Proposition 50K1729

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1998 relative à la sécurité lors des matches de football.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 11, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

violence public safety sport criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 26, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will first thank the President for having had the delicacy to organize a World Cup semi-final on the occasion of the discussion of this project.

Mr. Chairman of the Excelsior de Mouscron, I thank you for this charming attention.

We are very sensitive to this kind of delicacy.

Please note that it is Mr. The Minister of Internal Affairs called for priority.

I also thank the Minister of the Interior because I think it is the minister who has made the most arrangements for professional football, starting with the 1998 law. It adds to this and addresses three aspects. First, the legislative and regulatory aspect, then the field work, especially at the level of prevention and repression, and finally the international aspect.

The discussion that took place in the interior committee was of the most interesting. All the Commissioners enriched this debate quite remarkably.

Finally, I would like to say that the rapporteurs — my name is included, but it is especially the administrative team that has done the task — have done a remarkable job in drawing up this report, both in terms of its quality and the concisions with which the ideas and suggestions were presented.

I would therefore invite you to consult this written report in order to allow the second half to take place in the best conditions.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope to see you on your bench in the coming minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the CD&V Group is ⁇ pleased that efforts are being made to improve the safety of football matches so that that folk sport in particular in which all layers of the population are interested — which is also evidenced by the small number of people present in this hall — hopefully can again become a feast. The improvement of the law, unfortunately, will not prevent, as we fear, the existence of hooliganism. Only a timely and vigorous action of the government can remedy this. The amended legislation provides a number of resources for the government to do so and can therefore withdraw our approval. However, it is absolutely certain that a number of accompanying measures will be needed in order to act truly efficiently. In this regard, we are a little scared and fear that the Minister will continue to overlook some aspects. Such is the fact that hooligans see a football match only as a means of expressing themselves and that that football match in itself is not always important for the hooligans. Mr. Minister, you will undoubtedly remember that there have already been reports of groups of hooligans who meet each other somewhere on a parking lot along the highway, who challenge each other, and who fight out their robbers there. Also hard nuclei of foreign top teams are moving to Belgium to provide reinforcement to the X-side or other sides.

A few years ago, two of such gangs in my region chose the disgraceful church village Vlimmeren, where a squad plays in the fourth provincial, to fight their war there.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Minister responded to our request to extend the football law in terms of administrative sanctions also to the third national series, and that is ⁇ meaningful given the degradation of former first or second class players to the lower regions.

Unfortunately, the Minister could not comment on the amendment to extend the measure to fourth national. I was willing to withdraw my amendment in order to at least reach an agreement for a third country, but I have explicitly requested the Minister to provide in the future with a staff reinforcement on his services so that the sanctions of a fourth national can also be administered. “Lack of staff” was indicated by the minister as an excuse. However, if one wants to repair the football drastically and efficiently, then that should not be an excuse and ⁇ not remain.

After all, a large gap in the application of the law remains that sufficient people must be able to deploy in order to carry out the control of its application. In fact, during the discussion of the bill, we have already pointed out that in lower regions — even third and even fourth national — there is rarely police presence, so that unabandoned or hooligans have free play if they want to meet there. Their

In order to cover this in part, we had submitted an amendment aimed at obliging the third and fourth national to have a security officer. I regret that this was not addressed. We would like to suggest the Minister to provide means to provide spotters in every police zone, including those where no risks are situated, or to order at least one police staff member who can acquire the subject of football violence. After all, before one realizes it, one is confronted with violence in football. If we have to start, it is too late.

However, we are pleased that some of our amendments were accepted. Let me summarize them: extension of part of the Football Act to third-country, certain powers for stewards in the perimeter outside the stadium, reduction of the age to fourteen years for the application of administrative sanctions and stadium ban. CD&V is convinced that in this way it has been able to make very important corrections to the government’s original bill. I would like to put another very important side concern to this bill. During the debates in the committee for internal affairs, it became very clear that there was a large contribution from the mayors. After all, they have extensive expertise in applying safety at the base. Those who want to impose an absolute cumulative ban on mayors will also have determined during this debate how important that expertise is. Per ⁇ this is a penetration.

Finally, I would like to point out that there can only be an efficient effect of the football laws if the high-speed law, which was then pushed by the throat because of Euro 2000, works properly and if the youth sanction law is also developed. You will say that this is for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Minister. I say that this is not so. This is for the entire government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Government today proposes to rethink the security in and around the football stadiums. The safety of football matches is a matter that concerns almost many local authorities but also a matter that interests thousands of citizens, whether they are supporters, and therefore concerned about their safety inside the stadium, or whether they are neighbors, and therefore willing to not see their life framework deformed the day after the match days.

In this case, the normative basis remains the law of 21 December 1998. The general philosophy of the text is not challenged, but the daily application of this legislation by the administrative authorities has allowed to update certain imperfections and certain needs that justify several important changes.

First amendment: the spatial and temporal scope of the law is extended. In fact, there is currently a shift of incidents outside the stadium and it is also noticed that these incidents break out quite a long time before the start of the matches and persist quite a long time after leaving the stadiums.

Specifically, the bill proposes to extend the scope of the 1998 law and mainly the measures relating to administrative sanctions to a perimeter adjacent to the stage. This perimeter will be defined by royal decree taking into account the circumstances of the case, a maximum value of 5 km being nevertheless fixed in the law. In the same logic, the law becomes applicable for a maximum period of 10 hours, i.e. 5 hours before and 5 hours after the sporting event.

The measure is interesting. It allows a great flexibility since the perimeter will be established on a case-by-case basis, police area by police area. It is understood that efficiency will be full and complete only if local authorities are invited to participate in the management of the problem. These are the players in the field, their expertise cannot be neglected.

Second amendment: the project revises the obligations relating to the conclusion of the safety agreement between the organizer and the emergency services. Here too, the idea is to relax the process to better stick to the specific requirements of the sports calendar. Without going into details, until now it was requested that the convention be concluded in June but, in June, for multiple reasons, it may be that the calendar is not fully defined. Therefore, the new text now provides, more reasonably, for the month of August as a deadline.

Another change: the introduction of specific penalties for minors. The enforcement of the law has highlighted its inefficiency with regard to the response to be given to the offences committed by this type of offenders. It is known, for example, that the monetary penalty does not really have an effect due to the absence of own income. The only possible option is the ban. This is a sanction that affects the person concerned very concretely, whose primary motivation is to attend football matches. Although a consensus must be sought with the Ministry of Justice and the judicial authorities — it is also for this reason that we would have agreed to maintain the age of 16 — the Interior Committee has decided to lower the age limit from which this penalty can be applied to 14 years.

In conclusion, I find this project useful because it effectively addresses the deficiencies found in the daily application of the 1998 law. The philosophy of the proposed changes is interesting, because they bring flexible solutions, adapted to the requirements of the field.

The scope of the law is extended. It is important. In view of the increase in crime, it is necessary to adapt. In this logic, I add that a government amendment allows to use stewards outside the stadiums, for tasks of hosting and accompanying supporters, while other skills of stewards, such as surface controls of spectators, remain limited inside the stadiums.

I will finish with a comment. The project allows the communication to foreign authorities of certain data relating to football fans. This is a positive point. However, would not the internal circulation of information gain, too, to be reviewed? I think of the support card. Indeed, the case does not depend only on the Minister of the Interior; several actors are involved, including the football league, clubs, etc. by

A round table was held recently. We expect a positive outcome in the medium term. This is an important part of the dossier.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, you are so faithfully present here and therefore I tell you that, at the moment we are talking about the football law, it is in the match Brazil-Turkey 0-0. So you should not take any measures before tonight, if the Turkish community goes out of the ball — hopefully in a calm and friendly way.

Since 1998, Belgium has had a law which imposes a whole range of obligations on the organizers of football matches and provides for administrative sanctions for supporters who do not behave correctly. I would like to point out that Belgium is one of the European countries with a fairly extensive regulation on this subject. Probably due to the trauma of the Heizeldrama.

Mr. Minister, you did this well. I assert that under your policy the struggle against hooliganism as efficiently as possible will continue unimpeded. You have repeatedly stated this in the committee and in the Parliament, and I am pleased to note that you are trying to work on it.

That alone makes me happy because violence around football stadiums is a serious social problem and often also serves as an example. Therefore, it seems to me right that as one of the priorities in the federal security plan, you consider football violence as a phenomenon to be combated. I think of the Euro 2000. That not only cost us a lot of blood and tears, but, thinking of the taxpayer, also cost us a lot of money. I still remember the apocalyptic predictions, including my good colleague Paul Tant. Nevertheless, Euro 2000, after a small incident or misconduct in Brussels, actually went very well and smoothly. Mr. Minister, for this, you may send my congratulations from the Parliament to the law enforcement services.

The possibility provided by the law of 21 December to impose a stadium ban on supporters is apparently not lacking its effect. Since 1999, more than 700 stadium bans have been imposed. So supporters who are misbehaving can easily be denied.

Life goes on. Just like in politics, there is a generation shift among the hooligans. The older hooligans are likely to become, like the older politicians, wiser and braver. That may be a good side of the matter. On the other hand, we note that the new, younger supporters are also somewhat overwhelmed by the violent society in which we today become increasingly overwhelmed. Think about the violence on television. The younger generation is even more violent and even harder than the previous generation.

We regret the fact that minors are committing criminal acts. The question arose whether minors should be reminded of their responsibility and risk an administrative sanction. The VLD leaves no doubt about this. For us, the answer is completely yes.

Another worrying evolution is the fact that the violence is increasingly moving to the nearby surroundings of the stadiums. The proposed amendments, for example, to extend the perimeter to 5 kilometers, are important positive measures, which greatly expand the scope of the law. I agree with Mr. Hendrickx. Mr. Minister, you have, by the way, admitted that you have pledged, especially under the influence of the mayors, to increase the range of action, because otherwise the real barrier shoppers could not be addressed. The expansion of the perimeter is therefore a measure supported on a broad social basis. It is clear that urban residents facing football hooligans want maximum security measures to be taken. Also the residents are therefore requesting party to make the perimeter as large as possible and not to be limited to the immediate surroundings of the stadiums.

At the same time, I hope, Mr. Minister, that we will continue to work proactively. Only through pro-active police work can one get on the track of hostile gangs, also called firms, which operate not only inside and around the stadiums, but also outside. A society that wants to show itself tolerant should not tolerate that those who allow themselves in their behavior primarily to be guided by violence have it to say.

During the debate, the Minister reiterated that the involvement of police in football events requires a significant effort, not only on the financial level, but also in terms of capacity.

For example, for the 19992000 season, the federal police spent more than 100,000 manure hours ⁇ ining safety in and around the football stadiums. Following a question from colleague Eeman, the minister has calculated that the cost price on an annual basis is between 133 million and 150 million Belgian francs. The total cost is much higher, because in these figures the involvement of the local police was not counted.

I would add that the VLD understands the grievances of the cities and municipalities that compete with one or more clubs in the first class. Of course, we should not be convinced of the important social role played by football in general and by football clubs in particular, including for the youth. However, we must note that the absorption of high-capacity personnel leads to the less adequate handling of other worrying phenomena such as traffic controls, coordinated action after theft, road safety and more.

The challenge exceeds that of mere police work. The challenge for our society is that through preventive and proactive action, we must succeed in ensuring that football matches in the future no longer absorb such enormous amounts and capacity. In doing so, we must ask ourselves, without any aggressiveness — most of us are football enthusiasts — to what extent the player’s revenue capabilities, winnings and bonuses are proportionate to the efforts the organizers themselves are willing to put in the field of police protection.

Mr. Minister, I conclude by saying that the VLD group supports the proposed amendments, because they will allow you to tackle hooliganism even more efficiently. The international approach — data from risk supporters can be communicated to the competent foreign authority — is intensified and the scope of the law is substantially expanded in terms of time — five hours before and after the contest — and the perimeter — a safety perimeter of 5 kilometers. Last but not least, we were pleased that a majority in the committee was finally achieved, reducing the minimum age at which a minor can be administered from 16 to 14 years.

Mr. Minister, the conclusion is that we retain our confidence in you and we will therefore be very happy to approve this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I am pleased that you let SCV prevail over Anderlecht. On behalf of the SP.A group, I would like to comment on the bill relating to increasing safety at football matches. I have already said in the committee that the SP.A considers this a good, positive bill that must in principle succeed in addressing football hooliganism to the ground. This is also why we will support it.

Although I am still a relatively young member of parliament, I also welcome the discussion of this bill in the Committee on Home Affairs. Mr Hendrickx has already pointed out that both the majority and the opposition had the opportunity to submit a number of amendments that were also accepted. Colleagues and mayors, I think we will no longer have the opportunity to conduct a thorough debate on cumul and decumul. I think that this draft law has demonstrated that bringing practical experience into legislative work is very useful.

Mr. Minister, before discussing my amendments that were accepted, I would like to point out that this law and the initiatives associated with it should only be transitional measures. Football should return, as they say with a popular slogan, to become a party. Now we often have the impression that we are almost going to a military activity rather than a football match. In fact, we should succeed in removing the hooligans from the football fields with this football law – if it works – along with a number of other measures. Then the real supporters, the grandparents with their grandchildren and the fathers with their children, can go back to football. Now they are actually gone. When I was questioned by the press about the football law in recent weeks, I found that they gave the impression that we want to make football war. But it is the hooligans who want to make football war; we want to make it really football again. Let there be no misunderstanding about it.

I will then come to the amendments I have submitted myself and which were largely accepted, for which I thank you. I had proposed not to limit that perimeter. It could then be adjusted by royal decree for each stadium. However, I could perfectly agree with the proposal to extend the perimeter to 5 kilometers with the specification that is discussed with the local police, the mayor and the local club. I have therefore withdrawn my amendment. I am very happy with this formulation.

My amendments to Articles 6 and 9 have been accepted. I found it good to make the link between the football match, on the one hand, and the criminal offence, on the other hand, a lot clearer. My amendments were accepted. I would like to repeat here in the plenary session that I am ⁇ pleased that the Minister has repeatedly confirmed that the stadium ban applies to all first, second and third class stadiums throughout the country. I had first submitted a different amendment because it was not so clear to me in the original text. That was also what lacked the original football law. If someone was prohibited from entering the stadium, it was only for that one stadium. I would like to repeat again in the plenary session that I find it very important that this was indeed so formulated in the draft law.

A final point with which the SP.A is very sure to agree is the amendment that was adopted with almost an alternate majority and which increased the age of 16 to 14 years. You have agreed to this. That is a good thing. Ultimately, it is about administrative sanctions: excluding people from attending football matches. I am very happy with this too. Their

A next point then. I have submitted an amendment aimed at making people with a stadium ban report to the police during football matches. You have responded positively, for which I thank you. Your cabinet has helped in drafting the bill that I eventually submitted. I understood your request not to include this in this draft because then again the State Council would have to be consulted, which would prevent preparation for the new football season. I ask that the bill submitted and signed by all democratic parties be urgently dealt with, Mr. Minister, as you said. I ask the Chairman of the Chamber, of course through the appropriate channels, to have this bill be dealt with urgently and to seek the advice of the Council of State. In my opinion, this is a missing hole. This can be done in court, we know. Administratively, however, it should also be possible for the police to succeed in not effectively detaining people on the blacklist, but in any case controlling them during football matches. I hope that this proposal will soon become a law. I think it is a good and even necessary supplement to this bill. Their

A few considerations in general. Mr. Minister, this football law and everything related to it requires permanent succession. I know that you regularly consult with the Football Federation and the Profile League. I know that police officers and mayors also regularly consult with them. I would like to ask you to consider the possibility of a permanent model of consultation. Why would we not be able to create a smooth, flexible consultation structure with, of course, Home Affairs, a number of involved cities and municipalities that are representative of the first and second-class football clubs, the football federation and the profliga? In this way, we could systematically follow the entire football problem.

Mr Coveliers is not present at this time. I heard him say in the press last week that some security points would be better privatized or that one should pay for them, and as an example was given football. I do not follow this way of thinking entirely. Safety in and around the football stadiums is the responsibility of the government, but also of the football clubs. I have already said this to the Football Federation several times in conversations with them. The debate would lead us too far here and now, but I really ask you to start with a permanent consultation model with the Football Federation, with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the clubs concerned and with the relevant corps chiefs. It should not be a parliament, but a working model. The government must continue to take its responsibility, because football is a social given. Clubs should no longer be able to deny their responsibility by referring to unknown supporters that cannot be addressed. I still think of the good or bad functioning of the fan card or my suggestion at some point to impose sports penalties on clubs that are doing everything in their hands. This is another debate for another place, but hence the proposal for a permanent consultation body.

On the other hand, and I conclude with that, I think this is a good bill, with which the Parliament and the Committee for Home Affairs have done a good job. But — and I think this is very important — we cannot solve this alone. I have said that the Football Federation should want to participate. It is ridiculous. I don’t know how many are on the list now, but when I was in the professional league three weeks ago, there were just over 160 clubs on the blacklist. That is ridiculous. I think that is even criminal. Football clubs should also be aware that they have a half-term interest in excluding people who do not behave. I personally estimate that to a maximum of 5,000 for the whole of Belgium. If we get that maximum of 5,000 people out, it will indeed cost short-term subscriptions for the clubs. However, I am convinced that they will recover in 1 or 2 years, because there will be many other people going back to football. I think we did our job here well, but the Football Federation must do its job and therefore must follow in.

The third case, and I agree with what colleagues Hendrickx and Cortois said. This is mainly about administrative matters. Rapid exclusions, consistent exclusions. But there are also other laws. If there are criminal offences, then strict action must also be taken. Rapid and severe penalties, for example, heavy fines, but ⁇ and definitely also the highway law. There must be an evaluation of the highway law. I am the first to admit that, but there is now an ideal remedy: someone who on a Sunday evening on the market of Sint-Truiden does things that have nothing to do with football should not only be administratively excluded. He must also be able to be reprimanded by a very quick procedure and must, in my opinion, be added to a very heavy fine.

As I said at the beginning, Mr. Minister, I think it is a good adjustment of the football law. I only ask you for organized consultation with the Football Federation, involvement of the municipal governments and clubs. I would like to say to the Minister of Justice that he should also give a follow-up to the football law. Because it is like the whole security problem: security is one thing, justice is another thing. It is a chain. The same goes for this football law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, today's "Het Laatste Nieuws" tells me that the Anderlecht club will "pick" its coach to Mouscron. I would have preferred not to speak after Mr. by Detremmerie.

The [...]

This is entirely true. The municipality may receive so much money from the football club that the latter no longer has enough money to keep his coach!

Let’s get to the serious things. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the bill that is submitted to us this afternoon. by

To begin with, the minister has repeatedly and correctly recalled that football must remain or must be able to become a big family celebration again. That is why I am one of those who think that the most coercive measures must be implemented against those and those who take advantage of a football match to engage in degradation of public space or real street fighting. by

The most notorious hooligans or hard nuclei are ultimately only a few hundred for the whole of our country. But it must be acknowledged that in the face of this handful of thieves — there is no other term to qualify them — we must, every weekend, deploy thousands of local and federal police officers, which entails for the community quite considerable costs. Paradoxically, the simple fact of the presence of police officers, often equipped with special means — I think of self-pumping or cavalry — fuels the feeling of insecurity in the head of the supporters who, they, move to the stadium as a family. by

The Minister has well understood that the fight against hooliganism must be the affair of all: local authorities, federal authorities, but also clubs. I would like to emphasize here that it sometimes happens that some leaders of football clubs have fairly ambiguous relationships with their most turbulent supporters. Some club leaders consider these turbulent supporters putting atmosphere. by

I think we must refuse that these disturbances are part of the folklore that comes from the world of football. I repeat that football is, by essence, a family activity. This is the sport we need to be able to protect. That is the spirit of the law.

It must be recognised that the provisions taken by the legislator in 1998 allowed to limit the number of incidents at a certain number of meetings. But it must be noted that this evil that is hooliganism is still present in the stadiums, even though the clubs have invested sometimes extremely large amounts to make security adjustments. by

It seems to me that one can be satisfied with the extension of the scope of the law of 21 December 1998 beyond the stadiums, this advance being undeniable compared to the previous text. With that being, and the minister knows it, on the operational level, it is not uncommon to witness incidents between hooligans on matches days in places very far away from the stadiums: motorway parking lots or large surfaces. Consequently, police personnel must nevertheless be deployed much deeper, which does not contribute to the decrease in the number of inspectors mobilized to secure the meetings.

The development of the “ticket-bus” principle — i.e. an entrance ticket accompanied by the bus ticket for a supporter arriving by bus — should enable us in the future to better channel visiting supporters. Since aggression mainly comes from the presence of rival groups who want to confront each other on the occasion of football matches, it would be necessary to force the managers of football clubs to limit the number of tickets available for visiting fans.

There is no miracle solution. I give to the Minister's reflection the few pistes that we have studied: either, we stop a precise number of seats in the stadiums for visitors, or we consider fixing if necessary a percentage in relation to the overall capacity of the stadium, but I think it is necessary to contingent the arrival of visiting fans. by

One of the other prominent innovations of the project in discussion is the possibility of issuing an administrative sanction of stadium ban against minors over 16 years of age. It is worth noting that the hooligans in the stadiums behave, today, more and more like real organized bands. Very clearly, it appeared that a number of minors were truly instrumentalized by adults willing to sow disorder. In this regard, in any case as far as I am concerned, I understand that beyond the law of December 1998, the hooligans who act in band fall under the penalty provisions that punish such acts. It would be quite surprising or even unacceptable that ten people who attack passers in the context of a football match are not exposed to the same sanctions as ten individuals who would come to terrorize a neighborhood outside of any football consideration.

Unfortunately, on the field, we must recognize that there are differences in appreciation depending on whether the facts occurred on the sidelines of a football match or not, which has as a consequence to strengthen the sense of impunity of the stadium robbers.

More generally, Mr. Minister, I think that we will only end the hooliganism from the moment when we have all the guarantees so that the perturbators can no longer access the tribunes, can no longer access the stadiums. In this context, the "fan card" that was presented at the time as the panacea to solve a number of insecurity issues in and around the stadiums, today has shown its limits. It is not uncommon for a certain number of us to see with bitterness that it is not uncommon for the susam that constitutes the "fan card" to be truly used for fraudulent purposes, that is to say, to allow in final access to the stadium to a person who is under a ban, without the condition that a real punishment is pronounced against the offender.

Finally, as far as the “fan card” is concerned, it seems to me delicate to want to force the vast majority of supporters who consider football as a family activity to obtain the “fan card”, even if they would like to go to the stadium in a quite occasional way. It is a shame to see that thousands of people who truly love sport and football are forced to pay for the scandalous behavior of a few hundred robbers.

This is a problem that I think the Minister of the Interior is concerned with. It should be noted that a number of private sponsors do not bother the spirit of these control measures when distributing tickets during advertising campaigns. There too, there are two weights two measures, which, to support the lambda, the brave supporter who wants to come to football with his children, is a little unpleasant, or even shocking to see, while even people who receive promotional tickets as part of advertising promotional campaigns do not always behave in a completely responsible or respectful manner of public order. Common sense would impose upon us that, once and for all, the administrative authorities, the judicial authorities have the legal possibility to prohibit the entrance to the stadiums of the hooligans. I hope that the minister will want to forward my wish to his fellow Justice; I think we are entitled to ask that justice can act faster than it does today.

We also know that the minutes drawn up against the hooligans are not legion. I know that the Minister has worried about this several times. I think this needs to change; maybe the initiative might come from the Minister of the Interior.

“Spotters” who effectively follow supporters throughout their travels should be encouraged to report more systematically criminal acts that have been found against certain “supporters” so that these can be prosecuted. It is also necessary that the minutes that would be drawn up by the spotters or by other police officers be handled with more diligence by the prosecutor’s office. I had the case recently during a match between Standard Liège and Anderlecht at Anderlecht. Several minutes were drafted against Standard supporters who had assaulted police inspectors. To date, no legal proceedings have been initiated against the culprits.

As for the follow-up of any stadium bans that may be issued, we must mobilize to make them enforceable. As I just told the minister, the fan card may not be the best way because it is publicly known that the few people sentenced to a stadium ban continue to attend the stadiums, sometimes with the complicity of some clubs; we know why since it is the visiting clubs that take care of the damage caused by their supporters. There is no real financial constraint. by

There is a problem for stadiums that are located in urban areas and, in particular, in residential neighborhoods. When there is looting of private property by the hooligans, individuals who have been victims of these degradations have all the hardships of the world to obtain reimbursement for the repair works that have occurred to them (replacement of windows, replacement of garage doors, etc.). The Minister could ⁇ , in consultation with the professional league and the representatives of the clubs, address this issue in such a way as to respond to a high expectation in the head of the neighbors of the football stadiums. by

Mr. Minister, in order to allow the control of the supporters, is it not conceivable to introduce a data such as the ban on the stadium in the electronic chip that will accompany the new identity card? It could be a tool for controlling the toughest supporters. Ticket officers would have the opportunity to read the "football" section of the chip and identify the possible sanction that would have been issued against the banned stadium supporter.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question of individuals who are considered dangerous but who are not punished by a stadium ban, in particular because of the slowness of justice that I mentioned a moment ago. Can we not, Mr. Minister, consider legislation to allow clubs to obtain from police services the list of supporters at risk in order to be able to prohibit them from entering their stadium?

In conclusion, I think that the amendments that are brought today to the law of 21 December 1998 strengthen all those who, around the Minister of the Interior, want to fight against hooliganism. As with other cases relating to insecurity, cases opened on account of offenders should be able to be handled faster by the judicial authorities. It should not be underestimated — because it has a real impact — the deterrent effect of financial sanctions that can be imposed on thieves and hooligans. by

I know that the Minister of the Interior is ⁇ attentive to this problem that, by the number of police officers who are mobilized at each meeting, makes it more difficult to set up a real nearby police in the neighborhoods. I want to tell him that he can count on the support of the MR group to progress in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I will focus my discussion on a bill that colleague Vanpoucke and I submitted in August 2001 and which was added to the discussion of the bill that is now ahead. Our bill covers sports friendly matches between a club from a lower division and a club from the first or second national class.

As soon as the world championship football is over, the football clubs will fall back to the football mid-season. During that mid-season, football clubs will look for suitable opponents for friendly matches and training matches. Football clubs from the lower divisions are happy to invite a club with a big name from the first or second national class. For example, a football club from Meulebeke would like to invite Club Brugge and I know that Grimbergen had a tradition of inviting Anderlecht in the summer. Overpelt would like to visit Genk and so on. Such matches are usually a football party for the fans, for young and old. It is an opportunity as a club to bring the supporters together and offer them a pleasant spectacle. It is also good for the club's greenhouse, which in this way also gets some additional resources that can be used for the training of young people or investments in infrastructure.

Each year, around 200 friendly and training matches are traditionally played during the summer. Since the Football Act of 21 December 1998 and the Royal Decree of 2 June 1999, it has become almost impossible for organizers of clubs from lower divisions to organise meetings with first or second-class players. According to the provisions of the law, every match in which the club from the first or second division participates must meet the strictest standards, without taking into account the purpose of the meeting. International competitions, national competitions and friendly competitions are subject to the same strict safety standards. We believe that the bet of a friendly match is different from the bet of a competitive match. However, it is not entirely reasonable that a friendly match between a club of the lower division and a club of the first or second division must meet exactly the same infrastructure standards as a national or international competition.

Meanwhile, clubs are investing in security. They invest in new infrastructure, but therefore do not meet all the conditions of the football law. I think, for example, of the fact that a canteen is not allowed to spend on the football field. How many clubs from the lower division still have a canteen that spends on the football field? I think of the provision that the distance between two rows of seats must be 70 centimeters and that the distance between two seats must be 30 centimeters. The slopes must be continuously 2 meters, the height minimum 1 meter and maximum 1.20 meters and so on.

The law is very strict and must be strict to guarantee security where necessary. However, friendly competitions are made impossible by this law. Clubs are broken. Clubs from lower divisions do not dare invite clubs from first or second divisions anymore. Clubs from the first or second division do not dare to go to a lower division because they violate the law. That is why my group has submitted a bill on this subject.

Our proposal aims to remove friendly matches between a club of a lower division and a club of the first or second class from the strict provisions of the football law. The strict safety standards apply to the stewarding and infrastructure.

First, the obligation contained in Article 3 of the Football Act is a general due diligence obligation of the organizer. According to the rules of the stewarding, only clubs from the first and second national divisions must use stewards. That obligation in the Royal Decree does not apply to lower divisions. What are the consequences? If a third-class organizer requires stewards because of the football law, the first or second-class clubs will have to provide these stewards. Otherwise, the law is illogical in relation to the provisions concerning the stewards.

Second is the infrastructure. As regards infrastructure, ticket sales and safety, the rules of the Royal Decree of 2 June 1999 apply. I have already given a few examples. The conditions are very extensive and very strict.

CD&V advocates appropriate and specific arrangements in friendly matches between clubs of a lower division and clubs of the first or second national division. We call for some of those strict provisions to be shortened and place for appropriate and specific measures for friendly competitions and training competitions. This does not preclude that for potential risk competitions, which may also be the case for exercise competitions or friendly competitions, special arrangements are still made with regard to safety for which the organizer remains always responsible. Nor does our bill affect the fact that the necessary measures must be taken to prevent damage to persons and property. Nor does it relieve the mayor or the competent police officers and the organizers of their obligations to maintain public order.

During the discussion of the present draft and of our proposal, it has been shown that the Minister is not to speak about a legislative change. It is regrettable. He is willing to do something about the stewarding. He undertook to amend the Royal Decree of 25 May 1999 laying down the conditions for the recruitment of football stewards so that the mayor concerned would now be able to make a decision on the number of stewards required. Mr. Minister, CD&V hopes that you will keep your promise because on that basis we have withdrawn our amendment.

Nevertheless, I regret that the life of the association is once again constrained in its development by the imposition of ⁇ severe conditions for the organization of sporting, friendly events.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, some of you play football on the pitch or watch it on TV, while others do it today in the House. This way of practicing football is not unnecessary, because it is about realizing our common concern, if not our common goal, to make sure that football remains or again becomes a true family feast, to which one can participate with the turbulence that this implies, but without fear for themselves or for their family and especially their children.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Detremmerie, for the report he just presented to us about the work that has been carried out in the last two months within the Interior Committee. From the beginning, I knew it was wise to entrust him with this role as a rapporteur for this bill, given his extensive experience in both theoretical and practical fields of football.

I would also like to thank all the members of the Interior Committee for the quality of their work and for the good constructive spirit manifested during the four sessions that were dedicated to the examination of the bill. We were able to have interesting exchanges on the problems encountered inside and around the football stadiums and on the best ways to deal with them.

I am delighted that this dialogue between the government and parliamentarians, both of the majority and of the opposition, has led to amendments that have been the subject of consensus and have allowed to further improve the project as it was originally presented. This good collaboration was concretized by the unanimous adoption of the bill as amended. This should be ⁇ emphasized.

Of course, Mr. Hendrickx, I look forward to the role of parliamentarians. I am not surprised, even in this context, by the criticism thrown against the minister. It’s part of the game and I’m used to it. The opposite would surprise me. It is as if everyone who lives near the Niagara Falls saw, from day to day, the flow of water stop.

In any case, I showed humility. I did not claim that this project was perfect. It could be improved and although I could not sign my agreement on all amendments, I tried to justify the reasons for my refusal, because it is ⁇ not arbitrarily that these decisions were made. This will not stop the phenomenon of hooliganism, I realize. I had to play the Euro 2000. I am regularly placed before the responsibility of risky matches, in any case, of all the movements that may occur on or after football matches and I know that repression is not everything. There is, in particular, a whole education to be done around the sport: what it is, what it is not and the responsibility of each of the stakeholders in the matter.

I would like to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Vandenhove for withdrawing his amendment. I wish, like him, that the bill he drafted with the help of my collaborators be, Mr. Speaker, submitted to the State Council as soon as possible. During the previous legislature, a number of legal objections were raised. In my view, the objective is valid. I am therefore in favor of the measure, but I wish, of course, that the legal objections that were expressed during the previous legislature can be lifted.

When I presented the draft to the committee, I recalled that it constituted only one part of the policy that I am aiming at fighting hooliganism. As regards the first part of this policy, namely the improvement of legal and regulatory provisions, the law of 21 December 1998 on safety during football matches has already allowed federal authorities to impose a series of obligations on the organizers in terms of material safety of the stadiums, the management of the ticket office and the safety of spectators in general. This law also allowed the Ministry of the Interior to impose administrative sanctions on spectators who disrupt the course of the matches as well as clubs who fail to comply with their legal obligations.

It was time to draw the first lessons from the application of this law and to extend its scope to certain facts or certain persons who had not been adequately sanctioned until now.

Among the measures contained in this draft, I would like to highlight in particular those which represent an extension of the possibilities given to the authorities to quickly and effectively, by administrative means, punish disruptors who take advantage of football activities to engage in crimes and depredations of all kinds. First, these administrative fines and ban-of-stadiums sanctions may be imposed for acts committed in an area of several kilometers around the stadiums of the first and second divisions, according to the same procedure applied today for acts committed within the stadiums. This measure became necessary due to the constatation that violence has gradually shifted around the stadiums, as a result of stricter controls and harsher sanctions applied in the stadiums over the past three years. by

Subsequently, these sanctions will also be able to target acts committed in the stadiums of the third national division. This measure is based on another unpleasant finding, namely that violent behaviors are no longer exclusively the property of supporters or pseudo-supporters of the first two divisions. by

In addition, these sanctions may target new facts such as attempted irregular penetration into the stadium or possession of pyrotechnic equipment. by

Stadium ban penalties may be applied to minors who are at least 14 years old at the time of the offences. Here in particular, I would like my services to be minimized to make such repressive measures against minors, as this is always a confession of failure in education and prevention. As with the major, I recall that the Prosecutor’s Office retains all its prerogatives and that the administrative procedure will only be applied if no follow-up is given to the facts on the judicial level. by

Finally, I want to reassure Ms. Creyf. Changing the law was useless. But you are right to say that it should be allowed to be interpreted as flexibly as possible, taking into account the realities and risks that may exist. I therefore confirm that I will amend the Royal Decree by giving the mayor the possibility to derogate in matters of stewards. The mayor will therefore assess the risk depending on the match. But unfortunately, you know that even on occasion of friendly matches, the atmosphere sometimes degenerates. For infrastructure, this type of derogation already exists. by

The other main axis of our policy is to ensure that, on the field, each partner — public and private — assumes its responsibility in ⁇ ining order during football matches. When the police must intervene, this is first and foremost proof of the failure of measures to organize matches and prevent violence.

Unfortunately, in an increasingly violent society, we are now witnessing a multiplication of cases in which police services must intervene inside or outside the stadiums.

These order-keeping measures entail, for the community, an excessive cost in relation to the number of persons concerned. Local authorities are increasingly forced to provide arrangements that constitute so many hardly acceptable constraints for peaceful supporters that, fortunately, still constitute the vast majority of the audience of football matches.

Today, many local police officers, supported, in some cases, by federal police officers, must be mobilized for long hours before, during and after matches, while they could be better used to combat other forms of crime or insecurity such as, for example, road safety.

I am well aware that this situation cannot last any longer. Many of you have ⁇ that the organizers have an important role to play in this matter. It is true that they cannot claim that these trubbles create the atmosphere. They create disorder. They scare all the other supporters, the real supporters who, themselves, create the atmosphere. It’s true that you don’t go to football to sit in a chair and silence like in the cinema, but there’s a world between expressing your enthusiasm, your support, singing, discussing the blow with your neighbor, and the violence of some who have nothing to do with the warm atmosphere that must be that of the football match.

It is up to local authorities — and I know they are taking initiatives in this direction — to assess whether organizational measures and better prior risk assessment can limit deployment during matches. by

Repressive measures should be taken where it is truly justified, but in return and to the greatest extent possible, try to simplify things for peaceful spectators.

In addition, the government admitted the principle of an extension of cases where financial contributions for the maintenance of order may be requested from organizers of private demonstrations. The principle of such a contribution currently exists within the framework of football regulation, for special investments that must be provided by the federal police and local police during high-risk matches. This principle can be extended to the police areas.

As regards ticket management measures, I had initiated, at the beginning of May, a roundtable with the football institutions and clubs, in order to draw lessons from the last season and prepare as best as possible for the next season which begins already on 10 August. But I must unfortunately tell you that I am quite disappointed by the first results of this round table and the lack of initiative by football clubs and institutions to improve the attractiveness of the support card they have themselves created and broadcast, in order to meet their legal obligations in terms of identification, control and compartiment of supporters in the stadiums. Per ⁇ one should also add an additional constraint, Mr. Simonet, by providing, under certain circumstances, a contingent of accepted supporters, on the occasion of a risky match.

When it comes to this problem of the card, it was not me who made the choice. I was open to any other system as long as it is effective and simple and, above all, that it disturbs as little as possible to endure it.

As for your suggestion, we had the same idea practically at the same time. Indeed, as part of the modernization of all available technologies, one must think about using the new electronic identity card that will allow, through the chip, to record a certain number of data.

However, the use of paper media such as identity cards is problematic. Indeed, the difficulty of the task at the entrance of the stadium risks generating rows. Thus, in the coming years, the electronic identity card could perfectly replace the carrier card.

I hope that the negotiation I am currently conducting will succeed and that the situation will evolve favorably. In fact, I do not want to be forced to intervene again in a binding manner in these matters. However, if it becomes necessary, I will do it.

Since I have been in charge of the Interior Department, I have ⁇ ined a constant and confident consultation with the football authorities. This has been very helpful to me, especially in the context of the preparation and management of the Euro 2000. I am continuing this task for now. I told you that a round table was being held. I regularly take contacts, even when determining the schedule of the matches.

I find your suggestion interesting. Per ⁇ I should think about structuring these contacts so as not to limit them to the good relationships that men maintain among themselves and to the practice that they have of a number of problems. I will therefore consider the possibility of establishing what you call a permanent model of concertation. by

Finally, I will tell Mr. Simonet that, like him, I think that the role of the judicial authorities should not be neglected. The problem is more complex in this matter because, due to the tumult that exists when these facts occur, the drafted verbal trials are most often quite summary. They make a general reference to a disturbance of public order, which constitutes insufficient evidence to allow convictions by the judicial authority. I asked the service to think about this question. There are those who are responsible for ⁇ ining order but there are also the judicial brigades whose role is the constatation of the facts and ⁇ also the assistance of the "spotters". I believe, in fact, that prosecutions are necessary to serve as a warning because some will change behavior only when they see that there are key sanctions, including severe sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you once again for the parliamentary work done. I hope to be able to put this new legislation into force as soon as possible so that it can already, Mr. Detremmerie, produce effects during the next season of the football championship in Belgium. I’m already going to Mouscron safely. I think that now, thanks to the appropriate measures we are taking, we will be able to safely attend all football matches in Belgium, no matter where they take place.