Proposition 54K1621

Proposition modifiant le chapitre X et l'article 151 du Règlement de la Chambre des représentants en vue d'étendre la compétence de la Commission spéciale chargée des achats militaires à la vente de matériel militaire par la Défense.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Veli Yüksel
MR Denis Ducarme
N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans
Open Vld Dirk Van Mechelen

Submission date

Jan. 29, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

powers of parliament specialised committee armed forces parliamentary scrutiny parliamentary rules of procedure arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Sébastian Pirlot (PS | SP) 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 29, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I do not think it is necessary to read the entire report. I refer to my written report.

However, I would like to insist, for the many colleagues who may not have been in the committee at the time, that three texts have been submitted. We must take into account the work that has been carried out by our colleague Mrs. Fernandez Fernandez, by our colleagues Mr. Friends and Mr. Mr. Heller, of course, and by our colleague Mr. Buysrogge, who is the main author, the first-signature of the proposal to amend the House Rules that was eventually adopted by nine votes and one abstention. I would like to emphasize the fact that our colleagues had also submitted texts. I am here for the report.

I want to say a few words about our group. The MR group considers this change to be important. It concerns the verification and control of the re-sales of military equipment by the army. This is an issue that has often been updated. In particular, between 2002 and 2010, 16 fighter bombers were sold to Jordan, from frigates to Bulgaria, 166 armored to Morocco. Therefore, these are contracts that are not negligible.

Between 2009 and 2012, this was the case for 35 demilitarized helicopters and two Airbus A-310 aircraft.

The feeling of all those who participated in the work is that the regulation was too little binding and the controls too light, even though the National Defense had proceeded to demilitarize the aircraft. But it is clear, and it is a satisfaction, that Parliament will carry out more in-depth control over these weapons resales, including up to the identity of a new end user. It is important to emphasize this. It also reinforces democratic control.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the colleagues who are still present for their perseverance in attending this important amendment to the Rules of Procedure.

For some time, the regions have largely been in charge of arms trade and arms exports, but the federal government has remained in charge of the sale of outdated military equipment. I would also like to thank the reporter, who also took the opportunity to defend the MR’s position, for the extensive report he came here.

The army often sells outdated equipment, ranging from clothing to helicopters, aircraft and armored vehicles. In order to give you an idea of the size of the number of sales of military equipment, in 2015 the Defense sold €3.93 million in military equipment.

The export of outdated or unnecessary military equipment is therefore not an insignificant fact. In the resale of military equipment, all actors must really be known, so not only the final buyer, but also the intermediaries. Until now, however, the special committee for military purchases was not competent for such sales files. The proposal aims to remedy this by empowering the special committee for military procurement to control in the future not only the purchase of military equipment, but also its sale. The proposed amendment to Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber will enable that.

The Special Committee for Army Purchases will then adjust its Rules of Procedure and conclude a new administrative protocol with the Minister of Defense. So there is work on the shelf, as soon as this regulation is approved.

Colleagues, this adjustment of the Rules of Procedure is an important proposal within the framework of our duty, namely the parliamentary control of the government. Therefore, here on this speaker’s table stands a satisfied committee chairman, whose committee powers will be expanded.

At the end of my brief speech, I would like to say a word of thanks. I would like to thank all those who have contributed constructively to the adjustment of the Rules of Procedure, both in the Committee on Land Defense and in the Special Committee on the Rules of Procedure.

I also thank those who had submitted a different proposal, in the same spirit as our proposal, only the concrete effect of it differed.

I hope that this adjustment will be supported.

I’ll try not to be too long because this assembly looks more and more like a brush. I will greet the thousands of Belgians who are still watching us right now on streaming.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, one year is the time that this majority would have taken to copy a PS text which, however, could have made consensus. I would therefore like to return to the whole context of this text of the majority which is submitted to us today and to which, by the force of things, that of my group is joined.

At the meeting of the Terrorism Commission on April 22, last year, my group requested to join a proposal from my fellow environmentalists on federal weapons powers, three of our proposals, two of which aim to amend the Rules of our assembly. These two texts aim to ensure effective control of weapons sold by the federal state, sometimes through the army, sometimes through the police. Auditions are currently taking place on this last text and these tend to show its usefulness.

As regards our proposals concerning an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, it has appeared that, in accordance with Article 180 of the Rules of Procedure, it is not possible to send them back to another committee other than our committee in charge of the Rules of Procedure. And this is exactly where the battle hurts because we could only see the procedural impasse in which the chairwoman of the National Defense Commission put our proposal regarding the weapons of the pending army for almost a year, probably out of fear of having to give a positive opinion on a socialist text. It took us no less than three letters addressed to the chairman of the House to get to put this opinion on the agenda of the National Defense Commission. On the 1st of June 2015 we...

At the risk of discouraging the discussion we have held in the various committees: we are not talking about a year that the committee has done about it. The most recent proposal submitted by the PS Group dates from 18 September 2015. As far as I know, it was not a year ago. It is true – I have also said that in the committee – that we could have gone a few weeks or months faster to come to a proposal that has been approved in the committee for the defence of the Land and in the committee for the Rules of Procedure. It’s true that we could have gone a few weeks or months faster. I would like to point out that Mr. Pirlot has been in the majority for years. Apparently, this was not necessary for all those years. Now suddenly making of those nine months a drama, while one himself has had the opportunity for years to adjust the Rules, is therefore a little faint.

I do not agree with your opinion at all.

I recall that three letters have been sent to the Speaker of the House to put this opinion on the agenda of the Defence Committee. This text was submitted on 1 June 2015. The same committee requested on 14 July 2015 that the National Defense Committee deliver an opinion on our proposal to amend the Regulation to ensure effective control of arms trade within the Special Military Procurement Commission. The text was the only one on the table of parliament.

I would therefore once again strongly protest the attitude of the Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, who aimed at blocking our text and putting on the agenda the same text, but this time by a majority, a text signed by the majority by the President herself. This must be the force of change. I have strongly emphasized this in the committee. This timing that proves my statements is reflected in the report of this proposal.

Colleague Pirlot, you say that the text has just been taken over, but that is not true. It is not the case that the majority has taken over a text without a word. There are three differences between the text of the majority and the texts submitted by the opposition, both by the PS and by Ecolo-Groen.

First, in the texts there is a material needs overview. As far as we are concerned, this should rather be at home in a public, open debate, and the Committee for Lands Defense is rather the forum for that debate. For us, this should not be done behind closed doors, but should be done in all transparency. With you it is exactly different.

Second, the other proposals all outline the procedures and activities. We did not do this in our proposal. For us, that belongs to the domestic rules of the committee and to the protocol to be concluded with the minister.

Thirdly, in the PS proposal, the title insinuates – I don’t say it is so, but it is insinuated – that we could enter into the competence of the regions if there is an effective control of arms trade. In my view, this is a regional competence.

I do not agree with your opinion at all, but I understand that you defend body and soul the President of the Defence Commission.

This text of the majority, which is presented to us today, is therefore, with a few exceptions, a copy-paste of our text, which, however, we had updated through amendments for several months to take into account the remarks of the House services and the majority, based on the rating of the legal services in the field of federal jurisdiction on weapons.

This mix of genres from a commission presidency to the full balance, and over such a duration, of the majority, constitutes a dangerous precedent for our work. I will not hide from you that I would have preferred a consensus on this issue which we consider important. I find this worrying, and that is what justified my abstention on this majority text, while we support it in the substance. I regret the form that was adopted.

You know I am a good player. Since this case has advanced, it is already a success for us who have carried it from the beginning.

The text submitted to us today is therefore intended to allow for advance control by our assembly of the sales of old military equipment that fall 100% within the competence of the federal state, while many cases of replacement of major weapons systems, such as the F-16, are on the government’s agenda. Such a text is essential and fully justified in order to put an end to the uncertainty that currently prevails in this matter at the federal level.

In the present context, this uncertainty was all the more dangerous. The final destination and therefore the intermediaries of such re-sales of military equipment must be clearly known from end to end, in particular by taking into account, in the procedure, the opinions received from the military and/or civil intelligence service. This greater involvement of our assembly must, however, be subject to strict rules of confidentiality, as permitted today by the internal regulations of the Special Commission on Military Procurement.

I will therefore find, with a point of irony, that our amendments were probably perfect since the majority took them on their own. It will still take you a year to come to this text that only gives and moves existing and already provided by Article 151 of the Rules of the Chamber to the Military Procurement Commission.

Now that this debate has led to the issue of the Belgian army weapons, the same parliamentary control will have to be carried out on the police weapons. I ask that our text, Mr. Speaker, be soon put on the agenda of the Committee on Rules of Procedure in order to draw the same lessons from the importance of transparency in this matter. Obviously in substance agreeing with the text of the majority, my group will support it and fully engage in its immediate implementation in the ad hoc committee. For my part, however, I will abstain from protesting against this majority hold-up, hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow the same scenario to repeat itself.

Ladies and gentlemen, two words. Despite all the sympathy I have for Mr. Pirlot, I find that when he says he is a good player, he betrays the truth a little. First, Mr. Pirlot, in this debate or in that on NATO that preceded, you have raised exaggerated, or even displaced, accusations against the chairwoman of the commission.

We all have parliamentary experience. We know very well that a committee chairman also tends to intervene in discussions. I can remind you of what happened this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee where Mr. Van der Maelen spoke for him for an infinite time by asking questions to Minister De Croo. It is a reality. But from saying that there was a hold-up organized with the complicity of the committee chairman who is a parliamentary colleague, etc., I find that you go a little further.

In addition, another point is also wrong in your development. You insisted on the importance of implementing this procedure, given the “current confusion in the federal”. Our excellent colleague, Mr. Buysrogge, recalled that for years and years – we were in governments together, so I don’t throw you a stone – this case has not progressed!

Just recently, in the quick exhibition I made, I didn’t want to make the debates last. But now, I go into the detail a little more. It was already in 2011 that the first interpellations were made in the Senate on the matter. by Mr. De Crem, the minister, I pay tribute to him, had said that he agreed to try to move forward on this matter. There is a few years backward.

I did not say the opposite.

You questioned the current uncertainty at the federal level.

He has ruled for many years. It is the same thing.

You said, “the current fuzzy,” you didn’t talk about the other years.

But he is still there.

I cannot accept this kind of accusation that suggests that at the level of the resale of military equipment, there would be a current blur at the level of this government.

It is not that at all!

There has been a blur in the procedure for years. Since the transfer of competence to the Regions, the problem of the resale of military equipment has not been resolved at the federal level. I see that this majority does so with a text that I hope you will support and vote for.

You have interpreted some of my words. That was not the meaning of my comment. The uncertainty has existed for years. I simply say that in the current context, it is a good thing to put an end to it. There is no accusation against one majority rather than another.

The [...]

If I speak of the present situation that results from the past, does that suit you?

I am a good player and the proof is that I will give you the bank account number of my colleague Fernandez Fernandez so that you can pay him the copyright related to this text of which you are largely inspired.

The last word from our colleague is marked by the tiredness of this evening. I’d rather stay there!