Proposition 54K1459

Projet de loi portant des dispositions financières diverses, portant la création d'un service administratif à comptabilité autonome "Activités sociales", portant modification de la loi du 11 mai 1995 relative à la mise en oeuvre des décisions du Conseil de Sécurité de l'Organisation des Nations Unies et portant une disposition en matière d'égalité des femmes et des hommes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 17, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive law of banking central bank financial legislation gender equality commercial law national implementing measure social services company law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo PVDA | PTB VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 10, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will not be long in so far as this is a relatively technical text that has been the subject of, for most of its articles, a general approval of the Committee on Finance.

I will, however, return to two more problematic aspects, starting with Articles 45 and 46 which concern, as I have been explained, the famous guarantee granted by the Belgian State to the creditors of the company Dexia – this delay bomb, this Damocles sword above our heads. At all times, as environmentalists, we have challenged this solution adopted by previous governments, which puts the public finances at a serious risk, resulting from previous mismanagement and a lack of control over the development of the Dexia group.

We consider, Mr. Minister of Finance, that the agreement that has been signed with the French and Luxembourg governments is clearly at the disadvantage of Belgium, since it carries the majority of the risk. This is obviously not consistent with the respective weight of the three economies, nor with the historical responsibility in this case. Indeed, if we have denounced the Belgian component several times, there is a strong responsibility on the part of the French government and the French managers of this bank.

In the present case, Articles 45 and 46 aim to give Dexia’s creditors more guarantees in the event of problems. The provisions in terms of bail in would then apply, so that the Belgian State – that is, all taxpayers – would intervene as a priority. Since we have challenged this warranty from the beginning, we also challenge these two articles. That is why I could not vote on the text as a whole, even though it did not pose major difficulties. In any case, I would like to reiterate here our great concern with regard to this guarantee granted by the Belgian State, first without a legal basis, since then with this guarantee.

The Chairman of the Finance Committee is not present – and I do not reproach him, Mrs. Fonck, especially since I know his assiduity and that he is able to defend himself on his own.

I say so for all the members of the Finance Committee who are present: it is important that we re-audit Mr. From Boeck, the Dexia manager to know the evolution of the file.

A second element on which I will quickly return, Mr. Minister of Finance, is the amendment you have introduced, which aims to give the Belgian authorities a capacity to freeze financial assets, in particular in the context of the fight against terrorism. It is about implementing a resolution of the United Nations Council and responding to the FATF, which has repeatedly pointed out Belgium’s delays in this matter. This is especially important in the context we know.

Mr. Minister, I asked you at a committee meeting about the reasons for the delay in implementing these recommendations. You answered me that you should wait for the opinion of the College of Prosecutors General that you provided to us as part of the report. We did not receive it. If I had been more insistent, we would probably have received it in the session. I did not take this into account at the meeting but in an annex to the report. I would like to specifically ask you about the fate that was given by the government and by yourself to a precise comment issued by the College of Prosecutors General. It appears in the paragraph before the pre-penultimate of the letter of the College of Prosecutors General. I quote it: “The College is of the opinion that it is recommended that the Minister of Finance have a consultation with the competent judicial authorities, first of all the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, before making its decision.”

The College of Prosecutors General’s particular concern is that a possible decision to freeze the assets of the suspects must not jeopardize the smooth conduct of the investigation. If you are still at the stage of some form of preliminary instruction or investigation, the freezing of assets sends a signal to the suspects, while this may not be the right time to act. There is a need for justice and finance.

Unless I was distracted, this comment from the College of Prosecutors General was not taken into account in the amendments you submitted in the session. Is it voluntary? Is it due to lack of time? Do you plan to correct the text possibly very quickly to take this comment into account? Have you talked to the Minister of Justice about this? This is a debate that we could have had in the Finance Committee but I did not know the content of the text. I was aware of the existence of this opinion of the College of Prosecutors General. That is why I allow myself to question you. This is, I think, an important concern that must be addressed as soon as possible, in any case through an amendment to this text or a correctional law.

There is no other speaker. The word is to the government.

Mr. Gilkinet, as regards your last point, I can confirm that the Minister of Justice and I have agreed on the observations contained in the report of the College of Prosecutors General. For me, the text before us takes this report into account.

Regarding your first comment, the bail in Dexia, I want to emphasize that this bill regulates the effect on the third guarantor of a bail in, which is still central in this new banking supervision framework. Belgium follows the German example. Belgium was obliged to take this measure to provide legal certainty to bondholders who are creditors of Dexia.

Directive 2014/59/EU has indeed raised some concern among these bondholders. By providing that these obligations are cancellable – this is the consequence of a bail in, what is called bail-inable – a greater legal certainty is offered to their holders. This provision gives the financial markets a clear signal that in the event of bail-in, the state guarantee is ⁇ ined, so that investors will not suffer any damage. The measure does not change anything.

It is desirable to regulate already by law a particular aspect of the bail in regarding its effect on third-party guarantees. The question of the effect of a bail in on guarantors arises today when a guarantee under Belgian law has been given to a credit institution established in a country that has already adopted legislation on bail in, even though that legislation is still subject to enforcement measures before its entry into force.