Proposition 50K1865

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'accord de coopération entre l'Etat fédéral, la Communauté germanophone, la Communauté française et la Communauté flamande relatif au centre fermé pour le placement provisoire de mineurs ayant commis un fait qualifié infraction.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 14, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

juvenile delinquency child protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Ferdy Willems (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• 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 ¶

Oct. 16, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is important that we, following the discussion of the cooperation agreement with regard to Everberg, define the problem again. I am surprised that the majority, or at least the majority of their factions, are so little interested in this discussion. Nevertheless, this is an important civil debate, because the cooperation agreement actually deals with a social problem that attracts people in particular, in particular the problem of youth crime and the response to youth crime.

To address this, this majority decided to establish the institution of Everberg. In this regard, a cooperation agreement is presented today between the federal government and the various Communities to organize Everberg. I would like to say here, on this tribune, once again very explicitly that we are not properly dealing with the problem of youth crime. We do not do what politics should do and what people expect from us. I think everyone who knows the matter in the meantime knows that Everberg does not solve the problem of youth crime and youth crime. The evidence was delivered very clearly and the figures released by the Minister of Justice clearly prove this: more than a hundred juvenile criminals have been released to this day since Everberg exists. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Minister, colleagues, you will remember that we in this Parliament were very upset when at that time one criminal was unjustly released. Now there are more than 100 and I record the lethargy of this Parliament with regard to this problem, witnessing it the empty banks, especially with the majority. Hundreds of juvenile criminals have been released since Everberg and this apparently leaves us cold.

One can argue — if Everberg must be there, if there must be a collaboration agreement that provides for 50 additional seats — we would not be able to organize it so that there is a smooth formula where those 50 seats are available according to the needs. I mean, if at a given moment the French speaking community needs 40 seats due to circumstances, it could have it if there are only 10 seats occupied on the Dutch speaking side at that time, or vice versa, if only 5 seats have been occupied by the French speaking community, let us then take the remaining 45 by Dutch speaking young criminals if the need arises. But no, a very strict strict regulation was established here: 24 Dutch-speaking places, 24 French-speaking places and 2 destined for young people from the German Community. This is not the case with crime. If, for example, there is a wave of crime in Antwerp, as we do

The discussion of the cooperation agreement on the Everberg center does not seem to interest the members of the majority, although this is an important societal issue. Everberg is indeed the answer of the majority to the problem of juvenile crime. And this answer is not satisfactory. In fact, Everberg does not solve anything, as we have seen. Since the establishment of the institution, more than a hundred juvenile offenders have already been released while they should not have been. The majority merely observes; it remains impasseful and refrains from attending the sessions of the House. Where is the indignation? If there are fifty seats in Everberg, why are they not made available to the French and Flemish Communities according to the real needs? Why this artificial split under which the French and Dutch Communities have 24 seats each and the German Communities 2? It is a more approach to the problem of which one says that it is useless but that, as it makes a good impression, one does it anyway. Does the French Community actually use these 24 seats? This cooperation agreement is an agreement between federal authorities and the Communities, one of the consequences of the failing model of concertation. All interested parties consider that the distribution of skills does not work in practice. The discussions with the Minister reeds have gekend, dan zouden wij moeten kunnen beschikken over de vrije plaatsen in Everberg, but dat lukt blijkbaar niet.

Here, therefore, a cooperation agreement is presented where one makes a purely artificial separation between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking offenders, without showing any flexibility in relation to the needs.

Everberg thus does not solve the problem and moreover, the cooperation agreement is not written at all to the reality. As we have done so often in this legislature, we are virtually dealing with the problems as they appear.

I would therefore like to advocate — and I have heard with interest that the SP.A colleagues also advocate — to allocate those 50 seats in a smooth manner. This might give some sense to Everberg. Their

However, when you read the text of the cooperation agreement, and more specifically Article 4, this is simply not possible due to the strict provisions contained in the cooperation agreement in this regard. We are therefore again talking about a number of things, but in the legal provisions and in the agreements — Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, the text is very clear — we do completely different things than the one we say.

We all say that Everberg solves nothing and we do Everberg. We say that there should be a youth sanction law and there will be no youth sanction law. We say that, if those 50 places are there, they should be distributed in proportion to reality, and we do not. We say artificially 24-24.

In addition, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice specifically whether the French speakers have now effectively and in reality incorporated those 24 places. In the committee you said that the French-speaking Community would do this step by step and that it would not be for immediate. So the question I would like to ask the Minister of Justice is whether the French-speaking community has now effectively included the 24 seats. Can these 24 seats now be occupied by the French-speaking Community? I hope, Mr. Minister, that I will get an answer to this in the replica.

I come to a second consideration. The majority will approve the cooperation agreement between the federal government and the Communities in relation to the problem of juvenile crime while everyone everywhere says that the model of consultation between the federal government and the Communities fails, that that division of powers between the federal government and the Communities is an inappropriate arrangement.

In the discussions with Ms. Maréchal we received the evidence ⁇ clearly. It turned out so clearly that the culture between Flanders and Wallonia is completely different in this regard, that one has a completely different view of the approach to youth crime in Wallonia compared to Flanders. In Wallonia, the idea of youth protection is upheld. In Flanders it is said that when there is effective crime there is indeed repressive action.

The difference in perception is very clear and gives rise to great contradiction in the way of acting. Maréchal mettent et évidence les mentalités très différentes and Wallonie et en Flandre, protection versus repression. La nécessité de blocs de compétences homogènes est évidente, mais le gouvernement n'entreprend rien. One could assume a consultation model, even if it gave rise to problems in every particular situation. I may not have to list the wash list of incidents with Ms. Maréchal.

We are again working on the consultation model, although we know that it does not work and that in this way we do not find solutions to the societal problems, in this case the problems related to youth crime.

Mr. Minister, in the Committee on Justice last Monday, following a question from Mrs. Moerman of the VLD group, it was once again demonstrated that we cannot find a solution with this model and that, as Ms. Moermans said, there is a need for homogeneous powers packages. That was confirmed and everyone agrees with it, but we do not. On the contrary, we start again with a cooperation agreement based on the consultation model that does not work.

Mr. de Van Parys, I do not give you any mistake when you say that there are problems with the consultation model in relation to this matter.

Everyone knows that at the time, following the Constitutional Revision, options were taken on both sides that did not necessarily bring positive results.

What do you want to do today? We are bound by the Constitution. Regardless of any criticisms or approaches to the consultation model, that consultation model should nevertheless be defined. You may remember that in the committee I asked the Minister to start working as soon as possible on the basis of the cooperation agreement, the accompanying committees and those who had to give advice. The Minister agreed so that the evaluation of the cooperation could be systematically followed up and submitted to Parliament.

This is the last opportunity if one actually wants to ⁇ results within the framework of that consultation model — which is currently constitutionally established.

I use the interruption to come back to what you have just said about using the available places. As a party, we are in favor of a as flexible arrangement as possible. I know that Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement stipulates that there is a division, but it also provides for the possibility of derogating from it. If you take the letter of those terms, you will say that that possible deviation should be discussed place by place, but I think that in this matter also the community ministers should take their responsibility. As part of a global review, a global agreement of derogation may also be concluded that allows all youth judges in Belgium to use Everberg at any time if necessary.

The model of concertation ⁇ poses problems, but it is defined by the Constitution. I urge urgently and for a long time that the monitoring committees begin to work quickly, which the Minister has promised to me. The cooperation must be subject to continuous evaluation. Our party advocates a certain flexibility in the allocation of the available seats and asks for this purpose that there be a derogation from Article 4 which stops the allocation of these seats. The Ministers of the Communities must assume their responsibility and sign a general agreement authorizing this derogation, so that all youth judges can occupy the available seats at Everberg.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker of the Committee on Justice, I have heard the word evaluation fall so many times now. We need to evaluate the matter and then we will see what we need to do. Politics is no longer sustainable because we are faced again and again with matters that people do not accept, in particular the release of young people who have committed criminal acts. This is no longer politically sustainable, ⁇ not

These are beautiful speeches, but Flanders cannot accept that young criminals are released for no other reason than a lack of space. However, there is one in Vlaanderen. This can no more in we have to take 11 political responsibilities.

I will tell you what is possible in the short term and what needs to be done in the medium term, so as not to pronounce the word long term. Their

In the short term, there is a solution to this problem. This is the youth sanction law. This solves the problem because according to the preliminary draft law on the youth sanction law, the federal government determines the capacity.

We are then no longer dependent on the Communities for the capacity of these closed institutions or youth prisons, call it as you wish. In so many words, this is literally stated in the draft of the Minister of Justice, which therefore has a majority in this Parliament. So we have a majority, we can resolve it in the short term with the youth sanction law and we do not. So we just go on with this consultation model that doesn’t work. I would like, if you wish, to summarize again the whole series of incidents with Ms. Maréchal to show you that it is not possible, either that she does not understand it, or that she does not understand it, or that she has a different view, or that we cannot agree. solution a court term, i.e. the right sanctionnel des jeunes. And indeed, the federal authorities determine in this case the capacity. Or, it is not this option that is choice. Je suis en mesure de citer une kyrielle d'incidents avec Mme Maréchal.

This is not only true for Ms. Maréchal. I also refer to the evolution that Mrs. Vogels has experienced. First, I don’t need places, I have enough. Second, I find that I have too little, I will close a few rooms in Ruislede. Third, there are indeed places in Everberg, I take them up. Fourth, do you have places too many in Everberg free? I take them all. Speaking of consequence! Also saying that there were no problems in Flanders is a straight line approach.

It’s not just about the Minister Marshal. In Flanders too, the problems were numerous, mainly due to the not always clear approach of Minister Vogels.

I totally agree with you, Mr. President. Mrs Vogels has indeed, in this matter, probably taken all the statements that can be taken in this matter, from the most extreme to the most restrictive. This illustrates the importance of ending this problem, also from Flanders, and the youth sanction law solves the problem. I again invite you — the majority in this Parliament, a majority in this Parliament — to take responsibility for this. You ask what the solution is. The Minister of Justice has prepared the solution. You can start if you want. We will soon return to it when we find a new link in your bill for which the high urgency has been requested and which we, by the way, have, with great enthusiasm, approved. As for the short term, Mr. President. So we can approve the youth sanction law still in this legislature, we have a majority for it. There is no problem. Their

Second, I come to the structural problem. How long will we wait? Each group in this Parliament, how long will we wait to engage and, in the context of forming a next government or a next majority, say: none of us will step into a government before those homogeneous packages of powers have been negotiated and negotiated? We can do this as a commitment. Each group can do this for themselves. I don’t think you’re so far away at the moment. Anyone who is in some way active among the people engaged in politics is

You are right, there were problems everywhere in the country and they need to be resolved urgently through the sanctional law of youth. In Flanders, there is a replacement majority for this. If loyalty to the arc-enzyme government proves primary, it is that this is once again a purely virtual debate.

In the medium term, anyone concerned with juvenile crime should commit to not entering a government that would not have homogeneous competencies in its program. Our party has made this commitment. In the long run, this should lead to the de-federalization of justice.

La situation actuelle apporte de l'eau au moulin de l'extrême droite. This majority does not seek a solution at court or in the medium term. Elle and supportera teach the big cities facing this problem daily, day after day out. Do we take the commitment today that this must be realized and agreed upon in the next government formation and that without it no government can be formed? This is the challenge that we politicians, all of us, from the first to the last, are currently facing in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. Then we no longer need Birds, then we no longer need Maréchal, then we can arrange it in a decent way and we will finally be able to provide a solution. I invite you to take this position into your group. At least, following the security plan we have proposed, we have taken this commitment. We do not get into a government when there is no minimum arrangement for homogeneous powers — in a further stage the de-federalization of Justice — because it is now obvious that you cannot solve these problems otherwise.

That is not a fetish. This is the only way to solve these social problems. Within the current constitutional context, the right to youth sanctions may be a solution, but the majority do not want it and block themselves. That is the reality. Homogeneous power packages are the other solution. How long will the majority still be prepared to face week after week with serious crimes to which no response is possible and trigger a protest reaction from the citizens? That is the reality! And then complain about the legitimacy of politics in Flanders! This is the incredible situation that the majority of us face. You do not want the youth sanction law and do not want a solution. With regard to this social problem, this is an irresponsible attitude.

I will return to the youth sanction law. You have a majority in the House. You leave the opportunity unused to take advantage of this alternate majority. In the committee, you have explicitly stated that you prefer loyalty to the majority over the solution through an alternate majority that exists in the Parliament for the law on youth sanctions. Your loyalty means choosing the situation where the case is not resolved with the ability you have created yourself to solve the problem. The result is a virtual debate, outside and above reality. We have had a debate that does not solve the problem, despite the willingness of many to come up with a solution. The current majority does not want this, neither in the short term nor in the long term. You will bear the consequences. Large statements have been made on this subject. "If the youth sanction law does not come, I do not know what the VLD is still in the government to do," the words of the Minister of Justice. The CD&V really asks what the VLD is doing in the government. None of the key points of the major projects on the security issue at the time of this government’s inauguration have been realized. In the absence of any result, the Prime Minister has decided to remove the security issue from the political agenda. This will be the balance sheet that will be presented to the population. She will be extremely poor. This majority, but especially the VLD will be accounted for security. The settlement will be devastating! Electoral consequences . What does the VLD do again in a government that does not realize anything in the field of security? The Prime Minister wishes even definitively to enter this subject. The balance sheet of the political work is very poor and the final result will be obviously overwhelming.

Mr President, ...

Mr. Schoofs, after you, I will put Mr. Arens on the speaker list, then Mr. Bourgeois, and Mrs. Herzet at the end. I can alter the languages.

Mr Schoofs, you have the word. Apologize for the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will be even shorter than Mr. Van Parys. For the Flemish Bloc, the proposed cooperation agreement can be rejected, because we are wondering what will be cooperated on. As colleague Van Parys said, the youth sanction law is not for tomorrow. There is no will in the majority to resolve this problem urgently.

The establishment of a youth prison — so-called — in Everberg, has proved a shame. Until now, this has only been a symbol of a failed policy. Young people who belong to them continue to walk around freely and young people who get into them leave.

Until a solid youth sanction right is established and until sufficient facilities are set up, there can be no cooperation agreement. On the contrary, we think that Justice would be better divided, otherwise we continue to work virtually and we remain airbikes, because that is what that cooperation agreement is actually meant. On its own, airbikes are boring at the federal level. The Minister of Justice is experiencing this because they do not want to cooperate on the French-speaking side. With two, it might be a little more pleasant, namely on the Flemish side, where the political will exists, and together with the federal level. It’s fine with two airbikes. With his three airbikes would indeed be very pleasant: on the Flemish level, the French-speaking level and the federal level, but we see that it does not work. Air bicycle is a sport that politicians do not have to engage in.

The Flemish Community seems to no longer have confidence in the federal justice system.

There is no youth sanction law. For us, therefore, the message is very clear, short and powerful: split, to the hell, Justice as soon as possible.

It is clear that it is better to terminate the cooperation agreement. The sanctional law applicable to minors will not be for tomorrow, given the lack of determination within the majority and the french-speaking resistance. Everberg tends to become the symbol of a failing policy. Our message is clear: split up Justice as soon as possible, otherwise we will remain forever at the dream stage.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, how can we talk about the cooperation agreement without mentioning the law of 1 March 2002 which allowed the creation of the closed center of Everberg? by

In addition to the fact that it was voted in precipitation, this law of 1 March 2002 cultivates ambiguity. It is intrinsically deprived of an educational vision by distorting the philosophy of the 1965 Youth Protection Act and disrupting the traditional distribution of competences between the federal state and the federal components.

The law of 1 March 2002 inevitably suffers from ambiguity as to the status of the institution it authorizes and the exact nature of the measures it provides. Is this a new measure made possible in respect of minors who have committed an act qualified as an offence? Or are we in the presence of public safety measures that create a temporary exemption regime for minors who have committed serious offenses?

The Council of State recalls, I quote, “that it is up to the legislator to make a clear choice as to the exact nature of the measure.” According to the Minister of Justice, the criterion of the purpose of the measures envisaged determines the competence of the federal state when it comes to the protection of public order and security, and the communities when it comes to implementing the educational dimension of the protection of public order and security.

The law of 1 March 2002 preserves the ambiguity, both with regard to the statute of the institution and the measures it provides, and it distorts the philosophy of the law of 1965 on the protection of youth. Are there public safety measures?

The State Council recalls that it is up to the legislature to make a clear choice regarding the precise nature of the measure. According to the Minister of Justice, the federal state is competent when it comes to public order and the Communities are competent when it comes to the educational aspect of youth protection. However, this distinction is not clear in this case. How can the imprisonment of young people without any educational perspective become a youth. Dans la foulée, on ne voit pas clairement quelle mesure a une portée éducative et quelle autre s'orient plutôt vers l'impératif de sécurité publique.

How to lock young people for a limited period of time without a real educational project is a shared competence?

The Minister of Justice tries to show us that the opening of the closed federal center remains within the framework of youth protection and that the federal authority is restricted by community action in the field of educational contribution. It must be acknowledged that this is merely a deception.

The imprisonment of young offenders, regardless of the severity of the offences committed by them, is indeed an exception to the common law on the protection of youth. The real debate is thus posed: Is there an educational dimension in the imprisonment of minors? Is it possible, if it is not to change the age of criminal majority, to deprive minors of a right adapted to their age? How does such a right reconcile with the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and other applicable international conventions?

Has it not been voted for the abolition of Article 53 of the Act of 8 April 1965, which allowed the imprisonment of minors within non-specialised institutions, precisely following the condemnation of Belgium by the European Court of Human Rights?

Our group, however, does not let itself be tempted by political angelism, as is the case for other political groups. Juvenile crime is not a dualistic problem: on the one hand, the defenders of public security and order; on the other hand, the supporters of a youth protection system that has no cure from a security debate. On the contrary, protecting society can only be done if one agrees to educate or re-educate a certain youth who commits crimes qualified as offences. Choosing a youth confinement without a real educational project is only one way to avoid the problem. For our group, ⁇ ining the educational project must remain the top priority.

In addition, the law of 1 March 2002 opened a dangerous gap in the coherence of the youth protection system. Depending on the extent of community competence on the evolution of the extensible concept of youth protection can have regrettable consequences in terms of competence allocation. On the strict plane of the division of powers, does an ordinary law have the purpose of emptying from its substance the competence conferred on federal entities?

If the Government’s objective was to allow the establishment of a special detention regime for minors, it would have had to resort to special ordinary legislation. by

Even more serious is the questioning of the dynamics of de-judicialization of youth protection undertaken since 1980. By introducing new forms of taking care of minors without a certain educational vision, is it not about allowing the judiciary to regain control of the problem of minor offenders?

Finally, the problem of juvenile crime calls for a mobilization of sufficient means: to ensure a more individualised follow-up gedeelde bevoegdheid zijn?

The Minister seeks to demonstrate that the federal authority is restricted by the actions of the Communities with regard to the educational aspect. That is just appearance. In fact, the detention of minors is an exception to the common law on youth protection. How is this compatible with international agreements in this regard? Our group does not believe in fairy tales, like some other parties. The debate is not polarized between supporters of security on the one hand and supporters of youth protection who would not care about security on the other. The society can only be protected if one is willing to educate or re-educate certain criminal youths.

According to the Act of 1 March 2002, the scope of the competences of the Communities depends on the comprehensive concept of youth protection, with regrettable consequences for the distribution of competences. The desire to remove youth protection from the judicial sphere, which became apparent since 1980, is now again challenged. The problem of juvenile crime requires sufficient follow-up. The Cooperation Agreement is just a turnaround that some use to initiate a gradual transformation of our youth protection system. Des mineurs délinquants and ensure a real increase of the cadres and of the effectifs of the courts of the youth, organize a better management of the places and IPPJ by the communities, strengthen the services of the assistance to the youth and the services of the judicial protection.

When the law of 1 March 2002 was thus observed, it is not surprising that the agreement of cooperation thus concluded appears as an empty shell. by

Let’s say, the cooperation agreement that is submitted to us is no more and no less than an alibi for some to initiate, by deviated paths, a slow but certain transformation of our youth protection system, in perfect agreement with the left pole that is currently constituting.

Today, we cannot see what the educational contribution of communities constitutes in the absence of a real debate on the content of such contribution. We also do not see the actual embroidery of the Everberg device within the youth protection system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it is noticeable that this debate is very little about the actual cooperation agreement. I think this is indeed justified. The real debate is of course another debate. The real debate is one about the youth sanction law. What is striking is that this majority continues to fly blindly, this majority continues on automatic pilot. She pretends there are no problems.

In the light of this, colleagues, the discussion that has dominated the budget debate — at least in the perception of the press — is actually hallucinating. This is about the debate that was aroused or rather provoked by the Prime Minister. Mr. Minister, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, but don’t think that the population attaches some belief to the message that crime would have fallen. The population has the perception of turn-door criminals, of juvenile criminals who repeatedly commit raids, are repeatedly arrested and are repeatedly released. This is what remains with the population: dangerous youth bands who commit up to 60 armed robberies, who are arrested and immediately released. The disturbing evolution on that level does not penetrate into this majority, and I am ⁇ concerned about that.

One goes on with the youth protection law from the 1960s, which everyone who is seriously engaged in the problem says it is outdated. It is no longer adapted. It is not that youth should not be protected under certain circumstances, but there is a social evolution. This majority does not provide an answer. Thus, there is a huge gap between what this political majority does – the majority sometimes says something different, because I hear very different words on the ground sometimes and the deeds are, however, very far away from the words – and the Flemish opinion.

It is especially noticeable if you participate in debates, if you give presentations, if you come to people on the ground, that the people know very well that the debate that was held is not the real debate. This is about the attempts to shift responsibilities to Ms. Maréchal, who failed to fulfill her obligations, who did not ensure an adequate number of seats in Everberg. The real debate is, of course, one about a lack of

Surprisingly, this debate does not deal much with the cooperation agreement itself. In fact, it’s just because it’s actually the criminal law of young people, a matter in which the majority navigate in automatic pilot.

People don’t believe the prime minister when he says that crime is declining and that security is no longer a priority issue. The system of the "tomb door", thanks to which juvenile offenders always regain freedom, is ⁇ ined. But the majority does not realize this. It adheres to the protection paradigm of the 1960s and offers no response to the social evolution. The real debate is about the absence of a sanctional right for youth — or a youth right — balanced and sufficient resources. This situation was highlighted during the tumultuous “Everberg Week”, when the prime minister appropriated the case.

It is also worrying that the Prime Minister increasingly interferes in matters that are within the competence of the Minister of Justice. It does not belong to the prime minister — een evenwichtig juugdsanctierecht in het ontbreken van voldoende middelen. I think dat of VLD dat also very well beseft during the incidentrijke week in connection with Everberg.

I cannot fail to say, Mr. Minister, that the Prime Minister’s security adviser comes more and more into the field of the Minister of Justice. I don’t like to hear that the prime minister’s security adviser says they’ve given the order to recapture those young criminals. I do not like to hear that the prime minister’s security adviser says that they have instructed the prosecutors to implement a priority prosecution policy around family abandonment. I think it is time for the points to be put on the i and that the prime minister should resign from a territory that is not his and that you deserve.

In our legal state as a whole, it is not the prime minister’s responsibility, let alone his security adviser. It was noticed that the entire VLD came in front of the cameras to make the tide turn. We saw the Prime Minister and his security adviser, the VLD group leader in the House and the VLD chairman appear and finally the Minister of Justice came to do his word. It is well known that this affects people and that it lives with the public. All security plans and figures on crime — I hope with you that they are falling — will not take away what lives with the population, namely that there is no adapted legislation in this area and that there are not sufficient resources provided. That is the big gap between what this majority does and what the public experiences and thinks. Colleagues, if I participate in debates, I must also find that there is a gap between what the Flemish majority parties do here and what they say when they participate in debates. Their

Mrs. Talhaoui, I notice that even with Agalev. Ms. Vogels advocates for an adapted youth sanction law while Agalev on the federal level does just the opposite and even with some satisfaction says that the pre-design Maes has expired. I see Minister Vogels on Flemish right now also make a 180-degree curve and advocate for such a right. I hear that the VLD, Agalev and the SP.A in debates with the public say that it is time for a balanced new youth law or youth sanction law based on the text-Maes. However, they do not make this hard here. There is only one conclusion left. Either this majority – and on the Flemish side there is an overwhelming majority here – expresses its will, or we must draw the conclusion from this. This is not the conclusion of Mr. Coveliers who says that we must re-federalize. The sanction law is a federal jurisdiction. I am pleased that former ministers of justice also come to the same conclusion as I do, namely that the only solution is to give the Communities full powers. We must assign this problem to the Communities and thus defederalize so that at least in Flanders a balanced, adequate, humane and efficient youth sanction law can be established. At the same time, we must also invest in the necessary resources. and effet pas au premier ministre — et en aucun cas à son conseiller de sécurité — d'ordner l'arrestation de mineurs ou de définir les priorités des parquets. During the debates, when they have been confronted to the public opinion, Agalev, the VLD and the SP.A are declared in favour of a right sanctionnel de la jeunesse équilibré, fondé sur l'avant-projet Maes. These prises of position shall be following the effect or we shall be contraints of the tirer our conclusions and of the defédéraliser this matter, the sort that Flanders may at least dispose of a right sanctionnel of the youth equilibré et humain et de moyens suffisants.

As I feared, Mrs. Herzet has not yet arrived. I called it, but things are what they are. Yes, Mr. Minister, you have the word. You know that the Constitution gives you the immense right to do so, at any time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been repeatedly stated that on today’s agenda is the cooperation agreement on the provisional placement of minors. It is also mentioned in large letters on the

The cooperation agreement was confirmed by the French and Flemish Communities via schermen.

Mr. Speaker, this cooperation agreement, which has been confirmed by decrees in both the French-speaking and the Flemish Community, must also be concretized here. I would like to assume that one is taking advantage of the opportunity to address a number of facts relating to youth law in general. This is everyone’s right. I will not intervene on this. I have taken sufficient positions on this subject and I remain with the position I developed in the Committee on Justice. Their

I will answer the question of whether the French Community will or will not include the 24 seats assigned to it. The answer to this is yes. Although there is a certain timing in this regard, this has not prevented me from informing the French Community and, more specifically, the management and the youth judges that the places for which no provisions have yet been affected — accompanying personnel — can already be occupied. In any case, all aspects of security, for which the federal government is responsible, are present.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to what the Minister has said and this shows once again that the French Community has not yet taken the necessary initiatives to include those 24 seats.

Therefore, the French Community has not yet taken an initiative with regard to these 20 places. Has the staff been recruited?

Nevertheless, those 24 places have been listed and there has been a formal letter exchange.

The French community will occupy the 24 seats.

Is the staff there to accompany the youth?

Is the staff already present?

The staff is not yet present for all 24 locations. There are currently staff available for 20 places. Procedures have been initiated for the appointment of staff for the other 4 places. Nevertheless, these places can already be filled by youth judges if they consider that minors should be sent to Everberg.

Joos Wauters, Vice-President of the Commission.

For 20 of the 24 seats, yes. The procedure was initiated for the other four. The seats can be occupied when a youth judge so wishes. President: Joos Wauters, Vice-President

This means that Ms. Maréchal has not yet understood it. There are still 4 seats that it cannot fill in practice because it has not made the staff available. I understand that you have done what you can and should do within your powers, but she has apparently still not understood it. All this to clarify again what exactly the problem is.

Obviously, the Minister Maréchal has not yet understood this.