Proposition 50K1700

Projet de loi attribuant le titre d'avocat général au membre du ministère public représentant la Belgique au sein de l'unité Eurojust et réglant sa situation financière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 18, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public prosecutor's department judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

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

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, this is a very important draft law aimed at introducing a legal arrangement involving the granting of an allowance to the member of the Prosecutor’s Office representing Belgium in the Judicial Cooperation Team Eurojust.

International cooperation in the fields of police and justice has been a ⁇ important issue for some time. In the current situation, crime is a fact that transcends boundaries, in the sense that boundaries are actually only boundaries for the government, but no longer for the criminal organizations and the perpetrators of criminal acts in organized context. Therefore, efforts have been made for some time to organize judicial and police cooperation beyond the borders of the Member States. I believe it is important that Europe not only manifests itself in terms of monetary union, economic cooperation or social solidarity, but that Europe is given the opportunity to enter into certain forms of security cooperation.

This, by the way, was also one of the conclusions of the parliamentary investigation committee that we have known in the Senate and which specifically dealt with organized crime. I would like to pay tribute to the chairman of this committee in the Senate, our colleague Hugo Vandenberghe, who with great energy leads this committee and has, by the way, come to strange conclusions. I think this is a word of homage to a member of the Senate who, without any doubt, has great merits in this area. He has, by the way, in the strange, I would almost say the historical, 1998 report, put his finger on the wound. Their

By the way, it was at that time that during the meetings of the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the European Council the idea of realizing cooperation formulas or cooperation modules, regarding cooperation between Justice and police, grew. It was obvious that European police cooperation had already been advanced to some extent. You should know that Europol has been a fact for years. It must be acknowledged that Europol was initially a symbolic link of cooperation between police services within the European Union, but gradually Europol has grown to play an important role in the fight against organised crime within Europe and in the fight against terrorism. Their

The problem was that there was no judicial cooperation. I would like to remind you, Mr. Minister of Justice, of the findings that we have made in the parliamentary investigation committees and specifically in the parliamentary investigation committee of which you were the chairman. Their

I do not want to politicize the problem because it is inherently so important, Mr. Speaker of the Group, in the fight against organized crime. We have just addressed the problem of combating youth crime and identified how the majority fails in its priority to address that youth crime. This is a painful determination. Their

I would like to remind you, Mr. Borgignon, that in Antwerp, since 1 January 2002, 59 young criminals have been released. They had committed serious criminal acts. It is the failure of this judicial policy of a government that, however, carried the security high. Today we are talking about another element of crime, organized crime. Their

Mr. Giet, you know the matter of the house. You are a valued and active and dynamic member of the Justice Committee. You have been raised with this problem. Your father has always had a great merit in the College of Attorney General in matters of combating crime. You will not contradict me. This was, by the way, also an element in the work of the investigation committee on the Bende van Nijvel. Together we have been able to carry out groundbreaking work, including on the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. You still remember the heroic discussions we held. We saw that the cooperation between the districts failed. There were contradictions between Charleroi, Dendermonde, Brussels that led to an impasse in the investigation of the Bende of Nijvel. We wanted to do something about it so that cooperation could be established across the districts within the national territory. Of course, everyone understood that national cooperation was not enough and that we had to take a step further, in particular an international cooperation within the European Union.

In the first stage of the problem of cooperation, then the national magistrates have been established. They were not only tasked with coordinating the policy of prosecution within the national territory across the boundaries of the districts, but they also decided that the national magistrates were the European point of contact on the fight against crime. These national magistrates, of course, had the merit of their commitment and dynamism, but it was an institution that was not recognized as such. Since we in the parliamentary investigation committees had determined that the cooperation between the police services had been established, but that there was no supervision or control over the cooperation between the police services and the judiciary, a significant democratic risk arose. We found the same thing in the investigative committee that the current Minister of Justice was chairing, in particular a highly organized police force that could have a lot of resources and, on the other hand, a lack of supervision and control. Therefore, one of the important conclusions of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee was that it was of particular importance, among other things, with regard to the investigation work, that the direction of the investigation of the investigators would be passed on to the magistrate.

It was so at the national level. Then came the Franchimont Act and the investigative judge was assigned a central role in the operation of the police services. This is an important discussion that is still ongoing at the moment, Mr. Giet. Mr Coveliers’s statement is that the investigative judge should become the judge of the investigation. This, in my view, will only weaken the position of the investigative judge — my opinion is shared — because he will no longer have an impact on the investigation. In this way, the prosecutor's office and the police services have too much influence without democratic supervision in order to respect human rights and defence. We must, I think, fully accept the statements of the League of Human Rights. Colleague Giet, you will not contradict me. At the national level, we have identified an evolution towards a too strong dominance of the police services, including through the integration of the police services. Three police services, the municipal police, the judicial police and the national guard, balance each other. If these three services are integrated into a single police service, though on two levels, a concentration of power arises that involves a certain risk.

Of course, there was then external control, in particular by the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Police Services. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my disappointment that the functioning of the Permanent Supervisory Committee does not receive the attention it needs. The annual report of the Standing Committee on Supervision of Police Services dates from 15 April 2002 — I think it has not yet been discussed — and contains the findings of the committee which exercises external control over police services on behalf of the Parliament.

Mr. Coveliers, you remember that the establishment of the committee was an important consequence of the first Bendecommission. Then we said that the police services should be controlled not only internally, but also externally. We have created an organ for this purpose.

The [...]

I come to that. Of course, one has to do with the other. Allow me to finish my reasoning in order to give colleagues an insight into the matter. Furthermore, I take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Coveliers on his initiatives to shape that committee at the international level. Collega Coveliers is the foundation of the European cooperation of the control services on the police services. I see that Mr Van Hoorebeeke is asking for the word.

Mr. Coveliers has had the tremendous merit of bringing together the control services of the European Union into — let us hope — an organ that should be the embryo of a European control body on the police services. This is of course desirable. If we are talking about the internationalization of crime, it can of course not be enough that the Member States themselves have their own national body overseeing the police services. We must then be able to exchange information about the different control services. Mr Coveliers, I am ⁇ pleased with the initiative that you have taken and that I have been able to support to invite the next President of the European Union, Denmark, to continue the initiative you have taken. I hope that in the medium term we will be able to establish a European institution for the control of police services. This is an important step in the implementation of a number of important recommendations from the Parliamentary Research Committees.

Until now, we were talking about the police services. The problem is that within the political environment much attention has been paid to the police services but much less to justice. This originated in the Pinkster Plan. In fact, the control and supervision of the judiciary as well as the organization and the resources at its disposal have been largely missed. Mr. Speaker, you have not been able to follow the debate. I understand that you need to organize a number of things so that the democratic debate can be conducted properly. The CD&V Group, as I have informed you, finds it ⁇ regrettable that in this Parliament so little and so late attention is paid to the work of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of Police Services. I do not blame you for this because I know that this is a task that you, as president, take to heart. You are also the chairman of the accompanying committee. Due to the current structure that requires us to meet with the members of the Senate Monitoring Committee, it becomes a whole job to fulfill this Parliament’s mandate in a timely and proper manner. Mr Giet, this has a very concrete result that the report of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of Police Services, which was submitted to Parliament on 15 April today, on 27 June — then on 28 June although it remains on 27 June because in Parliament the calendar does not change when we go to midnight — is still not discussed. The meeting is now finally scheduled for early July.

That means that we have waited almost two months between submitting the report and discussing it. Without compromising the confidentiality of the documents, I can nevertheless inform you that the report contains especially important data to which Parliament and public authorities should be able to respond in a timely manner. The members of the committee will not contradict me. I think we have a great responsibility by postponing the discussion of this report for so long.

Mr. Van Parys, you know that the president of this can be completely cleaned up.

Mr. Speaker, I just tell you that you are indeed clever for this matter without any doubt. However, this does not relieve us of responsibility. To the extent that the report contains elements of fundamental dysfunctions in the police services — better than I know you know that this is so — and to the extent that we have not responded to them in time, we will be able to be held accountable for this, Mr Van der Maelen. We have seen the parliamentary investigation committees. The Minister of Justice, Mr Coveliers, Mr Giet, several colleagues witnessed this. At the moment when something goes wrong — you will not contradict me, my dear female colleague who follows the matter ⁇ intensely — the responsibilities are very accurately balanced. To the extent that one did not respond immediately to dysfunctions, one was held accountable. One even got to the list on the back of the investigation committee report, the list of those eligible for sanctions and which was actually the black list.

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see that at some point we are setting up a parliamentary commission of inquiry and that we could be told that if Parliament had responded in time to the dysfunctions found in the report of the control body of the Committee P, we could have avoided that he or she would have been the victim of either a machination, the operation of a police service, or a crime. We cannot actually take that responsibility. Hence a call, Mr. Speaker, of which I know that you are very attentive, to formulate very concrete recommendations for the recession following the publication of the report of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Police Services. To the extent that the Senate colleagues are unwilling to follow our agenda, we will leave them to the left or right, me at any moment. Then we must take our responsibility. Furthermore, I note that they also do not wait for us if they take initiatives with regard to the annual report of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of Intelligence Services, Mr. Tant, without involving anyone in the Chamber. The CD&V group is ⁇ concerned because I myself am the rapporteur of that annual report. We see all sorts of initiatives because of the Senate’s accompanying committee, without the Chamber being involved in it. By the way, as I have already said, it remains an important fact that in this way a body that is substantial in the fight against terrorism does not function and that it does not take the measures that should be taken in time.

Mr. Van Parys, you exceeded your 30 minute speech time.

This is a ⁇ important draft.

( ... ...

The Rules are the basis of democracy. Mr Van Parys knows the Rules of Procedure and will conclude his speech. The Rules of Procedure allow for 30 minutes of general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, it was very important to briefly outline the framework of the draft as it is present and as it has grown. Knowing what the environmental factors of this design are, the question arises about its purpose. In the field of judicial cooperation, a body should be established to ensure that, in the first place, the information in important cross-border files can be exchanged. This exchange of information is of course ⁇ important in order to act effectively against major forms of crime.

The second element — and I really wanted to come to that, hence the context I have briefly outlined — is that, in addition to police cooperation, a pillar of judicial cooperation should be included. Otherwise, the police services and the power resulting from them would involve a democratic risk in the European context. You should know that there is no counterweight within the political context, as the national parliaments have no control over it in any way. We have never discussed the control of European police cooperation here in this Parliament. This does not happen at the level of the European Parliament, which is not competent to do so. It is the pillar of European judicial cooperation.

Mr. Van Parys, I ask you to decide. Mr Leterme is?

I address myself to colleague Van Parys and also to colleague Coveliers. Mr Van Parys speaks of a democratic deficit at Europol. I remember that at the Conference of Presidents we discussed proposals by colleagues Coveliers and Van Parys on the initiatives for European consultation of national parliaments. Are these initiatives addressing the problem?

I am pleased with your question, Mr. Chairman.

I also know all the methods of this Parliament. Mr Coveliers is?

I could very briefly answer Mr Leterme the following: the Parlopo action is about control over the police, Eurojust is about the judiciary. They have nothing to do with each other. But Mr. Van Parys has to talk about it for thirty minutes now.

Mr. Van Parys, I ask you to close.

I will not question the expertise of colleague Coveliers, because after all, his entire career has been carried by crime. I mean, of course, the fight against crime.

With regard to my group, I have to say the following from my heart, Mr. Speaker. When Mr. Coveliers was sensitive to Mrs. Avontroodt’s complaints about physical aggression, you must understand that Mr. Coveliers’ career is carried by the conspiracy theory. He has recently been the victim of a serious act of criminal aggression. I am very serious, my colleagues. I understand that he then takes the concerns of his colleague from the group at heart. Imagine you come home at a certain moment like Mr. Coveliers came home and then experience what he has experienced. These facts come back to the top. I understand his reaction. As part of the care for the victims, with which colleague Giet has always been very committed, it is important that colleague Coveliers had the opportunity to blow off steam. You must understand this in this context.

Now you have to finish.

Now to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Van Parys, you should not do that to the Room. You are a good speaker. You do it well. You’ve been talking for a long time, but you’re a lot about your time and I have to ask you to finish.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the essence of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Justice, colleagues, I would like to address one important point in the draft that is presented today. It is important that the Chamber is informed about this. Mr. Giet referred to the written report, but it does not seem to me to be a good methodology.

It is about 20,000 euros.

Mr. Speaker, this is more than that.

I know it because you have already said it.

Mr. Speaker, if you reduce this draft to 20,000 euros, you must apologize. It is about the following. The Belgian representative of Eurojust, Ms Koninckx — she is now known and appointed, appointed or appointed, to whom I will return later — receives an annual allowance of EUR 20 000.

There are two problems with this bill. This is what I wanted to talk about here.

No, now you have to finish. You should not chase your president.

Today we will spend our time raising the bet of one judge. I will be the first to say that these important international contracts, Mr Giet, indeed require appropriate and appropriate reimbursement. However, in the context of the valorisation and revaluation of Justice, it is much more important that the first-line judges who are faced in the first instance with crime—the substitutes, the first substitutes, the lawyer general, the substitutes prosecutors general...

Mr. Van Parys, I ask you to decide.

From a democratic point of view, it is ⁇ important that these people are valued. For our group, however, it is an important note that the government wishes to make an effort with respect to a single magistrate, while it has so far failed to submit a bill on the first-line magistrates, who are at the forefront in the fight against crime. I would like to make this clear, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister of Justice, I invite you to enforce in the Council of Ministers that a bill be approved containing the betting increase of the magistrates as promised, with the understanding that you will then at least have to find the means to pay the magistrates too. As I have already emphasized in the course of this afternoon, it clearly shows that those funds are not available.

I would like to discuss another point, Mr. Speaker, before deciding. Following the discussion in the committee, the Minister of Justice informed that the call for candidacy for the vacancy for a Belgian representative at EuroJust was not published in the Official Gazette. To my great surprise, I had to find that a number of prosecutors and general prosecutors informed their members that there was a short-term vacancy for a magistrate for the position of representative of Belgium in the judicial cooperation team EuroJust. The so-called candidates...

Mr. Van Parys, I ask you to decide.

The magistrates were notified about this at 12:15 and could apply until 16 hours the same day. In this way, Mr. Minister, you motivate magistrates for important positions: the prosecutor’s magistrates receive a letter to apply for a particular position within three and a half hours, after which you come to the Justice Committee declaring that the invitation to apply is a mistake, because there is no vacancy. This is the way, Mr. Speaker of the Group, in which Justice is organized in our country.

Mr. Speaker, you allowed me to discuss this for a moment, and I am grateful for that.

Those who insist on the correct application of the Rules of Procedure should also give the example. Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you will undoubtedly do that.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, unlike Mr. Van Parys, I will be quite brief. Colleague Van Parys has discussed the draft law in a brilliant and thorough way, and I think that in this Parliament we need to get rid of the unfair habit of repeating the words of others.

Nevertheless, I want to prosecute him. In fact, it is customary to thank the rapporteur at the beginning of the discussion of an important bill for the way he brings his report to the plenary session. Collega Van Parys has already said that we have not been given the opportunity tonight to pay tribute to Mr Giet for his excellent work as a rapporteur in the Justice Committee — not only for this bill, but also for so many others.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this quiet moment to give a tribute to all those rapporteurs who actually deliver work that is not always appreciated. Collega Giet had the opportunity to receive applause for his report and I suggest before we give it to him later, post mortem almost. Colleagues, before I speak about the breast image for colleague Coveliers, I would like to celebrate the work of these rapporteurs through a minute of silence or attention.

Mr. Speaker, with my second point, I would like to return to the debate during the committee responsible for the issues of Trade and Economic Law. I hope you give me permission to discuss this in detail.

You said yourself that you would be quite short.

For my time consciousness, this is quite short.

Mr. Van Parys, Mr. Verherstraeten, Mr. the group leader of CD&V, I would like to return to the discussion on the principle of politeness in this Chamber, because your colleague-party friend has attacked me on an unhealthy. This is not about colleague Van Parys, whom I have known for a very long time — who would not dare to do so — but rather about Mr Verherstraeten, who is still young and turbulent and inexperienced in this Parliament. He attacked me in an unfair way.

This is not a personal fact, Mr. Van Hoorebeke.

Mr. Speaker, you have justified me, but I must contribute to my group member — I consciously use the word group member — Mr. Borginon, that he has excellently respected his role as chairman of the committee charged with the Problems of Trade and Economic Law.

Mr. Leterme, you may not always be like that, but Mr. Borginon has, in any case, entirely enabled the free speech.

I do not fully agree with the statements against him.

Mrs. Avontroodt, I do not want to address certain concerns on this subject. If Mr Borginon is in one matter at least tonight, it is that he in the Committee responsible for the Problems of Trade and Economic Law has given everyone the opportunity to speak within the time frame, up to 20:45 p.m., ending up to 21:00 p.m., up to the start of the Conference of Presidents. Mr Ansoms will agree with me on this.

Fourth, I come to the chest image of Hugo Coveliers. Colleague Van Parys, you have indeed pointed out his great merits. His criminal past, to which you referred, I do not intervene. However, we cannot deny that colleague Coveliers has great merits in both the Senate and the Chamber regarding the functioning of the police office. I admire his views on this, how it should be organized and how it is not today. I think we should not leave it in words. In addition to the silent condolences to the rapporteurs, which I have already delivered, I would now also like to pay condolences to the people who carry the Parliament, Senate and Chamber, in particular, among others, to Hugo Coveliers.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it fits within your budget, but I advocate placing a chest image of Hugo Coveliers in the passages of the Parliament.

Let me now come to the essence of the bill.

The [...]

Mr Van Parys, the Chairman does not consider this as a personal fact, so I will not address it.

Let me now come to the actual draft law on cooperation.

Yesterday, I was a bit upset with the mayor. As Mr. Verherstraeten tonight was unhealthy to me, I acknowledge that yesterday I was unhealthy to the mayors. The reason for this is the following. I have, of course, seen you on the floor and you always make a big impression on me, as you know. Behind you, however, was the president, who is also the mayor. I saw him shake in denial. I felt that my criticism was not correct.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, you clearly put the president on his horse.

I haven’t talked about it yet, Mr. Tante.

The Chairman, together with you colleague Tant, yesterday wanted to make it clear that the discussion on the additional costs for the police has been a very important discussion because one can only have a well-functioning police if one also provides for the appropriate costs, honorary and the like. So tonight I confess to a certain extent and with a certain restraint, a certain guilt.

Collega Tant, I now address directly to colleague Van Parys, who spoke about the cooperation and the substantive aspects. As a former Minister of Justice, he knows the matter much better. Mr. Van Parys, you talked about those 20,000 euros. You said it wasn’t so important. It was more important to have the people and the resources. Well, I tell you, those 20,000 euros are very important on an annual basis. Mr. Duquesne initiated a motivated police force by giving in to the salary demands. He was convinced of getting a motivated police when he gave in to their salary demands. I would like to mention Professor Van Outrive here. He is writing a book about this. Collega Van der Maelen, professor Van Outrive is not unknown to you. Together with us he exchanged thoughts on the development of police reform. He proposed 12 criteria based on police reform in the surrounding countries. When he compared this with the Belgian police reform, he found that only one criterion was met, namely the satisfaction of the salary requirements. This, of course, is decorated by Interior Minister Duquesne, who has taken it quite quickly. We all know the reason. My colleague cited them yesterday.

It had to happen because the Eurotop summit had to run in a quiet way. So he quickly entered into the salary demands.

Mr. Van Parys, I come to the bill. The $20,000 is not insignificant. I go a step further. Cooperation also means that one must be able to cooperate on an equal basis. Mr Van Parys, I wonder — you know the case better — whether a comparison was made of the salaries of the different members of the Eurojust Judicial Cooperation Team. The file seems to be incomplete today. Where did the 20,000 euros come from? What is this supporting, Mr. Van Parys?

Mr. Van Hoorebeke asks a pertinent question. He is looking for an objectivation of this amount.

Mr. Van Parys, I am looking for the parameter.

We need to spend the scarce resources of the government properly. If today we do not know the parameter to reach this amount of 20,000 euros, then we would indeed come to an unfulfilled decision. Therefore, it would be useful to hear the Minister of Justice about this because he can clear us without any doubt what that parameter is. Mr Van Hoorebeke, we discussed this proposal at the extra muros meeting in Hertoginnedal. In my opinion, this substantial data of this dossier has not been discussed. Mr. Minister, it is important that we know the remuneration that the other European Member States pay to their representative at Eurojust. It would be very useful to know whether we are in front, in the middle, behind, or even not in the peloton. Mr. Van Hoorebeke was looking for the objective key. I think the Minister of Justice can perfectly inform him about this.

Mr. Speaker, if we are looking for a point of reference, it seems to me desirable to take as a basis the cost of the breast image that we would make for Mr. Coveliers.

I want to release as many resources as possible for Mr Coveliers’ breast image to continue to highlight his great merit for the future.

All madness on a stick, I hope that the Minister of Justice will soon be able to make us clear in his response. In any case, in the unifying Europe, we must be able to evolve towards equality in terms of wages. Therefore, I would find it totally unacceptable if those 20,000 euros are much more or much less than what the other members of the team earn. Mr. Van Parys, working together is not just for the beautiful eyes of the people.

Over the eyes of the Belgian representative in EuroJust there can be no discussion. We had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Coninx. I do not think that there is a problem there. I think the colleagues of Ms. Coninx in EuroJust will not object in this regard. The problem will indeed be the material reward. The rest is OK in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to Mr. Van Parys for his excellent explanation. I can conclude and come back to the bill, emphasizing once again its merits, though with the nuances as applied by colleague Van Parys.

The cross-border crime, such as that which occurs in the region of colleague Lano and which may cause the split of the electoral district, where the crime rates in one part are lower and in the other part higher, is undoubtedly a topic that this organization of judicial cooperation will deal with.

It was on June 28th and...

Colleague Van Hoorebeeke is mistaken. Mr. President, maybe you should address him for a moment. Colleague Van Hoorebeke thinks we are currently on June 28.

In the hemisphere it is June 27, but outside it is June 28.

It is like the distance time machine of Professor Barabas.

In any case, I can only wish the judicial cooperation within EuroJust all the success, so that the international cooperation can finally be done work and the cross-border crime in East and West Flanders can be drastically combated.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a suggestion. I have heard that after this meeting a committee meeting would be held. Per ⁇ it would be better for that committee to continue tomorrow, on Friday. It is almost Friday. I do not want to force anything. However, I did not provide for the support of the members. If you can agree, do it tomorrow, maybe in the afternoon. Mr. Coveliers, tomorrow at 14.30 a.m. meeting of the committee charged with the problems related to Trade and Economic Law?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going there. I am here now, but tomorrow I will not be there.

The committee responsible for the issues of Trade and Economic Law will therefore meet tomorrow at 14.30 and not after the plenary session. Mr. Verherstraeten, I know that you will keep it short and that will delight everyone.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this draft comes in time, because European judicial cooperation is necessary. The police are actually losing their grip on Islamic terrorists. The longer the more clear. We could read that this morning, including in The Financial-Economic Time. They fear that attacks can occur at any moment. The Belgian police and intelligence services are gradually losing their grip on Islamic terrorism. They say they actually have no vision of the situation anymore. Who says that? These are well-known sources. Not just ordinary sources, but well-informed sources. They say that one is losing the overview of the situation. This analysis is not only done in Belgium. The same analysis is done in all other European countries fighting terrorism. I think of our neighbors, the Netherlands, France and Luxembourg. Britain is also facing this. There are many other European countries fighting terrorism. They also have that fear. Therefore, there is fear that spectacular attacks against an American target can take place at any time.

The shorter, the fresher the water. I will take care of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you. That is very friendly. Colleagues, since September 11, last year, the day the Al Qaeda terrorists destroyed the WTC towers in New York, the war against that terrorism has been raised worldwide.

Belgian anti-terrorism detectors fear that since that day they are actually gradually losing the grip on those candidate-terrorists. This analysis is shared in all countries where the phenomenon is being combated. The Belgian court, of course, does not stand still and tries with all means to prevent attacks against those American targets. Whether this will succeed, of course, is the question. In court circles one is at least alert and it is said that all flashlights are on red. After all, the candidate terrorists have only one goal: killing Americans through some spectacular action. Before 9/11, police and intelligence services still had a fairly good view of the first terrorist cells, although this is now being questioned in America, in the light of the established parliamentary investigation committee. The question now arises whether these anti-terrorist cells, the FBI or the CIA were aware of everything.

After training in Afghanistan, the candidate terrorists usually visited the leaders known to the security services who were kept in the eye. As a result, warning lights burned at police and intelligence services. Their path was followed to the extent possible and so police services in Europe were able to intervene in time. Unfortunately, this could not happen in time in the United States, so the September 11 attacks could not be prevented. Since the attack on Afghanistan, we have those warning lights, unfortunately, no longer. The men trained in Afghanistan have been scattered across the Islamic countries and they now come to our country through, among others, Morocco, Algeria, Malaysia, China and Pakistan, without us having any evidence of their terrorist training. Unfortunately, they have no contact with the known cells and can no longer infiltrate. A bunch of information will no longer meet them.

This is the case, for example, for the Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic minority from China. After all, some of their fundamentalist fighters ⁇ a terrorist training in Afghanistan. In Belgium, a group of Uyghurs has been destroyed, but we have the advice according to their intentions. This is the case in police offices and this is the case in judicial circles. Their

The court collected information about the terrorists’ plans. How did she get them? This was done, among other things, through the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism who were detained in Belgium and two fundamentalists who America held at the base in Guantanamo. Thus, a possible attack on the air force base of Kleine Brogel could be avoided. But a future attack on that air force base is, of course, always possible. How can we prevent and destroy these attacks? To prevent these attacks, according to the investigators, there needs to be more coordination. There needs to be more cooperation and consultation. And that, of course, requires more conversation and more coordinated cooperation. After all, nobody has a picture of the number of candidate terrorists coming to Europe, for example through networks of human traffickers. I had thought of dozens, Mr. Speaker of the Group, but I would still like you not to interrupt me.

He didn’t interrupt you, right? I have heard nothing.

Mr. Speaker, he disturbs me by interrupting me and I deeply regret him for that. It could be tens or hundreds. We might ask the Minister. He will have more clarity on this.

There are suggestions. You can take 19.999 if I can help you with that. I have experience in that.

Mr. Speaker, if there were one less, it would be 19,998. If we were to subtract one more, we would get to 19.

I would remove two.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the accounting work. You know that lawyers can count very badly. Especially in terms of time. He remains still.

I have been trying to get the word for a while. I note that Mr. Verherstraeten talks about a topic I think is interesting: the problem of the objects that are threatened in our country. This is especially the case, for example, with Little Brogel, which he casually mentions. Mr. Verherstraeten, I understand that your time is somewhat limited, and that your knowledge of specific defence topics may not be as sophisticated as your other baggage. But I think it is desirable that, if you really want to go on seriously, we make an analysis of what is actually stored there and why Kleine Brogel is apparently an attractive lens.

Colleague Vanhoutte, that is a very interesting comment. Of course, we cannot be cautious enough with regard to the air force base of Kleine Brogel. Not only the Uighurs from China could act dangerously there. There may be other population groups that could attack this air force base. Welingelichte sources, colleague Van Peel, argue that even people from the electoral list of the province of Antwerp threaten to attack this air force base located in the electoral list of the province of Limburg. They would even be members of the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Vankrunkelsven could have been a potential threat to the security of our nation and of the entire Western Alliance, but thanks to his transition to an unmistakable right-wing party, it seems to me that this specific risk has yet to be diminished, which increases the risk of other population groups, of course.

Is there a link with the Eurojust subsidy?

Mr. Speaker, maybe colleague Van Peel is right that the risk has diminished, but for that we must pay tribute to the dogs. During the attack, the dogs, in danger of their own bodies and members, deterred these aggressive groups. We also talked today about aggression; aggression intra muros and aggression extra muros. The discussion of this design took place extra walls. Thanks to the intervention of these dogs, the security of the air force base in Kleine Brogel has been temporarily liberated. The question is, of course, whether these Uighurs from China are afraid of dogs or not. If this was not the case, Mr. Speaker, the air force base would still be in danger. Colleague Vanhoutte, you know this matter quite well. Where did the Uighurs come from China, because it wasn’t completely clear to me?

Unfortunately, I must remain guilty of the answer. I do not know exactly what objectives they pursue, ⁇ not through their presence in our country.

The Uighurs usually come from Uighur, I think.

It is on the western side of China.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we draw up an atlas to analyze this.

Mr. Verherstraeten, do not let yourself be scattered by other colleagues. You still have a lot to say.

From this interesting debate and also just from the numerical debate in which one asked whether it was about tens, thousands or hundreds of thousands, it shows that no one in this Assembly, even the Minister of Justice, actually knows about how many candidate-terrorists, who come to Europe through networks of human traffickers, it is exactly. I think this case requires further investigation.

The [...]

I have at least found nothing about it.

In any case, additional research is needed to get a better picture of the number of candidate terrorists of such networks. It’s not just about Kleine Brogel, it can also be about Leopoldsburg or about the base of Koksijde. In fact, it is all over the country. Their

However, I would like to point out that in recent months mostly Iraqis and Iranians have been intercepted. What is mainly concerned here? These people are accompanied by runners of Iraqi, Iranian and Albanian descent who clearly followed a police or military training. I also don’t know where they followed such training. Is it in Uighur, in the air force base of Kleine Brogel or in Koksijde? In any case, it is certain that they have undergone a military training that, by the way, was very efficient. They are really very dangerous and therefore we need to look closely at them. This position is not only defended by us, on behalf of our group chairman. Even in judicial circles, it is believed that in the fight against terrorism, illegal access to the country is too often underestimated.

The [...]

What this has to do with racism, I don’t know. You take those words in your mouth. I wonder what the connection is. Please give me more clarity on this, Mr. Wauters. Their

Mr. President, he talked about racism. If this was in my address, I would like to be clear about it, otherwise it is a very big incident.

Yet another one. We will add the incident to the ground of the case.

Mr. President, Mr. Wauters took the word racist in his mouth.

Go ahead, Mr. Rothschild. I will try to protect you from any aggression.

Mr. President, I thank you.

Colleagues Wauters, the Uighurs would not even dare to do this.

( ... ...

You are so slow today, colleague Verherstraeten.

This is because Mr. Wauters interrupts me so often.

Finally, because I do not want to shorten the night sleep of my colleagues, judicial circles find that in the fight against terrorism, illegal access to this country has been underestimated too often. When it comes to this, we should also talk about the FastBelg Act and the risks associated with it for illegal access. The amendments to this law, which were approved at the beginning of this legislature and against which we have opposed in vain, have seriously increased the risks. This has led to the fact that the police services have lost every grip on terrorism. Therefore, colleagues, close friends, are European and international cooperation and also Eurojust in their place. Therefore, this bill urgently deserved the discussion in that committee meeting, as well as in this plenary session, and we will approve it with conviction and enthusiasm.