Proposition 50K1640

Projet de loi relatif au placement provisoire de mineurs ayant commis un fait qualifié infraction.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
Groen Fauzaya Talhaoui
MR Jacques Simonet
Open Vld Hugo Coveliers
PS | SP Claude Eerdekens
Vooruit Fred Erdman

Submission date

Feb. 19, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

juvenile delinquency child protection

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 ¶

Feb. 28, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is my responsibility to report on the work of the Justice Committee on this bill which was discussed during the meeting of 26 February last year. The report was read during noon time today. This report was adopted unanimously, I would like to emphasize this.

From the very beginning of our work, the Chairman of the Justice Committee, Fred Erdman, had referred to the resolution and the bill on youth protection submitted by our CD&V colleagues who insisted that these bills and resolutions should be processed soon. After a short discussion, it was decided that this proposal would be discussed at the same time as the bill that will be submitted by the Minister of Justice. by Mr. Arens and M. Bourgeois then sought the opinion of the State Council on this bill. A vote was held on this point and the request was rejected by ten votes against five.

The Chairman of the Justice Committee, co-author of this bill, explained the reasons for this bill. Please refer to the written report.

At the beginning of the discussion, the Minister stated a few points. He insisted on the need to protect public security. He also insisted on the residual powers of the federal authority, on the fact that the total duration of placement in the center cannot exceed two months and five days and that a consultation with the communities had taken place. He then handed us the agreement protocol that had been discussed with the communities the same day.

Several members participated in the discussion. by Mr. Bourgeois raised the fact that the proposed minimum penalty was too high and that it did not meet certain situations, notably the sale of narcotic drugs or the cases of recurrence for theft. He also made other observations, indicating that the deadline was too short.

by Mr. Laeremans also intervened, raising certain placement problems, ⁇ in the communities in Wallonia and Brussels, and less in Flanders. He also mentioned the situation in the Netherlands.

by Mr. Verherstraeten also intervened regreting that the measure was too late. He prefers a global approach. He also raised the question of the duration of care in the center.

The Minister responded to the various interventions of colleagues. He indicated that the perpetrator of several thefts or the person who would engage in drug trafficking meets the conditions for access to the center. He insisted that community institutions have a sufficient number of seats for young criminal girls. Therefore, the problem is less for young girls than for young men.

Regarding the age of young people who can be admitted to this center, the minister stressed the fact that statistics show that the young people with the most problems are between 14 and 16 years old. Therefore, according to the Minister, there is no need to lower the minimum age for access to this center. He also responded with regard to the category of drug addicts, psychiatric cases and cooperation agreements.

The previous speakers and Ms. Gerkens then formulated various replicas.

The discussion of the articles was quite short. Various amendments have been submitted. Only three were detained. Two concerned linguistic corrections to Article 2 and Article 5.

And finally, an amendment was submitted by the government regarding the immediate entry into force of this law. The latter was adopted.

The Commission adopted the bill with 10 votes and 4 abstentions.

Can I speak now on behalf of my group?

Of course Mrs. I invite you to speak in the general discussion.

Thank you Mr. President. 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. It is about the reception of criminal minors and the capacity in terms of places of community institutions. by

There are three elements that encourage us to look at the problem we are dealing with today: 1. the very limited number of seats in the institutions within the communities, despite recent adaptation and efforts made by the federated entities; 2. the unfinished transfer of the homogeneous powers of the special laws of institutional reforms of 1980 and 1988; 3. the extent of the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency combined with the repeal of Article 53 of the Law of 8 April 1965 on the Protection of Youth, which, as you know, provides for the possibility for juvenile judges of a provisional placement in federal prison establishments in the event of a shortage of seats in the specialized institutions of federal entities.

It is urgent to act on this issue. by

Youth magistrates, faced with the lack of space in specialized institutions, are very often obliged, when they consider a provisional measure, to release minors who, by their behavior, endanger public security.

As representatives of the nation, we cannot remain inactive in this field which concerns, in the first sense of the word, our fellow citizens. It is our duty to establish mechanisms that enable rapid and appropriate special response in the event of serious criminal offences committed by minors, mechanisms that should enable the application of immediate provisional measures.

It is in the name of this interest of public security and the protection of society that the federal legislature, on the basis of its residual competence, is entitled to intervene.

It is, however, evident that this provisional enclosure cannot be limited to a pure and simple enclosure. This enclosure occurs in a closed environment, which is made necessary due to the conduct of the minor himself, it must be used for the education and the management of the minor. by

We therefore wish to strongly recall the need for a special and adapted treatment in accordance with the rules of international law for the minor offender; which is more so when it comes to provisional measures before judgment as to the substance. It is equally obvious that this aspect of things (education, guidance, accompaniment, assistance) must be taken care of by qualified personnel and according to the modalities to be agreed with the communities through cooperation agreements. by

The federal government has made a very clear commitment by the Prime Minister’s voice to the establishment of a closed reception center as part of the provisional measures for minors who have committed an act classified as a ⁇ serious offence.

I reiterate once again that it is the criterion of social security and protection of society that is the basis for the intervention of the federal power in this matter. This criterion of material competence was recalled recently by the Council of State in its opinion of 9 November 2001 concerning a bill amending the law of 8 April 1965. by

To speak frankly, the arrangement we put in place by voting the bill that our assembly is taking today is a form of preventive detention for minors. It is necessary, in my opinion, to use terms that "speak the truth", which are transparent, and to avoid, as Van de Kerckhove said, the mystificating power of language. This is true for the provisional measures and the preparatory phase, it is also true when addressing the question of social reactions when judging on the substance of minor offenders. by

But this provisional imprisonment is subject to cumulative conditions — and I insist on this point — ⁇ strict and severe, which must be compiled and described in a circumstantiated manner by the magistrates’ order.

We will note in particular that imprisonment in this closed federal centre will only be applied in the event that, within the specialized institutions of the communities, there is no potential place of reception.

I talked about preventive detention for minors and I used this term quite voluntarily. It should be noted that the conditions of these provisional placements and the modalities of control are quite similar to the existing arrangements for major offenders with, of course, specific guarantees for the situation of minors and related to the minority of the perpetrator. Thus, there must be a control following the provisional placement, first, 5 days after giving the order and then, month by month, with — I insist — a maximum of 2 months and 5 days.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, in the face of the situation in which the federated entities are, in the face of the extent of this phenomenon of juvenile crime and in the face of the residual competence of the federal authority in matters of public security and protection of society, we must legislate in this matter. by

The adoption of this arrangement must not make us forget the urgent need for reforms as soon as possible because I think that the time for reflection has been long enough and that the time has now come to legislate in the field that was called, in 1965, "the protection of youth".

I am referring to the participants in the general discussion. This is MM. Verherstraeten, Arens, Erdman, Bourgeois and Borginon, Ms. Gerkens, MM. Laeremans and Coveliers, and Mrs. Lalieux.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that I have another question to the Minister.

I have not forgotten that. You can ask your question after this debate, unless I interrupt the discussion now. I do not prefer that to you. Once the discussion is completed, I will give you the word to ask your question.

After the General Meeting?

When I am away from here, Mr. Vandeurzen.

This is the wish of many, Mr. Speaker. I assume that I will be able to ask my question at a useful time.

This will depend on the time that will take the discussion of this point. I cannot predict that. In any case, you will get the word as soon as the discussion is completed.

Now I give the floor to Mr. Verherstraeten, after which Mr. Arens and Erdman can speak. You know where we are and where we are.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the short time between the submission and the plenary discussion of this proposal shows that a quick treatment is possible.

It is appropriate to describe its history. Article 53 of the Law on the Protection of Youth was deleted in the spring of 1999, i.e. at the end of the previous legislature, with effect on 1 January 2002. Therefore, when the government took office in the summer of 1999, it had two and a half years to take action. This was also the case for the respective community governments.

Unfortunately, this did not happen. The competent community ministers and federal ministers, on the other hand, have played through the black pit. Therefore, when Article 53 was abolished on 1 January this year, there was still no solution for minors who commit criminal acts. Moreover, you cannot claim from the CD&V group that it has not sought to provide a constructive answer to the problem. In October 2000, we submitted a draft resolution followed by a bill in November of the same year. Both texts were scheduled for discussion in the Justice Committee. However, the majority did not help us to discuss these texts with the same speed as the majority’s present proposal. The treatment was repeatedly delayed at her request.

In November there was then the opinion of the State Council, which gave the government much more time to take the necessary measures in anticipation of the expiration date of 1 January 2002. At that time, the VLD group had already prepared amendments and the CD&V group also submitted amendments on the basis of the opinion. Unfortunately, tragic events had to occur first, especially young criminals who could not be detained before this proposal could get out of the bus. I conclude that the proposal comes quite late and that the opposition has no responsibility for it. On the contrary, that should be written on the account of the purple-green majorities of the communities and the purple-green majority on the federal level.

In terms of content, we have several comments.

The bill is limited to boys. Although this is understandable for practical reasons, we may be somewhat behind it.

In terms of legality, we have comments to make.

The provisional detention is limited to two months, although amendments of the VLD group and responses of the Minister set that period to six months.

We fear that this majority proposal will soon put the majority again in trouble, so that its buffer capacity will be quite limited.

We also regret that the entry into force of that proposal does not coincide with the cooperation agreement. In the meantime, this cooperation agreement will be concluded, but unfortunately the timing does not coincide. However, this seemed to us relevant in order to have the absolute guarantee that in addition to the essential security measures there is also reception, assistance and guidance in that institution.

We also regret that this inevitable proposal is an isolated measure that does not coincide with an extended youth sanction law and a comprehensive regulation on prevention, care and assistance at community level.

In that sense, the CD&V considers that this proposal was submitted very late — of course, better late than never — and is not perfect. For this problem, however, an urgent solution had to be found. If the proposals of the opposition had been examined earlier, the solution could have been found before the expiry date of 1 January 2002.

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, etc. In fact, for two years already, we did not cease to worry and was asked to act. For at least two and a half years, it was known that this repeal would take place on 1 January 2002. Nevertheless, the majority blocked all attempts that were made to lead the debate from the bill proposals that were on the table and had been submitted in order to allow a true social debate to be conducted in serenity.

Instead of conducting this debate, the inertia of the government and the majority has led to creating an emergency and making sure that no more debate is conducted. The democratic game is wiped out of its very substance.

In addition, the muscular and security advertising effects of the Minister of Justice resulted in the complete blocking of a reform of youth protection yet ready to result under the previous legislature and this, after a thorough work.

What can also be said of the incuriousness of a Minister of Youth Aid, Ms. Maréchal, who by his inaction and inertia has let go and allowed the federal government to take foot on a ground that is of the exclusive competence of the Communities, the protection of youth.

The procedure established by the current majority is completely unacceptable. We cannot participate in this game of pretending to organize a democratic debate within our parliament while rejecting it because that is exactly what we are witnessing. Under the pretext of the urgency that you yourself have generated, you not only reject the debate but also reject any request for consultation of the State Council in a matter however ⁇ sensitive since the division of competence between the federal power and the Communities is in question.

This issue is not resolved by your bill, whatever you say. The ambiguity continues to prevail in the respective interventions of the federal and the communities and at the level of the measures you propose to implement.

You continue to claim that ambiguity does not exist because measures are essentially repressive measures. Refusing a democratic debate is even more serious since you are obstructing a fundamental social debate about the attitude to be adopted towards a specific and limited category of young offenders for whom current measures have proved ineffective.

Let things be clear: we are in no way opposed to the creation of closed centers for this category of young criminals who, I repeat, ...

Mr. Arens, you raise two problems: the first when you say that we reject the debate and the second when you talk about the consultation of the State Council. It is true that you raised this last point in the commission and that the latter decided not to ask for it.

I would like you to clarify your words when you claim that we reject the debate. Here is the report of the committee’s work. You know who spoke during the discussion of this proposal. You know as well that as chairman of the committee, I had planned the possibility of sitting even at night. The work of the committee allowed us to finish at a reasonable time. So, please tell me why was the debate on this proposal rejected? I am not talking about the global problem. It is necessary to keep the controller in the middle and consider that when discussing this proposal, everyone has been given the opportunity to intervene in the debate and nobody has denied you this possibility.

Mr. Erdman, your refusal to seek the opinion of the State Council is clear. You have made a vote while you know very well that the first young man facing the problem and who will go before the Arbitration Court, you will have problems... You know it as well as I do. Today, we still support this request to the Council of State.

As for the democratic debate, in 1965, it took 22 months to vote on the Youth Protection Act. Even today, ...

Mr Arens, I interrupt you. You have to know what you want. Are you currently proposing a referral to the State Council? We will not initiate a general discussion in session and then face a request for opinion to the State Council.

We are currently in the general discussion. I also asked for this opinion in the committee.

You asked here too, I heard you. I have to ask the House to take a decision on this issue.

We are still in the general discussion in which I would like to speak.

I will then submit the question to the Assembly. You cannot be and have been.

I told Mr. President. Erdman said that in 1965, it took 22 months to come to the law on the protection of youth. This is just a few hours of discussion.

Mr. Arens, you must demonstrate intellectual honesty. We have never claimed to initiate a substantial reform through this bill.

In 1965, you had 22 months to discuss the global problem while now we are discussing a punctual response to a factual situation.

Mr. Erdman, the Vermeulen law is responsible for derivatives. Here, implicitly, you completely change the system through a law passed overnight. This is the method used by the current majority.

I am surprised that we get angry during this debate. I was present from the first to the last minute. I took note of all the interventions. I only heard you once for a minute, Mr. Arens, and you were not even present at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, we want Ms. Maréchal, Minister of Youth Aid, to take the necessary measures to create a sufficient number of seats and to establish an effective intervention in the field of youth protection and rehabilitation. It is necessary to take into account the specificity of this category of young people. Enclosure is necessary in some cases to mark a time and allow the speakers to take a step back and ensure educational guidance.

Our position is very firm on this point and is also accompanied by a prerequisite: detention must remain an integrated measure in the philosophy of our youth protection system. It must be accompanied by an educational framework and perspectives of educational type.

Now, the texts that are presented to us and which have been prepared in the precipitation, manifestly constitute an exclusively repressive response to the complex problem that is posed to us. We cannot accept that, under the cover of the urgency, the first step towards dismantling our youth protection system is taken, in precipitation and disregard for democratic rules.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arens, are you ignoring the agreement that was concluded with the communities? However, this agreement was communicated to the Justice Committee. You were absent then. You may have obligations elsewhere. However, that agreement has been communicated. You apparently missed that.

We disagree with this policy.

Mr. President, Mr. Arens, this is not the matter. It is about the agreement with the communities that you have not read.

Mr. Arens, tell me in what way this proposal is only repressive. Give me a description of what you consider repressive. You have just said that Ms. Maréchal should have planned a lot more places closed in the French Community. There is some ambivalence since communities are responsible for accompanying in the centers. Tell me in what the system is repressive.

In what way is this proposal reeducative? As I said, we cannot accept that, under the cover of the emergency, it proceeds in precipitation and disregard of the democratic game as a first step towards the dismantling of our youth protection system.

The cooperation agreement does not correct this reality in any way. Furthermore, the text stipulates that the cooperation agreement must only be concluded in order for the law to enter into force. What about the ratification by the respective parliaments? What about democratic control? The majority disregards all the rules of the democratic game to impose on us a political choice that we are prevented from challenging. Indeed, the choice that is made is nothing but the introduction, in a different form, of a new Article 53. by

Given that the rules of procedure are violated, that we are asked to participate in a simulation of parliamentary debate, that our parliament is totally out of play and that we cannot adhere to the political choice that is manifested in the bill, we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Arens, if I understand correctly, you intend to request a consultation of the State Council. Is your request supported by 30 members?

Do 30 members support this question? Then they must be right. Do thirty members support this question for consultation of the State Council? Less than 30 members are right. Less than thirty members stand up. No to? Yes, it is one time. I am not going to consult the State Council every two minutes. The Bourgeois? Everyone will come like this. The [...]

Mr. Speaker, I can well imagine that later, at the moment I speak during the general discussion, I will repeat my request to consult the State Council and do not know the opinion question on the amendments that Mr. Arens, for example, does not submit. I believe that during the general discussion a member speaking may ask for the opinion of the State Council.

Colleagues, it was about the proposal for consultation of the State Council by Mr. Josy Arens. This request has not been sustained.

I have not heard him ask that question. I think I have heard that he is considering asking for the advice.

Has Mr. Arens only considered his proposal to consult the State Council? In any case, his proposal is not supported by thirty members. I have souleved the question.

Mr. Fred Erdman is now given the floor for his speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I don’t think this is the time for polemics. I have the impression that everyone is aware of the actual state of affairs on the ground. I agree with Mr. Verherstraeten probably on many points with the sketch he has made of the history. I think that everyone should look deeply into their hearts to see if they, whether or not trusting third parties, at some point thought that the problem would resolve if the famous Article 53 was repealed. Each of us knew there was a problem. At some point, all possible solutions were proposed. I am willing to say that at some point the CD&V group has very constructively formulated, on the one hand, a resolution — which goes far beyond this — and, on the other hand, a proposal within the framework of the Act of 1965. Of course, the key to the whole was missing, namely the agreement of the communities. We can draft as many protective laws as we want, if there is no agreement with the communities, we will get nowhere. Some ministers at the time and also recently said that there was no problem. However, we have seen these problems in reality.

When the committee decided to ask the Speaker of the House to ask the Prime Minister to start the consultation, that was, in my opinion, a good move since this consultation actually led to an agreement. As Mr. Coveliers recently said, we have received the text of that agreement in the committee, something that may be a unicum. After all, we got a cooperation agreement that would be discussed by the negotiators already distributed.

Mr. Van Parys, you have not heard me say that this is a single exception. I say that it is not often that we receive this kind of communication. Let’s not call it a unicum, but a good gesture.

What are we standing for today? There is an agreement with the communities and a center is established. As for the discussion of whether this should be a center for boys and girls, each of us knows that this is not possible. Mixed institutions in this area are not possible. On the other hand, there are no problems with the girls as there are sufficiently closed departments. The third element is that communities need to be further empowered. Mr. Verherstraeten has made a slight allusion to this. This should not lead to a situation in which the communities should do nothing more by establishing these institutions. It is intended to provide a solution to an existing situation and to take immediate action. Any juvenile judge who would entrust a young person to this institution shall, from the first day, in consultation with the community institutions, seek out places where that young person could be accommodated.

The communities will need to make further efforts as part of their program and the expansion of their institutions so that Everberg may be closed on a given day because the communities provide adequate answers to the problem. I was criticized for my utopian approach to a community where young people are welcomed and educated to the extent that they no longer need to be placed under supervision. This is a social vision that is probably not shared by some because it tends to the disappearance of society. I still have hope for this society if the necessary measures are taken.

(Reactions to the Banks of the Flemish Bloc)

It does very well! I have not mentioned anyone, but who fits the shoe, ...

I come and do some contentful remarks. I think we have a good debate. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to return to what I said before. You have some complaints about the procedure that has been followed in the committee. Unfortunately, you had to leave us, but everyone was free to speak. I did not limit the time of speech. I did not say that the work should be completed for a specific time. We could eventually have the opportunity to finish the work much later than we did, but the committee considered that the text could be discussed.

Les amendements proposés portaient davantage sur la forme que sur le fond et, le cas échéant, sur certains degrés qui avaient été prévus, en particulier et ce qui concerne le taux de la peine, etc. Also, ne venez pas dire que nous n'avons pas pris le temps de discuter. If some have not participated in this debate, they must not complain afterwards. I have one last comment. Mr. Minister, I think this will have to be discussed again after the work of the Cornelis committee and after the global draft law on the law on youth sanctions. At that point, I think it will be necessary to examine the whole package, taking into account this measure, which is a response to a factual situation and which serves both youth judges and accompanyers as well as society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, before starting the discussion, it is appropriate to proceed with a brief historical recall, because history allows to illuminate many situations present.

As early as 1988, we were sentenced by the European Court of Human Rights for imprisonment of minor offenders. As a result of this conviction, the parliament had already voted in 1994 for the repeal of Article 53 of the Youth Protection Act. Since the government did not take responsibility for the entry into force of this abolition, it was in 1999 that this parliament had decided.

The French and Flemish communities were therefore aware of the situation for two and a half years, a period of time that they had at their disposal to set up real alternatives. Knowing these deadlines, communities could and should have taken their responsibilities and taken more precautions in this regard.

Today, it is hard to see that in public youth protection institutions, the number of seats reserved for minor offenders that we can qualify as heavy or multirecidivist is insufficient.

This proposal aims to respond — urgently and temporarily — to a situation of an exceptional nature. We know how difficult it is to work properly in precipitation. Under no circumstances can this proposal pretend to provide a fundamental and definitive answer to the problem of minor offenders.

However, as legalists, we share the will of our colleagues to provide a legal basis for placing these minors in the closed center of Everberg. The guarantees and conditions surrounding the implementation lead the Socialist group to join it, since a series of guarantees have been granted in this bill.

It is essential to recall the importance of cooperation agreements with communities, which will allow educational guidance and support for these minors in closed centres. However, I would like to remind this tribune that these centers should not reproduce like mushrooms. We hope that there will be only one center, that the seats will not be systematically increased and that, soon, the communities will put real and real alternatives on the table.

I would also like to remind you that our position is and will always be guided by the will to lead a real policy of prevention and action in the open environment. We continue to defend the option that the social model...

Madame Liliou, Mr. Decroly would like to interrupt you for a moment.

I always listen to you with great interest. With Mr. Erdman, you hope that we will not move towards growth and reproduction, as in the days of the mushrooms, the closed centers of which we speak today. by

I would like to remind you that just a few weeks ago you voted on a draft budget for 2002, which already considers the creation of four additional centers.

Mr. Decroly, if I am not mistaken, the budget was 28 million. When we know, at the federal level, that 42 people will be needed to frame the minor offenders (surveillance personnel), I doubt that this amount will be enough to pay those 42 people. I am not worried about the budget. If I understand correctly, Mr. Vande Lanotte also does not appear to be inclined to make an elastic budget compared to closed centers.

I said it, and I will repeat it if you listen to me.

We take the option of a social model and open environment action first and foremost. And the social model and the protective model must always prevail over the security model since a security policy cannot fit itself in the long term, nor is criminal law the only remedy for all evils.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, we are in favor of an adaptation and a rapid reform of the Law of 1965, while remaining committed to safeguarding its original objective.

In conclusion, the Socialist Group will vote on this proposal but with regrets and regrets over the passivity of the communities to really take over the problem of minors so-called multirecidivists.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc will not approve this bill on the provisional placement of minors because it is false, because it turns a wheel in front of the public, because it is internal contradictory and because it does not provide a fundamental long-term solution to the heavy youth crime in our cities. On the contrary, with this bill, we run the great risk that it will be cancelled in a few months.

We are glad that Everberg has finally arrived. Of course, a legal statute had to be drawn up for Everberg. The statute given to Everberg today is a fake statute. The type of measure that is being developed today is a fake measure.

Everberg does not indeed become a youth prison with the express intention of isolating and punishing the serious youth criminals, against whom a society must secure itself and whose safety is the primary task. No, it will be much less. Everberg is only a reception or overflow vessel, a buffer for those young people who temporarily no longer have a place in community institutions. However, as soon as a seat is released in one of those institutions, the judge must send the person concerned there. Everberg therefore has no own finality and is only a reservoir or expansion vessel, and that while the State Council has said so clearly that the federal government does indeed have the power to establish institutions where conservation measures can be implemented and where specific sanctions can be applied, with the main goal of securing society.

In fact, the State Council claims clearly and unwaveringly that such sanctions cannot be implemented in the institutions of the communities. In other words, the State Council makes a clear distinction between two different situations: one where in the first place the protection of young people is central and the other where in the first place the safety of society is prioritized against young offenders, young and heavy offenders, heavy recidivists. For young people belonging to this category, a separate institution or a separate youth prison is bitterly necessary and is not provided here.

Colleague Laeremans, you know me well enough to know that I cannot allow legal aberrations to go over me. Can you give me the legal basis on which juvenile criminals, as you call them, can be sanctioned, ignoring the law of 1965?

Mr. Erdman, the legal basis was examined in its entirety and in detail by the State Council.

Mr Laeremans, can you give me the legal basis on which a minor may be convicted?

Mr. Chairman of the Committee, the State Council has found it and has indeed said that this belongs to the residual competence of the federal government.

If there were sanctions to be imposed by the federal government, today, can you give me somewhere a text on the basis of which a minor can incur a criminal court sanction?

This is included in the preliminary draft provided by Minister Verwilghen, but that the SP, the Greens and the PS have been holding back for months. These sanctions are indeed necessary and important. The State Council says that the federal government — we as legislators therefore — is perfectly competent to impose those sanctions, and on this basis the federal government is also perfectly competent to create institutions where those sanctions are implemented. That is precisely the distinction that the State Council makes, but by ignoring that you also make it impossible in the future to develop federal criminal sanctions, because you exactly do not want institutions with their own finality, where those sanctions can be implemented. That is what is discussed here today. You are blocking this development.

Where the State Council states that such penalties could only be applied in judicial institutions, this is a fortiori the case for the provisional measures, since their security character is much more clear. That is also the purpose — and now I come to it — of Minister Verwilghen’s draft law on the law on youth penalties, which explicitly provided for five separate judicial institutions for youth offenders, where both measures of provisional detention and enforcement of sanctions would be possible. Here the stay would not be limited to a few months, or it is not a temporary shelter to get the communities to evaporate some steam, but it is a separate institution or institutions, with its own, well-defined and bitterly necessary goal. Different types of offenders will not be mixed, the duration of the stay will not be up to two months, but in the worst cases there will be an imprisonment followed up to four years and that is, for who can count, twenty-four times more than two months.

No lower limit also for criminal acts of 5 years and more, but all criminal acts of more than 6 months. No limitation to one single gender and no lower limit of 14 years, but of 12 years. These were the original plans: an institution that would inspire fear among the minor criminals.

Today they do the opposite. It will be a temporary residence where one will stay for a maximum of 2 months. Once a seat is free in a community institution, the juvenile judge must dismiss the person concerned from the institution at Everberg.

Therefore, there remains a total mixture between heavy criminals and light youth criminals, which is ⁇ unreasonable, dangerous and highly irrational. There is also an agreement with the Socialists and the Greens. This means that at the same time the drafted youth sanction law itself will be drastically encrypted. It is clear that the repressive elements that still exist today will be wiped out as much as possible. The liberals have with Everberg their toy, their Potemkin decor. They can now demonstrate to the people that they have done something about the problem. However, the real winners of the debate are on the left side and on the far left side of this hemisphere, because they have undermined the youth sanction law that was on their feet to a very significant extent and barricaded the way to a truly harsh approach to youth criminals from the outset. They have even managed to automatically terminate the law discussed here today on 31 October if there is no cooperation agreement at that time. Everberg will then become a youth vacation center, as President Erdman said so beautifully yesterday and what he so dreams of. Your utopian socialist ideology, your air cycling, Mr. Erdman, has significantly contributed to the fact that this entire dossier on youth crime was wiped under the mat for so long and that it was done as if there was no problem.

The crisis situation we are facing today is not a coincidence. Collega De Man has just pointed out to me that in 1994 he had already questioned the then Minister of Justice about this problem For years the Flemish Blok points to the extremely lax reaction of the government in this country to the increasingly violent youth crime in our cities and to one of its main causes: the very massive immigration, the very massive presence of foreigners in our country. For those who still did not want to believe it, the Van San report has sufficiently proved that youth crime is linked to the alien problem to a very significant extent. Given the demographic evolution in our cities and this government’s open border policy, this situation will only worsen in the coming years.

In the Netherlands, which can be compared with our country in a number of areas, including with the open border policy, one is finally beginning to realize this. The taboo is finally broken; the blissful multicultural society is now even challenged by the CDA. If you browse the Dutch website of Justice, you find that there is no taboo on the origin of the youth criminals. Not only the nationality is mentioned, but also the immigrant origin of the naturalized. It is clear that there is a huge immigration problem.

In the Netherlands, a repressive policy is being carried out. Where one comes to 200 closed shelters at the end of this year, including community institutions, then there will be almost 1,600 in the Netherlands, 8 times more so and within 3 years 1,800, 9 times more so. In the Netherlands, therefore, you can keep more criminals out of the street and you can keep them out of the street for longer. This is clearly the problem that everyone in the sector concerned complains about, from juvenile judge to parket judge to educator: due to the lack of places, too few young people can be detained, the reception is expensive and the treatment period is too short to change something for the better.

Everberg therefore brings neither an improvement as an institution in itself nor a substantial improvement to the reception problem: the number of receptions is still far too low. This is said not only by us, but also by the youth magistrates in Antwerp who requested at least 100 to 150 additional seats. In the Antwerp region, by the way, a centre is ready, which could perfectly serve as a closed youth centre. This is a part of the illegal center in Merksplas that is perfectly separate from the illegal center. It has all the necessary facilities and has recently been completely renovated. My close colleagues Tastenhoye and Spinnewyn have gone to visit this center and have found that from today to tomorrow, so much faster than Everberg, it can be turned on as a youth prison. This, of course, requires political courage.

Colleagues, in this case we have been able to experience, like in no other, how the responsible in this country raise their umbrella and place the blame on others. Birds who blame Verwilghen for a lack of action. Verwilghen who throws back the ball and blames the communities. From Parys who blames the majority inertia and division and Verwilghen who gives his predecessor of the same leaves a trousers. That ping pong game continues but lasts, it is far from over. Not surprisingly: everyone is right, because everyone has butter on their heads. Every minister who has taken responsibility for this has butter on his head. First, there is Minister Vogels of the Flemish Community. The problem of shortage of shelters has been raised for years. Youth judges have been complaining for years. During the debates in the Flemish Parliament during the previous legislature and also when Ms Vogels took office as a minister in the Flemish government, she has, at first, however, with hands and teeth resisted additional places.

On the French side, the problem is even greater. I would like to pay attention to the figures of the heavy juvenile crime in 2000. One-third of the minor prisoners held in detention during the short period of fourteen days were Dutch-speaking or lived in Flanders, two-thirds were French-speaking or immigrant Brussels. On the French-speaking side, despite the numerical Flemish predominance, there are half more youth criminals. If they want to conduct a serious policy in relation to the number of Dutch-speaking places, then they should have 200 places whereas Flanders has 100. The opposite is true: they have only 50.

Third, of course, the CD&V, or rather the former CVP and Tony Van Parys are equally responsible. In 1998, I repeatedly interpelled. The minister has repeatedly responded that the federal government is indeed competent and has announced that closed centers would come.

Mr. Speaker, I hear colleague Laeremans, as a wildman, hacking on everything that is somewhat in the way of the theory that he is now developing. That he then explained why he and Mr Schoofs abstained in the vote.

Mr. Minister, I just said that. Maybe you were too busy talking to Mr. Coveliers. We abstained because this is a fake measure and Everberg is a fake institution. It does not correspond at all to your original design, it is accompanied by a manifest outpouring of it. Of course, it is better than nothing, and therefore we did not vote against it. There will be 50 seats and we are not against it, but that is too little and in addition it is a very bad bill.

Even former Minister Van Parys has butter on his head, because we have seen nothing from his proposals at the time, not even a youth sanction right. In this, Minister Verwilghen is right. In the run-up to the 1999 elections, former Minister Van Paris announced in Brussels, together with Walter Vandenbossche, that youth prisons would be created. We have not seen them. It was a pure election speech. Nothing was prepared at all.

The first proposal that the CD&V submitted during this legislature was actually even worse than what is now predicted. It meant that the elderly should also be able to stay in the youth institutions. Of course, that was an aberration.

Finally, Minister Verwilghen also has butter on his head. He has long known that there would be major problems from 1 January 2002, but he has failed to take the necessary measures. However, he knew very well that the communities would not take on their responsibilities. On the contrary, he said, “Who am I to say that communities do not conduct good policies.” He has therefore pushed the matter on the long track with the current crisis resulting.

The minister, like former minister Van Parys, used powerful language during the election period. In your draft of the youth sanction law you have even taken some elements from the program of the Flemish Bloc. When it came to a point and the right of youth sanctions had to be defended, as well as the youth prisons as institutions with their own, important finality, however, nothing more remained.

You have no hair on your teeth. You let yourself pack. More than ever, it is clear that not the VLD, but the Socialists and the Greens are in charge of Justice. This has not only disappointed us, but especially your own backbone. First of all, you abandoned your own voters.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, many have taken in the general discussion of this bill — to which the Chamber has granted the emergency treatment — the words emergency law and emergency solution in their mouths. The situation was and is urgent. The public opinion was also convinced of this. The TV images of yet another minor delinquent who, in the absence of a closed shelter, had to be immediately released, have been burned on the retina of the people. Also among the police services there is great frustration if they have managed to catch the perpetrators in important criminal cases who are then released by the government and the prosecutor’s office because one cannot act.

However, this urgent matter should not distract attention from the cause. Article 53 was abolished in 1999. They knew the expiration date. They knew that problems would arise. Even at the turn of the year, they did not give the impression that a solution would come quickly. Apparently it was necessary for a youth judge from Liège to actually "deliver" a minor delinquent to the cabinet of the French community minister of youth to get speed in the file. Only then was some progress possible.

Thro ⁇ that time, the file has continued to be trapped and rotten, not least because of contradictions within the majority and equally because of community contradictions. Only after tremendous pressure from the public opinion, when the judges through the media came out with their frustrations, came a solution in sight.

This law needs urgent approval and as a responsible opposition party, we have provided our full cooperation in this regard. Mr. Speaker, there is urgency and there is urgency, in the sense that certain proposals, which were labeled as urgent, nevertheless had to go a very long way before becoming law. However, the draft that we are currently dealing with was really urgently dealt with, up to the way the report was drawn up.

Our frustration is and remains the lack of advice from the State Council. In a constructive spirit, we had requested this during the plenary session last week, during the considerations. However, you did not consider it necessary to discuss this, Mr. Speaker.

Whatever they are, given the circumstances, the opposition should not be pointed to the finger. We did what we could. Furthermore, the CD&V was the first to submit proposals in this regard and, together with members of other parties, regularly drew attention to the problem. Politically, however, things had to be resolved before the conditions were met for the proposal to be approved.

Now, I want to talk about the proposed legislation in essence. In general, the points of criticism that we have formulated in the committee remain standing. First, we consider that the threshold for recommending preliminary admission is too high. Except for recidive, a penalty of five years and more is used. Well, during the committee discussion, I pointed out that this does not allow, for example, minors drug dealers selling to adults to be covered by this measure and that ordinary thefts are also not covered by this legislation. For a number of very serious crimes, therefore, the emergency law cannot be used without the guarantee that there are sufficient places available in closed community institutions, because it is therefore suggested.

Occasionally, community ministers announce through the press that the problem has been solved. I have, by the way, supplemented my dossier with a number of such newspaper clips according to which, among others, Minister Vogels was announcing on time and stood announcing that the problem is the track since she took care of the creation of additional places, but again and again this turns out to have no effect.

We advocate a reduction of the penalty threshold to one year and at the same time the introduction of the criteria applicable to the provisional detention law. According to this proposal, the criterion is limited to the danger to public security, while our proposal consists in making the possibility of capture more flexible, setting the maximum duration on a period of six months, but of course also a flexible action with regard to the provisional release. This should be linked to the criteria of the provisional detention law: the danger of recurrence, the danger that the perpetrator escapes, the danger that evidence would disappear and the danger of collusion.

The introduction of a period of six months, flexible possibilities for release under certain conditions, stricter conditions and possibilities to decide on such enrolment will make the law more efficient. After all, I am afraid that this law, which comes in subsidiary order, is indeed an emergency law, will lead to the ratione legis that the young man who is included there must also be dismissed in the shortest possible time. To this end, all resources will be used and this will be done at the expense of all reasonable investments that have taken place in that area. In this context, I think of the transformation in collaboration with the communities, of all that has been prepared regarding guidance, of the center that will be established in Everberg and where three directors with a full staff will be appointed. The period of observation for the purposes of frameworking, guidance and treatment risks to be so short that the resources and energy invested would not lead to solutions or to efficiency and efficiency.

This is the biggest comment we make on this bill.

My third comment is about the fact that in the law itself it is written that the center is only accessible to boys. I repeat what I said in the committee. I hope, with all committee members, that this center should not be used to capture juvenile female offenders, but it is nevertheless unwise to enter this as a “prohibition” in the law. This is a task of the executive, but the law must provide a solution for everyone, regardless of the gender of the juvenile offenders. Furthermore, Article 2 refers to Article 36, 2°, which does not make a gender distinction, in order to later stipulate that the centre is only accessible to boys. This is not entirely consistent. Article 2 refers, without distinction of gender, to Article 36, 2° and then states that the center — the generic term, not Everberg — is accessible only to boys.

I maintain my amendment on this subject. I believe that the Minister should determine which concrete reception centers will be opened or not for young female offenders.

Fourthly, there was a lot of community hearing about this dossier and then I’m not just talking about the discussions about the powers of the federation and the communities, respectively. I think that the members of this hemisphere, after the advice of the State Council, understand that indeed the federal government is competent for the repressive part. There is little discussion about this, but the communities are competent for the measures that are especially necessary for juvenile offenders. I refer to prevention, care, protection, guidance and framing. We must try to give these young people a chance to fully participate in society, but that is a community competence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourgeois, I think we all agree on this point. Therefore, we must keep the accommodation in Everberg as short as possible to allow communities to realize those objectives. We have chosen a temporary period of two months and five days and you want to make that period longer. Nevertheless, it will always remain a temporary accommodation. We must keep that period as short as possible in order to find as soon as possible a place where communities, in the fullness of their powers, can accomplish the transformation — with the goals you have just outlined — with the objectives you have just outlined.

My comment is double. First, the cooperation agreement creates a heavy structure. There will be three directions and a full Dutch-speaking and French-speaking staff. French-speaking community officials will be operational on the Flemish territory. This is possible thanks to a cooperation agreement, which defines this federal institution as a section of Saint-Gillis.

I would like to comment on your comment, colleague Erdman. In theory you are right. I agree with your argument, but then you should have a look at the placement possibilities. We assume that there are not enough closed centers. In your vision, which I could endorse, we are talking about a kind of transit center with a view to as quickly as possible flowing to a center with full-fledged guidance.

But, I find that here also now full-fledged investments and efforts are being made, precisely for that frameworking and that guidance. From experience, we all know that those who are charged with it say that it sometimes takes days and weeks before they have a chance to penetrate the core of the younger’s personality. So it may be best that investments are made here that barely yield their usefulness. That is my point.

Colleague Bourgeois, precisely because it is that transit, precisely because this is the purpose, one must come to a situation where at the same time within the framework of the agreement of cooperation, the communities find themselves. You know as well as I do that one is not in power, even federal, to provide provisional measures for young people whose innocence is still suspected. These are provisional measures. At the moment when they are picked up, one must at least acknowledge the powers of the communities to frame them. They must indeed be provided.

Basically, of course, I am on the same line, and I advocate that anywhere in this sector, more than in adult prisons, where much more should also be invested in human transformation and guidance, more efforts should be made. I only say that because of that specific situation, that emergency situation, where the ratio legis is as if it is to go as quickly as possible — in and out — to a closed community institution, the necessary investments and costs — a huge amount of work and a full-time crew — will not yield.

Consequently, it is my conclusion that, even in this matter, it would be a fairly homogeneous set of powers, in which the communities are competent both for preventive, for care, and for punishment.

Mr. Speaker, I have begun to say that I regret that you did not seek the advice of the State Council. I would appreciate the opportunity for us in this Parliament to ask for an opinion on the whole draft.

The whole is over; on amendments you can still do that, but the whole is over.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which argument you rely on to argue that this is completely over. I know that you appeal to the fact that there is an opinion of the State Council on the proposal of the CD&V group.

In the question of Mr. Arens, I asked: are there so many colleagues who want to question this? I looked and the answer was no. Article 56 must be applied. Overall, this possibility is over, not for the amendments. In accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Procedure, this request may not be subject to amendments.

President, you are the chairman of this Assembly, I must ask you not to play games. Mr. Arens has said that he regrets that there is no advice from the State Council. I asked you during the review last week to ask for urgent advice and Mr. Arens did not formulate the question. If you think there should be a advice, you should ask it as chairman. However, it is not up to you to say that there may be someone who thinks that advice should be sought. Their

No, this is a point.

No, Mr Bourgeois

Mr. Speaker, there was no one from the opposition who then asked to invoke the opinion. I ask now, if you let me speak. I am now asking, in general, no more about the competence aspect, for there you have a point. There is an opinion of the State Council on the proposal of the CD&V group, in which the State Council has said that it is effectively federal matter. But on the legalistic whole of this proposal – about which there is a lot to say and that has been proven in the committee – the Council of State has not been able to comment.

So I ask that you now ask whether there are thirty colleagues who support my double question: first, my request for advice from the Council of State on the legislative whole; and, second, my request for advice on the amendments nrs. 6, 7, 8 and 15, which I submitted again. I think this is very clear.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arens, did not request at that time to request an opinion from the State Council. You cannot take the place of the opposition.

Mr Bourgeois, I have subsequently asked, pursuant to Article 56, 3° of the Rules of Procedure, whether 30 members support the consultation of the State Council. A few members of the Flemish Blok group have stood right, but not 30. Consequently, the demand was not sufficiently supported.

As the article-by-article discussion begins, I am prepared to resume the question concerning the consultation of the State Council. The point.

Your actions may constitute a precedent. I would like to know which member has already asked the question regarding the consultation of the State Council. You refer to Article 56, 3° of the Rules of Procedure. This article determines verbally, I quote: "Supposes a member the consultation ...". I repeat my question. Which member has requested the consultation?

Regardless of whether a member has requested this consultation, I would like to ask a second question. The Chamber has not spoken at that time. What prohibits another member from asking the question?

Mr. Tant, at the time that Mr. Arens left the tribune, I asked if 30 members supported the consultation of the State Council. You voted on this. Read the comprehensive report. You will find that I have clearly asked whether 30 members support the consultation. I asked that question.

If you request the consultation of the State Council on the amendments...

It is not about that!

It is about that. I repeat that during the article-by-article discussion one can request the consultation of the State Council. At that point, I will again ask whether 30 members are willing to support this request.

Mr. Speaker, if you assume the right to determine the moment to determine whether or not you have 30 members, you affect the right of the MPs to determine the most appropriate moment. You cannot determine this yourself.

First of all, you were not present at the time. Secondly, I have exchanged opinions on the subject with the Secretary. According to him, one cannot request consultation of the State Council twice on the same whole of a proposal.

That can be.

You will read in the Comprehensive Report that the House voted on this. I asked if 30 members supported the consultation. You are not right. So is it. If you request the consultation of the State Council on the amendments, I will again ask whether 30 members support this request. If yes, I will suspend the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. Which Member has requested this consultation?

The Lord Arens.

That is not correct. You have asked the question.

That is too easy. You can’t throw this question in the middle if it pleases you, to stretch the general discussion. The question concerning the consultation of the State Council on the entire bill was raised. I have voted on this. You can read in the Comprehensive Report that no 30 members have supported this request. There was hesitation. That is not my affair.

This is no longer serious, Mr. Speaker.

Please read it in the comprehensive report. Things went like that.

If Mr. Bourgeois or other MEPs request this consultation on amendments, I will again ask whether 30 MEPs support this request.

Mr. Speaker, I again call on your impartial presidency.

You must be careful.

I was very attentive, Mr. President. During Mr. Arens’s speech, we felt very well that you expressed an urge to let the assembly at that time take a decision on the desirability of an opinion of the State Council. Despite your challenge, Mr. Arens did not ask that question.

You have asked...

I asked for it, yes.

... ... or 30 members request the consultation of the State Council. However, you are the President. You have your own authority to request the advice.

It is only when a member asks that it be voted on. Now it is the first time this afternoon that a member of our assembly asks to obtain the opinion of the State Council on the whole proposal.

We have decided on this subsequently, but not on a question of obtaining the opinion on the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, assume — this is a mere hypothesis — that there would have been a vote — quod non — then I ask you the following. First, can you tell us what the outcome of it was? Second, has there been a counter-test and what is then the outcome of that counter-test? I have not heard any results.

There is no counter-test, Mr Van den Eynde. I need to see 30 members stand up. They ask that the debate on the question of the advice of the State Council be initiated.

Those 30 members are counted.

I have seen it.

I have not asked for the opinion of the State Council. I mentioned the problem I had faced in the committee and for which I had sought the opinion of the State Council. I said then that it was really important to ask for it.

Mr. Arens, let us be good princes and correct! I asked whether 30 members requested that the State Council be consulted.

I ⁇ did not say yes. I did not answer.

I asked the House if thirty members supported the request for a debate in order to consult the State Council. You can see this in the full report. If Mr. Bourgeois asks me to apply the procedure on amendments or other, I will ask that thirty members arise to see if a procedural debate is necessary and we will count. It is clear!

Mr. Speaker, I really remember the moment when Mr. Arens was speaking to the State Council. After that, no question was asked and no one stood up. You say that some members of the Flemish Bloc faction would have risen. Maybe it was because someone came in or went out.

That is not true.

In any case, I can’t remember who would have voted in one vote or another! The Vlaams Blok group did not vote! No one voted!

You will read in the Comprehensive Report that I asked if there are 30 members who support the discussion of the question of sending to the State Council for advice. Some members on your side have stood up. There were not 30.

Is the question now being asked that 30 members would stand up to open the debate on the question of advising on the amendments to the State Council?

Mr. Speaker, if you refer to what has been said later, you should also remind me of what I immediately replicated to your question. I said then that I did not rule out that I would seek the advice of the State Council in the course of the debate. This was in the context of the discussion. At that time, no member was asked to obtain the advice of the State Council. If you refer to the report, you must add — I repeat — that I took the floor immediately after your question to say that I do not rule out that I would seek the State Council’s opinion on the proposal and the amendments.

You cannot ask for advice twice.

It was not requested.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand exactly why we should conduct this discussion. It is comparable to a discussion, before there were television footage, about who was right in a football match: the referee or the player. There are now television images. Our historical acts are constantly recorded. It is perfectly possible to suspend the meeting for a moment to look at the images. Investments in cameras are worthwhile. Well, we suspend the meeting for a moment and a member of each party goes to look at the images to know what exactly happened.

Mr. Van Peel, I have requested a procedural vote from the Chamber.

But he not.

You will see it. I have not seen 30 members standing upright. I have made it clear — you will read it in the full report — that the question concerning the State Council was not supported.

If Mr. Bourgeois or anyone asks me to consult the State Council on an amendment — it may be all amendments — then I will ask 30 colleagues — if they want to — to stand up and open the debate on the subject.

We need to implement our Rules of Procedure. For all clarity, I do not support the request for a State Council opinion. For me, this does not mean that the discussion ultimately results in a consultation of the State Council. We must follow our Rules of Procedure in this regard.

Two different procedures are set out: on the one hand, in Articles 56.1 and 56.2, where the President himself requests the opinion, and on the other hand, in Article 56.3, where a member formulates the request for the opinion. If your statement is correct, we should read in the report: an oral formulation by a member of the question for consultation. This is the phrase in Article 56.3. I may be mistaken, but I have not heard that since then.

Mr Borginon, pursuant to Article 56, 3° of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber, I asked the Chamber whether the proposal of Mr Josy Arens was supported. From the tribune, Mr. Arens considered consulting the State Council on the matter. So I have already asked if thirty people support the request for advice.

Mr. Arens, I asked if the request was supported. She was not.

You are constantly changing seats. You said it was Mr. Arens who asked for it and now you say it was you who asked for it. Is there a member who asked you to do this or did you do it yourself as president?

Mr. Grafé, there is no sacred or magical formula to ask for this opinion. When Mr. Arens left the tribune, I proposed to the Chamber to initiate the procedure under article 56, § 3. For this purpose, I asked thirty members to get up. You did not do it. It is finished!

Is there a question for the opinion of the State Council? Are you asking for advice on the amendments or on the whole?

Mr. Speaker, I now submit a request for the opinion of the State Council as a whole, including the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, you say that we will be able to read in the Comprehensive Report of the Acts of the Chamber what Mr. Arens stated. The Comprehensive Report is normally created after the member has been given the opportunity to verify whether its content matches its version.

Mr. Tante, that is true.

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Arens would now say that he did not ask for the advice of the State Council, then the chance is much greater...

That he changes.

Right, and that he is in the wrong position. You can only verify this by asking for the image tape. Why do you not do it?

Mr. Tante, you are right. If a member improves his statement afterwards, it is not the statements I have heard here.

I now ask again whether the opinion of the State Council is requested on the basis of Article 56, 3° of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber. I ask that 30 members be entitled.

Mr Erdman, I give you the word first.

I followed the very interesting debate. I have questions about the next. In their speeches, Mr. Verherstraeten and Mr. Bourgeois declare that this law is an emergency law, they complain that much time has been wasted, and they say that we must deal with the situation on the ground. Will we, to anyone who considers that we have spent too long with that law, offer the answer by submitting that text again for advice to the State Council? I ask myself that. However, each member reserves the right to submit a request for advice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Erdman, with all respect, but I cannot leave your statement unanswered.

When considering the urgency request of the majority, I asked the President to request the opinion of the State Council immediately in case of extreme urgency, so that we could immediately have that opinion at the discussion in the competent committee. So do not blame us. That law is an emergency law and we have the right and even the duty not to perform art and flight works. That emergency law does not justify the saying that emergency breaks the law. We need to do good legislative work. The State Council did not have the opportunity to comment on this. You cannot say that the opposition is to blame. We have cooperated cooperatively in all areas. In the consideration, we supported the urgent request. We have asked the President to obtain the opinion of the State Council. Now we stand on our rights.

Two and a half years have been lost. You cannot blame the opposition.

Mr. Bourgeois, yesterday, Wednesday 27 February 2002, in the Conference of Presidents, I distributed a note of the services of the House, which I had already requested on 22 February 2002. I couldn’t ask it sooner. After reading that note and the attachments, I decided that I would not ask for the advice.

My question was submitted immediately after the evening session.

Mr. Speaker, I have answered this. You have an opinion from the State Council on the division of powers. I am not asking for advice anymore. I only say that the State Council should be able to give advice on the legal whole of this proposal. This has not yet happened. There should also be an opinion on the amendments that I have listed.

Mr. Bourgeois, I can only ask for advice on the amendments. You can quote them all, which does not bother me at all. They can all be sent to the State Council at the same time if you find sufficient support for them. I have no right to disturb myself.

In view of the confusion regarding the procedure, I would like to ask you to suspend the meeting for a short period of time. Then we can discuss. Ten minutes is enough. It is important that we come out here, otherwise we can ⁇ not continue this discussion.

I have not interfered with the application procedure and I cannot do so. I will only give a reading from a letter I received recently, namely 14 February 2002 — the date may have been chosen rather symbolically. It is written: "Mr. Minister, in my last two letters of 31 January and 12 February 2002 was already pointed out on this absolutely impossible situation and on the need to hic et nunc" — the word nunc is underlined — "to ⁇ a solution and not within the foreseeable time or even tomorrow." This is signed by Christine Dekkers, Attorney General at the Court of Appeal in Antwerp. In a previous life she had another role, within the CD&V. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this simply because it is about the people who are in practice. They know very well what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I take note of what the Minister has said about the Attorney General of Antwerp. This is the second time he makes such statements. As a replica, I quote a sentence from a press release of 13 December 2001 by the Minister of Justice, at a time when the CD&V had pointed out that from 1 January a huge problem arose given the fact that young people could no longer be imprisoned in a prison. I quote a sentence from that press release: "It is, after all, flat demagogy to come to the conclusion that from 1 January 2002 youth criminals will go free." This is the quote from the press release of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. Mr. Minister, I do not really find your comment so happy. One could also quote from all sorts of interviews with youth judges who have long publicly accused this condition. It was always the opposition that insisted that this was necessary, while the majority did not even touch it. Now she herself created an emergency. I ask for a suspension because I consider this a very important precedent. It is also about your neutral presidency. You would have liked it, but I keep in mind that at the time there was no member who requested to obtain the advice of the State Council. I immediately said then that I reserved the right to do so during the general discussion, both on the draft and on the amendments. You can check that.

Before I suspend the meeting, I would like to remind you that at some point I applied Article 56, 3. I submitted the question to the Chamber, referring to Mr. Arens’s proposal to consult the State Council. (Protest in the opposition) This question for debate was not answered by thirty colleagues. I then said, "The request of Mr. Arens to consult the State Council is not discussed." I will then, after the suspension, again apply Article 53, paragraph 3 to the other points which I will be asked to submit to the Council of State. I am suspending the meeting for 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I advise you not to make too many predictions about what will happen after the suspension.