Proposition 54K3037

Projet de loi contenant le premier ajustement du Budget général des dépenses pour l'année budgétaire 2018.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 27, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ PVDA | PTB VB

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 ¶

June 28, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

At the time of the current government, the budget was sick. In the meantime, she is much better. The tax pressure has decreased by 8 billion euros during the current legislature. The public debt decreased from 106.7 % to 103.1 % of GDP. By the end of the legislature, we may be below 100% of GDP. This means that during this legislature we have paid off 3 000 euros of debt per Belgian.

The budget deficit in 2014 was 3.1%, now at 0.8%. This percentage is still a deficit. Why is it so? Why are we not yet fully there? This is because some of the medicines we have implanted have not yet been fully absorbed. Unfortunately, some treatments were stopped early.

More activating job seekers and sick people is a key part of making the budget healthy. If we could activate 5% more job seekers, the budget would have already been balanced. There is still work in the store.

The government is still overwhelming. She still attracts too much money. In this regard, we still have a problem and we still need to take steps.

Can anyone explain that a train driver at the NMBS at the age of 55 can absolutely no longer work, because he is so out of service, but that a pilot can continue to fly until the age of 67? I do not think.

Also in the case of the bridge pensions we have been delayed. We agreed that the system would disappear. Everywhere we hear employers asking, crying and begging for capable workers. Nevertheless, social peace is still purchased today with bridge pensions.

The aim was to further reduce social security spending. We went to ease the law-Renault, we went to implement the remuneration based on competencies, but there we still have not hit. Why not ? Because it is constantly thrown away behind the consultation with the social partners, and there only empty boxes return.

Of course, there are also unexpected side effects. Migration is a problem. We must continue to look for solutions to ageing. We must continue to make new investments. And we need to keep saving hard to reduce the deficit. Fortunately, we have the support of Europe. It actually gives us the same recipes. We must ⁇ fiscal balance by increasing the effective retirement age on the labour market, by increasing the level of activity, by saving on public spending. The resulting profits must be invested in infrastructure so that the debt can also be reduced faster. This is also the path that Minister Van Overtveldt takes.

The income is at a level; there the problem is not situated in Belgium, with its large government seizure. With every other coalition, Mr. Gilkinet, the budget deficit, if resolved, would be eliminated by massive new taxes. We have asked for suggestions for saving for years, but we hear nothing. We have been asking for this for years, but we still have to hear the first serious proposal from the opposition. And the fable that everything can be taken from the rich sounds very unbelievable if the left side has been in power for a quarter of a century and never realized this.

This government, on the other hand, has finally taken the necessary structural measures to restore the economy. We are closing the debt pit and the tax pressure has been reduced for the first time in 40 years. For the first time in years, a little space is created for those who work, save and undertake. With this budgetary control, the government again adheres to the European budget path, reducing the structural deficit by half in two years to 0.84 %. And we did so without introducing new taxes that affect families or ⁇ . In phase 2 of the tax shift, purchasing power will be further strengthened and the corporate tax reform will further increase competitiveness.

For all these reasons, our group will enthusiastically approve the budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long on this budget adjustment for the simple reason that it has been ongoing for several months. It will be remembered that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Budget explained to us that the prime would be reserved for Parliament. We can see how much the Parliament is respected during the budget work. We are almost in July and we will only vote on the budget adjustment in the plenary session. It would have been necessary to wait I don’t know how many weeks or months before having official figures, while the press, of course, at the occasion of ⁇ crowded press conferences, already had all the information.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to denounce this fact of a Parliament that is not respected, especially when it comes to budget work.

This adjustment that is presented to us appears to be already completely outdated, since it is known that it anticipated a growth rate of 1.8%. The National Bank and the Plan Bureau revised their growth forecasts downward. We are even talking about 1.5 percent for 2018, which corresponds to a differential of 0.3 percent. This is significant especially in terms of estimation of tax revenue but also of primary expenditure. There is clearly there something that gives your work an outdated, outdated appearance.

Another important point I would like to highlight is precisely the fact that you are currently in a situation of budget failure. It must be said. You announce to us at the beginning of the legislature a return to balance in 2018. Finally, it will not even be for 2019 but for 2020, with, if we stick to the latest figures of the Plan Bureau, yet 8.4 billion euros to be found, which is obviously considerable.

How did we get there? You know it as well as us. You explained to us that your tax shift, which costs more than 9 billion euros, could be financed by the magic of return effects. The return effects are not there and, for more than 50%, your tax shift is not funded. You are finally dragging with you this budget hole, this budget hole due to an unfinanced tax shift.

You have also proposed to the country an appearance of economic policy which, in reality, is now more limited to an ideological posture, starting very strongly with sacrifices imposed on the population. We will remember the index jump, the structural defining of social security with the reductions of employer contributions to, you said, create jobs and, by that, stimulate investment and bring us back into a kind of virtuous economic spiral.

It can be seen that the growth rate is decreasing, that the jobs created, I quote the National Bank and the University of Ghent, "are more due to the international climate than to the tax shift". I would even say that the share of jobs created due to the tax shift is actually quite marginal. Despite all this, we find ourselves with a less advantageous economic situation in Belgium than it is in the euro area, but above all with a budget hole that grows considerably.

Let things be clear! I will be honest and I will say it before you: yes, the decline in growth is due to a number of international elements. Let’s mention the uncertainties related to Brexit, the problems of trade relations – I use an euphemism – between Europe and the United States, the price of oil rising and one could still identify two, three other elements. However, the fact that Belgium has a lower growth rate than observed in the euro area is not from today. It has been observed since the beginning of the legislature, which was not observed during the previous legislature.

So, clearly, what you are counting on, that is, a revival of the economy through cuts, to take back your lexicon, of wage costs – we say, on the contrary, a compression on wages and linear decreases and reductions in social contributions – does not work! The index jump does not work. By your obsessive policy of reducing so-called wage differences, you fail to revive the economic machine and the numbers in terms of employment will not hide your deficit situation!

This is the most general panorama and it is obviously essential to do differently and to do something else. We can only commit you to give back some oxygen to domestic demand, both private and public. You know what I think. We must finally be able to make the relevant redistribution and not continue to raise the consumption taxes as you did. It is also ⁇ necessary to end your linear cuts in primary spending and, on the contrary, return with more relevant and sharp measures that support, in particular, the available income of households and in particular public demand, that is to say, stop with the austerity policy.

For the rest, we start from a figure of 8.4 billion, according to the Plan Bureau, by 2020 but I add, unfortunately, to those 8.4 billion at least two billion euros of uncertainties that could create a negative budget latency due to recurring problems of estimating your tax revenues.

First of all, there is the freedom you take in relation to the National Bank, to maximize the structural effect of advance payments by at least 10% of the excess. This is considerable on a mass of more than 2 billion euros. Be careful not to repeat the same mistake as we are announcing, again, numbers of advance payments that continue to be important for this year and maybe even for next year! It seems to me that you would make a mistake in pursuing this maximistic rate of structural effects of increased advance payments. It would be a mistake and I would say even more: a major political mistake with regard to the proper maintenance of our public finances.

I will not return to the Caiman tax. I will let my colleagues from the SP talk about it. You are unable to tell us if you are reaching your budget results, your numbers (the 500 million) that no one else, in the ranks of the majority, can claim to have been reached. The most credible assumptions speak of 5 to 50 million euros, which is a ⁇ mediocre result. The Minister’s response in this regard is: “This proves that it works!” We must stop thinking of ourselves as more credible than we are. No one today is able to verify whether the starting estimate you are expecting was correct or not.

To this, it is worth adding a whole series of swelling of pre-existing measurements, of which I did not refer here to the inventory. I would like to refer to the work we have done in the committee.

Then there are your famous technical corrections and this invoice for a sum of 462 million euros of impact of the tax reform that you return to the Regions. So in fact yes; it is true that due to partial regionalization, a cost must be borne by the Regions! But with regard to Europe, when you question your colleagues in the Walloon Region in particular, it is obvious that at some point this effort will have to be produced. However, it seems that the Walloon Region, in particular, has not yet taken this into account. This clearly means that you do not properly function the fiscal federalism or even the fiscal federalism. This will also clearly be included in your passive. One element more!

Your economic results are not good and, as a result, cause colossal budgetary problems. To your 8.4 billion, I add 2. I’m not saying that these 2 billion will be confirmed, but there is a space of obvious uncertainty for another 2 billion. And all this with, in addition, a slashing of your majority on files that are, however, key issues from a budgetary point of view. I am speaking, in particular, of the case of the privatization of Belfius.

We oppose it. You rely on this partial privatization – although the figures vary depending on the sources – whose use would be used not only for debt discharge, but also for the financing of the investment plan. In other words, you have not even sold your shares yet that you are already using that money. We will need to explain how you will continue your debt relief path while funding the investment plan, if so, if you reach an agreement. That is why, Mr. Minister, we ask you once again the question: where are you in the Belfius case and the case related to it, namely the compensation of ARCO cooperatives? For the rest, I would like to refer to our work in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we will vote against this budget adjustment that reflects the repeated and, unfortunately, ⁇ definitive failure of the government majority.

The 2018 budget adjustment consists of an up-to-date check of revenue and expenditure, which takes into account recent economic parameters. There are others, of course, but they will be discussed later.

This adjustment confirms the policy pursued by our government since the beginning of the legislature and oriented towards two objectives: on the one hand, the support of economic activity and, on the other hand, the sounding of public finances through structural reforms necessary in terms of competitiveness and job creation in order to consolidate our growth and ensure the maintenance of our social model. The responsible choice of finding a balance between these two objectives is fully assumed by our group, which subscribes to it without reservation. It is based on a long-term vision, ensuring sustainable results for future generations.

Recall that, during the initial budget, the government had estimated a structural balance of - 0.68% of GDP. This ambitious goal has been ⁇ ined. To do this, it needed to find 1,417 billion euros. Several technical adjustments – re-estimation of output gap and technical correction of tax shift – have been developed, as well as other positive measures. I think of the removal of the increase in the penalty for insufficient remuneration, as the SMEs wanted. This is also evidenced by the government’s voluntarism towards e-commerce, a sector crucial for the development of our economy and employment. We also provided our support to pro deo lawyers to improve access to justice.

I continue the list: new efforts to combat poverty by increasing social inclusion income, disability allowance, guaranteed income for people over 65 years of age, and finally the provision of €2 million granted to AFSCA to strengthen its staff and controls.

Budgetary control confirms that the commitment is both economic and social. The exchanges with the Court of Auditors on the basis of its report were instructive. Overall, the Court’s report is quite positive. Few shortcomings are pointed out and the quality of the information provided improves year after year. We can also congratulate the Minister and his services. Normally, the minister smiles when I say this! As this does not interest my colleagues, I pass a part.

As I said at the beginning, the government is carrying out a thoughtful sanitation of our public finances. This is the budget at the service of the economy, taking into account the fact that we are starting from a difficult budgetary situation.

In a committee, the Minister of Budget illustrated, in detail and with the necessary nuances, the policy carried out during this legislature by making a comparison with that carried out by previous governments. The conclusion that follows is clear. We have committed ourselves to a balanced sanitation strategy, which aims to reduce both revenue, by reducing taxes, and spending. For us, taxing more our fellow citizens is clearly not a viable option.

The good results in sanitation did not prevent us from reducing the tax burden. My colleague recently reminded me of it. The numbers speak for themselves. The economic recovery is there, even though it is somewhat threatened for the moment, and we wish for its consolidation. Similarly, the purchasing power of citizens, after having experienced a negative trend and a limited progression, is consolidating. Households perceive more and benefit directly from the effects of the measures taken. In addition, many jobs continue to be created during this legislature, and the vast majority of them are created in the private sector.

In 2018, 507,200 new jobs are expected and this trend is expected to continue. In its June forecast, the Federal Plan Office indicates that during the period 2018-2023, ⁇ 249,000 jobs will be created. This positive dynamic of the economy is, in addition to the favorable climate, when it is, the result of structural measures. Several independent organizations have confirmed this. The consolidation of our economy and the creation of jobs have a positive impact on our social security. These results are therefore part of a long-term perspective.

At the same time, the efforts made in terms of sanitation are not small. In just three years, we divided the deficit by three. The latest statistics confirm the budget improvement. Also, the structural balance has improved considerably. As for debt, which has increased since 2007 to reach a historically high level in 2014, it is now entering a downward spiral and this trend continues year after year.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, we want to continue to strengthen the consolidation of our economic growth. We also want to amplify the results of the reforms. We want to equip Belgium with an ambitious investment strategy and to invest in the future of our mobility, digital and energy infrastructures.

These challenges – saniting, consolidating, reforming and investing – are important to us and we intend to continue our work and efforts in these areas. We do not want to stop at the good results achieved so far. We know that the road is still long and difficult. We will remain vigilant. We want to continue to work for more purchasing power, more competitiveness and more social protection. For all these reasons, our group will enthusiastically support the budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, I have the report of Mr. Piedboeuf and Mr. Van Biesen on the discussion of the present draft with me. We had a very thorough discussion in the committee. Mr. Laaouej claims no, but I think we have learned from previous discussions. The Government has responded twice, apart from the introduction, of course. First, it responded to the criticisms and observations of the Court of Auditors and, in addition, at the last meeting, to the observations made by the members of the committee.

If you read the report carefully, you can see a number of things clearer. Therefore, we should not agree with it yet, but on the technical level we have had a very good discussion. The Minister of Budget explained to us, among other things, the difference in approximation with the European Commission, which creates great confusion. If the European Commission says that the deficit is increasing by a certain percentage, while the government says that this is not the case, who is right? Of course, there is still work to be done, as there is a consultation with the European Commission, where the Commission uses a top-down approach and Belgium uses a bottom-up approach.

The same goes for the Minister of Finance. One can agree or disagree about the yield of certain taxes – I myself have also often objected to that – but on the technical level we have now received a lot of elements that facilitate the assessment for us, which in the past was not the case.

I am therefore positive about the discussion and regret a little that the budget control is discussed in the plenary session just before the Belgian football match at 20 o’clock, because therefore a thorough discussion is not possible.

In the magical triangle in which the government and all of us must work, she has scored very strongly on two levels. First, purchasing power, the real available income of families, will increase by 2% in 2018. This was confirmed last week by the National Bank and is a boost for purchasing power that we have not known for a long time.

A second issue is employment, for which the National Bank says that between 2014 and 2017 163 000 jobs were created and that between 2018 and 2020 97 000 jobs will be added. According to the Planning Bureau, we could reach 250,000 by 2023. Today I read in the newspaper that unemployment is at the lowest level since 2000.

I regret a little that, even in the majority, instead of “jobs, jobs, jobs” now more and more begins to talk about “skills, skills, skills”. There are, of course, vacancies that are not filled, but due to this government and the international developments, employment has received a tremendous boost. This fact should not be overshadowed in a discussion of matters that are often not in our hands, because, as I know, the Regions are responsible for training and training. They must also ensure the quality of the jobs. In terms of employment, however, this federal government has achieved good results.

In terms of the budget we had a deficit of 3.2% at the beginning of this legislature. The deficit now stands at 1%. That 1% deficit is indeed a realization, but we should find a balance in the next two or three years. I do not want to comment on the date, but we must not forget that the forecasts in this regard are not so positive.

The European Commission spoke of the uncertainty of a number of factors. I personally consider that the budget control and the discussion thereof based on the figures of the first two months are premature. I do not think that we should conduct this debate every year based on two-month forecasts. I think it takes half a year to be able to assess whether or not one is on track. In the meantime, many things have changed, including growth forecasts. The National Bank in 2018 speaks of 1.5% growth. In budget terms, this means a loss of 500 million euros.

The estimates of income should be made on the basis of the first two months. There is simply nothing to say about this. Anyone who follows the evolution of the budget knows that. We now have the Monitoring Committee of July, with the continuation of April figures. I think it is very difficult to make forecasts so early in the year based on a number of estimates. But well, it is what it is.

I am worried about the following. A few months ago, we said that we had a structural deficit of about 1% and that this would fall back to 0.7% in 2018, a drop of 0.3%. However, the National Bank, which I trust in that regard, says that it will not go to 0.7%, but that it will likely stagnate at 1%. Therefore, we will not go to a lower deficit this year. The planning agency even says that the deficit could increase slightly. In some publications I see 1.1%, in others 1.4%. Thinking that we can balance a budget after 2018 – in 2018 we would get 0.7% and then we need another 3 billion for balance – may be too optimistic. The deficit is stabilizing around 1% this year.

The primary balance also stabilizes, in 2017 and 2018 around 1.4%, which is a good surplus. The Federal Debt Agency, which we have also heard, states that a primary balance of 1.4% is very good, but the Planning Bureau predicts that the primary balance will fall back to 0.3 and 0.4% in the coming years.

One of the reasons why we always have discussions with the institutions is the uncertainty about the level of income. This has to do with the fact that there are new incomes and that there is insufficient accountability of the figures you bring forward. I will not resume the discussion concerning the chaimantaks and the regularization tax. While the global income has remained at a level and there is even a slight increase in 2017 in relation to the initial budget, however, for the first months of this year, we must again find that the mobile tax remains below expectations, that the minister now also says that he can not place a number on the chaimantant tax, because that this is about different items in the mobile tax and the personal tax. I don’t know if this is a trend that will continue.

I regret that, because it throws a shadow on the seriousness of some numbers. I can support the projections of the National Bank and the Planning Bureau. They expect the deficit to rise to 1.8 % in 2019 and 1.8 % in 2020 if policy remains unchanged. If we want to reach a balance in 2020, we will need a recovery effort of approximately 7.5 billion according to the Court of Auditors and the National Bank and even 8 billion according to the Plan Bureau. Therefore, we will have to go through a very difficult budgetary pathway over the next two years.

Without a doubt, the deficit has been reduced to 1% over four years, and that is a good thing, but we must be careful because we are far from reaching a balance. The National Bank expects a stagnation of the deficit this year. In any case, we must ensure that we can reduce the deficit. The European Commission is monitoring and can say for 2016 and 2017 that we have done our job more or less, but for 2017 and 2018 we are at risk of non-compliance with significant deviation. That is dangerous.

Of course, there are also one-off factors involved, such as company advance payments. The government has taken a cautious approach and reduced that structure to 50%. The National Bank wanted 60 percent. In addition, part of the tax shift has not been financed. There is lower economic growth. Interest charges will decrease less quickly than in the past.

In short, we are facing a period of uncertainty in terms of budget. This year we will not end at 0.7%, with another 3 billion needed to reach a balance. Per ⁇ that amount is much higher. I am not fixed on 7 or 8 billion, but there are still serious efforts required.

It is not correct that nothing happened in terms of spending. Mr Klaps of the N-VA claims that the taxes have been reduced and that we should look especially at the spending. Well, Mr. Klaps, the statistics show that the government’s primary spending has fallen from 52% to less than 50%. There are 8 billion saved. This has also happened in social security, as the employment budgets have been severely reduced.

In the coming months and years, even under the next government, we will have to take action in a climate where the economy is undoubtedly more difficult. The plan agency also predicts a lower economic growth. There will also be an end to the interest rate. There is also uncertainty about the financing of the tax shift.

The European Central Bank has announced that its QE program will end in 2019. The interest rate would remain at the current level until mid-2019, but afterwards it will rise. In the coming years, the government will be affected by this interest rate evolution. Fortunately, our debt is well fixed in the long term. We heard this last week from Mr. Deboutte of the Federal Debt Agency. However, the interest rate evolution can be dangerous. After all, we used the interest bonus to reduce taxes. There have been savings, but in the coming years we will face a number of challenges.

I oppose the assertion that we can only reach a balance through interventions in social security. I hear Mr. Klaps also advocate this. Mr. Klaps, you need to explain to me where you will specifically save in health care and pensions, which in the last ten years have grown twice as fast as the economy.

Such a ruling bothered me. This does not mean that nothing can happen. Ms. De Block receives enormous criticism from the opposition, including the Greens, for trying to limit spending to a real growth of 1.5%, but I think she has been able to save healthcare from deep interventions, which are not necessary and that no one asks.

The same applies to pensions. It’s not just the lowest pensions that have risen. The pensions as such were exempt, even though the retirement age in this legislature was raised to 67 years and the bridge pension was limited.

Can we cut government spending? Just then, Mr Klaps argued that the government is too fat. Yes, she is too wise. But where are the 750 million as a result of the redesign of the government, Minister Vandeput? Where is that know? I have not seen much of it.

Your party is only party politics, Mr. Klaps. If the unemployed should be activated, it should be by reducing the unemployment benefits or by limiting the unemployment benefits over time. This is about Kris Peeters.

The problem is that activation is a Flemish, a Wallon or a Brussels authority. It is always the other person who has done it. That disturbs me. Activation should be a collective effort, which should take place after social consultation.

CD&V is not a leftist party, we are a party that believes that measures should be discussed with everyone. That it will eventually be decided is obvious. But the social fabric should not simply be ignored.

The unions then again expressed criticism as if the government was doing social horror. I have read the report of the Planning Office again, Mrs. Almaci. Do you know what social security costs in Belgium? That is now more than 100 billion, of which more than 30 billion for health insurance and more than 40 billion for pensions.

There are possible solutions, but that will have to be done in social consultation and not with slogans and party-political oekazes to each other. I think it is so important for us to ⁇ balance in the budget in the coming years.

I heard a few months ago on the Clean Verdiep say that this is just 3 billion euros more. The figures are there now: it is 6 to 7 billion euros. That money will not be found in this legislature, but in the future. A sanitation policy will have to be carried out in a different context. After all, internationally we are with protectionism, Brexit, the quantitative easing that ends and the interest rate crashes that disappear.

That will require great efforts, but let us not fall into slogans when we talk about the budget, but in figures and real measures. I am convinced that this country can handle this, but that must be done in consensus and loyalty. We should not try to constantly polarize. Budgetary balance is necessary, given what happens to us with the costs of pensions, the costs of aging, lower interest rates and economic growth.

I hope that this can remain out of the party-political sphere in the coming years, but I sometimes have great doubts about it, even when hearing your speech about it.

Later, we will vote on the March budget control. Some colleagues, including Mr. Laaouej, have already said that this is a budget control hardly worthy of that name. This budgetary control is now somewhat outdated. In fact, Mr Van Rompuy also confirmed this.

In order to meet the budget deficit target of 0.68% this year, the Monitoring Committee had calculated that the government had to look for 1.4 billion euros. The government has raised this amount by hardly making efforts or taking real measures.

The evidence for this is that after this budget control we should not even vote on a program law. So no measures were taken, otherwise we would have to approve them.

We say that not only, the analysis of the Court of Auditors is also obvious. It calculated that less than a fifth of the amount was found by real new measures. That is only 256 million euros out of 1.4 billion euros. The remaining amount was found through up to 826 million euros of technical corrections and 354 million euros of re-registration of previously approved measures. So that is nothing new.

Not only the Court of Auditors but also the European Commission is clear. The conclusion of the European Commission was clear and very critical. She wrote in her country report on Belgium the following. I quote: "The overall impact of the March audit on the European Commission projections is estimated at 0.1% of GDP in 2018", an impact of 0.1%.

Colleagues, that is the budget control that we discuss here today and will probably approve later. As I mentioned earlier, a budget control is hardly worthy of that name.

It is a check that does not change the budget performance of the current government. We must not forget that the budget was the chosen main branch of the right-wing government. Finally, without the socialists, the budget could be put in order.

What is the result? Colleagues, the result is a thick tube for the main field.

This year, the government does not even have a problem with budget control. It seems to have largely abandoned the budget. This is not only evidenced by the control of 0.1%. This is reflected in the 2018 target.

Every year, Europe expects our deficit to improve by 0.6%. What is the Government’s goal for 2018? It aims at an improvement of 0.17 %.

What is the excuse? The excuse of the current government is that it does not want to save harder, because it could thus slow economic growth. Was that, however, under the previous government the great criticism of amongst others the N-VA? Was that the promise of the current government?

The government went through growth and jobs to ensure that the budget came into order on its own. After all, there were revenue effects on the current band and the budget would be in order anyway. Empty promises, it seems.

The budget balance is actually a fata morgana for the government. In the distance there is always one to be seen, but if one comes close enough, it is moved every time, and it continues every time. At the end of the legislature of the government-Di Rupo was the plan to ⁇ the structural balance in 2016. With this government formation, the new government proposed that until 2018. Last year it was postponed in the Stability Programme to 2019 and this year the budget balance in the Stability Programme was postponed to 2020. It is clear that the balance was not achieved this year. As colleague Laaouej – and also colleague Van Rompuy – has already said, the situation is likely to worsen. This is evidenced by the projections of the European Commission, the National Bank and the Planning Bureau. They all come to the same conclusion: unchanged policy threatens to ⁇ double the budget deficit to 1.7 percent of GDP by 2020.

It is true that the budget deficit decreases during this reign period: from 3.1 to 1.7%. However, let us not forget that 1.3% of this is due to the decrease in interest charges. The reduction of the budget deficit thanks to real government efforts is actually almost zero.

Who is responsible for this? This is the Minister of Finance. First, the tax shift still brings gaps in the budget, despite the fact that the minister has always said that the tax shift is budget-neutral. Still, he is the only one who still believes that. His chairman recently revealed this on television. The European Commission is very clear about this too. I quote: "The budgetarily non-neutral nature of the tax reform undertaken has worsened the fiscal situation."

I am talking about the corporate tax reform. There too is the price again: both the National Bank and the Planning Bureau predict that the doubling of the deficit will be almost entirely due to the decrease in income from corporate tax. The minister breaks holes in the budget and then follows the well-known recipe: they call for cuts in social security. That is the strategy of this right-wing government. You can say, Mr. Van Rompuy, that this government should no longer be cut, but I am sorry: you stand there and watch everything that happens.

Budgetary control is therefore a missed opportunity to take steps towards a fiscal balance, a missed opportunity to make taxation more just, a missed opportunity to further improve purchasing power and strengthen social policy. The opposite is true. During this budget control, it became clear that even 40 million euros were saved on poverty alleviation. According to the government agreement, the government would raise the benefits up to the poverty line. According to the summer agreement of last year, one would even take a step further in the last years of this government and 100 million euros had been allocated for this.

With the first budget control, only 40 million euros will be saved, just on this post. This demonstrates once again the total lack of ambition of this government on poverty reduction. Not only from this government, but also from the Flemish government. Child poverty in our country is rising and this government is saving on poverty reduction. One in seven children in our country grow up in poverty. That is unfair, just as it is unfair that there are large savings in health care and there is a large shortage of nurses. The pharmaceutical industry can get hundreds of millions of gifts, including from these colleagues.

Colleagues, it should be clear, our group will not approve this budget control. There is no step in the direction of budgetary equilibrium. It does not bring tax justice. And it does not bring social progress.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here is a budget adjustment for the form, waiting for more serious things - let us be clear: the next conclave, the future Tomorrowland!

The 2019 budget, in essence, included a few micro-tracking measures, which I cited in the committee and which we can support:

- taking into account the double cohort of medical candidates;

– a small reinforcement at the level of the judicial framework, which is very needed – we are far from meeting all the needs in the field of justice;

Increase in income for single-parent families.

Any measures that environmentalists can support.

But a few micro-measures cannot change the course of things and the problematic macroeconomic characteristics of the fiscal policy of this majority. We discussed this with Ms. Wilmès, with Mr. Van Overtveldt, with representatives of the Court of Auditors as well. We discussed some transversal issues that I would like to return to, since these questions remain and call for answers, regardless of the outcome of the vote on this adjustment.

I have five questions, the first is the question of employment, the “jobs, jobs, jobs” of which you are so proud. Obviously, as environmentalists, we prefer an increase to a decrease in the number of jobs in our country. It is said! But I would still like to temper, to nuance the enthusiasm of the majority on certain points to which I ask you to be attentive.

1 of 1. If unemployment figures - this is the tag you regularly use - are decreasing, it is first and foremost linked to the phenomenon of the exclusion of unemployment, the transfer to the budget of disease. Long-term unemployed people become long-term sick. There is also the creation of sub-states. This is not 100% related to job creation.

2 of 2. The employment rate is increasing. This is a positive indicator. I think this is the right indicator to use in terms of employment. But it grows less quickly than in neighboring countries. We cannot qualify the economic performance of our State as extraordinary at this stage.

3 of 3. The quality of jobs is really our main concern. Mr. Van Rompuy spoke to us recently about his fears about the increase in the social security budget. But this is linked to an increased need of society in response to problems, including health, long-term illness of workers, burn out, depression, phenomena to which a government must also be able to respond. As environmentalists, we obviously prefer that our fellow citizens are not sick. There is a real problem in terms of employment quality, with sub-statutes and more and more sick workers.

4 of 4. The cost per employment also raises our concern. The tax shift operation has a significant budgetary cost that is not financed. If you consider the cost of the tax shift and the number of jobs created, you get to a ⁇ large sum. Moreover, in terms of the selectivity of the reduction of social contributions, there is, in the head of the government, a lack of selectivity towards the lowest wages and towards professions that are strategically important.

5 to 5. In terms of employment, specific categories are still suffering. I think here, in particular, of young people who find it difficult to integrate into the labour market, of older workers. Indeed, after 50 years of age, when you lose your job, it is ⁇ difficult to find a job, even when you have the willingness to conduct research in this direction. We also have a problem of the employment rate of people of foreign origin, which the director of the Plan Bureau called this week in La Libre Belgique, a “Bruxelles sociological bomb”. And your government does not take concrete action to address this problem.

6 of 6. The lack of specialization of our economy and therefore of employment is pointed out by the National Labour Council. We are a middle economy in everything and excellent in nothing, which is problematic. "Jobs, jobs, jobs" is a beautiful slogan, but when you dig a little, you identify a series of issues and challenges that are not met by this government.

This is the economic and budgetary situation of Belgium.

From an economic point of view, Belgium benefits from the good health of its main customers, neighboring countries that behave well, in any case, better than Belgium. This is the first external element that brings Belgium.

Second, from a budgetary point of view, the decrease in interest rates linked to the very active policy of the European Central Bank in terms of asset purchase leads mechanically, thanks to the work of the Debt Agency that we received in the Finance Committee – we positively emphasized the transformation of our debt into a long debt with low rates – to an extremely favorable situation in terms of interest rates. Soon we will have to talk about the past.

We are told that the trajectory corrections that are announced are related to external phenomena: economic, diplomatic instability, rising oil prices. This shows that Belgium is far too dependent on external factors, positive or negative. We have not sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunity that the good economic health of our customers and the cost of debt constituted to sharply reform our economy. It is not about reforming it by reducing workers’ rights to social security – which will cost in the future – but by specializing our economy in certain sectors.

The third element I wanted to point out is the issue of tax revenues. This is a recurring problem that is highlighted by the Court of Auditors and Europe. This is a delayed bomb. I think the Minister of Finance is more aware of this than the Minister of Budget. This is a strategy that I would like to denounce.

The set of new fiscal measures that are supposed to bring more tax justice, more contribution from capital revenues, which are now very little contributed – clearly, the CD&V’s demands – do not resist the analysis, whether it is the Caiman tax, the tax on offshore constructions abroad, or the tax on securities accounts. In each fiscal year we are notified of an increase in revenue that is never verified, and which is very difficult to verify, as the Court of Auditors explains.

When we ask you to enter, in your corporate tax or corporate tax declaration, an additional code to identify the effectiveness of your Cayman tax measure, you refuse. What do you have to hide? A good fiscal policy is also a transparent policy that can be controlled both by the armed arm of Parliament in this matter, the Court of Auditors, by the representatives we are, and by all citizens.

In tax matters, you anticipate revenue. This is very clear. This appears with the measure of increasing penalties that lead to more advance payments to corporate tax. This is typically a one-shot measure, which produces its effects only over a year. Taxes paid in advance in year x are no longer paid in year x+1. You cannot claim to have a structural effect in this matter. You hide the non-financing of the measures you have taken: the tax shift, the future non-financing of the corporate tax reform.

You are playing a zero sum game. You are calling for budget neutrality. You are not demonstrating this and we think it is voluntarily, Mr. Van Overtveldt, that you are leading us to new deficits for the future that will justify further unjust reforms.

The government’s inability to have correct forecasts of tax revenues, or even a willingness to hide budget holes related to non-tax revenues, is a delay bomb that will explode in the hands of the next government. We are almost in 2019.

The fourth element on which I wanted to return is the question, which has also been discussed, of the announced investment plan that may come out of your future conclave after July 21, 2018. I do not know where it will be announced this time. We have expressed all our hope and support for the principle of an investment plan. We asked for it and our two group leaders, Kristof Calvo and Jean-Marc Nollet, worked on a plan that they handed over to the Prime Minister and which is called BE.invest.

We encourage you, with regard to Europe, to negotiate the principle of exception with regard to the investment expenses of the state and the calculation of the total debt of the Belgian state and other European states. There are good debts and bad debts. Investment debt is good debt. Europe needs to gain a more open vision of investment spending from all levels of power to the municipal level.

We are waiting for you with your proposals because if it comes to recycling expenses that are in any case planned and announcing that this is an investment plan as well as structurally reducing the resources of the SNCB at the beginning of the legislature with Ms. Galant to announce three years later with Mr. Bellot that we will finance the RER as part of the investment plan, it is a zero-sum game. It decreased by two billion and then increased by two billion. This is not an additional investment.

We have proposals. We believe that we need to work on the economy of the future, the digital economy, on energy savings and the search for our country’s energy autonomy that will improve our trade balance with the countries exporting oil, gas or coal. We believe that we need to work on energy storage, which is essential to both successfully addressing public health challenges, such as the removal of fine particles, and to meet our climate commitments. We need to get out of nuclear power and work on storing the renewable energy produced. We are waiting for you on this subject with the hand stretched. We have said that we would support you if the proposals were good, but we will have to convince us that they are indeed, otherwise we will issue criticisms and counterproposals.

In conclusion, it is necessary to correct the trajectory not budgetary but social and environmental. Since the beginning of the legislature, you have harmed social cohesion and the most fragile by linear social security savings measures with an index jump that has not been compensated for the social benefiters or at least for a significant part of them. You have hit the associative sector hard, which is yet a factor of social connection. Corrections should be made in this regard.

In environmental matters, I would like to say to Mr. Klaps, who is no longer there and who gave us lessons of economics just recently, that the lack of decision on the energy issue and the future of energy and the uncertainty that weighs on Belgium’s strategic choices are the worst things in economic matters. This inhibits investments. This forces us to invest in outdated infrastructure and production tools. This is badly spent money. This attitude of systematic sabotage of the N-VA accepted by the other members of the government may be suffered by some of them – but in any case, accepted – this retrograde view of the energy issue according to which we think we can continue to waste such natural resources for years, leads us to the wall as a Belgian state but also as citizens of this planet.

We believe that clarity and strategic choices in energy matters need to be made as soon as possible. We have put a lot of hope in the energy pact that is to be concluded between the federal state and the Regions. We expect the next fiscal year to answer this question as well. It is a structuring, dynamic and strategic choice that you need to make to lead us to better appreciate your next budgetary years.

Mr. Speaker, I will stay on my bench, because I do not think that this adjustment deserves to be raised on the tribune. I just heard Mr. Klaps opening the debates saying that the federal budget, a few years ago, was sick. I wondered if he would dare to tell us that the budget is now healed. He did not dare to say it. The budget could have been considered healed if the budget balance had been achieved: that was the goal of this government. Obviously, we are not there. Between sick and healed, there is a margin. We might say that the budget is in convalescence, but in any case, it is clearly not drawn out of the deal.

The majority may say that the postponement of the budget balance to 2019 and then to 2020 is due to the will not to brake economic growth. In reality, we can see that the accumulation of budgetary approximations causes this postponement of the return to balance. We can still question the ability to reach it even in 2020 when we see the numbers to be absorbed by then. For 2019, the Plan Bureau announces a structural effort of 4.6 billion and 8.4 billion for 2020.

In order to properly measure this effort, it is necessary to take into account what the adjustment we are discussing now concerns new measures up to 250 million. And again, of these 250 million, about 50 million is devoted to the fight against social fraud and tax fraud, of which it is well known that the budget registration is based on nothing.

You present to us an effort to make from the order of 200 to 250 million euros and, by 2020, this will be the figure of 8.4 billion euros that will need to be reached. Therefore, it is really very difficult to think that we are healing. I think, on the contrary, that tomorrow will be painful, especially because the reforms you have implemented are not fully funded, far from that! This is true for the tax shift, it is true for the corporate tax reform.

And then, a new one has come since the adoption of the adjustment by the federal government, namely the downward revision of economic growth that plumbs the outlook for future years. The National Bank revised the growth rate to 1.5% for 2018 instead of 1.7%. The Plan Bureau also confirmed the trend by lowering it to 1.6% instead of 1.8% for 2018 and 2019.

Neither you nor your successors can rely on upward growth to offset the budget holes you’ve left. This makes me think that we have to be a forceful optimist like our colleague, Mr Piedboeuf, to believe that, reasonably, we are reaching the end of the tunnel. We are, in fact, very, very far from counting.

I would not like to weigh on the content of the adjustment, as it obviously does not constitute a convincing step in restoring budgetary balance. I would like to quickly address this problem with the 462 million euros that are not on the track for Belgium. The federal government, through a technical correction, deducted this amount from the structural effort to be made. This corresponds to the decline in the professional advance in 2018. This is the second phase of the tax shift. This reduction will necessarily be reflected on the regional IPP, but the problem is that this has not been the subject of any consultation between the federal state and the federal entities.

In any case, the Consultation Committee did not integrate the technical correction into the distribution of structural effort between entities, so that there is a loss of tax revenue that is not accounted for in the Belgian trajectory. There is a hole. You acted as if it didn’t exist because that’s not the federal problem, but that says a lot about the lack of credibility and seriousness with which you set your budget trajectories.

As a committee, you have, in a very tough way, referred the issue back to the Regions and municipalities. This seems to me a little short as we want to be the carrier of a restoration of the budget balance for the whole House of Belgium.

Without extending too long, I would like, in turn, to pinpoint some of the sagas mentioned in the commission without really finding a final point. Particularly in the case of accounting titles. This is a recurring and challenging debate.

I would like to quote here a publication of the Fiscologue: "If the great boss of Finance does not see a disadvantage in promoting a dubious escape, it is hard to blame the taxpayer for taking advantage of this opportunity." Indeed, we know well that this tax on securities will not reach its goal, both in terms of budgetary return and tax fairness, so many escapes are. The Council of State had already pinched it at the time the text was drafted. Since then, the holes in the device have multiplied, so that citizens who were targeted by the measure will obviously be able to escape the contribution to the payment of which they were invited.

The other recurring saga is that of the Caiman tax. Again, we have participated in long discussions in committees about the 500 million euros that this tax is supposed to bring. Where are they? No one knows anything. It is impossible to say in which column they can be found. That is why Mr Van Rompuy considered that this casts a shadow on the government’s budgetary seriousness. As always, I agree with you, Mr. Van Rompuy. Honestly, the way this measure is presented and integrated does not, far from that, strengthen the credibility of this budgetary year, as well as that of the previous and subsequent.

The plan for combating tax fraud was presented by the Minister of Finance in 2015. His goal was quite ambitious. Since then, we do not know much about where it is implemented. Has it only been approved by the government? We have the impression that it has remained a dead letter and that, therefore, the increase in the efficiency of the measures to combat tax fraud does, of course, allow to balance the figures, but does not really proceed from the implementation of new policies and initiatives.

In conclusion, as I have stated in the committee, and I really think so, we are facing a budgetary year a bit pre-electoral. We try to profile both good and bad according to the upcoming deadlines, allowing us to believe that the situation has improved. But we are far from counting. In any case, the deficit that the government will leave behind will be post-election and will not be easy to absorb.

I do not expect more responses from ministers in the plenary session than in the commission. However, if they could provide us with information on a subject, it would be the Belfius and ARCO file. This has become so political that we no longer get much information in the Finance Committee about the fate that the government intends to reserve to Belfius: to sell or not, according to what allocation, what about the debt, what about the investment pact, what about ARCO? In this regard, the blur is total. Could you tell us more about it? If you could tell us about this, the debate would not have been useless. As I do not make myself illusions, we will not be able to declare ourselves satisfied either. Therefore, the CDH group will vote against this adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, allow me to look at the history of the policy of this government. I must honestly admit that it is not all shame and trouble. There are a number of good points, specifically the improvement of competitiveness. I think this government should write it on its account.

The government shows figures on growth and job creation. Indeed, there is growth and there is job creation, but compared to 30 other European countries, our country is 26th in terms of growth and 23rd in terms of job creation. I cannot say that this is very good.

It is often explained that our country has performed much better during the crisis years, and that therefore it cannot be expected to perform much better than other countries now. I can only find that countries that have also survived the crisis years and have done well, today still present significantly better figures than Belgium. This explanation cannot be considered a valid excuse.

Let me talk about the restructuring of public spending. That was the topic, right? Would this government do something completely different from the previous one? Di Rupo didn’t have much baked and this government would make the difference in terms of government spending. Well, an objective analysis teaches us that there has actually been no trend break. Social security spending has increased, and I would like to admit that this increase is also related to demographics. However, expenditure outside social security, excluding interest payments, also increased, namely, by 2 %, while those under the Di Rupo government increased only by 1,2 %. The claim that it is now so much better and that a major trend break has occurred is unfortunately false, although I had hoped for it.

The low interest rate is a missed opportunity. For years we have been able to benefit from very low interest rates, but the current government debt is still above 100%. Ms. Minister, in your argumentation you always start from the figure of 107 % public debt in 2014, while the public debt in 2017 was only 103,1 % and you want to reach 101,2 % in 2018.

We are still not below 100%. You say that this is not the main goal and that even the budget balance is not the main point you want to pursue because you absolutely do not want to sacrifice the economic recovery. I can understand this somewhat, but we see that other countries are well below that 100% and that we are among the four worst pupils in Europe in the framework of public debt. So I think we really missed a chance here by not making our debt with that low interest rate anymore.

I think you have the great luck of being surrounded by capable people, more specifically with the Debt Agency. Mr Van Rompuy, we have had discussions in the Committee on Finance in the context of debt. I think these people have done a miraculous work, considering what they have done to save us from immediate heavy consequences if interest rates rise. Hats off for those people.

Then there is the great promise of a balance in 2018. This has now been released. That was the great promise to be made. 2018 was 2019 and suddenly it was 2020. However, they had started well. If I look back on the initial budgets in which 11 billion had to be sought, 75 percent of that was sought in spending reductions and 25 percent in new income. It was totally snoring. One had really started well but and cours de route one has deviated from the route and not so little. At the 2016 budget control, there were the first signs of baked air. That is regrettable. Again, one had started well and I would have very much wanted to be very positive about the numbers today, but I can’t.

The 2018 budget control required an effort of 1.4 billion. The effort we are now making is very poor because that 1.4 billion has been found, among other things, through 826 million technical corrections. That is known, those technical corrections, such as the settlement of the tax shift with the states, in which one can ask serious questions.

There are 353 million recalculations. You know that too and I hold my heart for it, because usually they don’t knock either.

This is how I come to the conclusion. What are we actually discussing today? A revision of the budget for 256 million, while one started with 1.4 billion, dear colleagues. There will be 256 million new measures. I also hold my heart for that. We know those technical calculations and those re-calculations! For example, there is the structural impact of corporate tax advance payments. According to the National Bank, 40 % of those advance payments can be considered structural. It is already nipt. The FOD Finance may have thought about it even more negatively, but okay, at the beginning, 40% was registered as a recurrent in the 2018 budget. Suddenly it becomes 50%. That is, of course, a very easy measure, say that not 40% will be counted as a recurrent on the budget, but 50%. Hocus pocus pas, and suddenly there is 216 million extra in the greenhouse.

What do we get on our sandwiches? Last week, after the discussion in the committee, the National Bank said that the 1% deficit could rise to 1.8% in 2020. The Planning Bureau, slightly milder for the government, was about 1.7%. With unchanged policy.

You will now answer me that there is another policy following. The question is: what policy? Knowing that elections are coming, I also hold my heart with regard to the policy to be carried out, Mr. Van Rompuy.

Does the dash still exist? Is it Dash or Dash? Will you try to wash everything properly and come back next year with a propere lei? I have my doubts about that.

The Court of Auditors also raises questions about the budget neutrality of the corporate tax reform. It is assumed to be budget-neutral, but I, like the Court of Auditors, wonder whether the new calculation of the corporate tax reform was made on the basis of recent figures?

We all know that old figures from 2014-2015 were used. So let us make the new calculation of the corporate tax reform as soon as possible and on the basis of the latest data, so that there will be no bodies falling out of the closet.

Then there is the tax shift. Is the tax shift financed? I did not think. What do we do now? Now we are rapidly pushing the costs of the additional measures of 264 million. These are one-time, not structural, and therefore, from 2019 onwards, they will be transferred to Entity II. That means 265 million won’t go into the greenhouse, as a result of which the entity II budget has not taken that amount into account at this time.

It is already good – and I am pleased to do so – that, in the context of the budget, there is, meanwhile, an agreement between the federal government and the counties, in order to seek a balance by 2020. That is very good, but not more than that. After all, there is nothing on paper, there is nothing formally stipulated about who will make what efforts and how one and another will happen. Even within Entity II, there is nothing fixed. I hold my heart again. Of course, a lot can be agreed upon. The words are there, but the actions must follow. I look forward to 2020.

I can also only state that Mr. Bogaert had requested a number of tables. I assumed — ⁇ that was my interpretation of the answers — that we would get the tables related to employment, but I did not see that they were added to the report. Per ⁇ my interpretation was wrong of the answer to the question of whether Mr. Bogaert would receive the tables or not.

What will be decided next summer? This may now be the 2018 budget control, but the important 2019 budget is already on the threshold. She will need to be arrested quickly. The question is whether there will still be enough dash in the government, to take steps with good measures.

I agree with Mr Van Rompuy on this point, in the sense that the future looks less rosy than we have known them in recent years. Economic growth is slower and interest rates will rise, but thanks to the Debt Agency, we may not immediately experience severe consequences.

The savings cannot only be found in social security. Something else is needed. Everyone knows very well what the solution is. Community shutdown is definitely not the solution to save in spending. This requires a reform of the institutions.

I sincerely hope, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, that you will find the courage this summer to take any further steps towards a budgetary balance and that you will come up with measures to do so, because otherwise it is a missed opportunity and a missed moment. The government that was predicted has not been obtained. It is up to you this summer to realize what the political scientists had predicted about this government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. What is this assessment from a socio-economic point of view? I would say it is contrasted. There are good and bad news. It depends on who, in fact. For the companies of BEL 20, it is true that there are very good news. During this part of the legislature, the index increased by 21%. For the capital, indeed, this is good news.

For workers, this is less good news. On the front of employment, for example, despite a favorable international climate, Belgium ranks 23rd among thirty European countries. What jobs are created? Precarious jobs, as full-time increases by 1.7%, but part-time increases by 6% and temporary jobs by 26% over the period from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2017.

The salaries are also quite poor in our country. In 2016, Belgium was the only European country where real wages decreased. In 2017, five European countries were affected, including Belgium.

The government, in relation to these social attacks, always serves us the famous tax shift or the miracle of pocket wage. What is this miracle? To give an order of magnitude, if you look behind the scenes and consider the tax shift from the perspective of the world of work, there are 4 billion taxes less and 4 billion taxes more. This is balanced. And there are 4 billion in terms of indirect wage loss, which are social contributions, the professional pre-count. In fact, the balance sheet is negative of 4 billion for the world of work.

All this happens in a context of austerity. If we sum up all the budgetary efforts of this government since it was in place, until today, we reach a total of 18 billion budgetary efforts. To those 18 billion budget efforts, what else needs to be added? One could say that after so many billions consented by the workers, the government would finally come out of the red. and no! The release of the red, which was announced for 2018, was postponed to 2019 and then 2020. This means that the effort is passed by that government to the next government.

It’s a bit like a tenant who ⁇ ’t put his apartment in order, leaving this task to the next tenant. It is therefore a double punishment for workers, since they have suffered austerity and it remains a deficit predictor of a future austerity. In fact, in order to reach the balance, it will still need to add 8.4 billion euros to the 18 billion efforts already agreed so far.

Debt continues to rise, even though it grows less rapidly than GDP. To reduce this debt, the government has found nothing better than selling the state’s “family jewelry,” ⁇ through a partial privatization of Belfius, which, it’s true, has a hard time doing for reasons of political discord. Beyond the social role that a public bank could play, this operation is budgetarily negative. Indeed, it is clear that with the current interest rates, the decrease in the interest on the debt that would result from a partial sale of Belfius would be lower than the dividend the State would lose. This is bad on a budgetary level. Even the chairman of the Commission, Eric Van Rompuy, who as a right-wing man is rather a supporter of privatizations, says that, in the current framework, privatizing Belfius is a bad thing.

The European Commission’s pressure to privatize and reduce debt is obviously pushing for a privatization that, even from a budgetary point of view, is counterproductive.

In terms of revenue, disasters continue from year to year, from fiscal year to fiscal year. Who can still believe that the ISOC reform will be budget-neutral? The Cayman tax is nothing more than a big junkie, as a yield is equal to 1% of the yield initially announced. Each fiscal year we receive an additional portion of the tax. The tax on securities that could also be called the "passive" tax is ⁇ even a bigger junkyard. It was the government itself that broke the hole, as, as a survey by Deminor/De Tijd/L'Echo revealed, 39% of investors changed their way of investing.

For the wealthiest, the rate is even higher. Except for those who have nothing to do, because the greatest fortunes were already initially exempt from the tax on securities accounts because they do not hold their money there. All measures that are supposedly aimed at capital are wet petards. On the other hand, when it comes to raising the VAT on electricity to 21%, it is not a wet petard but socially tough measures, from which one cannot escape.

In each fiscal year, there is also an amount from the fight against tax fraud that is planned. The Panama Papers show that nothing has been done. The Panama Papers special committee was totally overthrown by the majority, who did not want tax information to be purchased, as Germany had done. Thanks to this information, Germany was able to effectively combat tax evasion and conduct investigations based on this data. Belgium, on the other hand, had to request some of the data that Germany had purchased. Two years later, we received some of them, while Germany has quantities.

Our Minister of Finance is responsible for fighting tax fraud, but does nothing in that regard. He invented figures for the increase of the staff of the ISI, while those staff do not increase. He told us in 2015 that the staff of the SPF Finance would decrease but that he promised that this would not be the case for tax controllers, that every departure would be accompanied by a hiring. In response to a parliamentary question, the minister told me of figures that show a 9% drop in tax inspectors. Even this basic requirement is not met.

In terms of spending, there would be a lot to say but the current situation perfectly reflects the policy of this government. The promises are not kept. I have just said this concerning the staff of tax inspectors. This also applies to prison guards. The Minister of Justice was firmly and formally committed to a number of prison guards. The new strikes show that this commitment has not been met. We could also talk about the SNCB where, from 2004 to 2007, we went from 40,000 to 30,000 railroads, or 10,000 railroads less. And when they strike, they say “the right to work.” There is the right to strike, but there is also the right to work. This right to work also applies to those 10,000 jobs that have disappeared, but, strangely, this is not the case.

The austerity has broken the social, as well as the infrastructure of the country, to such an extent that the prime minister felt compelled to launch an investment pact that is totally insufficient and which, by the way, is completely subordinate to the private that ensures the management of the strategic committee itself.

In terms of health care, there is still something flagrant and typical of this government’s policy. All health sectors had to consent millions of euros in budget cuts. All except one! This is the pharmaceutical sector, large pharmaceutical firms with which the Minister of Health has made catimini arrangements, which makes the healthcare sector in the red competing for 267 million euros. For the sick, there is no money, but obviously there is for the pharmaceutical firms.

In conclusion, as usual, these are gifts for capital but austerity as well as a reduction of social rights for the population and workers. This reduction of social rights is accompanied, as has been seen regularly in history, by a reduction of democratic rights, in particular through an attack on the right to strike which was addressed repeatedly today at the time question.

The PTB therefore introduced an amendment so that the men and women politicians who lead these austerity policies become a little more aware of the feeling of these measures in the population.

In order to do this, our amendment proposes to cut the salary of deputies and ministers by half. This salary will not yet be reduced to the amount that the PTB elected members receive, but at least, it will bring the political world a little closer to the living conditions of the population.

I would like to thank each and every one of you for your interventions. This is indeed the end of a process that is quite long but that is also complete. It began when we were able to discuss the stability program in the Committee on Finance and Budget as this allowed us to set the 2018 budget on a longer-term trajectory.

It is true that the exercise of budget adjustment as such is a long process. I would like to remind you, however, that there is a report from the Court of Auditors, that it comes to explain in a committee what it is and that the government responds to this Court point by point. I would like to thank the Chairman of the committee for highlighting the effort undertaken to answer the Court of Auditors and the various questions of MEPs.

I would also like to highlight the intervention of Mr. Piedboeuf who thanked the ministers and the services. I add not only the services but also the members of the cabinet because the work should not be underestimated. We sometimes complain about the details and the length of the answers, but the work of the teams behind us is huge. I use it to thank them.

Budget adjustment is a purely technical exercise. It will confirm the path that we had decided, namely to reach a deficit target of 0.68% of GDP. Such a deficit rate is not the balance. I do not disagree with this, but we need to reconsider the path that has been done so far. We started in 2014 with a nominal deficit of 3.1%. In 2017, these are figures confirmed by the Institute of National Accounts and not estimates, we will be at - 1%. The deficit is divided by three. In structural terms, we were at -2.6% in 2014. We went to - 0.86% in 2017. Ms. Wouters pointed out that we are finally seeing a path toward debt reduction that had reached a maximum level of 107 % in 2014 and that, in fact, is still not below the 100 % bar, but reaches a level of 101.2 %.

As you know, we have always worked on several plans. We have actually worked on sanitation, but also on economic recovery and structural reforms. The work on these last two points cannot be done at the expense of budgetary sanitation, the opposite is also true.

I have heard several times comments and comments on the growth differential observed, established or projected for Belgium compared to the European average. In short, I will remind you of the work of the National Bank of Belgium, which explained this differential in a clear way. An explanation of the economic structures justifies this differential, as well as an explanation in terms of catching the poorest economies over the rest of the area of the European Union. Furthermore, convergence effects were also counted.

I talked to you about the results of this work in terms of budgetary sanitation. In terms of job creation, this is 230,000 jobs created between 2015 and 2018, with a notable point being that these jobs are created mainly in the private sector.

I hear different things, but the figures show that the real available income of our fellow citizens, all income confused, has increased significantly since the establishment of this government, which was not the case under the previous government. Previously, we were aware of developments in the available income that were down or peaked at a maximum of 0.3%, whereas they are now at 1.8%.

I have also received many comments and questions about the weight of the interest rate and the evolution of the interest rate and the conjuncture in the results we can book.

If you analyze the primary balance, you will see that the decrease in the nominal deficit is mainly due to the increase in the primary balance. The primary balance is the balance without the weight of the interest charges.

The same applies to the structural primary balance, thus abstraction of the interest loads and the conjuncture. You can see that this structural primary balance doubles between 2014 and 2018.

This proves that the recorded results are not, as I was able to hear, due to the evolution of interest rates and the evolution of the climate. Indeed, it is noted, figures demonstrated to support, that the result is mainly due to measures taken by the government.

It is obvious that the evolution of interest rates plays the same role as the evolution of the economy. But thanks to the primary balance change indicators and primary structural balance indicators, the observed result is that of the measures taken by the government.

Has the work been finished? Of course not! As you know, there is a deviation to policy unchanged between 2018 and 2019. This is not a surprise. This deviation was already part of the multiannual projections from the beginning of 2016. This brings us a few years back. We know that in order to maintain even the current level of deficit, we will need to make efforts.

And it is because we are strong of this knowledge that we estimated the budget trajectory in the stability program as we established it. We wanted to smooth the effort to do and not improve structural balances as some probably misunderstood.

Many discussions were held to know our intentions and what budget year will be implemented for 2019 and the coming years. I’ve always said, I don’t give the numbers before they exist. As for a budget effort, we did not turn the machines back in the following years. We will wait for the results of the monitoring committee.

I already hear differences of opinion (which is natural, because we are in Parliament) about whether the work should be done in terms of revenue or expenditure. I leave time to time, that is, to the meeting between the various competent ministers to make the decisions that will prove necessary. But in any case, there is a certainty: we will have to do this work together, like, I hope, what our Red Devils will do tonight.

Of course, I agree with what Ms. Wilmès said. I would like to add a few things to this without being extended, because we have already discussed a lot of technical elements in the committee, as Commission President Van Rompuy has already said. I think, for example, of the advance payments in corporate taxes and the distribution between what is structural, due to the tightening of the penalty rates, and what is not structural. The tax shift correction of 460 million euros was also thoroughly explained.

What is the bottom line, both nominal and real?

We have restored the budget situation to 2% of GDP, which is about 9 billion. This is an undeniable reality.

Regarding revenues, I would like to point out once again that we left for 2017 with revenues of EUR 114.8 billion. In the end, that was 600 billion euros more.

This year we expect 119.1 billion euros. Based on the latest data and despite the fact that we must indeed consider a possible slight decline in growth, we will surely get that amount.

Dan kom ik tot de taxshift, waarover de Nationale Bank, het Federaal Planbureau, of OECD, het IMF zeggen: "The return effects are considerable, especially in terms of job creation, which is so high that one can almost call it historical."

In fact, interest rates have been low for a long time and that has, of course, a lot to do with the European Central Bank’s policy, both in terms of short-term interest rates and in terms of long-term interest rates. However, it can be seen that other countries that also belong to the euro area, in a vast majority of cases, pay for their loans a lot more than what Belgium pays. Therefore, the low interest rates must also be earned, especially in terms of the spread against Germany, where we score very well. So we have indeed low interest rates, but that is also in part the merit of the government. The Federal Debt Agency has done an excellent job in terms of debt management and I have constantly encouraged it to do so. When the government took office, the weighted average period of public debt was seven years. In the meantime, it is almost ten years. That is a huge increase and that, of course, implicitly provides a large level of coverage in terms of interest rate increases, which will surely come in the future, ⁇ at the end of 2019 or even later.

Finally, I would like to make a brief comment on Belfius, which was asked by several applicants. The file is technically ready, both in terms of my cabinet and in terms of Belfius itself. A few political nodes have to be cut down. This will happen during the conclave and it is of course the privilege of the government to deliberate finally on it.