Proposition 55K0025

Projet de loi ouvrant des crédits provisoires pour les mois d'août, septembre et octobre 2019.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Michel Ⅱ

Submission date

July 3, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

national budget provisional twelfth

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

July 18, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we normally did not have to stand here. A budget was submitted last year, but part of the crew left the ship while the boat was in sight. The budgetary situation of our country requires seriousness, not a political game.

What emerges today is a draft for the third series of provisional credits. It is not a draft budget that initiates major measures and new policies. It is a design that allows the bills and suppliers to be paid. As a Belgian government, we cannot remain in deficit to the citizens and companies. Open Vld therefore endorses this bill.

However, let us be serious. The budget deficit, which was still 3.1% of GDP in 2014, fell to 0.7% in 2018. However, we are awaiting the monitoring committee’s estimates for the current year. The previous government has failed to complete the ride due to the fall of the government, which has resulted in the loss of a costly year on budgetary level and the failure to take the structural measures necessary in the long-term to guarantee the balance in the budget. The explanation why the budget could not be approved in December remains incomprehensible for me and for many, and costs the community a lot of money.

Today, therefore, the discussion should be about how to avoid losing another year. The saying that ongoing business is the best way to keep a budget on track is no longer valid. Increasing costs of ageing and a leveling of economic growth cause the deficit to increase in times of ongoing affairs instead of declining.

Let me also be clear, as in the committee meeting last week: post-electoral games about indexing the grant for the royal family or discussions about the cabinets, are not only based on misinformation, they do not help us forward.

I would like to put the points on the i. Indexing is a principle – unless some parties fundamentally question it – that applies to everyone, for all staff-related costs, and the allocation consists essentially of staff-related costs. As for the working budgets of the cabinets, I no longer understand what is said in the committee. Many sisters shouldn’t be. Did some cabinets get more budget? and yes. If some ministers had to take over additional powers, it would require more budget, but that was always accompanied by serious savings. In addition, the employees of the cabinets were entitled to a dismissal compensation. I think this is not questioned either. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. A small example, the budget of the Cabinet-De Croo increased by 200 000 euros, while the Cabinet-Van Overtveldt, of the former Minister of Finance, had a budget of 700 000 euros. That is, in short, a saving of 500 000 euros. The cabinet budgets have been reduced by 5 million euros due to the fall of the government.

Instead of losing ourselves in such false debates, I don’t want to fall into repetition, our attention should turn to the budgetary challenge that lies ahead of us. How will we solve a structural deficit by 2024? If we don’t do anything, it will rise to 2.6% of GDP. For the good-minded, since half of the GDP is public spending, this means that if we do nothing, the government as a whole has 5% more spending than receives. The federal policy account is not yet included. The answer will undoubtedly consist of many aspects. It is time for us to work on this.

For this we need a strong government. I hear a lot of parties here in the last few days talking with arrogance about what can be, who should talk to whom and with whom not to talk. It would be good if the parties that have been given the great mandate in each region of the country would sit down at the table. They were given a mandate to ensure that this country is also federally governed. Only in this way can we act effectively to address the budgetary challenges. After all, it is not just about this year’s budget, about the plans for the coming years, but it is also about securing the future of the next generation, the social security, the harmony, the cooperation, the entrepreneurial spirit and the success of this country.

Therefore, Open Vld is always a constructive partner. We will approve these provisional credits with conviction.

Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Leysen, as the oldest member, was the serving chairman of the Committee on Finance, for which I thank him, and I would also like to cordially congratulate him with his maiden speech. (The applause)

It is a great honour to speak here on behalf of the second largest political party in this country.

In the newly elected Parliament we are with as many as 96 newcomers. We must do what our predecessors left us.

Our starting point is the legacy of the previous legislature. Johan Van Overtveldt, former finance minister, spoke about the Swedish legacy. Whoever shares an inheritance hopes to receive good news. Those who share the Belgian legacy, the legacy of the Swedish coalition, especially see bodies falling from the closet. After all, the budget gap left behind by the entire government-Michel is revengefully deep.

The debt mountain that has left the entire government-Michel behind is scandalously high, despite two major incidents, namely the sharply falling interest rates and the favorable conjuncture. Remember the statement "Show me the money!" The community had to be in the deep freeze, bringing in order the state finances was the commitment of the previous government. Today it turns out that just that sanitation is the weak point of the last administration period.

The unhealthy reports about the budget deficit follow each other: 7, 8, 10, while the deficit is 11 billion euros. In every newspaper article that appeared in the last few weeks, it appeared to have added one billion. 11 billion euros is a huge amount. But those 11 billion is only the beginning. In this legislature, the ageing rate will go up a few accelerations, the spending on pensions and healthcare will continue to rise, and the rate of that increase will continue to increase in the coming years. By the end of this legislature, there will be another 5 billion euros annually. Public investments in this worn country have been lagging behind the rest of Europe for years. If we want to reach the European average on public investments, we will need an additional 4 billion euros annually. That 11 billion euros is therefore only the beginning; there will be many tens of billions of euros in the coming years.

Many observers are therefore overwhelmingly upset by the lightness with which the responsible in Parliament deal. Since May 26, we have seen traveling politicians, who are mainly engaged in political games, aimed at maximizing their own party-political interests, or politicians who are mainly engaged in their own political career and how they can get to the backs in the European Union, the European casino, the big pak-de-poenshow. Verhofstadt, Leterme, and now also Michel, they are a piece by piece political headlines who, while failing to get the budget of the country in order, apparently do not have the slightest effort to do so with their personal budget and financial planning.

How should we, as newcomers to Parliament, ever take this institution seriously, if those who distributed the sheets here are primarily concerned with themselves and the way they can leave the sinking ship? In the meantime, the Verhofstadts, the Michels, the Peetersen have sought and received political asylum in Europe. After us the flood, after us the flood. Without a new budget, the heart of a government agreement and the foundation of any policy, the rest government actually has nothing more to say to Parliament. The Parliament, we all, must play our full role. We have the professional responsibility to do our job.

The rest-government last week asked the Monitoring Committee to prepare a report on the budget situation. As soon as that report is available, at the end of July, the Flemish Interest wants the Finance Committee to meet immediately to assess the dramatic state of the budget. The European Parliament will have to fulfill its legislative role in the coming weeks and months. The previous government has shamelessly passed the bill to our children and grandchildren. We must not allow this to happen again!

I listened carefully to Mr. Leysen last week. To the extent possible, we must put reforms on the rails here in Parliament across party boundaries, explore pistes and elaborate proposals. This is not only the right of the hemisphere; it is also our damn duty.

I have already made a number of proposals in the Committee on Finance and Budget.

First, where is the study commissioned by Van Overtveldt on the cost of migration? Several countries, including Norway, have calculated that significant cost to society. The Dutch Planning Bureau also made the calculation. The conclusion was hard but at the same time clear – I quote: “At all ages of entry, immigrants appear to be a burdening factor for public finances.” A recent report from the Norwegian government came to a similar conclusion. Therefore, the account for the Vlaams Belang was quickly made. We want our tax money no longer to be spent on asylum seekers but on our own people, our own pensions, our own health care, our own workers and entrepreneurs, our own elderly and our own safety.

A second proposal is as follows. All political parties had the Federal Planning Bureau calculate program points before the elections. Well, my party used to calculate what a waiting time on social security and social assistance could mean for newcomers. According to the Plan Bureau, the measure generates as much as 1.5 billion euros per year in the budget. Moreover, as the conditions are tightened, it can generate up to 5 billion euros per year. We are already pushing out our hands across party boundaries to work out this proposal in concrete terms. It is, by the way, a point of the government policy in Austria and Denmark.

Thirdly, I, together with the Minister, conclude that the budget is further disengaged by the increasing contribution to the European Union. My party has already calculated it. No one is paying more to the European Union than the Flaming. Flames cost Europe 2.4 billion euros annually. That is almost 600 euros per working Flaming. Even worse, after Brexit, those amounts will only increase. A reduction of a few percent on the contribution to the European Union could soon save several hundred million euros per year on our budget. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have negotiated huge discounts for their citizens, but in our country this has not happened. The Flemish parties have never stipulated any reduction. We were and are still represented in Europe by bonzes with Tuscan outdoors, who like to sponsor the sick European institutions at the expense of the Flemish taxpayers. Our Belgian politicians are always in the first row for European top appointments, but apparently in the last row to serve the interests of our citizens.

So far, three very concrete proposals for our budget.

On our submitted amendments to the emergency budget, I can be brief and clear. The citizens of this country have to pay more and more: the bills, the energy bills, the excise taxes, the resting house bills, all went up. While the hard-working citizen in this country has to pay more and more, the money continues to flow abundantly to the Royal House. Instead of increasingly milking the taxpayer, we ask Parliament to finally completely dry out the cash flow to the royal palace.

A majority in Parliament wants to abolish the Senate. The Senate is an old talk barracks, which costs a handful of money, a relic from past centuries. Let’s finally get rid of that.

Finally, allow me to mention for a moment the many millions of euros flowing to the reception of asylum seekers.

I listened closely to colleague Lachaert in the committee, when he spoke last week about collective accountability. It is indeed a collective responsibility of the then still complete government-Michel. At the Council of Ministers of 28 September 2018, on the proposal of Minister Jambon and Secretary of State Francken, as many as 2,224 seats were opened, while in fact some seats should have been closed. On 15 November 2018, the Francken Cabinet announced that another 1,500 additional seats were created. The asylum figures prove that the minister’s name has changed in recent months, but that the policy has ultimately remained the same. This country was, is and remains a magnet for happiness seekers from all winds. The political battle between Open Vld and the N-VA before and after the elections will never be able to compensate for five years of imprudence. The pot blames the boiler for seeing black. Already in the second half of 2018, under then-secretary of state Francken, the number of asylum applications in Europe decreased, but the number of applications in Belgium increased. This should not be surprising, since the necessary tightening of the Belgian asylum and migration policy, unlike several other European countries, has always remained a dead letter. No tough tweets, social media campaigns, or expensive advertising agencies can hide that. Measures that could have an impact, such as a timely expulsion policy, a tightening of family reunification and a timely access to social security, continue to this day.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will be able to conduct this debate in Parliament.

You will understand that my group will vote against the bill.

Also for colleague Vermeersch it was his maidenspeech, for which my congratulations. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, in your appointment as House Speaker you said that you would be the chairman of all House Members and not only of those with whom you have a lobby for that presidency, thus also of those whose ideology you do not share.

I found it very disturbing that the colleagues were not listened to. There was more noise and less discipline here than in the classes of my daughters.

I would like to ask you, as Chairman, to encourage colleagues to exercise basic politeness so that they listen to their colleagues. Anyone who wants to have a coffee cup can do so in the areas that are intended for it.

Colleague Pas, I also found the occasion a little annoying. I’ve experienced worse, but that’s not an excuse.

I really would like to ask that in this meeting and in the subsequent meetings we respect each other and that those who are present follow the debate. There are other options for those who do not want to follow the debate, outside our assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, there is no need to make long speeches on this technical exercise which is the adoption of provisional twelve. In anticipation of a clarification of the political situation, this operation is necessary to ensure the continuity of the functioning of the federal state, to pay the creditors of the federal state and the salaries of state officials. The MR-N-VA government has not been able to go to the end of its adventure and have adopted a 2019 budget.

We can only note some adjustments, some derogations from the provisional twelfth principle in this text. Some are positive, such as the credits needed for intervention for the benefit of victims of Softenon. Other adjustments are questionable, especially in relation to the MYRRHA project, which we criticize and question very regularly, as you know. But overall, the technical basis of these provisional twelfths has been validated by the Court of Auditors.

Given the political circumstances, because we are not of those parties whose vocation is to sow the spell, to add chaos to chaos, to create problems and to maintain them, because we will, as environmentalists, always be on the side of looking for solutions rather than creating problems, because our country needs reasonable and positive parties, we will soon vote on these provisional twelve, as we did in commission.

We also voted for the previous provisional twelve which, in particular, and positively, allowed the implementation of the inter-branch agreement and the increase of social allowances in the framework of the allocation of the welfare envelope.

I would like to point out one point on behalf of our group, Mr. Speaker. We do so while again and again challenging the budgetary basis of these provisional twelve, that is, the initial budget for 2018. Previously, the same logic had been applied for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 budgets. This basis is doubled within the provisional twelve. I would like to remind you of the three fundamental criticisms we made and that it is important to reiterate regarding these fiscal years.

The first of our criticisms concerns the budget and the budget policy of the MR-N-VA government. We point out the same lack of seriousness and robustness as in the various fiscal years. The Court of Auditors and other national or international bodies have regularly noted the random nature of the new revenues and savings announced under the budget. Today, the Federal Bureau of the Plan announces, with unchanged policy, a budget deficit extending beyond ten billion euros.

You have repeated in the commission, as is obviously your right, statements based on a logic of budgetary façadism, masking deficits that will weigh heavily on future generations, and anticipating revenues, in particular to corporate tax through the operation of increasing penalties to companies that would pay late.

This is typically one-shot operation. Expenditures are underestimated, especially those of the tax shift, and revenue is overestimated, those related to the fight against tax fraud that has never been seriously carried out during the legislature. This leads us today to a difficult, unstable budgetary situation that will require, on the part of the future majority, an absolutely rigorous follow-up.

The second fundamental criticism we pointed out – Mr. Jambon, listen carefully because it is important! – This is the socially unfair nature of the various budgetary exercises that have been conducted by the MR/N-VA government: linear economies in the field of social security, a pension reform carried out at the expense of the most vulnerable workers, ever less accessible health care which has as a consequence an increase in inequalities, an increase in social emergency situations. My colleague, Evita Willaert, and I have regularly pointed out the increase in poverty, especially child poverty, in our country. There are also phenomena of transfer from the pension scheme to the disease-invalidity scheme, from unemployment to the CPAS. These are operations that do not solve the problems that arise today and that do not contribute in any way to social justice and equality among all our fellow citizens.

I come to our third fundamental criticism of your budgetary exercises. It concerns the lack of vision and commitment for the future, especially in terms of climate and environmental goals – for example, in terms of the protection of biodiversity – so many themes that are dear to us. I think of the financing of the SNCB, the development of real alternatives to the use of the car – for example, that of the company car –, a clear and ambitious energy policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions, as well as facilitating energy savings in public and private buildings, developing renewable energies, getting out of nuclear power and fulfilling the commitments made by our country in Paris in the framework of COP21 to address these challenges. However, we find no trace of this in the 2018 budget, neither as in the previous ones.

Our hope and wish, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, is that in the very short term – during the fiscal year that will be held in autumn, in dialogue with the European institutions – and in the medium term – that is, during the legislature that has just opened – these redhibitory budgetary deficits can be corrected and that we adopt more solid, more just and more voluntarily forward-looking budgets.

In conclusion, I recall the commitment that the ecologists have taken in order to contribute to this with concrete, solid, just and resolutely oriented proposals towards the future and future generations.

Today, we are discussing the bill on the provisional twelve. This should be a small technical discussion. But you are not without knowing that, in a Belgium that is looking for a government, a provisional twelfth can become very long provisional. So I think it is important to give, from today, a few tags to these provisional twelve that will succeed in the coming weeks and months.

On the bottom, you know, Mrs. Minister, we were not in favor of the 2018 budget, which is a austerity budget. We had already told you, at the time, that one of the great problems of liberal thought is to believe that by cutting in public spending, you will solve the budget problems of our state.

Charles Michel will not answer you. I am telling you that your theory was false.

I have heard this many times. It is the liberal story that you have been telling for 25 years: you cut in social spending and that will then have a positive impact on the budget.

But what happens, Mrs. Minister? What you say is totally wrong, because it is predicted – the Federal Planning Bureau is clear about it – a deficit of 10 billion euros in 2020.

And 14.5 billion by 2024. Your liberal theory that aims to cut spending is completely false. In this way, you stifle the economy, you do not allow people to blow, to live, to consume, to work. What a mistake!

We will meet here every month to see that the finances are getting worse and worse.

This is why, in the context of the “eternally provisional” we can take action immediately. There is a social emergency.

We can make an exception to the provisional twelve when there is a real urgency. For example, we are proposing an amendment regarding the situation in hospitals.

It cannot continue like this...

Dear right-wing parties, have you ever looked at what it means to work in a hospital today? Do you know about the N-VA? To the Flemish Interest I do not even ask that question. That is clear.

The design on long-term sick has supported the Flemish Belang, just to push the people under the cup. You are for that, as an opposition party, but we, a warm left party, say no. We do not deal with Flemish Interest.

For those who have approved the budgets in the field of hospitals, the situation is intenable. It can no longer continue like this. Nurses have to work up to 70 hours a week.

Mr Creyelman asks for the word for an interruption.

Mr. Hedebouw, with all respect, but my father died from the consequences of Parkinson’s disease, so just make it personal and gratuit say that I do not know what it means to deal with long-term sick and that I do not know what a hospital bill means, that is for your account, but not for mine.

Do you think it is normal, dear colleague, that your party voted to increase control over long-term sick people? Do you find that normal? I ask that question!

It is not about concrete cases. The pseudo-opposition...

I just talked about the budgets, which ensure that nursing staff today must work harder and harder. On average in Europe, one nurse has eight patients under her care, in Belgium, one of the richest countries in Europe, that is eleven patients. Dear colleagues, for us, the left party, it is unacceptable that the people in the hospitals have to work so hard, with so much flexibility, and above all that they have no more time to be able to give people a good care. That is what we say, dear colleagues, and therefore we submit an amendment.

The amendment is very clear. The fight of white shirts takes place today in Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia. We therefore propose an additional budget of 100 million euros, likely to respond to the emergency present in hospital environments. This is not yet the debate we will have around the general and necessary refinancing of our social security, but it is an emergency measure aimed at responding to this just struggle, led by hospital staff – who want to give the best of themselves to properly treat people.

The amendment was submitted today, which will be put to the vote. Since Parliament is king, while we do not yet have a full-time government, it is time or never to vote in favour of this concrete amendment in response to this social emergency. I hope we can approve it within an hour.

Thank you, colleague Hedebouw. I consider your statement at the same time as the defense of your amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would have desired the presence of Mr. Minister of Finance, which I had already requested during our work in the Finance Committee. I realize that he is not there. It was a pity, because I had something to say to him.

There is no need for ordinary affairs to become fluid affairs. However, it must be acknowledged that the budgetary and financial situation of our country is not advantageous. If it is not advantageous, it is mainly because it is the result of a policy carried out for several years now. It is an austerity policy, it has been said, but it is also a costly policy, with reductions in unfunded social contributions. This has put pressure on social security and also on other budget posts, and in particular public services. In short, in recent years, you have made social security and public services your cashier, in order to try what it is worth to fill the holes you had digged yourself.

What are we talking about? 14 billion euros by 2024. You told us that in 2018, you would reach the balance, because of a policy that wanted to be magical. You said that by helping companies, by reducing their social contributions, by sweeping also – it must be said – in a whole series of public spending yet fundamental, you would revive the economy. It was obviously plunged with tax gifts for some, tax cuts for others, and in particular low and middle income.

All this, you said, would reoxidate the economy and naturally, mechanically, bring back tax revenues. The result is there: the positive effects are not back, just the opposite! We have seen the deficit worsen; a burden, I repeat, of 14 billion euros. The question that arises is how you will use the time you have left to try to bring back a better management in our public finances.

Why am I referring to the Minister of Finance? Because I had to ask him if he would be able to palliate his predecessor’s inertia on the field of the fight against tax fraud. If there is now a finding of failure to be established, it is that of a slowdown in the effectiveness of recovery, in particular in the case of tax fraud.

We would like to hear the Minister of Finance, I am also addressing our colleague Mrs. Jadin, who is the chairman of the Finance Committee, to ask him to organize a truth-debat on the financial situation of the country, and in particular on the intentions of the Minister of Finance so that everyone in our country pays their taxes and in particular those and those who believe they are allowed to fraud.

We will, of course, vote on your twelfth provisional. The state must function. We must pay our officials and make sure that Justice, the Interior, the Police can provide the services we expect. At the same time, you will understand, Mrs. Minister, that we cannot, in one way or another, endorse what was your failure. I repeat it in this chapter.

However, I have a precise question to ask you.

The Federal Police has expressed its concerns. We are told that some 2018 bills are likely to remain unpaid. Do you, in these provisional twelfths, have the means to honor the invoices submitted by the Federal Police? More specifically, what budget arrangement have you put in place to address this concern?

At the moment, we are already in the third section of the provisional appropriations. Let it be very clear: for the sp.a. faction that term speaks for itself – it is a temporary, technical measure. It is temporary and technical, but necessary. The measure is necessary in order to guarantee the proper functioning of public services, the proper functioning of public authorities and the provision of public services to its citizens. And that is – let there be no misunderstanding, colleagues – the only reason why sp.a will approve the provisional credits.

We do not want to block the functioning of the institutions. We want our citizens to be able to rely on the services of the government. After all, this is what our citizens demand. They are not asking for the blockade of the country. Our citizens ask that those who vote against, knock that right in the ears. Our citizens demand that pensions can be paid out. They request that persons with disabilities who are entitled to assistance continue to receive such assistance during the months of August, September and October. For all these reasons, we need the provisional loans. Parliament must also remain consistent with itself. Softenon victims, for example, should be able to get their accommodation. This technical measure is also included. Therefore, we need the provisional loans in order to be able to insure the services.

As I have already said in the Committee on Finance during the discussion of this draft and formally repeated to the Chairperson of the Committee, I am deeply concerned about the 2019 budget. By the way, I would like to point out to Mr. Leysen – he stopped with the 2018 budget – that this is not a false debate or a post-election debate. It is a debate on hard, real figures, that we must be able to conduct serene, without slogan language.

The 2019 budget should worry us all. We are now almost two months after the May 26 election and every figure currently launched on the finances by, among other things, the Federal Planning Bureau indicates that the budget situation is much worse than what the current and former government parties have tried to hold for. The budget situation is worsening every day. The deficit on the balance of claims amounts to more than 10 billion euros today, and tomorrow that amount will be even higher. There is a deficit of 14 billion euros! You have all been aware of the shortage of social security. This deficit is due to non-existent, but registered income in that social security. In other words, accounting receipts are recorded, but are not realized. This creates a deficit in every household and therefore also in the social security.

Then there is the unclear effect of the preferential measures on the advance payment of corporate taxes. However, everyone knows that it is a negative effect; that is certain.

Mrs. Minister, I really do not understand that the government in ongoing affairs, and therefore we, have still not received a report from the Monitoring Committee. According to a long-standing tradition, the administrations collect figures on the budget status at the beginning of July. It is only about collecting numbers; therefore no value judgment is made. This report does not exist or should not exist. What do you have to hide about this? Why is the report not yet available? Why can’t governments do their normal work? They can collect the necessary data in their own way with their own methodology.

I also look at you. The Parliament – all of us, old and newly elected – has the right to know the budget status, both in terms of expenditure and income. After all, now we get a divided picture of the situation because on the side of spending there is the arrangement of the provisional twelve, while on the side of income it remains a great mystery. Why can’t we get a full picture of the situation? We can easily provide this information based on the statistics held monthly for this purpose, but we can or should not receive that information.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker of the Committee, as I did in the Committee on Finance ten days ago and last week through a formal oral question, I again call for the report of the Monitoring Committee to be made available so that we can discuss it, at least discuss it. The current resigning government and the former majority parties can then make their own judgments. Please let us talk about it. The resigning government and majority parties should not put their heads in the sand. Publicise the requested information and ensure that we can conduct a serene debate on the budget exercise.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Bertels for his maiden speech. (The applause)

This is not a country – we knew it already – and this is not a government. However, it seems that many colleagues here still do not realize this.

The government fell in December. What have we not received? Early elections . What have we received? A government in ongoing affairs that has just continued to rule, that has continued to conduct policies, often even without support in this Parliament. That is the reality, Mr. Leysen and Mr. Vermeersch.

Mr. Leysen, you forget quite easily that the previous government had made some arrangements. Well, with the support of Open Vld, these agreements, such as the summer deal, the reinforced degressivity, the job deal, all ended up in the trash.

Mr. Vermeersch, your speech was even more striking if possible. You not only forget the appointments made, but you also forget your own party program. Socioeconomic left: recipe for additional debt, debt, debt. What more sobriety would decorate you.

More importantly, in the meantime we see a government in ongoing affairs that just keeps running, as if nothing has changed and as if there have been no elections, as if the voter has not given some very clear messages. First, a stricter migration policy. Second, show some more sobriety as politicians. Respect the Flemish democracy. Fourth, provide even more security, security, security.

First is migration.

We have seen the interviews of our Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. De Crem. In short, he calls for us to return to Mr. Francken’s policy. I found that a good call.

On the other hand, we find, unfortunately, that Mrs. De Block believes that she has the right, as a minister in ongoing affairs, to change everything and to simply conduct policy. She believes that she has the right to throw back the policy of the previous government. As a result, the asylum factor is increasing. In February, Ms. De Block had already asked for 62 million euros. A few months later we gave her another 32 million euros and now another 40 million euros. That is an additional bill of €132 million for a government in ongoing affairs to implement a new policy. That should not be by definition. These funds will add to the 260 million euros that Fedasil already receives. Fifty percent, that is the bill of a new policy. Not of a policy in ongoing affairs, but of a new policy conducted by Ms. De Block. That is simply not correct.

I support what colleague Lachaert announced in the television studios: if we want to avoid a shutdown, then we must ask our ministers to show sobriety. It is only or somewhat unfortunate that it is just Open Vld Minister Maggie De Block who makes the budget scratch. Please give me Pieter De Crem, then give me our amendments. Then we go back to Theo Francken’s policy, stricter on migration.

I will not repeat what I have already said in the committee.

Mr. Loones, we do not make an abstraction of the election results, you do. Together with the Socialist Party, you have received a mandate from the electorate. You have lost the elections, quite heavy even, but you are the largest party in the Dutch-speaking language group. The Socialist Party is the largest party in the French-speaking group. It is up to you to make policy after those elections.

You actually take the role of the opposition party. I hear this from many parties today. Today we are going to approve provisional twelve and we hear here all sorts of factions say how it should not be. However, there are very few parties who want to take their responsibilities. You have responsibility and the PS also has responsibility. You have to talk to each other and find solutions for this country.

I would like to emphasize two points.

There is criticism here on those provisional credits as if it were the new policy. However, this is not a new policy and you know that very well. When it comes to asylum and migration, it is about collective decisions taken in the government and in the nuclear cabinet, where also Theo Francken and Jan Jambon were present in 2018. Sixty percent of the expenses requested here relate to collective decisions taken with the N-VA. What Maggie De Block had to do later was open the places needed. If you first artificially reduce the number of seats, then you can only increase the number of seats again. Mr. Francken should have done that, and he should have done the same as if you had remained in the government in December.

Finally, I would like to talk about this sobriety. It must really be of heart to me that it cannot last long for you to keep telling this. You advocate sobriety in the budget for politics. What was actually the surplus expenditure for the first and second quarters of the provisional appropriations? There was the exit from the N-VA government which required all those cabinet employees to receive dismissal compensation. Are we going to pay those people? We are not going to suspend this payment.

Mr. Loones, you yourself are former minister. Several members of your group and even a member of the N-VA European Parliament appeal to the fact that as former ministers they must get staff at the expense of the House. They ask that, even though they have only been in office for a very short time. Then you dare to advocate soberity here while, for example, Johan Van Overtveldt has an employee at the expense of the Chamber. It cannot.

Mr. Loones, with your consent, I first give Mr. De Vriendt the word, then you can replicate globally and complete your presentation.

Mr. Loones, I had expected that criticism on the expenditure for the asylum shelters included in this bill, but I find them cheap.

I’m just that N-VA is constantly trying to score populist by trying to talk the people to the mouth and stir them up with fear when it comes to migration, but the facts are worth mentioning. It is perfectly logical that here a budget is asked for shelters and asylum, because the increase in the number of applications and the lag in the handling of the files have come there since July last year. Then one saw in the chart, which I record here, a clear increase. Do you know who in July 2018 was responsible for asylum and migration? That was not Mrs. Maggie De Block, but Mr. Theo Francken. He had to bear the costs associated with an increased influx. That is perfectly logical.

Then my second point. What do you really want? If you say you’re against asylum spending increasing because there are more asylum seekers, you’re actually saying we shouldn’t cover them. We will, therefore, allow those people to wander around in the Maximiliaan Park and in Brussels-North during their asylum procedures. That’s what you say and that’s consistent. That is in the extension of the policy of your former Secretary of State Francken, who has set quotas in the asylum procedure, so that war refugees, people who are entitled to protection because they are fleeing war and violence, no longer have the opportunity to apply for asylum from us. You apparently find that they should all stay in Libya and in the overcrowded camps in Greece, and you think that Belgium should no longer show any solidarity to those fleeing war and violence. If you say that we will not pay that asylum allowance, you say that we will let those people wander around in Brussels.

That is not our choice. With our group, we want to show solidarity. We say that these people deserve a fair, fair and correct asylum procedure. That is the difference between our party and yours.

I did not want to comment on it now, but interruptions should normally be slightly shorter and more relevant.

Mr. Loones, you can replicate and continue your argument.

I come from the European Parliament and this is also my maiden speech as a House member. I go in a rising line: from Europe to the national Parliament and then to the Flemish Parliament.

I don’t want to be annoying, but not so long ago you were here minister.

I never stood here then.

No, you are still sitting on your bench.

I was a member of the European Parliament. When I look at European politics, I see nowhere in Europe an asylum crisis. Nowhere else, except here, the numbers are rising. How would that come? You are right, Mr. De Vriendt, last summer the statistics went in a rising line. That is also why Theo Francken when, as a competent minister, began to conduct a tighter policy, tighter measures have begun to take, quota has begun to introduce, the fissures have drawn. This just to avoid getting into trouble, just to avoid not having enough shelters.

What did we see in the fall of the government? Ms. De Block, Minister for Current Affairs, has immediately begun to conduct policy. She has reversed the policy of Theo Francken, she has withdrawn from it. The first thing she did was remove the quota for vulnerable refugees. The campaigns on Facebook have stopped from the first day. She has made policy and still does today, and that is the core of our criticism, because a government in ongoing affairs should not do that. What Mrs. De Block should do is continue the policy of Theo Francken. Our amendment makes this possible again.

My second point is about sobriety.

Mr. Lachaert had already talked about this. The government fell in December. The first fact then is that all state secretaries have been upgraded. They all became ministers with a higher salary, a larger cabinet and more prestige. This was necessary for the sake of language parity. Recently we have seen the same argument in the replacement of Mr. Peeters by colleague Wouter Beke. Congratulations to your ministry. This argument was also used. However, the government could have done something else. For example, a French-speaking minister could have stood up and said that he didn’t mind becoming a secretary of state. Then we would have seen a government respecting parity, but then we would have seen more sobriety. Precisely that sobriety, that example of politics, was one of the questions, demands, or messages we received on May 26.

Indeed, Mr. Lachaert, I find it remarkable to note today that so much is being invested in the cabinets. You are right that the fall of the government brings some costs. From my cabinet, a N-VA cabinet, people had to be fired, with withdrawal fees paid. There are costs and they have to be paid correctly, that’s right. You are also right when you say that even a government in ongoing matters should have enough experts to be able to evaluate the policy. Alexander De Croo, Minister of Development Cooperation, also became Minister of Finance. I do not expect the experts in development cooperation to be immediately experts in Belgian taxation. So it makes sense that there is an extra investment there, but it is the amounts that bother. You are proposing to cut 4 million as the N-VA cabinets drop off. But you immediately pump in 3 million again. That amount is simply too high. Why Why ? Because it turns out that you’re not just trying to fit in the store but that you want to implement policies. Therefore, you want to invest more in additional cabinet employees who do additional cabinet work. You want to implement additional policies, and that’s not your job. You are a government in progress.

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Loones says is not true.

The Cabinet of Finance was a cost item of 717,000 euros. The cabinet of Alexander De Croo is now buying Finance for 300,000 euros. This is a huge savings. If one looks at that over a year period, excluding the dismissal fees, then one finds that the cost of the cabinets has decreased by 5 million euros. That is the reality.

Mr. Loones, I have a question for you: do you think it is appropriate for former Minister Van Overtveldt, who now has a budget of 300,000 euros available in the European Parliament for staff, to take an employee of 54.000 euros at the expense of these provisional appropriations? Do you find that appropriate?

First, you take the example of Finance. I look at the global figures. 4 million are removed and 3 million are pumped back. No one should tell me that this is a huge savings. Additional investments are made in the cabinets because there is a message behind them. You want to work with those cabinets, you want to do politics, you want to conduct politics. And that is not the job of a government in ongoing affairs.

Second, if there is a proposal to abolish the extra parliamentary staff for former ministers, we will be the first to support it. In addition, we have held this debate in the Flemish Parliament in the past.

Third, the message of the elections was Flemish-national. On May 26, there was also a vote for more respect for Flemish democracy and for respect for the Flemish in Brussels. Suddenly, we see in these provisional credits a very special file emerging, a symbolic file about the language premiums. We have been dealing with this matter for years in a government of full affairs. Then our Minister, Jan Jambon, has always drawn a very clear line in this. Can officials in Brussels receive a bilinguality premium? Yes, provided that they are bilingual and have obtained the language certificate. Exactly that could not be proven. That is why Minister Jambon has always said that no premiums would be paid to people who cannot prove that they have obtained that certificate. Today we see that there are suddenly 32 million euros appearing in the preliminary twelve, precisely for those language premiums.

Our group asks for evidence. We want to see evidence that premiums will only be paid to officials who can prove that they are bilingual and that they have obtained that certificate. We also request that the Court of Auditors control this.

I come to my fourth and last point: safety.

In this regard, we have submitted a new amendment. If there is something we should agree on, it is that we should invest even more in our security and our police. That can. We can do this without further challenging the budget. How ? By giving a little more flexibility to the Federal Police. Today they have a budget consisting of 85% staff costs, 13% operation and 2% investment. The police are asking for more flexibility. It wants to be able to invest more this year, without increasing its total envelope. The police therefore do not get more money, but want to be able to spend it in a different way, so that for example equipment can be purchased. These investments will benefit our security.

I have heard that even colleague Laaouej referred to that need for the Federal Police. We know that other parties are also not negative to this proposal. We have prepared an amendment, which will be submitted for voting later. This will not burden the budget, but we will give the police additional opportunities to ensure that they can invest. We therefore ensure a stronger police, even more security and more investments by adding more trust to our police.

I decide .

Seven months, as long as this government is already in ongoing affairs: five months because we were not allowed to have elections and now two months because the largest party from Wallonia refuses to talk with the largest party in Flanders. In the meantime, we have a government that acts as if it is a full-fledged government. That is not normal, that is not correct.

Current affairs do not give the current government the right to conduct policy. Current affairs do not give her the right to provoke an asylum crisis, not the right to distribute French-speaking gifts in Brussels, not the right to proclaim all kinds of matters at the European level, without having to be discussed here and again in the Parliament first, and not the right to defile and dispatch European posts ...not to talk about the European Commissioner’s Office. Current affairs, on the contrary, give her a responsibility, namely a responsibility to properly continue the policy, the whole policy, of the previous government. That is the responsibility of the government.

Per ⁇ even more important is something I have missed so far in the debate. It gives Parliament the responsibility to take the lead and make proposals for austerity and reform. Then I heard Mr. Laaouej speaking. He constantly addresses the minister as if she is a minister in a full-fledged government that can conduct policy. That is not correct. Let us incorporate our own responsibility in the period of ongoing affairs.

Let us do our job ourselves and come up with suggestions. This is exactly what we do today with our amendments. We return to that responsibility, nothing more but nothing less, so that Parliament assumes its leading role and the government behaves as it should. The current government is not a full-fledged government. This is not a government. It is a government in ongoing affairs.

Myheer Loones, I wish you congratulations for your maidenspeech. In your hoedanig­heid van Kamerlid hebt u immers nog nooit het woord gevoerd. (The Applause)

Dear colleagues, please forgive me. Like my colleague Sophie and many other colleagues, I am a little new. I am surprised by the content of the discussions. In fact, everything I hear since the beginning of the afternoon resembles a lot of election campaign talk. It seemed to me that the question was not who was the smartest or who was the most right in his political positions but whether it should be yes or not to keep the federal state functioning!

It seems to us that yes; it seems to us that this is the only responsible position. This does not mean that this budget is perfect but it means that by supporting this project of provisional twelve, we remain not in a perfect situation but at least in the nails. Through you, Mrs. Minister, I would like to emphasize the quality work done by the administration.

The only question that matters is whether the exemptions requested hold the road and are justifiable. For us, they are.

I would like to return for a moment to one of them that has already been discussed, the famous additional €40 million requested to accommodate asylum seekers.

Accepting asylum seekers with dignity is not a new policy. Return to politics as it always should have been. This is to ensure that Belgium continues and returns to its international commitments. That is the minimum! I’m not saying that the government in ordinary affairs is perfect but at least it has stopped setting quotas for asylum seekers and it knows how to mobilize the means to welcome them in dignity. For us, this is an important pen in his hat.

Given the energy circulating here because of each one’s overwhelming ideas, if one puts a quarter of the energy heard here to make sure that a certain number of responsible parties no longer have provisional twelve but a real budget with a real government, that would ⁇ be the best solution.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we will vote on these provisional twelve, simply because it is the only responsible thing to do today!

There are a lot of new colleagues, so there are also a lot of maidenspeeches. Congratulations colleague De Smet. Congratulations to! (Applause of Applause)

So now I give the word to my colleague Verherstraeten for his “maidensprech”.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the honor you give me.

It may not be my maidenspeech, but when I hear some colleagues, I still had the impression that it was more a maidenspeech about budget than about provisional twelve. Today we are talking about the preliminary twelve. In some interventions I had almost understood that it was about a budget, or about a mini budget.

Regarding provisional twelve, I repeat what I said in the committee: provisional twelve are necessary, but of course also insufficient. They are necessary because we do not want a shutdown. We want officials who give the best of themselves from morning to evening to be paid. We want social benefits to be paid to those who absolutely need them and therefore also that resources from the budget are allocated to the social security through the balance donation. We want entrepreneurs who enter into contracts with the government to be paid for the orders we have placed. That is why it is necessary.

It is also insufficient. We are not proud, colleagues, that we are here today for the third time in this Chamber this year, without therefore having a budget. Colleague Leysen, I must contradict you if you say that, when we do not have a budget and only work with provisional twelve, the total disappears. It is not so. This also does not bother the people entirely. I agree with you that we would have better had a budget, but there is budgetary caution, which makes the cut on the stock market and spending clearly limited by this government without full power. We do not pretend that either.

I have heard the interpretations of the election results by several colleagues after 26 May. Everyone has their own truth and interpretation, but they are quite far apart.

The only thing we agree on is, I think, that there is a lot of social unrest in our society that deserves an answer. We cannot give that answer with preliminary twelve. Certainly not in the light of the risks that lie above our heads such as Brexit, a trade war and international tensions. There are also the pessimistic reports, to which Mr. Bertels has already referred. There is the ageing committee, the 17 billion by 2040, the job growth that slows, the economic growth that slows, while we also want to help more people, everyone, get to work.

We need a government with full powers that can make a full budget. This requires speaking. This requires action. The largest political formations in both regions have also lost, but they remain the largest. It gives them rights, we will respect them, but it also gives them duties. This also gives them responsibility. This gives them the duty and responsibility to sit around the table. I would like to remind you of what Jean-Luc Dehaene once said: a majority has no right to impose its opinion on a minority, and a minority has no right to refuse to sit at the table. This requires compromise readiness. This also means that one does not say in advance: we are talking about it and we are not talking about it, because then there will never be a conversation.

The reality teaches that we may also have to sit around the table a fourth time to talk about a next provisional twelve. We see that arriving. We can regret it, but that is the political reality at the moment.

I repeat my plea. A fourth provisional twelve is not our A-piste, understand me well, I would rather have a full-fledged budget, but as a B-piste I propose to upgrade the provisional twelve to a small mini-budget, to a form of budget control, or call it the provisional twelve plus, in which we take additional measures than merely the provisional twelve, so that we still find resources. The savings we realize this year, we should not look for next year.

The elections are over. The campaign should be like that. This is not my speech, Mr. Speaker. Per ⁇ that is why I belong to an old school. I have always learned that there will be a quieter period after the elections, in which, like here, we do not ask oral questions to a government in ongoing affairs, a fortiori not to a government in ongoing affairs that represents 38 of the 150 seats and that does not go away, colleague Loones. This quiet period serves to be able to negotiate.

Therefore, I do not understand some of the statements here today and I do not understand some amendments on the subject. Yes, we want to debate on strengthening borders in Europe and on more efficient procedures to prevent asylum procedural abuses. Yes, we want procedures to get people who have been granted asylum to immigrate faster and help get a job, which is their duty. Yes, we want to effectively deport those who do not receive asylum, with respect for human rights. We want to reach higher figures than the figures we have achieved in recent years. We want numbers that are similar to our neighbors. However, this is not done by submitting amendments that enforce a significant part of the decisions taken. This is achieved by sitting at the negotiating table and discussing.

As regards language prizes, the question of having the Court of Auditors conduct an investigation is a legitimate question. I support that and will, as promised, address a letter in that sense to you, Mr. President.

For the rest, I would like to thank those groups that are not members of the majority, but who take their political responsibility to prevent a shutdown and to support the provisional twelve.

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. They obviously do not allow us to do what is essential, namely to fill the budget gap that has been continually transferred to future generations. However, we will, of course, vote on these provisional appropriations because in practice it is about ensuring first and foremost the survival of the various departments concerned but also to guarantee citizens the maintenance and pursuit of a whole series of competences.

Let me address three specific points. For this purpose, I am addressing you, Mr. Minister, as well as the members of the Government. These three issues were discussed in the discussions this afternoon, but also in the committee.

In terms of health, I emphasize positively the establishment of the Fund for the aid of victims of Softenon. This is a struggle that I have led very personally with ASBL and patient associations who suffer from the consequences of taking Softenon. It was time. Patients have been waiting for him for a long time.

Always in terms of health, I hear that some recall the arguments I have been developing for years concerning the caregivers (infermers and others). This medical staff is under pressure. We have repeated this often in recent years. On the ground, the situation is extremely complicated. This, of course, implies that patients are also affected. I could therefore only support any initiative in favour of nurses, provided that it is well-written and justified. Of course, you will do nothing about it. However, I would like to say that this issue must definitely be put back on the table.

The second point I would like to mention concerns the police. Some have decided to submit amendments to, in the end, support additional investments, in particular in terms of equipment at the expense of police personnel.

Yes, there are significant shortcomings in the hardware and different types of equipment. But there are even more deficiencies at the staff level. Therefore, we will not be able to follow those who want to “pick” potential commitments made in terms of police personnel to compensate for hardware deficiencies.

It’s pretty crazy that the party that had the responsibility of the Department of Interior and Security wakes up today to want to allocate additional amounts in terms of equipment – you could have done it a long time ago – and dare to “pick” or try to “pick” budget amounts normally devoted to engaging additional police officers in order to be able to justify its attitude. This way of doing is extremely challenging. You definitely have a short memory.

I come to the third point that I would like to address, which relates to the credit of the staff of the offices. I heard the explanations given by one another. Mr. Minister, we are obviously not able to go to see and do fine tuning in all the internal movements of the government and the various ministers to know exactly what are the pre-notifications to be granted or not and what are the deadlines for pre-notification for staff. We are obviously not able to verify whether what you say, i.e. whether it is ventilations between the different cabinets to assume these warnings, is correct or not. This will not prevent us from voting on these provisional appropriations, provided, of course, that you commit yourself by saying that these are not additional budgets allocated to ministerial cabinets, and that in the next step – I also hope that this will not be done in the form of provisional appropriations – we will be able to see, in September or October, that these budgets have actually been reduced.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, allow me to make a small political conclusion. Since the elections, we have had the confirmation, in the media expressions, in this Chamber, on Twitter and I pass, of the rapprochement between the N-VA and the Vlaams Belang.

This is still heard here, through the debates, expressions and votes on these provisional appropriations. It is heard in your expressions on Belgium, on the reception of refugees and on the harming of the minimum of human dignity.

You have just said “this is not a country” but, not dislike the nationalists and extremists who fantasize and work to destroy Belgium, I say to you: “this is always our country!”

I give the floor to the Minister of Finance for the Government’s response.

Mr. Speaker, this should normally be indeed a rather technical exercise that the State must allow to function. There are two exceptions that we discussed in the committee. It was specifically about two detention homes and the victims of thalidomide. During the committee meeting there was an opportunity to make comments and ask questions. Then we tried to answer the questions. A number of questions have now come up again and I will answer them again.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the administration for the work done.

It should be noted that the provisional twelve is not such a simple exercise as this. The starting basis is the 2018 budget, which has already been voted. As you have noticed, the administration delivered an important document, containing several budget derogations. Like when submitting initial budgets or budget controls, I would like to thank her once again for her work.

The provisional twelve do not constitute a budget. Last year, we had not only submitted the 2019 budget, but also we had a fairly long discussion in committee. Why am I talking to you about this? As it was about the budget trajectory, I would like to invite those who were present at the time and those who were not there, to search this document in the archives of the House. This text was submitted, but was not voted. I recall that at that time, it was indicated that unchanged policy, the budget trajectory would deteriorate. This means that if you do not take new steps, the trajectory will deteriorate. This is an absolute fact.

No new measures are proposed. Not only was the budget not voted, but in addition and because of this fact, we were unable to engage in a budget control in March. Therefore, we could not seize the opportunity to correct the bar. In addition, I would like to remind you of the significant deterioration of macroeconomic factors. The budget announced a growth of 1.6 percent for 2019-2020. We are now at 1.3 percent. Uncertainties plunge and will permanently affect this trajectory.

My colleague of the sp.a asked me about the monitoring committee. We have nothing to hide; of course not. Finally Mr. In reality, my administration has worked on these provisional twelve – and it takes a lot of time. If you read the press, you may have noticed that we had asked the administration to meet as a monitoring committee to give us a report – which will be delivered next week – on the state of public finances.

I will answer some questions more specifically. The question of additional amounts that would have been requested by the police had actually not been addressed at all in the committee. It is broadcast here by some political parties. This request is not new. He was asked a question to Mr. De Crem in the committee. We will meet again this week with Mr. De Crem’s office, the Budget office, the related administrations and the Financial Inspectorate, to see what these requests really correspond to.

I can say a priori that they are divided into four types. First, they are requests for new materials. These are requests for additional commitments, with liquidations to be made in 2020. Today, these are only commitments, but the trajectory towards 2020 will be impacted. Second, there are requests for commitments and liquidations only for 2019. Third, there are invoices, debts related to 2018 invoices that must be paid. Fourth, a special request concerns the police school.

My opinion is the following. When we address this issue, a fundamental point must become our guiding line. When amounts related to invoices are to be paid, whether by the Federal Police or by any other administration, it must be ensured that they are. This will have to lead the discussion. We will also pay special attention to the police school. As Ms. Fonck said, there have been many discussions in this Parliament on police personnel. Acts must follow, since it was an imperative shared by many people.

The idea is to work on the police school and on bills, trying not to have an impact on the future budget trajectory, with 2019 reallocations. It can be done in two ways, either through provision or through the fourth quarter. We will go back to Parliament about the fourth quarter, but we will have to wait longer. In any case, this will be done with the utmost transparency to Parliament. I have no doubt that you will have additional questions on this subject.

Regarding the spending of the cabinets, a question already discussed in the committee and again raised here, when one party resigns, the powers must be taken over by the other cabinets. Be also reassured, the skills have been taken over by other colleges with less plethoric offices than before. This will generate savings in the long run.

Why do we not see these savings immediately when looking at the budget? A budget is a maximum authorization of expenditure. We are not in the accounts yet. Why have you not yet been able to see them in the provisional credits? Simply because, as a result of departure, a series of charges must always be paid such as advance notifications, loading outputs, famous bills – this does not only happen to the police – which arrive after departure and which must be honored. We have thus preferred to keep sufficient space to deal with these different obligations while knowing that – I said it in committee, which is why I am surprised that this issue is discussed again as if it were a novelty –, in the next provisional appropriations, the amounts of these different budget lines will be reduced since we will have, at that time, a very precise view of the situation.

As regards language premiums, which has also been discussed in the committee, the additional amounts indicated in the provisional appropriations only serve to cover the undoubtedly due – I must specify – on language premiums for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Therefore, we cannot say that we are in a hurry to resolve things. But when you owe money to a third person, there is still a time when you make sure to honour your debt. And we don’t do it anyway because we live in a rule of law, with the taxpayer’s money. This is done on the basis of the validation, by Selor, of its certificates. On this basis, a Dimona control is carried out. Then, the Financial Inspectorate validates the amounts to be paid. No one can therefore challenge the unquestionably due amounts, but it is also quite normal that they are in the provisional credits. I would add that the Court of Auditors has had the time to examine these and that it has in no way considered that these expenses pose problems.