Proposition 54K3406

Projet de loi modifiant des dispositions relatives à la politique scientifique, la police intégrée et la défense.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 29, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget policy armed forces police national budget scientific research

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Voted to reject

LE PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP

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. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms. Katja Gabriëls, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I want to clarify for a moment why we will abstain from this bill.

This is Chapter 4. As a reminder, almost two years ago, somewhere in May 2017, the law holding military programming was passed. The State Council then noted that this law was unconstitutional, which was not corrected even by the submitted amendments. Amendments to this law through this bill can therefore not be approved, so we will abstain.

We also have significant difficulties with regard to Chapter 4 of this bill.

In fact, Article 9 provides that payments and advances may be made in 2018 and 2019 as part of the acquisitions of heavy military equipment that had been provided for by the Law on Military Programming of 23 May 2017.

Our group considers that this bill presents a fairly significant anomaly in several respects.

First, we are surprised to find that a defence-related point has been analyzed in the committee of the Interior, a committee in which I was not able to participate. This is a matter that should have been discussed by the defence committee.

Second, I had understood that, throughout this legislature, it was not possible to make payments for investments under the Law of Military Programming. Yet suddenly, on Tuesday morning, a few hours before the Prime Minister visits the King to announce his resignation, a possibility was opened for making advances and payments under signed contracts.

Few people are aware, but it should be known that the contract for the F-35 was signed in the hours that followed the government agreement. I think here not only of the memorandum of understanding with the U.S. government, but also of the contract with the U.S. government and the contract with Lockheed Martin. This was not known anywhere. No one talked about it. No advertising was made. No photos were taken. There was no press release.

It should also be known, for example, that the government held under the elbow, for one year, the contract relating to the Wallon towers that will equip the French tanks that we will buy, waiting for an agreement on the F-35.

The government rushed so discreetly that even defense-specialized news sites did not see this information and it was necessary for a tweet by Colonel Van Pee on December 9 to confirm that the said contracts had been signed at the end of October.

I wonder if we are not being swallowed fast payments as part of the acquisition of the F-35, without us being informed, without the Defense Commission being informed, without the Military Purchases Commission being informed.

Therefore, our group will oppose this bill which is introduced completely irregularly in the Interior Committee, while it should have been introduced in the Defence Committee, and a few hours before the fall of the government, as if one had already anticipated the fall of the government the same morning, trying to make payments quickly. We are allowed to vote a cat in a bag and we do not accept this type of method. Therefore, we will oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Gabriel for her work in the committee. I have taken a good note of the various presentations. There was an extensive discussion in the committee, the last time on Tuesday morning. For the rest, I will include the comments made by, among other things, colleague Dallemagne, when the dossier is discussed in more detail, but then outside the decision-making process.

Mr. Minister, you do not respond to my arguments, which I find quite serious and valid. I think it is really an important anomaly that such a project has been submitted to the Interior Committee without the members of the Defence Committee being able to look at it. We do not know what amounts are being discussed, nor for which contracts these amounts would be approved, as part of the very hasty acquisition of F-35 aircraft.

In this regard, I recall that after the principle decision in favour of these American aircraft, the government had promised a discussion on industrial returns before any contract signing. However, these contracts were signed immediately, without the discussion of returns for the Belgian defence industry could take place. I deeply regret it. This is once again an announcement about industrial returns that had been made in the House and which was not respected by the government.

Mr. Dallemagne, I think there is a gender confusion regarding the committees and the work of the Interior Committee. I think the comments you have just made are part of the work of the Defence Committee. You mentioned the towers for the tanks that will be purchased by Belgium but I did not find this specific discussion in my dossier. If there are any comments to be made, I propose that this issue be followed in the Defence Committee. I am at your disposal.

Mr. Minister of Defence, I specifically refer to article 9 of the bill, which relates to the law on military programming, as the title of chapter 4 says. This article was discussed in the interior committee instead of being in the defence committee. This is a total anomaly. I do not know of any precedent where issues within the Defence Committee have been discussed in the Interior Committee.

These are also, once again, anticipations and advances that can be made in 2018 and 2019. We do not know what it is about. This can relate to any contract under this military programming law. We do not know for what amounts, nor under what contracts. Meanwhile, I learn that the F-35 contracts were signed in a hurry, without having discussed industrial returns.

I cannot approve or even abstain from this kind of process. My group will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply, even though it is not a response to my comment or that of Mr. Dallemagne.

I would like to thank Mr Dallemagne for his more technical explanations on the draft law in general and on Chapter 4 in particular. I hope that some of the opposition parties, which have still supported the bill in the committee, will now repent and reconsider their support.