Proposition 55K0619

Projet de loi portant insertion des dispositions en matière de service bancaire de base pour les entreprises dans le livre VII du Code de droit économique.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Franky Demon, Leen Dierick, Steven Matheï, Jef Van den Bergh
N-VA Michael Freilich
Open Vld Kathleen Verhelst

Submission date

Oct. 15, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bank economic policy financial institution type of business

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Oct. 15, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Gilles Vanden Burre and Florence Reuter, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.

Dear colleagues, I would like to give you a concise explanation on a practical level. Given the measures related to COVID-19, we ask you to stay on your seats for the speech. Indeed, unlike current issues where you can come to the tribune, for the discussion on the texts, we propose to stay in your place. We thank you.

That is a pity, Mrs. Speaker, because I have never been allowed to stand in front of my colleagues, but I do the same on my bench.

Colleagues, now that today the bill on basic banking services is addressed here, it becomes an important day for the many companies that in recent years had not been able to open a bank account or whose bank account was closed without having been able to do anything about it. The problem, however, was not new; it has been on for eight years and the many conversations with the various banks and the banking federation have led to nothing.

The option of remedying the problem through legislation was not our first option and I therefore regret that the various negotiation efforts, first by the affected sectors themselves and then by former Minister of Labour Kris Peeters, have gone to nothing. The law obliges every company in our country to hold a bank account and register in the KBO, otherwise it is not in order with the law. Therefore, we cannot leave in the cold the many companies that today do not have a bank account.

Again, it is a pity that we have not been able to work out a solution in consultation with the banks. This has now come in the form of Mrs. Dierick’s bill, which we support, because a lot of companies to whole sectors were simply excluded from banking services from one day to another.

What started with the diamond industry has soon expanded to other sectors and ⁇ , such as the enterprises in bitcoins, the football industry, people who have been declared bankrupt and want to restart and today even jewellery. After all, jewelry often contains diamonds and so many banks no longer want to cooperate with jewellery. Banks also want to get rid of customers who want to transfer money from Africa as soon as possible, because they see a risk in it. That cannot be the intention.

The banks have opposed this bill, which I regret. During the hearing, we asked Febelfin what the banks themselves proposed. Febelfin completely rejected the proposal on the basic banking service with my proposal linked to it. She also did not see a direct negotiation with the sector in view of a gentlemen’s agreement. For Febelfin, everything must remain as it is and everything is okay. Well, that is ⁇ not the intention.

The banks argue that with the approval of the text, the Parliament opens the door to all European malfaith firms, which will open an account in our country. That is of course shit. We see that in France, where the basic banking service for enterprises already exists, that was not the case. In addition, we have incorporated an additional barrier in the legislation, which is that the CFI can provide advice on request of banks, if a bank is not sure whether a company is 100% pure on the barrier.

I also submitted a bill in the same sense and eventually it was added as an amendment and Article 9. What is it about? It is not only about the basic banking service but also about the motivation obligation for regular banking business. Today, a bank can cancel an account without adding any motivation. This is very easy for a bank. But imagine that a company is okay with all the rules and taxes, has never come into contact with the court and suddenly receives a letter in the bus in which the bank informs the trustee of its decision to close the account without having to give any motivation for it, adding that you have 30 days to remove the money from the account. We have received emails from people from different industries, such as a company in Ghent that imports and exports computer chips, and they testify that such something feels like a thunderstorm at clear sky. You can no longer get out of one side.

To ensure that banks could not abuse their position, the proposal was that they would give the reason and give account holders 30 days to replicate.

I therefore regret that the banks have spread all kinds of misleading information about this amendment in the press, as if it would counter the anti-money laundering legislation. On the contrary, today there is a law that must counter tipping off, which means that if the bank knows of an investigation or if it makes an investigation on a particular transaction itself, it is forbidden for the institution to notify the customer about it.

Today, however, the exact opposite is happening. A bank sees a transaction that it considers to be suspicious and reports it to the CFI, but it often automatically moves to close the account. If an unfaithful trader in a transaction that is not through the bulk can receive a letter informing that he has 30 days to close his account, then he naturally knows what time it is. People at the park say they have a problem with that. A notification comes in to the CFI which then opens an investigation. This shows that there is effectively a problem, but in the meantime the conscious account is already closed.

The problem with tipping off is thus solved in a very sluggish way by the banks by informing an account holder that the account will be closed. My proposed legislation was intended to ensure that this could not happen again. On the one hand, we no longer give malafide traders a chance to take the money away and, on the other hand, we give bonafide traders the reason why their account is closed.

I have understood that it will still take some time to convince everyone of this part of the bill. There is also an amendment today, among other things because the National Bank of Belgium has some technical questions. I am sorry, but we will support the bill in its entirety.

Here two elements are important. The first element is a basic banking service for companies that today do not have a bank account. We will look for a solution for that. He will also come.

The second element is that we do not want the people who have an account today to be thrown out on the streets from day to day. That will be for another day.

In any case, I would like to thank all members, starting with Ms. Dierick, who took the initiative to bring this important law to an end. I also thanked the other colleagues across party boundaries, who always had the institution to look for solutions.

The bill presented here today is a bill that has evolved from a basic text to a legislation with increasing guarantees.

We really know a lot of stories. Mr Freilich has just referred to the banking exclusion of self-employed and entrepreneurs.

Colleagues, it is true that similar legislation has been in place for consumers for a long time, a basic banking service for consumers. There is, of course, something to say about this bill.

Indeed, there have been consultations between, on the one hand, various sectors and, on the other hand, the banks, in order to obtain certain solutions regarding, among other things, transparency. These conversations have failed. I understand that in such a case the legislator must resolve something.

Indeed, it is ⁇ grave that certain entrepreneurs cannot get a bank account and that simply whole sectors are excluded because they belong to a particular sector. This is not correct in our opinion. Each customer should be evaluated individually.

It is also not unimportant that banks simply unilaterally close accounts without any reason, which, by the way, also happens today with a lot of private customers. Customers then simply receive a letter in the bus that acts as a notice of resignation, with the intention of transferring all funds to another bank within a period of thirty days. For us, this is an absolute disgrace and may not be the intention.

Although, of course, a cancellation of accounts from a banking point of view can be fully legitimate or justified, that transparency is absolutely important. I think every customer has the right to know why his or her accounts are cancelled. A lot of entrepreneurs, including entrepreneurs with whom I myself come into contact, can sometimes be asked the question why a bank account is canceled. Is it related to suspicious transactions? This is not known because there is no transparency about it. Today, other reasons can still persuade banks to cancel accounts. For example, I think of how interesting a customer portfolio is. Bank customers who only have money on their bank account and few other services from their bank are no longer interesting, especially now that banks are punished by the European Union if they hold too much money on their accounts. Whether or not a person is a good customer, so today equally determines whether or not a person is interesting from a banking point of view.

In this sense, the amendment of Mr. Freilich also voted in favor of us in the committee. We strongly supported this amendment. This, in turn, gave us an additional reason to join the whole bill.

We were initially skeptical of this bill. Colleagues who followed the discussions in the committee know that we had a number of reasons for this. First and foremost, during the hearing, where Febelfin was also invited, the responsibility of banks was discussed. After all, banks must always be able to demonstrate traceability of all financial resources that go over the accounts. If the banks are unable to do so, or when it later turns out that it is money that has not been obtained in a fresh way, then there are a lot of fairly heavy fines associated with this, which of course is also linked to the reputation of banks. At first, we found it contradictory to impose obligations on banks in this sense. On the one hand, we must ensure that entrepreneurs can get the banking services they are entitled to, on the other hand, the banks should not be further punished.

That basic service, no matter how well intended, with the risk of money laundering, was for us an important element in the debate.

I disagree with Mr. Freilich when he says that through the approval of such a law, there will not necessarily be additional accounts opened which sends terror money to us. I do not agree with the colleague. We must avoid terror money from abroad coming to us through back doors to wash it white here. This will always be difficult for the Flemish Interest.

The legislation comes, on the one hand, because various sectors and banks have failed to get out of it. On the other hand, the lobby has also done a lot of work. I look at the Indians. With every bill in this Parliament, we must always be careful and vigilant about lobbying.

Should we have compassion for the banks? I say very clearly no. They are too willing to hide behind the concept of professional secrecy, which they sometimes dare to interpret quite broadly. Are we going to crack down on the banking secret? Certainly and ⁇ not. This should be very clear.

However, when I look at the hearing in the Committee on Finance, important issues were addressed. I think of Dexia, for example, who at the time refused to share information about suspicious transactions related to drug money from Venezuela. We were also able to find that the control system of ING was quite weak, because one was earlier a kind of correspondent bank. I can continue this way for a while.

It must be said, colleagues, that a lot of capital is still being laundered today. There are very few declarations of deprivation. The fines are mild. These things will also have to follow, simultaneously with legislation like this. One cannot rely only on the traceability and responsibility of the financial institutions.

In addition, there is also a lack of investigators in the financial sector for money laundering files. At the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, terrorism, associated with money laundering, was a priority, but today these people are also used in other affairs. I consider it ⁇ important, colleagues, that sufficient expertise is built against money laundering and that it remains a battle point in the future.

I find it ⁇ strange that the National Bank, which is to act as a sort of sanctioning body in relation to the banks, until today refuses to appoint banks by name and surname if they are subject to a sanction or if a friendly settlement is made with them.

Colleagues, apart from the law that is here today, there is still a lot of work to be done. Is this law perfect? Maybe not. We will continue to work on anti-money laundering measures, but we understand of course the need for this bill. We understand that many entrepreneurs today are wrongly excluded from banking services. Some accounts are cancelled without justification.

A number of amendments were adopted in the committee which improved the text in a positive sense. This has ensured that, despite our previously planned opposition, we will still approve the bill. We are only asking for a timely evaluation of this law. Given the concerns we have expressed both in the committee and today, this evaluation is necessary. It must ⁇ happen. We will therefore also today, taking into account the comments made, approve this bill.

The coronary crisis is a special and very difficult situation. It has a very large impact on our health, our social contacts and also our economy. Both small and large ⁇ need to adapt. Today they are unexpectedly confronted with large, new challenges. It is perfectly right that all our attention will be on them in the coming weeks. Unfortunately, there are also companies that come into trouble apart from the coronary crisis. We also need to look at this in Parliament and we also need to look for solutions for this.

As colleagues have already said, several companies today face the fact that they cannot open a new bank account or the fact that their bank account they had for years is suddenly terminated by their bank. Over the last few weeks and months I have heard a lot of stories about it and received emails about it. To be honest, I could hardly imagine that some companies and sectors have to struggle to obtain or retain a bank account number. However, having a bank account is a necessity and even an obligation in Belgium to be able and be allowed to do business. Without a bank account, you cannot be an entrepreneur. However, this reality occurs in many sectors.

These are not merely individual, exceptional cases, but certain sectors are fishing here and have difficulty meeting those banking conditions. These practices are becoming increasingly prominent due to the recent trend of de-risking used by banks. The House Panama Papers Committee of the previous legislature recommended that the government and regulators should take appropriate measures to encourage financial institutions to refuse customers only on the basis of an individual risk analysis or valid reasons. Therefore, banks should not exclude entire sectors or target entire sectors, it should be based on individual risk analyses. However, following the hearings we have had, we have the strong suspicion that this is not always the case.

The obligation to have a bank account in order to be able to do business in Belgium must, of course, remain. We are convinced that a bank account provides greater transparency and that it is precisely the excellent instrument of investigation in the fight against money laundering and against the financing of criminal activities.

Electronic banking can be tracked at any time. Of course, this should not be affected. An entrepreneur must be able to obtain and maintain a bank account. With the bill proposed today, we offer an easy solution. There is already a well-functioning basic banking service for consumers, but for companies this was not the case. Based on this example and the example of France, this bill is designed to provide a basic banking service for companies.

The bill is quite simple. If a company is established in Belgium and has been refused at least three times by a bank for the minimum payment services, it may be entitled to a basic banking service. After refusing three times, the company can apply to obtain that basic banking service. This basic banking service is not offered automatically. The company must first take the initiative by first calling on several banks for obtaining a bank account. Only after three refusals can a call be made to the basic banking service.

In the stories that reached me from various entrepreneurs, there was often also the observation or the justified frustration or despair that they did not receive any explanation, motivation or reason why their bank account was denied or why it was suddenly shut down. They had no suspicion of why. In order to address this, we undertake that any refusal from now on is also explicitly and in writing motivated and this within ten working days, unless this is contrary to the anti-money laundering law. This is a very important clause that I would like to emphasize.

Rejection motivation is important. However, CD&V is not in favour of the inclusion of a general reasoning obligation as contained in Mr. Freilich’s amendment. We have already expressed that concern. We have therefore also introduced a new amendment to remove the general obligation of motivation. We are convinced that this should be considered outside the scope of this bill. This can ⁇ also be mentioned in the further evaluation of this bill.

We have exchanged views on this bill several times in the Committee on Economy, Consumer Protection and Digital Agenda. Many of you had at the beginning expressed the legitimate concern that with this proposal we would not contend with the anti-money laundering legislation. I was therefore very satisfied and in itself also reassured that the CFI and the National Bank during the hearing clearly indicated that this bill is indeed compatible with the anti-money laundering law. This proposal still retains the possibility for banks to refuse a company or to terminate the basic banking service at any time if it is found that the company is conducting transactions that violate the anti-money laundering legislation.

Finally, I submitted a second amendment to remove the reporting and reporting obligations of the National Bank of Belgium. In fact, we had received a letter from the NBB indicating that this would impose a new task on the NBB and that, therefore, the ECB should also be consulted. By submitting this amendment, it is no longer necessary.

With this bill, we are taking an important step. It may be that it is not a perfect step; hence we immediately also entered an evaluation in the bill, an evaluation that must be made a year after the entry into force. This gives us the opportunity to carefully look at what effects this has and to update if necessary.

Finally, I would like to thank all colleagues in the Committee on Economic Affairs. We have debated this bill very often, in a politically difficult time. The bill has been fundamentally changed. It has always been improved based on the various advice we may have received and the hearings we have held, but also on the basis of exchanges of thoughts with all of you.

I think we can be proud today that we as a committee can carry out such legislative work. I am convinced that we are taking a good step and I hope that I can count on your support for the adoption of this bill.

Dear colleagues, this is crazy. It is crazy, the number of legislative initiatives whose impulse comes from the middle of the diamonds.

Even before I was in this assembly, several deputies, some of whom are still present, had launched a bill regarding judicial seizures, because there was a fear in this matter. Some had mobilized under the impulse, not to say the lobbying, of diamonds.

There was, when Didier Reynders was Minister of Finance, a tax amnesty on diamond stocks. A tax amnesty made specifically for diamonds on black diamond stocks they had hidden, so they had cheated.

There was, of course, not to be reminded, the whole question of the extended criminal transaction, where we wondered whether it was rather the Kazakh mafia or the Antwerp diamonds who were at the origin of this at least dubious law. Finally, it turns out from the commission of inquiry that it is probably a bit of both, but in any case, also the diamonds.

Then there was, under the Michel government, but under the pen of N-VA Minister Johan Van Overtveldt, this famous "carat tax", which is a specific tax, a taxes made on the diamonds, a requirement of this sector.

And now, there is this new text, which is again over-measured for diamonds. I hear that this is one of the points that was found in the recommendations of the Panama Papers Commission. I was a member of this committee. In addition, the President of this Commission, Mr. Laaouej, is present. I remember very well how this happened. At the very end of the work of this commission, suddenly, a member of the N-VA of this commission – I think it was Rob Van de Velde – came to slide this request, again under pressure from the diamond sector, to offer a banking service to the diamonds who no longer had them, who no longer had access to banks.

I was shocked, of course. What does this have to do with the fight against tax fraud that was the subject of this commission? Nothing is! This may have to do with tax fraud itself, but it actually had nothing to do with the fight against tax fraud.

Should I remind you, dear colleagues, that 60% of Belgian files in the SwissLeaks case relate to diamonds? Sixty percent of the cases, which involve billions of euros! But as we still see today, it is true that diamonds have incredible relays in the political world. It must be recognized. Incredible relays, to the point that lobbying takes place up to the Chamber, here. What do lobbyists usually do? They are putting pressure on the members. But this case was quite extraordinary. Some MPs themselves turned into lobbyists for their colleagues.

We had the Diamantclub, founded a few years ago and which, apparently, as I hope, no longer exists today. This is at least what his former president, Mr. Jan Jambon, said when he was asked the question. He became a minister. I think that Mr. Verherstraeten is also a member, or even vice president of the Diamantclub here in the House. There were, of course, liberals; I wonder if Mrs. Marghem was not one of them. There were even Flemish Socialists. The Diamond Club is a lobby organized by the members themselves. This lobby thus has power in the Belgian political world, to the point that eventually, the lobby that was a parliamentary lobby before the Michel government moved completely within the government. Indeed, in the Michel première mouture government, no less than seven ministers or secretaries of state had a connection with diamonds, either that they had links, or that they were at the origin of parliamentary legislative initiatives, or that they had taken measures in favour of diamonds in a governmental framework.

Dear colleagues who support this text, stop telling shit! This is not a text that is made "for ⁇ in general who have trouble finding a bank". No, this is a text written tailor-made for diamonds. These have so much cheated, so much money laundered, so much put their hands in the blood diamonds – the diamond trade is a criminal activity in Africa and it kills people – that they have managed to indispose the banks. Not because of the mental states of the banks, but because the banks today are subject to certain measures, to certain risks of sanctions that have been imposed on us internationally. It is rarely purely Belgian initiatives that have implemented these legislations.

Stop saying that all companies are affected by this problem! Horeca Vlanderen said: "We are not concerned with this type of problem." The Union of the Middle Class says, in turn: "This refusal to open a bank account is more of the exception than the norm. Therefore, we can ask ourselves: Should a general solution be applied?" Febelfin, the bank lobby, says that companies can easily access banking services and that difficulties are mainly encountered by a minority of companies whose management is not compatible with anti-money laundering legislation.

The cherry on the cake is that we are going to vote this text today, in the midst of the FinCEN Files case, this new additional case revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Not too late yesterday, the Belgian journalists of this Consortium, Clerix, Bové and Counasse, came to the Finance Committee to explain to us the extent of the money laundering problems. This file of the FinCEN Files concerns a priori the United States since it is the anti-laundering cell of the United States that is concerned. The sources come from there. This issue is ⁇ concerned with Belgium. On the few cases there are, because, unfortunately, the sample is small, full of cases concern Belgium and, in particular, Belgian banks or banking institutions established in Belgium.

What the FinCEN Files show is not that banks are too careful in anti-laundering, which one would tend to believe when listening to some colleagues. They are not too watchful. They are too little looking. They do not do enough.

Febelfin is clearly against this text. In addition, the question of reasons must be raised. If it is so unnecessary to vote on a text, why do banks refuse it? Ask yourself the question! What I fear is that if this text is voted today – and unfortunately the PTB was the only one to vote against in committee – banks will be offered an alibi to justify their future failures in anti-money laundering in the future. They may say, “Don’t come and complain! You have seen the law you voted for. You were warned. We were against.”

These FinCEN Files reveal, for example, the case of this Antwerp gold merchant – we are leaving the world of diamonds, even if we are not very far from it – who worked with the complicity of Belfius. It was only when the indications of money laundering or, in any case, when the position of Belfius was compromised that this bank – which seemed to be collaborating very actively with that client – ceased any relationship with him.

What lessons can we learn from this? For my part, I believe that there should be more investigation into the complicity of Belfius in this case and the banks in general. Similarly, sanctions should be tightened or at least measures should be taken to make them effective. Several devices exist but, according to journalists heard yesterday, very few of them are applied in the fight against laundering. Many reports are addressed to the CTIF, but no follow-up is given and no file comes to court.

From such a case, I will conclude that it is important to strengthen the effectiveness of sanctions. So what will happen here? We will eventually give a win-win to this Antwerp gold merchant who claims because Belfius put him out – probably rightly.

I also recall – and it is equally current – that Belgium remains one of the last countries to maintain bank secrecy. Unfortunately, the new De Croo government does not end this. The least thing, when proposing such a text, would be to lift the banking secret in our country and break with this national exception. This would be a prerequisite for this bill.

In addition, the Intergovernmental Body for the Fight Against Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, the Financial Action Group (GAFI), has highly critically assessed the Belgian policy in the fight against laundering. Belgium has even been monitored by this agency.

Instead of offering banking services to diamonds responsible for fraud and money laundering, it is the opposite that should be done, dear colleagues: it is about applying zero tolerance against financial crime.

The procedure provided for in this text of the law is interpelatory. If banks refuse to provide a basic service to a diamond, they must justify themselves and communicate within ten working days. Imagine the short time that this means! After three refusals, a basic service will be offered to this diamond. Just ten days, it’s inciting banks to provide a basic banking service without taking the necessary precautions. It is clear! They were told, "Go guys, as you will not have time to justify a refusal, you will have to accept."

The question remains about the motivation. Indeed, they must justify the refusal, except in cases of threat to national security, public order or suspicion of money laundering. But the problem is that if a bank does not communicate any reason for refusal, it is also an implicit motivation. This means that the society, the diamond in question is aware of figuring among one of these three cases and he knows that we know. Thus, this implicitly violates the anti-laundering law, which prohibits reporting signs of laundering to its alleged perpetrator.

To add a layer, cash transactions are part of the basic service offered to these diamonds. It is constantly said that electronic payments should be preferred, that cash amounts should be limited, etc. And here, what are we doing? They were told, “Not only do you have the right to a basic banking service, but in addition, you can come and withdraw and deposit cash. Go there guys! Give yourself joy in your heart!”

Dear colleagues, let us fight the real battle for banking services, because problems arise in terms of banking service or bank exclusion. These agencies, these bank accounts that are closed more and more – a case has just been cited this week – all these banking policies that, in the name of profit, exclude customers and make access more and more difficult especially for people who lack internet connection, this is a real problem for the population. But for you, it does not exist!

The same goes for SMEs. Let’s talk about the real problems of SMEs with banks! These loans are denied. We have now given a gift to the banks: a guarantee of €50 billion for loans. Credit is still not coming. “Small and medium-sized enterprises always have difficulty obtaining loans,” says Horeca Vlaanderen when asked about this text. What they want is means of financing and access to credits. Small and medium-sized enterprises need funds to carry out their business. This is the real problem. The opinion of the UCM goes in the same direction. He says: "With the crisis we are going through, ⁇ need liquidity, credit delays and the conclusion of new loans."This is the real problem of banking today for individuals and SMEs!

Diamonds do not find a bank. Let’s try first to solve the real problem before getting into the thermometer! The real problem, what is it? The corruption, money laundering and tax fraud in which this diamond industry has been bathing for years. It is important to sanitize it. Moreover, it demands measures and gets them from policies! This is not normal. So let’s clean up this sector and then we will be able to discuss the issue of a basic service! Do not confuse cause and effect. In this case, if these diamonds no longer find a bank, it is primarily because of their dubious practices. There is no need for the fight against laundering. On the contrary, more is needed. That is why we oppose this text.

Mrs Dierick, you just said that many entrepreneurs have problems with obtaining and ⁇ ining bank accounts. I would like to focus primarily on preservation. I find it ⁇ strange, Mrs Dierick, that you have submitted an amendment to suddenly remove the transparency obligation, which was previously accepted through an amendment in the committee, from the bill. We all agreed in the committee that transparency is necessary and that entrepreneurs are indeed regularly confronted with the cancellation of accounts, without a reason.

However, you are now submitting an amendment in order not to ensure transparency. What is behind this? Is there a particular lobby behind this, or why do you choose to remove the transparency obligation?

Mr Van Lommel, there is indeed still the obligation to motivate each refusal, individually, except of course if one goes against the anti-money laundering legislation; so that obligation remains.

However, Mr Freilich’s amendment goes much further: even if the customer did not respect the anti-money laundering legislation, the bank would still have to justify its decision. If someone actually commits fraud, then it would be very strange that the bank would have to report that it wants to cancel the bank account because it suspects fraud. Of course, this is not a way of working. There must still be the possibility to comply with the anti-money laundering legislation and then one cannot report that to the entrepreneur. That is the only reason, hence our proposal.

I have also said that we will evaluate the law after a year and that aspect can therefore definitely and surely still be discussed. Again, the reason is to address our concern that the anti-money laundering legislation must be respected at all times.

Mrs. Dierick, then I hope that we can open the debate at a later stage. We all agreed that transparency is essential and we must therefore find another way to solve it. But well, I think it is absolutely important that the debate on this subject can be held and I hope that you will back back proposals in that regard at that time.

I would like to react without entering into the substantive debate that has already taken place. I would like to clarify how the debate was conducted in the Economic Committee and to which I participated on behalf of my group.

This debate took us many weeks, many months. During the initial discussions, we were skeptical about the demand that was made and we wanted to weigh the pros and cons between our goal of fighting money laundering and tax evasion. Environmentalists don’t have to demonstrate how much the struggle against flagrant injustice is in their DNA.

I have to acknowledge that we have had in-depth discussions with several sectors who have written to us and who have been cited here. It’s not just about the diamond sector towards which we also had a a priori. It is also a question of the horeca sector, other sectors such as the nearby shops. Some people told us that they had been bankrupt and that they wanted to resume a business, but that the banks closed their doors, etc.

We have been able to amend the text under consideration in a profound way by providing for even stronger shutdowns than those mentioned in the original text, which is why I wanted to speak in particular.

I would like to address Mr. Van Hees by telling him that I did not see him in the committee. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.

We have tried to improve the text. There were a lot of discussions, working groups. I would like to refer to my colleagues who will, I think, be able to confirm this.

Finally, we have reached a text that, in our opinion, respects the very important badges set up not to derive and give gifts to those who completely unfairly deceive our State, while responding to a real demand of the ground, from a whole series of sectors for which banks – you said for loans, but this is exactly the same thing for accounts – do absolutely no effort and refuse to open an account to people who simply want to start a business activity.

That balance, for us, is fundamental. I do not want to suggest here that we would have had absolutely no debate and no attention to the fight against money laundering and tax fraud. All the amendments that we have been able to discuss and which were finally voted in the committee are just very clear.

I truly regret that you were not able to take part in these discussions, because you were not in the committee. I would like to repeat that the work has been done. You may not agree with the entire final text, but let us note that the debate has taken place and that improvements have been made.

I would like to answer to my colleague Vanden Burre. I was not in the Economy Committee because I sit in the Finance Committee, which deals with money laundering issues. In this regard, I regret a little more – but these are the meanders of the choices of committees... I think that this text deserved more to be in the Committee on Finance than in the Committee on Economy, but we will not argue about this.

But I mean that my colleague Mr. D'Amico, who is, in fact, a member of the Committee on the Economy, voted in favour of your amendments. I’m not saying your amendments were bad. I simply say that they were insufficient to make this text acceptable. I cited representatives of the horeca sector, who just say that they are not concerned with the problem, that it does not exist. It is clear that it is the diamond lobby that has imposed this. I said, in the Panama Papers commission, they were already there lobbying on this. There is also evidence that a resolution has been passed.

Whether they try to find a small case or the other, in environments sometimes at least as controversial, where one finds a case too, I want to believe it, one can always find a case. I have given enough quotes from the federations that defend SMEs, this is not a problem for SMEs. This does not exist. This exists for diamonds and some cases also in disputed sectors. This is the reality.

If we vote this text, we offer an alibi to the banks who, tomorrow, will be able to say to us: “We had warned you. Don’t come to complain now if the anti-laundering fight is not conducted properly.” Your amendments have been able to limit the break, but they are completely insufficient. That being said, Mr. Vanden Burre, I remind you that we voted for.

I would like to return to what Mr. Van Hees said in particular. When we heard journalists about the new scandal, I had the opportunity to recall this. If special commissions were able to set up and if a journalistic work was able to make this information known, it was precisely because there were banking transactions. If we prevent the opening of accounts, we will be deprived of the way to discover suspicious transactions.

You can say anything you want, but thinking that money laundering will disappear if you do not open bank accounts, which will then disappear, is precisely the way to establish the existence of suspicious operations and to pursue them. Therefore, this reasoning testifies to a misunderstanding of the society in which we live. On the contrary, it is by improving transactions and empowering banks and intermediaries that we will be able to capture and detect these problems.

Therefore, refusing the opening of bank accounts to diamonds on the grounds that some of them are fraudulent is a bad fight and is like tapping alongside the aim sought.

Mrs. Speaker, colleague Vanden Burre, you probably won’t expect it, because I rarely agree with you, but on this point I agree with you.

I recently listened to the presentation of colleague Van Hees who cites a number of procedural matters, such as that it has not been dealt with in the Committee on Economy, but that he sits in the Committee on Finance, where it was better dealt with. I find all this very strange. There are also colleagues in the Committee on Economic Affairs, who have barely engaged in the debate.

I also find it a little regrettable and I refuse to accept that it is said here that this legislation would be attached to one specific sector. If that were the case, the Flemish Belang would not support this bill. I refuse to accept that it is only about the diamond industry.

Mr. Van Hees, of course, I did not expect anything else from you. You always say that you are close to the population, but there are a lot of entrepreneurs and self-employed people who simply cannot access a bank account and who do not belong to the diamond industry at all. The next time you hold an entire exhibition in this assembly, first come out of your cave and know what you are talking about.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a further explanation.

During the previous legislature we had the Panama Papers committee. One of the recommendations in the committee’s report was just to ensure that all companies and companies could have a bank account.

If we want to prevent the existence of a black circuit and if we want to prevent the use of foreign accounts for transactions relating to our country, we just need to ensure that our financial institutions can check that.

You shake your head, but it is so.

The recommendation from the Panama Papers report just ensures that there is more transparency and that the Belgian government can see through the banks and through the CFI what is happening and what transactions are there.

Thus, claiming that everything would only play the diamond lobby in the card is completely wrong. The bill increases transparency.

I hear you flatter against a sector here. It seems like no diamond company acts correctly. I want to contradict that.

In every sector there are rotten apples. You can’t say you don’t want a single diamond trader because they’re all malafide. You cannot say that. We should never do that. Just those bonafide traders, who work hard day after day, need to be supported. This, however, does not apply only to the diamond traders. This is also the case with jewellery. Will you talk about the jewelry lobby? That is not the intention, right?

Therefore, I would like to make it clear that the legislation at issue, as Mr Van Lommel points out, is for a very large number of companies.

You may also have received emails. After all, I know that several other Commission members have received emails from companies that are not based in Antwerp, who are not in the industry at all, who do very different business and who also have the same problem, namely that they do not get an account.