Proposition 54K1865

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 3 novembre 2001 relative à la création de la Société belge d'Investissement pour les Pays en Développement et modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1998 portant création de la "Coopération technique belge" sous la forme d'une société de droit public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 30, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

economic development development policy development aid developing countries

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PP

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 ¶

July 14, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Peter Luykx, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Minister, you rightly called the BIO in the committee a powerful instrument of international cooperation. Our group is also convinced that the power of the private sector, along with that of all other sectors, can contribute to the sustainable development of the South. Investing in the local private sector is an important part of this, as well as providing technical assistance to share our expertise in the field of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Conversely, opening the BIO to private investors is a powerful way to guide our entrepreneurs in their initiatives in the South.

We agree with you that the existing BIO law can use a number of adjustments to better deal with global developments in the field of international cooperation: the SDGs, agreements within the framework of Financing for Development and recently the Panama Papers. We are therefore happy to support certain clarifications in the BIO Act. If there is one message, it is that of the SDGs and the Financing for Development Conference, where it was proclaimed that development today is a global and universal story and no longer a North-South story or a purely ODA-driven story.

Therefore, it is interesting that the BIO will be given the opportunity to set up funds also in our country, which can then make investments in developing countries. That way of working can catalyze the relationships between our entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from developing countries. In addition, it is more than a good thing that you also ensure that even the smallest startups can benefit from technical assistance by removing the 50/50 distribution for the payment of technical assistance and allowing the BIO itself to determine the size of the assistance budget it takes on. This will ⁇ stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit in the intervening countries.

We therefore hope that the draft is a first step towards a more thorough cooperation between our country and the partner countries in the private sector. Our partners in the South are interested in allowing business to grow there. Our companies can also help and should be fully supported if they want to take the step south.

You can count on our support for the draft, Mr. Minister.

Dear colleagues, before speaking to Mr. Miller, I was just ⁇ that our colleague, Philippe Pivin, has become grandfather at this very moment of a granddaughter, Elsa.

Following the Conference on Development Financing and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which took place respectively in Addis Ababa and New York, the law of 20 July 2014, which organizes and structures our cooperation on a bilateral and multilateral level, had to be amended.

Through your reform, several legislative elements have evolved to best reflect the new paradigm of development. In this regard, the private sector, public authorities and civil society have a greater role to play in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Our legislative framework should take this into account.

Mr. Minister, in view of this new paradigm, the MR supports the government’s project as well as the approach of participation of the private sector. The Southern countries have a real need for inclusive and sustainable growth, and we are convinced that success in engaging the private sector should be seen as the main driver of progress in developing countries.

Thanks to BIO, Belgium has the opportunity to strengthen local private enterprises. This is essential. The changes brought by the reform are perfectly in line with the government agreement that recommended the stimulation of the private sector as a driver of economic growth, including by improving the investment climate in partner countries. In addition, the law stipulates that private investors who are concerned with the social and environmental impact of their financing will be selected. I would like to emphasize that the new legislation leaves the management contract and the annual contribution of the Belgian State to BIO free. These are the reasons why our group supports your project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, also development cooperation does not escape the ever faster changes in the globalizing world. The SDGs have taken the place of the MDGs and the classical development aid, as we have known them in the past decades, has made the place for a new development aid, based on a new paradigm, as you rightly state in the Explanatory Memory on the BIO. The partner countries themselves also play a much larger role in development cooperation.

The Belgian legislative instrumentarium has been substantially modified since the late 1990s as a result of the ABOS scandals. It implemented the new insights common at that time and was, in an international framework, very progressive. Despite its forward-looking and modernity, our instrumentation cannot escape social changes and new insights. It is a good thing, Mr. Minister, that you take the necessary initiatives, and you have already taken numerous initiatives, so that our development cooperation remains up-to-date.

This initiative aims to address the new development paradigm, which was established in Addis Ababa, around development financing, but also in New York, around the SDGs. You want to respond even more than ever to the role of the private sector in developing countries. I also believe that the private sector in developing countries can play an important role. In order to make real progress, economic growth is necessary, provided that, as you always rightly state, it is inclusive and, in other words, that the large group of poor in the South can also benefit from this economic growth and will be able to build a human-worthy existence.

However, this does not exclude the fact that it is still possible to continue to question the legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency of the private sector in developing countries as well as the instruments used for this purpose, including in Belgium.

In recent years, the criticism was, by the way, right that the BIO was focused solely on the financing of lucrative projects, which increasingly undermined the development yield – which should ultimately be the goal for the BIO – increasingly. It is a good thing that, in accordance with the government agreement, you will require the BIO to do more work of investments with a stronger focus on development return. Only for that reason will CD&V approve the present draft.

However, we will not do this blindly. After all, there are some concerns. In fact, the present bill contains a number of points that are still subject to interpretation, because they are not yet sufficiently clearly formulated. Therefore, CD&V will continue to closely monitor whether the impact on development and development relevance of the BIO is actually realized. Therefore, it would be useful and desirable that the definitions are clearly defined in a management contract of the BIO which is yet to be approved, as I have rightly stated in the committee.

I would like to point out three points that are important to us in the management contract.

You have repeatedly stated, both in the memory of the draft and during the discussion in the committee, that there will be a stronger focus on development performance. Few institutions have been able to correctly define the development yield. However, development performance is the most important aspect for the BIO. I think this is the shoe. After all, private investors, whom you want to attract more, are understandably especially interested in the highest possible financial return with the least possible risks. However, investments in developing countries, especially in fragile countries, as you push them forward and for which we have opted in our development policy, involve high risks, both in terms of success and financial return. Therefore, it would be useful and desirable if development yields were clearly defined in the BIO management contract to be approved.

Second, I refer to the important article 3 of the draft that defines companies that can claim to the resources of BIO. If one reads this article, almost any company established in one of the intervening countries can apply for the necessary resources from BIO. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify which companies cannot claim this at all. If you read the article, it is very extensive. My group therefore urges that this be clarified, including in the management contract.

The same Article 3 also refers to the fact that support will be provided in intervening countries to companies that contribute to the fight against climate change in those countries. They can also claim support from BIO. Does this mean that a company that launches solar panels to generate cheap own energy can claim funds from BIO? If this is the case, this cannot be understood as a financing of companies with development aid resources. Is the added value for the people in the South itself noticeable in this case? Also here, more clarity should be made within the new management contract of BIO.

Third, there are still questions about the amount of the amount granted by BIO. That is still quite high. At the time of its establishment in 2001, the primary target was the local, private sector, the small and medium-sized enterprises to which you refer. If you look at the amounts, it is at least about a million euros where a return must be opposed. I wonder if these micro and small enterprises are not overlooked. It can, of course, be indirectly, through funds in which BIO will participate.

As already mentioned, it was just those companies on which BIO should focus, which may not be eligible. Indeed, large enterprises have sufficient own resources and other options on the capital market to generate investment funds. Therefore, we call for some coherence with other actors and NGOs. This is also mentioned in the Memory of Explanation. Also in your reply in the committee you stated that you consider this important. However, that was not yet defined in the law. This needs to be specified in the new management contract.

The NGOs clearly have something to contribute, but the alignment with BIO is today focused only on an informal bullshit. I think it would be very powerful if you would ⁇ greater coherence in the integrated operation, by working with the NGOs and with BIO to examine how to cooperate at the government level in those countries. This coherence must also be defined in the management contract.

You have also given a lot of additional tasks to BIO. I think it is good that you also provide the necessary adequate resources, as well as sufficiently qualified personnel. Today, BIO has €40 million, including the budget for, among other subsidies and capital investments. Since there are a lot of new tasks, I think it is necessary to have a well-qualified staff. Therefore, I hope that you will succeed in the budget negotiations to continue to strive for that 0.7%.

Mr. Minister, the CD&V group will approve this draft because the large crystal lines are in accordance with the government agreement.

Through BIO you intend to make a substantial contribution to the economic development of the countries in the South and thus strengthen self-sufficiency. Our group is absolutely in favor of this.

However, the modalities and the manner in which BIO will do so must be further specified in the management contract to be negotiated. We will continue to monitor this and continue to follow this in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill enables an innovative policy that is adapted to a changing world and a changing international development policy.

Bio definitely has a role to play in this. For liberals, the private sector is an important aspect of international development. This can be a win-win. Also in our partner countries, sustainable economic development and growth is the best tool in the fight against poverty and the many challenges these societies face.

Our policies should work as structurally supporting as possible and ensure that individuals can take their fate into their own hands to improve their family and their environment.

If we can allow private investors from us through BIO to take a step in a story that not only seeks return, but also looks at the impact on the population and the environment, that can only be a positive turn.

I also emphasize that the importance of digitalisation in developing countries’ development is crucial. The ways in which this can happen can be thought out by way of speech tomorrow. The opportunities there are enormous, whether in agriculture, urban planning or healthcare.

It is therefore important that we flexize our instruments to enable this also on the ground. We must continue to work on the broader framework that enables such development.

This bill, Mr. Minister, fully fits this logic. Therefore, our group will support your bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in the committee, the Minister and I held a discussion on Article 8 of the bill, which introduces an article 3quinquies into the BIO Act. The discussion focused on whether the door to tax havens as an intervention country is closed or not.

Mr. Minister, I re-examined this article and I remain in my view that as a result of the new article you insert, a country can act as an intervention country if it has not complied with OECD standards for less than 5 years. One country that meets this condition is, for example, Panama. As a result of your text, Panama will be able to act as an intervention country, or as a country where an intermediate structure of BIO is housed, due to the fact that Panama has not complied with OECD standards for less than 5 years.

In examining your text, I came across article 3quinquies, § 2, which is a list to be established by royal decree, a list that sets out which countries are referred to in article 307 of the Code of Income Taxation.

Maybe I can’t search properly, I don’t rule out that, but I didn’t find that royal decree. Is there such a royal decision? If this is not the case, you, as Minister of Finance, have been in absence for two years to take that.

To address the problems I have now pointed out, I have submitted an amendment stating that the five-year exemption you introduce should only apply to the least developed countries and low-income countries.

If we do so, we will ⁇ the goal you set yourself, in particular ensuring that developing countries such as Congo, Rwanda, Burundi – I can also list the 11 other partner countries – which still do not meet the OECD standards, can still act as intervention countries. We want to keep that, but we do not accept that countries that have a palmares of notorious fiscal paradise, thanks to the new text you propose, can act as intervention countries of the BIO or as countries where an intermediate structure through which the BIO operates is housed.

We will submit our amendment to vote. If the amendment is not approved, we will not approve the bill, Mr. Minister, because you are opening doors to tax havens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, during the discussions in the committee, we addressed an interesting question, namely, who can finance development cooperation and for whom this financing can intervene?

BIO has, for a number of years, enabled the private sector – environmentalists would like this to be the case for individuals – to finance development cooperation. In fact, there is an extremely large private savings in Belgium, since it is about more or less 260 billion euros. Now, we know that in our country there are investors who are looking for investments that make sense, who carry a project. In this case, it is about developing the South. And Bio could make this possible.

Who can invest? The private sector. I therefore strongly encourage you to work, in the future, on a legislative framework that would allow crowdfunding and thus aggregate private savings that could invest in micro-enterprises, in development in Africa or elsewhere in the South.

I will focus my speech on one element, namely, for whom? In reviewing the report, my attention was drawn to the amendment you make through Article 4, § 3, which specifies that BIO has the social purpose of investing directly or indirectly in the development of micro-enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises and "enterprises established in intervention countries".

I share here the same fears as Mrs. Van Hoof. By referring only to the terms "companies established in intervening countries", this would imply that BIO financing could be extended to any enterprise belonging to the agricultural sector, including agribusiness and big business enterprises. I expect you to give me some clarification on this.

You know that there is a controversy between the cooperation sector, ⁇ your services, and the associative world of development cooperation, around two companies, namely Feronia in the DRC that produces palm oil, which is a listed company that has benefited from development aid budgets, and Addax Bioenergy that produces bioethanol from sugar cane. This is not about micro-enterprises or small and medium-sized enterprises. These are clearly very large-scale companies with a goal that is not a sustainability goal.

If BIO funds agribusiness companies, it misses its target. I would like you to be able to clarify here that my interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 4 is not correct and that, therefore, under the current law, BIO could not invest in the companies I just mentioned and in other large companies that make agrofuels. The production of agrofuels favours an exporting industry. However, the objective of Development Cooperation, especially since the Belgian Technical Cooperation drafted a note on food security in 2010, is to invest in projects that promote family farming and economic projects, which aim to develop local trade, agriculture and the local economy. If this goal is not achieved, BIO will miss its target.

For the rest, we share the same fears as when the law was created two and a half years ago. On the other hand, we remain in favor of the idea that development cooperation is also the affair of all citizens and all small investors, including small savers, small self-employed, small Belgian entrepreneurs who can help here or there small entrepreneurs of the South.

Mr. Minister, this bill aims to reform BIO once again to respond to the will of this government and to your will in particular to bet on the development of the private sector in the Southern countries while the public sector, unfortunately, goes more and more in the background.

As a reminder, after several scandals, BIO had been profoundly reformed by Minister Labille. This reform was then welcomed by the sector as responding to the deviations seen in the past, notably in the selection of projects or in the use of tax havens that the press had echoed, while improving the role of BIO, in coherence with the action of our Belgian cooperation and the service in particular of food security.

With this reform, BIO could no longer play a rider alone within the Belgian cooperation. Therefore, we do not fully understand this new reform proposed today, nor its added value after only three years. It seems like the Pandora's box is being opened again and again. The risk is very real to introduce the same blur that had allowed, before the Labille reform, dysfunctions or inconsistencies between the methods that were used, the modes of operation and the choice of certain projects.

While the search for flexibility is obviously important and I can understand it, many questions I have asked in the committee have remained unanswered. Why, Mr. Minister, so relax the conditions relating to tax havens? Who will control the investment funds that are made possible by this project? Who will ensure the consistency of the projects selected? At the level of BIO, and there I join my colleague, there are ultimately very few people who are responsible for control and monitoring. Will additional staff be hired to carry out all these new tasks?

On the other hand – and here I agree with my colleague Hellings’ fears – Mr. Minister, you know my group’s strong and historic commitment to food security and sovereignty. Unfortunately, it would seem that this project allows an extension of the scope of BIO by extending it to any enterprise in the agricultural sector, including the large enterprises of agribusiness, with the possible derivatives that we know.

I would therefore like, Mr. Minister, that you can guarantee us here, so that it is written black on white in the report, that this extension will in no way affect the orientation of the rating Agriculture and Food Safety, which prioritizes sustainable family agriculture. I am afraid that the coherence of policies will be compromised.

I have submitted amendments to ensure that this is not the case. The first was aimed at better control of the details of economic activities, country by country. The second was aimed at a very important element, namely the increased control of taxes related to those economic activities paid by those companies that have benefited from financing, investments or subsidies from BIO. And finally, the third amendment aimed to ensure better parliamentary control of the activities financed by BIO.

Unfortunately, my amendments, as well as those of my colleagues, were all rejected. This does not improve policy consistency. This is not a good sign for transparency. This is not a good signal of our priorities being met, whether in terms of sustainable development, human rights and policy coherence. Therefore, Mr. Minister, you will understand that my group will abstain today, as he abstained in the committee.

I will answer in the order of the comments made.

I will gather the comments of Mrs. Bellens and Mr. Miller. In fact, you emphasize the fact that the private sector has an important role to play in development. The Sustainable Development Goals are about moving from billions to trillions. If we want to be sure to eradicate poverty around the world by 2030, we will have to turn not only to public authorities but also to civil society and ⁇ to the private.

If we look at the figures, we find that in developing countries 60 % of GDP, 80 % of financial flows and 90 % of employment is created by the private sector. The only way to bring people out of poverty in a sustainable way is by ensuring sustainable but inclusive economic growth. If that economic growth is not there, if the private sector does not get its place, then one can never sustainably lift people out of poverty.

Mr Van Hoof, you say that only profitable projects would be looked at from the private sector perspective. First, BIO has the possibility to approve certain projects that ⁇ zero economic yield. Therefore, it is possible to approve projects with zero yield, if one assumes that the yield in the field of development is strong enough.

I also disagree that the private sector is only seeking maximum economic yield. It is now seen throughout Europe that the impact investment sector is developing very strongly. In Belgium it is even less developed for the moment, but it is not that investors or the private sector look purely at economic return. More and more people are also starting to look at other elements in the field of development, and that is a rather good thing.

You say that a number of issues are subject to interpretation, for example, the impact on development. I would like to mention one element that BIO uses in its evaluation. BIO looks at what is called development rating. It has a number of criteria to be considered. Each of these seven criteria should be considered.

We need to look at local economic growth. It should be considered the possibility of innovation or consolidation for the private sector. We need to look at the impact on food security.

I know this is important for colleague Grovonius. The impact on food safety is one of the criteria for evaluating the project.

Access to basic goods and basic services. One must look at the impact on climate change mitigation. One should look at improving best practices in the field of ESG. Finally, one should also look at the impact on gender equality.

These are all elements used by BOI today when evaluating projects. It is very clear that it is not only looking at economic returns. These are matters that are contained in the management contract, but ⁇ we need to sharpen some matters in the next management contract. I am absolutely not against that.

You also noted that BIO has a number of minimums in terms of investment and therefore cannot invest in very small projects or even in microfinance.

That is correct. That is also, because BIO would of course have very high transaction costs. If you want BIO to invest directly in very small projects, you must take into account that the costs of evaluating such projects are relatively high at BIO. That would mean that public expenses would be excessively high compared to what could be invested.

Therefore, indirect investments are used for this, which you have also cited. They are sometimes called funds or funds. It is invested in funds, which then invest further. That is normal. We find that other investment funds from other countries also often use this method.

The last point concerns the question of who can be entitled to projects or to BIO funding.

This is now relatively broadly defined and is of course also a responsibility of the Board of Directors. We also need to give BIO confidence. A specific legal framework is given to BIO, which is specified in a management contract.

For me, a law must be sufficiently general. It cannot be the consideration here to introduce in a law all sorts of very specific elements. This causes a law, in the first place, to become quasi inoperable and, in the second place, to lose a certain timelessness. Today we can put some current concerns into the law, but in that case the law needs to be changed almost every two or three years, which is not the right method.

A management contract is a much better tool for this. The responsibility of directors and a board of directors is an important element.

Mr. Van der Maelen, we actually had a disagreement in the committee and I note that we still have that disagreement. I have mentioned many things in the committee that are also included in the report, but I would ⁇ like to repeat them here.

It is very clear that the BIO has a mission to ensure that the displacement of the past, with investments through tax havens, does not happen again. Constructions with illegal or illicit financial flows that have the sole purpose of avoiding the payment of taxes to be paid, we no longer accept at the BIO. In the past we have had problems with this. The current law does not open the door to this. The current law lists 52 countries in which interventions are allowed. You are talking about Panama. Panama is not on the list of 52 intervention countries.

You ⁇ a KB that you did not find. I think it is about the KB of 1 March 2016, which lists 30 countries that today have no or very low forms of taxation. It is very clear that these 30 countries should not be used in any way. The countries on this list are not among the 52 intervening countries. That is an additional grind that exists today.

Why do we make an opening to the list of the Global Fund, which would be made by the OECD? The Global Fund initiative involves asking certain countries why they would not negotiate with the OECD to be approved as countries that actually respect the rules. These countries are not obliged to do so. Many of the 52 intervening countries have not made this effort today. Does that mean that these countries today allow all sorts of constructions that we would not accept? No, this analogy should not be made immediately.

I take as an example a country that wants to interact with the OECD and want to sign up in the process to be sure to be in order. Suppose that, according to the OECD, that country is not in order at first sight yet, but has a period of five years to get things in order. It would be an unlikely sign of distrust from us if these countries could no longer work with us since they have taken the step to speak with the OECD. Then none of those countries will take the step to the OECD, because they know that the consequence may be that they will be thrown out.

Therefore, I think that we must give the countries that want to put themselves in order the openness to do so, knowing that there remains a grinding on the door, which is Article 3quinquies, § 2, which very clearly states that the BIO has the task of ensuring that there is no cooperation with countries where one can set up structures that lead to tax evasion. Therefore, I think there are absolutely enough grinders to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

I may make the same comment as the one I made to Mrs. Van Hoof. We can try to clarify everything in detail in the law, but then, in my opinion, one removes a certain timeless element. A law should use general principles. A management contract should be more precise. A board of directors should also ensure that its responsibilities can be included. It would be ⁇ bizarre to take out countries that are taking the step to get in order today.

You are proposing to create openness for the least developed countries and to pull out the middle-income countries. What that really would mean, I illustrate with examples such as Ghana and Cameroon, two countries that are on the way to become middle-income countries. Your amendment would no longer make it possible in those countries, while, in my opinion, it is difficult to defend that countries such as Ghana or Cameroon would be completely excluded on this basis. That countries disappear from the category of least developed countries and become middle-income countries is rather a good thing. I would therefore maintain the openness in that area and examine case by case whether there is a problem or not.

Mr. Hellings, you talk a lot about family farming. I also think it has enormous potential. But it should not be forgotten that in developing countries, more than two-thirds of people working in family farming are not in a self-sufficient position. This family agriculture will evolve into a form of small and medium-sized enterprise, which will try to increase its productivity, or even export. I think that is rather a good thing.

You say that these funds should not be used for purely industrial agriculture. Among the criteria that BIO uses to evaluate projects are food security and rural development and fight against climate change and preservation of natural resources. These criteria contain enough elements to reassure us about the non-subsidy of an agricultural activity that would have negative effects on food security, climate change or local economic development. These criteria attempt to properly frame investments.

You say that we should limit ourselves to family farming, but first we need to know how to define it. Let us be clear! The intention is that this family agriculture evolves towards professionalization, more productivity, a scale enlargement. Very small-scale agriculture is the best guarantee to keep farmers in poverty.

Everyone has their point of view!

In this case, it is better for everyone to keep their point of view. Otherwise, we would be in the same party. That might not be a good thing.

Madame Grovonius, we have been speaking extensively about your comment on evaluation criteria and on food safety.

The information is provided to the Parliament. As you know, a report is made to the Minister. It is submitted to Parliament and is open for evaluation. As I told you in the past, disclosing all the elements of each investment would lead, in many situations, to the cancellation of the investment. These are investments in private companies. If their amount and nature are made public, it will often put the companies in which they invest in a difficult situation. This would make public a lot of information that they do not intend to make public.

This information is available to the Board of Directors. This is a good thing. But making this detail of information public is not done in other countries either.

I hope I have answered most of the comments.

I believe that the BIO is a ⁇ useful tool and I am convinced that we are now adapting the capabilities of BIO to the world of today. We also give some confidence in the BIO. If we try to clarify everything in laws, it will ensure that BIO has no flexibility. We have a good team at the BIO, we have a board of directors, which should be able to take responsibility. I believe that the proposed draft absolutely responds to that.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the plea of the Minister that it should be all in the management agreement, while we are not sufficiently detailed with the law. On this point we differ in opinion.

Mr. Minister, I take Article 1a, as amended by your draft law. This stipulates that a BIO intervention country is a country that belongs to the categories defined by the OECD Committee on Development Assistance, namely the least developed countries, the low-income countries, the countries with an average income in a lower segment, the countries with an average income in a higher segment. That’s potentially more than the 52 countries you just talked about.

As for the new Article 3quinquies, I take the colleagues of the Committee on Finance as witnesses. We heard the delegation from Panama here last week. Panama is joining the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. By the simple fact that Panama joins it and by the exception you insert into the law, Panama can act as an intervention country. This also applies to other countries that may be less dangerous, such as Lebanon, though there are also doubts about it. All those countries will be able to act as an intervention country or as a country that houses intermediate structures that finance BIO activities.

Our amendment aims to limit the exception to the least developed countries and low-income countries. Then you have Ghana and Cameroon, as they are, as you said, not yet middle-income countries. You have them with you.

We want careful legislation. We have learned from the past that when one makes legislation too blatant, there are always forces that try to abuse the not fully clear legislation. We then saw what was all done through the BIO, through the Seychelles and other tax havens. If we want to close that door definitively, vote for our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

Mr Van der Maelen, you refer to Article 1bis, § 2. This is a theoretical list. The law contains a theoretical list. Then there is a list of 52 countries, which is an intervention list.

That intervention list is a filtering of the theoretical list and the management contract is therefore ⁇ strict in this regard. The example of Panama, which you always cite, is therefore not relevant, because if one puts all the pieces of the puzzle together, it is not possible that it will happen.

We differ in opinions, but we can. I understand that you will not approve the bill, which I regret, but maybe next time.