Implementing the Sixth State Reform: Exclusive interview with Flemish top civil servant Martin Ruebens

Martin Ruebens has been secretary-general of the Department of General Government Policy (DAR), one of the thirteen policy areas of the Flemish administration, for almost 5 years. He has been a civil servant in this department since 1990. Mr Ruebens heads the Flemish "chancellery" and in that capacity is the point of contact with the other federated entity governments and the federal chancellery. He was also recently appointed by the Flemish Government as chair of the new board of chairs. Moreover, he was appointed by the previous Flemish Government to examine the entire issue of the sixth state reform with a view to implementing the transfer of federal powers to Flanders. It is in this capacity that he took part in the interfederal Task Force Sixth State Reform and coordinated the implementation project at Flemish level. BelConLawBlog therefore felt it was high time for an in-depth conversation with the Flemish top civil servant and accordingly sent students of the Advanced Study of Constitutional Law (UGent), namely Brigitte De Gryse and Bram Jaques, to Brussels for an exclusive interview.

Some quotes

“In the federal administrations there is sometimes a "we did it so well and now it is being taken away from us" mentality.”

“The budgets being transferred are not one hundred percent those that were deployed at federal level. It is known that the political agreement on the sixth state reform is also an operation to reduce the public debt of the Belgian State.”

“Because of the tight budgetary situation, intervening in taxation is precisely an opportunity. The housing bonus, as we know it now, is becoming unaffordable. The same applies to service vouchers.”

“Apart from specific areas of competence, we can go even further in fiscal autonomy. Taxation is a sensitive issue for the population, but it is the instrument par excellence to create a good budgetary situation and therefore good policy.”

The sixth state reform implies the transfer of powers worth approximately 20 billion euros from the federal government to the Communities and Regions. In previous state reforms, numerous powers were also defederalised. To what extent can they be a useful precedent?

The previous state reform is certainly useful. That is why at Flemish level we set up a Flemish Task Force with a number of senior civil servants who were directly involved in the previous state reform.

At present, the legal framework for the implementation has been settled and the special majority act on the state reform has been voted. Since this was handled at federal level, the Flemish government was, strictly speaking, not involved. We did of course provide a great deal of input through our Flemish politicians and other channels.

The effective transfer of powers and their implementation was of course the biggest task. Our previous experience was very useful in this respect. An interfederal Task Force was set up fairly quickly and we drew up a note for the federal chancellery and for our colleagues of the other federated entity governments. Based on our experience, we set out in this note our vision of implementing the transfers of powers.

We also drew up a ‘horizontal framework agreement’, in which we set out, among other things, where we want to go with the debts and the files from the past, how we want to deal with them and how we will take over those debts and files from the moment the powers are transferred. How we will deal with the transfer of budgets and claims from the past is also set out in this framework agreement, as is the course of the transition period.

Thanks to our past experience, we had already approved protocols for around twenty powers in April and May. Those protocols give concrete form to the "framework agreement". Our past experience was therefore invaluable.

Because the chair (Françoise Audag-Dechamps, ed.) of the federal chancellery had also actively experienced the previous state reform and therefore also had a great deal of experience, she was very constructive during the transition. She dealt well with the resistance that prevailed within the federal administrations. Since the political decision had been taken that the sixth state reform would happen, she felt that the federal public services (FPS) should be loyal, should not fight rearguard battles and should also contribute actively, so that the transfer of powers would go smoothly.

Was the note/roadmap written by the Flemish government also written by other regional governments?

No, they adopted our note in its entirety. The experience therefore came from the Flemish government. Flanders was the main party calling for a state reform and as a result we provided the initial input. When we started the interfederal Task Force, the debate on the design of the Special Majority Act was still ongoing. We sensed that our French-speaking colleagues were still waiting to see which way the wind would blow and whether everything would actually be approved. From the moment there was a consensus in the federal government, our French-speaking colleagues sprang into action and fully accepted our note, which had already been submitted by then, mainly because we were on the same line as the other federated entity governments.

How far along is the implementation of the sixth state reform at Flemish level at present? Does Flanders already have the necessary budgets and additional staff that are to be transferred from the federal government to the federated entities?

In the first quarter of 2014 the protocols were drawn up, all of which have now been concluded. The protocols are very important, because they lay down very clear agreements on what must happen in the period from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014. At this moment we are fully engaged in implementing these agreements.

The transfer of staff is now under way. The staff transfer process initially took place at federal level. Just before the summer recess, discussions were held with the federal government on the number of staff who would go to the various federated entity administrations and how this was to be organised in practice. After those discussions, the FPSs issued a call to staff within their own administration or provided for a transfer ex officio. Royal Decrees were subsequently drafted with, as an annex, a nominative list of the staff members going to Flanders, Brussels or Wallonia. The Royal Decrees were submitted to the Flemish Government for advice. Everything is now actually ready to welcome those staff members on 1 January 2015. A final decision still has to be taken on amending the Flemish staff regulations with regard to the principles of salary grading. The question is whether we will implement the federal salary scales at Flemish level. After that final decision, Flanders is ready to take over the staff. In the meantime, arrangements have already been made with the staff members transferring on 1 January 2015. Further staff will transfer on 1 April 2015 and on 1 January 2016. For those people, their place of accommodation has already been agreed and it is already known which administration they will join.

The takeover of the ICT systems is still in development and this will remain the case throughout 2015. In certain cases work will continue on platforms of the federal administrations with partial payment of the costs. In other cases the ICT can be integrated into Flanders' own applications. This varies from power to power.

At the moment we are most likely on schedule. The Flemish administration is ready to take over the powers, also because there is now, overall, a good relationship with the federal administrations, despite some discussions with a number of FPSs.

Since 1 July 2014 the federated entity governments have also formally been legally competent for the new powers, but the staff will remain with the federal government for another 6 months (until the end of 2014), with operating resources from the federal budget.

The budgets being transferred are not one hundred percent those that were deployed at federal level. It is known that the political agreement on the sixth state reform is also an operation to reduce the public debt of the Belgian State. The Flemish administration must of course also do its bit. Since Flanders was the party calling for the sixth state reform, Flanders also realises that it must bear the consequences and must live up to the ambition it set itself. Flanders indeed wants to exercise the transferred powers better, more efficiently and more effectively. It is a challenge that my colleagues all want to take on fully.

The budgets will be transferred from the federal level as of 1 January 2015. These budgets have already been entered in the draft budget for 2015. They have already been ‘parked’ and the various administrations receiving powers know what new resources they have at their disposal.

In several areas of competence, cooperation, whether mandatory or not, will be necessary between the federated entities themselves and between the federated entities and the federal level. Can you give some examples of this, and how far along are the negotiations on this?

This cooperation is partly described in the protocols and in the meantime a number of cooperation agreements have also been discussed, including on the security plan and criminal prosecution policy. Most cooperation agreements, however, are still in full preparation. For areas of competence where cooperation is not mandatory, a choice will have to be made, namely: are cooperation agreements desirable or not? This is a political decision of expediency.

Does the Flemish government follow a particular policy line in this regard?

That depends mainly on the area. The Flemish government does ensure that the cooperation agreements follow the same line, if only with regard to the proportion of regional representation in the coordinating interfederal bodies. Examples of this are the representation in the INS (National Institute of Statistics) and the Federal Planning Bureau.

In which areas do you think it is undesirable or too complex to conclude cooperation agreements?

That debate is still fully under way. Nor do I feel called upon to designate particular powers; I have neither the know-how nor the authority.

Does the different composition of the federated entity governments make it more difficult to cooperate?

For the time being I am not getting that signal. The other regional governments will make different policy choices, but that is not a problem an sich. The greater the differences in policy choices, the greater the likelihood that cooperation agreements will be needed. If the choice is made to apply different criteria for child benefits, for example, arrangements will have to be made for families moving across the language border.

The sixth state reform also included a reform of the Special Financing Act. Does the Flemish Region intend to make use of its increased fiscal autonomy in the coming years?

That is clearly the intention. When I read the policy notes of the competent ministers, it appears that there is a real wish to put that fiscal autonomy into practice.

Is the precarious budgetary situation not an obstacle?

On the contrary. Because of the tight budgetary situation, intervening in taxation is precisely an opportunity. The housing bonus, as we know it now, is becoming unaffordable. The same applies to service vouchers. The service voucher system was set up to turn undeclared work into declared work. This will be a balancing act. On the one hand, the underlying payment mechanism is becoming unaffordable and on the other hand we must not push people back into undeclared work or unemployment.

Do you agree with the adage ‘What Flanders does itself, it does better’?

It is certainly our ambition, intention and also our expectation, but reality will have to show whether we can live up to it. Doing the same with fewer resources without suffering any loss of quality in service delivery will certainly already be a gain. Our ambition of course goes further, because we want better service delivery with fewer resources. From now on we must put that into practice.

The challenges are known: child benefits, healthcare, socio-economic matters, labour inspection, …

Are there fragmented packages of powers that make it difficult for Flanders to pursue a coherent policy?

Fragmentation still exists, but overall there is an improvement. In welfare and health matters, the issues in the north and south of the country are different. Given the accelerated ageing of the population and the need to keep social security budgets in balance, I therefore think it will be necessary for the various federated entities to follow a path at different speeds. It is expected that, in this area in particular, new steps will be taken very quickly.

In certain areas the regulatory power remains federal, while implementation lies with the regions. Does this not cause problems?

That is of course not new. There are several areas where the regulation remains federal and its implementation is regional. This is obviously not a desirable situation, but we have been able to deal with it well in the past and we will do so in the future too. This of course requires good interaction with the federal public services.

Are there also powers that you think would be better exercised at federal level again, powers that it would therefore have been better not to regionalise?

I think everyone is very positive about the new possibilities and that there are no areas about which people are now saying "it would have been better if that had not happened". There are no dissenting voices in that respect, on the contrary.

Is the same feeling shared in the federal administrations?

In the federal administrations there is sometimes a "we did it so well and now it is being taken away from us" mentality, but it is of course political decision-making that has played a role here. Our request for the transfer of powers is in no way a judgement on federal service delivery. We are calling for it from a policy standpoint and out of concern to serve our target groups well.

In certain transferred policy areas, are there ambitions to make a clean sweep of previous policy?

The protocols we have drawn up were all drafted with the clear intention of guaranteeing continuity. The sixth state reform has two pivotal moments: 1 July 2014 and 1 January 2015. We have meanwhile got the transition of 1 July 2014 behind us, and no problem whatsoever was noticed by public opinion. I am confident that 1 January 2015 will also go flawlessly.

To conclude, a difficult but important question that policymakers will have to address in the coming years:

If Article 195 of the Constitution were amended so that Martin Ruebens could unilaterally carry out a seventh state reform in order to achieve a more efficient functioning of the complex Belgian state structure, what would you change? Apart from specific areas of competence, we can go even further in fiscal autonomy. Taxation is a sensitive issue for the population, but it is the instrument par excellence to create a good budgetary situation and therefore good policy. Taxation is "a nuisance", but it remains an important key.

I do not think we still need to tinker much with the institutional structure. The functioning of, among others, the Senate, the Council of State and the Concertation Committee has now been changed. For me that is not really the essence either. In terms of powers and political system, we now have fully-fledged governments. Tinkering with the institutional level now would only cause commotion. The only remaining sore point is the institutional context in Brussels. Good political governance is not being delivered there today, so that is where we still need to be able to go a step further.