Proposition 53K1208

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Feb. 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT excise duty occupational accident budget occupational disease consumer protection direct tax customs protection of privacy inheritance tax on income capital transfer tax registration tax driving licence social-security contribution social security terrorism corporation tax insurance tax-free allowance road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Steven Vandeput (N-VA) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

March 16, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Let’s start with the financial part. The rapporteur is mevrouw Almaci.

Mr. Speaker, before you begin the discussions, I would like to say that an amendment has been submitted to the Infrastructure Committee. I would like to request that the committee be convened to address this issue. Can I call the committee at 5 p.m.?

Yes of course.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to me to present the report on the various provisions of the Committee on Finance, which has attracted a lot of attention from the members of the committee and has produced a number of beautiful debates.

You will also notice from the written report that there is a lot to say here. Allow me to pay attention only to the most essential elements of this bill, because otherwise it will take a lot of time.

The Committee on Finance has been divided into two chapters: one on income taxes and the second on changes relating to legal entities.

The amendments and the major parts of this draft law concerning various provisions come because they are essential adjustments to the demand of Europe. This is an adaptation to European law. Some violations are being corrected.

Several questions were asked about income taxes, Articles 26 to 52. Allow me to refer to the report on this subject.

These include the mother-daughter directive and its financial implications for our budget.

However, the most striking was the debate on Article 50. A majority submitted an amendment aimed at rewriting this article. This amendment was submitted by Mr. Verherstraeten.

The Amendment No. 15 aims to replace Article 50 of the draft law and aims to supplement Article 322 of WIB 92 with §§ 2 to 4. Mr Terwingen of CD&V has explained that the draft paragraph lists the cases in which bank secrecy can be lifted, namely when the administration in the investigation has one or more indications of tax evasion or when the administration endeavors to determine the taxable basis, in accordance with Article 341 of the WIB 92.

There is also a so-called stepped procedure in this amendment. Only when the tax officer finds that, despite the investigation, there are still evidence of tax evasion and that there is suspicion that the taxable person still holds information about it or refuses to provide it, he can ask the director, suggestions, to lift the bank secrecy.

That proposal must clearly indicate the evidence it has. It must also show that the tax officer requested the information and data but did not, or not fully, obtain them. Then an official with at least the degree of director appointed for this purpose by the Minister of Finance shall be authorized by the Minister to grant the authorisation to lift the banking secret. In order to allow the tax administration to quickly and smoothly find out the hidden account numbers, in § 3 a central electronic contact point is created in the womb of the National Bank of Belgium. Mr Servais Verherstraeten has also submitted an amendment no. 16 and 17 submitted which aims not only to regulate the information obligation of the administration, but through amendment no. 17 also to include Article 50/2 in the draft law to regulate the entry into force.

Mrs Rutten, co-signator of the amendment, notes that the amendment aims to ⁇ a more efficient fight against fraud. It ensures the equalization of the procedure for the abolition of bank secrecy, regardless of whether the request is made by a foreign state or directly by the Belgian tax authority. It proposes this because the previous amendment, now replaced by the amendment of Mr. Verherstraeten, was only aimed at providing information to foreign legal states.

Mr Goyvaerts points out that the new arrangement for the abolition of bank secrecy will enter into force on 1 July 2011 and asks what else will happen with the investigations still underway because there is no transitional provision in the amendment.

Mr Van der Maelen points out, in particular, the major problem with the reference to one or more indications of tax evasion and refers to the work of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee in which the investigators indicated that bank secrecy constitutes a major obstacle because there must be indications of tax fraud pursuant to Article 318 of WIB 92.

Mr Van der Maelen also refers to the relevant provisions in the Netherlands and Germany where it is based on the fact that the tax due is higher than is shown in the tax return. According to the speaker, it was therefore more logical to examine under what conditions the bank secrecy in the supranational regulation can be abolished and that one can be inspired by abroad. He therefore submitted several amendments referring, inter alia, to the fact that one or more indications must be available in the administration that the taxable person has not declared income. Furthermore, the speaker doubts that the European authorities will approve the provisions as now included in the majority amendment. He regrets that Belgium has not opted for the golden European midway, but has gone for a more restrictive interpretation and harder access of foreign authorities to bank data.

Mr. Gilkinet of Ecolo-Groen! It is rather positive that the text is placed on the agenda. Any initiative to combat tax fraud is welcome, ⁇ in difficult budgetary circumstances. However, the legal provisions must be efficient, comprehensive and deterrent. He therefore has some questions, more specifically on the amicable settlement and on the descriptive conditions for the opening of the banking investigation, which need to be specified more precisely.

Mr Veerle Wouters comments on the amendment to amendment no. 15 proposed article 322, § 2, second paragraph, of WIB 92 concerning the official who will be allowed to request the information. It refers to the hearing with Professor Haelterman which indicates that from a hierarchical point of view it is not reasonable that an inspector should ask his hierarchical superior permission to initiate a banking investigation.

She also has some questions to the central contact point and any registers. It refers to the existing register at the Deposito- and Consignatiekasa.

Mrs Meyrem Almaci – I myself, therefore – considers the amendments 15 to 17 not unmerited. However, she cannot speak of the way in which the debate was hijacked by the majority and various provisions were incorporated into the draft law.

It refers to the committee for tackling tax fraud. It has always ensured that clear and accurate concepts are used instead of vague concepts, such as indication of tax evasion. It thus refers to the earlier bills on bank secrecy, which were discussed. They contain different definitions, although the definitions are not exactly identical. It also refers to making the procedure not unnecessarily complicated.

In addition, it refers to the list of indications of tax fraud. Since the list is not included in the text of the law itself, it is not excluded that certain examples in the list will be addressed in court and can lead to too long procedural struggles.

Nevertheless, it is pleased that the decision that an official with the degree of director may be taxed for seeking information from banks, as well as the provision on the central point of contact, have been included in the law. Both ideas were uncontested until recently.

Mr Alain Mathot of the PS regrets that no consensus can be reached. He believes that the issue of the abolition of bank secrecy deserves better than to be addressed through a bill containing various provisions. However, he also stressed that this is a historic moment.

Mr Van der Maelen, finally, reiterates that in Belgium and in some other European countries the abolition of bank secrecy remains subject to the condition that there is evidence of tax fraud, and he regrets that.

Mr Philippe Goffin of the MR welcomes the compromise reached.

Mr. Terwingen confirms that the amendments 15 to 18 are the result of a compromise and stresses that it is not intended to thus lay the germ for the introduction of a property cadastre, in response to a question from the Flemish Interest. He further clarifies the content of the amendments and confirms that he agrees with sub-amendment no. 30 of Mr. Dedecker, Beuselinck, Vandeput and Mrs. Wouters, in which it is suggested that in Article 333bis, § 1, paragraph 1, paragraph 1, WIB 1992, the word “instructions” be replaced by “instructions of tax evasion”.

Mrs. Muriel Gerkens of Ecolo-Groen! asks whether the subjects of amendments no. 15 to 18 are of the opinion that the list of examples in accountability has legal force. She finds it strange that the functioning of the central point of contact and possibly also the sanctions would be regulated by royal decree.

The Secretary of State answers that Article 322, § 3, WIB 92, as introduced in amendment no. 15 for banking, exchange, credit and savings institutions the obligation to disclose at the central contact point managed by the National Bank of Belgium, the identity of their clients and the numbers of their accounts and contacts. The concrete conditions of operation will be negotiated with those institutions and will then be incorporated in a royal decree.

Ms. Meyrem Almaci regrets that this is settled through a royal decree.

Mrs Rutten would like to point out that the proposers of the amendment were based on the principle of the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, they want to give taxable persons the maximum opportunity to provide the information requested by the tax administration themselves in order to clarify the situation.

I will not display the further discussion, because the content of it will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion later on.

I am going to the amendment no. 18 of Mrs Carina Van Cauter, which aims to provide for a procedural extension of the amicable settlement, on the one hand, and to introduce the material extension of the scope, on the other. It refers to the explanatory note attached to the amendment on accountability.

Mr Georges Gilkinet repeats his position that I have just expressed. Since it remains of the opinion that it is not advisable to formally link the two dossiers together, it submits a sub-amendment to separate them.

Ms Meyrem Almaci does not agree to amendment no. 18 and refers to the two waves of tax amnesty and the current law on the permanent tax regularization, which allow backdoors. It is irresponsible to talk about friendly settlement. It opposes the cow trade of linking the two bills.

Ms. Christianne Vienne would like to recall that a number of cases, such as the KB Lux case, have turned to a fiasco and argues that this is a solution to that problem. Mrs Carina Van Cauter rejects the claim that a cow trade is being run. In fact, it is logical that the authorities first look for tax fraud and only after finding sufficient indications proceed to a thorough investigation, eventually resulting in the abolition of bank secrecy, on the initiative of the government.

Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen regrets that Ms. Carina Van Cauter does not want to admit that the proposals on the amicable settlement have been heavily opposed. Recommendation No. 36 of the investigation committee points to the need to better frame the amicable settlement in the administrative phase.

Mr Servais Verherstraeten states that the rule “una via” is not violated. A friendly settlement is a judicial settlement. The file is with the prosecutor, who does not raise a public claim, but offers a transaction as in the case of traffic offences.

Amendment No. Principle files can be handled in the traditional way before the court, while non-principial issues and less serious facts can be handled in an administratively efficient way. The problem is the complexity of some matters and the competence of the opponent. In order to address this, the friendly settlement is proposed. With the friendly settlement, the State receives what belongs to it.

I apologize if I have forgotten several speakers and elements of the debate. I tried to give it as well as possible. For the rest of the discussion, I would like to refer to the report of the Committee on Finance.

Colleague Van der Maelen, you are right when you say that tax fraud is a problem. Not only for our government, but also for the organization of the government and for the citizens. It also affects our companies.

We all know that the numbers are hallucinating. I checked my notes. In 2008, the most recent figure I could find in my notes, there was more than €33 billion in VAT and taxes. This is indeed a huge problem.

If we were able to collect only part of it, or in the best case all of the outstanding taxes, we would immediately have realised the 22 billion necessary savings that we must make now. We would even have room to allow tax reductions to those who paid taxes correctly. We could even make work rewarding again. I think we can all follow this logic.

Dear colleagues, what we do not want from Open Vld is to organize a witch hunt on self-employed and SMEs. They are the engine of our economy and provide not only own employment, but also a lot of employment for people outside the company. That is also logical, I think.

What we want to do is tackle tax fraud effectively. This is done in a way in which the taxes are effectively collected and in which, as is now the case, long procedures are not followed and immense seizures are carried out. I refer to what we have heard and identified in the Committee on Tax Fraud. Let’s look at the average processing time of a fiscal-economic file.

For the period until the arrangement of the judiciary, then we have not yet conducted the proceedings on the substance, the average course time is 2 154 days or six years. This is socially unacceptable. Furthermore, it must be noted that, in many cases, in the event that the substance of the proceedings is finally reached, the limitation has entered or the reasonable period has been exceeded. In fact, we come up with effective impunity, let alone that taxes can be collected in any way.

With the amendment, as adopted by the Committee on Finance, we want to give the public prosecutor’s office the opportunity to effectively curb tax fraud. We do so by giving the prosecutor’s office the possibility, under certain conditions – therefore not automatic – to propose for certain crimes to pay a certain amount of money and possibly to give away certain goods. If the person concerned does so, there is effective disappearance of criminal action.

The so-called friendly settlement, as we commonly call it, provides the possibility for the prosecutor to settle the crimes in an out-of-court manner. This is not new. We did not invent it. This possibility exists since 1935 in our Code of Criminal Procedure. What we propose today is to extend the existing Article 216bis, as last amended by the Law of 10 February 1994, as regards the material scope, and also to extend the procedure so that the Prosecutor’s Office can proceed to the amicable settlement until the finalisation of any criminal proceedings.

This proposal and amendment are based on a bill submitted earlier by myself, colleague De Croo and former colleague Van Biesen on 16 February 2009. This bill was positively advised by the State Council.

It is also appropriate to point out the recommendations of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on Major Fiscal Fraud, with the report of 7 May 2009, which indeed recommended the transition to a legislative initiative. I read some of the recommendations.

The report makes it very clear that there is a need for a closing system of agreements in which the administration proposes to the taxpayer the payment of the tax plus a certain amount and in which the criminal claim expires. This is very clear. Agreements should correctly define the responsibilities of all stakeholders, and it is the task of the legislator to determine under what conditions this should be done. This is what we do today.

Also, the report says, the possibility of introducing a judicial amicable settlement should be further investigated. The introduction of a general arrangement for friendly settlement or dading is one of the recommendations. The application of the scheme would end criminal prosecution in tax matters. This is what we propose today.

Finally, the possibility of friendly settlement was presupposed as one of the end terms in the “una via” scheme. The friendly settlement of course also appears in the anti-fraud plan of State Secretary Devlies. The College of Attorneys-General has already advocated a policy on agreements with accused. I do not need to refer to the many literature that was advocated accordingly by the academic world.

Colleagues, in relation to the procedure and conditions of application, I refer to the text of the amendment and its discussion in the committee. However, I would like to summarize four points of view.

This amendment is of course process-economic. The current proposal ensures that research and processes are no longer sluggish or more expensive than strictly necessary. This will free up capacity for criminal cases that do not meet the requirements of the current proposal and give the Public Prosecutor’s Office the opportunity to develop a sound criminal policy.

Of course, openness is also required. The procedure can only be applied if the suspect or the accused wishes to ensure the disclosure of matters and all interested parties wish to effectively acknowledge the crimes.

The compensation. The condition of prior compensation is a constructive condition of the proposal to reach a friendly settlement. In other words, the perpetrator will have to have paid not only the taxes and interests, but also the fine before a criminal claim falls into effect.

In this way, the problem of the actual non-invoicability of amounts granted by courts, as is now established, is also solved. This is also a step in the right direction.

The criminal proceedings remain the exclusive task of the Prosecutor’s Office. We do not touch it. The proposal for a friendly settlement is by no means an automation. It is the judgment and it remains the judgment of the Prosecutor’s Office to draw up a proposal for a friendly settlement. It remains its opportunity judgment based on a weighing of several relevant factors such as the nature of the facts, the personality of the accused, the victim’s interests and the social context.

This proposal does not install class justice, along no sides. I have cited the recent newspaper articles in the committee and I will repeat them here. In the past, there were certain families. I think of a Beaulieutelg who pays 20 million euros. I think of a sp.a. heavyweight who, as a result of tax breaches, concludes an agreement with the prosecutor’s office. This is class justice.

What is presented today is a proposal in which the right to amicable settlement is not reserved for the happy few, but for everyone who complies with the law. This is what we want to ⁇ today.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it’s been years – it’s been eight years for me – that the PS group wants the lifting of bank secrecy. It was absolutely necessary to give the tax administration the means to do its job properly and to ensure tax fairness because, for us, it is primary to track and stop the large tax fraud in our country.

On 14 May 2009, the Investigative Committee on Fighting Tax Fraud unanimously voted 108 recommendations. Each highlighted the shortcomings and gaps in the fight against this great fraud. We were aware that some of these proposals would lead to major reforms. Today, finally, we have the opportunity to concrete two recommendations and not the least, since it is about the lifting of bank secrecy and the judicial transaction.

Already in the previous legislature, the PS group had defended a bill aimed at easing the conditions required to lift the banking secret of our country. That is why the compromise of the government majority we propose today satisfies us widely. In fact, it acknowledges a real step forward in terms of combating large-scale tax fraud. An evolution was more than necessary when one sees the insignificant number of levies of bank secrecy. Should I remind him? One in 2007 and one in 2008. Belgium could no longer afford to be indicated by international bodies such as the OECD or the European Commission.

By the way, during the hearing of the representatives of these two institutions, we were once again reminded that our country is an exception in terms of bank secrecy. The OECD threatened to include Belgium on the grey list of tax havens. This was obviously intolerable for the PS group.

Moreover, in an interest of tax justice, it was imperative for my group that this lifting of bank secrecy concerns both non-residents and residents, which is why it was necessary to amend the draft containing various provisions that we vote today or tomorrow.

During the work of the Fraud Commission, we have often been able to see the lack of means and tools at the disposal of the tax administration to do its work properly. The provisions relating to bank secrecy were of course part of this. It was necessary to act to track down the big fraudsters. Yes, but not at the expense of privacy. That is why the text we defend today incorporates all of the comments of the Privacy Protection Committee.

The withdrawal will only be possible in cases of suspicion of tax fraud listed in the law. Filters are also provided to avoid abusive and unexpected controls. The administration will therefore not be in possession of a set of information if these are not necessary for a tax fraud investigation.

I hear some “strangling” on the concept of fraud indicators. But let’s look at what we are talking about today.

We speak of indications of fraud that we explain clearly, such as, for example, the fact that you have not completed your tax return twice in a row, fail to declare invoices, present false invoices, present income received abroad that has not been declared there or possess lacuna or falsified bank extracts.

Furthermore, the text we will adopt is supported by the ruling of the Court of Cassation that recognizes a broad interpretation of the term “indices of fraud”. Today we are looking for an indication, not a proof.

One of the major advances is the establishment of a central contact point managed by the National Bank of Belgium. From 1 July 2011, all banking, credit, exchange or savings institutions will have to communicate to the contact point the identity of the customers, their account number(s) and contract numbers.

For the PS, this provision, which was not included in the recommendations of the Commission responsible for large cases of tax fraud, represents a huge step. All information will be available and collected in a single institution, which will allow for efficiency at the height of combat. I would like to welcome the consensus on this point. These new tools will allow considerable money revenues for the Belgian state, revenues that have actually always been due to the Treasury.

For my group, it was more than time that everyone paid according to their contributive capacity. We have always defended the importance of tax fairness. Each euro raised in the fight against large-scale fraud is one euro devoted to low- and middle-income. Furthermore, given the current fiscal situation, it was necessary to allow the recovery of a huge shortage to earn for the State.

The PS could not tolerate that some must tighten their belts to live while major fraudsters act impunely and withhold millions of euros, even billions, from the community. So much money that will benefit neither citizens nor ⁇ , but only a few unscrupulous individuals. We are talking about considerable sums here: it is clearly the big fraudsters who are in the collimator.

The legal transaction, on the other hand, is also a great development in the fight against tax fraud. Indeed, the parquets that already implement such a principle are the ones that obtain the most results in this area.

For my group, three aspects of the proposal are important to highlight. First, the amount of the transaction will be proportionate to the gravity of the facts accused. The taxes and increases due will always be, of course, and the fine will of course be added to these amounts. Finally, the investigation judge competent in the case will give an opinion to the prosecutor’s office on the well-foundedness and timeliness of the transaction in the specific case.

The text is then tagged. There is no question of doing anything in terms of judicial transaction. A great progress, but the work is still important. My group will continue the fight against the big fraud; indeed, only, unfortunately, a few recommendations have been translated at the moment. We have submitted and will continue to submit texts in this direction.

I will end with a touch of regret. The proposed text might have deserved to be a law. Furthermore, as for the recommendations of the Tax Fraud Commission, we would have liked a unanimous vote. Nevertheless, the goal pursued by our group was to ⁇ the lifting of bank secrecy. That is why we rejoice.

I would therefore like to welcome the work done within this Parliament; it allows us today to vote on a beautiful evolution of tax justice.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will limit myself to two articles that have been discussed within the draft law containing various provisions. The amendments on the amicable settlement and bank secrecy will be explained by Mr Jan Jambon later.

My presentation concerns in particular Articles 39 and 41, which have been amended in the subsequent report as Articles 44 and 46.

Article 44 of the bill amends the conditions for the DBI deduction. Article 9 of the Act of 24 December amending the corporate rules on income taxes and establishing a system of preliminary rulings in tax matters made those conditions considerably stricter from the financial year 2004.

As a condition for the DBI deduction, in Article 202, § 2, secondly, in WIB 92 was recorded that the company must no longer hold a shareholding of at least 5 %, but of 10 %. The DBI deduction shall also be allowed if the minimum participation of the participation has a purchase value of at least EUR 1 200 000. Nothing has changed in that amount. Either the participation meets the 10 % threshold, or it has a purchase value of at least 1 200 000.

As a new condition, it was then added that the shares must have the nature of financial fixed assets and that they must be held for at least one year. One of the major constraints of the DBI deduction regime, in particular that it was to be financial fixed assets, is now simply abolished by this bill containing several provisions, following the opinion of the European Commission of 20 November 2009 on the infringement 2007/4333.

At the time, the adjustment of the system of final taxed income was to compensate for the reduction in the rate of corporate tax. The corporate tax rate decreased from 40.17% to 33.99%. In order to compensate for this, these additional conditions were introduced. At that time, it had to make about 278 million euros or 11 billion Belgian francs.

In my view, this is not just a fact that can be discussed within the various provisions. The Minister explained during the committee meeting that when discussing the bill by the government, all members of the government assumed that Article 44 is budgetarily neutral.

In our view, this will probably not be the case, and in view of the preparation of the budget, it would be clear in the course of March 2011 on the basis of the calculations made by the administration whether that premise is correct. I have questions about it. Given the budget revenue that was budgeted in 2002, we believe that this provision should therefore be included in the next Programme Act, which will implement the budget. We will submit an amendment to delete this article. I cannot imagine that our colleagues from PS, sp.a, and Ecolo-Groen!, who are so concerned about the falling income from corporate tax, can agree with this.

Next, there is article 41 of the law containing several provisions, meanwhile changed into article 46. This article amends Article 205ter, § 7 of WIB 92 as regards the notional interest deduction. In the explanatory note, we read that this adjustment is due to the amendments made by Articles 39 or 44 of this bill. The explanatory memory therefore establishes a link between the change in the DBI deduction and the notional interest.

In this case, there is only a technical connection between the two articles, since Article 205ter, § 7 refers, in fact, to Article 202, § 2, second paragraph, of WIB 92, which is repealed by Article 44 of this bill. We believe that there is not only a legislative, but also a political bond between the two deductions.

Until now, the political logic has been ⁇ ined that if shares entitle to a DBI deduction, they are no longer eligible for the calculation of the notional interest base. If the shares have the nature of financial fixed assets, they are eligible for the DBI deduction, but not for the notional interest deduction. In fact, those financial fixed assets consisting of shares and other shares are excluded from the notional interest.

Shares held as money investments are not eligible for the DBI deduction but for the calculation of the basis for the notional interest deduction. Either one is eligible for notional interest deduction, or one is eligible for a DBI deduction.

According to Article 44 of the draft law, the whole scheme is changed and that political logic is broken, as shares held as money investment can now be eligible for both the DBI deduction and the notional interest deduction.

When this political logic is broken, it is not logical within the system of deduction for venture capital that the venture capital is not reduced by the net tax value of the shares booked under money investments. Otherwise, the notional interest will be awarded twice. The first time with the company that booked the shares under the money investments and the second time with the company whose shares were purchased. Only this latter company actually uses its own assets as risk capital in the actual economic activity.

This situation is very similar to the highly criticized double-dip structure. If this fiscal optimization is not considered politically desirable, we find that a double deduction of venture capital in the case of shares held as a cash investment is also inappropriate.

As part of the bill containing various provisions, a balanced agreement was reached on both internal and external bank secrecy and on judicial transaction.

This agreement has helped to find a fair balance between, on the one hand, the means implemented to effectively combat tax fraud and, on the other hand, respect for fundamental rights such as the protection of the privacy of taxpayers, which the Reform Movement can only welcome.

Consulting a person’s bank accounts means getting acquainted with his lifestyle, his consumer choices, his leisure activities, his philosophical and political choices. It is, in a way, an access to the open book of his life. Therefore, it is an act that is anything but anodin.

Belgium is thus equipped with two additional tools in the fight against tax fraud.

First of all, any fraudster is exposed, from now on, to the lifting of bank secrecy both in Belgium and abroad. Of course, this measure of lifting the bank secret is accompanied by essential tags in terms of respect for privacy such as the need to have in the head of the tax administration actual indicators of fraud in order to be able to lift the bank secret relating to the (x) account(s) of a taxpayer. The Minister considers this guarantee essential. Tomorrow, an official will not be able to examine the accounts of Mr. without reason. all the world. Just as a police officer cannot carry out a home search without a mandate, a tax administration official cannot lift the bank secret of a taxpayer without evidence of intentional fraud in the head of the taxpayer, or without certain procedural guarantees. Therefore, there is no question of lifting bank secrecy without sufficient reason. I add that this notion of fraud index is already specified in the case-law and used by the administration. This is an evolution that falls within the already well-marked legal framework.

In addition to the notion of fraud index I just talked about, there is a second guarantee, namely the filter of the prior agreement of the regional director to any lifting of bank secrecy.

We have a cascading system. First, the close cooperation of the taxpayer is encouraged. Then, the supervisor must obtain the approval of the regional director before the lifting of bank secrecy. Finally, we also planned the creation of a central contact point within the National Bank. This, of course, is planned to facilitate the application of the new provisions.

The establishment of an annual report will enable better implementation in terms of legality, timeliness and proportionality and the adequacy of the operation. It will also enable uniform application of this provision across the entire national territory. Between the effective fight against fraud and the scrupulous respect for the fundamental rights of taxpayers, and therefore for privacy, there was a need to find a balance that is effective and enforceable by the administration. The MR group is pleased to have, with its partners, found a balance on this point.

The same text extends the principle of judicial transaction because, as it is well known, a good agreement is better than a bad trial. This mechanism will help to resolve small fraud quickly. This will allow the courts to disengage and Justice will therefore be able to focus more on major fraud. This is a response that we believe is effective to stop reliving very heavy fraud cases that, after a judicial investigation and extremely long and costly proceedings before the courts, have been prescribed.

These two measures, the abolition of bank secrecy and the judicial transaction, are two instruments that will make the tax struggle even more effective in our country. This was a commitment by the outgoing government and it responds to two recommendations in the report of 7 May 2009 of the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on Major Cases of Tax Fraud. The judicial transaction will accelerate the recovery of funds for the benefit of the State and the lifting of bank secrecy, in the context of intentional tax fraud, fits perfectly within the framework of international agreements signed by Belgium.

Congratulations to Mr. Goffin for his maiden speech.

(Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, it will not be a surprise after the debate in the committee that I, together with my group, will vote against.

There are five reasons, but at the same time also five questions to all those who will approve this, to vote against. I will first list all five of them and then discuss them in more detail.

The first reason is that it is unbelievable that a parliamentary majority shows so little respect for the work of this Parliament and of an investigative committee that has been working for one and a half years.

This text, which we will vote on tomorrow, contradicts one of the core recommendations of that investigative committee.

The second reason why we will vote against it is that we have missed the opportunity, if we then make new tax legislation, to incorporate it into European regulation.

The third reason we will vote against is that there is a persistence to maintain legislation in this area in Belgium that is distinct from our neighboring countries, with the exception of Luxembourg, but I think that this in terms of taxation is not a country that deserves to be reflected. Compare this to Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany and you will see that there is a sea of difference between their scheme and ours.

The fourth reason is that this proposal still has a technical and legal point to be noted. We all know how it came into being, in a forcing that began on Wednesday at 09:30 am and that ended, at least when we received the text, at 18:15 pm.

One can see it. An old gynecologist would say that this is a baby that was taken out with the iron. This leads to the technical and legal problems that this will bring.

Finally, the fifth reason we will vote against is that this is a bad compromise for the honest taxpayer.

I will go a little deeper into the five points.

We worked here for weeks. On page 242 is a passage about the fiscal banking secret. On Recommendation 34 we have debated for several hours. There was a conclusion that stood like a pillar above water. Bank secrecy, as regulated in Belgium, is a very major barrier in the fight against fraud. The more difficult it is to abolish bank secrecy, the more tempting it is for fraudsters to risk it anyway. In terms of preventive action it is a crucial article, but also in terms of curative, exemplary. If somebody is already fraudulent and they get rid of it by conducting procedures against the abolition of bank secrecy, then we miss this tool that exists in other countries to effectively do something against the fraud.

All groups present here in this Parliament, except LDD and the Flemish Interest, have approved this recommendation. It stipulated the following: extract from Belgian legislation that condition referring to one or more indications relating to tax evasion.

The investigation committee’s proposal was to include in the legislation one or more indications that income was not declared.

Colleagues, tomorrow you will also have the opportunity to approve my amendment and to insert exactly that passage from the recommendations in the text that follows.

This was the situation. We submitted a number of legislative proposals. What turned out? The first opponents were the liberals. You can write books about the liberals and the banking secret, colleagues!

I have troubled myself, colleagues of Open Vld, to re-read the work that in 1982 led to the text of today. Ladies and gentlemen, you should read it again. There you hear the echoes of Gwendolyn Rutten. You cannot blame the liberals in this regard for not being consistent. They are very consistent. They depict it as “the hunt for the taxpayer” and want “respect for privacy”. That was what they were doing at the time too.

This resulted in 1982 that a text was approved – they approved it with it – which over the last five years in terms of income tax, bank secrecy was abolished 28 times.

That text is really hallucinating. Even then they painted it as if the text to be approved was “the hunt for the taxpayer.” This was a “violation of privacy.” The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Over the past five years, bank secrecy has been abolished 28 times. Who still believes those people? Who believes Ms. Rutten when she says, “Here a hunt on the taxpayer is organized, here privacy is compromised?” We have seen what it has led to.

Just a little about privacy, colleagues. What you really need to read are the latest Open Vld proposals on tackling social fraud. The latest proposals on tackling the social fraud of that group there – which has a mouth full of privacy with regard to the taxpayer and of whom one should not even look toward the abolition of bank secrecy – defend the control and supervision up to the bedroom and bathroom of the beneficiaries.

The same faction that has the mouth full about the right to privacy goes on social fraud into the bedroom and bathroom of ordinary people. These are the liberals. They were in 1982 and they are still in 2011: totally unreliable with regard to their argument against the abolition of banking secrecy.

But, unfortunately, there was another party, and that was the party that had the choice. This game is CD&V. That party had the choice to come to a text by forming a compromise on the left or on the right. The voting ratio in the committee was 8/7 and CD&V has 2 votes. The CD&V colleagues – I think the ACV will be happy to hear this – have chosen a compromise on the right. Don’t get involved with the government majority. In recent weeks and months, no more freedoms have been taken in this Parliament for forming majorities on certain texts. Here CD&V has chosen the compromise on the right.

I have a question for the colleagues of CD&V in particular, but also for the other colleagues who approved the recommendations. Why did you move away from...

Mr. Verherstraeten, I think Mr. Van der Maelen has a question for you.

He does not want to listen to me, Mr. President. We already know that trick.

I will ask my question to Servais Verherstraeten. Colleagues Verherstraeten and Terwingen, why have you deviated from the text of the recommendation that you have approved? Why have you deviated from your own text that fell down and contained no reference to tax evasion? That was not in your texts. There were proposals from the CDH, Ecolo-Groen! and PS-sp.a which also do not contain a reference to tax evasion.

Thus, a 10/8 majority in the committee and a 78/72 majority in the plenary session could well be formed on a text proposal that was in accordance with your own text and that of a majority of other parties, but in addition was in accordance with the recommendation of the investigation committee, which was approved almost unanimously, with the exception of VB and LDD.

This is my first question, I also address it to you. Why does one deviate from something that has been so long and extensively discussed in a parliamentary investigation committee, after consultation with experts, lawyers?

I come to my second reason why I will vote against. This is a Reynders deviation. I must be honest, not only Reynders but also previous finance ministers had a deviation in this area. It is about the fact that they absolutely want to occupy exceptional positions with regard to taxation in Europe.

Directive 77/799 of 1 February 2011. During this speech, Minister of Finance Reynders has noted that it has been approved under the Belgian presidency. How many times have we not heard of the outgoing majority that they have made that European Presidency one of the most exemplary presidencies? Here is one of the points that was addressed, namely that directive.

That directive concerns the possibility for a foreign tax authority to obtain in Belgium information available from a bank. Colleagues, the text, which is still hot, has been negotiated by the Belgians. This text has a European consensus. There is no condition, but therefore no condition, and therefore ⁇ not the provision relating to indications of tax evasion in order to unlock information from a bank.

This is a punishment story. One still proudly assumes that a directive has been implemented thanks to our Belgian Presidency, while one refuses to draw domestic conclusions from it only three months later.

We are therefore confronted with the yet bizarre situation that a foreign tax administration can get information about its own taxable person much easier and with absolute guarantee, information that is available at a Belgian bank.

As far as the Belgian taxation is concerned – and I will return to it later – there is not much changing in relation to the current situation. I predict that it will still be a tough battle to get that information from the Belgian banks.

I have a sparkle of hope, namely, that there will be a complaint from abroad against Belgium, because if the present text is approved, there is actually a hidden defense of the interests of the Belgian banks.

This means that there is a possibility that Article 50 and following of this bill will be violated by the Commission. I really hope that. It would be a shame.

Colleague Rutten, I saw you on Sunday in The Seventh Day still well outpacing against N-VA when you said that Europe is our future. Not words but actions. Unfortunately, only six days after you have completed your European visit in the Seventh Day, you will here later approve a law that places Belgium in an exceptional position. This is really unfortunate and I deeply regret it.

Regarding regulations in neighboring countries, I repeat again what is in the proposals of cdH, CD&V, PS, sp.a and Ecolo-Groen! The state – the proposals you have dropped – corresponds to what exists in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK, namely that one or more evidence of tax evasion is not needed.

What we want, colleagues of Open Vld, is nothing more than what exists in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain.

So stop, because you are undermining your own credibility. We support what is stated in the recommendation and in our legislative proposals. Stop saying that we will use the hunt for taxpayers and the attack on privacy. The Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain are tax-civilized countries. Belgium is not.

And again, please tell me now why should we have regulations in that area that differ from those in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain? Those great European beliefs are empty words, for a first step would be to align with the European average in the formulation of new legislation. That European average is, unfortunately, much higher than what you present to us today.

I actually planned to replicate later in my speech time, but the same plate remains so long, that I still want to take the word, also given the fact that Mr. Van der Maelen personally visits me here.

I think you are intellectually doing a ⁇ unfair practice: you take one element from taxation and then you want to project it on our country. Well, I challenge you out. Also look at what is happening in terms of tax rates, in terms of tax burden, in terms of tax simplification, in terms of all taxation. Then I hear nothing but your faction fulminating against a country like Germany. Today you will come to the floor to say that in this element, we should actually follow Germany. Well, I challenge you and I extend my hand: let us follow Germany in many areas. Once you take that step, we can look at a total package. What cannot be done is to separate the context from the regulation. The legislation presented here today fits perfectly into our context.

In the rest of my story I will return to what colleague Rutten just comes to say. First, we are not talking about a general tax reform here. I would like to do that. I only determined that yesterday, when we were at Itinera, there was no one from the Vld present. We are ready, we would like to engage in this debate. You really do not know our views.

Secondly, as I have just said, this is about something to be considered as a cornerstone in your fiscal enforcement policy. If the proposed measures are not good, then there is no preventive action. Your text is an invitation to all fraudsters to proceed quietly, because the chance that the bank secret will be lifted is small.

If fraudsters have the disadvantage of running against the lamp, they will still be able to redeem themselves thanks to the proposal of Mrs. Van Cauter. The liberals are therefore fundamentally sinning against what is a sensible fiscal policy and you do so by removing yourself from what is a European average. Stop your European belief.

Colleague Van der Maelen, the proposal to amend the arrangement on amicable settlement is not a free purchase. The proposal means that in cases where the public prosecutor would anyway claim a fine, that fine is paid in advance, and not only the fine, but also the taxes, the interest and the tax penalty on this fine. What do we want more? In this way, effective work is made, not of impunity as it exists today, but of imposing a penalty in the form of a fine so that tax fraud, even when it is small, can be addressed in a relevant and effective way.

I just did not respond during Mrs. Van Cauter’s intervention, but now that the same argument is used, I would like to respond for a moment. I would like to say this normally later.

The investigative judges themselves have, by Karel Van Cauwenberghe, their official speech tube, not only in various opinion articles in among others De Tijd – I will distribute them later – literally said that this is a form of class justice. “He who has rich-filled pockets will be able to buy his process. These are the happy few. But what about the other suspects in the same case who cannot pay? They risk a conviction and a prison sentence. This creates a parallel justice system. I wonder if that regulation will survive the test of the Constitutional Court.”

The whole of this opinion is the equation with the substance of the amendment no. 18 of the majority. I absolutely want you to read this one time and that you realize what cow trade has occurred there, but above all also what the procedural consequences will be. You are wrong, and that is what the investigative judges in this country themselves say. They even wonder what they will still serve in the future if you introduce these types of mechanisms.

Therefore, please do not hang yourself, dear colleague, in the grey plate that you accuse the opposition. If the investigative judges in this country themselves say that you are at the wrong end, this should, with all respect, still be considered by the majority.

Colleague Almaci, each has his role. The legislator is the legislator. The Public Prosecutor is the Public Prosecutor. The sitting magistrates are the sitting magistrates. The criminal action belongs, as regulated by law, exclusively to the competence of the Prosecutor’s Office. It does not fall within the competence of the investigative judges. They have no role to play in this. It is the exclusive competence of the prosecutor to demand a punishment. If the Prosecutor’s Magistrate is of judgment, also today and there will be no change tomorrow, to have to exercise the criminal action in such a way, namely by claiming a fine, then this will remain within its exclusive competence. This has always been the case and nothing has changed.

This system of amicable settlement, by the way, is now applied in the customs and excise law in the same way, to the satisfaction of all.

By the way, it is the College of Attorneys-General that has pledged to extend this scheme to tax and social fraud.

Honestly, I am falling from my chair. What we have today is class justice. Today it is those who can pay the best experts, who can stretch the procedures the longest, who can play on obsolescence and on procedural errors, and who have enough money to do so, who start the dance.

What we are trying to do is ensure that the parks can set up their organization so that one can focus on large tax fraud files, Mr. Van der Maelen. I would like to emphasize: large tax fraud files. I take the same document as you, Mr. Van der Maelen. I just read the title: “Parliamentary investigation into large tax fraud files.” If you have the honesty not to do cherry picking from this report, you will see that the friendly settlement is a recommendation from the report. It will help things forward. You must not turn the world!

I will try to respond to Serena. The expression “falling from his chair” I find, on this subject, very inappropriate for the majority.

I just want to say that the main argument that the majority colleagues use is the fact that in several major fraud processes – I think of KB-Lux – one must go to a friendly settlement because otherwise one never ends. You have chosen to choose a description that only creates more ambiguity and will result in more procedural layers. It is not clear at the moment. You choose a form of source right. I will clarify this later.

Furthermore, the requirement of a number of judges who have some expertise in the matter is to obtain faster and more efficient working resources if any of them takes too long. They are asking to ensure that they lose less time with procedural steps. However, you do the opposite. They also demand better legal experts and so on. Well, through this system you will not create much added value.

I decide with this. You can make it a cat-and-mouse game between the majority and the opposition, but it’s just embarrassing that a bill that was submitted on 24 February in the Justice Committee was not even discussed there. You have done cutting and sticking work with various proposals. Among them were proposals on the banking secrecy of us and of the colleagues of sp.a. At least they have been discussed. This is what the State Council has taken into consideration. You just do some cutting and gluing work in connection with something that even the Justice Committee has not bowed over. Judicial experts say that your proposals look like nothing and that they lead to class justice. You should be ashamed.

Very briefly, Mrs. Van Cauter and then Mr. Van der Maelen again speaks.

Colleague Almaci, even if this amendment would be adopted, it remains the authority of the Prosecutor’s Office to examine the opportunity of the criminal proceedings.

This means that the Prosecutor’s Office will formulate its claim taking into account – I have said that later – relevant factors such as the nature of the facts, the person of the accused, the victim’s interests, the size of the damage, whether the damage has been reimbursed and the social context.

Therefore, when it comes to large fraudulent circuits with the intention of getting rich and where no economic activity or employment is opposed – I think of Think Media and the attitude of the Prosecutor’s Office in that case – it is meant to protect workers on the condition that the damage is regulated with the government and the fine, interests and taxes are paid and the claim is formulated in a fully integrated context in an autonomous, independent way.

You know very well that when it comes to large, fraudulent tax fraud, mechanisms abroad, cash companies – we received an explanation on this in the Committee on Tax Fraud – the criminal action will not be a simple fine, but it will look very different if you want to predict the population. You say that any file regarding tax fraud will be purchased on condition of payment of a small sum of money. However, this is not correct. The opposite is true. It would testify to intellectual honesty if you would want to admit it.

Mr Verherstraeten, did you want to intervene?

The [...]

I would like to give the word to Mr. by Van der Maelen.

I would like to thank colleague Almaci for her answers to the two liberal colleagues. Since I can’t improve them, I won’t go into it. One thing I would like to miss, namely that in the parliamentary investigation committee, which examined, among other things, the long duration of the processes, the solution of una via was pushed forward. This means that at a much earlier stage it will be decided whether a file will be handled administratively or judicially. In addition, only large, important, weighty and principled cases would be handled by the courts. That is the answer we have given to the problem of the long duration of the processes.

In the recommendation there has been confusion, probably deliberately caused by the Vld. This is because it has been agreed to create a framework for amicable settlement at the administrative level. Therefore, there were too many differences. What you are doing is abdicating and legalizing fraud. According to Karel van Cauwenberghe, chairman of the Belgian Association of Investigative Judges, only suspects with rich-filled bags will be able to buy their trial. What will the Constitutional Court say about this? There may be a sparkle of hope.

Friends of the world, what you do is nothing to be proud of. You keep the door of bank secrecy closed, and whoever is still unlucky to run against the lamp, you give the opportunity to buy himself free. That is the reality of what you stand for. Your position is not recent. You have been telling the same story since 1982. Also then I found such an argument with the Vld, including the mediation committee and the friendly settlement. I do not blame you for not being consistent. I accuse you of preferring the fraudsters over the honest taxpayers.

Mrs. Rutten, Mrs. Van Cauter and Mr. Dewey wants to intervene.

I will ask the question of Mr. Dewael himself: did you then approve the one-time release declaration or not? A simple question.

I approved them.

decided and approved. thank you .

Have you recently proposed this again, colleague Van Cauter and colleagues of the MR? We have said that a donkey does not stumble on the same stone twice. Once, but never a second time.

So you are an ass? Those are your words. Our point is: it is the same philosophy that prevails today.

I think this is quite essential. We discussed this in the government for a long time. Your party was still part of a majority. I understand, of course, that it gives you some liberation, a good feeling, to now be able to speak freely according to your own ideology, but you have worked in a federal government all those years.

The one-time release declaration was a very difficult discussion. I still remember hours of conversations and discussions about it, but eventually a government supported by you approved a one-time construction that gave certain capitals the opportunity to return to our country, subject to payment of and so on. Now you imagine it as if it was all pulled out of the pot, but the friendly settlement that you are now so fighting against, of which you find “how is that now possible,” the one-time liberation declaration or la déclaration libératoire unique, which you have approved, but now you come here hanging out the moral knight. You conclude and say that an ass hits the same stone only once. You can make the deduction yourself. That’s been four years ago, colleague Van der Maelen, and you’ve approved it all here.

We are now discussing the abolition of banking secrecy. I note that in March 2009 your group agreed to a provision that would not contain any reference to tax evasion. I assume that today you are defending something different with your hand and tooth.

It is interesting to look at the proposal of MR and Vld from which you left. What was in it was even worse than the current determination of 318 combined with 322. It was retrograde. There, the other parties of the majority withdrew you, but they didn’t get you over the line that you were going over in 2009, but which you don’t want to go over now.

I note that you emphasize the fact that there must be a reference to tax evasion, that is to say that the door of the abolition of banking secret remains closed.

But that is not yet enough for you. You have, probably in the cow trade that you have driven in the majority, still forced the friendly settlement to come on top of that. I would be ashamed if I were one of you. I repeat it: you prefer the interests of the fraudster over those of the honest taxpayer.

Now I propose that I come to my last two points to finish my story.

I now come to the technical and legal issues.

Colleagues, I have already said: it has been taken out with the iron and we will bear the consequences of it.

A first-year student in law receives in his course interpretation of law one rule, the first and most important: the intent of the legislator is derived from the legal text itself, provided that it is clear. All the rest is side matter.

I am referring to the new article 322. The reference to tax evasion is indisputable. This cannot be discussed.

However, the majority now wants to make us believe, by adding a positive and a negative list of examples in the explanation, that we have achieved an easing or an abolition – some dare even claim it is an abolition – of bank secrecy.

That text has caused the champagne crows to blow at the Copies and others, because that text is the guarantee for the ladies and gentlemen of those expensive tax offices that they can afford procedural struggles and other interpretation struggles for years. With that text, you push a maximum of one or two millimeters, one or two ants steps, towards what exists in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain.

Therefore, I have a question for the insiders. Please include the text. The third member has a primo and a second. We have already discussed this in the committee. The question is whether that prime and that second are cumulative conditions for the abolition of bank secrecy, or whether only the first or the second condition is sufficient.

I would like to get an answer later on.

Did you give the answer in the committee? I know your answer. I will not repeat it, in order to win time.

Then I have a next question to you. I have read the text by many better lawyers than myself. Their conclusion is that the primo refers to the situation where an investigation under Article 316 has been conducted – in the primo, by the way, there is also an explicit reference to Article 316 – and that the secundo refers to an investigation under Article 341, based on signs and indications. The second paragraph refers to Article 341.

Colleagues, if the Copies and others are listening, or if the administration is listening, they can argue anything based on that silly text. One may argue that the two conditions must be met. Another may argue that only one of the two conditions must be fulfilled. Another may argue that the primary is an investigation on the basis of Article 316 and the secondary is an investigation on the basis of Article 341. What kind of legal knotwork is that? What a boulevard opens you to new procedural battles and discussions. You should be ashamed!

Colleague Van der Maelen, I would like to point out that we have submitted an amendment and that our majority parties did not agree at all. We shared the same opinion as you. We also interpreted it as a “or”. The majority then decided to reject our amendment.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are beginning to convince me that it is a very liberal legislation. You are beginning to convince me of this, but I just don’t understand that you are giving open cloth after open cloth to the Open Vld. I don’t understand why you don’t address the colleagues of the PS. These are your spiritual companions. They should have opposed it. You are constantly shooting arrows at the Open Vld. I think you should turn your head to the left. The MPs had to keep the balance. I don’t understand that you aim your arrows all the time on the Open Vld and give one after the other open clothes to the Open Vld for their struggle for liberalization. I await with great impatience the moment when you will direct your arrows on your fellow spirits, who have taken care of this legislation, which you have now here for half an hour to equate with the ground.

Mr. Speaker, can I conclude from the presentations of the two N-VA’s that this is a call on their part to form a front across the language boundary with the colleagues of PS? In this case, we want to support them both. Obviously, they both can use some weight.

Colleague Jambon, you were there that conscious Wednesday night too. We know how it went. To put it easy, some argue that right-left contradictions no longer exist, but it was a clear right-left contradiction.

It is that party, ⁇ on request of I don’t know who, who has made the compromise slope to the right. That party undertook that Open Vld had to surrender, but ⁇ ined the reference to the tax evasion and obtained, in addition, the legalization of the fraud through the amicable settlement.

That is the truth. This is how things go together.

Mr. President, what Mr. Van der Maelen says is correct. I feel personally addressed because it is about my party.

It is true what he says and it gives a very comfortable feeling when one really lies in the middle of the bed and can choose whether one goes to the left or right. I will discuss this later.

A last point. I want some clarification from the authors. That is not you, Mr. Secretary of State, formally they are the others, but if you draw this to you now, I want clarification from you.

I suggest that our colleagues from the Green Group listen carefully. I have here an article from Netto, with a photo of the Secretary of State. I read it carefully and then read the text of Article 323 again.

Colleagues, I was convinced that that list would be with the National Bank, which would be on it that Dirk Van der Maelen has a bank account with banks A, B and C and that the inspector could consult it and then go to the banks themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, read this article. Look what is stated here. Mr. Degrève, your chief of cabinet, you are well-known as I assume... Colleagues of the Greens, for you this was the reason not to vote against but to refrain from you, because the list was taken in. What is there? Ultimately, the tax inspector will be able to rely on a central file within the National Bank. When the bank secrecy is lifted, the National Bank itself will request the information from the relevant banks. There is therefore no list with the National Bank, the National Bank is just a point of contact and will, if there is a question, request the information from the different banks.

I would like to give the colleagues of the majority the strong advice not to leave that central point of contact to the King to arrange it. I would propose to arrange this in consultation with KB in the Council of Ministers, if I were you. You will be rolled. For those who crawl victory because there is a list, you will be rolled or you depend on the good faith of him or her who will be Minister of Finance. If, in the tradition of our Minister of Finance, he wants to be very close to the banking sector, then you have the flag. There will be no list.

Mr. Van der Maelen, we can regularly agree, and, I will develop it recently, we are ⁇ pleased to see this central file of bank accounts appear, for the first time. Let me, in terms of norm hierarchy, consider the text of the law superior to an article in Netto. I am not naive either. Indeed, it is not because it is stated in the law – which satisfies us – that everything is won.

As you say, then there will be a political will and real work from the current Minister of Finance or his Secretary of State who, in the last ten years, have not shown much willingness to move forward in this matter. Repentance is also good. You can count on our commitment – but we will be able to do it in two – to pursue them of our questions and to verify that the generous and interesting arrangements that appear for the first time in the law are followed by effects. And this, if this law is passed, that will not happen through our voice, because we will abstain.

That’s important, but what you say isn’t quite right because the law is a bit clearer, as it is formulated by majority amendment. I must be intellectually correct and say it more explicitly than the way you raise it.

I apologize, but I give you the advice to read the bill again with what the head of the cabinet of the Secretary of State has stated in Netto in your mind. You will see that what the cabinet chief claims can be incorporated into this law. In addition, you will find that the functioning of the point of contact will be regulated by a royal decree.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are just making a misinterpretation of this press article. The law clearly and clearly stipulates, in both French and Dutch, that a register of bank accounts with the name of the holder of this bank account will be organized at the National Bank.

and organized? This is not a list.

Yes, it will happen. We have already been in contact with the banking sector last week. We are working on this royal decision. What my cabinet chief says is that when a tax inspector wants to have more information within the framework of surveys that will be possible by this law, through the contact point, namely the National Bank, it will ask the information from the banks. That is what will happen.

You see it, if there is a list of all that information, then the National Bank should not go asking the banks, which is one. Secondly, once the bank secret has been lifted, because it must first be lifted, why can the tax administration not then directly ...

Are you afraid of the National Bank?

Do you know what I am afraid of? of what I also know. I know that Febelfin wants to keep the instruments in hand. I know that.

The register will be with the NBB and not with Febelfin.

The way you wrote it here and the way your cabinet chief says he’s going to do it, it can. It says that it is not the inspector who goes to the bank. It will be the National Bank that will request this information.

What my cabinet chief has said is in full accordance with the law that will be voted on tomorrow.

That is right. Now you say what I am telling, namely that what your cabinet chief says can be incorporated into the law and that those who approved it were convinced that there was a list at the National Bank and that the inspector at the NBB could get all the information, without the National Bank having to ask the private banks again, and then had the freedom to conduct the investigation. I tell you that the text as it is now does not guarantee that it will happen.

I think it was intended to prevent that, once bank secrecy was lifted, the tax inspection would have to call all banks to ask all those banks where those accounts are located. It was intended to prevent anyone about whom information is requested from about 200 banks in Belgium, de facto being on a sort of blacklist, or that there is a sort of alarm bells at every bank when one mentions that name there, because it was once asked for information.

The text is very clear. It states: “Every bank, exchange, credit and savings institution is obliged to disclose information to the central contact point at the National Bank, namely: the identity of the clients and the numbers of the accounts.”

What will happen? A district director authorizes the administration to request that information. The administration goes to the National Bank and asks which bank Mr. Terwingen or Mr. Van der Maelen has accounts. Then concrete information can be requested from the institution concerned, to prevent 200 institutions from being alarmed by such a request. That would be a kind of phishing. The intention is to prevent this. This is how I always understood it.

I think others along with me had understood that once the tax officer had the information that was with the National Bank, he was allowed to work with it. But no, the tax should stay at a distance. The National Bank must obtain this information from private banks. I can tell you that this is something Febelfin will be very pleased with. I know the tradition of the Cabinets of Finance Ministers, and going against the banking sector is something they don’t like to do.

I come to my last point. For me, it is actually the most important thing. This text, the compromise that presents, is bad for the honest taxpayer.

We are leaving Belgium – including because of the existence of banking secrecy but there are also other reasons – from a very poor position. Recent research by the ULB shows that regardless of the method used to measure the scale of the fraud – there are two or three used – Belgium is in the top group of fraudsters. The difference with our neighbors is up to 30%. To put it simply: we have a much more black economy than our neighbors, whatever method is used to measure it.

Black economy is only possible and will only last if something is missing. What is missing in Belgium? In Belgium, the effectiveness of enforcement instruments is lacking.

That is the Ministry of Finance, that is the BBI, that is also the court. That is missing.

If one looks at the Ministry of Finance how much the administrative costs amount to collect 100 euros of taxes, then we are top. There may also be several reasons, but one of the reasons is that the fraudsters in Belgium are so difficult to catch. Per ⁇ because they are very skilled, but also because instruments, such as being able to easily lift the banking secret in Belgium, are not present.

It is not a coincidence – I can give you the numbers – that in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain the black economy is so much lower. They probably have a better Ministry of Finance. That’s not difficult: after 12 years of Reynders, it’s a mess with us. But tools such as the possibility of lifting the banking secret, they have. We keep the door closed in Belgium and this at some point – I already have numbers about it – that whoever sits in the next government will have the task to close a budget gap.

Colleagues, the political conclusion is that by this proposal the fraudsters will continue to have free play and the fair taxpayer will have to call for the closure of the hole we are in. So my last question to all those who are going to approve this is why do you prefer the interests of the fraudster over those of the honest taxpayer? I have heard the minister say, we will see. I take that challenge. We are fortunate that one of the few good provisions of the law is the annual report. We will follow this annual report carefully and we will see who is right: you or me. I fear I am right.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have never really appreciated the laws containing various provisions, whether they come from the banks of the majority or those of the opposition. Every party in the government takes these same provisions. Every time it is the same system. I feel like in a very short time, every article is discussed. Each article deserves the title of a proposal or bill and its discussion.

However, there are exceptions to the rule. This time, thanks to this law with various provisions – and we did not expect it at first – we were able to set up a tool that will be effective in combating tax fraud.

This time, it is a large law with various provisions in which I would have wished and colleague Gilkinet will probably agree with me, see some articles extending the VAT rates of 6%, especially for isolation. We realize that through all the events caused by nature, these last days, more than ever, all this is indispensable in a country that wants to be at the forefront and that wants to be managed in a dynamic way.

The report of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on Major Fraud indicated that bank secrecy as organized in Belgium constitutes a real obstacle to an effective fight against tax fraud.

Following this finding, the commission of inquiry had in its time formulated the recommendation to ease bank secrecy in order to promote the work of the administration in its daily fight against large fraud.

Moreover, in recent times there was increasing pressure on the international level (the G20, the OECD), so that our country would provide itself with legal instruments that would finally allow the exchange of banking information with other states.

These various events required effective intervention from Parliament. This intervention is concrete as I have already said in this bill as amended by the House Finance Committee.

Belgium complies with international standards for the exchange of intelligence and has an effective legal arsenal in the fight against large-scale tax fraud.

The CDH is pleased that a topic such as bank secrecy has been the subject of serious discussions that have resulted in a text that we consider to be balanced and proportionate. Indeed, on the one hand the investigative work of the administration is greatly facilitated by the lifting of bank secrecy in the event of an indication of fraud on the part of the taxpayer and, on the other hand, the rights of the latter are strengthened and this, through tags that will avoid abuse and misappropriation on the part of the administration.

Furthermore, the text of the amended draft finally provides for an extension of the transaction regime offered to the prosecutor’s magistrate to criminal offences. Such an extension has long been requested by the CDH, which is pleased to see another point of its programme accomplished. This type of transaction will enable, in fact, to reconcile tax justice and legal effectiveness by avoiding witnessing what we have recently known, endless trials, the sometimes tragic epilogue for the Public Treasury, as evidenced by the case KB Lux.

The lifting of bank secrecy in case of fraud index is therefore a decisive step in implementing the recommendations of the Investigative Commission on large-scale tax fraud. It demonstrates, if necessary, the willingness of this Parliament to lead to politically delicate cases, a will fueled by the deep conviction that the principle of equality of citizens and companies before the tax law must be protected by the legislator, at the risk of multiplying harmful behaviors for the community and for the competitiveness of our companies.

This is why our group, the CDH, will continue to be involved constructively and intensely in the implementation of other major cases of fighting tax fraud that will be addressed in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, if I speak today at this tribune in the context of the discussion of the bill containing various provisions, it all has to do with the way in which this bill has been abused by the political parties of the outgoing majority.

I explicitly use the word “abused” because the outgoing majority of room blue and PS abused the status of high urgency to introduce an important issue such as the abolition of bank secrecy and the introduction of the amicable settlement, by amendment and as such by pushing the throat of the Finance Committee.

In itself, I think that was a premature intention, especially because the subject of banking secrecy was heavily discussed in the Committee on Finance. Indeed, the trick of the amendment offered the advantage that no deadlines were to be respected and that no advice from the State Council was also needed.

I heard this morning that the colleagues of the Senate have already begun to discuss the bill containing various provisions. To their great surprise this also came in the Committee on Finance and they asked the same question as we asked regarding the part of friendly settlement. They rightly wondered what that was going to do in the Senate Committee on Finance.

Therefore, it was not just a little sensible manoeuvre. In addition, the amendments of the outgoing majority were the result of a cow trade on the abolition of bank secrecy at the request of PS and the introduction of a friendly settlement for tax offenders, mainly at the request of Open Vld. Who would have expected otherwise?

Considering the goalkeeper, this is also seen in the contents of the texts of the Finance section that currently prevails, with the arrangement surrounding the abolition of bank secrecy and the introduction of a friendly settlement for tax evaders.

I am convinced that these amendments are not legally fulfilled nor that the legal consequences of those amendments have been sufficiently considered. The previous speakers have also demonstrated with various examples that there are probably some legal angels in the texts. This is also demonstrated by the fact that a number of amendments submitted by N-VA were adopted in order to refine things at the last moment.

All political parties agree that the tax authorities should be able to act more vigorously to combat tax fraud. It is sufficient to face the precarious budgetary situation to determine that there will still be a considerable amount of income needed to reach a budgetary balance.

After all, an efficient tax system means less fraud, and less fraud means that the modal taxpayer – often that the wage and bettors, the people whose all income is known and who pay their taxes correctly – should not charge for the shortage of income for the State. Fraudsters, whether or not with premeditated advice, escape checks, in fact, to this day.

In fact, with the prevailing arrangement of the amicable settlement, tax sinners who have run against the lamp can at any time purchase their process. Speaking of a fair and just fiscal system, to avoid using the word class justice – that word has since fallen – because the honest taxpayer can only be the asshole of it.

The central question is, and remains, how an efficient tax authority can tackle tax fraud in the best possible or most effective way.

In recent years, under pressure from European regulations, the network surrounding the exchange of tax information has become increasingly closed. Increasing international tax cooperation, including through the Savings Directive, has made foreign accounts less attractive, as keeping black, gray or white money hidden from the tax authorities abroad has become virtually impossible.

In addition, as a result of the recent European Directive on Advanced Administrative Tax Cooperation, the Belgian government in ongoing cases had to avoid falling again, and this time for the second time, due to the existing regime surrounding bank secrecy or the continued existence of a bank discretion, on the OECD’s grey list of taxally dubious states. This is the core element why the whole process of these amendments has arisen within the framework of the draft law containing various provisions.

Apparently, this is also sufficient reason to suddenly discontinue the ongoing parliamentary treatment of bank secrecy in the Committee on Finance and the ongoing parliamentary treatment for amicable settlement in the Committee on Justice, let alone that for the part of the amicable settlement in the Committee on Justice hearings with actors of the legislative and judicial power would have taken place.

In fact, the abolition of banking secrecy is politically linked to the ability for tax sinners to buy off their sins. The Belgian political custom was thus switched to the tradition of back-room politics, away from parliamentary debate and up to the cabinets of Minister Reynders and Secretary of State Clerfayt, where the outgoing political majority has begun to march as full-time carpet sellers.

The PS initially reacted furiously about a possible link between the abolition of bank secrecy and a friendly settlement, because the PS fears that an arrangement regarding the friendly settlement would encourage tax fraud. Surprisingly, there is a link between the two amendments. I therefore note that the anger of the PS apparently has been of short duration. The reason for this is relatively simple to explain: it is likely that the PS has reached its battle when the tax office gets access to a large database at the National Bank, where – that is called the central register or an electronic contact point – all account numbers with personal data will be available.

In order to allow the tax administration to quickly and smoothly find out the hidden account numbers or to inspect your account, each bank, exchange, credit or savings institution should therefore disclose the identity of its clients and the numbers of their accounts and their contracts, so that a banking survey in individuals becomes a flute of a penny. Big Brother is watching you. Hopefully this will be done with respect for the privacy and integrity of the citizen, because he has the right to a fair tax treatment, but I fear it.

Clap on the firepile is also that the operation of the electronic contact point is shifted to the King and that therefore the entire KB must be drawn up by 1 July and that, dear colleagues, in the status of ongoing affairs. I think a lot of lawyers would have a bargain to fight that.

The liberals’ murmur about the easing of bank secrecy was also apparently short-lived because they naturally received their toys from the friendly settlement. Quid with the state-leading party CD&V, you will ask yourself, colleagues. She, as usual, lay in the middle of the bed, and she has joined the PS and the liberals without any opposing parties – in terms of a real “touching” attitude. For the Socialists, such a central register or electronic point of contact is undoubtedly a first stage in the creation of a kind of asset cadastre and thus a first but important instrument in the creation of a asset tax in the future. I suggest that the outgoing majority declare that as such, but it seems that it does not have the courage to do so. It is my conviction that in this instrument lies the germ of the present compromise.

I would also like to point out, colleagues, that this entire arrangement around bank secrecy and the introduction of the friendly settlement on the Flemish side can count on the support of thirty parliamentarians, including seventeen of the CD&V and thirteen of Open Vld and that on a total of one hundred and fifty. That in itself is a sign, I think.

Regarding the chapter of the amicable settlement, to which colleague Almaci has already referred thereafter, I would nevertheless like to bring the consideration of the investigative judge and also the president of the Belgian Association of investigative judges Karel Van Cauwenberghe to this plenary session. His response was recorded in The Time of March 4th recent days. I quote: “Politicians do not always understand the scope of the decisions they make.” This is how investigative judge Karel Van Cauwenberghe reacts to the law amendment approved by the parties of the resigning government-Leterme in the House. Soon, fraudsters, money launderers, thieves and other criminals will be able to redeem their process at any time. As long as no final judgment or judgment has been issued, they may put it on an agreement with the public prosecutor. Whoever pays goes free. I quote further: “Some politicians create the impression that only tax fraudsters can buy their process, but that’s not true. There is clear reference to all misconduct and correctionalized crimes, which is up to five years. It would have been less shocking if it were just small breaches. At any time, the suspects can go to the public prosecutor to conclude a deal, from the first home search to the final stage of the case before the Court of Cassation. If the prosecutor agrees, the criminal proceedings are void.”

The result is extensive. I quote Karel Van Cauwenberghe once again: “No criminal record and a decision that no one can come back to.”

It can be done at any time, even during the trial. Then a settlement based on half research can be made, while new, important elements can emerge. This will also be possible during the process. Where appropriate, the prosecutor may terminate the case he has brought before the court. That is contradictory. It should also improve the speed and efficiency of the judiciary.

Colleagues, what most concerns Mr Van Cauwenberghe is the collapse of the independent judiciary, which is the cornerstone of every rule of law. There is a double jurisprudence, in particular a jurisprudence by judges and a jurisprudence by public prosecutors. Only the prosecutor will decide on the amicable settlement. He must stop the criminal proceedings. In this case, the prosecutor acts as both prosecuting party and judge. He determines all modalities of the settlement that is made. The investigative judge is requested for a non-binding opinion.

The question of Mr Van Cauwenberghe is, therefore, whether there should be any judges at all.

Everything opens the door to arbitrariness, even if the public prosecutor will assess each case based on the nature of the facts and the agreed prosecution policy. Everything is too vague. It is already difficult to draw a line in the policy of the prosecutor’s office.

The journalist then asks him if there is class justice. Mr. Van Cauwenberghe’s answer is: “It is a bizarre way of working. Those who have rich-filled pockets will be able to buy off their process. These are the happy few. But what about the other suspects in the same case, who cannot pay? They are still at risk of conviction and imprisonment. This creates a parallel justice system. I wonder if that regulation will pass the test of the Constitutional Court.”

Finally, in the explanatory note to the legislative amendment, we read as the main argument for the new system that investigations, even in complex fraud cases, take too long and that fraudsters go free when they appear before the court too late.

I once again quote Karel Van Cauwenberghe: “If it takes too long, give us the faster and more efficient working tools. Make us lose less time on procedural strikes, give us better legal experts, and so on. But through this system you won’t create much added value.”

Colleagues, if all that is the result of such art and flight work of the room-blue PS majority, it can be called a difficult and serious legal parliamentary work. We already knew that this country was known for its surrealist tradition in painting. It is and remains the land of Magritte. The current legislative changes are no longer surrealism. They are just careless work.

You will understand that the Flemish Interest group cannot agree with this. We will not approve the present legislative amendments, the present various provisions.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I thank you for being so many for this important text. I am not talking about the bill containing various provisions, this law is all-out, about which I could intervene by addressing other articles, quickly debated in the Finance Committee. These articles see the transposition into Belgian law of certain European directives that pose a problem to us in relation to the inability they create for the Belgian tax authority to have real control over certain international financial transactions.

This is a dangerous and ⁇ also expensive path. I think of the article voted on RDT (definitely taxed income), which is why we opposed these few articles, even though, in this case, it was about implementing European directives. But they are not always positive, Mr. Secretary of State!

Obviously, like my colleagues, you will allow me to devote my attention and my intervention to the articles of this bill containing various provisions concerning the lifting of bank secrecy. Indeed, the amendment to this bill is the path courageously taken by the majority in ordinary affairs to finally advance on this important topic, which deserved better than a sandwich-taking between two articles of a law containing different provisions. It has been interesting that this majority, that this parliament has the courage to adopt as such a bill on this important subject and that is part of the continuity of the work it has undertaken and of the options it has democratically chosen, in particular within the framework of the Commission of Inquiry on Major Tax Fraud.

I would like, first of all, before coming to the bottom of the text and commenting on some interventions of my colleagues on the subject, to return to the process that led us to the vote, tomorrow, of an article that would allow to start lifting the banking secret in Belgium.

First of all, there was this proposal for a resolution submitted by Ecolo-Groen!, the PS and the sp.a, aiming at the establishment of a commission of inquiry on large-scale tax fraud; it was submitted at the very beginning of the 2007-2010 legislature and was supported by our colleagues. There was, then, the work of this commission of inquiry which was not obvious. But it is not less that a beautiful parliamentary work was done with hearings, the drafting of conclusions and recommendations, the drafting of a voluminous report that constitutes, in a way, my road book as part of this work of combating tax fraud.

The approximately unanimous adoption, on 7 May 2009, of this report and its 108 recommendations was useful in the context of this fight against tax fraud which – it must be noted – is not the strong point of Belgium. Is it a fatality? Is this the result of a lack of political will? I see, in any case, that we have the same Minister of Finance for ten years and I do not think that most of his political action and will have been devoted to effectively fighting this fraud. Every day, there are clues on this subject that make me more critical about this subject.

(Intervention outside of the micro)

If you take the latest work of the Austrian expert whose name I have forgotten and which was discussed in your commission, you will find that over the last ten years, the amount of tax evasion has decreased. This is probably the result of Mr. by Reynders!

I leave you to your convictions, Mr. Secretary of State!

This is what your expert says!

I do not always agree with his work. But if you agree with the latter, you must believe what he says. However, his work shows that tax evasion has been decreasing in Belgium in the last ten years. Moreover, this parliament has taken dozens of legal provisions to combat this type of fraud during this period. I can make a list of them, if you wish.

Since you cite experts, even if I do not see who you want to talk to me, I will mention the Monthly Socio-Economic Letter edited by the Central Council of Economy, a federal institution, which itself cites a study of DULBEA, a well-known academic body, which estimates tax fraud in Belgium at 45 billion euros...

I am ready to show you the ridiculous nature of their estimates when you want to!

Therefore, you should not invite them to collaborate with your administration!

Mr. Secretary of State, please let Mr. Speak first. by Gilkinet. Then I will give you the word.

I quote a simple sentence: “The low level of pressure exerted by tax controls on Belgian taxpayers (it is also the consequence of the absence of replacement of certain workers) plays a non-negligible role in explaining the high rate of tax fraud in Belgium compared to other European countries.”

I return to the process: the proposal for an investigation committee, the establishment of an investigation committee, the vote in this Parliament of recommendations. As a young parliamentary, this is an interesting way to work. And then, different groups have chosen, depending on their priorities, to submit proposals aimed at translating some of these recommendations into laws. For us, I don’t hide it, the abolition of bank secrecy was a priority. We acted very quickly; it was in October 2009. The text was submitted to the State Council’s opinion, which found that it was balanced between the principle – important, indeed – of respect for private life and that of fair tax collection in so far as it serves the redistribution of wealth and the organization of collective functions.

I will emphasize the originality of our text, and Mr. Van der Maelen referred to it, which consisted in setting up a centralized file of bank accounts, which I think is an important tool.

Then there were those early elections that we did not want. Fortunately, gradually, the resumption of parliamentary work took place and the Finance Committee, under the auspices of its new president, had the will to move forward in its work, trying to maintain a certain continuity.

The last element of the device is the organization of various hearings. I’m not going to rewrite history, but I think it’s important to show how minds can evolve. I will not extend to the services of certain tax lawyers with whom you ⁇ like to collaborate, which is not my case.

The [...]

Not all are recommended!

Mr. Secretary of State, I would rather highlight the hearings of representatives of the OECD and the European Union, which showed that the fight against tax fraud was part of an international context which some of my colleagues have recalled. In particular, the OECD representative gave us concrete explanations, which may have liberated some minds from the functioning of the Ficoba file in France. This is somewhat the model that inspired us: the automatic transmission of data relating to the bank accounts of French citizens to the tax administration. It works very well under certain conditions.

Trade union representatives recalled one thing that we think is important: tax evasion strikes public finances and prevents states from functioning. They suggested organizing the central file on the model of the credit central. I think it was an interesting idea, which made its way.

There was also the opening of the representative of Febelfin at the same meeting. He wasn’t very enthusiastic about lifting banking secrecy, but that’s his job. However, he made a half opening in which one could sink.

The minds have evolved. The texts submitted by the various colleagues explored different ways to ⁇ a lifting of bank secrecy. You can doubt it by reading some texts, but everyone has the freedom to express himself.

For our part, we have always considered that Canada Dry devices should be avoided, that is, something that would look like a lifting of bank secrecy but that would not really be one. We considered that we needed an efficient, transparent, functional system. We believe that it is necessary to facilitate the control of the tax services. As I told you, this sense of impunity can encourage fraud. We believe that this should be organized within a clear and functional legal framework, because it is also not about doing anything with respect to taxpayers. As I said, the lifting of bank secrecy must be accompanied by the establishment of a central file of accounts, consultable by the tax administration, to know the coordinates of accounts or search for information.

I will make a small parenthesis on the Ficoba mechanism that I talked about and studied a little. On the one hand, it was put in place at a time when French banks were in a situation of requesting support from the state, as our banks did not so long ago, during the financial crisis. In this situation, the State has taken advantage of the opportunity, in a donor-donor logic, of this request to make progress. It goes much further than the central file that may be instituted today, since Ficoba also contains data relating to the assets of taxpayers and is accompanied by a strict mechanism of sanctions for French tax administration agents who would misuse the faculty that is given to them to question this Ficoba database.

The model is interesting and I come to the bottom: it is found little or enough in the final text. I confess, Mr. Terwingen, that I was positively surprised to see the majority’s proposal for consensus in current affairs, positively surprised to find in the text deposited by the majority the idea of this central file of accounts. In order to enable the tax administration to perform its work correctly, it is important to facilitate its task, not to force it as today to question all banking institutions, which can also pose problems with taxpayers, thanks to a central point where this data is stored, factual data. Example: “Mr. Gilkinet has a current account and a deposit book (in a bank that I will not mention): this is where you can look if you have any doubts about this taxpayer."

I am not too naive, Mr. Van der Maelen. It is not because there is a text of law that things will automatically happen correctly and effectively. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance will translate, in correct terms, through an efficient royal decree, this provision, this legislative will to have this central file. If this is not the case, you can count on me to call them on a regular basis.

It seems to us, in any case, that it is necessary to ensure that the tax administration has a quick and easy access to these data and also to prevent it from being launched on false tracks by taxpayers who would declare an account in one bank and not in the other bank. We also find it useful for you to be careful in the context of the decisions to be taken, in case of lifting of bank secrecy, that the accounts, for which the suspected person is only a representative, can also be consulted by the tax authority.

I will now come to the triggering mechanisms of banking investigation. This is a reservation that we make to the majority text. In the session, we had introduced two amendments, one main amendment, which wanted to make more explicit and wider the criterion according to which this investigation could be initiated in the bank. We would have actually wanted this Parliament to adopt a text stipulating the trigger elements of the investigation, which allows the administration to suspect a taxpayer of having violated one or more articles of the Tax Code. Unfortunately, this amendment, which we have proposed to our colleagues, could not be supported. I regret that, because we should be able to have an explicit and broad definition to avoid endless legal recourse.

The path chosen by the majority is different, referring to commentary articles. Unfortunately you refused us – through our second amendment – to make the law more explicit. It is important to remember these signs. Mr. Terwingen, I will quote them to you in my most beautiful Dutch. This may allow us to build the jurisprudence we hope for.

An example is the following: holding a bank account abroad without the taxable person having stated that in his declaration.

There can still be found between factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in factured accounts; not in the accounting accounts; not in the accounting accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts accounts; not in the accounts.

This is a list that is not limiting, exhaustive but remains evolving. We would have liked to see it appear in the text of the law, which would have spared me this reading. I hope my Dutch was correct, best Nederlandstalige colleagues!

It seems to me important that all these examples are included in parliamentary documents in order, I hope, to build a jurisprudence that will allow for better tax efficiency, with the abolition of bank secrecy.

The third substantive element I wanted to go back to is the question of the friendly transaction.

In a logic of dishonorable trading, the majority wished to add to the positive principle of the abolition of bank secrecy that, in my opinion, less positive, of the amicable agreement. This means that at any time, the taxpayer guilty of fraud will now be able to negotiate with the state a financial transaction that would extinguish any control or judicial action.

In my opinion, Mr. Secretary of State, this way of doing risks creating a sense of impunity even greater than it is now. In fact, an escape, an exit door, a rescue vest, a parachute will always exist beyond the already existing and too generous mechanisms of permanent fiscal regularization.

The second risk arising from the principle of amicable transaction is that of class justice. Those who have the means will always be able to find an arrangement; as for the others, so bad for them!

Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, in these DLU, in these systems of permanent regularization, in this principle of amicable transaction or in the DLU bis that you seem to prepare for tomorrow, there remains an aspect of immorality that undermines, in my opinion, the legitimacy of the tax as a mandatory contribution to collective functions, to the functioning of the state, to the redistribution or to the orientation of certain behaviors.

I confess to understand the fury of my colleague Van der Maelen against his colleagues of the PS. I share this feeling of injustice.

He was pudding. He did not say it, but he thought it very strongly.

They don’t seem to argue too much anyway.

The encephalogram of your relationships is flat, it’s even worse!

It is not so kind!

This is not very correct. Why would my encephalogram be flat?

I’m not talking about your encephalogram, but about your relationships!

Okay, but you have to be correct.

It doesn’t even make you react anymore.

I think it is better to continue, otherwise we will have an encephalogram problem and the tension will go up!

So here are three substantive elements that I wanted to return to: the central file, the triggering of the banking investigation, and the amicable agreement.

As you will have understood, there are elements in this text that delight us: the fact that we are finally moving forward with the implementation of a first recommendation of the commission of inquiry, a first breach, the central file that we were, at the beginning, the only ones to propose. It would be better if consensus could be reached.

There are also issues that question us. What will be the concrete implementation of this beautiful tool? We count on you, Mr. Secretary of State. Are the conditions for opening the banking inquiry effective, practical? Will they really change things? We will pay attention to it.

And then, there are elements that we denounce, including this merchandise and the principle of amicable transaction. Therefore, our satisfaction is not total, and I think the road is still long. The fight against tax fraud, the fight against tax havens that still impoverish the poorest countries, the struggle – more positively said – for fiscal harmonization at European level, the abolition of ineffective and unfair tax mechanisms such as notional interests – all this must be a goal that must contribute to more social justice, better distribution of wealth and more balanced development.

We still have a bunch of proposals that are implementations of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, but also other things such as the creation of a register of savings insurance contracts to combat the development of tax evasion to Luxembourg or other insurance institutions, or the correction of the permanent tax regularization system to compel citizens who regularize to prove the real origin of the regularized money – it could be work income that has not been taxed at the base.

We need to evaluate the functioning of the Early Decisions Service, which we also consider an urgent need. It is necessary to give the Justice real means to result in ongoing lawsuits on tax fraud (KB Lux, QFIE or other liquidity companies). Banks that have been aided by the state must be prevented from investing in tax havens.

Tomorrow we will take a step, a small step. But we intend to devote all our energy to be able, tomorrow, to take much larger and more decisive steps than this last.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, when we talk about bank secrecy and friendly settlement, the first criticism is the way these important laws have come into being.

It will not be forgotten by the members of the committee that I was ⁇ upset at the fact that, just at the time that the two debates in Parliament are ongoing, both the debate on bank secrecy and the debate on the amicable settlement, the government is using the bump in ongoing matters and through members of Parliament of the corresponding parties who want to implement two laws as an amendment to the law containing various provisions.

Twenty-seven pages are submitted to that committee. One has an hour to look at them, after which everything with the carwats is hunted by the commission. This is a terribly foolish parliamentary practice that is ⁇ not susceptible to repetition.

What I especially noticed here is that this is again working with two sizes and two weights. If I have been properly informed, Ms. Van der Auwera, in her capacity as chairman of the committee for business, has considered that an amendment of the sp.a. group on the price adjustments in energy was a too important adjustment to be implemented through the law containing various provisions. I think Mrs. Van der Auwera was 100% right in that, and I praise her for that.

This is an example of two sizes and two weights, Mr. Tobback.

However, two laws of much larger envergure, in respect of which the parliamentary procedure is in progress, can be submitted as an amendment in the other committee by the colleagues of the CD&V. Where is the linearity?

Of course, we all know why this should happen. In this way, in fact, the procedure was shortened, it was ⁇ not necessary to engage in the confrontation with the Council of State and it was possible to push it through the throat of the Parliament.

That it is a crack-like law, was shown in that same committee meeting already when a number of our amendments, which specifically referred to the crack-like nature of that law, led to nervousness. I hope that we will not experience such practices too often in this house. Such insensitivity is better left out here.

Second, we have concluded an interesting period in this Parliament. There was a government active in ongoing affairs while Parliament could be the parliament. A member of Parliament who drafted a bill could talk to the various groups and try to find a majority separate from firm majorities in government and opposition. The MP could try to do legislative work on the merits of the bill. That period is closed. It has successfully succeeded several times. The law on family reunification has come through this. The N-VA was in the camp that approved the law. The law on the quota was also approved, although we did not belong to the winning camp at the time. Parliament played the role of parliament and did what was expected of it. That period is closed. The PS has not been able to grasp the fact that the law on family reunification has passed through Parliament in this way and has called all the cats on the deck. The PS is the main factor of the government in ongoing affairs. Only the PS faction is almost as large as the Flemish factions combined. Almost almost . The PS has control over the government in ongoing affairs.

The period in which the Parliament can be a parliament is closed. We are back in the logic of majority and opposition. I find that regrettable, especially because the government in ongoing affairs can appeal on the Flemish side to 30 of the 88 seats. That is about 30% of the Flemish opinion, which is represented here. Any law passed through that majority is a law that has no support in Flanders.

I find this important legislation on bank secrecy and friendly settlement at an unprecedented level.

Mr Jambon, you gave the examples yourself: family reunification, the quota, and now this: three times a different majority. I think this is correct.

I would like to ask you the following question. How large was the majority on the French-speaking side in the proposal on family reunification? The comment you make to the present proposal, in which you say that there is a too small Flemish majority, I did not hear you when the proposal on family reunification was approved with only and only the support of the MR. I think you match with two sizes and two weights.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Jambon’s intervention is an important political intervention, ⁇ the only important of today. I would like to emphasize that.

What he does here is to pretend that there has been a period in which the Government of Current Affairs, with the approval of the N-VA, did what it had to do, for in the meantime other affairs, besides that Government of Current Affairs, could operate in varying majorities. Our colleague of Open Vld is also involved in this. But that is simply not true. They acted as if that was the case. During the negotiations, which are blocked, people have pretended that politics could be done here in Parliament, but that is not the case. You can make this appearance and pretend that laws will come.

Mr. Jambon, the examples you cite, by the way, are not yet laws. If they become law, I will believe it, but otherwise not. Afterwards, they must be implemented by a government that may be unwilling to confront them. Take the example of the PS.

So you should not pretend that something sad has happened. That situation has always been so.

The following is being done. This majority is slowly beginning to call itself the majority. This happens in all sorts of occasions in the Conference of Presidents, and in documents and amendments we now see the word “majority” emerge. The majority begins to feel welcoming in a situation where the N-VA continues to legitimize Parliament as a normal parliament, because you cannot do otherwise.

Mr Jambon, you have not joined the federal government with the N-VA. You have not been able to do that, or you have kept your leg stiff, you don’t want it or you can’t. That is respectable. In the meantime, however, do not pretend that this Parliament is a normal parliament. It is not a normal parliament. We are dealing with small details, a kind of occupation therapy. For the public opinion, Parliament must pretend that an immigration policy will come into being because half a percentage of family reunification and so on is blown out. All this is not the case. As long as there is no full-fledged government, this is not a full-fledged parliament, and it will never come out of it. We must not create the illusion that it has ever been so.

Mr. Jambon, if you now say that it is no longer, then I agree with you. However, it has never been.

I will officially announce it again, and not only in the Coene case. If here in laws it is stated that Parliament gives power to the King, then we all know that this is unconstitutional.

If the government in ongoing affairs would perform that in KBs, it is unconstitutional. This is recognized by all legal doctrines.

I can immediately have the KB destroyed if the government in ongoing affairs, even a KB that we would allow here by law, publish in the Belgian Staatsblad.

We cannot say in any way that this is a normal country. You will agree with me on this. It is not that there is still such a thing as a parliament that, with a government of ongoing affairs, can normally fulfill its legislative task. Forget that illusion. Here either comes a normal government, or it must stop here.

Mr. Annemans, I am surprised to see if you say that you find the further tightening of the crane of the inflow of foreigners through the law on family reunification a minority. I hear you say that. This surprises me somewhat.

I did not say that. I have said that what you do about it will not remedy 8% of current family reunification. So one cannot argue that this is a solution to the problem of family reunification.

We will conduct that debate, if you would still like to come to this Parliament, after you have communicated this to the press.

I just want to say that you should not pretend that really important parliamentary work has taken place here in the last few months. That is simply not true.

I think the debate about family reunification is still going on here.

Mrs Rutten, I am a representative of the Flemish community. What is happening in the French-speaking community, what the MR considers to have to do and how Wallonia considers to have to deal with its majority or non-majority, is not my business for now.

I think it is important that those important laws on bank secrecy and the amicable settlement also get a majority on the Flemish side.

We will submit five amendments, three on bank secrecy and two on amicable settlement. Depending on the voting behavior on these amendments, if a number of amendments are approved, N-VA is prepared to offer a majority in order to offer support for those laws in Flanders as well. However, a number of amendments will need to be approved.

These amendments – I say that to the liberal parties, Open Vld and the MR – we have put together in the bill in the discussion we have held to get those laws through Parliament in a good way.

The first amendment concerns the following. Today the law stipulates that one official with at least the degree of director may initiate the procedure for the abolition of bank secrecy. In the amendment we propose to apply the four-eight principle here and thus that at least two officials with the degree of director must agree that the procedure of bank secrecy is initiated.

In the proposal of Open Vld, it was even a whole department within the FOD Finance that had to deal with this. That would have made it very certain that there was no diversity in the country in the application of that legislation. I propose here, in order to deal with CD&V, to apply the four-eye principle here and not to leave this to the arbitrariness of one official.

The second amendment we propose is a very important amendment. We propose to remove in the draft article 322, § 3 the words “and contracts”. There is no specification of what you mean by these contracts. I give a list of what it could be; since it is not specified, one can understand it below. These can be loan contracts. These can be leasing contracts. These can be contracts related to the sight account, up to the savings account. These can be securities accounts. These can be bank accounts. These can include rental guarantee accounts, bank guarantees, coffers rental contracts, credit card contracts, and so on. All this can be registered under that word contracts.

Here you lay the basis for the property tax. All data is present. If we approve this in this form, without the nuance of that word contracts, you lay the basis for the property tax here, Mrs. Rutten, the property tax that we do not want. Then you have to approve the amendment, then we are already out of it.

A third and final amendment that we would like to propose in relation to bank secrecy is to apply Articles 55 and 56 only to investigations of intelligence relating to a period or time from 1 January 2011. Without special arrangements, those Articles 55 and 56 of the draft law shall enter into force from the tenth day following the publication in the Belgian Staatsblad. However, an exchange of bank information would be immediately possible for the past years in so far as the examination periods of the requesting State and of Belgium have not yet expired.

Given that Belgium has made a reservation to Article 26, § 5 of the OECD Model, Articles 55 and 56 of this Bill represent a complete transformation of the policy carried out. Since, until recently, such a reservation was fully accepted internationally, it is appropriate that this provision only applies to requests relating to information relating to a period or time starting in January 2011.

Those are three amendments, three adjustments and three improvements in our opinion, which we would like to apply to the articles on bank secrecy.

As regards the articles on the amicable settlement, we have two amendments. In fact, we would like to make two additions. A first addition is that we wish to see Article 84, sixth part, supplemented with the words: “If in the judgment or judgment mentioned a prison sentence was pronounced, the right granted in § 1 to the Prosecutor of the King expires.” The possibility for the King’s Prosecutor to offer a friendly settlement is limited to cases where only a fine or a fine with confiscation is sought. However, the prosecution’s claim does not bind the judge. The judge may impose a higher sentence than was demanded by the Prosecutor’s Office. He can impose a prison sentence. In those circumstances, the Prosecutor of the King may in practice not use the possibility of amicable settlement. However, this is not strictly prohibited in this design. Our amendment ensures that if a judge has sentenced a prison sentence, no friendly settlement is possible. After all, it is not possible that a fundamentally more severe punishment would be revoked by sentence or judgment by means of a friendly settlement. This would be contrary to the independent judgment of the judge.

The last amendment to the same article. We would like to supplement it with the words: “In no case shall the amount of money, the costs and the goods or asset benefits of which the renunciation or issuance must be made be less than what has already been pronounced in judgment or, where applicable, judgment.” The draft article explicitly permits the amicable settlement to be proposed after the issuing of a judgment or judgment. This possibility is ⁇ ined with this sub-amendment, but the modalities are made slightly stricter. At the time when a judgment or judgment is issued, a lot of time and resources have already been spent on the preliminary investigation and procedure.

The amicable settlement is precisely intended to remedy the length of the criminal proceedings, to allow more time for disputed cases, to enable a faster and more effective collection of funds and to reach a restoration-oriented justice.

In order for the friendly settlement to maximise these effects, it is necessary to use them as early as possible in the procedure. There is no point in letting a suspect first gamble on a favorable judgment, and if that fails, on a favorable friendly settlement during the appeal procedure. Therefore, the possibility of amicable settlement after judgment or judgment remains, but that the amicable settlement may not be less than the amount already imposed by the judge in his judgment or judgment. This encourages the defendant to enter the proceedings as early as possible on a proposal for amicable settlement.

Colleagues from Open Vld and CD&V, I repeat that it is up to us to support such important laws also in Flanders and to ensure that a majority of the Flemish people’s representatives can stand behind such laws. If some of these amendments can be accepted, we are willing to support those laws.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think the debate of the last hours shows that we are taking a number of important steps. I am speaking in particular about the amendments concerning bank secrecy and amicable settlement.

On the friendly settlement, colleague Carina Van Cauter has already said a few things. I will limit myself, as far as possible, to the amendments on bank secrecy.

This is an important dossier. We do not live on an island, Mr. Van der Maelen. We live in a globalized world, so the European and international reality plays a role. When we present an adjustment on this subject today, it is because there is international pressure. It is because the OECD and other international bodies indicate that we can do better. I am really not too upset to admit that. I see that too. We are going in that direction.

We are not the only ones who do this. A week or three ago, a large newspaper headline read “Switzerland adjusts bank secrecy.” If even Switzerland does, we can do it in our country too.

There is the international reality that forces us to make some adjustments, but there is also the work in this hemisphere itself. It has already been referred to the work carried out in the previous legislature in the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on combating the large tax fraud files.

Anyone who says and claims that some amendments are coming out of the air here is taking a walk with the truth. As some colleagues have said, there has been a lot of talk about these files.

I have already pointed out the title of this report. It is about combating large, tax fraud files. It is no coincidence that I emphasize this again. Mr. Van der Maelen wondered why it was possible, why his point of view has not been followed in this file. Because it is intended to tackle tax fraud. Fraud, Mr Van der Maelen!

It has never been the intention of the report of the investigation committee, nor of a majority in this House, that we would give insight and seek the privacy of our citizens. I do not want to remind my colleagues of the SP-A-proposal. This was not about tax fraud, it was about incomes that were not ⁇ or about a total amount owed of the taxes that would be higher. In these two cases, according to sp.a, it should be possible to lift bank secrecy. You know as well as I do that undeclared income does not refer to fraud. There are three types of income: taxable income to be ⁇ , non-taxable income to be ⁇ , and income not to be ⁇ . If you want to abolish bank secrecy for undeclared income, then you actually use legal language to say: we want to give the administration the opportunity to get into people’s bank accounts. I pass for that. If that is an echo of what we said in 1982 then I repeat that echo proudly, even though I was only seven years old then. We take care of that!

Colleague Rutten, the provision in our bill is about a copy of what is applicable in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain. It states: “If the income is higher than stated in the declaration...” So stop imagining it as if what in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain is placed as a condition for the abolition of bank secrecy is an attack on privacy, as if this is a hunt for the taxpayer.

With your faction in the Senate – Rik Daems and co – you want to search into the bedroom and bathroom of benefit providers. This can be done for the liberals. However, doing what exists in the Netherlands, Germany and France in the field of tax fraud goes too far. What my group wants is neither more nor less than what exists in Germany, the Netherlands, France and Britain.

I note that Vld and MR – this is indeed a constant – have never wanted such measures. They continue to be concerned about an attack on privacy. You did that in 1982. We have noticed that in the last five years there have been twenty-eight abolitions of bank secrecy. So stop with your grey-wrapped plate. Who still believes the world in this area?

Mr. President, Mr. Van der Maelen, you say it yourself. This is not about fraud. If you are talking about unreported income, then you are not looking for fraudsters. You just want to give a freelance to get into people’s bank accounts.

I will give a second example. It is true, you actually had another definition: the total amount of tax owed should also be higher. I will make things more tangible and translate. Your definition includes the following. If in a taxally complicated country like ours, you would have made a mistake of deduction post or put in something for which you would have received a tax deduction – frankly, who can still pay for the deduction post? Mr. Van der Maelen, someone must already be an expert in order not to make a mistake – in the proposal of sp.a, a civil servant could get a nose in your bank account.

Again, if you make our point of view a problem, I carry our attitude as an assertion title and I am proud to try to safeguard the privacy of the people concerned.

Second, Mr. Van der Maelen, it is a fraud. Fraud is fraud, in all cases. We are not too disturbed ... No, we are not selective.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rutten, do not apologize for interrupting a very animated debate. However, I want some clarity.

During the debate in the Committee on Finance, we talked about the complicated definition used by the majority in its own amendment. It concerns two issues, in particular evidence of fraud and Article 341. Article 341 states “Indices of Undeclared Income”.

I hear you discuss here with the colleague of sp.a about the sp.a’s description of undeclared income or indices. Would you like to clarify to me to what extent something or not is a semantic discussion in the attempt by either of the two parties to get his equal?

I just heard the CD&V. They made a compromise of a compromise, because their proposal was already a compromise; it took over the description of the colleagues of the sp.a, who, by the way, together with the colleagues of the PS submitted a bill. They are now part of the compromise you are defending, which refers to Article 341, indications of unreported income. I think this is primarily a symbolic debate. Either you must indicate that the description as you have written it is indeed not correct, or you must admit that the description adopted by the colleagues of the sp.a. is indeed correct. It is one of the two. It doesn’t work at the same time, Mrs. Rutten.

I find it admirable that after two hours of debate, mainly between sp.a. and the submitters of these proposals, you try to say that water and fire are actually the same. I think water and fire here sometimes give fireworks, but they are two different things.

The [...]

Mr. Jambon, if that is also dull in the case of N-VA and PS, then we know where it will lead.

You know the answer, Madame Almaci. We have held this debate in the committee. What we had to do was that we would go to a legal description and that we would ensure that it was a scope known in the Income Tax Code. Then we talk about indications of tax evasion and about the article on signs and indications you have quoted, which is known in the Code of Income Tax. If a list is included in the memory of explanation, then it is exactly to indicate that we are looking for fraud and that we are not looking, as in the proposals of sp.a, to go nose in the private life of people. Again, we take care of that.

Mrs. Rutten, you persist in the anger. This does not contribute to your credibility.

You mentioned me consistently. Consistency and credibility are not so far apart for me.

If you know the origin of the sp.a/PS proposal, then you know that, together with the proposal of Ecolo-Groen!, it is the only proposal that has been submitted to the privacy committee and that has received the green light from the privacy committee. Are you going to tell me now that the proposal of the sp.a is an attack on privacy, if the privacy commission has approved it itself?

Absolutely absolutely . I repeat this again.

You are sinking a little deeper in terms of your credibility!

In the examples I have given you concerning tax deductions and unreported income, I have not yet heard you give you any counterarguments.

Mr. Speaker, second point, it is indeed important that both proposals – bank secrecy and amicable settlement – be discussed and approved together today.

I said earlier in a response to colleague Van der Maelen that our proposals are in perfect logical consequences. What we do, as the investigation committee has asked us, is addressing tax fraud. When tackling tax fraud, it is our duty to then ensure that this can be brought to a legal end and that the prosecutors can organize themselves in such a way that they have the people and the resources to do so.

That is what needs to happen. One cannot approve a proposal that says that we will catch the fraudsters and then leave the bottleneck, the strapping, the inefficiency in the court. This is not possible, Mr. Van der Maelen.

You have the thick green book. You can read in it that it is proposal 20 and 21, or 30 and 34 in another numbering. It fits perfectly and logically together. This is in a consequence combined and is also stated in the recommendations of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee. It would decorate you not to do cherry picking here and only read what you like to read.

If we tackle tax fraud, then it is also our duty to ensure that the parks can organize themselves to do so in an efficient way. Today it cannot. Today we have class justice. Today it is those who can pay good fiscalists, who can stretch the procedures, and who can make the thing age, who escape.

Today, six out of ten procedures are not handled. With the proposal that presents, we make this State and its functioning more efficient and that belongs perfectly home in an approach to tax fraud.

The [...]

Third, I come back to the banking secret. This is an important step because here we find a balance between tackling fraud, what is needed – justice is a very important element in a tax system and therefore one must tackle fraud and catch fraudsters – and the privacy sphere.

I will come back here for a moment. You have challenged me and I cannot let it go. What is it about? This is about bank accounts. What can be deduced from bank accounts? All, Mr Van der Maelen. Where to eat – in Frituur ‘t Draakske or at Bruno – to which political party you belong and where you pay membership, to which newspapers you are subscribed.

All this can be inferred from bank accounts. It is a mirror of someone’s life. Just as we in a rule of law don’t just give people the key to our door and tell them to come in, we also find that they don’t just say, “Here are my bank accounts, just scratch them.”

This proposal is a balanced proposal that seeks a balance between, on the one hand, justice and, on the other hand, privacy and the exclusion of arbitrariness.

How does that happen? I said it before: by definition. I do not come back on that. I have indicated that the definition for us is so concise that it is about fraud and not about anything else.

There is also a cascade in the procedure. This is also important to us. For us, the presumption of innocence applies. For us, taxpayers are first and foremost in good faith.

Not all taxpayers and not all Belgians are fraudsters, Mr. Van der Maelen. Maybe that is the difference between you and me. We assume good faith and we therefore offer the opportunity to the taxpayer in question, if there is a question from the inspection, to provide clarity itself.

This cascade is very clear. People themselves are given the opportunity to provide information without having to go anywhere behind their backs.

Even after the cascade has been respected, after one has first gone to the taxpayer, then still there is no automation. However, it is not the inspector in question who can simply look at it. Then there is the next staircase in the cascade and that is the district director.

Mr Jambon, it is correct. In our initial proposals, it was not just a district director. We would have liked to see a committee that would make a judgment and not a person, but the closing way of the definition that focuses on tax fraud is a definition that we have put on the table and that gives us guarantees.

I also add the cascade. We believe that when one applies this cascade one oppose arbitrarily. There are sufficient guarantees to counter arbitrariness. Also the annual reporting, the fact that a list is included in the memory, provides that guarantee.

However, I agree that this is a compromise. Maybe that’s the difference between you and me. At some point, if there is a good proposal on the table, one must be able to make a compromise and that is what we have done here. We think the cascade is sufficient to exclude this arbitrary.

We talked about contracts in the committee. I look at the Secretary of State. It is clearly stated that these are leasing contracts. For all clarity, we are talking about leasing contracts, which has been formulated by the Secretary of State.

Third, the entry into force. I wait until we get the amendments so that we can read them, but you have asked the question so I want to give you a direction of answering.

In connection with the entry into force, my first reaction is as follows. Since it is about fighting fraud and we want to catch fraudsters here, it is best to put a scheme into effect as soon as possible. It cannot be intended that all tax fraudsters can organize themselves in such a way that they would have used international escape routes in seven or eight months, because they know that a new arrangement will not arrive until January of next year.

In conclusion, I think that a significant step is being taken here today, a step that we as a group will defend, because here we find a good balance between a fair tax system on the one hand and the protection, Mr. Van der Maelen, of the private life, which is ⁇ dear to us as liberals, on the other.

Mrs. Rutten, I have understood that we can still exchange opinions on our amendments. There is still some time to vote on it. We are open to that.

Ms. Rutten, you have defended these amendments here with verve and with fire. Your colleague, Mrs Van Cauter, has also done so. You need to explain it to me. At this particular moment, the Senate Committee on Finance and Budget is also discussing these amendments. There, the Vld is asked to organize hearings on the penal provisions in the law section on the amicable settlement.

If that is such a good law, which is fully ready to be approved here and which is waterproof in all areas, then I would like to hear from you, colleagues of the Vld here, why do you ask a few meters further to hold an hearing on that penalty provision in the law section on the amicable settlement?

I have no idea where that rumor comes from and I find it quite free to say it so. You said it yourself in the speech. We were the first to make the link between bank secrecy and friendly settlement by incorporating it into our bill. This was explained and explained by Ms. Van Cauter in the committee a month ago. Furthermore, the proposal of Ms. Van Cauter from the previous legislature has gone to the Council of State, returned and this time largely reassembled.

So I don’t understand where you get that story from and what you want to suggest. I can only say that we are 300% behind that friendly settlement and that it is on our question that both elements are on the table today. You may need to address your questions to someone else or you may need to be well informed before you try to give a stick.

That was the correct answer, but to a different question.

No one here has questioned the link between the friendly settlement and bank secrecy, yet no one from my group. I only wonder why here with so much verve is defended that law which we think there are still holes here and there, while your colleagues in the other assembly ask to hold an hearing on this. That was the content of my question. I have absolutely not questioned the link between the two.

We have already had a very exciting debate. To save time, I will limit my discussion to the amendment to Article 50 in the proposal containing several provisions.

I will remind for a moment what was originally stated in the article that regulated the exchange of bank information from Belgium and other states. I quote: “... to prevent our country from entering the OECD’s grey list of tax havens.” That article was overruled by the sitting majority of elastically ongoing affairs by the amendments nrs 15 to 17, which abolishes bank secrecy with a linked amendment nrs. 18 that arranges the friendly settlement. The amicable settlement has nothing in itself to do with the original Article 50 of the various provisions. This is very important in evaluating what happened.

As a reminder, in 2009 there were the 108 recommendations of the committee on tackling tax fraud that described the description in the current law as problematic, because identifying fraud in the facts means that one actually must already have evidence. Witness to this are the poor statistics quoted by colleague Van der Maelen. That is two years ago.

A year and a half ago, our group and the Socialists submitted a bill for the abolition of bank secrecy by using technical-legal descriptions that were shared by the majority, were handled in the Committee on Tax Fraud, after hearing with legal experts was pushed forward, have proven their usefulness abroad and be simple and clear. In our bill we talked about violations of the code. In the proposal of the Socialists, there were indications of undeclared income. However, it has become the second member of the definition of the majority compromise. In that light, the discussion of the latter is a bit absurd, Mrs. Rutten.

After a year and a half, a green chairman of the Finance Committee turned out to be needed to finally schedule the bills. Fortunately, the climate in Europe was already turning, and the liberals felt that they could no longer go down there. This applies not only to the liberals, but also to the rest of the majority. When it turned out that the discussion was irrevocably scheduled, a proposal from CDH came in December. At the end of January or early February the announcement of the proposal of the liberals came. Two weeks later came the announcement of the proposal of CD&V.

For the current debate and for the way we interact with each other in Parliament, especially in current matters, I find it important to remind you of what happened. In extreme, these proposals were added to the discussion, while the discussions were ongoing, while there had already been hearings and the privacy committee could have taken a stand on only 2 bills. It was about that of us, dear colleagues of the majority, and that of sp.a. Therefore, it was not about what was presented today. Despite all hollow rhetoric, only those two bills have passed the test of privacy. These are the facts.

I learned from Ms. Van Cauter’s argument that the opinion of the court itself is apparently not so important and that the Privacy Commission apparently cannot judge when privacy is compromised or not. I find that a bizarre conclusion that I had to make after today’s debates.

However, the committee has, then, colleagues of the majority...

Mr Almaci, I would like to point out that the College of Prosecutors General, which is competent to carry out the criminal proceedings, has pledged to take a legislative initiative in this regard. That is what we do today.

I would like to point out that some professors, including Professor Maus, who assisted us in the Committee on Tax Fraud, have read my bill. Professor Maus wrote me in an email that it was a very good bill and that the possibility for the parliament to close a punishment would be a good thing. The system, by the way, already exists in tax criminal cases in the customs criminal law, he said. I said that later too. He even pledged to extend the material scope a little further, which we ultimately did, because there was a logical reasoning in the comments he made.

So do not say that we have put the advice of the experts beside us. That is not correct. The person competent to carry out the criminal proceedings is the prosecutor’s office. Only the park. The investigative judge must continue his investigation. If the investigation judge finds that other facts, which have not been the subject of a friendly settlement, need to be further investigated, the investigation judge may do so.

The Court of Cassation is very clear about this: the amicable settlement refers only to the facts that are appropriate and cannot reflect related or other facts that may still be the subject of an investigation for which an investigative judge has been appointed.

Therefore, there is no prejudice to the possibility and powers of the investigative judge. On the other hand, I consider that in this rule of law, the investigative judges should be separated from the area which falls within the competence of the prosecutor’s magistrates, namely criminal action.

Mrs. Van Cauter, I would like to answer a problem that I will submit very extensively later, but you have just said very clearly, and you say that now actually again, that the opinion of the investigative judges, as far as you are concerned, is subordinated to your interpretation of the other experts, who say that a friendly settlement is needed, due to the judicial lag.

I will answer you later, but you know very well that the investigative judges are not set up with the expropriation of their territory, which you are now doing de facto. This is an extraction of their territory. The prosecutor’s office must be able to do certain things and I would like to discuss this with you, but not by cutting the debate in such a flat way and simply introducing the friendly settlement as a discussion, in such a sluggish way, because that has happened.

If you would have held the discussion on the amendment no. 15, without amendment no. At 18, it would have been a very different discussion. However, you did not do that. I will later make very clear why this is a very flawed discussion and why it is very doubtful to include only the friendly settlement in this debate.

It is a political choice not to address all the rest – strengthening the judiciary, strengthening the ways to spot fraud, helping the working magistrates, and all the other mechanisms that still exist today, fiscal and legal. This is an ideological choice. You have made it very clear, with the majority, in what you have done today.

The [...]

The [...]

The way is important, Mr. Dewael. I went to clarify that further, but I was interrupted and I answer the question.

Colleague Almaci, that there is a capacity problem, I agree with you on this. If we look at the flow times in Brussels, for example at the Commercial Court – bankruptcies can be accompanied by fraud files – then we see that in the last three years, only in terms of waiting time, when a case is fully capable and needs to be fixed, it has gone from 4 to 11 months. I fully agree with you that there is a problem of capacity, but by approving this means, the friendly settlement, we do not undermine the capacity that exists today. On the contrary, we ensure that the cases are not drawn unnecessarily longer and are not unnecessarily wasting money, regarding the procedural and investigative acts to be made. I think you used the same words in the Finance Committee.

That is the only intention. We advocate for and for, for sufficient capacity and sufficient magistrates, for the assistance of the investigative judge, not only by a secretary but preferably by a number of experts. I have discussed this issue with the Minister of Justice at one of the recent committee meetings. He promised me that in Brussels a workload measurement would eventually be achieved so that there would be a reinforcement of the magistracy not arbitrarily, but in an objective way. This is also our consideration. So do not say in a dogmatic way that we do not want to provide the necessary capacity.

I will answer briefly, because then I want to join with my text, with what I wanted to say.

The answer to the legal downturn lies in clear and clear definitions in the law. What was done by the majority in the Committee on Finance through amendment no. 15, is choosing a non-transparent and non-clear description of the abolition of bank secrecy. So you choose more procedural layers and you come here to tell me that you are concerned about the legal course of affairs, while you already register the failure in your description.

If then I hear in the debate – I have had a good discussion on this in the committee with colleagues Rutten and Terwingen – that colleague Terwingen must admit that the exhaustive list included in the explanation cannot be a hard law, but rather a source of law – source right – then I tell you, given the history, that this will give rise to more procedural strikes and that you have missed a chance. You do the opposite of what you say you care about. You speak against yourself falsifiably.

Specifically again on this point. Here, within the scope of application, a description that already exists in the Income Tax Code has been chosen. What better legal certainty can one have than legal concepts already existing, already known, already used by fiscalists and the administration, for which there is a circulation letter and of which everyone knows which cases are and do not fall under?

Mrs. Almaci, precisely for the sake of clarity, we have also put this again in the explanation. Such a thing is called being clear and turning back to concepts that already exist.

Do you know what uncertainty would have caused? If we had sucked out of our thumb a legally incorrect understanding, new in the Code of Income Taxation, on which then Jan and Alleman could fall to see what would and would not fall under and proceed on that. That would have been legal uncertainty. Again, please do not put the world on its head here.

When it comes to populism, this is a very good example!

Dear colleague Rutten, thus you say that the description in the bill of CD&V was a bad description. You say that the description in the proposal of the colleagues of the PS was a bad description. You say our description was a bad description. You say that the people who led the tax fraud commission in their description have been wrong and you actually say that you have the only right impact despite the fact that those descriptions already work abroad, are already applied, are clear and that you have chosen two things. Anyone can look at it objectively. The bill of Open Vld was placed next to that of CD&V and the description that is now capable of it is simply to merge the two and put “or” in between. It just happened.

A lot of talk around there cannot hide that this only served to preserve the sweet peace within the majority. Indications of fraud – liberals – or indications of unreported income article 341, colleagues of CD&V: these are the facts. You can say so much here that it has become more clear, but that means that you have been mistaken, that means that CD&V has been mistaken, that means that the PS has been mistaken, that means that the Tax Fraud Commission has been mistaken, that everyone is mistaken here, and that you in extremis, in luttle minutes while the discussion was ongoing in the committee, that you saw the light at that moment, legal experts like you are after all those hearings, after all those conversations, and found the ideal formula and then put a list in the explanation that will not give rise to discussion. That, Mrs. Rutten, is too crazy for words.

For the record, for the record. If you use terms, again, that are already in the Income Tax Code, then you find nothing.

That is what we have done, Mrs. Rutten, in our proposal.

Mrs. Almaci, I apologize, you are opposing yourself. Second, I would not dare to label “good”, “better” or “bad” on proposals from colleagues, because as a Democrat I defend the right of others to make different choices. You can’t hear that type of labels.

What I have said is that a description and a scope of application have now been chosen that are already certain and known in the Code of Income Taxation and that therefore no new category is invented.

We have a very clear description in our bill, Mrs. Rutten: violations of the Code. Much simpler than what you propose, much less cause for discussion. It had embellished you instead of interrupting the debate, discussing the proposals and letting them go.

All the talk afterwards cannot hide that the opposition in extremis allowed the colleagues of the majority to add their bills when they were not even finished – for all clarity: they were not even finished – to the discussion on bank secrecy, which was then ongoing after the hearings, because the opposition wanted to have a constructive debate.

What we have, however, is what is present now!

Colleagues of CD&V, colleagues of the majority, we could not have allowed it. Then, at that time, we could have decided to just let you sit and get up, because already then it was clear how deep the water was between the two parties within the majority.

The CD&V proposal is a compromise proposal that took over the definition of the socialists, along with the procedure and the register of the Greens. You don’t have to believe my word. Again, it is very clear in this debate that it is best to resort to the facts themselves.

The liberals in their proposal wanted a separate college, following the example of what was proposed last year by Minister Reynders and Secretary of State Clerfayt, but which was shot down by the full majority.

The friendly settlement was indeed an idea of the liberals. I have to think of them. For that idea, CD&V was also not won.

We could have blocked at the time, but we did not. We actually smelled thankful. It is hard to say this.

After all, what is proposed in the bill containing various provisions? A friendly settlement. It is an or-of-description that we can discuss for a long time. In any case, we fix: place the two bills side by side, and then it can be determined that you have just copied and paste them.

CD&V and liberals have combined with a list in the explanation, to try to become something closer and not have to hang on two different feet. This was introduced through an amendment in a bill containing various provisions, at the very last moment. It was a flat deal. For that flat deal, everything had to go away, including the good decency.

Also the necessary time frame to be able to deliver good work had to be removed. In fact, you have been lucky to be able to cut and paste on the basis of legislative proposals that have been able to pass the test of the State Council and the Privacy Commission. Even though this is being incredibly hard-held now, you have used it to be able to come up with your compromise. In the light of what has happened, it might have been a little more pleasant to be able to receive that appreciation.

Not only the time frame, the brute force, for something so important, increases the likelihood of bad legislation. To say it with the words of colleague Jambon: this was and is not sinful.

Where I want to go is the following. Paper is patient. All fast work can look very beautiful on paper. But in the case of legislative amendments introduced in such a way in a draft law containing various provisions, it is better to read every letter and not take any risk.

We have been discussing bank secrecy for a long time. Our comments were wiped away with a sponge. Unfortunately, time will have to reveal whether you have indeed complicated the procedure or not. You know my fears about it.

The compromise is exemplary for the great gap and indecisiveness of the majority today. Unfortunately, CD&V has chosen to leave the initiative to the government of ongoing affairs, rather than to let Parliament and parliamentarians do their work and look at the spirit of their own proposal; one has chosen peace in that majority and now realizes a cow trade, which is very regrettable.

Ladies and gentlemen of CD&V, you could also perfectly have formed a majority with the Socialists and the Greens together and made this small step a much bigger one.

It is a first step. I have said this in the committee, and I also think it is important to continue to say that. It’s not the worst, but it’s painful to notice that it would have been much better if some people had dared to jump. Now one is going to shoot foot by foot, while one could have taken a full step.

Therefore, we abstain from amendment no. 18 is We have a party, Greens! and Ecolo, always advocated for a real abolition of bank secrecy without excessive obstacles for tax officials, with a balance between control options for the administration and protection of private life.

In the hearings and in the opinions received, we have been confirmed that our bill complies with this. We look forward to the creation of a central database containing all bank accounts. This idea was eventually adopted by the majority. This was first stated in our bill. It was removed before the hearings, and then it was taken over, and it was eventually included in the relevant amendment. I am grateful for that. I say that with so many words. I think that is good.

I just followed the discussion with Mr Van der Maelen. I read the letter of the law again. The letter of the law is still primordial to me and we will ensure that it is implemented.

With this tool, the tax auditor knows which bank he can contact to request information. It is absolutely not intended that any official should have access to sensitive information, nor is it intended that bank secrecy should be abolished for every pretext. This is also populism.

This also serves the procedure trapped through the regional director, who regulates the admission. This was also stated in our bill and this was also laughed at in advance.

While we are pleased that the majority has taken over large parts, we have also made very clear that amendment no. 18 is a step too far.

We asked for amendment no. 15 in the preparation a clear role for Parliament, not only with regard to the KBs. I would like to give it a moment. Apparently, the sitting majority expects that it will also be the future majority and will be able to succeed everything of that kind. I find it regrettable that in this way we have already exhausted our own role as Parliament, especially in current matters.

Therefore, we also have a supplement through amendments to amendment no. 15 is requested. It is strange that Ms. Rutten just says that improper use of the databases is not possible. It was noted by the Green Group, which in the committee proposed to submit sanctions for improper use of the database, even in the event that the banks do not communicate all the information they must communicate.

What does the majority say? We do not approve this well. I therefore have a problem with the fact that this is done very urgently, as if the left parties with their proposals were planning to give access to everyone, while in our proposals and the amendment we have submitted, that security was built, which was voted against by the majority, liberals inclusive.

It is doubtful in many areas that the amicable settlement, the amendment no. 18, eventually reached the agreement that was reached.

First, it does not work ⁇ discouraging for large fraudsters. After two waves of tax amnesty, this has just been mentioned, and a still in force legislation for permanent tax regularization with a reality of four out of five partial regularizations has also created a possibility of escape at the last step, at the time a tax fraud investigation is opened.

We can see very well how this goes with international developments, as the network is closing more and more as a result of the abolition of bank secrecy in the rest of Europe and the world. As a result of the European Savings Directive, the double taxation treaties, the European directives on computerization, we see that our legislation follows smoothly.

We first have the free regularization through the one-time release declaration, the fiscal amnesty, the semi-free regularization through the partial regularizations, in which one, with the help of specialized lawyers, can choose to actually take the risk and as a spotting rate indicate only a portion of the black money.

The interest rates, the Pre-Decision Service gives us a clean overview each year. The announcements continue to rise. How would this happen now in a time when Karel Anthonissen and several officials of the BBI themselves say that thanks to the system of permanent regularisations one pays only fines from 4 to 5 %?

We have built a good backdoor in the legislation. Our tax authority, which finds that it is a partial tax regularization, may not transmit information to the prosecutor’s office, because we have just closed that: the tax authority can not transmit information to the prosecutor’s office at the time of an ongoing partial regularization.

That is the legislation that exists today.

The third phase. A large fraudster is being caught. The discourse of the liberals has made clear that they are hoping for the system of friendly settlement especially for large fraudsters. In other words, large fraudsters bet on not being caught, otherwise they would have taken advantage of tax amnesty. They have not taken advantage of the partial tax regularization, because they are betting that they will find their way in the procedural layers. Now they bet that they will be offered tax amnesty if the new procedural layers fail because of the description.

Can you please tell me what the justice of this is in the light of the ordinary citizen? This is a blow in the face of everyone who has been paying his taxes well for years and permanently. It is a shame that the liberal colleagues have left. It had embraced them to stay. We would have had a different discussion here. Then we could have talked about amendments nrs 15, 18 and 19, on amending the law on permanent tax fraud. You did not do that. In that sense, that ideological choice is very hard for the ordinary citizen and very unfair for anyone who hopes for fair taxation.

The big tax fraudsters now have a new option. Yes, it is offered by the parket. It’s clearly not about the light fraud, about all the mispayers and everyone who commits crimes, no, it’s about those with a lot of money who can afford to proceed. The amendment is also not about strengthening the judiciary, about strengthening the mechanisms for addressing these kinds of things or closing the backdoors in our legislation. However, in the law containing various provisions still soon an amendment no. 18 inputs, which have not even been discussed in the Committee for Justice, which is based on a bill that was submitted on 24 February 2011, on which no opinion has yet been requested, that can be! If this is not cow trade, dear colleagues, then I really don’t know. This is class legislation at its best. What else do you need to face this?

It would be all bad companies. As a result, there has been a bad smell in the whole discussion about bank secrecy. He was not there for that. The greatest danger is that a too submissive prosecutor can throw it on a flat agreement and take the case at any time, at any moment of the procedure, from the hands of the sitting magistrates, the council chamber, first instance, investigative judge, even at the moment when new elements may emerge. He can thus remove it and thus eradicate the independent judiciary. This is unforgivable.

As a result, the rich escape their punishment and sometimes it is as simple as that. It will result in the riches escaping their punishment where others will have to serve their punishment. To put it sharply: who can afford a BMW, can also buy the right – “bidding” as it were – to drive through the red.

Colleagues, despite the painful course of things that I am quite angry about and despite the scandalous link, there is effectively progress. It could have been much better, but we continue to strive for further progress. There was much more in it. I hope that the cold water fear, which some have, will disappear.

Colleague Terwingen has just said that he is very proud to be lying in the middle of the bed. You are lying in the middle of a bed of a majority who disagrees about almost everything. A majority that has a Minister of Energy who says something different about the closure of nuclear power plants than a prime minister in ongoing affairs, for example. You are just broken. You could have slept in a much more comfortable bed, that of the Socialists and the Greens.

A step has been taken and now both the King and the Minister of Finance have taken action. We tried, but you did not allow it. You, as a government, will have to take this into account in ongoing affairs. The Minister of Finance is also taking action. The article in Netto is in this regard, colleague Van der Maelen, a clear warning. I really didn’t need that warning. I know that we must be careful of the bill that the Secretary of State had originally proposed with the Minister of Finance on the abolition of bank secrecy.

Whether they want it or not, on a number of things the amendment and the new law are very clear. It will need to fulfill Parliament’s wish to set up a database in the National Bank, together with the financial sector. This will probably be a very bitter pill. And yes, we regret the transfer of many tasks to the King. Apparently, the sitting majority is betting that they will effectively – which is ⁇ something N-VA is frustrated about – re-form the new majority. It is at the expense of the parliamentary reflex, as I said earlier.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision. Yes, we are pleased to find that the majority has taken over large parts of our bill. An important step has been taken, and that really has to do with the pressure of the Greens for one and a half years with our chairwoman of that committee and the international pressure from, among others, the OECD. Nevertheless, very important opportunities have also been missed, and the majority has consciously created unwanted uncertainties and connections to the beloved peace – to say with an euphemism – no matter how much they try to refrain from it. Paper is paper, records are defeated. Proposals on the table can still be consulted. This clearly shows that the cutting and gluing work has been done.

The minister is in action and will soon have to draw up a royal decree. He will have to meet with the financial sector and will have a lot of work to do. It is up to us to follow that work. In the context of the cow trade, dear colleague Verherstraeten – I know that you will probably come right after me – I can only decide that given the way things happened and given it happened, I assume that you will follow the progress of the situation with more than ordinary attention. We cannot afford to lose more tax money. You have a state secretary who is very specifically competent in addressing tax fraud. You know the track record and I know that even within the majority some colleagues were not happy with how it went. It is one thing not to be happy, it is a second to indicate the consequence. This apple is here today. If this is not possible, then it is really very regrettable.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I largely agree with what colleague Goyvaerts said later. I can only add as a lawyer and as a member of the Justice Committee. I am a little shocked at this point after twelve years of parliamentary experience. One has stumblingly chased a bill draft by the Finance Committee that yet quite fundamentally interferes in our legal system, namely on the piece of criminal policy. This was done without the advice of the Committee for Justice and the Council of State. We may not be able to find ourselves ideologically entirely in the legislative proposals of sp.a and Greens! But they still had the merit on the piece of bank secrecy that there is an opinion from the Council of State. I am curious what the Constitutional Court may have to say about this later, once it is approved.

Allow me to be angry as a member of the Justice Committee. At that time – I often outline that example and I often make that comparison to outline the situation in the Belgian Parliament – I experienced 35 sessions on the adoption of holebi. This was done with the Family Law Subcommittee and the Justice Committee, which eventually came to legislation allowing some holebi couples to adopt a child each year in this country. Now, where one touches a pillar of our legal system, and where a pillar may – I don’t want to make too blatant statements – be shattered for a bit, it is still remarkable that all this can go so quickly. I was not present, but I was told that this happened in one and a half hours, at night and night, from midnight to half two, a time when undoubtedly a lot of people are active who will undoubtedly be able to benefit very heavily from this legislation. Those are the professional criminals, as I may call them, the organized crime gangs, those who have made crime their main economic activity.

I think they will go here.

Some amendments undermine part of the authority of the judiciary. This is done by a government of ongoing affairs!

In this way, a kind of principle – I know that this equation is not entirely legal – of an Anglo-Saxon legal figure, a kind of plea bargaining, is widely inserted into our legal system, through a draft law. This leaves the jurisdiction. It is not exactly the same as in the United States, but in some points it is even stronger. Why Why ? Because this is clearly, through a financial arrangement, the purchase of criminal justice.

This is not a different provision between different provisions. That makes no one wise. Anyone with a little parliamentary experience knows that here things are drawn to the hair.

It is also stated that it will not be about the happy few. Indeed, if we look at the entire scope of criminal law, when one overlooks it, then a lot of things come into consideration, a lot of correctional facts, misconduct and correctionalized crimes. They come into question.

But I do not make illusions. The majority of the facts will not be resolved by the parquets in this way, the majority of the facts absolutely not. The parquets receive the signal, through the explanation and through the discussion held here – Open Vld is very clear in that – that these are major fraud cases.

Cases of intra-family violence will not be addressed, I guess. That will not change either.

What will also not be addressed, for example, is the little man, the worker or the servant who on a Friday evening with a pinch crashes too much into his car and commits a traffic offence. He is seriously punished. The fine is 1,000 euros. There is no purchase for that. It has to be paid, and that is lost driving license. So you can already explain it to those people, because they will ⁇ not get better off. For them, of course, this arrangement does not apply, while there are very draconian penalties for such acts. These are punishments that the little man really gets to deal with, and often even.

So what is now ahead is a wet dream for mafia big capitalists. If I were to be stupid, I would add the following: and for PS’ers. Or better: a gang of mafia big capitalists, dús the PS’ers. But well . The PS is clearly dealing with other affairs; not with the little man. In any case, the PS will be the sausage. We are now going through that.

It is no coincidence that both Open Vld, CD&V and PS approve this, really no coincidence. After all, the capitulation for the bankruptcy of the rule of law must come from them. They now open the account for the repurchase amounts of the laxity that has prevailed for ten years under the PS, under CD&V and under Open Vld, where I name the parties in arbitrary order.

That is the purchase amount for the whole lax, anti-Flemish and non-Flemish justice policy that is being conducted.

Out of poverty it is then someone of the MR who must perform something and something, to complete the whole picture.

Let us be clear on one thing. An amicable settlement does not serve to eliminate judicial backwardness, nor does it serve to get rid of large fraudsters in an easy way. Such things cannot and should not. However, with the parties who have misrepresented judicial policy in such a way for ten years, it can of course not be other than that they approve such a measure.

However, the Flemish Belang has always been a cool lover of the friendly settlement. Friendly settlement may deserve a place in criminal law and enforcement policy. With this we have no problem. However, the measure cannot be implemented in the way it is approved here today and not with the intention of approving what is presented here today.

I go around. With this measure, justice and politics are once again proving a bad service. It is not the honest citizen who benefits from the measure. It is the dishonest citizen, even most organized crime, who will be grateful to you.

Mr. Verherstraeten, you want to talk about on your bank.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief response to the various presentations, for which I thank the speakers.

Of course, it is a political agreement. I have never denied it, and I will never deny it. In a fragmented democratic political spectrum as our country knows it, parties that want to make progress must talk and try to find each other.

We also found each other, though indeed with combinations of themes, which may not necessarily all have to do with each other substantially. However, I have heard some members stating about the community aspect that those who negotiate should dare to jump from time to time, and should dare to deviate from originally adopted positions and entry paths. Otherwise, an agreement will never be reached. Such attitude does not apply only to the community. It applies to everything. Whoever wants to impose only his own will must make sure to obtain 76 seats, which so far has not been succeeded by a single political group.

I have heard from some members that the design was on the left and from some members I have heard that the design was on the right. Well, that just reassures me.

I am confident that this compromise is balanced.

I would like to talk about some substantive concerns. As for the “una via”, colleague Van der Maelen, in fact we have already conducted this debate, in the middle of the night in the committee. I have already answered you at that time. Actually, I need to refer to what I said then.

Either there is the administrative procedure, or the Justice has been taken, in this case the prosecutor. Then there will be an investigation, if necessary, within the framework of a judicial investigation. In this case, the judge has already been taken, but on the initiative of the prosecutor’s magistrate – I repeat that: on the initiative of the prosecutor’s magistrate – a friendly settlement is made with the person concerned. This is part of the judicial process.

There is no violation. There is a wall. From the moment the prosecutor is arrested, one is in the judicial proceedings and the judicial “via” applies.

I come to the comments made after the interview of investigative judge Van Cauwenberghe. It is stated that at any time the suspects can go to the public prosecutor to conclude a deal. Every suspect is free to ask a question to the prosecutor. However, it is only the prosecutor who decides whether he wants to propose a friendly settlement to the defendant, and also whether he considers that the victim – in the case of tax or social fraud, that is, the government – is fully compensated, through fines and interests and all other damages. It is the parket judge who judges this.

And he gets a framework for this through the guidelines, the establishments of the College of Prosecutors-General, so as to get a piece of unity of jurisprudence, unity of jurisprudence, across our whole country, which is serious and important.

Second, there is the fear of the test of the Constitutional Court. If the Constitutional Court is heard, it is of course up to the Constitutional Court to judge. It is not my opinion that there is a violation of equality here. The friendly resolution already exists. It has been in existence for decades and was seriously expanded in 1994 to enable disadvantaged companies. As far as I know, there has never been an abolition of that law and there has never been a ruling with a preliminary opinion from the Arbitration Court, now the Constitutional Court, that there is a violation of the principle of equality here. It was argued that it would have been better if it had been limited to crimes in the socio-economic sense of the word, tax crimes and social or fiscal fraud. Ladies and gentlemen, read it in the article. There would only be a risk of violation of the principle of equality if we allowed certain types of crimes in the socio-economic sphere for amicable settlement and others not. That would, I fear, be a violation of the principle of equality. This should be done with all crimes.

Third, does one then create two sizes and two weights? Does it really create opportunities for the happy few? Read the approved text. We have provided for this in the principle of proportionality. It is up to the parket judges to judge. They may also judge on the basis of individual cases and be more gentle in applying a friendly settlement with respect to the less wealthy than with regard to the heavy wealthy. Such an opportunity exists, as, by the way, such an opportunity exists for the judges in essence when they make a penalty assessment and have a fork within which they can make a judgment and apply that fork according to individual circumstances.

Therefore, such an opportunity does not exist. It is not about buying out a process; it is not about buying out a sum. This is an agreement or agreement under the legal conditions in question.

I welcome the amendments submitted by the colleagues of the N-VA on this subject. At the same time, it is said that everything can also be done depending on the procedure. The text does indeed allow this. I heard Mr Jambon stating in this regard that a person concerned can first gamble on a favorable judgment, and then, when the judgment fails, fall back to the amicable settlement. and no. A player cannot gamble at all. It will be the prosecutor who judges and takes the initiative, either during the investigation phase of an investigation, or during the judicial phase of an investigation, or indeed pending the proceedings on the merits, which therefore can and is not excluded.

I believe that this should be done with reticence. I also assume that, when the College of Attorneys-General submits an opinion, that opinion will also be reticent. However, in the case of punishment, whether through a judgment or a judgment, or through a friendly settlement, there are always different moments. There is the moment of committing the facts, the moment of the stage of the investigation and the moment of assessment of the facts committed, either through a friendly settlement or through a judgment or a judgment. Between the aforementioned moments there are times and circumstances can change. Victims can be compensated. The suspects may have developed a completely different pattern of behavior, have come to repentance or have shown repentance. They may have reintegrated into society. They may have found work again. They may have founded a family and have responsibilities towards children. Such are all new elements that must always be able to be evaluated.

Furthermore, once a judgment or a judgment with penalties has been issued on the criminal level, there is also the criminal enforcement court which can judge on intermittent judgments which have come into effect and are final. It may comply with the sentences or grant any reduction of the penalty, irrespective of the final judgment.

Should we take this very hard? No, we must handle this cautiously. However, if there are favorable circumstances, it must be possible to act in this way.

I have confidence in the magistrates, also in the standing magistrates, who can act very well in honour and conscience, and with agreements and guidelines to be able to preserve the unity of practice. This is also the separation of powers. I have confidence in the judiciary in this regard.

There is a compromise that academics are for and others are against. During the committee discussions, I referred, among other things, to academics who are in favour. I have also referred, colleague Van der Maelen, to a former party chairman of you, Fred Erdman, who has also suggested that. We are simply meeting what many have asked in the judicial dialogue. We were in the opposition. This was then requested, among other things, by colleague Erdman and colleague de Leval. It is proposed in the college regarding social and tax fraud. We are meeting it.

I think this is a balanced compromise, Mr. Speaker, and we will therefore fully support it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I listened to your intervention with interest. You say that for some it is to the left and for others to the right. This is not to mention that your original bill was said that it was already a compromise. You have made a compromise from a compromise. My conclusion is that it has now become mosquito or fish. It has become cutting and sticking work of various texts to the sweet peace of the majority.

Those who followed the progress in the Finance Committee have seen the very nervous negotiation between the majority parties until the last moment. Repeated questions for delay have made it very clear that you have chosen something that was swallowed by everyone, but no longer resembles anything else.

You did not dare to engage in the discussion. You talked a lot about friendly settlement and rightly gave some answers to the opinion piece. If there is an amicable settlement, why is it not included in the criminal record or in the criminal record? If there must be a friendly settlement, why did you not dare to discuss it in the Justice Committee? You are in dialogue with the judiciary. We have requested the sending to the Justice Committee. This belongs to the domain of justice, but the majority keeps it out of that committee. There are for and against the experts. We held hearings on bank secrecy, on amendment no. 15 following the various legislative proposals. However, we did not have a hearing on the friendly settlement. So we must do it with post-factum opinions of experts on whom you can give your opinion here, but with whom no contradictory debate was organized, because the majority did not want it.

She set up a cow trade for the sweet peace of the majority, because for the rest she wanted to let this be swallowed by the liberals, but she didn’t want to do anything to the system of permanent tax regularizations and didn’t want to do anything to strengthen the court in its struggle against tax fraud in other areas, otherwise the amendments would have looked different. Amendments No. 15 to 17 were submitted. 18 of the amendment. 19 on the strengthening of the court, amendment no. 20 on the adaptation of the law to the permanent tax regularisations and a number of other amendments. Those amendments would have confirmed what you come here today with many beautiful words, namely that you do not want to collect the court, and addressed the backwardness. You did not do that. Your story is deficient. These are the facts.

Either you should have gone for the amendments 15 to 17, which we have discussed, or you should have taken the whole story. You did not dare to. You have chosen neither mushroom nor fish. You chose the cow trade. You have let yourself fold. Anyone who has followed the debate from the beginning to the end can only conclude that. The best proof of this is that you did not step into the Justice Committee with a very important amicable settlement legislation, which concerns the entire magistrateship, the investigative judges and the prosecutor’s office. They did not have the opportunity to express their opinion on this issue in the Justice Committee. Whatever you say afterwards or in our contradictory debate here, nothing can remove it, nothing can improve it, unless you still withdraw amendment 18 and still want to start that discussion in the Justice Committee. Then you are consistent, then and then alone.

Mr. Speaker, we are accused of a lack of contradictory debate. The debate started here at 14 am 15 and it is now 18 am 30. I think there is indeed a contradiction here.

Mrs. Almaci, I have not heard from you any new substantive arguments other than those which you have just put on the floor and which we have extensively replicated. I listened attentively. You have said that this is a progress. I think it is much more than mosquito or fish. I take records of this. You find that progress is not enough. We think that progress is more than sufficient.

As Mr. Verherstraeten said, the debate has taken a long time. It may be time to finish, but I would like to share a few concerns.

On behalf of the Government, I am very pleased that we will adopt the bills tomorrow. We also welcome the compromise found on the amendment submitted by the members of the majority, which provides the opportunity to find a solution not only to the problem of external bank secrecy, which was also included in the text of the government, but also on the internal bank secrecy and the amicable settlement.

I will not say anything about the friendly settlement. My colleague, Mr. Devlies, will be pleased with this. On the problem of banking secrecy, things were said, which I do not think are quite correct.

Personally, I am also pleased that the text that I discovered 15 days ago, like you, deposited by the majority, took in the broad lines the proposals I had formulated, a little less than a year ago, while I was preparing to file a text aimed at implementing one of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee.

I am ⁇ pleased with the right balance found between the need to provide our tax administration with investigative means for the fight against fraud, a legitimate and necessary task, and the right to the protection of the privacy of citizens. Indeed, we know that any bank account contains amounts of information on expenditure flows and other contacts, which have nothing to do with tax rectification, even if it is a proven fraud. It is essential to maintain this appropriate balance between the need to provide the administration with a complementary tool and the protection of privacy.

I am also pleased that the notion of fraud index has been retained. First, as already explained, the notion of fraud index already exists in the Income Tax Code. It is a daily use by tax officers. The jurisprudence clearly defines it. To those who fear that the concept has no content, I will remind you that it already allows you to decide to extend the prescription and take it from three to seven years and, in reality, this concept is used in approximately 10,000 cases a year to do so.

As a reminder, the notion of fraud index does not mean suspicion of fraud, as Mr. Mr. said earlier. by Mathot. I correct: a suspicion of fraud is intangible while an indication of fraud is material, concrete, accurate and verifiable. by Mr. Gilkinet gave us the exercise of a Dutch reading of the list of examples attached to the amendment; these were clearly concrete, precise and verifiable elements.

An important element is also related to the notion of fraud index: in the case of fraud index must appear the voluntary aspect. Unlike the notion of undeclared income which could result from an unintentional error by the taxpayer neglecting to reproduce a tax bill or indication and which would correct its statement in response to the inspector’s investigation, the notion of fraud index has the aspect of voluntary fraud.

This is not a fraud or an unintentional mistake. This is an important element in terms of taxpayer protection.

But what is most important is that, thanks to the vote on this bill containing various provisions – Almaci said recently in her report – Belgium will comply with a whole series of small European tax standards, either at the request of the European Court of Justice or because the Commission has given a new interpretation to a directive. The same applies to foreign banking secrets. This is to enable Belgium to implement the international treaties it has signed within the framework of the OECD as well as the European Directive on tax transparency and exchange of information.

It is important to allow Belgium, by voting on this bill, to participate fully in the international current of greater tax transparency and greater exchange of information.

For my part, if I consider that it was legitimate to attach to this legal provision a vote of provisions relating to the lifting of the internal banking secret, that was not the essential element. In fact, everyone knows that Belgium is a small economy, that the borders are not very far away and that most Belgians who intended to camouflage significant income to the tax or, in any case, those who hold capital, had more often found the habit of hiding it abroad. It was therefore necessary to vote on provisions that allow our country to return to the flow of exchange of international tax data in an interest of transparency with its neighbors. And it is only when Belgium itself will be able to question its own banks to provide information to neighboring countries that would require information about their taxpayers who have an account in Belgium, that the latter will be able to obtain, in parallel, from them, similar information.

We hope that, thanks to the vote that will take place tomorrow, we will be able to get away from this somewhat shameful and excessive image due to our presence on the famous OECD grey list because there was basically no reason for it to be so. I hope that in a few weeks, or even in a few months, Belgium will be able to join the concert of the European nations.

There are still two small things. I also do not feel that the lifting of the internal banking secret will, in itself, generate a huge amount of money due to the number of investigations that could be opened.

I think, like Mr. Van der Maelen pointed out that the vote on this provision has a fundamental preventive effect. The simple fact that it will soon be possible to start bank investigations, when there will be indications of fraud, will ⁇ discipline the taxpayer much more and lead him to have a compliance behavior, i.e. a faster compliance behavior to tax.

The fact that Belgium will fully participate in these international data exchanges will ⁇ produce a number of spontaneous regularisations. Belgium will probably have the option to correct the tax situation of Belgians who left unreported income abroad through the flow of parallel exchanges of information. It is especially from this aspect that new budget revenues must be expected.

Finally, since some have exposed here some scepticism regarding the next step that must be taken, namely the drafting of a royal decree to organize the contact point within the National Bank, I can already reassure them and tell them that we have already begun this work of drafting and reflection on this royal decree. Last week there was already a meeting with representatives of the National Bank and those of the banking sector to try to unlock the clues in order to present and write this royal decree as soon as possible. I fear, however, that there are some technical difficulties that need to be resolved, but the political intention is to deposit this royal decree as soon as possible.

Madame Almaci, I thought you were going to say something!

I will not replicate myself. I think I have already said everything. The Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech that he would not say anything about the friendly settlement. Can we ask the Minister of Justice for answers? According to the majority, this falls under the Finance chapter in the various provisions. I want an answer to that. I find it a very peculiar situation that a Secretary of State begins his speech by saying that he will simply not respond to any of the two amendments. I find this unheard of.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this. The Senate Committee on Justice talked about a revolutionary issue for the judiciary in this country. By the way, members of parties who call themselves the majority in our assembly have also expressed their indignation over what is happening, because it is a fundamental re-creation of the relations between the prosecutor’s office and the sitting magistrates. In the Senate, this is a judicial issue, which is dealt with in the Committee on Justice. At this point, we are looking at how the thing can be stopped.

I cannot imagine that we do not deal with this in our Justice Committee and that we could not deal with it in the presence of the Minister of Justice. I think it is an excellent idea from colleague Almaci to prosecute the Minister of Justice.

I give the word to Mr. The Secretary of State. Then, we will continue the debate so as not to block the two ministers who joined us. If necessary, we will call the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that we support, on behalf of the Government, the amendments submitted by the members of the resigning majority, both in the area of internal banking secrecy and in the area of amicable settlement, thus in both areas.

However, I have also said that I will not add any new elements to the debate because the members have made good and clear statements on that, in particular the members who submitted the amendments.

That is all I want to say. The government supports these amendments.

Now, we are going to talk about social issues. The rapporteur is Ms. Vienne, absent. It refers to its written report.

Our group has submitted several amendments to the law containing various provisions in the social affairs chapter.

The first amendment concerns the difference between bankruptcy victims and restructuring victims. Since 2007, employers who hire a victim of restructuring have been granted an RSZ discount of EUR 1 000 per quarter for four quarters. In the case of a person over 45, a further benefit of 400 euros per quarter is granted for the sixteen consecutive quarters. The employee will be entitled to a reduction of personal social security contributions of 133 euros per month for three quarters. The anti-crisis measures eliminated this discrimination and the rules also apply to victims of bankruptcy. We believe that discrimination has nothing to do with the crisis and should be eliminated anyway. A victim of a restructuring has the same disadvantages as a victim of a bankruptcy or a bankruptcy of a company. The amendment aims to eliminate discrimination.

The second amendment concerns the employment bonus. The government agreement talks about eliminating unemployment gaps and increasing purchasing power for people with low incomes. The past has shown that a work bonus in this regard is a very good tool. In the context of the 2008 budgetary control, the budgets were not sufficiently increased, leading to the introduction of an unacceptable low wage rate through that work bonus since 1 October 2008. Our amendment aims to eliminate this low wage through this work bonus.

Our last amendment has nothing really to do with social affairs. That is an additional chapter on the living wage, but that is more for Secretary of State Courard. I don’t know if he plans to come today. I will explain it because the Minister of Social Affairs is present. You may also be able to answer here.

Several research reports have indicated for several years that the social integration premium does not always work as effectively as it should in living wage workers. Many studies have shown that when someone is a lifetime employee who goes to work part-time and is living together, they would earn less than if they were a lifetime employee. This amendment only aims to eliminate this injustice. We believe that work should pay and work is the best way to get out of poverty. It shouldn’t be that someone who goes to work ends up earning less than if he were a living wager.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to make a brief statement in connection with Article 92 of the law containing various provisions.

The N-VA group voted against for two reasons. Of course, with the full understanding of the fight against social fraud, we wish to take care that the procedure of the judicial organization is not completely wiped out. However, that procedure is aimed at giving companies in difficulty the necessary breathing space, with a view to their continuity. In particular, the N-VA wants a democratic social security and the social partners have played an important role in this.

This provision comes from a preliminary draft law introducing the automatic registration as a contractor on which the NAR was consulted. In December 2010, the National Labour Council unanimously gave a negative opinion. We find it inappropriate that a government, nota bene through a law containing various provisions, outplay the NAR and the social partners in ongoing matters and wish to use this file to emphasize that the social partners should play an extremely important role in our social security, a role in which greater and real political freedom belongs to the social partners, of course within the available budgetary margins determined by the economic reality and politics.

Thank you, and congratulations on your first intervention. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to intervene on something that is in the draft program law, but on something that should have existed. I would like to talk about the amendments we submitted under amendments 16 to 21.

What should be included in that draft law that did not come into effect? A remedy against something that is discussed almost weekly in this Parliament and relates to a loss of social security funds that has become structural as a result of our legislation’s non-conclusion in terms of collecting, controlling and inspecting social security income as a result of abuses we detect on the labour market with foreign workers. What we again propose is to respond to massive tax and social fraud, but also to miserable unemployment conditions on our labour market with foreign workers who are actually occasionally labeled by our inspection services as “Dansistic” states that we know in the illegal sector of our country, which is massively present in our country in a number of sectors, for example the construction sector and the transport sector.

Colleagues, I effectively think that following other European countries, the introduction of a common liability may not be the only blissful response to the massive loss of social security income and in the fight against the exploitation of foreign workers. At the same time, it is noted that – some colleagues make their specialization of – due to the lack of a strict control of the situation and the observance of the law on the employment of foreign workers, this has the effect of creating illegal migration circuits. I remember from the media and the Parliament long discussions and testimonies of, for example, Portuguese and Brazilian workers. Brazilian workers come with fake passports and Portuguese workers are employed in Belgium while our inspection services to the oatmeal itself indicate that they are powerless to act today. They also no longer act because it has no meaning.

Colleagues, at a time when we all know that our social security system is getting too short to pay even less expensive benefits and, ⁇ in some segments, gives people benefits that are below the poverty standards, at a time when we know that the poverty rates among seniors who have to do with a pension are increasing, and at a time when the government itself in its poverty report and in its barometer determines that poverty is rising, we notice that the social security gets a structural shortage of cents. We know that with all of us. For this, the government has ordered thick reports, and also organized hearings here, which should prepare us for the aging. Nevertheless, the government fails – I don’t know from what reasoning – to effectively introduce the general liability.

This is not the first time we have submitted it to this Parliament, in order to get it approved. I think now is a crucial moment to do it, knowing that we are facing massive fraud mechanisms and that our inspection services are becoming hopeless and their assignments are beginning to stop.

I have noticed that some people in the committee have already dared to abstain. I really do not understand why we, as Parliament, should not take our responsibility in this regard, in the interest of our social security, the protection of the people and greater clarity in our migration policy. Therefore, my group continues to insist and wishes to put it again here for voting.

Mrs Kitir, Mr Courard is abroad. He apologized for this meeting.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, about Article 92, that we had the debate in the committee. I was able to point out that this provision obviously does not question the importance of the judicial reorganization procedure – Ms. Fonck, in particular, intervened on this subject. Indeed, when debtors comply with the settlement plan, they are not considered to be in social debt and are therefore not affected by the rules of solidary liability.

As regards Ms. Kitir’s intervention, this debate seems to me important and would ⁇ deserve, within the framework of the plan against employment trap, a different approach than that offered by a law containing various provisions. We will contact again to find a way to remove those traps that harm integration and, of course, the employment rate.

I am referring to my reply in the committee. I personally support the proposal on the joint liability, but in the current government there is no majority for it. I think this is a good proposal and it is necessary.

Second, there is indeed a discrimination between victims of restructuring and victims of bankruptcy. There are proposals on the table. I try to ⁇ something during the budget negotiations.

As for the work bonus, we have achieved a 150 euro increase in purchasing power with the IPA, but in order to develop a new system we have to wait for a new government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to Mrs. Milquet’s statement.

In the past few days and weeks in this Parliament, we do nothing but exchange majorities, on big and small matters. You say you no longer have a majority. The question is what and who is the majority in this House.

I don’t know what you’re talking about when you’re talking about “within the current majority.” We can discuss this for a long time. It has almost become a philosophical discussion, when one sees what is happening in all those committees.

I just want to bring this to your attention because there comes a time when you commit guilty failure, and with “you” I mean the government in ongoing affairs. This is no more and no less than guilty default in relation to the income for your social security. Again, I say not that, but the Court of Auditors, your inspection services, the tax administration.

This is guilty failure, just like giving in to existing fraud mechanisms. At some point, you are partially responsible for this. I do not want to go so far, but what is preventing this Parliament now from doing what we should do? I hear everyone say that it’s actually good, that we should actually do it, that it’s actually a shame, but that we don’t have a majority. A majority is made by taking responsibility at the time of voting.

Thank you Mr Bonte. We will now move on to the examination of the chapter on the economy but, first of all – Secretary of State Devlies has arrived – I must communicate to you the following.

Agenda of the day

The agenda

In accordance with the opinion of the Conference of Presidents of 16 March 2011, I propose, as regards tomorrow’s plenary session, to postpone the vote on applications for naturalization (note 1256/1 and 2) and to send them back to the Commission on naturalization.

In accordance with the opinion of the Conference of Presidents of 16 March 2011, I propose that you challenge the secret vote on naturalizations (Nr. 1256/1 and 2) and return the proposals to the Committee on Naturalization for tomorrow’s plenary session.

It will be so.

Thus will happen.

At the request of the principal author, the draft law of Mr. Philippe Blanchart, Ms Colette Burgeon and Marie-Claire Lambert and MM. Yvan Mayeur and Franco Seminara amending the Royal Decree of 5 September 2001 on the availability of information on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions for consumers when commercializing new passenger cars (note 427/1 to 5) is also removed from the agenda.

At the request of the chief speaker, the bill proposed by Mr Philippe Blanchart, Mrs Colette Burgeon and Marie-Claire Lambert and Mr Yvan Mayeur and Franco Seminara amending the Royal Decree of 5 September 2001 on the availability of consumer information on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when placing new passenger cars on the market (Nr. 427/1 to 5) is also deleted from the agenda.

So it will be so.

As regards the Economy section, it is Ms. Kattrin Jadin who makes the report. It is not here, I refer back to the written report.

Madame Vanlerberghe, for a brief intervention on a specific point.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to speak briefly about something defended in the committee, in particular the premiums for hospitalization insurance.

I repeat this here because, in my opinion, in the committee in all parties lived the same thing, namely that there is a big problem there. If we look at the length of life and the problems in people today, I think that we must seize every opportunity to reduce the costs for people. I think that especially people who are faced with a disease should be able to apply to compulsory insurance in the most beautiful of times. That is always our goal as socialists. Until then, there were also private insurance, which now threatens to become available only to people, especially as they get older, with a ⁇ great luxury and wealth. It is becoming unpaid to sign up for a private insurance at a certain age. There is a discrimination between sick people with money and sick people without money.

It is, of course, very annoying that this has been discussed for months, even years. In the current, current, previous government, which is now listening very carefully, it has always been said that something needs to be done about this. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to give an answer.

The newcomers in Parliament may not have the impression that we have been busy with this during the ongoing affairs. In the committee, it was noted that a bill should be submitted in this regard. If, of course, we have to discuss this again in each legislature, for example because there is a lot of new MPs, then people can remain in the cold for a very long time.

What we want to do is deal with what has already been agreed. However, Minister Reynders and the government have not done any work. The intention was to establish a ceiling in the hospital insurance, a blocking of price increases. It was not done. On the contrary, prices have risen enormously, toward insolvency.

What we now ask is that these various provisions – since the government is in ongoing affairs – be used to do everything everyone agrees on and what could help the people.

It is our intention to establish a ceiling in the hospital insurance. How can one do that? It has been often discussed. The medical index can be removed. It does not work. It is disputed by everyone, and the prices are not stopped. If something doesn’t work, you have to do it differently. This can be done by entering the ordinary index. That would be much more logical, since all healthcare developments are included in that index.

It is logical and I think that few parties will have anything against it. No one told me to be against it. Unfortunately, this cannot be done now, they say. And again we left for a few years of discussions. In the meantime, people are in the cold.

It would be intended to abolish the medical index through the amendments re-presented here and to use the consumption index so that those prices are adjusted in a much slower way. Now they do not do that and in the meantime they are chasing – illegally as it were – the prices up. No one can stop this increase.

The various provisions can do so. I would like to know which parties are opposed. Unfortunately, I can only ask a few more questions, because there are very few people present. However, there is a big problem with the trains, so all just sit down. You should not rush.

The problem is that we do not know who is stopping this. Who is against us trying to block prices through an index system that everyone recognizes? The big question remains: who will support our amendments tomorrow? If you do, that is a very good thing. Then we can finally tell the people – and preferably with retroactive force, because there have been illegal price increases by private companies – that the price increases will be stopped. Then it becomes possible for all Belgians to have private insurance, and it remains not reserved for some who now have the luxury to be able to pay everything in addition to their wealth and also take a good insurance.

I expect, since the parties did not really object to the substance, that we will be approved tomorrow.

There are no more speakers on this part.

For the Binnenlandse Zaken party, there is no report and there is no interviewer.

For the Infrastructure and Mobility section, the rapporteur is Ms Temmerman. The first speaker will be Mr. The Balcony, followed by Mr. Last but not least, Mr. and Geerts.

In view of the advanced hour, I will mostly refer to the written report. Nevertheless, I will give you something more.

As a rapporteur, I would like to express my astonishment over a few things that have happened in the committee.

Just at the end of the previous committee meeting – there were two meetings, one of which took place today – we received an amendment from the Secretary of State and thus from the majority. On the above-mentioned amendment we received a sub-amendment of also a member of the majority. After a period of discussion and a suspension, both amendments were withdrawn. Strange but true, today we saw the same amendment lay on the banks, which required the committee to meet again. At that committee meeting, the conscious amendment was again rejected.

This is a very strange evolution. I am new to Parliament and find something very strange way of working.

In this way, I appear to be out of my book of rapporteur. I did not want you to remember the story.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the previous speaker has already alluded to the way the discussion in the committee went. In short, it is divided into three parts.

On the one hand, there is the introduction of the cross-point bank for driving licenses. There was almost unanimity in the committee on its introduction. The discussion of the present bill has been conducted in a manner worthy of a parliament.

However, during the discussion of the present bill containing various provisions, we then came to the problem of the security authority. The safety authority should be regarded as, on the one hand, the Service for Railway Safety and Interoperability and, on the other hand, the research centre. At the initiative of Secretary of State Schouppe, a fairly heavy artwork was carried out.

It is already starting to become a bit of a file, not so much with a long nose through lying, but with a long tail. Already at the time of its establishment, under a then sp.a. minister, whose name I now ignore, the foundation was laid for the malfunctioning or, according to the European Commission, the criticism, which we still have to endure today.

At the time when both bodies, DVIS and the research body, were established, the expertise was with the NMBS itself. It was then chosen – which is, of course, a bit of a convenience solution – to get people in directly from the NMBS, but one has been shot too short. It has not been ensured that these people cut their ties with the NMBS when they started working at the FOD Mobility. This is a very regrettable case, the consequences of which we still carry today. This not only raises political and ethical questions, but also the European Commission has serious objections to it.

These organizations must be responsible for both the NMBS, the NMBS-Holding and Infrabel. It seems to me logical that the supervision of this can not be done by people who still have a connection with the NMBS to this day. They must evaluate, critically approach, evaluate and comment on their employer, with whom they still have a connection and to whom they can still return – apparently there are still benefits associated with that statute. They can go very far in that. They can withdraw permits and impose sanctions. You understand that there is a contradiction in it.

This case has been going on for a long time. Secretary of State Schouppe initially attempted to meet the criticism at the end of last year through a law containing special provisions. At the time that the law was discussed in Parliament, he made himself strong – it was discussed with the European Commission – that he was adequately able to respond to the criticism from Europe.

During the discussion, I pointed out to the Secretary of State that both the Council of State, in its opinion, and the European Commission itself – it has also emerged in the functioning of the Special Committee on Rail Safety, in the various reports of experts and in the analyses of the Court of Auditors and the ERA – has criticized the current procedure.

This implicated, of course, that the proposal such as Secretary of State Schouppe made at the end of last year did not adequately meet the criticism. Such comments were rejected by the Secretary of State. Unfortunately for those who then criticized, they were right. Today there is a law containing various provisions on the banks, in which a new attempt is made to provide a solution.

How do you want to work? The problem with staff would fade out as no new staff members are recruited who are still connected with the NMBS. On the other hand, it is noted that the current staff members retain that link. Only for the summit of DVIS a choice will have to be made, because apparently the boss, the top of the FOD Mobility, is a lady – I do not speak out about her political signature – who still has a link with the NMBS. Instead of leaving the person concerned the choice for a future with the FOD Mobility and cutting the band with the NMBS or the return to the old familiar stall of the NMBS, no choice is made. What do they do? DVIS is completely removed from the FOD Mobility and is subject to the responsibility of the State Secretary concerned.

First and foremost, this is a somewhat unusual situation. The Secretary of State himself pointed out during the discussion in the committee that few ministers are parties requesting such a procedure. It is preferred to have the entities classified under the ministry itself, i.e. the FOD Mobility. Apparently, the secretary of state prefers to put a path in the basket of his successor. This is what happens: one reforms his department quickly, even though one is part of a government in ongoing affairs. The successor will, of course, sit with the baked pears. It can be guessed that, if there ever comes a government, that pork will not be washed so quickly. Hence my criticism of the present method. One actually turns the roles: instead of placing the top for his responsibility, one simply moves the whole base. The problem is so-called solved, but one simply creates a problem.

A second point of criticism addressed in the committee is an amendment as brought here by the majority and the way in which we ask ourselves serious questions.

At the end of last year, we adopted the law containing various provisions on the economic regulation of the Brussels National Airport. This is an important point concerning the transposition of a 2009 directive. By the law that we then approved, we authorize the King, among other things, to take all appropriate measures to change the terms of operation of the license, including the adaptation of existing civil, administrative and criminal sanctions in connection with the terms of operation of the license. That is a mouthful to say that it is about the rates that the operator of the Brussels-National airport can charge.

So far no dirt in the air, until a number of disturbing messages appear in the press, in my opinion from a French-speaking corner, which criticizes the tariff system. The criticism is to the extent that it is alleged that the Service Regulation of Railway Transport and of the Operation of the Brussels-National Airport has been drawn to the Council of State against the tariff structure that state secretary Schouppe would have drawn. In this context, they argue that Schouppe falls out of his role and goes out of his competence due to the tariff structure he has designated.

This is a press release. One can pay little attention to it, but when we referred to the notorious commission to which colleague Temmerman had already referred, it went pretty chaotic, to the extent that it made me recall some political doomed thinkers who referred to “we, the order, or the rest, the chaos.”

If there is something that the majority of the previous legislature has taken care of, then it is chaos in that committee meeting. They ⁇ did not need the opposition. There was even a variety of amendments submitted and at one point it was not even clear who the submitters were, who defended which amendment or which amendment was held.

Amendments were submitted where the discussion suddenly revealed that the applicant had disappeared with the northern sun, while the co-signers were not aware of it.

Per ⁇ that was the intention, in the greatest chaos one finds sometimes the best order, but this ⁇ did not lead to the desired result, to the extent even that at the time when the discussion of the amendment in question would take place the secretary of state himself, who had submitted an amendment on behalf of the government, also withdrew that amendment. The Secretary of State also felt the mood hanging and then chose eggs for his money. Unfortunately, he has chosen bad eggs, because nothing has yet come out, unless it will be a cake boy.

By the way, I would like to point out to the proposers of the amendment in question that the amendment as submitted to the committee literally speaks of an amendment on behalf of the majority. I wonder which majority. There is, of course, a majority here, as was present during the previous legislature. However, there is ⁇ no majority on the Flemish side, unless the applicants agree that there is no need for a majority on the Flemish side anymore and that there is no need to work on it today.

In any case, they have made a mess of it, with the consequence that today, at the time when the discussion was reopened for another futile attempt, one did not even succeed in finding the necessary support for a new amendment, which in fact came down to the amendment as it was originally submitted by the Secretary of State. It also failed to justify this amendment. My group has not supported it, for very legitimate reasons.

You will, of course, point me with the finger and say that if there are problems tomorrow regarding the Flemish anchorage of the national airport, that is the fault of the Flemish parties who have let themselves ring. On the contrary, and I advise the colleagues who try to accuse us of this to read the bill containing various provisions as it was eventually approved by the House. You will clearly notice that we ⁇ do not play with the future of the Brussels National Airport.

On the contrary, the only thing we do is, in fact, to relinquish ourselves a little to the political reality. Colleagues, you may remember that when Secretary of State Schouppe defended this amendment, which extends a term, in the committee, it was so-called the King who failed to place his signature.

That is, of course, a blurred language to say that the Council of Ministers, which is to prepare the document for the King, failed to reach a consensus on this.

What do they do for ease? The government cannot solve it. Then they go to Parliament. Let the Parliament solve it.

We are not the government’s rubbish. First, the government itself must do its homework properly. Secondly, if one is so willing to submit amendments on behalf of the majority, it must be discussed in advance with that majority.

There were two or three suspensions of every half hour. It’s always pleasant to have another coffee bubble, but the result that eventually came out of the bus was underweight. There has in no way been a contribution that has defended the importance of the Brussels-National Airport so much.

In the law on various provisions that we approved last year, it is clear, I quote: “After 15 March 2011” – if I have looked closely at the calendar we are after 15 March 2011 – “can the decisions under article 6” – that its measures in which the King is delegated to take a number of measures – “have been adopted and ratified, according to paragraph 2 can only be amended by law.”

The only thing we have done today by voting down the amendment is to say that if it cannot through the King, it must again through the law. This also seems to be a logical decision. If the government fails to provide good work, to provide a signature for a king who is more degraded to a coffee lady than to have to sign royal decrees, then we must also take our own responsibility.

We are prepared for that. I invite the rest of the members to take their responsibilities in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak, but since I am now here by the Secretary of State, I also brought some material. If any of you have any additional questions about the events of the past months, I can answer. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State a few questions today, but the Secretary of State was unfortunately not there. It is very strange that an amendment was submitted, which was ultimately not approved.

I have to express my disappointment over the way the work has gone. In the past, we had doubts about various provisions, rightly even. When we were still in the majority a long time ago, there was also criticism from the CD&V group because all sorts of various provisions contained in the law were promulgated. I could already get into it then, but what I see today is much worse. We must no longer wait for various provisions, we must wait for the amendments to the law containing various provisions that will be placed on our bank. If there are still amendments to substantive elements of the law containing various provisions, then I can still understand it. Now there are suddenly amendments on matters that are not entirely relevant. As a member of parliament, we must put ourselves down on this. We find it very unheard of.

The Committee on Infrastructure discussed specifically amendments concerning the functioning of DVIS, the Service for Railway Safety and Interoperability. I must honestly say that I was disappointed when I saw that the amendment was signed by a number of people who have worked very hard around the debate over the better functioning of DVIS over the past year. They helped the Secretary of State in a cunning way to carry out one particular element.

Our group could agree with what they want to ⁇ as a Parliament. We only disagree with the way this is done because the debate on DVIS within the Railway Safety Committee has received a lot of attention. In the presentations of the Secretary of State or of the representatives of the FOD, very interesting things have been put forward. Then I suddenly see members of the same committee sign an amendment in which only the amendment of DVIS is motivated on the basis of a letter from the European Commission.

I then suspended the session because I wanted to see the letter from the European Commission. I wasn’t really impressed. It is sad that hard-working people within that committee agree that the reasoning of the Secretary of State’s amendment is only a reference to a letter from the European Commission that basically says nothing.

Therefore, together with a number of colleagues, we have submitted an amendment to repeal Articles 29 and 30 thereof.

We propose that a fundamental debate be held in the Infrastructure Committee or in the special committee to look at how the independence of DVIS can be organized. We have already created budget funds through various provisions. We only need to see how they are used.

We need to look at what can be answered to the question of greater independence. Is the best answer than to let DVIS be registered directly under the Secretary of State? Are there other options, such as resorts under Parliament?

What I do not understand is that only one amendment was submitted with regard to DVIS and not with regard to the investigation body? From the State Secretary’s argument, I understand that the investigative body must undergo the same treatment as DVIS. What is the motivation for the contractual relationship with the head of the FOD? Why does this apply only to DVIS and not to the research body? These aspects need to be fundamentally discussed. This should not be transmitted through a back door of an amendment, because that is truly regrettable.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to do so, I will intervene from my bank.

I am very much in the direction of what has just been said by colleague David Geerts and I am also questioning the relevance of the adoption by the committee of these articles 29 and 30. May there be no confusion in the minds! The independence of the national railway safety authority must be strengthened. This independence must be strongly strengthened in relation to the SNCB Group. It is known that today, a whole number of people who work in this agency continue to have contractual ties through the employment contract with the SNCB. The attractiveness at the status level should also be improved to attract expertise outside the SNCB. That is why a very clear recommendation in the Rail Safety Report aims at improving independence and, in particular, refers to the pathway for the creation of a fully independent specific agency.

In the previous sessions in favour of the discussion of this bill, we see arriving on the banks of the committee quite surprising amendments that propose a solution that seems to us quite banal. As David Geerts says, the debate is short-circuit! A simple amendment short-circuits a much broader debate than the simple question that this amendment tries to address. Furthermore, we have not been shown how the independence of the national authority would be strengthened through the new mechanism of placing the national security authority under the direct supervision of the Secretary of State for Mobility. There is no mention of alternatives or other alternatives studied. Personally, I do not see where there is an absolute increase in the independence of the national authority in what is proposed. Finally, it is a banking solution because it does not take into account all the other problematic dimensions of this independence as highlighted by the Special Committee on Rail Safety.

That’s why we co-signed this amendment, which calls for time to take the debate and actually respond to the recommendations of the Special Committee on Rail Safety.

In conclusion, I would say that I was ⁇ surprised to see this amendment come in committee, especially since it was co-signed by people who worked enormously in the railway safety committee. If this provision were to be adopted as such, it would expect little of the work that Parliament will have to do to implement the recommendations on railway safety. We hope that this provision will be removed, which is why we have co-signed this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. As a member of the Special Committee on Rail Safety and as the applicant of the deliberate amendment, I feel, of course, addressed.

Some arguments are not entirely correct.

First, I can follow the criticism of the way something happened. It has to go quickly, which may not be the most thorough or most ideal way of working. However, we are in favour of a breakdown by the European Commission. You can argue that you are not impressed by the corresponding letter of the European Commission. However, there is a formal procedure of default upon arrival. It was therefore necessary to respond promptly to the comments of the European Commission.

Part of the response has already been obtained through the various provisions that we approved on 10 February 2011. The second part of the answer follows now. It is more specifically about the head of the FOD Mobility.

The solution pushed forward gives the DVIS greater independence. The implementation of the recommendations by the Special Committee on Railway Safety can be discussed. However, what is very clearly stated in those recommendations is a greater independence of the DVIS. In any case, this independence will be enhanced by the present amendment. The question of whether the amendment is the best way to increase independence can be discussed. However, in any case, the independence of the DVIS is increased.

An additional question is why the independence of the research body is not increased. The answer is very simple. A similar track is drawn up for the investigative body through the royal decrees. For this purpose, however, no legal adjustment was required because the establishment act of the DVIS very explicitly stipulates that the DVIS would fall under the hierarchy of the FOD Mobiliteit. Such a legal provision does not exist for the research body.

We had to remove the conscious determination from the establishment law of the DVIS, which is not the case for the research body. However, the same track is developed through the Royal Decree, in order to give the aforementioned body a greater independence from the FOD Mobility.

In that sense, I think that this is a solution that provides a response to the threatening bankruptcy by the European Commission. It may be debatable whether this is the ideal solution, but it is in any case a solution that is in line with the recommendations of the Special Committee on Railway Safety.

I will be very brief. I do not want to engage in the debate with Mr Van den Bergh. I would have preferred the debate with the Secretary of State. I appreciate that Mr. Van den Bergh knows his elements and I fear that the Secretary of State does not know his elements, because otherwise the motivation of his amendment would have been much better.

There is no doubt that we need to find a quick solution. But maybe there are other ways? For several years, Belgium has been questioned by the Commission over the lack of independence of the national authority. For me, it has been too late to implement solutions in recent years. A parliamentary initiative, concerted within the Infrastructure Committee or the Rail Safety Committee, could, I am convinced, bring as quickly as the royal decree a much more structural solution in terms of independence of the national security authority.

Mr. Van den Bergh said we had to react quickly. However, the position of the European Commission has been known longer than today. It continues to work amateurly, both textually and in the preparatory work within your own majority.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the various statements of Mr. Veys, Geerts and Van den Bergh. A number of observations, in particular from Mr Geerts, relate to the procedure. He referred to the period when a certain party was still in the opposition here. You have expressed your criticism of the technique of legislation with the various provisions. I can tell you that I find this criticism right. It is important that the next government is working on this, in order to give preference to a more structured approach in terms of the technique of legislation and in line with the various topics as they should be addressed by Parliament. Today we are in a very difficult situation as the outgoing government has been ongoing for more than nine months. As a result of these circumstances, it was impossible to submit a number of articles to Parliament here. I am convinced that under other circumstances, Mr Schouppe would have chosen to have a broader debate on this issue. However, we can now say that it has become very urgent and that it is necessary for Parliament to take a decision on this.

It is a difficult period. Ms. Vanlerberghe has made some very interesting considerations on the previous topic, but it is difficult to answer them now. These are interesting elements that can be introduced at the time of negotiations, for example for a next government. I think these could be possible targets for a next government.

In essence, I can agree with what Mr. Van den Bergh has said, and ⁇ even say for a moment that the European Commission has confirmed its agreement with the solution proposed here regarding the management of the security authority.

In 2010, a study was conducted within the Belgian administration to examine what would be the best solution. The solution that will be pushed forward today in the royal decree corresponds to the suggestions that were formulated at the time.