Proposition 50K1557

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 49, alinéa 2, et 52, alinéa 4, de la loi du 8 avril 1965 relative à la protection de la jeunesse.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

juvenile delinquency child protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Francis Van den Eynde (VB) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 27, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Tony Van Parys, rapporteur, refers to the written report but I give him the floor for his presentation in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the draft law that we are dealing with here addresses a punctual but nevertheless important problem due to an interpretation space given by article 52 of the law of 8 April 1965 on the protection of youth. That draft law solves an interpretation problem, in the sense that urgent and provisional measures, to be taken by the juvenile judge, are possible for minors who were minors at the time of committing the offence but have reached the age of majority before the commencement of the proceedings. As a result of the interpretation of Article 52, it was unclear — and in reality they did not — that the juvenile judges could take urgent and provisional measures. This bill will properly resolve this problem. The CD&V group is therefore in favor of this bill.

As you know, there are even more fundamental problems related to the problem of addressing youth crime. Following that draft law, we have been so free to submit an amendment that takes over the preliminary draft law of the Minister of Justice and in which we also would like to mention the name of the employee of the Minister, Mr Christian Maes. It is about the preliminary design containing responses to criminal behavior by minors. That preliminary draft we have taken over, cast in an amendment and submitted as an amendment to that draft law. The reason for this is almost obvious. In fact, a legal framework containing responses to criminal behavior by minors is very urgently needed and necessary. Today we are in a state of impunity. Because there are insufficient seats in the closed institutions of the communities and because Everberg does not offer the foreseeable solutions, it appears that young criminal minors and young offenders are being systematically released in the big cities. There is a state of impunity on the ground. The figures do not lie. Last Tuesday, the Minister of Justice informed the competent committee that since 1 January 2002 — and now we are almost in the middle of 2002 — 59 minor offenders had to be released, alone in the district of Antwerp. There were 59 juvenile offenders for whom the juvenile judge had taken the measure of admission in a closed or semi-open institution.

59 cases in one district in a half-year period, this can count. It proves the extent of the problem, which indeed shines the public opinion from the eyes and actually expresses in a very flagrant way the mistrust that people have in the apparatus of justice and police.

Furthermore, the figures communicated by the Minister since the establishment of the institution in Everberg have equally demonstrated the extent to which the problem exists. During the period from 1 March — the day Everberg became operational — to 31 May, the youth judges decided 124 times that the youth should be admitted to the institutions Everberg. In the absence of seats in the closed institutions of the communities, 70 decisions could not be executed. This also shows to what extent the problem exists.

The problem is, of course, that some criminal organizations or organized crime have understood this. These international organizations use minor offenders to commit criminal acts, assuming that they will still remain impunity. Very young offenders — 11-, 12-, 13-year-olds are no exception — are used to commit acts that deeply disturb the victims. Therefore, the problem is not only in relation to individual, young criminals who commit false facts, but it has become a structural problem. That is why we submitted this amendment. We want to confront Parliament with the problem, but we also want to give it the opportunity to provide an initial solution to this problem.

The problem arises, in the first place, from facts as I have explained them to you: the presence of many juvenile delinquents who often act within the framework of criminal organizations, but also exist because the current legislation, the Act of 1965 on the protection of youth, no longer complies. I believe that this has become very clear in all sorts of statements and publications in recent times, but to the extent necessary I would like to quote from the explanatory memo from the preliminary project Verwilghen-Maes containing answers to the delinquent behavior of minors. There it is said very clearly and with knowledge of the facts that the model of youth protection is no longer suitable to respond to the crime of today’s youth and I would like to quote from page 5 of the memo of explanation: “The model of protection has disappointed, not only because of the ambiguity in its goals, the unfairness of its presentation, the discretionary of the given powers with reduced legal guarantees. It also demonstrates powerlessness towards persistent offenders, making exceptions deemed necessary, such as the outreach. The measures taken do not provide a differentiated, at least inadequate, approach for drug addicts and mentally ill minors.”

It cannot be described more clearly than by the Minister himself in the explanatory memo of the preliminary draft. The protection model is not satisfying; it has disappointed and it is not a response to the current situation of youth and youth crime, especially in the big cities. I also refer, by the way, to what the Minister of Justice said this week in the Committee on Justice regarding the situation in Antwerp in which a number of Romanian minor offenders were deported. I quote: “The law on the protection of youth is completely inefficient with regard to this form of crime.” On the one hand, therefore, we are dealing with structurally organized youth crime and on the other hand, there is a legislative model that does not meet in any way.

On 17 May, the nuclear cabinet drafted a scheme which is declared to be a solution to the problem. This arrangement does not solve the problem we are now facing.

First, the arrangement drawn up by the nuclear cabinet is entirely opposed to the basic idea of Minister Verwilghen’s preliminary draft law. When this was debated in the Committee on Justice, Ms. Talhaoui expressed herself in very cynical terms. She said that the preliminary design Verwilghen-Maes, due to what the nuclear cabinet has drawn up, has expired.

Mr. Tavernier, in the scheme developed by the nuclear cabinet and at some point also supported by the majority, the youth protection model for minor offenders between 12 and 16 years of age is ⁇ ined and even reinforced instead of developing a scheme that can have a different response to youth crime. I think we all agree that the youth protection model no longer meets. This is at least the conclusion of the Minister of Justice and his employees. It is truly incomprehensible that one goes against the reality of things in, against the data on the ground in the cities and municipalities and against the reality of no longer meeting the protection model, comes the majority, the nuclear cabinet, the government with such a proposal for the day.

Second, the agreement, which has been concluded in its core, extends the powers of the ordinary courts, the correctional court and the court of assises to minors over the age of 16.

It is so flagrant because it goes against the basic philosophy of the Minister of Justice’s preliminary draft. It is contrary to the — if I can call it so — youth sanction law. It was precisely intended to give the Youth Court and the extended Youth Court — as it was called in the preliminary draft — the possibility to impose adapted sanctions on minors and to curtail the possibility of extortion. In the Memory of Explanation attached to the bill, it was very clearly described. I quote the Minister of Justice on page 17: “Finally, as it did before, the law does not deny itself when it limits the possibility of excommunication.”In the nuclear cabinet agreement, the possibility of excommunication has been significantly increased by providing that for the plus 16-year-olds the correctional court and the Court of Assisi be competent.

I quote further: “The law, after all, as it did before, does not deny itself when it limits the possibility of extradition to young people who are major at the moment when the court becomes aware of their commitment to a crime they have committed between 16 and 18 years of age. If they are still underage at that time, then an extensive juvenile court acquires the power to impose against them common-law penalties, the execution of which can last until they are 25 years old."This provision, which extended the grant in the agreement of the nuclear cabinet, has actually stumbled on the soul of the drafters of the law. It is not only incomprehensible to the Minister of Justice, who had prepared it, it is especially incomprehensible because one assumes a system that everyone agrees that it does not allow an adapted response to youth’s delinquent behavior. Consequently, the solution of the nuclear cabinet is undoubtedly contrary to anyone who has ever spoken about how the problem of youth crime should be addressed.

Now is the time to make the choice. We respond from the consideration that all of us, including from the opposition, should work together on tools that enable the government to tackle youth crime in a sound way. The so-called agreement of 17 or 18 May 2002, which was drafted in the nuclear cabinet at night and which makes a distinction between 12- to 16-year-olds and plus 16-year-olds, will not be realized tomorrow. The Minister of Justice said this week in the Committee on Justice that the transition into a legislative text in the short term is not obvious. He said that the creation of the preliminary design took 2.5 years. We have understanding for that. He argued that we should not expect to implement the bill for the 12- to 16-year-olds who commit criminal acts within a few weeks. This will take a lot of time.

Therefore, we are not yet at all close to the designs that need to realize the agreement reached in the nuclear cabinet. We do not know in a week or a month when we will be able to exchange opinions on this in Parliament.

In summary, the agreement is, first of all, no answer to the problems. Secondly, it has not yet been put into legislative texts. During the discussion in the committee, Ms Talhaoui also said that she had not yet seen the text of the agreement. She made at that moment the greatest reservation with respect to the texts as they have been communicated in the press so far.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, today is an important moment. There is currently a majority in Parliament in favour of the draft-Verwilghen-Maes. There is currently an agreement on the draft law on youth sanctions. This was announced this week in the Flemish Parliament. Following the discussion of the cooperation agreement relating to the Everberg Act, the Flemish Parliament has explicitly stated that there is actually more need for a regulation on the basis of the youth sanction law than the Everberg Act. It is undoubtedly clear that the Flemish parties all find themselves at the moment in the preliminary draft of the law-Verwilghen-Maes, in the youth sanctions law as we have adopted it in the amendment.

Therefore, there is a majority in Parliament and not only among the Flemish parties. This week I listened with great interest to Mrs. Herzet’s response in the Justice Committee. I also ⁇ appreciated her response, especially when she very explicitly emphasized that she also finds herself in the text of the preliminary draft — which has now become the amendment — to respond to delinquent behavior of minors. There is thus a majority in Parliament, namely the Flemish parties and at least some members of the former PRL group. Now we need to know what to start with it. We can wait for the initiative that should result from the agreement in the nuclear cabinet, but that will wait for Godot to be. The texts are not there and, by the way, they are neither adequate nor solve the problem. We can also use the science that there is a majority for a document that everyone says is the tool to tackle youth crime. So today we ask when we will use that majority. What are we waiting for to use that majority? When will we take the opportunity to take advantage of that majority? There is in our country a democratic majority, not only community-determined, for a youth sanction right, as described in the draft-Verwilghen-Maes. We must now seize the opportunity to enforce that majority. We must do so because most of us, as responsible politicians, face the problem of youth crime on a daily basis. Day by day we are consulted by and confronted with people who have somehow become the victims of being there.

The media is also faced with this. Again, 59 young criminals have been released in Antwerp since January 1, 2002. This Parliament has once stood up when a criminal was unjustly released! In one district, 59 criminals were released.

We know that we have a majority, a majority that we must use now. We have the choice. If we do not do this, we will move towards what Ms. Maréchal and other French-speaking colleagues are advocating, in particular a situation in which we are blocked in our will and our intention to tackle this form of crime. Should we be held permanently hostage today by what Maréchal, the competent French-speaking community minister, says, or will we use the instrument we have here in Parliament to solve the problem? We have the majority to do this, colleagues. Let us use it today.

Why should we do this now? We must do this now because, of course, it will not be enough to approve this amendment before this legislative arrangement can be converted into a legal arrangement on the ground. We will still need to present this to the consultation with the communities. This means that, if we express the will to do so today, this requires a procedure in consultation with the communities. If we do not do it today, we will no longer come to a legal arrangement in this legislature. To this end, I invite you very explicitly, knowing that we are able to do this. I urge the Minister of Justice to take advantage of this opportunity. It is an element of justice policy that is so important, that it is so sensitive to anyone who is involved in politics, to any party who is involved in politics, that we cannot afford to wait a day longer with the initiation of the procedure to translate the legal system on the right of youth sanctions into a concrete reality. This is my question and my call. That call is to be situated in an atmosphere that lived in this Parliament at the time when we were faced with fundamental issues of Justice. That was an atmosphere of searching across party boundaries for fundamental solutions to social problems that arise.

There is a text. It is a text from a minister of this government. It is a text that all initiates say is a solid solution. There is a fact that the current text no longer satisfies. There is the issue of youth crime. There is a majority in this Parliament. What will stop us from taking responsibility now? Those who would not do this, of course, carry a huge responsibility. However, I would like to formulate it positively. We now have the opportunity to do this. We must now speak, each of us who, in some way or another, will have already faced the phenomenon of youth crime in his political activity. This document, by the way, is also not an exclusive repressive element. It is a document that allows a range of responses, from a suitable judicial authority with the necessary legal guarantees in relation to young people who have come into the delinquency.

This is the challenge of the moment. It is a challenge for each of us, for which everyone must make his voice heard in honour and conscience. Knowing what we know, in particular that in the Flemish Parliament all parties are on the same wavelength and have expressly said that they recognize themselves in this youth sanction law, knowing that also on the French-speaking side it has been expressly said that one recognizes itself in this text, there can be no problem in terms of content, politics, ideology.

Let us now once overcome the contradictions, not in terms of some political gain, but in terms of solving a problem that will be felt by each of you. For when we know that young people aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 are committing criminal acts, then we have a double mission.

That is, provoking an adapted response from society and the government, but also without any doubt realizing an adapted reception for these young people. This is exactly what can be found in this document. Let us therefore take this commitment with conviction. We know we are for. Let us express this in voting behavior.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, of course, nobody can be against the small bill that is being discussed today. It fills a gap in existing legislation. The importance of this law should not be overestimated. It only concerns young people who become major during the procedure or before the procedure. Nothing is done to address the major problems of youth law. It is therefore right that the debate is opened today through the circumference of the amendment of colleague Van Parys. You know that we do not rise too high with the current Flemish Parliament as it exists today, because in practice it is a vassal parliament of its federal counterpart. The denigrating tone in which some House members speak about this Parliament is clear enough. Recently we have also experienced that the Flemish Parliament was simply fooled by the Minister of Justice when dealing with a conflict of interest regarding additional judges.

But from time to time it can also do very meaningful things. I must admit that I was very pleasantly surprised by the reaction of the majority factions in the Flemish Parliament to the famous half-A4 agreement of 16 May on youth law. The entire agreement, which had to be negotiated for so long, was written on just 1 A4 sheet.

It took a month before there was a response. That agreement of 16 May received a response on 19 June. The franc has fallen very late. In our case, they say it was not a coin, but a note. In any case, the reaction was clear. It sounded like music in our ears. I quote De Standaard of 19 June: "The Flemish majority parties consider the federal compromise on youth law a failure. The next Minister of Justice will be commissioned to write a new draft. Better a properly coherent new youth law than the puzzle that one wants to create now. In the nuclear cabinet on youth law, two cultures are broken. On the Wall side, only criminal youths are protected. On the Flemish side one wants to give young people the right to be punished,” said nota bene someone from Agalev.”She was apparently on a very different wavelength than Mrs. Talhaoui.

This was a devastating analysis and in total contradiction with the triumphant language of the VDL-Burgerkrant, where this agreement is defended by Karel De Gucht himself, also a member of the Flemish Parliament. So Mr. De Gucht whispers himself back.

Much more important, in any case, is that the Flemish Parliament with this judgment briefly and properly blows up the confidence in the current Minister of Justice Marc Verwilghen. It is even said that Mr. Verwilghen should not reconsider his homework. There is no need to negotiate again. No, it is said that the next Minister of Justice must write a new youth sanction law, the next employee of the Minister.

With this minister and with this government we can no longer talk. As a staple of mistrust due to VLD’s in their own ministry, this can count. In practice, this brutal rejection consists in the fact that at least two of the three drafts currently being prepared by the minister’s associate cannot be implemented and that his work again, like the draft on the law on youth sanctions, will be meaningless unless it may serve as an amendment here or there, like the draft submitted today as an amendment. After all, the minister needs the communities to get those laws approved and ⁇ to implement them. The departure is total. The termination of trust is of course not surprising when one compares the original texts with what eventually came out of the bus. If a negotiator fails to fulfill even a fraction of his promise, he has failed as a negotiator. If one begins to defend things that are completely contrary to what was stated in the own texts, one loses its credibility. If you allow yourself to be completely dictated by the Whales, you have failed as a Flaming. This is indeed what happened here.

Minister Verwilghen promised a coherent youth law with extended powers for the youth judge, including in terms of sanctions, including in terms of prison sentences. For us, this proposal was far from extensive enough, especially if we compare it with the countries around us where much longer sentences are possible. However, it was at least a step in the right direction. Finally, the unilateral protection model was abandoned, finally, the wheel was thrown back and it was taken from the reality, in particular, that young people are not always brave bearings that we must protect from the world of adults and that, on the contrary, they behave too often as criminal adults and that therefore clear sanctions must be possible. I repeat that this was not enough for us. A 13-year-old could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, even after committing a horrible murder, but it was a step forward.

None of this remained entirely in the compromise of 16 May. Whereas the text of the draft still clearly outlined the competence of the juvenile judge to pronounce prison sentences for young people from 12 years of age, there is now nothing in mind. Only 16-year-olds can be given out of hand a little easier, and this is not even clear yet because the agreement was very dubious in this regard. It was only an A5 size.

Only the juvenile judge is completely dismantled because he does not get a stick behind the door and can not act repressively. This decision is the literal takeover of a proposal from the recent PS-Congress on security and is completely contrary to the considerations left out of hand in the texts of the minister.

Second, it becomes impossible for young people under 16 to impose prison sentences at all. They can only be temporarily detained, as they are now, when it is precisely at that age that it is most necessary for young people to be removed from their environment — and, of course, there are always exceptions — while a prison sentence at that age can still make the most sense.

Third, the only thing the youth judges will be allowed to do is impose alternative sanctions. This, however, is not new in itself because it has already happened in practice. If it wasn’t because of the juvenile judge, it was through the parket magistrate. Therefore, nothing new is achieved.

Fourth, the heavy criminal youths who today are handed out and ended up in the ordinary prison must disappear from there and must go to Everberg or to an equivalent. This is also a strong decline because for those criminals Everberg is a real paradise compared to the prison. Here, too, the deterrence is severely exhausted. Their

These measures are the only remains of Minister Verwilghen’s long-awaited draft. In practice, this will not change anything for the better and it is only to congratulate that the Flemish parties do not want to play in that and disapprove the current Minister of Justice.

The flagrant rejection by the Flemish Parliament means, in any case, that during this legislature there will be nothing more in the house of the reform of the youth law.

That means four years of lost time, only in this legislature, as long as the government can endure it until June 2003.

The story, of course, has taken a long time. Even under Minister Wathelet, it was commissioned to formulate alternatives to the lax and outdated youth protection law of the 1960s. In 1996 — now six years ago — the Cornelis committee submitted a comprehensive and solid report, sharply denouncing the unilaterality of the 1965 law. What did the two former Justice Ministers, Stefaan de Clerck and my good colleague Tony Van Parys, do with that study? Unfortunately, they pushed the text into a slide and they remained silent. I have repeatedly questioned the former Minister of Justice. It was determined that it was indeed authorized to establish youth prisons, but nothing was done. Election propaganda and meetings were held, but the Minister himself did not take any initiatives, not even to prepare the removal of Article 53 and the consequences thereof to capture the young people who were no longer allowed to be imprisoned from 1 January this year. Even during this legislature, the then CVP had not understood its proposal, which would also refer adult persons to the youth court. As a result of the reverse outreach, the problem of the shortage of prison cells and concrete difficulties on the ground would have only been aggravated.

That does not diminish the crushing responsibility of Minister Verwilghen, for whom the struggle against insecurity was the only real election theme, whose youth crime was a very important chapter. While the CVP was a widespread negligence, Minister Verwilghen was driven to the radical breach of his promise. That is of course much worse.

The Flemish Parliament has made another important conclusion. During the negotiations, two cultures were struck, the Flemish parliamentarians say unisono. In Flanders, the views on youth law – a topic that could seem to be community-neutral – are completely different from those in Wallonia. They are now making the mistake of putting again their hopes in a next federal minister. I can only deduce this from the words of colleague Van Parys. He also hopes that a federal majority will be found. I think it is naïve to believe that a next federal minister could develop a coherent youth policy. That’s how people make blades. It is now clear enough that the opinions in Flanders and Wallonia are so opposite that there can be no uniform policy in the two regions. This is clearly illustrated by the incident with the educator of the French Community, who refused to help a guard and for this — incredible but true — was rewarded by Minister Maréchal. Only the fact that one ⁇ ins an absolutely incompetent case such as Maréchal as Minister of Youth in the French Community proves sufficiently that Wallonia does not want to know of a harsh approach. The French community wants to boycott Everberg very consciously.

This is significant again today, as the French Community requests only 5 additional seats in Everberg and thus wants to accommodate up to 10 criminal youths while Everberg will have 50 seats. However, the problems in Brussels and Wallonia in terms of youth crime are still much greater than in Flanders. The ministry’s figures don’t lie. There are about twice as many French speakers as Flamings involved. If there are indeed 40 places for Dutch speakers in Everberg, Flanders evolves to a total of 140 closed shelters. That is still a little bit compared to the Netherlands, but Wallonia will only have 60 seats. Today they have 50 seats and 10 more, while in fact 280 seats — four times as many — are needed.

Colleagues, with such a difference in mentality, we must inevitably go to a split of Justice, even because youth law is not the only file where Flamings and Whales collide. I refer to the nationality legislation, about which Vlamingen and Walen have very different views.

There is the question of the regret-optants where we stand right in front of each other; there is the high-speed right that the French speakers entirely upheld in which they did not even allow a recovery law, and there is the security plan that was completely rewritten by the PS. Furthermore, we constantly observe in the Justice Committee that the views of French speakers and Flemish people are repeatedly divided. The only interesting discussion is about how to divide. A division of the Judiciary into the Communities is, of course, the only acceptable formula. It will not be possible in Brussels. There can hardly be two types of justice in the same territory. Such is work with two sizes and weights depending on the very varying and vague language origin in Brussels. A split of the Justice in Brussels may be a moment of turning to Flanders, in the first place because the mentality of the Brusselsers is miles away from the laxism of the PS that is so dominant and widespread in Wallonia today. I hope that the Brusselsers will realize at the right time that the Wallonian leaders are not serving their interests and that they will realize that Flanders can indeed offer an alternative. Flanders can and will generously ensure that Brussels is finally pulled out of the mud.

First Mr. Bourgeois is given the word and then the minister. Then we will see where we stand. Mr. Bourgeois, you have the word and I think you will be concise.

I will try to be clear and concise.

One does not exclude the other.

Indeed indeed . This is a special debate. It is not about or barely about the present draft but about the broader question...

The [...]

I was not in Hertoginnedal. If I had been there, I would have signed the Van Parys amendment. By the way, we have already submitted it together, but then we clashed with a chairman of the House who declared it unacceptable. As a result, Mr Van Parys had to wait for a new draft to submit the amendment again. Colleague Van Parys, I have listened to your presentation with great interest. There was one of the hopes for support in this hemisphere. I am afraid that this is a bit illusory. Per ⁇ let us make an immediate agreement to later show Mr. Maes’ work the honour it deserves and submit it together as a bill. I am afraid that the amendment will die here. I hope you still get your right.

So the debate here revolves around whether there is a youth sanction law at all or not. This is the social debate that is being discussed, and that is what the public opinion is looking forward to. I think it is followed by public opinion to a greater and more intense extent than politicians can estimate here in the hemisphere. People follow this kind of events, they follow the events around Everberg, and they follow the discussions around whether or not approving major designs. It is a strange condition.

In my opinion, almost everyone who approaches the matter objectively agrees that the Youth Protection Act of 1965 has been overlooked. This criticism, by the way, is not of today, but was raised already in the 1980s. It should be replaced by a full-fledged youth sanction law that is specific, unlike the sanction law aimed at adult crime and with a wide range of measures.

Collega Van Parys has just emphasized that in fact all Flemish parties agree on this, together with the lonely Waal raff, colleague Herzet, to whom I pay this homage. She has the courage to oppose some kind of unity thinking on the French-speaking side — I don’t know if her whole party shares her opinion — and to express her opinion.

On 15 May, the PS gave its view on this issue, calling for an adaptation of the youth protection law. The next day there was a nuclear cabinet and again a nightly meeting. The result: there was no more talk of the draft-Maes-Verwilghen and there would be three laws, an adaptation of the youth protection law as the PS had requested — what had one thought? —, as well as an adaptation of the legislation on extortion and finally addressing adults who abuse young people under 18 for their own criminal activities.

The Minister must do his job now. I can imagine that such a change is mentally difficult and I think that objective outsiders see this happening with incomprehension. From the beginning, the Minister of Justice has focused heavily on security policy. He made a security plan, which was shot down in the most unspoken words by the chairman of that same PS. The Minister attracts a man from the field, Attorney General Maes, who has grown up with the matter and has a balanced, broad and humane view of it, someone who knows what is needed to deal with juvenile criminals in the right way. Someone who, after intensive and comparative study work with a balanced pre-design, comes to the props that ⁇ is not unilaterally repressive, but involves a whole range of measures against juvenile criminals.

The draft allows the court to simply declare guilty, reproach, impose job penalties, impose a fine, and as a ultimate remedy to imprison young people when it can’t otherwise. All this with the necessary remodeling. This type of crime requires, first and foremost, much effort to reintegrate, to re-educate. The Minister comes with this pre-design, he has a broadly elaborated pre-design, a balanced design, a modern approach. It is supported by all Flemish parties. Anyone who doubts about this should look at what the Flemish Parliament has said about the cooperation agreement with regard to Everberg.

It is therefore supported by all Flemish parties and possibly even by the PRL. I can hardly imagine that Mrs. Herzet plays completely cavalier solo in this regard. I think she, when she speaks about this, actually interprets what is living in the PRL. The PRL believes that it must transcend that taboo-thinking by looking at the texts that lie ahead. The PRL asks what is wrong with those texts fundamentally, in terms of vision at least. For that answer is to wait for the response of the PS, who rests in a stoic silence. Just then colleague Giet was still present here and he could afford to silently look at and say nothing, knowing that the “njet” of the PS or the “non” of Di Rupo is law, and that there is therefore indeed no work will be made of that balanced youth sanction law. Those who still make illusions about this in the VLD, I refer for a moment to the reaction of Mr. Van Cauwenberghe to the hard Flemish language of his good political friend Prime Minister-President Dewael. I quote from Belgium:

Van Cau: Non ferme et serein à Dewael. No to Devil! That is the answer from Van Cau. “(...) the majority of propositions relating to the new institutional reforms as not acceptable by the French speakers.” This is the view of Van Cauwenberghe. We experience that here ultimately permanent: tough Flemish VLD language, especially in the Flemish Parliament. But the words do not match the actions.

We have seen that the whole Flemish Parliament, when approving the cooperation agreement, decided that this should be a temporary solution. The Flemish Parliament wants a full-fledged youth sanction law. This is the expression of a legally elected parliament that also has competence in the area of youth law. This statement was unanimously adopted in the Flemish Parliament by the Greens, the Red and the Blue. Minister Verwilghen found this not so wise of the Flemish Parliament. Mr. Minister, I told you that I was not convinced of the minister’s right. I think the Flemish Parliament is doing the best to attach a time limit to it. The Everberg Law is a subsidiary law. The Everberg Center is used only if there is a lack of closed institutions in both communities. Well, let Flanders build their own institutions and let Flemish Minister Vogels ensure that there are enough closed institutions in Flanders. That Kafkaian Everberg-dude should then no longer cause any colderic uplifting of the public opinion. If I’m right, Everberg has more directors than young criminals. An educator read the cooperation agreement and saw that it is not allowed to let people in. He then interpreted it as "what is not allowed inside, may be allowed outside." That educator says that he is not there to watch, but to educate and is supported in this by his minister pal. That educator is suspended, but then that suspension is revoked again after a nightly deliberation by five directors. In particular, the director himself, two deputy directors and the pedagogical directors discussed the task and assignments of the educators there all night long. This is Kafkaian. Everberg is an institution involving more administration and consultation than there are young criminals imprisoned. If all this is subsidiary, then Flanders must also be able to say that it no longer cooperates with it and can conclude that Justice should be de-federalized.

In this legislature, the major fundamental reforms are constantly clashing with the difference in vision between Flanders and Wallonia. Organized crime cannot be tackled efficiently due to the veto of the PS. The regret-optant scheme, despite all your concessions, Mr. Minister, does not come. Di Rupo does not want her. The process law reforms that are widely carried out in Flanders do not come. The district court does not come. The views on invalidities in criminal law are fundamentally different. The suspension policy on traffic and other matters is fundamentally different in Flanders and Wallonia. The autonomous police handling does not take place in Wallonia, but in Flanders, and we are not talking about the divergence in the judicial practice that is growing.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, as in other matters, the VLD speaks harsh language here again. Immediately Dewael mirrored the people on paper still great plans; through large media campaigns, the Flemish public opinion is turned a wheel in front of the eyes. However, the reality is that the Flemish government agreement, which goes much less far than the resolutions approved by the Flemish Parliament, is not implemented. The reality is that also in terms of youth sanction law, the PS will law is.

All this — and that is very bad — goes at the expense of good governance, as Flanders wishes. Flanders really want to conduct a non-nonsense policy and break taboo. Flanders wants to address existing problems, not to approach them ideologically, but to provide them with a democratic solution, carried by a parliamentary majority.

It is noted that 60% of the country is behind the pre-design Maes-Verwilghen and that even on the French-speaking side there is at least one party, in particular the PRL, which de facto supports the design. However, despite this overwhelming majority, it does not become a law. I will therefore, with great enthusiasm, colleague Van Parys, approve the amendment later. I was not able to sign that because of my forced absence in Hertoginnendal, but you know that I was back in mind, because we had already jointly submitted this amendment. Unlike you, I have very little illusions about this. It can already be predicted that what the PS does not want will not happen. The rest will all be good-meaning words in the wind. So I already suggest that we submit the amendment again soon after the vote, but then in the form of a bill, because the document deserves it. It is an overwhelming document. It is a tribute to the author, who is listening attentively to the debate. It deserves to remain bookmarked in Parliament, not only as an amendment, but also as a full-fledged bill that hopefully can be discussed during this governing term.

Mr. Speaker, what is embedded as a positive message actually leads us away from the essence of this technical bill. This is the second time today, Mr. Speaker, that we are actually discussing something other than what is on the agenda. Instead of a budget control, we held a budget discussion. There is no discussion devoted to a technical amendment to the Law on the Protection of Youth of 8 April 1965, an amendment which should only allow perpetrators who are snatched at the time they are still underage but who, before the criminal proceedings have been completed, have reached the age of majority, can still be subject to criminal measures. No, the debate had a completely different impact.

It is presented as a positive call. I see it as the height of political cynicism. I do not wish to undermine the work done by Mr. Christian Maes. The preliminary bill, which he shaken out of his pen and for which he has made very much effort, has received the praise and approval not only of many academics, but also of the High Council for Justice.

Why do I say this is political cynicism? I do that for three reasons. The first reason is related to numbers. The Youth Protection Act dates back to 1965 and is almost 40 years old. In those 40 years, a number of parties have been in power for a very long time. They have thus been able to make a mark on the youth law policy. For twelve years, Christian Democrats have had the opportunity to give a decisive turn to the debate on youth law. Thro ⁇ that period, there has never been more than a working document delivered by the Working Group-Cornelis. There was no draft law. Now, one does not go beyond submitting an amendment that is actually nothing more than plagiarism of the work of my excellent associate Christian Maes. I find that sad, especially since you are not even the first to commit this plagiarism. Senator Vandenberghe of the CD&V has taken the same manoeuvre following the Everberg Act and then submitted all the work of Christian Maes. In 1987, in 1991, in 1995, however, it has always been possible, following the formation of government, to make the decisive turn in the youth law, which is indeed necessary.

I also experience political cynicism for a second, political reason. We may have to ask ourselves why we have this problem with our youth rights. What is the deeper cause? Well, there is a double deeper cause. The first cause is situated at the level of the special laws of 1980 and 1988. We may have to ask who made that decision to transfer the responsibility for the outsourcing of measures imposed on young people to the communities. I want to do the historical exercise with you. For the laws of 1980 and 1988, a number of politicians are accountable: Mrs Steyaert, Mr Lenssens, Mrs Demeester. In the past, they have taken the decision to effectively impose responsibilities on communities. We note today that these responsibilities were never fulfilled. This is a historical truth that we must acknowledge. Another reason is political cynicism. Who has abolished Article 54 of the Youth Protection Act, which no longer permits minors to be imprisoned in prisons?

In this regard, the person who spoke today is also responsible. I am confident that we have a major problem with youth law. We must also dare to acknowledge things as they are. One should not come to me today in the form of a positive call, which actually represents a camouflaged political cynicism, to tell me that one is delivering a message of hope. It is a message of pure acidification.

Finally, I would like to address a technical issue. Even if a majority in this Parliament would decide to support and approve the amendment, Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber must apply. Everyone knows that. At that moment, the work that has never been carried out can be carried out in the way we would have desired, i.e. in consultation with the communities, should in any case still be carried out. We will have achieved that the technical aspect, the adaptation of the two small articles 49 and 52 of the Law of 1965, which, however, could bring so much clarity to the jurisprudence and the doctrine of law and which would address the young people who go freely because they have committed as minors crimes that were discovered only during their adulthood, would enable us to take action.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have a great respect for Mr. Maes’s work, but it would be a shame to have to...

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I had hoped that we could have held a different discourse on an important issue such as youth crime than shows the response of the Minister of Justice. At the end of the previous legislature, we were indeed aware of a new atmosphere surrounding justice, police and security issues. Within the framework of the Octopus Consultation, we have jointly addressed a number of fundamental issues across the boundaries of majority and opposition. That was an important moment due to important facts that have shaken the public opinion.

We repeatedly and systematically state that young offenders should be released. I hoped that we would be able to conduct this discourse in a similar way. After all, we all have the task of finding a solution to the problem. If we do not solve the problem, it will have enormous political consequences, initially for those who now bear political responsibility.

Therefore, it does not seem possible with this Minister of Justice to conduct that conversation cross-border. It is ⁇ disappointing. This conclusion gives right to colleague Bourgeois when he says that it is naive to hope that a majority in this House can be validated about a problem. As a result, we will be faced with the youth protection model for many years. After the first half of the year, in which 60 young criminals were released in Antwerp, the same will happen in the second half of the year.

Therefore, we are not willing to deal with this matter in a mature way. We still need to speak in terms of majority against opposition or vice versa. Mr. Minister, I will not be tempted to enter into the speech that you have held. I just want to correct a few things that you interpreted here on this tribune. Let me start with the famous article 53. You know, like me, that when we were obliged to stop imprisoning young people, this was the result of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. We were obliged to adapt our legislation to this jurisprudence. By the way, we have jointly drawn up an arrangement in which we have granted a postponement until 1 January of this year in order to translate this jurisprudence into concrete reality. It was therefore possible to provide sufficient places in the closed institutions and/or to establish youth prisons or youth institutions, organized by the federal government. Mr. Minister of Justice, I would like to point out that you have approved this legal provision in Parliament. In those circumstances, therefore, it is quite incorrect to present things as you have just done. The same applies to the actual object of this bill. You said that if the amendment was approved this would result in the legal regime for minors who were minors at the time of the facts and major at the time when the proceedings are initiated would not apply. You failed to mention that during the discussion in the committee we proposed you to withdraw the amendment and submit a bill, provided that the majority agreed to urgently consider the bill. Only when the majority refused to do so, we ⁇ ined the amendment. You then missed the opportunity to, firstly, implement a legal arrangement regarding provisional measures by the juvenile judge as provided in the draft and, secondly, to put on the agenda of Parliament in case of urgency a legislative proposal that corresponds to your views and that of the Cabinet. Their

These are the things as they happened in reality. My conclusion at this point of discussion is that the Minister of Justice has a discourse on the security issue and on the problem of police and justice that is no longer of this time. It prevents us from establishing a system that provides an efficient and effective solution to youth crime. That is the determination that we must make today. As regards my colleagues in this Parliament, I will continue to discuss the conclusion for a moment because I believe that many in this Parliament are a step further than the Minister of Justice’s speech.

It will undoubtedly be seen that the text of the amendment as it is proposed corresponds to the will of the majority of the members of this Parliament. This majority must be able to translate into action against a more than current security issue, the problem of juvenile crime. My conclusion to you, Mr. Minister of Justice, may be clear.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat or replicate extensively on the Minister. His intervention was primarily of a political nature. I would like to rectify what he said about plagiarism. Their

I think plagiarism has a different meaning than the one you used, Mr. Minister. Plagiarism is transcribing without reference to the source. I think that, at least in the first amendment and now again, we have again submitted the text that you communicated to the Justice Committee during the committee meeting and that you thus made public, as an amendment with explicit reference to the source. Moreover, it was a tribute to its author. I have been a member of Parliament only since 1995, but I soon discovered that there is no copyright in Parliament. I have experienced that my texts are taken over and submitted by colleagues. Copyright provisions do not apply here. Plagiarism can only occur if the source is not mentioned. I see daily proposals from colleagues literally taking texts from professors or from all kinds of social stakeholders. In most cases, this is done with source indication. At that time, I think there can be no plagiarism.