Proposition 54K2331

Projet de loi portant dispositions diverses en matière d'Economie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 27, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive business management consumer protection economic policy electronic government financial legislation commercial law trade regulations

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ PVDA | PTB PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (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 ¶

March 23, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Johan Klaps, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill regulates a number of interesting matters, including stricter rules for lenders.

I have questioned the Minister several times about the displacement of loans that people get tainted in wholesale houses. He then said that he would make the inspection services act faster, but it is of course still better to make clearer rules.

This is done with a number of articles in the present draft. This ranges from informing customers and checking the creditworthiness of the lenders to submitting model contracts to the FOD Economie.

The draft also includes previously technical issues, such as the European transposition of the supervision of the implementation of the so-called PRIIP Regulation. This is specifically the so-called packaged retail investment products and insurance-based investment products. This is clearly legislative material for the lovers. There was very little discussion on this in the business committee.

The draft law also provides for some easing in the bankruptcy law, so that there can also be honor restoration for bankrupt after ten years.

Finally, there is also a bit of order in the legal and accounting operation of the world exhibitions. This has so far been too much ad hoc arranged.

The present draft provides for the establishment of a Belgian Commissariat-General for International Exhibitions. Let us hope that the new Commissariat-General will take control of the often dismissed budgets for the world exhibitions and that we as Members of Parliament, through reports from this Commissariat, will also gain more insight into the operation and finances of this type of prestigious projects.

I would like to express, as in the committee, the last part of the draft, which deals with the so-called modernisation of the functioning of the National Delcreder Service, the service that guarantees itself to companies when they make investments in risky countries.

In politics, we have often spoken in recent weeks and months about more transparency and openness, which is good. But what do we see happening here? Under the guise of the legislation on business secrets, the ministers are closing the door to transparency to many NGOs. We must not forget that this is a public service, which must comply with the rules on access rights.

In the committee, the minister sprinkled a lot of fog. He tweeted us with the notification that parliamentarians can still view all documents. That can be, of course, because as a member of Parliament, we have a little more possibilities on access rights. He acknowledged that NGOs with new, supposedly more modern and business-efficient rules could indeed get less visibility on Delcredere. We find this unacceptable and therefore we will now present our amendment again in the plenary session, to clarify that it is still a public service, which thus falls under the rules on publicity of administration and access, not only for Members of Parliament but for everyone.

Colleagues, you know that the State Council has also signaled the possible democratic deficit with so many words in an opinion. It is even warned of an abolition of the provision by the Constitutional Court. I am again submitting my amendment to the article 77, which we have challenged, for the experts in the committee have now become 79 and today article 82 – all of which are about the same article – so that the restrictive control is reduced.

I would like to quote the State Council, because there was discussion on this in the committee: “The protection of confidential business information is a fundamental right because that information falls under the business secret. Where the administrative transparency relates to such information, a proper balance should be achieved between that fundamental right and the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution. In the present case, the protection of trade secrets is already guaranteed by Article 6 of the Act of 11 April 1994.

A general and absolute derogatory arrangement such as the one envisaged in Articles 77 to 79 or 82 of the preliminary draft can be so much less accepted there, in the light of the respective data, however it must be examined from case to case whether the trade secret is indeed at stake.

In view of the balance that must be ⁇ ined between the right of access to administrative documents and the protection of trade secrets, a document containing confidential information should, as far as possible, be adapted to allow partial disclosure.

A document may be completely withdrawn from the public, only if it really cannot otherwise.”

Consequently, according to the Council of State, it seems difficult to accept that a priori it is assumed that all documents received or produced by Delcredere constitute confidential business information, which should not be made available at all.

“If the proposer of the preliminary draft would persist in this arrangement, he would be at risk that that provision will be destroyed by the Constitutional Court for unconstitutional reasons.”

The State Council is very clear. On the one hand, the so-called purpose of the article, which is the protection of confidential business information, is already regulated by law. I repeat that, on the other hand, the current article is at great risk of being destroyed by the Constitutional Court for unconstitutional reasons.

It is clear to me that the article is not intended to protect company information, but rather to break down transparency and make it difficult to find information.

This is a wrong signal. A government must be transparent and clear about what it does with its money.

Either the Delcreder service is a public institution that fulfils its task with tax money and is thus transparent, or the service becomes a private company, which no longer operates with public money.

For this reason, together with Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen and Mr. Jean-Marc Delizée, I re-introduce the same amendment that I have already defended in the committee and which was supported by the entire opposition. The aim is to redefine Article 82 by our amendment.

Specifically, we intend to replace Article 11 within Article 11 in order to maintain the existing transparency and to introduce the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which belong to the internationally accepted level playing field for private and public enterprises, and to explicitly incorporate into the law on the National Delcreder Service.

We want that, because the Delcreder Service must not only operate for us in a transparent manner, but also maintain certain international standards, in particular the OECD Guidelines for International Companies.

Delcredere must also require that its clients, in particular the companies for which the service is guaranteed, comply with the same OECD standards.

Colleagues, if the majority does not follow the comments of the State Council and rejects our amendment, we find ourselves compelled to re-agenda this important issue through a bill. I am looking forward to the vote and I thank you for your attention.

Colleagues, I will not repeat all that colleague Detiège has already said, I would like to briefly focus on two points that are important in the present bill.

We are pleased that the Minister, at our request, has provided a solution for the professional ban on insurance intermediaries and credit intermediaries after bankruptcy. Previously, there was a distinction between self-employed with and without a company. Managers and managers of a bankrupt company were excluded from the professions of intermediary and intermediary for mortgage credit or insurance, non-company self-employed were not excluded. In the context of a level playing field, this is of course unjustifiable. I am therefore pleased that these people will be given a new opportunity, but of course, colleagues, the approval of the FSMA will still be required for a new license. Cowboys are forbidden. Of course, it remains important to distinguish between fraudulent and non-fraudulent bankruptcy. I would like to give it a moment.

I would also like to comment on the amendment of colleague Detiège and consorts on Delcredere. Colleague Detiège, I would like to make it clear, as in the committee, that the Delcreder Service itself has nothing to do with the export of weapons. I understand that NGOs want transparency and that MEPs want transparency on the granting of weapons export licenses. That is right and we share that concern. However, once that permit has been granted, it is merely a private-law commitment and therefore not the decision and the granting of the permit as such. This is also confirmed by the State Council.

If there is a problem with weapons licenses for abroad, then we need to look at where the problem really lies. We can see the problem there very well, colleagues, because this problem does not arise in Flanders. The issuance of permits is very well regulated in Flanders. In Wallonia, on the other hand, this is apparently treated very loosely.

In 2003 the regionalization was in a wip and a quick arrangement, colleagues. That state reform suddenly went very quickly, when it was necessary for Wallonia. Since then, weapons exports in Flanders have halved. If we still grant export licenses, it is about screens, electronics and the like. When it comes to weapons exports in Wallonia, it is about firearms and ammunition. I think this should be looked at, because one in three Waal weapons goes straight to the Middle East and we know what happens to it. So I suggest that you call on your socialist colleagues in the south of the country to review the licensing policy thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker, a very short response to Mr. Klaps.

In the committee, he also sought to politize this issue. I want to put the points on the i. If the State Council says that there are problems and that the arrangement is even unconstitutional, it is the duty of Parliament to respond clearly. Transparency is needed, everyone knows that. Please approve the amendment of Mr. Delizée and Mr. Van der Maelen, and myself in favour.