Proposition 50K1372

Projet de loi modifiant de l'article 3bis de la loi du 3 novembre 1967 sur le pilotage des bâtiments de mer, modifié par la loi du 30 août 1988.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 19, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

liability civil liability proceedings maritime shipping

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

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 ¶

May 2, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report. That written document is, in my opinion, complete, of course because of the contribution of colleague Hugo Coveliers.

Mr. Van Parys, I did not expect less from you. The room agrees with it.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to obtain the report over the course of the week, but I did not get it. Today I found the report here in my place. However, Article 66 provides that a report must be submitted three days in advance. That had not happened. I would like this discussion to be postponed. I have that right, I think. There is no urgency for this bill.

Mr. Sevenhans, I have on my report the date of 24 April. Today is 2 May 2002

The report was distributed to the banks today. The date indicated on it is, in my opinion, of additional order. I have asked the services of the Chamber several times.

In connection with this bill, I have heard a number of additional issues today. Therefore, I ask for the discourse of this discussion based on article

Mr Sevenhans, technically speaking, you are right.I suspect that the urgent treatment of the bill was not requested.

Excuse me, but I insist.

No, Mr. Sevenhans, I have no problem with this. I will postpone this discussion until next week. Does the House agree that this bill will be dealt with on Wednesday 8 May 2002? (the approval of)

Can I ask that this bill will be put on the agenda as the first item?

That is good. The minister has a problem for next week.

I take note of the comment made. The Antwerp world, mainly that of the maritime ports, will benefit greatly from this long-awaited legislative change. I will also let you know who has made this bill delayed. You should know that our country is about to face a second conviction for the same facts.

Regulation is regulation. I cannot fix this. I am sorry.

I have to disappoint the Minister.

Mr. Minister, the shippers are not at all happy with that bill. You have a different channel of information than me. I have no problem with postponing this bill for a week. They have been waiting for this for years. If you think you can use it against me, I must warn you. I come from the maritime world, as you may know. I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Minister, I argue as follows. Derogation from the Rules of Procedure is not possible unless the Chamber is unanimous. The room is not unilateral.

This discussion will take place on Wednesday next week.

Yes, Mr the Minister. I know that you will have to leave Wednesday night at 18:00 due to circumstances. I will ensure that this bill will be discussed at the beginning of the afternoon session. Is that good so?

Mr. Speaker, I find this very good.

The rapporteurs will be able to refer to their report for a second time next week Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Justice Committee has devoted three sessions to the consideration of this project, which aims to combat serious and organized crime more effectively by providing adequate protection for those who can provide information useful to justice. It is important to emphasize that at present, protection measures are granted to witnesses without a legal framework.

The proposed provision therefore aims to create this legal framework to enable physical protection of witnesses in order to provide, for the entire criminal proceedings, the necessary safeguards both with regard to the rights of defence and the rights of witnesses and victims. Only those who are willing to fully cooperate with justice can claim to these protective judicial measures.

A witness can only be granted protection if it objectively shows that he is in danger due to his statements in the criminal case where he is heard as a witness. Therefore, a subjective feeling of insecurity is not sufficient to justify protection. by

Two important principles are highlighted: the principle of subsidiarity of measures and the principle of proportionality in the granting of protection. A set of measures is envisaged to protect the witness, involving civil and social consequences. In fact, some special protective measures go as far as granting a name change, or even a relocation. by

Within the framework of this regulation, a specific body with exclusive competence — the Witness Protection Commission — is established to decide on the granting of protective measures and financial assistance. It consists of magistrates of the public prosecutor’s office and representatives of the Ministries of Justice and the Interior. The latter two categories have only consultative competence. In addition, the coordination of protection is provided by the witness protection service. by

Prior to the general discussion, we addressed the problem of the articulation of this project with the one already voted on anonymous witnesses, and more ⁇ the coherence of the different measures of these two texts. by

During the general discussion, the intervention of the different groups can be synthesized as follows. by

The CD&V considered it necessary to legislate on the matter and to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Council of Justice. Following a questioning on the legal status of the commission, he affirmed his concern that the minister does not have sufficient resources to apply this text concretely. by

The VLD welcomed the submission of such a proposal aimed at combating organised crime and concerned about the compatibility of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to silence, with the provision that specifies that the refusal to testify can result in the withdrawal of a series of protective measures. by

The SP.A welcomed the concern of combating the criminal organization, while expressing its concerns on a number of points, including the possible civil law consequences of the change of identity granted to persons in danger, the extent of the different modalities of protection that can go up to material assistance, the legal status of the witness protection commission and the legal nature of the decisions it makes and the compliance of this project with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. by

The Reform Movement questioned the budgetary impact of such a text and also asked whether it is not necessary to amend other legislation, in particular that concerning the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data.

VU&ID fully subscribed to this project while also questioning the legal status of the witness protection commission.

The Socialist Party first wanted to obtain clarifications regarding the notion of witnesses, the status granted to come to the significant cost of the intended protection. He was concerned about whether all the consequences of the protective measures have been studied and the need to clarify the cases in which the proposed measures should be terminated.

Several amendments have been submitted, sometimes by parliamentarians, sometimes by the government, in order to clarify some essential concepts and notions of the project.

The amendment was submitted by Mr. Coveliers, signed by all majority parties, which provides that when the person is formally charged in the case, the measures can be withdrawn, that the commission has lifted any ambiguity and confusion with the proposals relating to the justice collaborators.

CD&V and VU&ID have reacted to this amendment, wondered at its scope and consider that such text considerably empty the draft of its substance. That is why CD&V and VU&ID abstained from this project, which was adopted by 10 votes and 3 abstentions.

I will soon come to a brief speech on behalf of the Socialist Group. Like my colleague Giet during the committee debates, I would like to highlight two points: the catalogue of measures to be applied to threatened witnesses plunges us into a true James Bond and we rely heavily on the competence and seriousness of the witness protection committee to proceed in a thoughtful and balanced manner. It should also not be forgotten the costs that may be attributed to the budget of the Justice.

The review of this project was, once again, an opportunity to point out the state of progress of the various bills relating to the fight against organized crime and to conclude on the need, serenely, to open a debate on the collaborators of justice, for which we are open to dialogue as our party chairman specified.

Mr. Speaker, there has once been more interest in the work of justice in this Parliament, but the circumstances are such that some colleagues at this moment, probably rightly, attach more importance to the inner man than to the matters we have been dealing with in the judiciary. First and foremost, I would like to thank and congratulate Mrs. Lalieux for the excellent and very nuanced report. She gave a very clear overview of the discussions and I would like to thank her for that. I would like to say the following, and that has nothing to do with the report. Their

Onze minister van Justitie is named Marc Verwilghen, mevrouw Lalieux. We have one copy received from two mondelinge vragen, "oral questions of Mrs Carine Lalieux, MP PS to the Minister of Justice, Mr. by Pierre Verwilghen. His name is Marc Verwilghen. I have done this so that there is no confusion.

The [...]

Waiting for us to change the legislation on the name, it is still Marc Verwilghen. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, protecting witnesses who are threatened when they provide information that may be relevant to the file is, in our opinion, a necessary and important data in the fight against organized crime. The CD&V fraction is therefore positive in relation to the spirit of the design, at least in the form of the original prefix. Furthermore, this draft, together with the draft on the anonymity of witnesses and the distribution of the burden of proof, was already prepared in the previous legislature and subsequently further studied, to finally be submitted to Parliament today.

It is remarkable that during the discussions we have held, this draft has been significantly weakened, as a result of an amendment submitted by the majority groups, after the PS group had expressed a number of objections to the text of the original draft. After amendment, the draft law contains a provision stating that the protection of witnesses is withdrawn if the witness is suspected, or when the Prosecutor’s Office prosecutes the witness. As we feel, this is a regrettable and painful weakening of the original design, and a weakening that should not come at all, because the majority had at least in the design agreed on how we should protect witnesses. The consequences of adopting this amendment are significant. I will briefly give you a few elements to consider. Their

If a person is both a witness and a suspect, the protection in respect of that witness will no longer exist. If, therefore, at any given moment a witness is suspected of the crimes for which he wishes to testify, but at the same time wishes to provide useful and important information or can provide about a fellow perpetrator, that witness will no longer be able to enjoy protection under this draft law and we will also miss the opportunity to obtain that useful information about, for example, fellow perpetrators from the investigation.

In this way we missed an opportunity. I believe that interesting witnesses are often in the schemer zone. It is about the fight against organized crime. There will always be people who have to deal with the environment in some way. The line between being a witness and potentially being suspected of will be difficult to draw. As a result, detectives, police services and public prosecutors will hardly be able to use this tool because they will be able to provide the witness with insufficient certainty regarding protection. This would have the effect, and we deeply regret it, that the arrangement that now exists on the basis of a directive offers more opportunities to the people of the prosecutor’s office and the detectives, than the arrangement that is eventually found after amendment in this draft law. Their

By the way, I wonder, and I repeat this question again for those who are interested in this matter, why would we not provide protection to someone who is suspected of certain facts if they can provide ⁇ useful information in connection with the investigation. Will we then remove the protection and cause that one who can give this information can simply be liquidated? I think this would be a ⁇ unsocial and unfair attitude. It would deprive us of ⁇ interesting information that can be important to solve difficult and delicate matters, as this is not about street crime or small criminal acts. It is an instrument in the context of combating organized crime. Their

I must tell you that the story repeats itself over and over again. The story becomes monotonous, but nevertheless we want to put our finger on the wounds again and again. Whenever we want to do what people require of us, in particular providing efficient tools to tackle crime, we experience that we do not get the space to do so and this is mainly due to the PS and the Greens. I refer here to the bill, meanwhile the law on the anonymity of witnesses, which has been made subject to a judicial investigation. Further reference can be made to the discussion in connection with the regret-optants or the discussion around the youth sanction law where we cannot do what we really want and should do. It is even more unfortunate because what we are doing now in the Justice Committee is only the beginning. These are the things that everyone agrees on. Specialists in the subject say that these are elementary instruments. If we already encounter this inefficiency and an excessive imbalance of what is necessary to tackle crime and the rights of defence, what will we experience if we must begin the serious work such as the bill on the special methods of investigation?

I am addressing this to my colleagues from the PS and the Greens. You must know, however, that the citizens of this country, and ⁇ those in the big cities who are faced with crime and organized crime, want us to show that we can deal with that organized crime and that is precisely why we need these tools. If you prevent this, you also prevent politicians from doing what people want from them. It is so painful to find that you at the same time, following various discussions in this Parliament, say that Flanders is gradually evolving to the right and the extreme right. This is due to the fact that you are preventing us from doing what the people require of us. Mr. Minister, I have heard in connection with the 1-Me Manifestations that security is also an important item for the Socialists. I would like to assume that you say this in good faith and sincerity, but I would like to ask you to review your attitude regarding the special methods of investigation, the regret options, the right of youth sanctions, and to enable a balanced set of clear instruments. After all, you also know what the facts are today in Wallonia, including in Liège and Charlerloi, and also in Brussels.

At the same time, I would like to ask the colleagues of the VLD and the liberals in general not to suffer all this anymore. In this draft law you perfectly had the opportunity to stick to the text of the present draft. It was approved by the Council of Ministers. There was a majority. Therefore, it was not necessary to amend this draft again. You had the political power of a draft approved by the government. As long as you go through this — I also look in the direction of the Minister of Justice — you will be judged primarily by the public opinion. Mr. Minister, in an interview last weekend, you spoke tough language: if the youth sanction law does not come in this legislature, the VLD will step out of the government. We have little message for tough statements. We need concrete legislative initiatives to be made here, under the guidance of the person responsible for the Department of Justice. I only note now that the liberals make tough statements to the outside world. When it comes to it, however, you are repeatedly subjected to criticism, objections, amendments from the PS and the Greens. It is not you who controls the security policy, but they. However, after the previous elections, you had all possibilities, under the leadership of the Minister of Justice, to make a point of that so that at least in Flanders a response can be given to the problems that are our responsibility.

We have repeatedly proposed amendments and legislative proposals. You can, when you want, make the choice. Now we say, if you choose the alternative with us, we will indeed be able to answer the questions that people are asking about crime and fighting crime. However, if you continue to follow what the PS and the Greens dictate to you, you will not fulfill that command and we will all bear the consequences. Then you will be held responsible for it.

To this end, I have my concerns following the discussion of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, But who, without this protection, would be willing to communicate them out of fear of retaliation against their person and their family members?

This is a goal that we fully support. Its achievement, however, seems to us compromised when we examine the text that is proposed to us today, and it is not a fault to have tried to help the majority to ⁇ the goals it has set itself. We submitted no less than fifteen amendments that led the committee to address important issues that remained unanswered due to the lack of a real political will to establish an effective and efficient system for the protection of threatened witnesses.

Certainly, Belgium can be proud to have responded to the call of the sirens which, as you told us, Mr. Minister, were being heard internationally. Certainly, we will finally have a legislation on the protection of witnesses about which, as the government is now accustomed to do, the remarks of the State Council have not been taken into account. But it is true that your will is to sweep away from your way any obstacle to turn around and that in the end, as the convicted Democrat you claim to be, you are considering purely and simply removing this institution.

You present us with an empty shell. The packaging is, of course, attractive but the content falls into the surprise box: it is of a total inefficiency. The optional withdrawal, in case of suspicion of crimes, is for us unacceptable, as is the weakening of the content by the amendment of the majority. And finally, we can say that the protection offered is just a fraud. What’s more is when one knows, like us, that justice remains the poor parent of this government, that this department is almost exhausted because its resources have been restricted and that it is not ready to regain health and vigor in the short or medium term.

What means do you intend to provide protection for threatened witnesses, Mr. Minister? With what means will you set up the Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of Witnesses and the Service on the Protection of Witnesses? How will you deal with the overload of work that will be borne on the members of the prosecutor’s office called to sit in this commission?

Even if this committee is not called to sit permanently, it is not less that this is an extra work that the public prosecutor is not likely to absorb in the context of the reforms in progress – police reform, the prosecutor’s office – and you know it well.

We cannot accept to vote systematically and indefinitely on legislation that, due to lack of resources, remains inapplicable. Examples were not missing during this legislature. For this reason, we will abstain from voting.

Ms. Barzin will not speak in the general discussion. I give the floor to Mr Coveliers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it has already been said that this bill should be considered in its context. This context was, by the way, well outlined in the report of colleague Lalieux. I would like to send her my congratulations on the report, both written and oral. It is a context of implementation of a number of decisions, opinions given by many parliamentary investigation committees and which have been discussed for years in Belgium and Europe. One has rightly referred to the fact that in the last legislature the foundations were laid to work on these problems. We now come to a set of measures that can be made available to the police services, the detection apparatus and the prosecution apparatus to try to do what is called in the jargon truth-finding. This finding of truth must be done in such a way that one can obtain the inner conviction of the sitting magistrates. In Belgian criminal law it is still the case that the evidence is provided in the context of some negations, some cases that are not allowed. The manner in which evidence must be provided is not set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It consists in convincing the judge internally that the accused has committed the facts. In that context, a number of proposals have already been put forward, such as the reform of the prosecutor’s office which is underway. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office will start this month. Hopefully the verticalization of the prosecutor’s office can also be carried out further. Ultimately, there will be a long time to reform in order to ⁇ an efficient and adequate prosecution system. It also concerns the resources available. I am not referring to financial resources, but to legal resources. Anonymous witnesses are necessary. This is ⁇ evident in the study of organized crime. This helps to avoid that the counter-strategies of organized crime would have consequences up to the process. Protected witnesses are also important.

Mr Van Parys correctly referred to the special detection methods and the staff of the court or the so-called regret-optants or deals with criminals as they are called in the Netherlands or superguys as they are called in the United Kingdom. It was referred to the fact that this constitutes a whole. We are obliged to deal with this in pieces because our parliamentary work entails this. However, it is good to continue to see this whole. The link between anonymous witnesses and protected or threatened witnesses is clear. The report even contains a passage on this subject, which was included at the express request of Mr Van Parys.

In the context of finding truth, such elements are important. It’s about people who come to do something that we hope every citizen would do. If every citizen would do it, then we could solve almost every issue. If everyone came to tell what they knew, then almost all things would be resolved. There are barriers to this. For example, one can rightly fear that the accused and later the convicted will find out where they live. Therefore, anonymity is rightly granted. Second, there is the fear of retaliation, not only against the witness itself but also against the partner and family members. In addition, we have received another good example this week in the context of the discussion that has been conducted recently. We have seen that one not only visits the person himself, but that one apparently also always tries to involve the partner.

There are a number of European directives that I will not list all. There is a 1995 Directive of the Council of Ministers of the European Union stipulating that Member States must guarantee the safety of witnesses. In 1997, the Council of Europe issued a directive on this subject. When we cross the ocean, we go even further back in time. In the United States, witness protection programs have been implemented since 1970. You know that modern organized crime originated in the United States in 1930 and is attributed to a number of trade unions, including the Teamsters who would have moved into this form of crime. There are examples in Western Europe as well. In the Netherlands there is Article 226.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also the German Law zur Harmonisierung des Schutzes gefährdeter Zeugen. Similar examples can be found in Austria and the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands, by the way, a very good example has been given in the case of Fouad Abbas and subsequently also in the case of Bouterse. There is also the fact that it is ⁇ difficult to organize that scheme for protected witnesses on a national level alone. I think of the reaction of Belgium to the deal concluded by the Dutch prosecutor, currently a candidate on the list of living Netherlands, with a number of criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a point that was addressed by Mr. Van Parys, namely his response to amendment no. and 61. In his reasoning, which was well reflected in the report, he said that he could not support this text because of that amendment. I regret this, because when one goes back to the essence of this amendment, I still think that this is a rather logical amendment. This amendment entails, in fact, that a person who was initially proposed to the Commission for the Protection of Witnesses — after the advice of the Office by the Public Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, the Federal Prosecutor or the Investigative Judge — to receive protection and who has also received protection, from which it follows that he must be suspected in the same case and thus is no longer a witness but a suspect, at that moment loses that protection.

I honestly do not understand how this amendment could disrupt the whole. It is not about the fact that a witness is suspected, but about the fact that a witness is formally suspected or prosecuted by the prosecutor’s office. I do not understand why this amendment would violate the legislation on witness protection. It has become classic and I understand that for every bill, there are real or imagined disagreements between certain groups in the majority. I believe that this has already been sufficiently discussed and we will soon have to do this again within the framework of the youth sanction law. You are right if you argue that there is a disagreement. This disagreement does not only exist between certain political parties, because I also read in a number of publications that there are different opinions about it. I think there is still a disagreement about the so-called pentiti, the staff of the court or the deals with criminals.

We need to look at the global package. In response to a very democratically disruptive phenomenon, in particular organized crime, a number of measures are provided. It is not just about the criminal measures, but we should also look at the civil measures. I think of the armed government, for example.

In a city like Antwerp, this is clearly being used. Through these forms of information gathering, through these forms of obtaining intelligence, one tries to solve a number of things, and one also succeeds. For all these elements, it is always necessary to respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Proportionality means that the danger that one wants to combat, the crimes that one wants to prove and bring before the court, must be proportionate to the means used for this. Subsidiarity exactly implies that one uses first the non-secret, first the non-hidden, first the non-differential means to engage in finding truth in order to prove facts to a suspect. Only if this is not due to the structure of the criminal enterprise to which the suspect belongs, or because of the complexity, or because of the counter-strategies used, only then will one resort to the means provided: anonymous witnesses, protection of threatened witnesses, special investigation methods that come afterwards and, as ultimatum in a limited number of cases, but I think it is necessary, the staff of the court or whatever you wish to name them.

I think this design fits into this global strategy. It is a solid and coordinated draft, as the State Council has rightly noted, with the legislation on the anonymous witness. We must now go further and take other steps so that the Prosecutor’s Office has a range of possibilities. It’s a bit like the police services that have a helicopter at their disposal. One then immediately gets a reaction from some inhabitants of a city why that helicopter should make noise above their heads and why it should be there. I also consider that it is important that the police services at least know that they can resort to such a means and that proportionality and subsidiarity are respected therein, so that it is transitioned to the use of those resources for those facts that correspond to it. Their

Mr. Minister, count all these achievements. To be honest, I would say that a number of texts were already in preparation. They did not come up so much during the three years that you are minister. They were already in preparation, studied, examined. However, it is your merit to have concrete them and to have given other incentives, which are now being formed into a whole. We will work with you to make all these means a reality, so as to be able to respond to the phenomenon that affects our society and that brings consequences that are unacceptable for democracy. We will therefore approve this text with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I think that there is a fairly large consensus in this hemisphere on the need for a number of legal measures to be thrown into the fight against organized crime. Previous speakers have already emphasized this. Almost everyone agrees on this, although some agree more and others less. Mr. Coveliers gave a further overview of international agreements, directives and foreign legislation that have been established much earlier and showing the need to combat adaptive crime by other means.

The Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure are ultimately 19th-century means, which are absolutely no longer adequate to fight modern crime, which uses sophisticated means and modern means of communication, which is enormously mobile, which has networks, which emerges and retreats, and so on, in an international context.

I think it is necessary to reach a fairly broad consensus on the various measures to be taken legislatively in this regard, apart, of course, from the legislation on budgetary resources. The anonymous witnesses, the protected witnesses, the pentiti, the staff of the court, or whatever they may indeed be called, the special methods of investigation, the seizure of criminal assets and proceeds from criminal activities as soon as possible: on the whole of those measures that must be aligned there is a fairly clear, fairly large consensus. We must only see that the implementation of all these measures in practice does not go so smoothly in this Parliament.

The very first thing the minister has put forward, the bill on the anonymous witnesses, has come with hints and beats, after incidents, after interruptions, after discussions. Eventually, a compromise has been reached, in which a number of people, including the majority, do not find themselves. Well, the law is there. I think that law will be less operational, precisely because, among other things, whenever anonymous witnesses must or can be involved, a full judicial investigation must be opened, which will greatly complicate the feasibility of the arrangement.

Mr. Minister, I think that if one looks back on this period of government, on your legislative work, and on the way and the extent to which you have succeeded in translating into laws the Plan V, the Security Plan, the Plan Verwilghen — yet one of the pillars of this government — the special relationship, the field of tension Verwilghen-Di Rupo will always come into the focus. It would be interesting to summarize Mr Di Rupo’s public statements about you and your security policy, and vice versa, your replies on this subject. I think this explains a lot about what is done and what is not done, and if something is done, how it happens and what its final result is.

It is not exceptional that there are quite sharp incidents in the Justice Committee within the majority parties. We have experienced this in connection with the anonymous witnesses and now again in connection with this bill concerning the protected witnesses. Indeed, at one point we had that famous amendment of our cherished colleague Giet, who actually made possible the counter-strategies simply by unremittingly terminating the protected status of the threatened witness whenever that witness was even suspected of the facts which constitute the object of his testimony. That was, of course, the distribution of advances to organized crime. It was sufficient that a complaint was filed against that witness to immediately deprive him of his status.

That amendment was then, after a sharp incident and after an interruption, replaced by a majority amendment, submitted by colleague Coveliers, which indeed incorporated safeguards and laid the key to the suspicion, of the prosecution at the prosecutor’s office.

Nevertheless, according to my party, it is still in principle less operational than the original bill and still opens the door for counter-strategies. This can be done very sophisticatedly. Strategies may be put in place that enable the investigation judge to suspect the person concerned, even if afterwards it turns out that he is not guilty at all and even not brought before the court. This is harmful to the effectiveness of the draft law, Mr. Minister.

I would still be willing to contribute to this amendment. I tried to sharpen it. I still think that my amendment was better, especially in combination with the amendment of colleague Van Parys. In its amendment, only one faculty was introduced. My amendment further reinforced the key role of the prosecutor’s office, rather than simply requiring a reflection. I would therefore still be inclined to join you, had it not been that at some point it was made very clear that this amendment has made the need for a system for pentiti — staff of the court — very sharp. That is the crucial point in this design. If there is no legislation that sets out a statute for the staff of the court, we are here with an inoperable legislation. Then we are not only with the possibility of counter-strategies, but also with a category of people who absolutely no longer want, dare or can cooperate with the court.

This brings me to the starting point. I agree with what the previous speakers said. The Minister will undoubtedly also support this. We must be able to align all these measures with the anonymised witnesses, the pentiti, the special methods of investigation, the protection of witnesses and the seizure of criminal assets. Here, Mr. Minister, is our great restraint. I think we had a good discussion in the committee for the rest. A considerable amount of legislative work has been done, improvements have been made to the design and you have made some things clear.

Mr. Bourgeois, assuming that a legislation is adopted on the staff of the court — criminals with whom agreements are made to release information — do you think there is still any objection to this text?

Colleague Coveliers, I would have personally sharpened the text a little. You know my amendment, but I could live with it. I ⁇ would not have remembered myself. I have no trouble confirming this. I have also made this clear in the Justice Committee. If this bill is followed by a pentiti scheme, this bill will ultimately be a better scheme than that for the anonymous witnesses. We had the same objection. In the meantime, this is over. I have no trouble answering your question affirmatively if there is an arrangement. This is, of course, the disadvantage of the saucissonation. Mr. Minister, I am absolutely not sure that this arrangement will come. You have been to the PS meeting in Charleroi. You have there publicly called on the Flamings to bring their opposition to the language legislation to court. You have made a more than great concession there to obtain the benevolence of Di Rupo. He also told the gallery that he agreed to a parliamentary majority. Parliament could do its way with regard to the pentiti, but the same day the VLD chairman, Mr. Karel De Gucht, has said that there will be no alternative majority, even for the pentiti. Allow me to remain especially critical and reluctant on this point.

Colleague Coveliers, the answer to your question is indeed positive. I think we had a good discussion. The Minister showed an open attitude, except on this crucial point, by taking into account amendments, suggestions and comments from the opposition. You have tried on a number of points to reassure us.

The questioning of budgetary resources remains, although you have said that there are sufficient resources and that you will provide them. I always have some doubts about it.

The [...]

Mr. Coveliers, I just heard your comparison between the subsidy for the NMBS and that for the Department of Justice. I agree with you that the NMBS currently develops activities, such as the package services, which are not part of its core business at all. However, I hope that you are not advocating the deprivation of essential resources in order to develop a proper railway network. You may, since you belong to the majority, be able to point out at the next budget talks that funds from the NMBS will be transferred to the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I do not find the comments of Mr. Coveliers absurd. Today we received the documents concerning budgetary control. When we will conduct the discussion in the Committee on Justice on this subject, we hope to be able to propose an amendment aimed at reducing a number of appropriations and at the same time bringing the budget of Justice to a better level precisely so that the Minister can provide the necessary resources.

Colleague Coveliers, I would like to take your word and I think you are right. We look forward to seeing when the amendment will be submitted for discussion and put to vote. There will come a moment when you will have the opportunity to turn that into action. In any case, there must come a moment when the VLD makes a choice regarding essential aspects of Justice: either it goes on with the PS and the Greens and it cannot do what is expected of it, or it goes on to the alternative and we will finally be able to do something about the security issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. Because we want to be very restrained — because we have no certainty that an arrangement for the pentiti, the staff of the court, will be established, we will not approve the bill and abstain at the vote.

Two weeks ago we witnessed the serious incident concerning the so-called preliminary draft on juvenile crime. It is not even a pre-design. Again, we had to establish that it blocks on the same recurring contradiction. Collega Coveliers seems to say that the opposition is somewhat understood in this, but we cannot, of course, help. Again and again, there are serious incidents in the Justice Committee concerning draft laws that are essential for the establishment of security policy. When we hear the question of giving the government a pause on juvenile crime until the end of May, and at the same time establishing the eardocking silence on the side of the PS and Ecolo, we know that the subject has not yet been clarified.

Consequently, we continue to have great doubts about the legislation on the pentiti. That is effectively the main reason why, if the realization of the sealing part cannot be guaranteed, we will continue to make reservations on the design and we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, I make it clear in advance that the Flemish Bloc will abstain from voting on this bill, not because we would be opposed to the protection of threatened witnesses. Of course, this is not the case, on the contrary. However, the text shows an anomaly, which has already been cited here. In particular, legal protection is lost, without the possibility of assessment by the Witness Protection Commission, when a protected witness is self testified of facts, either suspected by an investigative judge or judged by the King’s Prosecutor.

For the Flemish Block a protection may be removed. It would be disrespectful and unfair to give someone with facts on the Christmas tree the favor of protection. In this way, he is not treated on an equal footing as his fellow suspects and he leaves a preferred position. It cannot. He must also be confessed. The problem, however, is that there is still no arrangement for regretoptants or pentiti. Their

Mr. Coveliers, you asked Mr. Bourgeois if he would let go of his objections. You can ask this question to me too. The Flemish Block would let go of its objections.

Mr Schoofs, at the request of the police, the prosecutor, the federal prosecutor or the investigative judge must initiate a request to obtain witness protection. A memorandum shall be drawn up containing the obligations and protective measures of the witness.

I do not understand what your problem is. If a witness is brought to testimony later in the same case, this means that he has not told the prosecutor everything when setting the protection and has silenced a number of essential matters about which he himself wishes to testify because he may be suspected or prosecuted as a result of these facts. Do you not think that protection should be removed if someone has committed such abuse in order to obtain protection?

Mr. Coveliers, as long as there is no law that protects the regret-optants or the pentiti, you require the witnesses to be silent. You cannot accuse yourself. After the approval of this draft one will have to prevent anyone with facts on the Christmas tree from testifying. He will keep his mouth. He will only want to speak fully and establish an exchange with the court if there is an arrangement regarding regret optants and pentiti. This is not possible at the moment.

This means raising someone as a witness who is in fact a fellow perpetrator. Our system does not allow this. In our system, people who have committed the same facts can testify before the court. The judge must know that they are not witnesses but perpetrators. It would not be correct to call them protected witnesses.

Mr. Coveliers, you are fundamentally right. You are also a lawyer and counselor of clients. You know what a criminal record is. A criminal record can consist of many stacks of paper. A person — let us not speak of a witness — can be complicit in a small fact in an entire criminal organization. The person who may have witnessed an important meeting of two chapters may no longer be able to testify. This is a gap in this legislation. Their

I can tell you that such a person does not deserve protection and must fall under the regime of the pentiti. The point is that small garnals who yet know a lot because of the lack of a scheme for regret-optants or pentiti will not be inclined to testify.

I would like to be the adviser of such a person, but I will encourage him to refrain from testifying, although this could greatly help the investigation. You take away the protection, but you do not take away the threat. Once such a person has testified, made a certain statement, and it is discovered that he has committed facts which belong to that investigation, the protection is lost. Then the majority bears a crushing responsibility, because then the protection is lost, not only for himself, but also for his neighbors. That is a regrettable matter, not because this bill will be voted — don’t misunderstand me — but because there is no arrangement ready for the pentiti, the regrettable optants. In this regard, you have a crushing political responsibility.

You forget that the prosecutor who requested protection will then also have to judge whether he will proceed to prosecution or reflection. When the "small granal", at the moment of applying for protection, says that it is a minuscule fact, the prosecutor may, on the basis of the principle of opportunity, say that he does not initiate prosecution. He can suspend it, and so your reasoning does not go up.

Let us hope that he does, colleague Coveliers. I have confidence in the court, the investigative judges and the prosecutors; you may be less in the investigative judges but more in the institute of the investigative judge, I have understood. In any case, it remains a fact that, due to the workload of the prosecutors, a prosecutor may be inclined to prosecute anyway. Then one sits — to say it in Flemish — with the baked pears.

We will not oppose the approval of this bill, we will not oppose it, we will abstain. In very exceptional cases — once, however, it will be too much — in the absence of an arrangement for the regret-optants, one will play with human lives. You should keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to overtake the whole debate at this late hour; so much has already been said. I just wanted to emphasize — the minister knows this — that everyone would like to put their teeth in the parliamentary work on a draft that is being submitted. One does not necessarily come to a consistent concept; everyone has their own vision about it.

I also believe that, ⁇ in this matter, it is better to regulate something legally than to stay in the obscure sphere of arrangements. We know this happens, let’s not call each other Liesbeth. In these circumstances, I would rather have a legal arrangement.

Collega Coveliers, with his own expertise, provided a global overview of all measures. I say, however, that at this moment we are being caught up for this design, which, in my opinion, is very well balanced. First things first: let’s finish this. I hear several colleagues say that this depends on other matters. Let’s see how things evolve. I would like to judge the text by text, since we are obliged to "saucisson".

One thing is certain: whatever one does in this matter, one must continue to respect the basic principles of a rule of law. Even if, in certain circumstances, within our national borders, we regrettably feel powerless enough to deal with the great crime and that special legislation becomes necessary, it should ⁇ not be extended to "Le voleur de bicyclettes".

If such special legislation is adopted, it must still respect the fundamental principles inherent in a rule of law. Otherwise, we will end up in an uncontrollable spiral.

Furthermore, Mr. Coveliers has already alluded to not being naive. You have repeatedly said that we make a law without immediately thinking about the counter-strategies. Unfortunately, this is indeed the situation. The Minister will not contradict me that, if some progress has been made at the European level due to circumstances, one should be able to intervene on those matters transnationally much better.

I want to give a last warning. Those who will follow the actuality tonight or tomorrow will be able to see that in the context of a lifting assistant case in Antwerp today has shown how careful one should be with witnesses and their treatment and the counter-strategy of witnesses. You yourself can determine how a witness, which is apparently promptly brought forward by the prosecutor’s office as a closing piece of evidence, is now removed from the bottom, with all possible discussions resulting. There are no miracle remedies. In that very limited matter in which we can act, we must ⁇ not present this to the outside world as a miracle remedy. We are legally armed, but we must beware of the so-called psychosis of 1996, under which we still suffer today. In 1996 we told people that we would change things. In many cases, you can get a break by saying, “You have taken steps, but fundamentally nothing has changed.” This is not a really fundamental change, but a material, element or lever that the police or the investigation judge should have at their disposal. However, it is not a miracle remedy.

It would only be a miracle remedy if the major crime is suppressed transnationally and if the various cash flows can be controlled in all possible ways to see how they work.

Mr Bourgeois, I give you the floor. You already wanted to interrupt when Mr. Erdman was still speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the applause to Mr. Erdman, because I can largely support his speech, especially his considerations on the rule of law, which may not have been sufficiently introduced here. I think that is of ⁇ great importance.

In fact, we approve a legislation that we all find going very far, but which we still approve because we cannot do otherwise. Crime has taken such dimensions and uses resources against which the rule of law must arm itself.

We must continue to respect proportionality and subsidiarity.

Mr. Erdman, rightly you pointed out all possible counter-strategies. That is why I am a little reticent. Even with Amendment 61 and even with the criterion of reflection, I continue to make reservations.

I would like to say above all the following. You have not commented on all the measures. If I parafrase you in summary, you say that we should evaluate each design on its own. However, in my opinion, it would contribute to the clarity of this debate and even of the social debate and the social issues in Flanders, if you would decide whether or not there should be an arrangement regarding the pentiti. I think that would make an important contribution to the debate.

What the Chairman of the Committee on Justice says is partially correct.

I do not follow him in his judgment on 1996. Mr. Erdman believes that the psychosis of 1996 actually resulted in us going too far in a number of things. I do not agree with this.

Fortunately, there was the so-called psychosis of 1996, because in this way we were able to move some boundaries. At that moment, under pressure from the public opinion and the reaction of the people to the facts that had occurred, the PS was willing to do a number of things and we were indeed able to realize a number of things. But now, colleague Giet, that the social pressure has gone again, we are again in the situation of before and we can no longer do what we should actually do and that is the big problem. This is witnessed by the interest in this Parliament and in the Government in the matter of Justice. This social pressure was necessary, but it is no longer there at this moment, with all the detrimental and, in my sense, dramatic consequences of it. Those who are going to talk to the people about security at this moment – and you will do so – will experience how great the disappointment is among the citizens, because some things have stalled. They are silent because the pressure is no longer present.

First of all, I do not like my words to be distorted. I have not said that 1996 did not allow you, colleague Van Parys, to realize certain things. I have only said that in the psychosis of 1996 people were presented so that the measures we could then take were the miracle remedy that would immediately provide an answer to all their worries.

Second, do not apologize, you can indeed bring all political arguments into a debate, but when you are going to raise the problem of the pentiti and/or possibly anonymous and threatened witnesses in the face of the handbag theft, then you seem to me to go a little too far. We have made good agreements, it is clearly delineated, the minister has clearly stated in his approach that this legislation targets the large crime in particular and that the crime in the streets, the problem of security in the neighborhoods, in the municipalities and in the cities has nothing to do with this part of the legislation. I repeat, it has nothing to do with it.

Colleague Bourgeois, whether I speak today or not, I have in any case made my contribution to the possible solution. I have submitted a proposal that could possibly already provide tools in the atmosphere you are looking for. Some say this isn’t going far enough, others say it already exists. Well, I have submitted a proposal.

The [...]

Yes, but, I did it at least and for the rest, with the wise words of one of my predecessors in the Senate: "A chaque jour suffit sa peine". I think for many colleagues the debate in justice is already a punishment in itself.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would actually like to start where the Chairman of the Justice Committee has soon finished, namely where he talked about psychosis, with which he meant that a series of expectations were created, expectations that the citizen wanted to see fulfilled. After all, no one is served in a society in which organized crime is widespread and the entire social life is falsified. We do not establish this now, nor in 1996, but we made that establishment for the first time in 1985, in the committee-Wijninckx. I could call seven parliamentary investigative committees to testify — and they should not be protected — to establish telkenmale that there is a pattern of expectation, which leads the citizen to expect politicians to respond and to call for an end to forms of organized crime. We do not always have to immediately introduce ourselves to Mafia practices. This form of organized crime can also translate into the daily traffic and I mean that the ordinary citizen can also be the victim of organized crime. It is not only among criminals that there can be acted or abused.

I will have to repeat here what I have always said in the past. It will be an overwhelming story about measures that need to be taken. We have repeatedly and unanimously even stated that we need these means, knowing that each of those means is not an end in itself. One might say that security is an important theme, but I think we keep that security theme alive. However, it is perfectly possible to find a solution across party boundaries and thus we can deal with other more important social issues. Therefore, we should not talk about security, but we must act towards it. Their

In this context, a number of measures should be taken. We already have a regulation regarding the federal prosecutor’s office and the anonymous witnesses. Today it is about the protection of witnesses, which will still have to be followed by a system relating to the seizure and the distribution of the burden of evidence. The closing point, after all, that we do not have to get under chairs or benches here, is that of the special detection methods.

Meanwhile, we have learned that those who seek their profits in crime respect the occupational criminals, the omerta or duty of silence. To be able to break them, we must be able to have special means, means that encourage them to speak, yet to testify, but to be able to provide a certain protection in return. C'est exact, c'est la position stratégique de la Belgique, supported by what is called the "sirenes" cet après-midi, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and even the European Union who invite us to take measures in our countries, especially if we want to avoid that Belgium becomes the port privilege of criminals. After this general consideration, I would like to say a little about three amendments that this law has undergone following the hearing in the Justice Committee.

First, we have fully aligned the anonymity of the witness, which we have previously approved, with the protection of the witness. It is the merit of the committee that this coordination has been made possible. In any case, it has watched that if the anonymity, the main protection that a witness can enjoy, is compromised for reasons independent of the witness’s will, protection can still be offered to the witness and his family without necessarily becoming the victim of his testimony.

A second major change is that of the change of capacity. I hear today saying that it is a pity that Amendment 61 was adopted because it weakens the original text. The original text has always been very clearly based on what should be assumed under a witness. One can perfectly change shapes in the course of a procedure. A first attitude is that of the victim, he is heard as a witness then he assumes a second attitude. Afterwards, the witness may appear as a civil party, but in each stage of the proceedings its rights and duties are determined. Their

Of course, the same can happen when there is a presumed victim, when one becomes a presumed witness, and when one subsequently evolves into a suspect. In essence, therefore, I have no existential problem with the acceptance of Amendment 61. However, it is necessary to take into account the fact that it will still be necessary to establish an arrangement for those who have been granted protection in the past as witnesses, but who subsequently proves to be a perpetrator, a fellow perpetrator or a complicit, and which brings essential and crucial information to the judicial investigation. If you do not provide an arrangement in this regard and the legislator is not willing to take any initiative, know in any case that for some problems there is no solution. Therefore, you should not expect to receive statements in place that will allow you to make progress in the file. Third phase of the amendments which have been accepted, these are those which have treated to the change of name in the special protection offer to a testimony. I believe that we have replaced the open procedure with publication in the Moniteur by a closed procedure, in order to protect the witness. Finally, there were some comments on the Witness Protection Commission and the Witness Protection Service. One thing must be clear: the measures we are taking now, the legal framework we are creating now — this was put today by some in a state-law framework — is nothing other than the completion of an existing practice. That practice shows a few unhealthy side effects that we should try to solve. At the same time, we must also realize that we need to make some effort. The Witness Protection Commission by its composition and the Witness Protection Service by the specialists in the police services that will accompany the project will provide sufficient guarantees by the legal basis to respond to the protection we seek.

We currently have a budget of 2.5 million euros or 100 million francs. I have already said this in the committee. In the future, we will have to step up the fight against organized crime.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will be approved as one of the necessary links to engage the fight against organized crime, but also in the knowledge that we have not yet reached the end of the chain.

May 8, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the last time, when this point was also on the agenda, I, together with Mr. Coveliers, informed that we referred to the written report. If the Chamber requires an oral report, we will comply with it. Without counter-notification, we refer to the written report.

Mr. Coveliers, do you agree with this?

Mr. Speaker, I would rather take the floor after the comments Mr. Sevenhans wishes to make on this subject.

Do you respond as a reporter or as a simple speaker?

As a speaker, Mr. President. As for the report, I agree with what the co-rapporteur has said.

Then we conclude this general discussion with Mr. Sevenhans.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, last week I asked to challenge this draft because I wanted to seriously examine a few more points. In the report that was on my bench last week, Mr. Coveliers already pointed out that no one knew what amounts we were talking about here. The Minister had clearly stated in the committee that the price note would be paid entirely by the Flemish Region. That seemed illogical to me at the time. I’ve checked it and it’s still illogical. It becomes even more illogical to know that no one knows the financial impact of this whole. I do not think it is a good sign if we change this law again, for the fourth or fifth time. Except for a few Antwerp specialists, no one knows what it is about. It is about several billions of francs — but no one knows how much — debts from the past. As everyone knows, this State has been reformed since 1993. I can’t understand why Flanders should go for the whole state reform. This law goes back to 1958.

I think this is a bad way of working. Mr. Coveliers wants to respond to this, but I have been well informed and know that people from the business world think in the same direction. If the Flemish Region bears the burdens, there will have to be saved somewhere, because one can not just spell that money out of a high hat? This case should ⁇ not affect the activities of the Port of Antwerp. This coalition — I will ⁇ address Mr Coveliers — has already made it clear in the past, on the occasion of the examination of the NMBS dossier, that the port of Antwerp is no longer of national interest and that is apparently not the case in this case either.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to clarify again what it is about.

The law of 3 November 1967 regulates the leading of marine vessels. On the basis of this law, the courts and courts assumed that, taking into account the theory of the appointed, the appointer, which is the Belgian State, was liable for the errors of the lead. In 1988, the legislator said — the president will ⁇ remember it, because the Minister of Transport was then a certain Herman De Croo — that the liability of the lead was removed on the basis of a commonly accepted in maritime law principle that the captain always remains master of his ship. A legal fiction has been created, which stated that when a loose is taken on board — even if it is obliged to do so by the country in whose waters one sails — the loose remains liable. There is no controversy about this, but the then legislature, on the proposal of the then Minister of Transport, introduced a 30-year retroactive force. As a result of this limitation, all pending proceedings before courts and courts have been terminated. At least one party then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and the case Pressos Compania Naviera was brought. The Court has stated that the Belgian State had the right to cease to assume the responsibility and to transfer it, in accordance with the law of the sea, to the captain or owner of the ship. However, the Belgian State, in accordance with the European Treaty, did not have the right to introduce a 30-year retroactive effect. The verdict dates from 1995. The Minister of Justice then said very rightly, acting as a good democrat and believing in the rule of law, that this judgment should be implemented in our legislation and that the retroactive force of the 1988 law should be removed. That is what is happening now. It is fully in accordance with the legal principles and we must do so.

During the examination of the draft, I asked the Minister of Justice, given the allocation of competence over the seaports to the regions — now that applies only to the Flemish Region, since the Wallish Region does not have seaports, except Brussels, but that we leave for a moment out of consideration — whether the consequences apply only to the Flemish Region. The Minister confirmed that the Flemish Region has taken over not only the profits, but also the debts and claims. The Minister has assured that this was discussed in the committees with the Flemish Region and with the Prime Minister-President. No one knows how much progress will still be made, because there are still statements to be made and because the responsibility could sometimes be misleading.

Therefore, the captain may be liable. The claim will then be rejected. No one knows that amount. If an agreement is not reached between the Flemish and the Federal Government, the claiming party has sued the Belgian State. Either the Flemish Region voluntarily intervenes in the procedure, or it does not. In the second case, the Belgian State will have to place the Flemish Region in custody and intervention and the court or court will have to do so. That is all. It is obvious that this cannot happen at the expense of the Port of Antwerp. This is a matter of the Flemish government. If she is convicted, she must decide which post she will charge. We have nothing to say about this in a good federalism. Those who are convicted will have to be charged. I do not see the problem as cited by Mr. Sevenhans. For me, it is as ready as pump water.

For me, it is not as ready as pump water. Mr. Coveliers, you have said something very concise in a lot of words. As good Democrats, we have corrected an undemocratic measure. You also have a hand in the way of using the term Democrats too properly and inappropriately. In 1993 the state was reformed. You simply say that no one knows how much money it is, but that it is also in charge of the Flemish Region before 1993. That part, however, must remain to be borne by the Belgian State, which for me is as ready as pump water. You just push it through. That the Flemish Prime Minister agrees with this is not difficult to understand. In which restaurant is that stuffed?

Of course, I can try again to explain everything legally. However, this law only states that with regard to the retroactive force which the European Court has said is contrary to human rights — I suppose that Mr. Sevenhans also wants to respect it — we will follow the judgment of the Court. If it is not determined who is to pay this, then a court will have to decide on this in each individual case.

If you look at the report, it is very clear. The Minister has made it clear that it is not for the Belgian State but for the Flemish Region. Has he already made a judgment?

Mr. Speaker, no matter how it turns or turns, if a power was transferred in 1993, then it happened in the state of affairs of 1993. At that time, Belgian legislation was as it was, with its imperfections and possible violations of the European Convention on Human Rights included. If the federal legislator intervenes at a later date to correct a number of matters that he has wronged in the past, it is obvious that this was not an element of the delegation of power. Those who made the mistake at the time, in particular the federal legislator, will therefore also have to bear the burdens of it. That seems to me quite logical, unless one accepts a different principle. I would like to draw attention to that. This Federal Chamber could change the content of the transfer itself by intervening in the legal status of before the transfer. This is actually what is done here. By exercising a power in this domain, a responsibility which has always been a federal power but which, for the rest, was in a different sphere — formerly federal and now regional — one intervenes federally. In doing so, questions must be asked, not only in this file and therefore for the port of Antwerp but possibly also for other files, a precedent is created here. The federal legislator shall amend the federal legislation before the transfer. I have trouble there. If Mr. Coveliers does not want or can see it, he must be careful because this could have far-reaching consequences in the future.

The law should be read. This law only stipulates that the retroactive effect of the abolition of the liability of the lead shall be revoked as, by the way, was demanded by the European Court of Human Rights. Their

If the Flemish Region does not voluntarily intervene in this procedure, the court will have to make an opinion on this. These interpellations will then be held in the Flemish Parliament. However, I would like to point out that at the time of the delegation of powers these advances were already pending.

Mr. Speaker, I should repeat the words of Mr. Coveliers. Their

Let one thing be clear: there are a number of procedures pending. How many of these procedures will lead to a conviction by the government is not yet known. In any case, the Flemish Region, being aware of the competence conferred on it, has taken on itself not only the benefits but also the burdens of granting that competence. The Flemish Region acknowledges in the letter that it will take any convictions into account.

Colleagues, if one read the preparatory works of the law now amended — including those of the Senate — one could find that the then Minister of Traffic was also a lawyer. Before the vote, he made a number of considerations on this subject. Mr. Peterson should look at this. He had, in his capacity, some doubts about the retroactive nature of legislation.