emergency and the need to contribute to address it. Despite these contextual difficulties, the Government has resolutely ⁇ ined its direction and pursues its objectives of gradually returning to budgetary balance, of saniting our public finances, and above all of continuing structural reforms on the socio-economic level, consisting in establishing and strengthening a context favourable to job creation and the development of entrepreneurship.

Mr. Piedboeuf, I will ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Klaps, to see if the answers are identical. A budget effort of 9 billion has been made, consisting mainly of austerity introduced over the past two years. However, we do not see any progress in the evolution of the nominal or structural balance, except a minimum progress of 100 million euros. How do 9 billion austerity translate into an improvement in the balance of the order of 100 million?

Thank you for your question. I am continuing.

Through this budget, the government consolidates its major socio-economic structural reforms, as envisaged in the government agreement.

Mr. Piedboeuf, I noted that you cannot answer this question, so I will ask you another one. This government always says it deals with the lowest incomes, ⁇ through the tax shift.

The Minister of Finance gave me a table that focuses on the distribution of the tax shift by deciles of income. The first decile represents the poorest 10 percent, and this goes up to the tenth decile, representing the richest 10 percent. How do you explain that the first five deciles, i.e. the least wealthy 50% of the population, benefited from only 20% of the tax shift, knowing that this is only about the tax of natural persons? Indirect taxes also affect lower incomes. We see here only the positive side of the thing, not the negative side of the tax shift. How do you explain this inequality? I suppose you will provide the same answer that you gave to my first question.

Just not because I greet your thirst to know but, you see, like any good student, you will listen to what I have to tell you and if you still have a question, I will answer it soon.

Regarding the rise in power of the next step of the tax shift aimed at increasing competitiveness and increasing the purchasing power of the low and middle wages, its full implementation is confirmed in 2017, both in terms of support for the purchasing power of workers and the reduction of charges decided to strengthen the competitiveness of companies and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises. The government consolidates its efforts for 2017 and confirms that by 2019, the tax shift will bring a net purchasing power increase for all low-income. It is a policy that creates and will create a difference in the daily life of many families.

On the reform of our pension system, the government has anchored the 2017 budget in a multiannual long-term vision. Pension financing is one of the major challenges for the coming decades. My colleague, Stéphanie Thoron, unless she gives birth by then, will come back in more detail on the reforms undertaken and to be undertaken.

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the reforms undertaken are aimed at ensuring the budgetary sustainability of the first pillar of pension by gradually raising the average age of exit from the labour market. Reforms were indispensable and responded beyond common sense even to the various recommendations of the IMF, the OECD and the European Commission. The government has done so, even though many current measures will benefit the next government budgetally. The important thing is to ensure long-term equality between generations.

Reforms are not only aimed at perpetuating our social model. They also aim to make our system more socially efficient. The Plan Bureau thus estimates, in its intermediate scenario, that the pension reform will allow by 2060 an increase in the average pension between 2.2 and 7.3%, depending on the schemes.

In the first two years of the legislature, the minimum monthly pension for a full career at the isolated rate was thus raised by 53,57 euros for an unemployed worker and 115,97 euros for an independent worker.

In this amending framework of the duration of the working time, the government will take into account, as announced, the penibility. Thanks to Daniel Bacquelaine, who fully respects social consultation, the National Committee of Pensions provides that workers receiving a recognition of penalty will be applied more favourable modalities to start early retirement or to benefit from a higher pension. A budget has been released for this purpose within the framework of the program law.

These reforms are necessary to return to growth, while promoting job creation, increasing purchasing power, increasing our competitiveness and the long-term sustainability of our social security system.

Mr. President, I listen to Mr. Piedboeuf with great attention since the beginning of his speech, hoping to find, in his presentation, anything other than lenifying statements and congratulations to the members of his party who are in the government. He had the merit of being the first to cite Mrs. Wilmes. I will come back soon.

He now quotes Mr. Bacquelaine on pension reforms and trying to make people believe that afterwards it will be better than before. But the constant in this government and especially in the action of ministers MR is that afterwards will be much worse than before.

I must remind you that this government, after the previous one, has decided to eliminate very widely the possibilities of early retirement and the assimilations of unemployed periods, in particular by workers who take care of their children or their parents. This is the reality of our society. We can contest it and we can contest it. And then, indeed, there is all this debate about the penibility that is a bit of the bandage placed after the government.

I would like to ask you the question of whether you have made the calculation of whether, with the envelope that is now put on the table by the government and Minister Bacquelaine, how many workers could actually benefit, and for how long, from an early retirement mechanism because their careers have been painful and difficult? What is the percentage?

I read your party chairman this weekend who wrote that teaching functions, given the psychological burden, the fact of having to be in service before groups of students or sometimes demanding children, could be considered to be painful. Beyond 55-60 years old, it can be difficult, as a maternity teacher, to have to bow, raise children, be all the time in activity. In some areas of education, this is more difficult. Do you really think that the loose minimalist envelopes will allow anything meaningful in relation to these functions? Do you really think that compared to the pre-existing system and that you have damaged and deconstructed, we will be able to do something that will really lead to a better future?

I am not nostalgic. I think there are things to change in society, but to do better, not to make things worse.

Mr. Gilkinet, it is of course that, when the levels of penibility have been stopped, one can calculate, profession by profession, what it corresponds to. I would like to ask the question to Minister Bacquelaine.

But in the face of a problem, we need to find solutions. We made our choices. They are not yours. In order to partially compensate for the increase in working time, we have actually decided to take into account a fatigue factor. It is like the question asked recently by Mr. Van Rompuy to Mr. Laaouej: you have to make choices. We made our own. What are your solutions? Keeping things in place?

I could develop the solutions here but I will do it in my quarter-hour later. Otherwise, the president will not be happy.

Be aware, Mr. Piedboeuf, that you create an enormous problem to which you then bring only tiny solutions. At the time of the first pension reform, under another government – Mr. Van Quickenborne was the Minister of Pensions at the time – we denounced measures that would affect very heavily women – this is the case –, workers with interrupted careers – whether voluntarily or not – as well as part-time workers and lead to ever-increasing poverty situations.

In its opinion, the Court of Auditors rightly points out the fact that one-day savings will generate much larger spending the next day. This is the short term, Mr. Piedboeuf.

The initiative that a Minister of Pensions should take is not to promote pension funds, as Mr. Bacquelaine systematically does, but is to fight for sufficient alternative financing that will allow all workers, after their career, a sufficiently decent income to continue to live and not to survive. This is not of interest to your government, and we denounce it. That is why we are submitting alternative proposals and will continue to do so.

Except that you do not offer a financial solution!

Pensions are a major part of the budget.

Mr Piedboeuf, you immediately decided to raise the retirement age from 66 to 67 years – the dates we know. You also picked up the end-of-career adjustments, and even you completely removed them for a part. I think, for example, of the healthcare sector, where you have completely changed the qualitative adjustments at the end of the career for caregivers.

As a result of the races, in practice, you have mainly a vase communicating to disabled persons. The employment rate of the 55-65-year-olds should be increased, this is a certainty. We can agree on this. But one of the reasons why you do not benefit from it today, to the very point that the situation is deteriorating – especially given the transfer to disability, which in an unprecedented way exceeds the number of people unemployed – is that you have postponed all the measures which, however, had to be taken simultaneously if one wanted a acceptance of the population and a longer retention of people at work.

Let me give you two examples. First, in 2014, you decided to raise the retirement age to 67 years, but postponed to 2019 the entire aspect of the penalty. However, it is primary and should have been implemented at the same time.

Second, I will cite all the qualitative and quantitative adjustments to career goals that are still lacking today while we have always supported them and that allow more people to want to stay at work longer. By breaking all these measures, you are destroying the 55-65-year-old employment rate while it should rise. You leave this workplace but it must be implemented, contrary to your strategy for ⁇ ining employment which is ineffective and harmful for the future of pensions.

Mr. President, I would like to react to Mr. Gilkinet’s speech because he always tends to refer only partially to reality.

The extension of the professional career is advocated by the European Commission and by the IMF. Given the ageing population, we are obliged to impose this measure recognized by these bodies. This has allowed us to bring our MTO target back to zero. This is a reality. Every time, Mr. Gilkinet, you omit this fact.

As you know, the reform of pensions was necessary to return to growth, to sustain our social security system and to avoid a burden for future generations. And I know what I’m talking about!

There are two ways to solve the pension problem.

The government has chosen to decrease the current and future rights of pensioners and to bet on private pension funds that also have a cost, which allow some shareholders to take advantage of profits too low taxed and that pose certain dangers. This is the path of ease chosen by the government.

However, there is another way. In the face of the real challenge of ageing, we must collectively unlock the budget margins and implement the reforms that allow everyone to live a dignified life. This is my goal as a representative.

The measures taken by the government, today and tomorrow, will lead more pensioners, and especially pensioners, into a situation of poverty risk. I find this unbearable. I do not accept that we glorify, as Mr Calomne and Mr Piedboeuf did, the measures taken in the field of pensions. They are socially and socially unbearable.

We take our responsibilities. We do what we must do, Mr. Gilkinet, and we do not dream. We are faced with situations that we must resolve step by step by trying not to worsen the financial situation of Belgium.

In comparison to Ms. Fonck’s remarks: indeed, but we have made a program for a legislature. We cannot do everything at the same time. We plan and move forward little by little. A series of statements were made. They must be discussed and transformed into legal texts. We are advancing. We will make a balance at the end of the legislature. I’m sorry, we’re absolutely not indifferent to what needs to be done, and we’re doing it gradually.

The [...]

You will ask the questions to Mr. Bacquelaine. You have already done it and he has already answered you. The questions start again.

But yes, he answered. Of course yes!

Effects are beginning to appear in terms of employment. According to recent statistics from the Institute of National Accounts, between the end of 2014 and the end of 2016, ⁇ 105,000 jobs were created in our country. We are doing better than planned, as the Federal Plan Office forecasted, with unchanged policy, the creation of 56,000 jobs from 1 January 2015. The government’s policy, which focuses on job creation, has therefore allowed this figure to increase.

This job creation is also confirmed by the National Bank’s latest report on economic projections, which reports the creation of 55,000 jobs in 2016. This good performance is partly explained, according to the governor of the National Bank, by the policy of salary moderation of the Michel government, which makes new recruitments actually less expensive.

Mr. Peggy, my speech will be brief.

( ... ) : ( ... ) :

No, these are numbers. They are not yours. These are figures I know.

Every job created is, of course, good to take.

There is a lot of glorification from the government and the majority regarding the employment dossier. But let me remind you of one observation. In fact, what was the goal the government had assigned itself? In his government agreement, he planned to meet his European goal, namely an employment rate equivalent to 73.2% at the end of the legislature. But how many jobs, Mr. Piedboeuf, must be created in order to meet this rate at the end of the legislature? Are there 100,000 jobs? and no. Are there 200,000 jobs? and no. According to the calculations, this number is expected to reach more than 400,000 jobs between 2014 and the end of the legislature. I heard Minister Peeters say 210,000 jobs will be created by the end of this legislature. By doing so, in practice, you reach half of the goal you were assigned to yourself in terms of job creation.

All this to tell you that we expect the government to show lucidity. My words are not included in the criticism. It consists in asking you to stop glorifying yourself with these numbers. Let us reverse our sleeves so that the employment rate of 73.2% is reached and, above all, to avoid tackling on one side what you have tried to give on the other.

We talked about SMEs. It is very good. There is a tax shift. Social and employer contributions on the first employment are abolished. It is very good! But we are still waiting for a strong and clear policy to combat social dumping – the construction sector has recently announced this. These jobs are gradually being destroyed.

It is also expected from the government that the latter does not take measures aimed at increasing the cost of employment. I think of the recent decisions concerning corporate cars. I think of what you have decided in relation to the employers’ punishment on the gap between pregnant women. I think of what you decided on the employers’ punishment for sick people. These measures, in the end, also affect the cost of labour.

Let us reverse our sleeves to avoid having measures that penalize employment on the one hand and let us target this employment rate of 73.2%. This clearly requires more than 400,000 jobs in the legislature. This is the goal that the government has set itself and that it must therefore respect.

It’s not just to glorify but to see the numbers! If we can double it, we will do it. A popular wisdom says that you have to dream very high to ⁇ very low. We have that ambition. And if, in the legislature, we actually create 20,000 jobs, they will be created, Ms. Fonck. They will no longer be created and then we will try to do better in the next legislature, as we hope to continue.

You are talking about social dumping. Never have so many measures and plans been taken as during this legislature, even though all this must be implemented.

They are not effective.

You always have solutions for everyone! We’ve seen you at work before.

Mr. Piedboeuf, you want to talk about the dismantling of the Social Inspection?

If there is indeed a sector with which we must work, because it is an operator that uses a lot of labor and which is essential in relation to the ecological transition of our economy, in relation to the insulation of our houses, in relation to the infrastructure in which we must invest, that is the construction sector! Week after week, month after month, the construction sector, employers and workers, warns us, describes us the tens of thousands of jobs destroyed because of the workforce dispatch directive that your party and all traditional parties have voted in the European Parliament. It explains to us how inefficient Belgium is, compared to the few fleet of manoeuvre left to it by the European Commission, to combat this truly problematic phenomenon.

What can you look forward to as part of your actions in the fight against social dumping, as a representative of the majority? It is zero and even more, Mr. Piedboeuf, be aware of this! Regulatory measures cost nothing. This is a question of political will that you do not have.

Not only do we have the political will, but as far as the sector is concerned, we hear it. The Minister has met him several times and we are gradually trying to improve the necessary policy on social dumping. Do you give us lessons of efficiency? I would be curious to see what the Voltaic Panel Investigation Commission will produce as effects at the Walloon level and what lessons of efficiency you will give us later!

The Prime Minister-President of Walloon ... (Tumulte)

Please apologize, Mr President. I ⁇ do not have the habit of intervening at this stage in the debates but I cannot allow to say, at this stage, that nothing would have been done regarding social dumping.

On the contrary, and I can illustrate for half an hour the details of the measures taken and decided: more than 40 measures, including those voted here in Parliament, the changes to the rules of public procurement and very many provisions lead to the fact that, for the first time in several years, we are now engaged again, in Belgium, in the construction sector.

Of course, there is still work. Of course, the figures that are regularly cited are figures from 2014, 2013 and early 2015, but I am pleased to share with you this information that today and in connection with the regional authorities that we meet regularly on this subject, we have managed at this stage to reverse the curve of social dumping with net job creation, returning also in the construction sector. I challenge anyone to prove that we would have done nothing in terms of social dumping! Please please !

Mr. Minister, there is not a week without the construction sector and the Construction Confederation, as well as the employers, Mr. Borsus, denouncing the situations of social dumping of which they are victims.

You are talking about the transposition of the Public Procurement Directive. You have used up to a quarter of the opportunities left by Europe to provide qualitative criteria favouring employers who use labour for which there is a payment of social contributions.

Have you read what the Work Auditors think of the Social Inspection Reform of your colleague Secretary of State competent on Social Fraud? You can’t go over the results in this matter, Mr. Borsus. These are regulatory measures that are possible, not expensive measures. I hear that whenever the opposition proposes alternatives, they scream: “You’re going to raise taxes!” You have the steering wheels in the fight against social fraud; you’re using them insufficiently. Just read what the Construction Confederation says on the subject. They are not suspected of being supporters.

I’m not saying you didn’t take action. But where you could take an ambitious stance on anti-dumping, you did not! The best example is the resistance you have shown to strongly transpose the EU directive. You have chosen to make it a minimalist transposition. Where you could get to guarantee the principle of saying “equal work, equal pay,” you didn’t. Through this, major breaches are drawn, which allow a whole series of dispatched workers to come to us to take places. This is both harmful to our workers and terribly harmful to our employers.

You say the results are here. We talked about the construction sector. You have heard it, you have read it. This sector was still manifested a week or ten days ago. But there is not only him! The list of sectors concerned is very long.

Regarding the European Directive that you transposed and which, however, allowed you to address the problem, you decided to do nothing and re-evaluate things in a year or two. These are missed opportunities, which, however, were major leverages to protect our workers and our jobs, and to avoid this terribly unfair competition between employers at home.

This is of course what I want to talk about. Have you taken actions? and yes! Have you missed opportunities to go much further? The answer is yes too!

Mr. Speaker, I will not go back on the terms of “gargargarism” and “glorification”, because it is not at all the factory mark of this government to do the evil. We are taking the necessary measures gradually. Sometimes we make mistakes and then correct our mistakes, as we did for some tax provisions. The results are here. Not long ago, the Wallonian Prime Minister-President welcomed the creation of jobs, but we are, of course, pleased that he welcomes our policy.

In terms of purchasing power, the European survey on wages prepared by the company Deloitte, which is not suspect either, published two weeks ago, establishes once again that the measures taken by the government increase the purchasing power since it finds an increase of 500 euros of the annual net income on average. It is true, these are averages, but this increase is real. It is the low and middle wages that benefit the most. The study also indicates that the “supplementary net income” effect could almost double by 2019.

Then, the government removed the wage disability that our country suffered. According to the Central Council of Economics, the disability between Belgium and the three neighboring countries decreased from 4.1% in 2013, to 2.9% in 2014 and to 1.5% in 2015. The gap is expected to be negative in 2016. Our government will therefore remove the wage disability introduced in 1996. These are facts.

In terms of business creation, with 88 963 companies born in 2015, we are witnessing the best performance in ten years. This results, due to the disappearance of some companies, a net creation of 19,411 companies in 2015. The trend is confirmed in 2016 with an increase of 6.4% compared to the first quarter of 2015, according to Graydon.

You talked about the employment rate. The Federal Plan Office notes that it has grown from 63.5 to 64.5 per cent and is expected to reach 64.8 per cent in 2017. Of course, this is still insufficient, but we continue the work.

As for our trade balance, Mr. Laaouej, it came out of the red for the first time. In the last ten years, exports increased by 5.4% in 2016 against 3.2% for imports.

Mr. Pollock, you are talking about the employment rate. Let me draw your attention to the fact that the very slight increase in the employment rate is, there too, lower than what is observed elsewhere, in Europe. Isn’t that questioning you?

I think that the comparison with some European countries, especially neighboring countries, such as the Netherlands, is worth making because we realize that they took action long before us. We are now taking steps that we should have taken earlier. There is indeed a shift in time, but we are going in the right direction.

Your argument would be valid if we observed what you have just said on a long series, if, indeed, since wage differences are allegedly more favourable for our neighboring countries, there was in their head a higher increase than that observed in Belgium. But that is not true, Mr. Pietro. The question then arises whether your policy does not blame the evolution of the employment rate; if, in reality, by multiplying the precarious jobs, you are not yourself digging a negative gap in the evolution of the employment rate with all the other countries of the European Union.

The [...]

Mr. Piedboeuf stated, and it was interesting, that this government had a capacity to question when decided policies did not lead to the expected results. The difficulty comes from the fact that most indicators (budgetary, employment rates, quality of employment, loans from banks to companies, etc.) are today negative, very unfavorable compared to the action of your government. You answer, like the N-VA, that it is because you have to go even further and faster into the wall. What is needed, Mr. Piedboeuf, is a questioning of the choices made. Accept with us and all those who observe you – the European Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Monitoring Committee – that this does not work. Propose us something else instead of saying that we must go even faster and further toward catastrophe!

In my opinion, you do not read the articles completely because all these institutions confirm that we are going in the right direction and that we must continue these reforms. This is stated in the length of an article. In my opinion, you don’t have good readings, but that doesn’t surprise me!

In terms of competitiveness, Belgium has progressed for the first time in five years in the ranking established by the World Economic Forum and according to the Manpower Barometer, the hiring intentions of companies have taken five degrees above the scale of net job forecasts. This is the most optimistic forecast since the third quarter of 2011.

Thanks to the reforms, the global fiscal and parafiscal pressure has decreased by 1.2 billion. As for the tax and parafiscal pressure on labour, it decreased by 3.4 billion.

While the measures taken by the government helped to regain the competitiveness and confidence of companies, they also helped to revive employment and gradually increase the purchasing power of workers.

With regard to fiscal consolidation, the 2017 budget is characterized by a willingness to reduce, as a priority, public spending. To limit the negative consequences of sanitation on economic growth, the government has chosen to save in spending and not to further increase fiscal pressure. This is what the IMF recommends. Savings on public spending remains the only right solution. My party has always advocated for an efficient and transparent use of public money.

There has been a long discussion of the measures taken in the health care sector. However, we must control the growth of our health spending and respect the trajectory we have set for ourselves. The saving measures are mainly within the framework of the Pharmaceutical Pact. A responsibility of the sector was planned to control its spending, and it will be the case. For the surplus, the other savings consist of not allocating a mass of indexation to service providers. This is indeed a considerable effort that is required from them and we are fully aware of it.

As in other sectors, the government announced, under the auspices of Ms. Maggie De Block, a series of reforms in the healthcare sector.

I will quote the hospital reform to profoundly reorganize the landscape and develop a new hospital concept, the future pact with the pharmaceutical industry to guarantee investment in new medicines and allow patients to have access to the latest treatments, the pact with the medical technology industry to improve the safety, quality, efficiency and accessibility of medical devices for the patient, the pact with insurance agencies to make them accountable.

And finally, the plan against waste and abuse that aims at adequate use of resources, efficiency of health care and effective control.

Mr. Speaker, just for the clarity of our exchanges, I return to my file and the evolution of the employment rate. From 2014 to 2016, the average employment rate in the euro area increased by 1.4% while it decreased by 0.2% in Belgium. At least the facts are fixed. I thank you.

We will continue reforms to ensure the sustainability of our system, taking into account the ageing population, the increase in chronic diseases and the evolution of medical techniques. My colleague Damien Thiéry will return to these points during the thematic discussions.

At the level of taxation, in this objective of fiscal consolidation, the option is therefore to reduce public spending instead of creating new taxes on labour or on consumption. With this in mind, all of the necessary new tax revenues are aimed at capital revenues or environmental taxation. I’ll give it a detail, because you know it.

With regard to the estimation of revenue discussed recently, my group welcomes the establishment of a task force to re-evaluate the method of estimating revenue and to assess whether the buffer provided by the government is sufficient. This is in the direction of indispensable transparency and a fairer and greater predictability of tax revenues. In fact, while spending is in line with expectations, revenues regularly experience difficulties. This should be corrected.

In terms of strengthening the fight against tax fraud, a sum of 50 million euros has just been talked about. It is exact. This amount is taken back into the budget but, whether at the national or international level, there are still many challenges in the fight against tax fraud. We have seen it with all the scandals discovered.

More transparent and simpler legislation and better exchange of information between the different Belgian and foreign public services play a major role in this regard. We must continue our efforts but progress, as no other government has ever made, has been grabbed.

In the first four months of 2016, the fight against tax fraud generated €228 million, or the equivalent of 2013, 2015 and almost the equivalent of 2014. In addition, I heard Judge Claise, whom we met, say that he had returned 100 million euros last month. The results of the year will be exceptional.

Judge Claise, with whom we were debating on a television platform, also explained that without strengthening the means of Justice and the prosecutors, especially those in charge of the fight against financial crime, they would not get out of it. Per ⁇ he should also make justice to what he said.

I would like to ask you a very concrete question, Mr. Piedboeuf. As you know, the famous fairness tax, the minimum corporate tax, introduced tax justice between SMEs, which do not have many possibilities for tax deduction, and large companies, which do the full of tax niches. This fairness tax is somewhat threatened by the report of a general lawyer before the Court of Justice, which indicates that while it is compatible with European primary law, it could question a directive.

Do you commit, on behalf of the MR group, to support a repair law – that is, a repair bill proposal? I feel that the Minister of Finance is quite ambiguous when I ask him the question. He does not really discover himself. You voted this law in the previous legislature. If a legal and technical solution is delivered, for example by the opposition – given the inertia of the government or the Minister of Finance – would you be willing to support it? Can you take this commitment, Mr. Piedboeuf?

We are always ready, Mr. Laaouej, you know, to take the appropriate measures, at the right time, and when the texts are sufficiently legally secure, in order to bring revenue.

You are talking about Judge Claise, who says he has no means. You said that Mr. Crombez had increased the officers of the ISI by 100 units. We did the same with economists, lawyers and data miners. We have doubled the tax judges. It is true that we have recruitment difficulties, but we have doubled. And we doubled the collaborators made available to justice.

When we have more resources, we will do even more. But that was done. And all this goes in the direction of strengthening the fight against tax fraud. We are in favor of tax justice, you know.

I finally have the opportunity to answer this argument of the 100 additional agents. First, according to my information, the 100 agents in addition to the Special Tax Inspectorate are not all there. Secondly, some of them come from other tax services, including control centers.

The control centers are also concerned with fighting fraud. Therefore, you are carrying out a movement within the staff. As a reminder, we had raised an envelope of €20 million for additional commitments and not for slides within the SPF Finance. Here too, please, have a little modesty and humility with regard to the numbers!

Maître Afschrift’s comment will not escape you when he finds that the resources in Belgium are sufficient. We still have 25,000 agents in Belgium, while a country like the Netherlands has 18,000 for a much wider sector than ours, with even better efficiency. So the resources are sufficient. What is needed is to place them in the right places. And you are right, and you are right: they are moved from one place to another just to focus on the fight against the big tax fraud. Because it is better to take care of large fraudsters than small merchants. We support this move.

We need to put the package on the big tax fraud, we agree. The tax administration must also do its job in general with respect to all taxpayers. It is just to do it too. What surprises me – and it’s even a bit funny – you talk about Master Afschrift who explains that there are enough tax agents. Do you expect anything else from a tax lawyer who defends taxpayers who have problems here and there with the tax administration? With all the respect I owe him, that is not the problem. But you might have taken a reference or a somewhat more objective opinion.

For the rest, sorry, I regularly discuss on a television platform with tax lawyers. Some arguments are acceptable, others a little less. So, I think your references seem a bit surprising. I think it is better to ask the Court of Auditors for its opinion. I know that the Court of Auditors is wrong. But well, she regularly audits the SPF Finance and she points out where there are deficits, where the frameworks are not filled. It was already she who pointed out that the Special Inspection of Taxes did not have its full framework, which led us, during the previous legislature, to at least fill the framework of the Special Inspection of Taxes.

What I tell you is that in the control centers, we are also sometimes dealing with large files. In other words, not all large files are ISI files, fortunately. The ISI is a thousand records per year of memory. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe a little more with the Panama Papers of course, Swiss Leaks, etc. But there are tens of thousands of other cases related to major tax fraud.

I use it to send you a message, but it is actually addressed to the whole government, and in particular to the prime minister. Attention to OCDEFO, attention to what you are told about OCDEFO. You will lose a lot of money if you let Mrs. De Bolle and her surroundings offer you its dismantling under the pretext of decentralization. Keep an integrated strike force! I speak here beyond partisan discussions, from a point of view of the general interest. Judge Claise says nothing else. If you don’t believe me, what I can understand, Magistrate Claise doesn’t say anything else: keep OCDEFO.

Mr. Piedboeuf, you focus all your attention on the ISI. It is true that the ISI is an important body, but first of all, I think it is necessary to see that the entire SPF Finance plays a role in the fight against fraud, and especially in advance of the ISI, to bring it files that the ISI can then deepen. Second, the importance of the judicial staff at the level of financial crime. Judge Claise says there is a cruel lack of resources. The people of the ISI say it themselves, and have come to tell us. Third, within the SPF Finance, there are services that deal with major international tax fraud without the ISI. I think for example of the service, not very large in my opinion, which deals with transfer prices.

We had the case of Caterpillar, where we see a supposed, but large-scale, manipulation of transfer prices; this company is really a social villain that closed the Gosselies factory. At the moment of the strongest emotion associated with the closure, the Prime Minister was asked to conduct a study on Caterpillar’s possible manipulation of transfer price. Not long ago, the Prime Minister replied to me in a committee that in fact, he had ordered this study, obtained the results but could not disclose them. We even wonder whether this study exists because ultimately, we do not have the means to see if it exists and we cannot say anything about it. He would be in one of his cabinets. I wonder why this study was ordered if it was not to disclose the conclusions.

I am very pleased that Mr. Laaouej mentioned Mr. Claise.

For the colleagues who missed it, Mr. Claise has received the Prize of Democracy from P&V, a renowned PS bulwark. I understand that there is a certain attachment between the PS and Mr. Claise, but let me take a moment away from that. By the way, with the branch 23 that is traded there, everything will be fine.

However, what is striking, Mr. Laaouej, is that we have quietly come to the conclusion that there is a very different approach and treatment of tax files in Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels.

The [...]

Wait, wait, wait...

The [...]

Based on the EBA...

The [...]

It is amusing.

You are very poorly sitting in your seat, as at EBA b there are 6 000 files regulated. In Flanders 50 % of the capital files are regulated, in Wallonia and Brussels 5 %. That cases are treated unfairly both in the area of the court, including prosecution, and in the area of the BBI, we will examine once.

It is very striking that at one point all the judicial directors of the BBI here said that what happened in Gent and what Mr. Anthonissen says is not true. We will examine that matter and see how you have organized it in the past. In particular, I think of the inequal treatment between the different regions in the area of persecution. It might well be – I do not argue that it is so – that the fact that there is much less prosecution in certain sectors, precisely leads to the fact that taxally outdated capital is not ⁇ .

The minister doesn’t do anything about tax fraud; I think it’s the whole punishment that an investigative judge takes those words into his mouth, but the figures will eventually prove the opposite. I would be very careful.

I will tell you, Mr. Van de Velde, I find really deplorable your allusions sometimes about the fact that a magistrate is French-speaking, sometimes that he would be on the left. It is deplorable! And now you are adventuring on the ground of different sociology in the North, in Brussels, in Wallonia, etc. To explain the behavior of the prosecutors and the tax administrations.

Very frankly, your tendency to communitize everything allows you to escape the real questions, the real debates: that of tax justice, that of the general interest, of the proper management of public accounts, of the quality also of the legislation. However, it is you, first, who pressured the government to adopt a tax privilege for diamonds and who does not honor you! There are others!

So please, Mr. Van de Velde, a little humility and a little correction because you have it all slowly, with a recurring slide but at the same time that strengthens day by day, a displayed contempt for the institutions! I did not hear you when a senior official, chairman of the SPF Finance, gave a satisfied and encouraged, leaving his role, the policy of the Minister of Finance. There, I did not hear you.

If I understand right now, with you, freedom of expression or the possibility for someone to give their opinion becomes a problem in itself. But, most of all, what is deplorable is your tendency to communityize everything. It is unbearable!

Mr. Speaker, since we have several ministers – Mr. Mr. as you, Mr. Piedboeuf – in relation to what has just happened here, again, more than a community touch is given to this dossier of taxation. Day after day, everything makes flour at the mill for at least one partner of your majority, for all time everything communitarianize especially, by the way, when it arranges and according to the data that arranges it.

Since you are at the tribune, I would like to know the MR’s position in relation to what your majority partner has just done here. Frankly, we have not heard the MR position in recent days on this French-speaking judge, insisting three times for some, for the case of this Syrian family. There was not only one judge, but several. But no, it was suddenly the fault of a French-speaking judge! Again, here, a few days later, on a tax debate, there is a layer of it.

and interruptions

I know your position, and I confess that it does not surprise me!

I would like to know the position of Mr. And do not make a small round-up to try not to answer, Mr. Piedboeuf.

Consider the question of Mrs. Fonck, Mr. Piedboeuf. I am curious to know your answer.

The main issue is the fight against tax fraud. Again, you are pleased with the results obtained. Let me tell you that this is about the poor parent of the government. We are fortunate that Ms. Sleurs is present here, even if it is not as a Secretary of State responsible for the fight against tax fraud, what she has been for two years with a balance she has led to that this competence is entrusted to the Minister of Finance. Today, the result achieved is no different.

As part of the Panama Papers Commission, officials in charge of fighting tax fraud were heard. We have noticed that they are forced to read open sources, newspapers to try to find out where they should look, while foreign tax administrations with which they work have files that we are, on our part, unable to obtain.

There is a shortage at all levels of the fight against tax fraud, starting with the administration, continuing with the financial police. It is referred to OCDEFO. It could also be cited the federal cell responsible for the fight against the trafficking of works of art and antiques, the justice with tax judges who, for budgetary reasons, are not replaced, which is unbearable. The amount of unrecovered taxes has never been so high. It is estimated in billions of euros. It is not about higher taxes, but better taxes. Those who cheat do so at the expense of the vast majority of our fellow citizens who are honest taxpayers.

Contrary to what you claim, this government does not have sufficient action in the fight against tax fraud and communitarianization is useless but to launch a smoke screen. It is like saying that like the Optima bank, all the banks located in Flanders were poorly managed and organized fraud. Why is it permitted here to claim that depending on their spoken language, their origin, who gave a prize to whom, the political options are different? The intention must be to fight fraud. But this struggle is not sufficiently present, Mr. Piedboeuf.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to complicate the debate but my reaction is about Mr. Van Hees’ intervention on the Caterpillar issue and the investigations that have been requested.

For the minutes, in order not to leave such an untruth without reaction, I would like to point out what Johan Van Overtveldt and myself have told you in the committee. We actually requested a study from the administration regarding Caterpillar. The administration told us, rightly I believe, that it could not disclose individual information concerning a taxpayer.

This is the reason, Mr. Van Hees, which I explained to you in the committee.

I still have a few answers to do.

On Rob Van de Velde’s comment, I think things are much more prosaic than that. When you see, for example, that 80% of exports come from Flanders, 14% from Brussels and 6% from Wallonia, it is clear that if you look at economic development, there are probably more reasons to have income on one side of the language border than on the other. This is nothing of a community, it is a confirmation of the economic reality.

Things are more prosaic and I have a slightly different analysis.

This is what I say: 80%, 14% and 6%. When there is more economic activity and wealth in one place, necessarily, you are also likely to have more fraud attempts. That is all. I do not analyze this in a lack of effectiveness of the French-speaking tax officers. By the way, when I see you reacting as a former tax officer, I doubt the nervousness and attention needed to take care of taxpayers.

As for Me Afschrift, he is also a university professor, so he also has an intellectual honesty. When he says that in the Netherlands there are 18,000 controllers and that in the Netherlands there are 25,000, that it is not a matter of means but of people’s orientation, I think he is right. When you moved agents to the fight against tax fraud, you were effective. We can continue to do so.

As far as OCDEFO is concerned, just as ISI agents are distributed territorially, OCDEFO is distributed territorially. We will see if this is inefficient. This is a request from the police in its organization.

Establishing competent cells in the right places is an idea. Now we will see well. In any case, this legislation is prior to the entry into office of the present government.

The [...]

If we continue this way, we will never let Mr. Piedboeuf end.

I find that Mr. Vande Lanotte has a problem with Me Afschrift.

More than thirty measures of the Anti-Fraud Plan are underway to reduce the temptation to fraud.

Let us try a little to forget the ad hominem arguments because otherwise, we will not get out of it. Mr. Piedboeuf, Me Afschrift is indeed a university professor. But that is not what is being questioned. I just say that in order to be able to make a judgment on whether or not there are enough tax agents, I would rely on the Court of Auditors rather than on a lawyer who defends taxpayers who have a grid to go with the tax. I didn’t say anything else, with respect for each other.

However, I will return a moment to the international comparisons between Belgium and the Netherlands. I also heard Me Afschrift say one day there were more tax agents in Belgium than in the United States. Except in the United States, you have federal tax administrations. It is a very large country. There are even parish taxes. This means that there are tax collections that are done at a very high level of decentralization. International comparisons are not good. This is also the case with the Netherlands. Not everything is in the Department of Finance. There are agencies outside. Be careful of international comparisons.

For the rest, Mr. Prime Minister mentioned something under the former government, but I did not hear, I do not know what it was.

This is about OECD.

Therefore, we must pay tribute to Ms. Milquet, to whom Ms. De Bolle had already submitted a note while trying to make the decentralization and the breakdown of the OECDEFO pass and who had resisted. Unfortunately, under this government, you are getting caught up.

Mr. Prime Minister, I tell you very simply, don’t let yourself get caught.

I thought you referred to Ms. Milquet for parish taxes.

Therefore, I said that more than thirty anti-fraud measures are being implemented to reduce the temptation of fraud. The information exchange triangle, tax regularization and transparency tax will know its cruise speed. With regard to the Caiman tax you mentioned, our government is the first to tackle tax constructions in tax havens. This is again a fact.

A multidisciplinary Justice-Finances task force will be created; which will be tasked with analyzing the fight against fraud through the use of tax structures by optimizing the Una Via procedure in order to ensure an effective approach. All planned measures, both in prevention and in repression, will be implemented.

My group will support any approach aimed at improving tax collection and developing fairness. Whether fraud is fiscal or social, it is contrary to the demands of justice of the population. The conclusions of the Panama Papers Commission will be enforced to prevent as best as possible both tax fraud and tax evasion.

On security and terrorism, the government confirms its commitments by giving priority to the security budget and the fight against terrorism. As early as spring 2015, amounts had been unlocked: a provision of 250 million euros, then a terrorist provision of 400 million euros the day after the attacks of November 13, 2015. The 2017 budget is part of this dynamic and continues its objective, by providing additional resources, to raise our level of security and to strengthen our services in their daily fight against the terrorist plague. The parliamentary investigation committee set up a day after the attacks will formulate, by spring, final recommendations and conclusions. However, the majority chose not to wait and move forward: projects continue to come true, human and material resources continue to arrive. We must continue on this path, recover the delay accumulated in the past. Security is at the heart of our group’s concerns and we can only welcome the budget decisions adopted as part of the preparation of the 2017 budget. The conclusion is clear: the funds allocated to the State Security, the Crisis Centre, the OCAM, civil security are increasing. Increased security is not only a budget issue, but can be conceived as a set of converging forces involved in improving our living environment. In this regard, citizen participation, the collaboration of trade associations and supra-local cooperation contribute to the development of an effective security policy.

In addition to this vision, systems to alert the population in the event of a crisis or major accident are in part already and will still be put in place by this government during the year 2017.

Furthermore, the exchange of information between the services themselves at all levels can be decisive in certain circumstances. With regard to civil security, efforts to finance the reform will continue, the agreed funding will be ⁇ ined and no savings will be made at this level. Finally, it is of course certain that the protection and maintenance of the police function are essential, in order to ensure one of the most important public service tasks: to ensure the safety of the citizen. As regards the total budget of the federal police, the total credit for 2017 is increasing from 2014 by 15.82%. We hope, in this way, to obtain the full support of everyone against obscurantism and the Islamic State.

We will continue structural reforms. The government shows encouraging results but additional efforts remain to be made. Therefore, we must continue. This budget agreement goes in this direction by providing for a series of additional structural reforms aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of our companies and creating jobs. I repeat, safeguarding the competitiveness of our companies is one of our priorities. We have managed to remove our wage disability, we should not have this disability falling down again.

Eurostat precisely indicated that labour cost had increased in the third quarter of 2016 compared to the previous year. Although this remains far below the increase that Germany, the Netherlands and France experienced in the same period, it is essential to fix the badges that will allow us to avoid any new wage departure. This is precisely why the government will come from the beginning of next year with the modernization of the 1996 law and my group is delighted with it. This law has not undergone any reform in 20 years. It is now necessary to review its mechanism in order to maintain the gains of competitiveness recovered taking into account the wage evolution of neighboring countries.

A second axis of labour market reform concerns feasible work or, more specifically, how to better organize work. We know that our companies need to adapt. They need more flexibility to face the economic reality. In addition, workers demand more flexibility from their employer to better reconcile private and professional life. A recent Acerta survey of 2,000 workers from 2016 showed that 70% of workers want more flexibility. They want to be able to work more at certain times and recover hours at times when their privacy has to take over. 63 percent also want to use a career account to save days of vacation for later.

More flexibility is required from all sides. This does not mean that we will work more, as some want to make people believe. The rule remains that of thirty-eight hours, but it will be calculated on an annual basis with, indeed, a possibility of going up to forty-five hours at certain times of the year. Currently, 1.2 million workers operate under this flexibility regime. From now on, the measure will be extended to everyone.

When we talk about labour market reform, we cannot ignore digitization and e-commerce, a fast-growing sector. Our companies fail to position themselves, while France, the Netherlands and Germany account for three 72% of the sales volume in Europe. We know how much our companies suffer today from the rigidity of our social legislation, especially with regard to night work. Our consumer habits are changing, our lifestyles are changing, and ⁇ have no choice but to adapt. Today, they cannot compete with their neighbors, because they do not play with equal weapons. They lose market shares every day and prevent job creation in our country. We must allow them to develop their competitive positions. We do this by allowing night work from now on.

These are so many reforms in terms of flexibility that the MR fully supports.

In terms of youth employment, the figures remain very worrying. What is true for Brussels is also true for the whole territory. Their employment rate was 33.2% in 2000 and is now only 23.8% in 2015. The youth unemployment rate has even increased by 30% over the last five years in Wallonia. Therefore, the government has decided to take this problem by hand. In order to encourage companies to engage young people to give them a chance to integrate a first job, the government has decided to guarantee a minimum wage cost based on the age of the young worker. Employers will be financially encouraged to hire them. This is a benefit for young people without qualification.

Another reform is expected.

Mr. Pietro, you announced several measures in October. I think of it, the ISOC, the value added, the National Investment Plan, the commercial cars and, above all, the mobility budget. There are also start jobs. You decided not to decide. Indeed, we do not see any trace of it in the program law, while I still thought I understood that within the government, you had decided to move forward through it. As for the start-up jobs, the decision is also postponed.

I would like you to guarantee, in the event of a reduction in the minimum wage, that the net wage of these young people will not be amputated and that it will only be a reduction in the gross wage. The fact of not seeing this precision in the program law and returning the text due to technical difficulties makes me think that the purpose of this manoeuvre is simply to hide the absence of compensation for the net wage.

I dare hope that this government will not decrease the net salary of these young people. You were committed to it. Since this commitment is not included in the program law, I dare hope that you will not go back on the subject.

I would like to support him again, because it is important.

Mr. Speaker, I formally confirm what I said on behalf of the government several weeks ago, at the time of the government statement. Last Friday, the Council of Ministers formally approved the mechanism that will guarantee net wage, including taking into account future wage increases for the same low-wage youth, which are granted as part of the tax shift, which will continue to be deployed.

So not only is the net wage guaranteed but the general wage increases for low wages as part of the tax shift will also be acquired for the young people in question. The mechanics were formally approved last week in the Council of Ministers. It will come to Parliament very soon.

Initially, we thought we could still do so by amending the program law. I will check through what technical means we will come to the Parliament, so as not to mislead the Parliament.

[...] and OK! to check!

A verification was necessary to examine from a technical point of view, with respect for Parliament, by which procedure we can arrive as quickly as possible with this accuracy.

I am soon finished.

Another expected reform is the corporate tax reform. For the MR, corporate tax reform is indispensable and special attention should be paid to small and medium-sized enterprises. The aim should be to strengthen our country’s attractiveness, better support for SMEs and job creation while enhancing security, legal stability and tax justice. There is a need for innovation because, without changing our structure, our country risks a loss of competitiveness, hence employment and investment.

My group hopes that this reform will give a positive image to foreign investors so that they fit into our economic tissue and create jobs alongside our SMEs. Taxation is a major lever for the revival of our economy, the creation of jobs and the sanitation of our budgets. For this majority, it is crucial to make progress both in terms of economic efficiency and justice. These two points go hand in hand and must strengthen each other.

Mr. Piedboeuf, the MR group and you yourself are in favour of a taxation of the value added on shares, as desired by the CD&V?

As you know because we have told you many times, several construction sites are being studied at the same time and as we are concerned about tax justice, it will be at the end of the work that will be done.

I will conclude soon, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Van Hees, I would like to return to your question, because, while reading, I was reflecting and I did not understand your question about deciles. I said I would answer before the end.

I have to conclude, Mr. Pietro.

The important thing in the international context we know is to maintain the pace of structural reforms and to continue the sanitation oriented towards spending reduction. The latest European Commission outlook goes in this direction and shows that there is still work to be done in 2018 and 2019.

Tax shift and government-led structural reforms contribute positively to the recovery of the labour market and growth, but efforts still need to be made in terms of spending reduction and job creation. With a mandatory tax rate of 54%, we must preserve our economic model by daring to make reforms. Our priority for the coming months is to revive public and private investment, significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, and continue to reform our socio-economic model by continuing the fiscal consolidation that has begun.

I thank you for your attention.

I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Piedboeuf.

As an observer outside our debates might feel that the opposition is exclusively critical, I would at least welcome his intervention, and in particular highlight a quote that I found absolutely admirable and that I want to highlight. I think this will be the citation of the day, or maybe even the citation of the legislature.

You said, Mr. Piedboeuf, “You have to dream very high to ⁇ very low.”

I think we could not better summarize the budget policy of this government. This is a quote that should be included in the government budget documents. It cannot be better said that the government’s budget goals have become chimerous and that the results achieved are far, very far from the ambitions displayed.

I simply regret, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Dispa, who often stands in the chair of truth, does not have enough culture and poetic sense to understand the meaning of this phrase.

Thank you, Mr Piedboeuf.

Mr Piedboeuf has begun his presentation at 12 am 15 and he has spoken until 13 am 40. That is your own decision, with the interruptions. I don’t leave me, but if we continue at that pace, it will take a while here.

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should learn from this and not do everything at the end and ensure that we have more time to discuss the budget. Then we will not have to have a nightly session here and then we can conduct a serious debate.

of which act.