Proposition de résolution visant à charger la Cour des comptes d'une enquête sur les incidences budgétaires du remplacement éventuel des avions de combat F-16.
General information ¶
- Authors
-
Ecolo
Benoît
Hellings
Groen Wouter De Vriendt
LE Georges Dallemagne
MR Olivier Maingain
PS | SP Sébastian Pirlot
PVDA | PTB Marco Van Hees
Vooruit Alain Top, Dirk Van der Maelen - Submission date
- Feb. 10, 2015
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- budgetary control fighter aircraft armed forces resolution of parliament parliamentary scrutiny
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB PP VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
- Stéphanie Thoron (MR) 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 ¶
June 1, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Peter Buysrogge ⚙
On 2 December 2015, 5 October 2016 and 10 May 2017, the Committee on Land Defense met to discuss the present draft resolution. On 5 October 2016, a hearing was also held with the representatives of the Court of Auditors.
The presenters of the proposal, Mr. Van der Maelen and Top of the sp.a, Mr. Pirlot of the PS, Mr. Hellings and De Vriendt of Ecolo-Groen, Mr. Dallemagne of the CDH, Mr. Van Hees of the PTB and Mr. Maingain of DéFI, three of whom are present here, aim to charge the Court of Auditors with the draft resolution to follow up on the file concerning the replacement of the F-16 combat aircraft of Defence.
The presenters of the proposal consider, according to colleague Van der Maelen, that every large arms purchase dossier should be the most transparent possible and that the file of the replacement of the F-16 fighter aircraft is too important to leave only to the military. He also considers that Parliament cannot fully exercise its control power. He makes the comparison with other countries where, according to the speaker, there is more openness in terms of purchase files. His party friend, Mr Top, also refers in his speech to other countries where more openness prevails.
Mr. Pirlot, who is not present, reports that his party is in favor of keeping the F-16 fighter aircraft in service longer. He also said that he supports the resolution and that he would not understand why Parliament would not use such a minimum of transparency.
Mr. Hellings, who is also absent, sees no reason to discourage transparency or the involvement of the Court. He also believes that, although the file is still in its early stages, the Court of Auditors should already be involved in requesting, analyzing and interpreting information.
Mr Top considers that the amounts cited vary greatly. Therefore, a close follow-up by the Court of Auditors is necessary.
As I mentioned earlier, a hearing was held on 5 October 2016, to which the Court of Auditors was invited. Jos Beckers, chairman of the Court of Auditors, was present. I quote him: “The Court of Auditors only audits a posteriori, that is, as soon as commitments are made, and therefore does not interfere with the preliminary decision making. Of course, the necessary caution is displayed, in particular in compliance with security clauses and dealing with the accessibility of the information. Finally, there is also the Special Commission for Army Purchases and Sales of the Chamber, which, in application of the administrative protocol, which was concluded between the Chamber and the Minister of Defense, can exercise a specific control over the purchase files of Defense.
The Court of Auditors also informs the Commission that it, as an authority, is not competent for the follow-up and preparation of purchase dossiers. The competence in this area lies with the Financial Inspectorate.
The majority, by the consent of Mr. Klaps, Mr. Ducarme, Mr. Van Mechelen and myself, joins the Court of Auditors. She considers that there is already a lot of transparency in relation to the file in question and to similar files, namely through the Committee on Army Purchases and Sales.
In addition, the RfGP is publicly available on the Minister’s website.
Therefore, the majority will not support the motion for a resolution.
Then the vote was passed. The draft resolution was rejected by seven votes in favour and three votes against.
I hope I stayed within my time limit.
Alain Top Vooruit ⚙
Defence and transparency, it is not a good marriage today. We need to be more transparent not only on international missions but also on purchasing files.
Today we are talking about the acquisition dossier of the century. It is therefore shocking that this again cannot be dealt with in full transparency. The government considers it necessary to spend 15 billion tax money on pepper-hard aircraft in times of austerity. Then at least we ask for openness and transparency. Every citizen has the right to know where his tax money goes and whether it is well spent. Transparency can ensure this.
In discussions about transparency, the argument that there would be a lot of sensitive information is often covered. However, it seems to us quite strong that all information transmitted would relate to business secrets. Everyone should at least have access to the financial picture of the four aircraft manufacturers – one has since fallen – who transmit their information. After all, we are talking about a billion-dollar purchase.
With this resolution, we want Parliament to take its responsibility and charge the Court of Auditors with the examination of the financial picture drawn by the various constructors.
The Court of Auditors itself stated that it can carry out checks on determined policies. Therefore, if you have listened carefully to the report, there is already an amendment. Today, we can talk about definitely policy, because the RfGP has been sent around.
We therefore propose that the Court of Auditors be involved immediately. I would like to quote, as the rapporteur who just did, Mr. Beckers of the Court of Auditors: “We can report on the preparation of the purchase.”
That is what we need to ask, colleagues.
Other countries have shown that it is possible. I have given the example of Canada and the Netherlands, which have involved their calculation chambers from the beginning.
Transparency is the rule. According to the majority here, it is obviously not possible. The majority tries to defend itself by proclaiming the Financial Inspectorate as the major audit body. With all respect, and we do not doubt the expertise of the Financial Inspectorate, but that is a control body of the executive power, in other words the government.
The Financial Inspectorate is not an instrument of the Parliament and advises in the Committee on Army Purchases and Sales, again behind closed doors.
However, Parliament can assign a mandate to the Court of Auditors, as an instrument of the legislative power. We want an independent audit to guarantee an open and fair debate.
In addition, colleagues, it is important to note that the Financial Inspectorate currently has 42 employees. These are both at the service of the federal government and of the Communities and the Regions. The Court of Audit, on the other hand, has about five hundred employees. The possibility of even more specialization and expertise in this dossier is therefore much greater when we involve the Court of Auditors.
Other political levels in this country, however, prove that it can. I will give an example. Regarding the Oosterweel connection, the Court of Auditors regularly reports to the Flemish Parliament on the progress of the case. The Flemish Parliament apparently feels the demand for transparency better than the majority in this House.
I can only conclude that this majority prefers decision-making behind closed doors. Meanwhile, however, it is dragging future generations into a dangerous and unattainable budgetary adventure. Our children and grandchildren will pay the bill for the replacement of the F-16.
Colleagues, I hope that the majority will still reflect before voting away from this proposal for openness.