Proposition 54K1938

Proposition visant à instituer une commission d'enquête parlementaire chargée d'examiner les causes de la faillite de la banque Optima et l'éventuelle confusion d'intérêts entre le Groupe Optima et ses composantes, d'une part, et des administrations publiques, d'autre part.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Benoît Dispa
PS | SP Stéphane Crusnière
Vooruit Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

June 28, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bank banking supervision tax evasion central bank committee of inquiry bankruptcy investment bank parliamentary inquiry money laundering

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

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 7, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed the proposal of Mr. Vanvelthoven for which this Chamber approved the urgency almost unanimously last week.

The proposal was discussed yesterday in the Committee on Finance. Several amendments were submitted and were unanimously adopted each time. I would like to emphasize this. This is a collaboration, a unanimous story. Only the amendment aimed at granting a special status to the small groups so that they too could participate in the work of this committee was rejected. All other amendments were either withdrawn or unanimously approved. This testifies to the broad support for the area of activity, the scope and the elements to be examined that this committee will take to heart.

This proposal was approved by Chamber Wide.

Thank you for this report, Mr. Dedecker. In the meantime, the report was distributed.

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter whether I sit or stand, but this time I will still stand.

I remember the last time I stood there at the Dexia Commission and that we all agreed that we had to get the bottom stone up. Now we are unanimously agreed that we will investigate the outcome of a Dexia outcome in a real investigation committee, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, very broadly.

I am also very pleased that a member of the opposition has been allowed to become president. I would rather have done it myself, but Mr. Van Rompuy is the perfect second choice. I expect that we will work very well together in the committee and that in this case everything can be unleashed from beginning to end. Not for the pleasure of reconstruction, but above all to see if the recommendations proposed by the Dexia Commission at the time were sufficient, and to see whether the recommendations that have been murdered in the meantime or unfortunately then censored, could have helped us to avoid this file.

I hope above all that we will come to a result in which we can look straight in the eyes of the ordinary citizen and say that we have done everything we can to prevent such a thing from happening again in the future. The Greens will fully put their shoulders under it, in good cooperation, I hope, with all other groups in Parliament.

Dear colleagues, today we are voting on the creation of a research committee on Optima. Of course, we think that is an excellent idea. It is necessary to examine what has all been missing out in this file. That is important.

In 2008, we pumped 20 billion euros into those banks. However, the control of the banks is not going far enough. They can do whatever they want with our money. The government needs to look at what is happening in the banking sector. In that sense, we are very pleased that today a vote is being taken on the establishment of an investigative committee.

The question is who is eligible to be part of this committee. We have seen that many traditional political parties are more or less linked to this issue. Then we think democratically: it is good that there are still parties that are not linked to it, such as the PvdA, which might be able to participate in this committee.

A Panama Commission has been established. We were allowed to be part of that. Therefore, the PvdA asked the majority parties to participate in this committee as well. What was the answer? There is no answer. There was a factual answer: no, the PvdA should not be part of this investigative committee.

My colleague, Marco Van Hees, asked four or five times why we shouldn’t participate. He did not get any reason. The chairman of the committee even said that he personally believed it could be. This was submitted to the Conference of Presidents and no reason has yet been given. Can you decide today whether we can be part of this committee? Members of the majority, what do you have to hide to prevent us from participating in this committee? You know that the opposition parties have supported this committee. Make a decision today. Give us the right to participate.

We will ask questions, maybe ambitious questions, but that’s what we stand for. If certain politicians get to drink something on a boat, we’ll see if that caused problems. If certain politicians have had sponsorship problems and some sponsors have given a little more money, then we will also check in the committee whether the FSMA or the National Bank have done their job.

Please allow us to participate in the committee. Don’t make a little bit of it, without the smaller parties asking ambitious questions.

So I ask here today: is it still possible to integrate us into the committee? We are part of the Panama Commission. You can decide today, an amendment was submitted aiming at allowing members of political parties such as the PVDA to participate.

I have a small question.

I did not understand one thing well. You say you are sitting in the Panama Commission, is that true or is it not? This is not an investigative committee. Are you a member there? That is my question.

Yes, we are a member of the Panama Commission.

I hear the opposite here, that you are not a permanent member.

You think we should be part of the proposed committee, right?

I do not think so. I ask if you are a permanent member of the Panama Commission.

You were almost there. We are a member of the Panama Commission and we ask you why we should not be a member of the Panama Commission?

It seems that this is not true. I hear the opposite. I ask only whether you are a permanent member of the Panama Commission, that is my only question.

I want to know something else.

I just ask a question: Are you a permanent member of the Panama Commission? You are not here to proclaim the truth. You take a walk with the truth.

Give us one reason why we are not allowed to enter the proposed committee.

I see that you are not speaking the truth and that is enough for me.

To make it a little easier, we will submit an amendment, which will allow you to approve our participation in the proposed committee.

If you really want to know the truth with the Optima Commission, allow all parties, whatever their powers. Mr Van Hees has already published two books on the banking sector. Who can doubt that he can add something to the committee?

Mr. Speaker, I propose today to vote on our amendment. I have not yet heard any argument why we should not enter, so I hope that all parties will approve our amendment. Then we will approve the proposal. If we cannot enter, then we cannot approve it, of course.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to add the following at the end of the general discussion.

We are the last speakers in the general discussion.

If the last presentation is held, I would like to ask everyone to fully support the proposal. The majority and opposition colleagues have jointly decided to set up an investigative committee. We must be able to reveal what went wrong, now that today, despite all the rules approved in Parliament, still a bank can go bankrupt. Through the guarantee system, the Belgian State is directly or indirectly involved.

To Mr Hedebouw, I would like to say that if he re-read his presentation, he will understand why it is necessary that we strictly apply the Rules. To be a member of the research committee, one must be a member of a political group. I do not want to add anything else to that.

Mr. Van Biesen, I would like to hear an argument from the majority or the opposition, from all those who have decided between them.

After all, it is a déjà vu, just as we experienced it in the investigation committee after the attacks. At the same time, all parties, with butter on their heads, decided that only they could be present at the meetings of the investigation committee.

I would like to hear an argument on why the smaller groups should not be involved in this. You can perfectly respect the democratic relationships by, as happened in the past, adding a member, not entitled to vote. Then we can at least – for this we have been elected – open our mouth.

When you say that it is intended to raise the bottom stone up, then it would be in the interest of it that you include every critical voice in the investigation committee. At the time of the establishment of the investigation committee on terrorism, the only so-called argument that I have heard was that one did not intend to unnecessarily complicate the work, without that it could, of course, be made concrete. I would like to hear an argument, if you really believe that the bottom stone should be lifted up, why the smaller factions should not be represented in the committee.

On behalf of my group, I do not want to explain why a particular group cannot participate. There is the Rules of Procedure.

But Mrs. Pas, nothing prevented you from joining DéFI and PTB-GO! form a technical group in the Parliament.

Mr. Van Biesen, the more you talk, the less it is clear!

Why do you reject the participation of unrecognized groups? This is a question that you have been asked several times in the committee. Even some of the opposition colleagues who supported our amendment have asked the question to you, Mr. Van Biesen and the other colleagues of the majority. You never gave a single answer. There is even a member of the majority who said to me apart: “You are not obliged to motivate.” You see the level of consciousness of this majority! You do not have to motivate. What do you have to hide in this case? This is the question we ask ourselves. “Mr. Piedboeuf, what have you to hide? You can answer us!

It would be interesting to have at least one answer! Make yourself to such a point in your pants with our presence that you don’t even dare to motivate! Are you right in your boots? Can you justify the rejection of our presence in this committee? The question arises. This is not a regulatory problem. It has been cited enough precedents of parliamentary commission investigations that have been done with unrecognized groups. Do not come with the issue of the regulation! This is not the question. It is a political choice. This political choice, by what is it determined? Mr. Piedboeuf, Mr. Van Biesen, do you have a response to us?

Mr. Speaker, this does not happen often, but I must give Mr. Van Hees the right. You are invoking a regulation, Mr. Van Biesen. Which Rules ? The Rules of Procedure stipulate that an investigation committee may itself determine its mandate and composition in a bill.

There have been many deviations in the past. I was in the investigation committee on tax fraud, in the previous legislature. With you, Mr Van Biesen! So you know very well that there has been added an additional member of the technical group Ecolo-Groen, without voting rights.

Exceptions are made à la carte. There is no regulation. The investigation committee decides on it itself. It is just a political decision. I would like to hear an argument for this political decision. Why hold critical voices from an investigative committee when it is so-called the intention to raise the bottom stone above? You cannot explain that!